Moyes

[Hafnia]

 

 

Fellaini scored 10 goals for us to be fair when he was used in an attacking role, as did Cahill. We don't have the money to have perfect players for each position. This is where Moyes has had to improvise. Everton were playing 'wonderful' football only a season ago, so not sure your analysis has too much foundation Haf. We don't have Pienaar, Arteta, nor do we have Donovan who was around at the time we were playing well and losing Lescott didn't exactly help. Even Gosling and Yakubu have gone. Even when our football was superb, we had no strikers who could score, so Moyes can't win.

 

Had we been able to get Drenthe, and Beckford, at the same time we had Pienaar we would have almost cracked it, but it's almost impossible for us to have all the players all of the time, especially as our squad is so small, and our injuries so frequent.

 

Of Fellainis 9 goals in the 35 appearances in 2008-2009 (1 in 4) the main source of goals was from set piece which is not an indicator of him being a striker. Likewise Cahill is a set piece expert, using guile to steal a yard to get in front and up ahead of his marker, he uses this tactic well to arrive late from midfield, it does not qualify him as a striker.

 

I will re-emphasise a point many have made, Moyes record in getting strikers firing consistently is poor. They are far too reliant on feeding off scraps and running channels for hoof ball, which is why Cahill is favoured.

[Avinalaff]

 

Of Fellainis 9 goals in the 35 appearances in 2008-2009 (1 in 4) the main source of goals was from set piece which is not an indicator of him being a striker. Likewise Cahill is a set piece expert, using guile to steal a yard to get in front and up ahead of his marker, he uses this tactic well to arrive late from midfield, it does not qualify him as a striker.

 

I will re-emphasise a point many have made, Moyes record in getting strikers firing consistently is poor. They are far too reliant on feeding off scraps and running channels for hoof ball, which is why Cahill is favoured.

 

4-4-2 is far less attacking and much more defensive than 4-5-1. I used to think it was the other way around until it was properly explained to me by a guy who knew a lot more about formations than I did.

 

Our strikers not scoring isn't down to Moyes' system. Yakubu scored plenty under Moyes, and Saha was scoring well until he was injured. I think it's a mixture of the quality of movement, the quality of pass, and the quality of the finish. Our strikers are lazy and slow. The only striker we've had who ran his arse off for some time was Andy Johnson. Beckford had decent pace but no service. We can't expect silk purses out of average players all the time. Look at how United break, and the movement. The same with Chelsea. Then look at how much those players cost, and how much ours did. I'd love to have Nani on one wing, Young on the other, and Rooney in the middle, but I don't think we have a cat in hells chance. Heck, I'd love Giggs even now, and he's almost retired.

[Hafnia]

 

4-4-2 is far less attacking and much more defensive than 4-5-1. I used to think it was the other way around until it was properly explained to me by a guy who knew a lot more about formations than I did.

 

Our strikers not scoring isn't down to Moyes' system. Yakubu scored plenty under Moyes, and Saha was scoring well until he was injured. I think it's a mixture of the quality of movement, the quality of pass, and the quality of the finish. Our strikers are lazy and slow. The only striker we've had who ran his arse off for some time was Andy Johnson. Beckford had decent pace but no service. We can't expect silk purses out of average players all the time. Look at how United break, and the movement. The same with Chelsea. Then look at how much those players cost, and how much ours did. I'd love to have Nani on one wing, Young on the other, and Rooney in the middle, but I don't think we have a cat in hells chance. Heck, I'd love Giggs even now, and he's almost retired.

 

 

4-5-1 is attacking if you look at Barca and Chelsea (arguably 4-2-3-1) - with Everton when you have Rodwell, Fellaini, Neville in the same midfield it is defensive - you can't get away from that - especially when you play with no recognised striker..

[Avinalaff]

 

 

4-5-1 is attacking if you look at Barca and Chelsea (arguably 4-2-3-1) - with Everton when you have Rodwell, Fellaini, Neville in the same midfield it is defensive - you can't get away from that - especially when you play with no recognised striker..

