True, United did not play their best ever game, but then for the first half, neither did the Swans. Sir Alex Ferguson's starting eleven spoke of how much respect the Scot genius has for Swansea. For the Swans, to have faced Rooney, Nani, Hernandez, Evra and Vidic and come away with a close result is an admirable achievement.
The obvious big talking point was Scott Sinclair's missed sitter, the television replays ruthlessly removing all ambiguity and laying bare the fact - he miscued and squandered a tap in. And who can blame him? The pressure immense, the Premier League a quick teacher, each mistake putting years on the culprit. In those moments afterwards, his head in his hands, Scott Sinclair learned a lesson which will hopefully mean he won't miss next time. The learning curve might be steep, but the Swans are good students.
Speaking of miscues and mistakes, Angel Rangel is probably still shaking his head at that oh-so-casual outside of the boot pass which Ryan Giggs gladly stole to set-up United's lone goal. It was an act of class for Brendan Rodgers to make himself accountable after the game, re-directing the scrutiny from his usually flawless full back. But once again, who can blame Rangel? He is Swansea's most frequent passer, so it only stands to reason one or two will go astray now and again. He is also among the teams most statistically-positive performers.
Besides, there is a kind of perverse pride to be taken in acknowledging how the opposition could only score when it was put on a plate for them. Of course, Rooney and Nani had excellent chances to add to the scoreline, so that statement might not really be entirely true. Perhaps it's best just to say that Swansea did well, especially in the second half, and held their own as best they could against British football's strongest team of the last two decades. And there's no shame in that.
13 points in 13 games puts the Swans on pace for 38 in 38, which should just be enough to keep their heads above water. A little bit of extra edge, perhaps by adding one or two players in January, and the Swans should have enough to comfortably avoid the drop zone... provided they can avoid the post-xmas blues and keep enough in the tank to go the distance.
Positives : Strong second half. Razzle-dazzle from Dizzy. Keeping the scoreline respectable.
Negatives : Rangel and Sinclair's gaffes. Losing at home for the first time since February.

Posted by Simon on 11/21/2011
It was indeed an admirable performance against the champions. There's grounds for optimism for the remainder of the season, but is 38 points from 38 games really going to be enough?
Averaged since the inception of the Premier League, the number of points needed to survive is actually 40. However, over the last five years, that number has become closer to 37 - an indication of how the big boys are stretching the gap between the haves and have nots (I put this trend entirely down to Man City's influx of money, but that's a discussion for another time). So, 38 might be enough, although it is certainly a tight estimate. I imagine every newly promoted team marks 40 as the golden number. It shows just how valuable single points can be... M
 |
Posted by Ahmad Syafiq on 11/23/2011
I'm a Man United fan, but I enjoy reading this blog because of the deep statistical analysis involved. I can say you guys have a good bunch of players who are more than capable of competing in the Premier League, especially Michel Vorm and Scott Sinclair. I really hope you guys can stay in the Premier League next season. Also, I'm hoping that Cardiff City makes it into the Premier League as well next season, making it 2 Welsh teams, and also because Malaysian businessmen own Cardiff at the moment. A great joy for me as a Malaysian to have 2 teams to look to apart from Manchester United (QPR & Cardiff City).
I would also like to see Cardiff in the Premier League, which might be a controversial opinion among Swans fans, but I think the big rivalry game is a highlight on the calendar and the South Wales Derby would be an awesome spectacle in the Prem. M
| |
Post your comment |
 |
|