Discussion: Manuel Pellegrini 2015/16

[Shaelumstash]

It's not when you sit back and watch the game again. I do appreciate you've got your own point of view and you tend to argue well even when up against plenty of opposing viewpoints.
This particular game though I can't agree that the fact the game finished 0-0 is compelling enough evidence as to Pellegrini getting it so wrong.
The first sub, although subjective and you're not alone in thinking Nacho should have come on, was the correct call for me. I'm sure it would have been in Pellegrinis mind to hold Nacho back and bringing Navas on would keep our shape easier whilst giving us more width a solidity on the right.
The first half as a whole was pretty unspectacular tbf.
I'd have brought yaya off at HT personally and looked to have made the change with Nacho. As poor as we'd been, Villa had offered nothing and sacrificing one of the three in the middle for a forward wasn't a big risk.
Seeing how the second half developed I can understand him holding on with any changes as it was pretty much one way traffic and it seemed a case of 'when' we score as opposed to 'if'
The point is, he didn't roll the dice as early as I'd have liked but watching the game I understand why, even if I'm not in full agreement.

Thanks for that mate. We can't always agree, in fact there would be no debate if we did. We have a slight difference of opinion about Sunday, but I actually agree with a lot of your points here. It's a relief that you are actually moving the debate forward as opposed to others who are insisting on Harvard referencing for every point made on this thread.

Firstly, of course 0-0 isn't compelling evidence he got it wrong. I was actually being facetious with that post, but many have jumped on it, maybe I should have used a ;-) at the end.

Firstly, as I said before, I think Navas had a superb game. Personally I would have started him given the form he is in. I don't disagree that bringing him on was a positive. But personally I don't think bringing off a striker for him was the correct call.

We'd (hopefully) prepared all week to play Villa with a central striker. After 25 minutes did that plan seem to be fatally flawed? Was there some kind of evidence that we'd be better suited to playing with none up front? I don't think there was. I think the shape and the preparation was ok. What I think happened was 2 things:

1. Pellegrini went back to his old "one size fits all" philosophy, and thought De Bruyne or Sterling can play as a number 9 and it will be no different than Bony playing.
2. He felt bad for dropping Navas after he has been playing so well, so he brought him on as he felt he was next in line for a game. More important to keep him happy than an eager kid who is just starting out.

I wholeheartidly agree with you about it being the wrong call to keep all 3 central midfielders on. It's bizarre to think that we played Barca and Bayern last season with 2 centre mids, yet against Aston Villa he thought it was essential we play with 3 for the full 90 minutes. A strange way to look at the game in my view.

I also agree that I wish he had rolled the dice earlier. Giving Nacho 6 minutes when we were desperate for a goal was just absolutely infuriating. We played well in the second half, created a few good chances. What was missing? A specialist to get on the end of chances and apply the finishing touch. A centre forward. Kelechi Iheanacho.

 

[mosssideblue]

Thanks for that mate. We can't always agree, in fact there would be no debate if we did. We have a slight difference of opinion about Sunday, but I actually agree with a lot of your points here. It's a relief that you are actually moving the debate forward as opposed to others who are insisting on Harvard referencing for every point made on this thread.

Firstly, of course 0-0 isn't compelling evidence he got it wrong. I was actually being facetious with that post, but many have jumped on it, maybe I should have used a ;-) at the end.

Firstly, as I said before, I think Navas had a superb game. Personally I would have started him given the form he is in. I don't disagree that bringing him on was a positive. But personally I don't think bringing off a striker for him was the correct call.

We'd (hopefully) prepared all week to play Villa with a central striker. After 25 minutes did that plan seem to be fatally flawed? Was there some kind of evidence that we'd be better suited to playing with none up front? I don't think there was. I think the shape and the preparation was ok. What I think happened was 2 things:

1. Pellegrini went back to his old "one size fits all" philosophy, and thought De Bruyne or Sterling can play as a number 9 and it will be no different than Bony playing.
2. He felt bad for dropping Navas after he has been playing so well, so he brought him on as he felt he was next in line for a game. More important to keep him happy than an eager kid who is just starting out.

I wholeheartidly agree with you about it being the wrong call to keep all 3 central midfielders on. It's bizarre to think that we played Barca and Bayern last season with 2 centre mids, yet against Aston Villa he thought it was essential we play with 3 for the full 90 minutes. A strange way to look at the game in my view.

I also agree that I wish he had rolled the dice earlier. Giving Nacho 6 minutes when we were desperate for a goal was just absolutely infuriating. We played well in the second half, created a few good chances. What was missing? A specialist to get on the end of chances and apply the finishing touch. A centre forward. Kelechi Iheanacho.

Absolute classic.

 

[Phil1]

Thanks for that mate. We can't always agree, in fact there would be no debate if we did. We have a slight difference of opinion about Sunday, but I actually agree with a lot of your points here. It's a relief that you are actually moving the debate forward as opposed to others who are insisting on Harvard referencing for every point made on this thread.