 

Who would you play and where Haf?

[Hafnia]

 

Who would you play and where Haf?

 

 

Howard

 

Hibbert - Heitinga - Distin - Baines

 

 

Fellaini - Rodwell

 

Coleman Barkley Drenthe

 

Vellios

 

 

It is a 4-5-1 - but an attack minded one - depending on the opposition I would swap and change accordingly - but thats a solid tream IMO

[SimonButtle]

 

 

Howard

 

Hibbert - Heitinga - Distin - Baines

 

 

Fellaini - Rodwell

 

Coleman Barkley Drenthe

 

Vellios

 

 

It is a 4-5-1 - but an attack minded one - depending on the opposition I would swap and change accordingly - but thats a solid tream IMO

nice team haf, but based on current form id drop Coleman for Ossie tbh, more likely to score the odd goal and has more of an end product, Coleman's lost his way a bit

Edited September 26, 2011 by theprisoner

[smeghead1]

 

nice team haf, but based on current form id drop Coleman for Ossie tbh, more likely to score the odd goal and has more of an end product, Coleman's lost his way a bit

 

Spot on guys, anyone got DMs email address??

[FanchesterCity]

disgruntled@everton.com

[Hafnia]

If coleman gets the bench then maybe Barkley on the right and Ossie in the middle

[Avinalaff]

 

 

Howard

 

Hibbert - Heitinga - Distin - Baines

 

 

Fellaini - Rodwell

 

Coleman Barkley Drenthe

 

Vellios

 

 

It is a 4-5-1 - but an attack minded one - depending on the opposition I would swap and change accordingly - but thats a solid tream IMO

 

And you would have played that line up against a world class side like City?

[SimonButtle]

 

And you would have played that line up against a world class side like City?

yes, and if we lost, we lost so be it, we lost on saturday with the tactics we employed. Id rather show intent and make a go of it, than do what we did at the weekend and become the laughing stock of the league and the topic of every radio phone in and website forum over the weekend for playing "anti-football" we have enough off-the field problems without on the field ones too.

[Hafnia]

 

And you would have played that line up against a world class side like City?

 

Yes I would, and the chances are it would be a better and more respected performance than that John beck esque Cambridge united effort on Saturday.

 

I thought you were of the opinion that football is just a game and you want to be entertained? Turning up defending for a point is an absolute disgrace. We had 4 men in their box when we won a corner?!

 

Would you turn up to watch a boxer cling and smother hoping for a lucky punch? No, you want to see a match of skills being exchanged.

 

Before the match moyes likened it to turning up to a gun fight with a pen knife - disgrace. Where is the positivity? Where's his faith in his players? He isn't the manager of Preston any more... I expect far more from an everton team than to do that.

[FanchesterCity]

I can sympathise with the 'negative' view BUT...

 

You're in financial difficulties, ever place in the league means a little more money for you, and at a push, you COULD get back into Europe - it's not impossible. It's probably asking a bit much to get CL, but Europa league is doable.

 

On the balance of probability, Everton did the right thing and almost got a point.

 

Just out of curiosity... IF it was the last game of the season, and losing meant you went down.... and you were facing City... would you still go for the win, or hedge your bets and go for the draw?

[pete0]

yes, and if we lost, we lost so be it, we lost on saturday with the tactics we employed. Id rather show intent and make a go of it, than do what we did at the weekend and become the laughing stock of the league and the topic of every radio phone in and website forum over the weekend for playing "anti-football" we have enough off-the field problems without on the field ones too.

Mourinho used similar tactics against Barca then won the Champions league. Playing that every week would be horrible to watch but once or twice a season is fine

[FanchesterCity]

I don't think anybody really thought of Everton as a laughing stock. I think most thought they did what they thought they had to.

 

Like some have said, if it was week in week out, then yes, you'd end up like Stoke (who have actually started playing a bit recently!, or Bolton of old).

