Club Philosophy vs Club Identity...

Bigga

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Mar 2005
Messages
21,949
Location
The Blue Buus... is callin us... Driver, where you
But what’s your point ? By your own admonition NYCfC did well and played the CFG style I am sure they still do Melbourne have done well recently and got singled out my Khaldoon in the end of season review We clearly play the CFG style and it’s worked. The women seem to play the same but with less ability They have been successful not sure as much this year but only just so what’s the issue ? Where is the conflict ? Between identity and philosophy ?
I'll take your last point first.

I'm not sure how other club fans have felt post CFG takeover, but if it's in any way like I felt in the beginning of CFG's takeover, then I would lament the idea of my team's organic progress win or lose as it's part of the club DNA that I've known all my life... But, since then, we've won stuff and the Man City imprint has broken its way through the CFG armour and the fact that nothing is guaranteed at City is a 'welcome home' aspect for me. This is a personal viewpoint, so it would be interesting to know about other fans view on CFG and where their clubs are.

Nature vs nurture.

Secondly, if you're using Melbourne City as a guideline, they've come 2nd once, last year, since CFG took over. I grant they have moved into the top 10 of their league regularly since then as opposed to the latter half pre-CFG. Small progress.

I guess I'm interested in the footballing philosophy as a whole. All teams want to play attacking football and want to play to win and yet we constantly hear of playing a 'particular way' of football; Guardiola's way, it seems.

If this is accurate, surely it cannot be a 'one size fits all football clubs' methodology and flexibility is a must in order to circumvent failure and allow organic growth to success for all the teams. Like I said, it will be player or coach dependant to implement CFG football.

And, as I keep saying and you not understanding, Nick Cushing abandoned this philosophy, quite a lot, in order for his teams to win their titles, so it became organic in when to use the philosophy with the players he did at his disposal.

I think what he did took guts, actually.

So, I'd like to think other managers have the same remit, but I don't think this is quite the case.

Incidentally, I missed the NYCFC game, as it was last night and I know they won. Via the highlights, "held on" seems to be the overriding impression, so I could do with catching the whole game.
 

mccity

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 Jun 2010
Messages
12,020
Location
SebastianBlue: mccity is very, very often on point
Good post.

I just think CFG are risking the pressure of their strategy being being deemed a failure way before it ever gets the chance of being 'successful'!

The odds are high, therefore, that it will be disbanded before then and then, what would the point have been of it, at all?
Thanks.


Whether it's deemed a failure probably won't matter as long as if they achieve the goal eventually.

When you take into account the ambition, determination, firepower, and financial backing, it's likely that they'll keep going until they get what they want. Or die. Whatever happens first.



Think about it like United in the league. They've been shit for years but they can afford to spend so much on players that they're consistently propped up in the table. Maybe not too high up but nowhere near as close to failure as they deserve to be based on the management and coaching. And they can keep spending, and spending, and spending, and they're always going to be fairly near the top. All it takes is for a few things to align and then all of a sudden they're competitive again. Now imagine that but with more competent people in charge, and on a much wider scale. That's the CFG plan.
 

KS55

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 Oct 2016
Messages
7,288
Very interesting.
Personally, I don't think you can get 10 clubs in different countries all playing 'the Pep way'. The best you can do is to set out a broad philosophy and recruit high class managers, giving them free reign to implement that philosophy as they see fit.
That broad 'CFG way' may be something like:
"We will play football which is attacking, entertaining, and winning. Accurate, creative and incisive passing will be the hall mark of a CFG club."

If you then recruit high class coaches/managers, they wont be playing hoofball or Maurinho style bus parking, but you have to let them manage as they see fit. What would be the point of getting top guys in if you put them in a straightjacket?
 

Craig

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 Jul 2006
Messages
2,620
womans football quality of lower leagues ?, woman's football gets over hyped ,stick the womans team in the 4th division they wouldn't get a point, not sure they would score a goal.
They wouldn’t,a half decent pub side would absolutely batter them. Their technique and lack of quality is unbelievably bad considering they’re professional. I thought by now they’d begin to catch up in terms of quality compared to other women’s sports but it’s yet to happen.
 

lancs blue

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 Jul 2007
Messages
22,135
Location
It's barm so STFU.
Agreed.

