I think we may have actually held Stoke to zero shots other than that (incredibly soft) penalty. Completely deserved win, even if the narrative will be that we barely won it.
Tough away win but we looked solid, cheap PK but great response in the 2nd half. Two things for me tho, even with Pedro and Willian playing very well this season, we need another top player up front who can provide a goal threat. Alexis Sanchez would be perfect. A B2B midfielder who can help our offense more but still not be a huge drop in defensive quality (fabregas) would make us so much stronger in tough away games like this. Overall very happy with the result and a good performance in a tough away fixture.
Costa's form is concerning. Because of it, he has reverted back to shoving and theatrics. Hopefully he picks up again.
Did anyone else see Conte swinging from the dugout bench when Cahill scored? Conte's passion is great. 843144736387059721 is not a valid tweet id
I missed the game because my Mrs was taken to hospital (she is OK now) unfortunately I was sitting in London traffic while the game was going on. After the 'panic' I did get to see brief highlights on MOTD and I heard Mr Hughes claim his team deserved at least a draw yet it seems to me we dominated??
This is a really interesting view of Cahills' goal you don't get to see on TV. For me, what was most striking is that it looks like Stoke's home ground is a dilapidated barn ringed with plexiglass at the very top. How the English haven't figured out how to add corners to their stadiums is beyond me. I know, I know, most stadiums have grown in fits and starts over the years instead of tear-downs. http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2017/3/18/14968742/gary-cahills-goal-as-seen-from-the-stands
Not sure why the nationality jibe here as there are plenty of stand based stadiums around the world. But assuming you are interested in an answer, the primary reason is that yes, it is partly due to many stadiums especially in the lower leagues (which newer overseas fans will see more in the fa cup) being a result of patchwork upgrades over the years. It is not cheap to fill in the corners and not the most efficient way of adding seats. For some clubs it's easier and cheaper per seat to knock one stand down and put another larger one up in its place. Happens all the time. Also, with the patchwork nature of many grounds, the corners themselves look pretty bad when added after the fact. Stamford Bridge looks stupid in the corners where the tiers don't line up for instance. Ah, but the Britannia is new (ish) I hear you say. Indeed it is but the other part to the cost question new stadia are often built based on expected attendance and it is much cheaper to build 4 separate stands than one all around affair. It also allows that club to expand in the future if they have the luxury of interest and money. You can't do that with a neat looking stadium like many (not all, but many) in the mls for instance. In fact, in this specific case, what you can see in the open corner is construction equipment precisely because they are filling in the corner and likely because this was built into the plans from the outset. If they had spent the money at the time for the same capacity they have today but on a wrap around build this would not be possible. They likely would also not have been able to afford to build as big as they did if they had gone with a corners filled approach and that's an important consideration. Other clubs go even further with it. Oxford United, when they moved out of the Manor which on 1 side had 3 or 4 different structures alone built the Kassam. It has 3 completed sides and a fence. The final side has plans drawn up but won't be built until they get promotion and more fans attend. Until then there is no value. Is it a good look for the biggest clubs, not particularly but I miss those old grounds. There was an identity and character to them that modern stadia just don't have. Especially the soulless quarter full Olympic stadiums around Europe. Tldr, money is a major factor for most clubs outside of the elite few and filling in the gaps is not often a good use of funds even where it is feasible.
This is great. Just a bad joke. On TV, you sometimes get to see stadium quirks here and there but usually you just see the pitch and some fans. This view of the goal collides with my preconceived notions of what that stadium looked like. Seeing vehicles and street signs in the background of Willian, Fabregas, & Co. is not the glamor most people think of when watching the Prem. I know this happens all around Europe as teams move up and down between divisions. Making investments is tricky and risky. Americans who started watching the league recently fell in love with little grounds like this. I'll go even further that Fulham was the team that turned the tide for many. A cool little ground, an engine-that-could team, and lots of Americans (Dempsey, McBride, Bocanegra). It was the perfect storm and the gateway for more than a few Americans. Highbury was even a nice ground. Where West Ham play, at the Olympic Stadium is a joke. Unfortunately, I think the Premier League is trending towards this; they're taking cues from the NFL in a big way. $ $ $ Serious question, though, a team like Stoke has been back in the league since 2009 and have probably gotten a lot of TV rights money. If they invested in a stadium, would the fans pack it? But that's probably more of a risk than buying half decent players who will keep the team in the league. It's a balancing act. I suppose the goal of these teams is to make annual, extended runs in Europe/Europa to increase income.
It's back to that balancing act. Stoke for a few years were bottom half but in the past 3 have been 9th I believe so probably feel more stability. It then comes down to how they spend their money and they've opted to maintain or even improve their squad to keep their spot in the league rather than add seats. I think you're right about tv money and suspect that the increased deal enables them to continue their squad and build out the stadium a little more. Ultimately they probably would have mostly filled the new seats but the risk was that it would threaten their league position. If they do go down, I personally won't shed any tears though. Not a big fan of how they go about the game even if I understand why they do what they do.