Match Report v Man City

AFCBade said:
Did you go to Arsenal Neil? I normally share your view but Wednesday but was awful. Really terrible. I didn’t want another repeat of that.
Click to expand...

I did go to Arsenal yes. I think we could go round in circles on this and we are never going to convince each other!

It’s like we have been left with a very polarised view point on here. Arsenal we were wide open. City we were as defensive, statistically, as any team has ever been and certainly in my watching history of 40 years I have never seen a team attack less. Is there not something in the middle though? Is it not a spectrum. Chelsea at home arguably was that. Still kept five in midfield and one up front...still allowed the full backs to overlap when in possession but without the ball all bar one was back. It meant we were defensively minded with good shape but offensively we had options which took Chelsea back down the pitch and gave us a break.

That back five meant we had four players who could possibly attack, one of whom was Surman and the other a full back. That’s why we never looked like scoring, not City’s defence. We have scored against City at their place this year from open play but we had a go at them. We lost by two goals while Saturday we lost by one. Not the hugest of differences.

So, of course we should change when we play the big teams, I have been advocating that for years but you have to gamble some sort of bodies forwards if you want to claim you are trying to win. Are people seriously suggesting our record against tall, organised defenders of set pieces is that impressive we were hoping to get a free kick or corner to score off?

We played to avoid a humiliation. Fair enough, we needed to. All I am saying is next time we play a side like this let’s keep a back four and five in midfield and have a go when we are not defending. It’s the Bournemouth way and it has got us plenty of shock results. Playing the way we did Saturday never will.
 
Neil Dawson said:
I did go to Arsenal yes. I think we could go round in circles on this and we are never going to convince each other!

It’s like we have been left with a very polarised view point on here. Arsenal we were wide open. City we were as defensive, statistically, as any team has ever been and certainly in my watching history of 40 years I have never seen a team attack less. Is there not something in the middle though? Is it not a spectrum. Chelsea at home arguably was that. Still kept five in midfield and one up front...still allowed the full backs to overlap when in possession but without the ball all bar one was back. It meant we were defensively minded with good shape but offensively we had options which took Chelsea back down the pitch and gave us a break.

That back five meant we had four players who could possibly attack, one of whom was Surman and the other a full back. That’s why we never looked like scoring, not City’s defence. We have scored against City at their place this year from open play but we had a go at them. We lost by two goals while Saturday we lost by one. Not the hugest of differences.

So, of course we should change when we play the big teams, I have been advocating that for years but you have to gamble some sort of bodies forwards if you want to claim you are trying to win. Are people seriously suggesting our record against tall, organised defenders of set pieces is that impressive we were hoping to get a free kick or corner to score off?

We played to avoid a humiliation. Fair enough, we needed to. All I am saying is next time we play a side like this let’s keep a back four and five in midfield and have a go when we are not defending. It’s the Bournemouth way and it has got us plenty of shock results. Playing the way we did Saturday never will.
Click to expand...

If only City would buy into your logic and not put in "one of the best performances they've ever played" and been more like Chelsea.. then we could have been more like we were against Chelsea and beat them.

If City hadn't been so brilliant in defensive recovery (best I've ever seen) we may have been able to make some of our attacks stick and even get our wingbacks forward more but it didn't happen. We did give it more of a go in the last ten and looked more likely to create but didn't manage anything clear cut.

The absolute priority was rightly not shipping goals - it simply had to be after Arsenal.
 
It’s not one of the best performances City have ever played.

I know Pep said it but it was in context of the situation they are now in...lots of injuries, fighting on four fronts, exhausted. He talked at length about all of this they had just struggled at home to the Happy Hammersand done extra time and pens in a cup final in the six days preceding playing us.

So for him to witness his team create a new record of denying a home team a shot of any description is something to leap on and boost the morale of his knackered team. He is a genius at this truth bending as is Eddie to be fair with his ‘we won’t see x, they have not trained all week’

Wait until Peps autobiography comes out. The 4-2 at Napoli, the 5-0 drubbing of Liverpool etc etc will be the games he talked about. There won’t be a chapter called ‘the day we put a soft goal past a team in 12th place that refused to attack us at all’. Trust me. This is title race kidology that even City fans are chuckling about while citing various demolitions of teams home and abroad.


