Not exact matches
When he's not on the field we lack the ability to hold up the
ball, introduce others coming in from mid-field, and provide a genuine
aerial threat.
Playing a lone striker in that environment is just about the dumbest thing you could do... he would become isolated very quickly, the
threat of an
aerial ball against Stoke becomes almost comical, Stoke have height in spades — attempting to beat them in the air sounds just about as stupid as attempting to out pass Barcelona.
Still, by virtue of the fact they'll probably win the majority of
aerial challenges — often to knock the
ball down rather than going for goal — they must be considered a
threat».
What I don't understand is the tactics, counter attacking football works well against sides who are comfortable on the
ball and struggle to either gain width, that aren't direct enough in their attack or have no
aerial threat.
France want a player who can hold the
ball up well, is good at bringing midfielders into play and has an
aerial threat.
However his value was realised when he was removed because we lost our
aerial threat and a lot of
balls went begging.
It should be an element of our game we're well drilled at, considering the fact that we have two players who can put the
ball on a dime (Santi, Ozil), the amount of free kicks we win in dangerous positions and the
aerial threats in the squad.
City displayed a
threat immediately in response, as Eric Choupo - Moting failed to bring down a bouncing
ball having sought by Allen's
aerial pass.