Manchester United fans are rightfully disgusted by their team’s performance vs Crystal Palace and unfortunately, the statistics don’t make for good reading either.
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s side fell to a 3-1 defeat at Old Trafford in what was their first fixture of the season.
Unfortunately due to the nature of the loss, there’s no real way to defend United as there was no excuse for how comfortable Palace were.
United had fewer minutes in their legs and a few key players missing but those factors can’t even be considered simply because of how poor they were.
There should’ve been enough about the starting XI Solskjaer picked to still get a result but the statistics below shows the exact opposite.
Manchester United 1-3 Crystal Palace
Expected Goals:
• 1.23 – 1.63 (+0.76 penalty)Post-Shot Expected Goals:
• 1.39 – 1.99 (+0.87 penalty)Possession:
• 76.0% – 24.0%Territory:
• 63.3% – 36.7%Chances Created:
• 10 – 10Shots:
• 16 – 14Big Chances:
• 2 – 2 pic.twitter.com/9nnOfPUtuS— UtdArena (@utdarena) September 19, 2020
To have triple the possession and double the territory but still create the same chances as a side who lost to a Championship team mid-week is simply embarrassing.
Manchester United should’ve been able to far more with what they have and their early defensive lapse wasn’t enough to shock them into life.
Even the shot count is crazy to consider as it shows a lack of effort from Solskjaer’s men despite all that statistical dominance.
It’s not the end of the world for United just yet but in a season where fans were hoping for progress, it just seems like they’re destined for more of the same.
Manchester United’s new star Donny van de Beek is the 13th Dutch national to play for the senior side. But how much do you know about the other 12? Take our quiz below to find out.
Whatsapp: 08130162561
Email: Teeloadedblog@gmail.com
Article Name | Blunt attack, weak defence: The stats that show United's downfall vs Palace |
Description |
|
Author Name | Candyboy |
Published On | September 19, 2020 |
Post Category |
Man Utd
|
No comments:
Post a Comment