Discuss Pellegrini....

[OB1]

It's given me great heart reading this. I have been quite down after Monday, as I am sure many of us have.

I have been thinking we may very well not win the league now and next season Mourinho's been making all these noises about how next season his will be the full Monty, firing on all cylinders side. I don't doubt it. He's also said we will all understand why he didn't buy a striker in January when we see what happens in summer. This can only mean some big shot is joining. Please God, don't let it be Messi he's got lined up.

But then I remembered, we have played devastating football this season. No-one can live with us when we are all present and fit and fully on it. I truly mean no-one, not even Bayern. If we do strengthen by bringing in a top quality partner for Kompany, and a backup for Fern and Yaya, then I don't give a stuff what Maureen does, we will reign supreme.

Chelsea might have Shrek lined up but I don't see Messi wantng to play for Mou. If Messi leaves Barca, I see City as far and away the most likely destination.

 

[Gillespie]

Do you remember our game at Stamford Bridge ? Do you remember Chelsea's first goal ? Do you know who was responsible for that goal ? Demichelis !

VK commands the back line, it makes absolutley no sense to move him into midfield and replace him with Demichelis.

I think Jovetic could only play for 30 minutes. He did come back from a long injury. MP probably didn't want to risk him.

Do you get so furious with Pellegrini every time he selects MDM in defence , because it seems to me that he thinks he can play there quite adequately.
Our back line had to deal with aged Eto'o on his own while our midfield had to deal with Hazard , Willian , Ramires etc so you can see where the pressure points were , and where action was necessary.

Mourinho's thugs will target MDM , regardless of where you put him, in defence or in midfield, it doesn't matter, they will find him and bully him.

-- Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:26 pm --

It's given me great heart reading this. I have been quite down after Monday, as I am sure many of us have.

I have been thinking we may very well not win the league now and next season Mourinho's been making all these noises about how next season his will be the full Monty, firing on all cylinders side. I don't doubt it. He's also said we will all understand why he didn't buy a striker in January when we see what happens in summer. This can only mean some big shot is joining. Please God, don't let it be Messi he's got lined up.

But then I remembered, we have played devastating football this season. No-one can live with us when we are all present and fit and fully on it. I truly mean no-one, not even Bayern. If we do strengthen by bringing in a top quality partner for Kompany, and a backup for Fern and Yaya, then I don't give a stuff what Maureen does, we will reign supreme.

Don't be down. This saturday Arsenal will travel to Anfield. They will drop points. We will win against Norwich and get back to the summit.

You reckon?

 

[OB1]

I don't remember that Holland team (before my time) but the team that sticks in my memory is the Brazil 82 side. It was the first World Cup I could remember but that team was magical, pure fantasy. I can remember the great goals and could still name the lineup. The only thing I can remember about the eventual winners is Paolo Rossi. History remembers these magical sides that inspire and fire the imagination, not the pragmatic, organised and rather dull sides.

That Brazil side and the Dutch side of '74 are the two best teams never to win the World Cup.

 

[silvasleftleg]

Do you get so furious with Pellegrini every time he selects MDM in defence , because it seems to me that he thinks he can play there quite adequately.
Our back line had to deal with aged Eto'o on his own while our midfield had to deal with Hazard , Willian , Ramires etc so you can see where the pressure points were , and where action was necessary.

Mourinho's thugs will target MDM , regardless of where you put him, in defence or in midfield, it doesn't matter, they will find him and bully him.

-- Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:26 pm --

It's given me great heart reading this. I have been quite down after Monday, as I am sure many of us have.

I have been thinking we may very well not win the league now and next season Mourinho's been making all these noises about how next season his will be the full Monty, firing on all cylinders side. I don't doubt it. He's also said we will all understand why he didn't buy a striker in January when we see what happens in summer. This can only mean some big shot is joining. Please God, don't let it be Messi he's got lined up.

But then I remembered, we have played devastating football this season. No-one can live with us when we are all present and fit and fully on it. I truly mean no-one, not even Bayern. If we do strengthen by bringing in a top quality partner for Kompany, and a backup for Fern and Yaya, then I don't give a stuff what Maureen does, we will reign supreme.

Don't be down. This saturday Arsenal will travel to Anfield. They will drop points. We will win against Norwich and get back to the summit.

You reckon?

Liverpool are strong side. Particularly at Anfield. I don't think Arsenal have a chance against them.

We will be back at the top of the table, where we belong. Everyone will be praising Pellegrini again.

 

[cleavers]

One reason Pellegrini keeps playing the same way is because he believes, with justification, that his side is better than the opposition. Why should he start by making concessions to the opponents in such circumstances? Chelsea had to adapt their gameplan to try and stop City because City have a better team. The plan worked for Chelsea because they scored first but City's approach could and should have yielded the first goal; unfortunately, City had two narrow misses from great opportunities that Chelsea were powerless to prevent i.e. that Chelsea didn't go behind owed nothing to the genius of Mourinho or fabulous defending by his team.

Chelsea did not have a better gameplan but on the day, the just managed to execute it better than a City side shorn of, arguably, it's three leading contenders for player of the season.