Now, I don't subscribe to the notion that the women can't pass as quick and as dynamic as the men, but they can and will do this at whatever the top level will be (an unknown quantity at this point).

I just don't think the philosophy can be crowbarred in at every level. For City Women, I think they need it introduced slower to understand its mechanics, positives and negatives.

This is why Cushing abandoned the philosophy a fair bit and allowed it when the opposition would let that happen.

Now, the opposition doesn't, full stop and we're seeing the difficulties to challenge this tactic as we have with the men.
I agree with most of your points re the women's team. I think Cushing's team that included Parris, Duggan, a younger Jill Scott and Bronze and Stokes as overlapping FBs did play pass and move from the back very well at times and could cut through the opposition. After some of those players left I think we found it difficult to recruit the right type of replacement - a number of high-profile players we brought in around that time barely seemed to last a full season. Watching the match yesterday that may still be part of the problem though obviously it could also partly be new coach/new players needing time to settle in.
 

WRicko

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Jan 2016
Messages
811
I'll take your last point first.

I'm not sure how other club fans have felt post CFG takeover, but if it's in any way like I felt in the beginning of CFG's takeover, then I would lament the idea of my team's organic progress win or lose as it's part of the club DNA that I've known all my life... But, since then, we've won stuff and the Man City imprint has broken its way through the CFG armour and the fact that nothing is guaranteed at City is a 'welcome home' aspect for me. This is a personal viewpoint, so it would be interesting to know about other fans view on CFG and where their clubs are.

Nature vs nurture.

Secondly, if you're using Melbourne City as a guideline, they've come 2nd once, last year, since CFG took over. I grant they have moved into the top 10 of their league regularly since then as opposed to the latter half pre-CFG. Small progress.

I guess I'm interested in the footballing philosophy as a whole. All teams want to play attacking football and want to play to win and yet we constantly hear of playing a 'particular way' of football; Guardiola's way, it seems.

If this is accurate, surely it cannot be a 'one size fits all football clubs' methodology and flexibility is a must in order to circumvent failure and allow organic growth to success for all the teams. Like I said, it will be player or coach dependant to implement CFG football.

And, as I keep saying and you not understanding, Nick Cushing abandoned this philosophy, quite a lot, in order for his teams to win their titles, so it became organic in when to use the philosophy with the players he did at his disposal.

I think what he did took guts, actually.

So, I'd like to think other managers have the same remit, but I don't think this is quite the case.


I'll take your last point first.

I'm not sure how other club fans have felt post CFG takeover, but if it's in any way like I felt in the beginning of CFG's takeover, then I would lament the idea of my team's organic progress win or lose as it's part of the club DNA that I've known all my life... But, since then, we've won stuff and the Man City imprint has broken its way through the CFG armour and the fact that nothing is guaranteed at City is a 'welcome home' aspect for me. This is a personal viewpoint, so it would be interesting to know about other fans view on CFG and where their clubs are.

Nature vs nurture.

Secondly, if you're using Melbourne City as a guideline, they've come 2nd once, last year, since CFG took over. I grant they have moved into the top 10 of their league regularly since then as opposed to the latter half pre-CFG. Small progress.

I guess I'm interested in the footballing philosophy as a whole. All teams want to play attacking football and want to play to win and yet we constantly hear of playing a 'particular way' of football; Guardiola's way, it seems.

If this is accurate, surely it cannot be a 'one size fits all football clubs' methodology and flexibility is a must in order to circumvent failure and allow organic growth to success for all the teams. Like I said, it will be player or coach dependant to implement CFG football.

And, as I keep saying and you not understanding, Nick Cushing abandoned this philosophy, quite a lot, in order for his teams to win their titles, so it became organic in when to use the philosophy with the players he did at his disposal.

I think what he did took guts, actually.

So, I'd like to think other managers have the same remit, but I don't think this is quite the case.