 

Most fans know you've not got pots of money, and know that Moyes has done a pretty impressive job with only a few minor blips now and then. Most 'speculate' how well he could do with some money - but we might never know, it's pure speculation.

 

Everton have always been a pretty well respected, understated club / team. Nobody fancies playing you, even the top teams, since you're capable of causing an upset.

 

I do think though, that folks lump you in with Aston Villa as being a bit... don't get mad... 'dull'. I know that sounds unfair and it's not dire football, it's just a tad short of something exciting.

There are worse teams who have a real history of entertaining football (west ham, newcastle?).

 

The problem you seem to have now if the finance, where you can't AFFORD to start being flambouyant - since every place in the league counts, every cup run brings in a little more money, and with such a tight league, even very good teams like Everton can lose a couple of players via transfers, and a couple through injury and find themselves in a relegation dogfight of 10 teams.

 

I'm honestly not saying Everton are relegation material, just highlighting how damn quickly a few mishaps can get out of hand and you start noticing the likes of Wolves and Blackburn only being 3 points behind you etc.

 

You just have to play the 'percentages' at the moment - in my opinion

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

Beckford was sold because it was good business , simple as!

 

I wouldnt have minded seeing a bit more of him just to see if he could make the grade but the money on offer was too good to turn down IMO

 

At the end of the day he was a million miles away from being a top CF. I know some people will go scrambling for the stats book when I say that but I couldnt give a monkeys about stats. The truth is although he could get you goals that is all he could do and in this day and age you need more than that in the Prem

 

By the way I think Moyes got it spot on tactically. We did the same thing last year and won 2-1 and I didnt hear many people complaing then!

 

Team that night was Howard , Neville , Distin , Jagielka , Baines , Coleman , Fellaini , Rodwell , Osman , Cahill , Anichebe . not too disimalair to the weekend line up me thinks

[Avinalaff]

I don't think anybody really thought of Everton as a laughing stock. I think most thought they did what they thought they had to.

 

Like some have said, if it was week in week out, then yes, you'd end up like Stoke (who have actually started playing a bit recently!, or Bolton of old).

 

Most fans know you've not got pots of money, and know that Moyes has done a pretty impressive job with only a few minor blips now and then. Most 'speculate' how well he could do with some money - but we might never know, it's pure speculation.

 

Everton have always been a pretty well respected, understated club / team. Nobody fancies playing you, even the top teams, since you're capable of causing an upset.

 

I do think though, that folks lump you in with Aston Villa as being a bit... don't get mad... 'dull'. I know that sounds unfair and it's not dire football, it's just a tad short of something exciting.

There are worse teams who have a real history of entertaining football (west ham, newcastle?).

 

The problem you seem to have now if the finance, where you can't AFFORD to start being flambouyant - since every place in the league counts, every cup run brings in a little more money, and with such a tight league, even very good teams like Everton can lose a couple of players via transfers, and a couple through injury and find themselves in a relegation dogfight of 10 teams.

 

I'm honestly not saying Everton are relegation material, just highlighting how damn quickly a few mishaps can get out of hand and you start noticing the likes of Wolves and Blackburn only being 3 points behind you etc.

 

You just have to play the 'percentages' at the moment - in my opinion

 

It needs to be said that City were pretty shite themselves on Saturday, and hardly entertaining considering the value of the team.

 

We might be 'dull' as you call it, but the team ran rings around your superstars only a few games ago, and played you off the park. You were lucky not to concede 4 or 5 that day. For a team who played as bad as City did for the past 20 years it's a bit rich calling 'any one' dull, now that you have paid a load of superstars to come and play for you, and taken much of the talent away from other teams.

 

As much as your posts come across as sensible, it's fair to say there is the odd little undercurrent of piss taking and patronization going on too that hasn't gone unnoticed.

[Avinalaff]

Beckford was sold because it was good business , simple as!

