We've often missed opportunities because we've tried to walk it in. I thought he was close enough to shoot and if he tries to lay it off he runs the risk of someone getting a tackle in.
Yep, I have no doubt that we could do with improving defensively and letting in fewer goals. We have let in a fair number. Easier said than done though.
While it would be nice if you're right, wasn't Abramovich similar? He got them results, but he was changing manager every year and it somehow worked despite the owner.
I know De Zerbi didn't like it, but unless you're Man City (I know we're good, but we're not City) then oppositions are going to get some spells in the game, and you have to be able to defend against them. I'm not sure it's realistic to be able to play 90 mins each week without having to get 11...
The point about the deflection is not to suggest that he suddenly becomes onside (obviously he doesn't) but to highlight that the keeper had no chance, and therefore Kane being there didn't make any difference to the result, so it didn't interfere with play.
So if a player hasn't got a didgery do where the ball is, which results in them (accidentally) kicking your player and injuring them, is that not a foul?
I actually thought that was the correct decision :shrug: I thought the deflection meant that the keeper had no chance of saving it, so Kane being there made no difference.
Thankfully Spurs lost anyway