We will fall for it though...makes us feel better about our insipid attacking display.
 
Thanks for explaining Pep's words to me and pointing out that I've fallen for his kidology. Silly me. I suppose I didn't see with my own eyes them being absolutely brilliant at ball recovery and pinning us in for pretty much 90 minutes. I suppose it was also down to the formation, one that we've played before against top sides and won (away at Chelsea for example). Boy did I fall for Pep's mind games.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Thanks for explaining Pep's words to me and pointing out that I've fallen for his kidology. Silly me. I suppose I didn't see with my own eyes them being absolutely brilliant at ball recovery and pinning us in for pretty much 90 minutes. I suppose it was also down to the formation, one that we've played before against top sides and won (away at Chelsea for example). Boy did I fall for Pep's mind games.
Click to expand...

Don’t be a martyr! ;). Do you think it was City’s best performance under Pep? Do you accept managers use a bit of kidology when they need to? I just think we need to see it for what it is.

You saw what I saw...and mentioned in my report about their winning of the ball back being a joy to behold. It was against incredibly limited numbers though and players with no support...you saw that too. So just as if we had left one defender back and they had scored ten we wouldn’t be saying what a brilliant attack they had, similarly when we watch them hunt down the only player in their half with three defenders we cant say that it was their greatest ever defensive performance. We made it very easy for them to defend just as we made it very easy for Arsenal to attack. Surely you can see that....you are a very astute observer normally (in my opinion)

All I am saying is we need to find a middle ground, neither performance to me was acceptable and I don’t want to see either again. Are we that far apart on that Delboy?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Thanks for explaining Pep's words to me and pointing out that I've fallen for his kidology. Silly me. I suppose I didn't see with my own eyes them being absolutely brilliant at ball recovery and pinning us in for pretty much 90 minutes. I suppose it was also down to the formation, one that we've played before against top sides and won (away at Chelsea for example). Boy did I fall for Pep's mind games.
Click to expand...

No....as has been explained...Saturday's formation bore no relation to the one used against Chelsea ....none.
It's amazing what some people will cling to in the wake of such a shocking humiliation....it wasn't particularly a good defensive performance imo....neither will it restore our defenders confidence...unless you think that they might take solace from the fact that if we stick 10 men in our penalty area for 90 mins we are difficult to score against....any league 2 team would be able to do it reasonably well ......i can't think how that helps us going forward into our upcoming fixtures tbh......as for this 'we were in it up until the final whistle' rubbish....words fail me ....we were no more 'in it' than a boxer cowering in a corner for 10 rounds with his gloves over head hoping not to get too badly hurt.
In fact i cant see any positive from that cowardly performance other than the fact we got nothing out of it.
 
The tactics were the same for Chelsea and Man City regardless of whether the formation had four or five at the back.
 
DJ said:
The tactics were the same for Chelsea and Man City regardless of whether the formation had four or five at the back.
Click to expand...

That’s nonsense though isn’t it. You have an extra person in midfield who is up with the forwards. In the Chelsea game example it was Brooks causing havoc behind King. They link the play so there is someone to do a one two with and play off. They also bring the wide players in. The wide players v Chelsea being wide players not a full back like v City.

Take away that link and you have King up front on his own against three world class defenders, you can’t keep the ball ans you can’t break and relieve the pressure and get your midfield out.

We didn’t want to get the midfield out though, we played the Eddie ten men system that he reverts to successfully when we have a player sent off where everyone holds position. Think second half v Leicester and Man U away. Against Chelsea when we had the ball the midfield were allowed to join in in the opponents half.

I find it extraordinary people can’t seperate two very, very different approaches and formations.
 
Neil Dawson said:
I find it extraordinary people can’t seperate two very, very different approaches and formations.
Click to expand...

That’s it though, the tactics and approaches for both games were the same.

The implementation due to the formation change was different as per your post.

