Re: DE JONG LOL!
But the point is again and quite simply we were fluid with De Jong in the team,
Sorry but that is not a point in contention. The question is whether we are more or less fluid. My contention is that we are more fluid without De Jong. Also the issue with De Jong is not his passing, but his movement and decision making when City has possession. No one is asking him to split defenses, Yaya and Barry are not doing that, yet we are so muchbetter when they are the partnership at the base of our midfield, than when it is either/De Jong. The reason for this is quite obvious, Barry and Yaya can interchange seamlessly, with De Jong there simply isn't any interchange. He seats and the other doesn't. PERIOD!
The above fact simply tells me City is NOT as fluid with De Jong as they are without. Even fans who love De Jong (yourself probably included) do not disagree with this. When DE Jong plays, it is a given he seats in front of or sometimes between the CDs. With Barry and Yaya. You often can't tell who is the DM. In fact, there really is no actual DM, simply shared responsibility.
Now let me analogize for a second here. I may argue that when City plays Milner or Nasri as one of the wingers and SIlva as the other, City is much more fluid than when it plays Adam Johnson as the other winger. This is true often, because Adam Jonhnson often just stays outside on the right for most of the game, while the 3some of Milner/Silva and Nasri all rove in and out of pockets seamlessly. This makes City less predictable and harder to defend. This is the kind of argument I am making in re the fluidity of City in the absence of De Jong. It is partly a function of the kind of player he is, and partly a function of what the stats are telling us.
And? We could have been playing Accrington Stanley, the argument is whether he can play a part of a fluid system and the system is used against almost every time regardless of their quality. He played a part in a game where we basically had to break down 11 defenders which can be tough whether you're playing the best team in the world or a League Two side. Last season we could not break down sides like Birmingham and my point is again now we can - even with De Jong in the team - because of tactical changes and good signings on the attacking front (Aguero and Nasri).
That is an incorrect statement of the issue. Whether or not he can be a part of a fluid team is irrelevant really. If he couldn't he wouldn't be at City at all (I hope). The question is whether City is better with him in it or without him in it. My argument agrees with the "without him" position.
So you're pointing to the quality opposition to try and prove a point that Nigel can only play a part in our attacking style if they're rubbish. So if we were playing Liverpool for example he suddenly would be incompatible with our style of football? Really? Think about it.
Again, this line of argument is based on a strawman you have made up. I quoted the quality of the opposition simply to show that comparing games Nigel has played to those he didn't play may be unfair as the quality of the opposition is not the same. This was in response to your point that we scored more goals on average with him playing.
So if we can play the nice attacking style of football with De Jong in the team against an "8th place" type club like Villa, exactly who is it we don't need his qualities against?
I don't think we need him against the likes of Villa. Frankly, I'd start him against Arsenal, United, Barca, Real, Bayern, Napoli, Chelsea and Liverpool on the road, and perhaps against Barca, Real and United at home. But by and large, I'd use him situationally. If we are getting overrun in a game (which happens to everyone sometimes, I'd slot him in. But he will not be a certain starter coz we are better as a team without him than with him.
Wigan? West Brom? I'd agree there, they have poor midfields that we don't need protection against. But against 2/3 of Premier League sides De Jong has a place in the starting 11 and can play his part in this brand of football we're now playing. Look at Fulham for example. We smashed them in the first half but a sort of fatigue and complacency set in in the second half and we didn't seem to have any resistance in midfield at all. Hmm, who might have been a remedy to help fight off the Fulham onslaught?
De Jong! And that is exactly how he should be used. As a tactical change up, not a certain starter. When we lost our grip and energy in that game, that is when you bring in De Jong, to help quell a runnaway situation. Seeing as we were already two up, he is a good closer to have. Not a starter though!
Not quite indicative of the caliber of teams such as Bayern, and Napoli. 2 teams that have slanted the statiscal map.
This was my point for quoting the opposition. That it slants the stats!
You forget that De Jong has been injured for much of the season and even after returning has not looked 100%, not quite as ferocious and sharp in his duties. His last game before injury was another good performance, the 4-0 against Swansea, in which he went off injured in the second half. The game after that, when he was injured, was the 3-2 against Bolton where we leaked two stupid goals and played nice attacking football but again no better than against Swansea, suggesting once more than with or without him we can play this brand of football. And since the whole argument is "Can De Jong play in this system well?" then we only need to focus on the "with him".
This is a matter of opinion really. We as well if not better against Bolton than we did against Swansea, but that is not relevant really. . But tha is just a matter of opinion and how I saw it. I thought Swansea played us quite well. Bolton on the other hand got 2 goals, but really got played offf the park.
Now if this was a formal debate and I had to make a closing statement I'd simply say in questioning whether De Jong can or cannot play a part in this new system the most we can do is look at the four games he has started before and after his injury, in which we've battered every team with excellent football that he did not detract from at all. So until he starts a game and undoubtedly damages this system of football then I would say he has not been outgrown by the team at all.
The issue really is not whether De Jong can play "a part" in this new system. The issue is whether he should be a constant starter like he was last season "First name on the sheet" like many City fans like to say. My contention is that he shouldn't, because we are not as fluid, and we do not break teams down as well when he starts. And while it is true that we have won big in the 3 games he has started and completed. A closer look at those stats backup the claim that we are poorer at breaking teams down. There have been 6 games this season in which Manchester City created less than 15 shots a game.
City v. United (Charity Shield) Nigel De Jong started
City v. Bayern (Champions League) Did Not start, but substituted in
City v. Aston Villa (League) De Jong Started
City v. Wolves (Carling Cup) De Jong Started
City v. Villareal (Champions League) Nigel De Jong Started
Nigel De Jong Started and completed 4 of the other 5 games in which City failed to get 15 shots off. Mind you City averages 20 shots a game. But in these 5 games they were limited to less than 15 every time.
Sure we can excuse the Charity game (as we didn't have Aguero or Nasri), we can excuse the Wolves game, coz we had some backups and kids playing. He didn't start at Bayern, so that to can be excused. Aston Villa played negatively, a bit of a stretch, but hey! There is no excuse for Villareal, but maybe it was just one of those days. The chances just didn't come, and we were winning. So no reason to force the issue. These things do happen.
But cumulatively, it is shocking the correlation between the presence of De Jong and low number of chances created. That we scored a lot in those games on few opportunities, shouldn't obscure this.
Now if you switch to the other end of the table i.e. What we gain defensively from his presence. First I start by checking games in which City conceded more than 15 shots a game.
We have
United (Carling Cup)(22)
Totenham (League)(21)
Bayern Champs League(24)
QPR League(18)
De Jong Started one those games. Subbed in on one, and was absent in 2.
Now lets look at games in which we conceded the least amount of shots.
Villareal (5)
Blackburn(6)
Bolton (7)
Everton (8)
Swansea (8)
De Jong was only present in 2 of the 5 and absent in 3. Now clearly there is a correlation between De Jong's presence in the team and a better defense. But that correlation is way weaker than the correlations between his presence and a lower ability to created chances.
Thus, in conclusion I'd argue the stats already shows that City with De Jong is not as Fluid or as Dynamic as City without De Jong!