 

I wouldnt have minded seeing a bit more of him just to see if he could make the grade but the money on offer was too good to turn down IMO

 

At the end of the day he was a million miles away from being a top CF. I know some people will go scrambling for the stats book when I say that but I couldnt give a monkeys about stats. The truth is although he could get you goals that is all he could do and in this day and age you need more than that in the Prem

 

By the way I think Moyes got it spot on tactically. We did the same thing last year and won 2-1 and I didnt hear many people complaing then!

 

Team that night was Howard , Neville , Distin , Jagielka , Baines , Coleman , Fellaini , Rodwell , Osman , Cahill , Anichebe . not too disimalair to the weekend line up me thinks

 

I'm yet to be convinced it was good business to sell a quality player so cheaply just because he was free. I think he could have gone on to be quite a signing.

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

 

I'm yet to be convinced it was good business to sell a quality player so cheaply just because he was free. I think he could have gone on to be quite a signing.

 

 

Im yet to be convinced he was a quality player!

 

He used to frustrate me immensely the way he would never ever challenge the defender for the ball, after the Man Utd away game I was happy to never see him pull on a blue shirt ever again

[Avinalaff]

 

 

Im yet to be convinced he was a quality player!

 

He used to frustrate me immensely the way he would never ever challenge the defender for the ball, after the Man Utd away game I was happy to never see him pull on a blue shirt ever again

 

Then it's not so much good business, as good riddance then in your book? I don't think he was given a good enough opportunity to find himself. He scores goals, and was pacey. We could have been more patient for me. Next season he could have been worth a lot more.

[FanchesterCity]

 

It needs to be said that City were pretty shite themselves on Saturday, and hardly entertaining considering the value of the team.

 

We might be 'dull' as you call it, but the team ran rings around your superstars only a few games ago, and played you off the park. You were lucky not to concede 4 or 5 that day. For a team who played as bad as City did for the past 20 years it's a bit rich calling 'any one' dull, now that you have paid a load of superstars to come and play for you, and taken much of the talent away from other teams.

 

As much as your posts come across as sensible, it's fair to say there is the odd little undercurrent of piss taking and patronization going on too that hasn't gone unnoticed.

 

 

There's no undercurrent at all - it's just how I see it.

 

And absolutely City were dross for the best part of the 35 years I've watched them. Possibly had 7 good seasons at best, the rest was shocking.

 

The facts remain the same - the general perception of Everton, rightly or wrongly is that it's not going to amazing football to watch. The perception of Arsenal (recent form aside) is precisely the opposite - even though the 'reality' isn't always what people expected.

 

I have been quite critical of my own club, and remain so in some instances, but just because I highlight a couple of negative perceptions about Everton doesn't make it a piss take. What's to laugh at?

I defended the fact that I don't think anybody thought badly of Everton's tactics.

 

Don't be so paraoid. Yes you're skint - so what? so where City a few years ago, and very probably will be again when our little fun ends. This isn't about Everton vs City, it's more of a general comment on the shocking plight of football, of which Everton are just one potential victim (and so are City in a other ways).

 

If I think your ground is holding you back - that's not saying "ha - look at the state of the place" - it's saying "the punters you NEED to bring in the extra money won't like your taste in decor - and won't really care that much about your history - they want sanitised stadia and branding opportunity. They want nice clean toilets and fancy restaurants" - it doesn't make it RIGHT, but it's the reality of the situation. It's precisely what Roy Keane was moaning about 15 years ago with Prawn Sandwiches and he was right.

 

But if you're to compete and not get left behind, you're gonna have to jump onboard. I'm no more happy about that than you are, just facing the facts (as I see them).

 

If I say the ground is in a deprived area - doesn't mean I'm mocking anything - I support City - it moved from one deprived area to another. Very similar areas (to Everton) in many ways, possibly worse in Moss Side (as was then).

 

The trouble seems to be when someone says "not sure Everton could pull 60,000 regularly in a new stadium - people take it as some sort of cock measuring contest. I don't think City could either.

I could harp on all day pipe dreaming about if City extended the ground AND we won CL AND we got Messi we could give United a run for their money - but we couldn't and that's that.

