malg
Well-Known Member
It's just football...
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 ?
Not sure NYCFC are struggling, they had a poor start but have won 4 of the last 5, 13 from 15 points.
Thanks.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?
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.
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.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'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.
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.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?