St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:Didsbury Dave said:St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:Evening pal....:-)
Welcome aboard fella. Like old times on here ;-)
you know something mate,I have tried hard to steer clear of this thread in recent weeks.Just dipping in and out here and there.
I am still undecided about Pellegrini I am not going to lie but I was very impressed with how we set up on Sunday.
I am more confident than ever that in 4-5 weeks the table will look a whole lot different especially with the next few weeks fixtures coming up.
Not true, Kompany and Demichelis are both just as capable on the left of the central defence as the right. I also don't buy the right sided players deal. For decent CBs, generally it doesn't make a difference, and most right footed CBs are well acquainted with playing both sides throughout their careers. Look at Kompany, when on the left...absolutely brilliant.BluessinceHydeRoad said:Both Kompany and Dimichaelis are right sided players and it seems Pellegrini prefers a right left combination as many managers do. This appears to be the reason he has played Garcia in the absence of both Kompany and Dimichaelis.
I am sure that Pellegrini does prefer a right-left combo but perhaps he is more concerned with how well players pass the ball than with which foot they do it? Lescott’s recent non-selection might be about more than which foot he favours. Nasty’s less than glorious hand in at least a third of league goals conceded so far may see Demichelis preferred.BluessinceHydeRoad said:Both Kompany and Dimichaelis are right sided players and it seems Pellegrini prefers a right left combination as many managers do. This appears to be the reason he has played Garcia in the absence of both Kompany and Dimichaelis.
The manager is responsible for the team’s results but that does not make all the bad ones his fault.BluessinceHydeRoad said:Regarding the blunders, it is true that the players are the ones on the pitch and they make the mistakes, but I don't think that in these cases it absolves Pellegrini of responsibility.
We’ve changed how we defend but that doesn’t mean the change will be perfectly executed from the off. Practice makes perfect and if the existing players cannot perfect it, they will have to be replaced and they will be. In the interim, the manager may need to make some compromises in his approach but I don’t think the time for that has arrived.BluessinceHydeRoad said:I say "these cases" because our defenders - all of them - are making the same mistakes depressingly regularly. Anything in the air beyond our backline seems to cause problems. Players seem uncertain as to whether they should keep the line and play for offside or drop back and play the ball. The result is some do one thing and some do the other. Against Everton Lescott played for offside while Vinnie hung back and played Lukaku onside. Against Moscow Garcia went for the header, Nastasic kept the line but Zabaleta hung back but didn't come across to cover, so Tosic was onside, Nastasic out of the game and City went one down. Against Villa Vinnie kept the line, Nastasic hung back, so that when Vinnie didn't win the ball Weimann was onside and clear. Joe made it easier for him by his rash charge. These are organisational problems.
Sorry but now I think you are completely wrong. I am confident that the players will have been told very clearly what is expected of them and I do not believe for one moment that Pellegrini won’t be doing enough on the training ground.BluessinceHydeRoad said:City were not picked apart by imaginative attacking play: they were done by the same kind of pass. And on Sunday we saw the back line paralysd by uncertainty of how to deal with a cross played over them. The only response for much of the game was to appeal for offside! On Sunday this included a player who is no stranger to Pellegrini's methods - but the others seem to be as uncertain as ever. If Pellegrini is being let down by the players, he's being let down by some bloody good ones and it's because they don't have a clue as to what he wants them to do. It's as bad as playing three at the back last season. I don't think Pellegrini is doing enough on the training ground
We lost one of the four games that Garcia played centre back: Cardiff and those goals were not down to him. That was my point about Garcia.BluessinceHydeRoad said:As to your point about Garcia and defeats, I do not believe that a defeat can be down to one single player and I certainly wouldn't blame Garcia for any defeat. He was asked to play out of position and did his best. He's one of a back four, but a back four which doesn't function as a unit and so he's as much a contributor to the confusion - but no more so - as the other three. At Cardiff, for instance, all five contributed to the debacle.
BobKowalski said:OB1 said:BobKowalski said:You mean have I amended my views based on Pellers embracing the dark side namely pragmatism in the last 2 Pl matches? Well of course I have. If I posit a theory based on what I am seeing and then see a change in what I am seeing I am more than happy to change my view. It does beg the question why it took him so long or what possessed him in the Bayern match but better late than never. Equally it doesn't change the fact that Ferran and Txiki are determined to implement a City style of play and that our default position will be what we have seen most of the season especially as a blind man can see that our squad is structured on this basis. That Pellers has now shifted his stance to accommodate a more conservative, ie sensible, formation for big away matches is one I agree with.
Its called discussion, debate and discourse. Views are formulated and then reviewed and/or revised based on further events. Its a fairly adult concept and one you seem to struggle with. Name calling you have down pat so its not all bad news.
Where you honestly surprised that Pellegrini is prepared to be more pragmatic when he thinks it is warranted?
No. I was more surprised that he wasn't pragmatic earlier. Or to be accurate against Bayern. That's when I started speculating if there was something deeper than just Pellers getting it totally wrong ie that he was working under a remit to develop a discernible style of play and not tinker too much on a match by match basis or even during the match as until the West Ham match his in game management had been poor.