 

In the same way, like it or not, the red lot in Liverpool have managed to build a bit of an Empire that's still holding reasonably well, and you'll struggle to compete with. One day you might, but for the foreseeable future isn't not going to happen.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, it's possible, I'm just trying to be honest and realistic, even if it's not blowing smoke up anybody's ass.

 

There are easier targets than Everton to take the mickey out of - and again, what's the laugh it? you're not bust, you're getting relegated, you're not getting stuffed 8-2, you're not swapping managers week in week out....

 

So City have money? yes - from a sugar daddy. Can't spin the line United and Liverpool do with "we've won our money, we've been the best in the Europe' etc etc.

 

You just need to accept that other fans sometimes just like chatting about other teams and seeing some of the same problems they experience, and some of the different issues affecting them (cos all too often, what goes around, comes around).

[pete0]

 

 

There's no undercurrent at all - it's just how I see it.

 

And absolutely City were dross for the best part of the 35 years I've watched them. Possibly had 7 good seasons at best, the rest was shocking.

 

The facts remain the same - the general perception of Everton, rightly or wrongly is that it's not going to amazing football to watch. The perception of Arsenal (recent form aside) is precisely the opposite - even though the 'reality' isn't always what people expected.

 

I have been quite critical of my own club, and remain so in some instances, but just because I highlight a couple of negative perceptions about Everton doesn't make it a piss take. What's to laugh at?

I defended the fact that I don't think anybody thought badly of Everton's tactics.

 

Don't be so paraoid. Yes you're skint - so what? so where City a few years ago, and very probably will be again when our little fun ends. This isn't about Everton vs City, it's more of a general comment on the shocking plight of football, of which Everton are just one potential victim (and so are City in a other ways).

 

If I think your ground is holding you back - that's not saying "ha - look at the state of the place" - it's saying "the punters you NEED to bring in the extra money won't like your taste in decor - and won't really care that much about your history - they want sanitised stadia and branding opportunity. They want nice clean toilets and fancy restaurants" - it doesn't make it RIGHT, but it's the reality of the situation. It's precisely what Roy Keane was moaning about 15 years ago with Prawn Sandwiches and he was right.

 

But if you're to compete and not get left behind, you're gonna have to jump onboard. I'm no more happy about that than you are, just facing the facts (as I see them).

 

If I say the ground is in a deprived area - doesn't mean I'm mocking anything - I support City - it moved from one deprived area to another. Very similar areas (to Everton) in many ways, possibly worse in Moss Side (as was then).

 

The trouble seems to be when someone says "not sure Everton could pull 60,000 regularly in a new stadium - people take it as some sort of cock measuring contest. I don't think City could either.

I could harp on all day pipe dreaming about if City extended the ground AND we won CL AND we got Messi we could give United a run for their money - but we couldn't and that's that.

 

In the same way, like it or not, the red lot in Liverpool have managed to build a bit of an Empire that's still holding reasonably well, and you'll struggle to compete with. One day you might, but for the foreseeable future isn't not going to happen.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, it's possible, I'm just trying to be honest and realistic, even if it's not blowing smoke up anybody's ass.

 

There are easier targets than Everton to take the mickey out of - and again, what's the laugh it? you're not bust, you're getting relegated, you're not getting stuffed 8-2, you're not swapping managers week in week out....

 

So City have money? yes - from a sugar daddy. Can't spin the line United and Liverpool do with "we've won our money, we've been the best in the Europe' etc etc.

 

You just need to accept that other fans sometimes just like chatting about other teams and seeing some of the same problems they experience, and some of the different issues affecting them (cos all too often, what goes around, comes around).

Wow does all your knowledge come from MOTD, last season a side Everton have been playing some of the best football in the league in the last 5 years. The 2nd half of the 2009/2010 we probably played the best football in the league, and as a city fan you should have know.

[FanchesterCity]

As for Beckford, he looked to be a good 'snatch' when you got him... but he was mid 20s then, so ought to have found his natural level (though not always the case).

Problem with strikers is that they can be made to look world class, or donkeys with the smallest changes in confidence or supply.

