Match Report and MOM v Citeh...

Neil Dawson said:
...Eddie made one change to his starting line up, an odd one for me - dropping Harry Wilson to bring back Mepham...

Ramsdale 6 - Solid enough, good distribution - parries too often...

...Positives were Lerma and Billing looking every inch like a class PL centre midfield, something we have rarely seen since Arter and Wilshere had a great spell...
Click to expand...

Anyone who was surprised we went to a back five against one of the very best sides in Europe needs their head testing.

Knowing that, anyone who was surprised EH then picked tried and tested PL players over Harry Wilson really does need their head testing.

Mepham had a good game and is an undeserving scapegoat.

The 'ease we were carved out at the back' wasn't down to our failure, it's because Citeh are just brilliant.

I hate the fuckers but their quick, one touch passing, often while off balance and moving at speed was nothing short of beautiful. 99% of sides across Europe can't contain that.

The reason we didn't get a point wasn't down to our defenders, it was because significant chances weren't taken up front and almost all our corners were wasted.

Ramsdale getting a 6 is ridiculous. He did nothing wrong against Citeh, did a lot right and, unlike his predecessors, repeatedly helped our attacks.

Generally though, the persistent heroes and villains trope is lazy.

Two games ago people rushed to pile in on Rico. It was really embarrassing.

Fast forward to this match. We played the (now annual) PL Champions and put on a great team performance but it's reduced to blaming Mepham/team selection and slipping in yet another irrelevant eulogy to the ghost of Arter. That's just so TalkSport.

I need to stop reading these. Even playing Dawson Match Report Bingo isn't funny any more.
 
Just to clarify for Tinpot We are not scoring from corners this year so a change is required. You can’t let the likes of City off as easily as we did yesterday

UTCIAD
 
Good review, Neil, thanks.

One observation .... we play our best against teams which are not afraid of our offensive capabilities. City is not about to play the suffocating chippy style that some of the lesser teams do against us. Also makes a game like this entertaining to watch. Challenge for us this year will be to take it to the types of teams that want to slow down the pace and absorb our pressure. We were not great at that last year, hoping that personnel changes will help.

And, for hockey fans .... "you got to put the biscuit in the basket". Need to be sharper when the scoring chances come along.
 
rickie said:
Just to clarify for Tinpot We are not scoring from corners this year so a change is required. You can’t let the likes of City off as easily as we did yesterday

UTCIAD
Click to expand...
We scored from a Fraser set piece v Sheffield United. Surely you can’t suggest we change our set piece routines after just 3 games. That’s no sample size at all. As I said previously, it’s just poor execution which hopefully is just a short term situation
 
Toronto John said:
Good review, Neil, thanks.

One observation .... we play our best against teams which are not afraid of our offensive capabilities. City is not about to play the suffocating chippy style that some of the lesser teams do against us. Also makes a game like this entertaining to watch. Challenge for us this year will be to take it to the types of teams that want to slow down the pace and absorb our pressure. We were not great at that last year, hoping that personnel changes will help.

And, for hockey fans .... "you got to put the biscuit in the basket". Need to be sharper when the scoring chances come along.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Generally we hold our own pretty well in a good old ding dong. We always struggle badly when teams pay us too much respect and are happy to just sit back. We need to be better at creating goals in these sorts of games. It is another area where I would like to see an improvement this season. With those sorts of opponents we might need to score from a corner or a free kick, it could be our only opportunity. This is why I think the importance of using corner kicks and free kicks effectively should not be underestimated and if we are lacking in that department it is definitely something worth spending valuable training time on to improve it. With Stanislas out it seems H.Wilson should be our go to man for free kicks from now on. Those taking the corner kicks should be given more training time to focus on the accuracy of their delivery. These small details can change results, our corners against City were by and large completely toothless.
 
Neil Dawson said:
But nobody had mentioned starting him for his free kicks before you said we shouldn’t. If you get my drift...

I would have played King and Fraser out wide too because your only chance against City is to get them back in their own half and it’s only pace that will do that. I wouldn’t have played five at the back though, with Billing and Lerma sitting deep we don’t have to do that like we used to when we had a smaller, slower midfield. It was tailor made to me for a 4-5-1 with Wilson playing behind Wilson.

