West Ham post game....

[cleavers]

I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between the stats that show we're not that bad and our eyes, which often say the opposite.

Our supposedly shit defence has conceded 23 goals, which is only two more than the supposedly ultra-defensive rags. But the manner in which we've conceded some of those 23 has been infuriating to say the least. I think we owe a lot to Joe Hart to be honest. I've been very critical of parts of his game but you can't knock his shot-stopping.

Brendan Rodgers said any team can defend (or something to that effect). He couldn't actually manage it though but there's a trade-off between attack and defence. The more players you commit to going forward, the more open you're going to be at the back. It also works the other way of course. How many teams have come to the Etihad and been organised and compact, with two banks of 4 or a 4 and a 5, giving us no room to work in front of their goal? Whereas we go away from home and have 7 players up the field, leaving the centre-backs far too much space to cover. There's too much space between the lines which gives the opposition space to play in.

But we looked good at the start of the season and I don't think that Kompany being there was the whole answer. We played Navas & Sterling as wide men but both covered the full-backs. So Kolarov, who we know is defensively suspect, had Sterling covering him. Without that, then the left-sided centre back has to cover, which creates gaps in front of the goal. But with cover in front of the full backs, the centre halves could concentrate on the middle of the park and not have ot worry too much about the flanks. But we seemed to stop that a few games in and it was noticeable that Sterling was coming in-field a lot more. Kompany's absence masked that to a large degree but that, to me, is the source of the problem. Play Toure if you have to but with Fernando/Fernadinho/Delph and behind a three of Sterling, Navas and Silva/De Bruyne.

You don't have to go all-out defensive; just make sure all the bases are covered.

Hard to disagree with any of that, other than my biggest bug bear, that our attacking players, all of them, whoever they are on the day, defend from the front, which we don't do.

 

[IWasHere]

Sorry, what's your basis for this? Both Mancini and MP have 1 title and 1 runners up spot plus 1 domestic cup. And we have been far better in the CL under MP. And "Mancini had less" is also misleading. Yes we have spent some big dollars since he left, but so too have all our rivals. The Scum have way out-spent us. This fact-free pining for Mancini is laughable.

He means defensively, well I think that's what he means....

 

[proachy]

Very good post, stopping that a few games in coincided with KDB joining us. Love him great player, but as has been said a few times, is it square pegs round holes?

If we could morph KDB's brilliance into Navas's work rate that would be one superb player.

 

[IWasHere]

Lowest number of shots conceded = Least number of chances needed to score against us.

You can twist statistics to suit any argument, but to be honest mate I 'd rather trust my two eyes and defensively they tell me a different story. Also with the least number of shots conceded, shouldn't we be running away with the league?

Stats are never the whole story mate as Saturday against WHU proved.....

+1

 

[Dribble]

He means defensively, well I think that's what he means....

It was exactly what I meant mate and he well knew it before he went off on his 'Pining for Mancini' rubbish. All I was trying to highlight is that Mancini achieved a better defensive record with Richards, Kolo, Lescott and Savic and we still managed to win a title. So what I don't get is why we seem so much worse defensively with a newly acquired £70m CB pairing and an experienced Argentinian International to call upon in the absence of Kompany?

Yes we're a stronger team with Kompany, but surely with all we have at our disposal we shouldn't be collapsing defensively as we are without him? As the adage says, 'There are lies, damned lies and statistics. And if these statistics were so impressive, what's with all the talk about Pep then?

 

[lasereyes]

Agreed that the free kick was a fantastic save and one that he is definitely capable of. I just think his problem is not ability when he's 'on it' (see Barcelona last season) I just think he lets himself down with his concentration in games we are dominating. That throw in was a case in point, had he been alive he should have claimed that every time or at least been out to block it much quicker. It was put in on the six yard box with a toe poke - that simply can't be right from a throw in!?

I love Joe, the man, and he represents our club fantastically well, it's just that I look at lloris yesterday and De gea consistently and they are a step up. The shots conceded per game vs goals conceded is not in Joe's favour to say we have one of the best keepers in Europe.

It is unbelievably harsh to blame Joe for the second goal. That was Otamendi's to defend and he allowed himself to get out-muscled.

 

[TonyM]

Arsene Wenger is our best manager of late.

 

[lasereyes]

It was exactly what I meant mate and he well knew it before he went off on his 'Pining for Mancini' rubbish. All I was trying to highlight is that Mancini achieved a better defensive record with Richards, Kolo, Lescott and Savic and we still managed to win a title. So what I don't get is why we seem so much worse defensively with a newly acquired £70m CB pairing and an experienced Argentinian International to call upon in the absence of Kompany?

Yes we're a stronger team with Kompany, but surely with all we have at our disposal we shouldn't be collapsing defensively as we are without him? As the adage says, 'There are lies, damned lies and statistics. And if these statistics were so impressive, what's with all the talk about Pep then?

First: you made a comment that "Mancini achieved more with less" which is completely false based on their comparative results. As a City fan you must know that (if you don't, we should end the discussion right here). Therefore, your preference for Mancini is down to something other than facts.

Second: Mancini focused on making us very hard to beat, at the cost of offensive weapons. By midway through our second season, teams had figured us out. We played pass the ball with no width and teams simply packed the centre of the field and closed us down. Resulting in an exceedingly ordinary Man Utd team running away with the title.

Third: Whether we had a better defensive record is completely irrelevant. Results are what counts. Unless of course you prefer a goalless draw to a 3-2 win.

 

[CelesteItis]

For fucks sake, this place is taken over by moaners of the same ilk as tarquins or smug entitled scum rags.

Any plans for a plane over the Etihad on Wednesday?

 

[Dax777]

Lowest shots conceded in the premier league and lowest number of offsides per game (despite playing a high line) it's clear the lino's give us very little protection - which I think we saw all too well against Spurs and Everton in the capital one cup. If anyone can't see an agenda in the way our defenders are portrayed and yaya is portrayed after seeing these stats it beggars belief.

This is controversial but I think we need a better keeper than Joe. He seems to struggle with concentration and picking things up after long periods of doing nothing. In the second half I thought di Michelis was imperious.

Smh.