I think there are similarities between Pellegrini and Wenger.

Both have a belief and a system of play which they refuse to compromise in the face of cynical opponents.

They are purists and idealists. We should be glad of people like them. Our game would be poorer without them.

The game needs these romantics more than the philistines like Mourinho.

I agree, even though I'm not a fan of Wenger the man, who for me seems to lack a bit of class when he loses. MP never seems to do this (I only have this year to go on as I never knew much about him before he shipped up at City), but he praises other teams when there is a reverse, and sometimes even when we win well. Wenger is often gracious in victory, but rarely in defeat, and never sees anything wrong in Arsenal.

 

[cleavers]

Liverpool are strong side. Particularly at Anfield. I don't think Arsenal have a chance against them.

We will be back at the top of the table, where we belong. Everyone will be praising Pellegrini again.

There's nothing like counting chickens before they hatch. Arsenal may struggle at Liverpool, but us beating Norwich is not the formality it would be with any of Fernandhino, Aguero, or Nasri fit. we should win, but Chelsea should have beaten West Ham 2 games ago, yet didn't.

 

[Dribble]

We have been told that there was no alternative on Monday .
Reminds me of Thatcher in the80s .
There are always alternatives - it's usually just the lack of willingness to even consider them that prompts those kind of remarks.
If my car breaks down , I don't complain that I can't go to anywhere, I go and get a bus , it's not as comfy but it is just as effective.

You should get a taxi....

Can't afford it mate -need all the dosh to get the car fixed!

Ha ha ha.... Quality Lol :-)

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I enjoyed the movement of the discussion into philosophy and think it's an interesting one. To me on that basis it's about being the most effective in implementing your philosophy against your opposition, which you can see Chelsea did because they didn't change their philosophy but they kept Oscar on the bench, so their style and philosophy didn't change but the players and their attributes did.

Some people are going with the argument that literally nobody apart from Panty, Boyata or Lopes was fit enough to play on our bench. To me we could still have kept the attacking philosophy but this is honestly where I'd have changed it. Chelsea are a strong, physical and aerially good side so to me it was pointless to keep trying the wing play and relentless crossing, I'd have started differently and morphed it into that because of the need to switch my starting line-up around with subs.

I'd have taken the risk and started Jovetic, and I would have played him as the second striker off Dzeko, kept Negredo on the bench as impact and allowed Silva to roam. For me the way you hurt Chelsea is pace in the middle, so I would have used Navas more centrally, making runs between the fullback and centre back and between the two centre backs, thus moving them out of position a yard and giving Silva and Jovetic that extra space. I would have honestly used Navas as a box to box and used his pace and energy to disrupt the Chelsea counter attacks, he didn't need to be strong he just needed to nip at their heels and slow it down. I would have used the full backs as overlapping width, thus meaning Azpilicueta and Ivanovic would essentially be marking nobody and would be eventually caught trying to come in and providing the space to get round the back but in a meaningful attacking way. With Demichelis then being a holding, deep lying playmaker you have some of the passing of Fern and some of the energy and pace in Navas thus compensating for him better, and you attack Chelsea where I think it would have been more uncomfortable for them, round Luiz, Terry and Cahill in the heart of the defence on the floor with Navas darting in and out as he pleased. Yaya would then be able to push on and go at them at the heart of their defence, rather than deeper, with the cover of Dem and work rate of Navas compensating for him.

It's not ideal playing Martin and Jesus out of their preferred position but by delegating them their strong attributes to use in those roles I think we could have still been attacking but had more of the all round play Fern provides and allowed Silva and Yaya a bit better central service and room to play. Jovetic could maybe have done a half or 60 minutes, then Negredo could come as a battering ram and depending on Navas's state then Jimmy could have come on for 20 mins/half an hour, either keeping the same shape as that or moving it to a wing based system, putting Clichy on and allowing Kolarov to just play as a winger, because sorry but all it takes is him whacking it low into the box for something to happen, if we'd still needed a goal with our resources that would have been a good option considering.

I think we kept our philosophy but targeted the wrong areas to attack Chelsea, and I think you can retain your philosophy but adjust your lineup, formation and tactics to exploit the weakness of your opposition. At least once it was clear our A tactics of getting it wide and going aerially weren't working I think you have to shake it up even if it means moving someone out of position just to get the other team guessing and making a mistake trying to cope with the different threat.

I still feel Pelle was hoping too much that what he'd set out to do would work rather than seeing what was available and using our philosophy to come up with something creative to create new and unexpected threats for the Chelsea backline.

I know people will go "Navas as CM? stupid idea" and shoot me down and state how he was MOTM (despite me thinking he didn't do nearly enough with the amount of ball he got and that Azpilicueta did really well against him) in their eyes, but I think giving Chelsea a taste of what they thought they'd escaped in Aguero being out (the pace and movement) would have presented us with clearer opportunities in better areas of the pitch.