Prime example to me was two moves. Look at Harry’s movement and vision to put Calum in behind for his one on one. The ball was so perfect Calum looked quicker than his marker (he isn’t). Contrast that to King in the same position. First minute. Fraser makes same move King can’t play him through as doesn’t have the vision and touch. Has to run on and shoot at the keeper. It’s why to me we won’t hit top form until we get a number ten and King either out wide or as the main striker. At the mo I would have him as the latter probably as he is a better finisher than Wilson imo.
Click to expand...

To be fair Neil I didn't say I'd drop Wilson, I said I'd consider him but would definitely play five at the back. You took my comment and said "so you wouldn't start Wilson" again trying to change my point to something you disagree with.

Your formation sounds like it may work but I'm personally not going into the City game without five at the back. You talk as if it's a matter of fact that we wouldn't have had the same issues with city walking through our defence if we played four at the back. We've done this before and they have done just that. The only times they haven't was with five at the back.
 
<rant cont.>

And another thing, what's with the 'citeh' rubbish?

Man. City were formed as St. Marks, only changing their name to Manchester City in 1894. That's after :

Birmingham City
Coventry City
Bristol City
Leicester City
Lincoln City
Chester City
and even Elgin City

When we play Leicester City and Norwich City this season, will they also be 'citeh' or is that sobriquet reserved along with 'united' for the Manchester clubs only (united aren't even in Manchester)

It's lazy, armchair–following, TV 'pundit speak' only.

</end rant>
 
AFCB Lost in Brum said:
Anyone who was surprised we went to a back five against one of the very best sides in Europe needs their head testing.

Knowing that, anyone who was surprised EH then picked tried and tested PL players over Harry Wilson really does need their head testing.

Mepham had a good game and is an undeserving scapegoat.

The 'ease we were carved out at the back' wasn't down to our failure, it's because Citeh are just brilliant.

I hate the fuckers but their quick, one touch passing, often while off balance and moving at speed was nothing short of beautiful. 99% of sides across Europe can't contain that.

The reason we didn't get a point wasn't down to our defenders, it was because significant chances weren't taken up front and almost all our corners were wasted.

Ramsdale getting a 6 is ridiculous. He did nothing wrong against Citeh, did a lot right and, unlike his predecessors, repeatedly helped our attacks.

Generally though, the persistent heroes and villains trope is lazy.

Two games ago people rushed to pile in on Rico. It was really embarrassing.

Fast forward to this match. We played the (now annual) PL Champions and put on a great team performance but it's reduced to blaming Mepham/team selection and slipping in yet another irrelevant eulogy to the ghost of Arter. That's just so TalkSport.

I need to stop reading these. Even playing Dawson Match Report Bingo isn't funny any more.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with most of this Rico was crap against United. That's why he subsequently got dropped and didn't even come on when our left back got injured against City.

I'm not suggesting we throw him on the scrapheap but a crap performance is a crap performance.
 
rgb said:
<rant cont.>

And another thing, what's with the 'citeh' rubbish?

Man. City were formed as St. Marks, only changing their name to Manchester City in 1894. That's after :

Birmingham City
Coventry City
Bristol City
Leicester City
Lincoln City
Chester City
and even Elgin City

When we play Leicester City and Norwich City this season, will they also be 'citeh' or is that sobriquet reserved along with 'united' for the Manchester clubs only (united aren't even in Manchester)

It's lazy, armchair–following, TV 'pundit speak' only.

</end rant>
Click to expand...

It's a pisstake of their accents isn't it?
 
rgb said:
Thanks for the report Neil.

Is King your new Rantie. He was probably MoM with what he did in the channels and his tackling, defending as well as running generally.

5 is a joke.
Click to expand...

I think Josh was a 6 at best, sorry. Not doing enough for me at the minute.
 
Tinpot Club said:
We scored from a Fraser set piece v Sheffield United. Surely you can’t suggest we change our set piece routines after just 3 games. That’s no sample size at all. As I said previously, it’s just poor execution which hopefully is just a short term situation
Click to expand...
Fraser being the link there. and as I said we can’t carry on giving teams an escape route
 
Corner delivery - my two cents.
Eddie likes coming up with fun new exercises in training. Here's one. Specialised training for the designated potential corner takers :

Put one of those inflatable dummies on a box or pedestal ( to arrive at the approximate height of a jumping AFCB player ), move him around into different positions in and around the box. The challenge for the players is to put the corner onto Mr Blobby's head as many times as possible. The worst scoring corner taker has to do a forfeit. This is a fun exercise which is focused purely on improving the accuracy of our corner kicks.
 
davygravy said:
I think Josh was a 6 at best, sorry. Not doing enough for me at the minute.
Click to expand...