He didn't look a total donkey - and if Cahill get injured, what then?

 

Seems to me that you have to have as deep a squad as the budget can afford, and as others have said, perhaps the budget was the deciding factor in the end.

[s-mackie]

Wow does all your knowledge come from MOTD, last season a side Everton have been playing some of the best football in the league in the last 5 years. The 2nd half of the 2009/2010 we probably played the best football in the league, and as a city fan you should have know.

 

To be fair, he said 'rightly or wrongly' which doesn't exactly suggest that he's saying Everton play bad football.

[pete0]

 

To be fair, he said 'rightly or wrongly' which doesn't exactly suggest that he's saying Everton play bad football.

He suggest people in general think we play shite football still, and we havent done in enough seasons for people to recognise we don't any more. Even the punditsacknowledge this now (even Phil Thomson and the 2 on MOTD, love the squirms on their face as they struggle to knock us anymore or that people know that their idiots and bitter when they do), although they took their sweet time to do so.

[Avinalaff]

 

To be fair, he said 'rightly or wrongly' which doesn't exactly suggest that he's saying Everton play bad football.

 

I have to agree with PeteO.

I find it unlikely that other fans watch us every week, and for someone to say we're known for drab football is naive and uneducated. It wasn't long ago we were compared to the great footballing sides in the world, and played Arsenal, Chelsea, United, Liverpool, 'and' City off the park with wonderful football. I don't mind folk offering opinions, but when the opinions are poppycock it's hard to let them pass without challenge, and to accuse us of playing 'drab' football is poppycock.

[Bailey]

 

 

Howard

 

Hibbert - Heitinga - Distin - Baines

 

 

Fellaini - Rodwell

 

Coleman Barkley Drenthe

 

Vellios

 

 

It is a 4-5-1 - but an attack minded one - depending on the opposition I would swap and change accordingly - but thats a solid tream IMO

 

I really dont see the need for 2 holding midfielders. Its almost Benitez-esque. When we have one player who is so good at dominating the middle of the park, it seems folly to dillute his responsibility. The whole point of having a defensive midfielder is to plug the gaps through the centre of defence and pick up those tricky players like Silva, Messi, Rooney that drop deep to pick the ball up. Having two players doing half that job isnt anywhere near as effective. It also means that when we get the ball, you tend to have two people standing side by side and not creating the angles to get the ball forward with ease.

 

Mourinho used similar tactics against Barca then won the Champions league. Playing that every week would be horrible to watch but once or twice a season is fine

 

haha please dont compare Mourinhos tactics against Barca to ours against City! The only similarity is that they got people behind the ball when defending, but the way they defending with lots of pressing and organisation, along with quick fluid counters had no resemblance in anyway to us on Saturday. In them games it was Inter that had all the best chances because of the way they went from defence to attack. We just hoof it clear and hope Cahill and get somewhere near.

 

Beckford was sold because it was good business , simple as!

 

I wouldnt have minded seeing a bit more of him just to see if he could make the grade but the money on offer was too good to turn down IMO

 

At the end of the day he was a million miles away from being a top CF. I know some people will go scrambling for the stats book when I say that but I couldnt give a monkeys about stats. The truth is although he could get you goals that is all he could do and in this day and age you need more than that in the Prem

 

By the way I think Moyes got it spot on tactically. We did the same thing last year and won 2-1 and I didnt hear many people complaing then!

 

Team that night was Howard , Neville , Distin , Jagielka , Baines , Coleman , Fellaini , Rodwell , Osman , Cahill , Anichebe . not too disimalair to the weekend line up me thinks

 

I agree with the Beckford comments but you overlook a big difference to last year.