At West Ham he made positive changes, stiffened the midfield and got control of the match and we then hit them on the counter. It was by far his best match and I said so in the post match thread. His line up against Chelsea was also a positive step and I had no issue there. I may have preferred Milner to Navas as sub but thats about it.
Obviously my speculation as evidenced by the last two PL matches was wide of the mark. Funnily enough I was attempting to explain Pellers selection policy other than just brand him an idiot and was partly based on Ferran's comments about establishing a City style or philosophy. It made sense to me that if you are trying to bed in a City style you don't change it from match to match and take any short term reverses as part of the leaning process.
Anyway its all a bit moot as pragmatism has made an appearance and I can't fault Pellers for that. However to be contrary I do like the idea of a City philosophy and would be sympathetic to any manager charged with making it happen. Overseeing that and keeping the team on course for a title push would be a tough gig.
Where I lack sympathy is over our defensive frailties which have been apparent since pre season. Irrespective of whether we are implementing a new style or not it is unacceptable to have almost every match where a punt forward catches you out. Nor is it acceptable to concede the quality of chances that we are doing. Both Chelsea's goals were into an empty net with the first from 1 yard out. We will not win the title when our defence is reduced to a quivering wreck at the sight of a hopeful punt upfield.
Didsbury Dave said:BobKowalski said:OB1 said:Where you honestly surprised that Pellegrini is prepared to be more pragmatic when he thinks it is warranted?
No. I was more surprised that he wasn't pragmatic earlier. Or to be accurate against Bayern. That's when I started speculating if there was something deeper than just Pellers getting it totally wrong ie that he was working under a remit to develop a discernible style of play and not tinker too much on a match by match basis or even during the match as until the West Ham match his in game management had been poor.
At West Ham he made positive changes, stiffened the midfield and got control of the match and we then hit them on the counter. It was by far his best match and I said so in the post match thread. His line up against Chelsea was also a positive step and I had no issue there. I may have preferred Milner to Navas as sub but thats about it.
Obviously my speculation as evidenced by the last two PL matches was wide of the mark. Funnily enough I was attempting to explain Pellers selection policy other than just brand him an idiot and was partly based on Ferran's comments about establishing a City style or philosophy. It made sense to me that if you are trying to bed in a City style you don't change it from match to match and take any short term reverses as part of the leaning process.
Anyway its all a bit moot as pragmatism has made an appearance and I can't fault Pellers for that. However to be contrary I do like the idea of a City philosophy and would be sympathetic to any manager charged with making it happen. Overseeing that and keeping the team on course for a title push would be a tough gig.
Where I lack sympathy is over our defensive frailties which have been apparent since pre season. Irrespective of whether we are implementing a new style or not it is unacceptable to have almost every match where a punt forward catches you out. Nor is it acceptable to concede the quality of chances that we are doing. Both Chelsea's goals were into an empty net with the first from 1 yard out. We will not win the title when our defence is reduced to a quivering wreck at the sight of a hopeful punt upfield.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and I told you this last week, is that having a City "style of play" is not the same as having a city formation. The concept of a manager being forced to play in one single formation is, and was last week when you touted it, a ridiculous concept to anyone with more than a passing interest in the sport of football.
And with regard to your comments about our defensive errors, its hardly an insight worthy of Rinus Michels to declare that we need to cut them out.
OB1 said:BobKowalski said:OB1 said:Where you honestly surprised that Pellegrini is prepared to be more pragmatic when he thinks it is warranted?
No. I was more surprised that he wasn't pragmatic earlier. Or to be accurate against Bayern. That's when I started speculating if there was something deeper than just Pellers getting it totally wrong ie that he was working under a remit to develop a discernible style of play and not tinker too much on a match by match basis or even during the match as until the West Ham match his in game management had been poor.
At West Ham he made positive changes, stiffened the midfield and got control of the match and we then hit them on the counter. It was by far his best match and I said so in the post match thread. His line up against Chelsea was also a positive step and I had no issue there. I may have preferred Milner to Navas as sub but thats about it.
Obviously my speculation as evidenced by the last two PL matches was wide of the mark. Funnily enough I was attempting to explain Pellers selection policy other than just brand him an idiot and was partly based on Ferran's comments about establishing a City style or philosophy. It made sense to me that if you are trying to bed in a City style you don't change it from match to match and take any short term reverses as part of the leaning process.
Anyway its all a bit moot as pragmatism has made an appearance and I can't fault Pellers for that. However to be contrary I do like the idea of a City philosophy and would be sympathetic to any manager charged with making it happen. Overseeing that and keeping the team on course for a title push would be a tough gig.
Where I lack sympathy is over our defensive frailties which have been apparent since pre season. Irrespective of whether we are implementing a new style or not it is unacceptable to have almost every match where a punt forward catches you out. Nor is it acceptable to concede the quality of chances that we are doing. Both Chelsea's goals were into an empty net with the first from 1 yard out. We will not win the title when our defence is reduced to a quivering wreck at the sight of a hopeful punt upfield.
I confess that I was a bit surprised that MP didn't play one up top against Bayern.
I am confident that the defensive problems are short-term but we do need a rapid improvement if we are to win the league this season. Probably the kiss of death for the poor guy but I have a sneaking suspicion that Demichelis is going to be our secret weapon in that regard.