He was a 7.5 (or even a 7.7 with that shirt)

He ran the channels all match; he won the ball with 3 x ManC defenders around him, in the corner by the Main & North Stands; he battled tirelessly, often with no support; he chased back to cover. This over 90+ minutes.

If he was as bad as suggested in this thread, Howe would have removed King for Solanke, rather than Wilson.

https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1...-League-2019-2020-Bournemouth-Manchester-City
 
Last edited:
My two cents on corners is we like to mix it up. We swing some in but pre-Billing we usually had a height disadvantage. That’s why we usually take a few short to disrupt the marking in the box and not be predictable.

Man City have a big weakness with near post corners. We now have extra height with Billing. It’s pretty obvious Eddie asked Fraser to swing them into that area. Unfortunately if you do aim for the near post and get it wrong then it will get cleared by the first man.

Yesterday Fraser got it wrong. That happens. It doesn’t mean we need to change our overall approach. Just more practice until we get it right
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Whilst I agree with most of this Rico was crap against United. That's why he subsequently got dropped and didn't even come on when our left back got injured against City.

I'm not suggesting we throw him on the scrapheap but a crap performance is a crap performance.
Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree on Rico that game.

He and Smith were clearly playing under the same (strange) strict instructions - Rico got dug out for it, Smith didn't.
 
AFCB Lost in Brum said:
We'll agree to disagree on Rico that game.

He and Smith were clearly playing under the same (strange) strict instructions - Rico got dug out for it, Smith didn't.
Click to expand...

Smith wasn't very good either but Rico was particularly poor in his passing and positioning. Smith has shown that he has these skills and Rico hasn't so far in a cherries shirt.

I'd pick him and hope to play him into form personally but he definitely needs to improve if he's going to be worth his place.

One thing that we can't agree to disagree on is that he got dropped after that performance and appears to be down the pecking order behind Fraser as a left wingback. He had a similarly poor performance at Burnley last year and was hooked off at half time and not seen again for ages.

It appears that it's not just people on here that think he needs to improve.
 
rgb said:
<rant cont.>

And another thing, what's with the 'citeh' rubbish?

Man. City were formed as St. Marks, only changing their name to Manchester City in 1894. That's after :

Birmingham City
Coventry City
Bristol City
Leicester City
Lincoln City
Chester City
and even Elgin City

When we play Leicester City and Norwich City this season, will they also be 'citeh' or is that sobriquet reserved along with 'united' for the Manchester clubs only (united aren't even in Manchester)

It's lazy, armchair–following, TV 'pundit speak' only.

</end rant>
Click to expand...

It’s an accent joke
 
SlowDownDerek said:
To be fair Neil I didn't say I'd drop Wilson, I said I'd consider him but would definitely play five at the back. You took my comment and said "so you wouldn't start Wilson" again trying to change my point to something you disagree with.

Your formation sounds like it may work but I'm personally not going into the City game without five at the back. You talk as if it's a matter of fact that we wouldn't have had the same issues with city walking through our defence if we played four at the back. We've done this before and they have done just that. The only times they haven't was with five at the back.
Click to expand...

I said in the report whatever you play they find a way so it was in no way matter of fact that the score would be different.

My take is that we have moved to five at the back now against he big teams on a continual basis. They can plan for it. It’s because they all play three up front and we can Man mark. I understand why.

They almost always beat us by a hefty margin unless we give up attacking all together. No real shame in that I guess. You are right. It was no different in the first two seasons when we tried to play our way. I just think that the wingers were Pugh and Ritchie then (no pace) once they got through Surman in the holding midfield role they were running at Franno or Elphick. Our squad has moved on a lot from then.

Give something different a try, confuse them a bit from their prematch plans. What’s the worst that can happen? We might concede 5 or 6 I guess but you can always bring a centre back on and change formation if you are worried. It’s a game we are going to lose anyway probably. Five at the back always invites a team on to you unless you push your full backs out and risk it. We never ever do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;