But the idea, tactics, sitting deep with the idea of using the counter attack and hoping to create something from open play or a set piece were the same.

With Lewis Cook, Lerma, Stanislas and Wilson it would have been far more affective in an attacking sense.

But it doesn’t fit your narrative that Howe can only make 4-4-2 work so you’re knocking it.

Just like calling anything you disagree with as a nonsense, so there’s little point in debating it.
 
DJ said:
That’s it though, the tactics and approaches for both games were the same.

The implementation due to the formation change was different as per your post.

But the idea, tactics, sitting deep with the idea of using the counter attack and hoping to create something from open play or a set piece were the same.

With Lewis Cook, Lerma, Stanislas and Wilson it would have been far more affective in an attacking sense.

But it doesn’t fit your narrative that Howe can only make 4-4-2 work so you’re knocking it.

Just like calling anything you disagree with as a nonsense, so there’s little point in debating it.
Click to expand...
It is nonsense tbf....there were no counter attacking tactics against Ciy....no attempts to counter...no chance of a counter attack .....in fact there were no counter attacks.......how can their have been when we have Josh King lashing balls clear in our penalty area along with our other 9 players!
 
Neil Dawson said:
Don’t be a martyr! ;). Do you think it was City’s best performance under Pep? Do you accept managers use a bit of kidology when they need to? I just think we need to see it for what it is.

You saw what I saw...and mentioned in my report about their winning of the ball back being a joy to behold. It was against incredibly limited numbers though and players with no support...you saw that too. So just as if we had left one defender back and they had scored ten we wouldn’t be saying what a brilliant attack they had, similarly when we watch them hunt down the only player in their half with three defenders we cant say that it was their greatest ever defensive performance. We made it very easy for them to defend just as we made it very easy for Arsenal to attack. Surely you can see that....you are a very astute observer normally (in my opinion)

All I am saying is we need to find a middle ground, neither performance to me was acceptable and I don’t want to see either again. Are we that far apart on that Delboy?
Click to expand...

I'm not too bothered if he's using kidology or not which is why I used quotation marks to emphasise that it was what he said and so should be taken with a pinch of salt.

I saw what you saw, I've also seen what you've seen in all our other games against city where we've tried all sorts of different tactics and have got absolutely nothing. Take the game to them? Get smashed. Keep it right? Get beat narrowly without ever looking like scoring. We needed the latter this time given the context of our season given the week we'd had, especially as there were youngsters playing in defence who will hopefully have got loads from it rather than another confidence shattering mauling.

I don't care about stats or what other team's fans think of us I care about what is best for AFCB.. and those tactics were best for AFCB at this point in time for the reasons you pointed out in your report.
 
Topfarrier said:
It is nonsense tbf....there were no counter attacking tactics against Ciy....no attempts to counter...no chance of a counter attack .....in fact there were no counter attacks.......how can their have been when we have Josh King lashing balls clear in our penalty area along with our other 9 players!
Click to expand...

Ryan Fraser getting hacked down by Walker and getting a booking.

Ryan Fraser shoulder charge from Walker.

Just two quick examples of attempted counter attacks off the top of my head.

The intent was there, but the probable champions had too much quality and prevented it.
 
Topfarrier said:
No....as has been explained...Saturday's formation bore no relation to the one used against Chelsea ....none.
It's amazing what some people will cling to in the wake of such a shocking humiliation....it wasn't particularly a good defensive performance imo....neither will it restore our defenders confidence...unless you think that they might take solace from the fact that if we stick 10 men in our penalty area for 90 mins we are difficult to score against....any league 2 team would be able to do it reasonably well ......i can't think how that helps us going forward into our upcoming fixtures tbh......as for this 'we were in it up until the final whistle' rubbish....words fail me ....we were no more 'in it' than a boxer cowering in a corner for 10 rounds with his gloves over head hoping not to get too badly hurt.
In fact i cant see any positive from that cowardly performance other than the fact we got nothing out of it.
Click to expand...

