New Kompany Calf Injury?

Stones cost a lot of money and arrived with a big reputation( deserved or not) . if he can't step up to the plate in a big game the what the fuck good is he? Likewise if pep can't organise a defence to at least be solid then why is he here either. We have plenty in our squad to deal with any team and no longer have a goalie who never makes a save. Vinny missing or not shouldn't be used as an excuse for failure.
Don't know if anyone is using it as an excuse for failure.
Equally I'm not sure why it is controversial that against possible the premierships strongest attack whilst trying to bed in two new full backs and a goalkeeper missing our best and most experienced centre back is a concern.
 
Don't know if anyone is using it as an excuse for failure.
Equally I'm not sure why it is controversial that against possible the premierships strongest attack whilst trying to bed in two new full backs and a goalkeeper missing our best and most experienced centre back is a concern.
Of course it's a concern and I'd rather Vinny in there. Having said that we need to adapt when he is not.
 
Maybe the club want to keep teams guessing as to the likely line up and knowing days in advance that Vinny won't be playing would be a huge advantage
 
My complaint is that you claimed that City could have signed VVD if only we had offered the "right" amount of money, and then implied how wrong it was to not have done that. You do not know why City did not sign VVD, your claim is unfounded, aka fantasy. When you then criticize City based on your unfounded claim, you are essentially just discussing with yourself in a closed circuit. Off course you are perfectly entitled to be doing that.
You more or less said the same thing to me yesterday but I think you're slightly missing some people's points.

Everybody accepts that we might not have been able to get VVD no matter what we did but some fans think that if we had properly tested Southampton's resolve that we might have been able to get an offer accepted. Also, whilst we all suspect Liverpool was his preferred destination, some fans think that once the Liverpool deal became incredibly problematic, the player might well have been happy to sign for us, had an offer been accepted. All just opinion but not terribly outrageous opinion and I'm not so sure why it bothers you that people feel we could have made more of an effort to get him and see if Southampton meant what they said.

Arsenal spent all summer saying Sanchez wasn't for sale but they still accepted an offer when push came to shove and we didn't just give up on that deal when they said they wouldn't sell.

But anyway, like yesterday you're missing the broader point. Loads of people posted all summer on here that they were worried that we were too reliant on Kompany and that given his injury record we should be prioritizing a top class CB, not just a compromise signing on the relatively cheap. Again, not too outlandish an opinion really, whether you agree with it or not.

Now if it's only opinion I suppose (like most stuff on the entire forum) but looking at what happened over the summer in terms of strong rumours and things that we know happened, it does look to some like we spent the latter weeks of the window targeting expensive attackers and that we decided to make compromises with the potential CB signing. We were definitely trying to get Sanchez, quite probably making efforts to sign Mbappe and settling for Jonny F Evans as the centre back.

So you can't really blame people who spent the summer saying we needed a top CB because we couldn't rely on Kompany's fitness for feeling utterly frustrated and asking questions when it appears that a week after the window closed there are question marks over his fitness. And as Neville said, even if he does manage to start the Liverpool match, this is a situation just waiting to rear its ugly haead and it was incredibly predictable.
 
Everybody accepts that we might not have been able to get VVD no matter what we did but some fans think that if we had properly tested Southampton's resolve that we might have been able to get an offer accepted. Also, whilst we all suspect Liverpool was his preferred destination, some fans think that once the Liverpool deal became incredibly problematic, the player might well have been happy to sign for us, had an offer been accepted. All just opinion but not terribly outrageous opinion and I'm not so sure why it bothers you that people feel we could have made more of an effort to get him and see if Southampton meant what they said.
It is the wording that bothers me mate. In the specific case today it was said that City only needed to have put the right amount of money on the table and we would have had VVD. Also the comment "my arse" was made about the notion that VVD only wants Liverpool. Further it was said that the reason for not buying VVD was that City kept the money for buying more (unnecessary) attackers. All of this may be correct, or not. Nevertheless in the post it is presented as "the truth", and the implication was that City were stupid not to have bought VVD. Using this kind of "truth" to bash City makes little sense IMO.
As I also wrote to you yesterday I am not against the idea that City should have bought a 4th good CB.
 
Do you honestly think he's anything other than a 4th choice?



Reports stated we were in for Leonardo Bonucci, Aymeric Laporte, Lucas Hernandez, Holger Badstuber and Van Dijk and these deals fell through because of various reasons, not because Pep thought better of it and went for attackers instead.



Ofcourse you're entitled to an opinion but you may just as well be wrong. Also keep in mind that even the best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry, instead of suggesting there was no plan to begin with.
Either way, not getting a replacement was always going to be a gamble no matter the reasons, fingers crossed it won't prove too costly.

We weren't in for any of those players in this window.
 
My complaint is that you claimed that City could have signed VVD if only we had offered the "right" amount of money, and then implied how wrong it was to not have done that. You do not know why City did not sign VVD, your claim is unfounded, aka fantasy. When you then criticize City based on your unfounded claim, you are essentially just discussing with yourself in a closed circuit. Off course you are perfectly entitled to be doing that.

Yes, I believe that if Southampton received a big enough offer, Van Dijk would be sold & it's a great big hairy mistake not to have done so.

I also believe that if VVD wasn't available then they should have found someone else & not be scrabbling around for JFE on deadline day.

And actually, most City fans I know feel the same way, plus plenty on here have said so. Again, I've no idea why you think there is any problem with me saying so.
 
The most likely answer is the centre back we want probably wasn't available this summer and we would rather wait until next summer or possibly January to get the player we want rather than a stop gap. We would have taken Evans as a Kolarov replacement if we could move Mangala on but as a replacement for Kompany or Otamendi we will have a short list of players that we may need to wait for.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top