Match Report v Man City

RobTrent said:
We set up to play a certain way depending on the opposition, so it really is silly to say City had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Oh i'm sorry Rob i misunderstood you....in that case i agree with you ......we set up simply to avoid a heavy defeat....because it was Man City.
 
RobTrent said:
Don't be daft. The tactics, formation, had everything to do with City!
Click to expand...

You are missing my point Rob. Of course we set up a certain way because of the opposition, we will every match.

My point was if you attack with one player against three it will be easier for them to look good winning the ball back than if you broke three on three when they really would have to be good to look good.

Our midfield was under specific instructions to hold position when we had the ball and when we didn’t. In the heralded Chelsea games they were given permission to leave position when we had the ball as long as they quickly got back if we lost it.
 
Neil Dawson said:
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.
Click to expand...
But, but, but.. You're very quick to throw some/managers players comments into the mix when it supports your viewpoint.
 
Neil Dawson said:
You are missing my point Rob. Of course we set up a certain way because of the opposition, we will every match.

My point was if you attack with one player against three it will be easier for them to look good winning the ball back than if you broke three on three when they really would have to be good to look good.

Our midfield was under specific instructions to hold position when we had the ball and when we didn’t. In the heralded Chelsea games they were given permission to leave position when we had the ball as long as they quickly got back if we lost it.
Click to expand...

The midfield two sat just as deep against Chelsea at home. The wingers broke quickly not the central midfielders, which they were unable to do against City.

This is disingenuous, you've been crying out for a change to our 'naïve' approach against the big sides, including every time we've tried your apparent preferred approach of attacking man city, which has failed spectacularly every time. Keep it tight and try and steal a result was exactly the right plan and nearly got us a point.
 
Last edited:
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...

I just expected a yes or no to be honest!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ
SlowDownDerek said:
The midfield two sat just as deep against Chelsea at home. The wingers broke quickly not the central midfielders, which they were unable to do against City.

This is disingenuous, you've been crying out for a change to our 'naïve' approach against the big sides, including every time we've tried your apparent preferred approach of attacking man city, which has failed spectacularly every time. Keep it tight and try and steal a result was exactly the right plan and nearly got us a point.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier...it’s not black or white...there is a middle ground. Yes we needed to change...but not to anti football.
 
I think there is something from the History of football that needs to brought into these arguments;

In EVERY game...it was always the aim of each team to attack the opposing goal with venom and tenacity for the purpose of amounting a tally of goals that is greater than that of the opposition......and for what other purpose?......to ENTERTAIN the crowd and hopefully enable your supporters be sated for the endeavor of said support!
Anything that falls outside this basic benchmark requirement should be a Rarity....the City game was that Rarity thank God!

But is there truthfully any Cherries fan that wouldnt prefer to look back on a 2-3 defeat where perhaps we had led 2-1 or fought back from 0-2 for example?
 
BillMcgarrycherry said:
I think there is something from the History of football that needs to brought into these arguments;

In EVERY game...it was always the aim of each team to attack the opposing goal with venom and tenacity for the purpose of amounting a tally of goals that is greater than that of the opposition......and for what other purpose?......to ENTERTAIN the crowd and hopefully enable your supporters be sated for the endeavor of said support!
Anything that falls outside this basic benchmark requirement should be a Rarity....the City game was that Rarity thank God!

But is there truthfully any Cherries fan that wouldnt prefer to look back on a 2-3 defeat where perhaps we had led 2-1 or fought back from 0-2 for example?
Click to expand...

I can honestly say I enjoyed the game, like I say I think the mentality is different for people that saw the Wednesday shitshow. Sometimes context is all important and that is something that appears to be missed by the obsessed by stats mob.

I barely wanted to go to the game on Saturday because I didn't think they had that performance in them. Of course we don't want to see that every week.. but that game, after the previous performance, with that injury list meant it was decent and I appreciated the performance for what it was.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I can honestly say I enjoyed the game, like I say I think the mentality is different for people that saw the Wednesday shitshow. Sometimes context is all important and that is something that appears to be missed by the obsessed by stats mob.

I barely wanted to go to the game on Saturday because I didn't think they had that performance in them. Of course we don't want to see that every week.. but that game, after the previous performance, with that injury list meant it was decent and I appreciated the performance for what it was.
Click to expand...

That’s fair enough. I was at Arsenal too and also didn’t approach the ground Saturday with a spring in my step.

Having read both threads you can clearly see this boils down to what people enjoy and what others don’t. As an argument therefore it’s too subjective to carry on long.

Like someone who loves Gangsta rap trying to persuade a Perry Como fan that their music is better. I can’t bring myself to enjoy that approach Saturday, I was bored stiff, hating every minute and pining for the Championship. Others relished it.

Different strokes etc.... can’t be bothered to argue it anymore.
 
Neil Dawson said:
That’s fair enough. I was at Arsenal too and also didn’t approach the ground Saturday with a spring in my step.

Having read both threads you can clearly see this boils down to what people enjoy and what others don’t. As an argument therefore it’s too subjective to carry on long.

Like someone who loves Gangsta rap trying to persuade a Perry Como fan that their music is better. I can’t bring myself to enjoy that approach Saturday, I was bored stiff, hating every minute and pining for the Championship. Others relished it.

Different strokes etc.... can’t be bothered to argue it anymore.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, tbf though I'm not saying I enjoy anti football as a general rule but I did appreciate the performance on Saturday and they won't be getting grief from me for it. I hasten to add that it only partly redeems them for the Arsenal performance - I'll be at Huddersfield on Saturday to hopefully see redemption part 2.
 
If we had attacked City with that team we could have lost 4 or 5 nil, maybe more. That would have been far more humiliating in my view. Moreover the impact on the team would have been huge. It was quite something to see the defence and keeper celebrating at the end of the first half.

There was something admiral about the 100% effort and organisation that we showed. Everyone showed up. That is what we will take into the next few games.

I found it fascinating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;