Chelsea away mate, as I said. We played 3-4-3 which is the same as 5-4-1 if you play against a team that keeps you penned in for 90 mins. Chelsea weren't able to do that because they aren't as good as City by a country mile.

I just think you're a bit soft. It was a decent performance, maybe you're just a bit soft.

Humiliation? Lol
 
If 3-4-3 is the same as 5-4-1 why didn't we play 3-4-3?......its not the same is it Derek?....lol and i'm the soft one....:D
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I'm not too bothered if he's using kidology or not which is why I used quotation marks to emphasise that it was what he said and so should be taken with a pinch of salt.

I saw what you saw, I've also seen what you've seen in all our other games against city where we've tried all sorts of different tactics and have got absolutely nothing. Take the game to them? Get smashed. Keep it right? Get beat narrowly without ever looking like scoring. We needed the latter this time given the context of our season given the week we'd had, especially as there were youngsters playing in defence who will hopefully have got loads from it rather than another confidence shattering mauling.

I don't care about stats or what other team's fans think of us I care about what is best for AFCB.. and those tactics were best for AFCB at this point in time for the reasons you pointed out in your report.
Click to expand...
Have a cigar ! :smoke:

Under the circumstances I fail to see what Eddie did wrong. It wasn't his fault that our balls up the pitch were more often than not rushed and never reached their intended targets ( the commentators kept mentioning the wind so presumably that had an adverse effect on some of these quick balls out from the back too ? ) nor was it his fault that when King or Fraser finally had the ball at their feet they managed to lose possession shortly afterwards.

Yes, we didn't have a lot of attacking options out there but Eddie reasonably expected King and Fraser to create a bit more than they did ( and our passing out from the back to be more accurate ).

We sent enough out there to get the three points provided the defence held firm and kept City out ( which barring a scrappy goal they achieved ) and provided the others did their jobs properly too. As often happens, frustrated forward players start dropping deeper and deeper to get the ball, something which Eddie was probably desperately trying to prevent from the touchline. The plan was good, the execution of the counterattacks was very poor. For me this is the only aspect which Eddie needs to take another look at. If we can improve the link from defence to counterattack that system will create goal scoring opportunities whilst also keeping things tight at the back. On another day that exact same plan could have seen us take a surprise victory against the best team in the league.

I think the selection and the formation were justified and it wasn't intended to be negative at all, just prudent.
 
DJ said:
That’s it though, the tactics and approaches for both games were the same.

The implementation due to the formation change was different as per your post.

But the idea, tactics, sitting deep with the idea of using the counter attack and hoping to create something from open play or a set piece were the same.

With Lewis Cook, Lerma, Stanislas and Wilson it would have been far more affective in an attacking sense.
But it doesn’t fit your narrative that Howe can only make 4-4-2 work so you’re knocking it.

Just like calling anything you disagree with as a nonsense, so there’s little point in debating it.
Click to expand...

No...the tactics aren’t the same. Having an extra midfielder playing off a forward is different to having an extra centre half. Every single day of the week. You can’t even begin to compare it in terms of tactics, formation, outlook or intent. I’m sorry.

Also, you can’t say something that broke negative football records of nearly 13 years apparently ;) as an effective different way of playing.

We got away with a humiliation, our keeper was Mom for many which helped this as did the crossbar and City’s forwards not being on normal form. For all those reasons it was the right thing to do on that day. It is not an effective option moving forwards though for me.

It’s interesting if we dug up the Pulis threads of old.... people saying why would you go into any game planning on defending in an entertainment business. Yet now some people seem to be advocating this as what we should do in certain games moving forwards.

I hate what Pulis, Moyes, Allardyce etc do to modern football and I don’t want us to do it for any games.

I saw both our games v City this year and I know what approach I preferred. Both were defensively set up which is the correct thing to do but one had some attacking intent...and that against a City side which are not ‘exhausted’. For all the people saying ‘if Boruc has saved Mahrez shot’ you could also say in the away game if Daniels had connected at the far post we would have gone 2-1 up. Now...that’s a left back at the far post...compare that to Saturday when we couldn’t even get our centre forward into the box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;