 

Yes we set up similar. but we had Fellaini as the sole defensive midfielder (at least for the first half) with Cahill and Rodwell breaking forward fro midfield to support Vic. We went two goals up early playing positively, getting our foot on the ball and getting forward well. After about 20mins we gradually started sitting further and further back, swapping Vic & Cahill & Osman all over the show, lost our shape a little before half time, where we were a little lucky not to concede. Then 2nd half Vic was sent off and everyone was behind the ball, and we defended admirably and with Fellaini being the stand out. Our tactics to start that game were perfect for the squad we had. We pressured them all over the pitch, but we weakened as the game went on and sat further back. Im pretty sure I remember a few people complaining about the way we sat deep in the second half of that game (me being one) but we could afford to as we were 2 up. It finished 2-1 and City hit the post a couple of times.

 

Surely you werent happy with the way we went about that game? Its understandable if we still provide an attacking threat, but for 80minutes we didnt. We lost 2-0 and didnt even have a go.

[pete0]

 

I really dont see the need for 2 holding midfielders. Its almost Benitez-esque. When we have one player who is so good at dominating the middle of the park, it seems folly to dillute his responsibility. The whole point of having a defensive midfielder is to plug the gaps through the centre of defence and pick up those tricky players like Silva, Messi, Rooney that drop deep to pick the ball up. Having two players doing half that job isnt anywhere near as effective. It also means that when we get the ball, you tend to have two people standing side by side and not creating the angles to get the ball forward with ease.

 

 

 

haha please dont compare Mourinhos tactics against Barca to ours against City! The only similarity is that they got people behind the ball when defending, but the way they defending with lots of pressing and organisation, along with quick fluid counters had no resemblance in anyway to us on Saturday. In them games it was Inter that had all the best chances because of the way they went from defence to attack. We just hoof it clear and hope Cahill and get somewhere near.

 

 

 

I agree with the Beckford comments but you overlook a big difference to last year.

 

Yes we set up similar. but we had Fellaini as the sole defensive midfielder (at least for the first half) with Cahill and Rodwell breaking forward fro midfield to support Vic. We went two goals up early playing positively, getting our foot on the ball and getting forward well. After about 20mins we gradually started sitting further and further back, swapping Vic & Cahill & Osman all over the show, lost our shape a little before half time, where we were a little lucky not to concede. Then 2nd half Vic was sent off and everyone was behind the ball, and we defended admirably and with Fellaini being the stand out. Our tactics to start that game were perfect for the squad we had. We pressured them all over the pitch, but we weakened as the game went on and sat further back. Im pretty sure I remember a few people complaining about the way we sat deep in the second half of that game (me being one) but we could afford to as we were 2 up. It finished 2-1 and City hit the post a couple of times.

 

Surely you werent happy with the way we went about that game? Its understandable if we still provide an attacking threat, but for 80minutes we didnt. We lost 2-0 and didnt even have a go.

The football was different, but in the 2nd half before the Cahill tackle/Kompany stomp, they were clearly frustrated running out of ideas and we looked the more likely to score even though we didn't get forward as much. We looked well on course to grab a goal and take a 1-0.

[Bailey]

 

I have to agree with PeteO.

I find it unlikely that other fans watch us every week, and for someone to say we're known for drab football is naive and uneducated. It wasn't long ago we were compared to the great footballing sides in the world, and played Arsenal, Chelsea, United, Liverpool, 'and' City off the park with wonderful football. I don't mind folk offering opinions, but when the opinions are poppycock it's hard to let them pass without challenge, and to accuse us of playing 'drab' football is poppycock.

 

To be fair to the original comment, its not as if we have played much good football this year for example. Maybe the Villa game would count but thats about it. However, going back for parts of last year, and especially the couple of seasons before, we really did play some good football. It makes you wonder exactly what has changed?

[Bailey]

The football was different, but in the 2nd half before the Cahill tackle/Kompany stomp, they were clearly frustrated running out of ideas and we looked the more likely to score even though we didn't get forward as much. We looked well on course to grab a goal and take a 1-0.

 

From my view, it looked like City were going to score at some point, it was more of a case of when. I dont think the Cahill 'stamp' changed anything, we werent offering any threat before that, and in fact our better chances came after he went off.

 

City were more than good enough for the 3 points, despite being only average themselves.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Bailey