Discuss Pellegrini....

[3rdgenerationblue]

right then. lets have some sense written here.

the Portuguese linguist is an obnoxious dick no doubt, but good winning big games.

however the engineer is articulate, intelligent and respectfull. and seems to be a nice chap.

he will learn. we will learn and we will grow together as a club and a wonderful institution.

one swallow doesn't make a summer and conversely one defeat doesn't make a drama.

watch out Norwich. we'll be top at 5 o'clock.

 

[mancity111]

Big mistake to have a pop at Moaningho. Saying nowt is the best policy, failing that sarcasm is the next best policy.

I'd prefer he said nothing but I wouldnt think it will have any impact on anything.

For all the press desperation and love for mind games they don't tend to make any difference to anything.

They never do and I know Jose knows they never do as does MP.

If players cannot motivate themselves individually or as a group we are in trouble if wet think a few sound bites from there manager at a press conference will make an impact.

I bet most of them don't even listen to MP's conference like some of us do.

They prefer to play FIFA or spend time with families etc etc.

 

[scotty123]

Getting an absolute panning on Soccer Saturday, one trick pony seems to be the ''in'' word

 

[Le Havre Oswald]

Getting an absolute panning on Soccer Saturday, one trick pony seems to be the ''in'' word

Turn it off mate. The *experts* on there know less about football than an Orange

 

[Pastor Kidney]

Getting an absolute panning on Soccer Saturday, one trick pony seems to be the ''in'' word

I wouldn't pay that clown Merson in washers - probably pissed off his team are losing!

 

[Nascent Blues]

Against Chelsea, I don't happen to think Pellegrini was naïve like some have suggested, rather that he allowed/desired a particular style and footballing philosophy to supersede a more pragmatic approach to the game. It seemed to me that, if anything, it was his stubbornness in not deviating from a preconceived plan, more than any tactical genius on Maureen's part, that affected the game.

Replacing Fernandinho, our midfield lynchpin, with a 33 year old centre half smacked of an unwillingness to adopt a different approach, because it is obvious that Demichelis was not an adequate replacement for Fern.

I suppose the real question is, did Pellegrini really think that the best possible way of winning the game was to set out the way we did, or did he think "This is the way we play"?

Either way, I'm watching the best football I've ever seen and long may it continue.

 

[Troubadour]

I suspect we'll be different tactically next season. People seem to forget Pellegrini/Txiki have so far only used one transfer window to shape the squad. We'll have a much better idea of what this team and Pellegrini are all about after this summer's window. This season seems to be about finding out who from the Mancini era is going to stay with us.

I think there'll be at least one surprise out going this summer.

That may be so, although I think it's a lot easier to advocate a formation problem in a game where we fielded an under-strength side who at least were playing to a system they were more familiar with. If this becomes apparent against PL teams when we field a full strength team I'll be the first to agree.

I'm not sure you know the rules. Go 21 games smashing everyone out of sight, have an off night and it's the formation which was at fault. It's law number 3.1(2a) on the forum. Comes right after 'zonal marking doesn't work' and 'a high line is a disaster waiting to happen'. You might have to blow the dust off the book, but it's in there.

One day when you remove your own oversized head from your arse there will be so much wind it will
cause a tsunami in the floods of south west England.

 

[mancity111]

Against Chelsea, I don't happen to think Pellegrini was naïve like some have suggested, rather that he allowed/desired a particular style and footballing philosophy to supersede a more pragmatic approach to the game. It seemed to me that, if anything, it was his stubbornness in not deviating from a preconceived plan, more than any tactical genius on Maureen's part, that affected the game.

Replacing Fernandinho, our midfield lynchpin, with a 33 year old centre half smacked of an unwillingness to adopt a different approach, because it is obvious that Demichelis was not an adequate replacement for Fern.

I suppose the real question is, did Pellegrini really think that the best possible way of winning the game was to set out the way we did, or did he think "This is the way we play"?

Either way, I'm watching the best football I've ever seen and long may it continue.

We were undermanned pure and simple and we didn't convert the early dominance into goals.

We could have had a full strength side and still had the same result but I am sure we would have been able to press them alot harder especially with a fit Fernandinho available.

Injuries take their toll , today won't be an easy game.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Against Chelsea, I don't happen to think Pellegrini was naïve like some have suggested, rather that he allowed/desired a particular style and footballing philosophy to supersede a more pragmatic approach to the game. It seemed to me that, if anything, it was his stubbornness in not deviating from a preconceived plan, more than any tactical genius on Maureen's part, that affected the game.

Replacing Fernandinho, our midfield lynchpin, with a 33 year old centre half smacked of an unwillingness to adopt a different approach, because it is obvious that Demichelis was not an adequate replacement for Fern.

I suppose the real question is, did Pellegrini really think that the best possible way of winning the game was to set out the way we did, or did he think "This is the way we play"?

Either way, I'm watching the best football I've ever seen and long may it continue.

We were undermanned pure and simple and we didn't convert the early dominance into goals.

We could have had a full strength side and still had the same result but I am sure we would have been able to press them alot harder especially with a fit Fernandinho available.

Injuries take their toll , today won't be an easy game.

Exactly my point. If we were under strength, why, for this particular game and opponent, did we set out the way we did? I feel our system, especially after the initial 15 minutes, played more to the opposing team's strengths than ours.

Chelsea are a superb team with some fantastic players and you're right, if we had played a full strength side we may well have lost.

I'm not having a go at Pellegrini as, like I have previously stated, his 'philosophy' of how the game should be played has given me the best football entertainment and pleasure in my time watching City. But surely when you do not have a full strength side from which to choose, and therefore the personnel to carry out a particular philosophy, especially against an opposition like Chelsea, you have to be pragmatic and possibly change things around.

 

[hgblue]

Against Chelsea, I don't happen to think Pellegrini was naïve like some have suggested, rather that he allowed/desired a particular style and footballing philosophy to supersede a more pragmatic approach to the game. It seemed to me that, if anything, it was his stubbornness in not deviating from a preconceived plan, more than any tactical genius on Maureen's part, that affected the game.

Replacing Fernandinho, our midfield lynchpin, with a 33 year old centre half smacked of an unwillingness to adopt a different approach, because it is obvious that Demichelis was not an adequate replacement for Fern.

I suppose the real question is, did Pellegrini really think that the best possible way of winning the game was to set out the way we did, or did he think "This is the way we play"?

Either way, I'm watching the best football I've ever seen and long may it continue.

We were undermanned pure and simple and we didn't convert the early dominance into goals.

We could have had a full strength side and still had the same result but I am sure we would have been able to press them alot harder especially with a fit Fernandinho available.

Injuries take their toll , today won't be an easy game.

Exactly my point. If we were under strength, why, for this particular game and opponent, did we set out the way we did? I feel our system, especially after the initial 15 minutes, played more to the opposing team's strengths than ours.

Chelsea are a superb team with some fantastic players and you're right, if we had played a full strength side we may well have lost.

I'm not having a go at Pellegrini as, like I have previously stated, his 'philosophy' of how the game should be played has given me the best football entertainment and pleasure in my time watching City. But surely when you do not have a full strength side from which to choose, and therefore the personnel to carry out a particular philosophy, especially against an opposition like Chelsea, you have to be pragmatic and possibly change things around.

Correct. When a group of football fans are hopelessly out of step with the opinion of the rest of the footballing world there are only really two possibilities: 1. The rest of the footballing world is wrong. 2. Football fans tend to be a little bit biased. My money is on 2.