Incidentally, I missed the NYCFC game, as it was last night and I know they won. Via the highlights, "held on" seems to be the overriding impression, so I could do with catching the whole game.
So basically you think in order to justify the takeover and reduction in independent club culture of the clubs bought by CFG they have sweep all before them and be unstoppable ? How do we define success ? It took us longer than we perhaps remember to really start winning. They have not been owned as long .The goals for these clubs are basically domestic trophies. Our goals are international We have not completed those goals yet. You could argue if NYCFC won the title this year and next and we failed to win the Champions league that they have done better than us when set against these goals

Also what is club culture / identity ? Only 27 so perhaps I cannot comment but by all account the West Ham way for example has not been a real thing since the 1966 world cup but they as fans would swear by it.

I would happily argue with rival fans that our owner has embraced our culture / identity more than any owner in the league or any owner in our recent history by point to the academy development development of the stadium the area around it the womens team and the increased spending on charity

All clubs are very different to MCFC though NYCFC & Melbourne are operating in different leagues with fewer financial resources in part because of the structure of the league in terms of financial regulations at least when compared to a brief period at the start for us when FFP had not come into full force. They also have few financial resources just by the nature of their leagues global appeal. I suspect that NYCFC need to and continue to need to save up for capital investment. We could rite it off under FFP. We as City fans do not really know about these other clubs let alone the clubs they compete against. Despite the tight financial controls it looks like some of the new franchise in America are doing well perhaps spending a lot ? Are there not now a few American owners going into the MLS for more than money unlike the Americans in the prem. In the form of music stars ex sports people etc?

The other clubs bought by CFG do not really come into it as they are basically youth development clubs with the exception of China and India and possible one or two other clubs we might look at further down the line e.g. Mexico Brazil South Africa and perhaps other parts of Asia where you could say that yes there is a youth development / football development element but they are also countries with large domestic markets and so can generate high attendances and lots of sponsorship. This is all hard to predict though because even in bigger richer emerging markets attendance of events is a luxury (the next step for CFG is no doubt non football event attendance).

I still think all the teams are by all accounts playing decent football including the womens team even when successful. Melbourne are starting to be more successful. Did the team in Japan not do really well last year ? NYCFC are perhaps letting the side down a bit in terms of success but I think they are improving. Not really bothered about the others as I say they are newer some are development teams.
 

Father Paul

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
2,403
Now, I don’t assume they are the same thing and after watching the Women’s game, it got finally me confronting the simmering thoughts that have been around in the last few weeks.

Now, before I start, I want to make it clear this is not an anti-CFG rant, but a discussion on what the point is.

I understand the desire to play ‘the beautiful game’ and much of that is a desire we all want but, clearly, there are issues in the delivery of such a desire. My thoughts first started activating around the NYCFC results in the last couple of weeks and, now, the City Women team. It occurred to me that this ‘philosophy’ can only work when a club has the manager or players to enact it; which is why the teams mentioned are struggling.

With that said, if the club do not have the ‘right’ players, the ‘right’ manager is going to struggle and vice versa.

I know both iterations have changed over the years and will change again, but I feel CFG may have complicated the matter further by the conjoining of different clubs with different ethos and different footballing identity than ours. Or maybe these subjects are organic in their own right?

All I feel is that crowbarring a manager into a ‘philosophy’ does not work well, just because it works for the intended original target. That is also why I felt Nick Cushing’s City Women team struggled with the footballing philosophy and why it was abandoned through quite a lot of his winning tenure.

Torrent was the right man for this philosophy at NYCFC, but he didn’t quite have the team of players to implement the ideas. I feel Gareth Taylor may suffer a similar fate with City Women if he’s not allowed to veer out of binds of the CFG philosophy.

Our club’s identity is whatever we make it as fans and I choose to believe we’re fooking fighters or have become so, as our motto says and it’s the glorious meeting of both philosophy and identity that creates the special moments we’ve been lucky to see!

I guess I’m just wondering if CFG should allow the managers to work within their own remit to move the respective teams forward and, ultimately, garner the success the CFG project obviously crave.

Anyway, just thinking out aloud and wondering if there are any thoughts on it?
Personally I am opposed to the CFG full stop. For me it is an economic entity and football is a secondary consideration. I feel absolutely no afinity to any of the affiliates and even though last winter while visiting Australia I almost ended up at a Melbourne match I would have had absolutely no skin in the game. I can see where the money men are heading but for me its soulless.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.