 

[Petetheblu]

One reason Pellegrini keeps playing the same way is because he believes, with justification, that his side is better than the opposition. Why should he start by making concessions to the opponents in such circumstances? Chelsea had to adapt their gameplan to try and stop City because City have a better team. The plan worked for Chelsea because they scored first but City's approach could and should have yielded the first goal; unfortunately, City had two narrow misses from great opportunities that Chelsea were powerless to prevent i.e. that Chelsea didn't go behind owed nothing to the genius of Mourinho or fabulous defending by his team.

Chelsea did not have a better gameplan but on the day, the just managed to execute it better than a City side shorn of, arguably, it's three leading contenders for player of the season.

I think there are similarities between Pellegrini and Wenger.

Both have a belief and a system of play which they refuse to compromise in the face of cynical opponents.

They are purists and idealists. We should be glad of people like them. Our game would be poorer without them.

The game needs these romantics more than the philistines like Mourinho.

I thought you was a big maureen fan?

 

[silvasleftleg]

I enjoyed the movement of the discussion into philosophy and think it's an interesting one. To me on that basis it's about being the most effective in implementing your philosophy against your opposition, which you can see Chelsea did because they didn't change their philosophy but they kept Oscar on the bench, so their style and philosophy didn't change but the players and their attributes did.

Some people are going with the argument that literally nobody apart from Panty, Boyata or Lopes was fit enough to play on our bench. To me we could still have kept the attacking philosophy but this is honestly where I'd have changed it. Chelsea are a strong, physical and aerially good side so to me it was pointless to keep trying the wing play and relentless crossing, I'd have started differently and morphed it into that because of the need to switch my starting line-up around with subs.

I'd have taken the risk and started Jovetic, and I would have played him as the second striker off Dzeko, kept Negredo on the bench as impact and allowed Silva to roam. For me the way you hurt Chelsea is pace in the middle, so I would have used Navas more centrally, making runs between the fullback and centre back and between the two centre backs, thus moving them out of position a yard and giving Silva and Jovetic that extra space. I would have honestly used Navas as a box to box and used his pace and energy to disrupt the Chelsea counter attacks, he didn't need to be strong he just needed to nip at their heels and slow it down. I would have used the full backs as overlapping width, thus meaning Azpilicueta and Ivanovic would essentially be marking nobody and would be eventually caught trying to come in and providing the space to get round the back but in a meaningful attacking way. With Demichelis then being a holding, deep lying playmaker you have some of the passing of Fern and some of the energy and pace in Navas thus compensating for him better, and you attack Chelsea where I think it would have been more uncomfortable for them, round Luiz, Terry and Cahill in the heart of the defence on the floor with Navas darting in and out as he pleased. Yaya would then be able to push on and go at them at the heart of their defence, rather than deeper, with the cover of Dem and work rate of Navas compensating for him.

It's not ideal playing Martin and Jesus out of their preferred position but by delegating them their strong attributes to use in those roles I think we could have still been attacking but had more of the all round play Fern provides and allowed Silva and Yaya a bit better central service and room to play. Jovetic could maybe have done a half or 60 minutes, then Negredo could come as a battering ram and depending on Navas's state then Jimmy could have come on for 20 mins/half an hour, either keeping the same shape as that or moving it to a wing based system, putting Clichy on and allowing Kolarov to just play as a winger, because sorry but all it takes is him whacking it low into the box for something to happen, if we'd still needed a goal with our resources that would have been a good option considering.

I think we kept our philosophy but targeted the wrong areas to attack Chelsea, and I think you can retain your philosophy but adjust your lineup, formation and tactics to exploit the weakness of your opposition. At least once it was clear our A tactics of getting it wide and going aerially weren't working I think you have to shake it up even if it means moving someone out of position just to get the other team guessing and making a mistake trying to cope with the different threat.

I still feel Pelle was hoping too much that what he'd set out to do would work rather than seeing what was available and using our philosophy to come up with something creative to create new and unexpected threats for the Chelsea backline.

I know people will go "Navas as CM? stupid idea" and shoot me down and state how he was MOTM (despite me thinking he didn't do nearly enough with the amount of ball he got and that Azpilicueta did really well against him) in their eyes, but I think giving Chelsea a taste of what they thought they'd escaped in Aguero being out (the pace and movement) would have presented us with clearer opportunities in better areas of the pitch.

Navas centrally ? Navas is not strong or composed enough to play in the centre. He zstruggles to beat players 1on1 on the wings, forget about going past players in the centre.

Aguero pulled his hamstring because we took a risk with him in the Watford game, when MP made him play 90 minutes instead of 60. Now we must do without him for 1 month. Imagine if MP took a risk with Jovetic, and then he gets himself injured, we lose him for 1 month again .. there's no point rushing people back .. it's not like the game was a champions league final .. it was just another premier league game. It was an important game for Chelsea, not for us.

I know all about how Chelsea play. It is the same style as Borrusia Dortmund. They defend with a low block. It's not easy to break them down. Just look at their recent results. They have conceded only 2 goals in the last 9 games. The best way to play against this kind of team is with both Nasri and Silva, but Nasri wasn't available. Wingplay works as well. We created many chances, but we was unfortunate that Dzeko was having one of his off-days.