Firstly, of course 0-0 isn't compelling evidence he got it wrong. I was actually being facetious with that post, but many have jumped on it, maybe I should have used a ;-) at the end.

Firstly, as I said before, I think Navas had a superb game. Personally I would have started him given the form he is in. I don't disagree that bringing him on was a positive. But personally I don't think bringing off a striker for him was the correct call.

We'd (hopefully) prepared all week to play Villa with a central striker. After 25 minutes did that plan seem to be fatally flawed? Was there some kind of evidence that we'd be better suited to playing with none up front? I don't think there was. I think the shape and the preparation was ok. What I think happened was 2 things:

1. Pellegrini went back to his old "one size fits all" philosophy, and thought De Bruyne or Sterling can play as a number 9 and it will be no different than Bony playing.
2. He felt bad for dropping Navas after he has been playing so well, so he brought him on as he felt he was next in line for a game. More important to keep him happy than an eager kid who is just starting out.

I wholeheartidly agree with you about it being the wrong call to keep all 3 central midfielders on. It's bizarre to think that we played Barca and Bayern last season with 2 centre mids, yet against Aston Villa he thought it was essential we play with 3 for the full 90 minutes. A strange way to look at the game in my view.

I also agree that I wish he had rolled the dice earlier. Giving Nacho 6 minutes when we were desperate for a goal was just absolutely infuriating. We played well in the second half, created a few good chances. What was missing? A specialist to get on the end of chances and apply the finishing touch. A centre forward. Kelechi Iheanacho.

All fair view points. I suppose the unarguable fact is if we draw a game we should have won there will be inquests from fans afterwards. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Shaelumstash]

I didn't ask for evidence I just replied to your post that the Villa result was evidence. I don't mind your opinions and enjoy discussing it. My point was you can't compare Sugar and the iPod to Pellegrinis decision because for one we have evidence and for Sunday's result there can be no evidence.

My initial point about Sugar was in relation to another poster who inferred I had no right to disagree with Pellegrini because he's an expert.

My point about Sugar was that experts sometimes get it wrong. Whether that can be backed up by statistical evidence or not is another issue entirely.

The overriding point remains, sometimes experts make mistakes.

Whether Pellegrini made a mistake on Sunday is open for discussion.

 

[lasereyes]

He didn't get any grief from me, mate.

Yup I know, bud. Didnt mean that.

I went to the post match thread a few hours after the game, and the amount of negative cr@p, much of which was lambasting Pellegrini, was breathtaking

 

[Phil1]

Yup I know, bud. Didnt mean that.

I went to the post match thread a few hours after the game, and the amount of negative cr@p, much of which was lambasting Pellegrini, was breathtaking

Yeah he got pelters yesterday. Much of it unjustified. There's a growing tendency on here for people to go way over the top in their critiscm. Part and parcel of the Internet it seems these days.
I find it quite entertaining reading in the most part :-)

 

[lasereyes]

My initial point about Sugar was in relation to another poster who inferred I had no right to disagree with Pellegrini because he's an expert.

My point about Sugar was that experts sometimes get it wrong. Whether that can be backed up by statistical evidence or not is another issue entirely.

The overriding point remains, sometimes experts make mistakes.

Whether Pellegrini made a mistake on Sunday is open for discussion.

If this was me, then I said no such thing. As I pointed out previously.

 

[BillyShears]

No idea why anyone engages with the troll, fucking pointless.

Isn't it just mate. Absolutely staggering the number of people who get sucked in by the trolls who come out the woodwork after a poor result. He's on a roll though, like a naughty six year old running around a football pitch with his own plastic goal posts trying to convince his mates to have a shot and promising he won't move them.

 

[lasereyes]

Thanks for that mate. We can't always agree, in fact there would be no debate if we did. We have a slight difference of opinion about Sunday, but I actually agree with a lot of your points here. It's a relief that you are actually moving the debate forward as opposed to others who are insisting on Harvard referencing for every point made on this thread.

Firstly, of course 0-0 isn't compelling evidence he got it wrong. I was actually being facetious with that post, but many have jumped on it, maybe I should have used a ;-) at the end.

Firstly, as I said before, I think Navas had a superb game. Personally I would have started him given the form he is in. I don't disagree that bringing him on was a positive. But personally I don't think bringing off a striker for him was the correct call.

We'd (hopefully) prepared all week to play Villa with a central striker. After 25 minutes did that plan seem to be fatally flawed? Was there some kind of evidence that we'd be better suited to playing with none up front? I don't think there was. I think the shape and the preparation was ok. What I think happened was 2 things:

1. Pellegrini went back to his old "one size fits all" philosophy, and thought De Bruyne or Sterling can play as a number 9 and it will be no different than Bony playing.
2. He felt bad for dropping Navas after he has been playing so well, so he brought him on as he felt he was next in line for a game. More important to keep him happy than an eager kid who is just starting out.

I wholeheartidly agree with you about it being the wrong call to keep all 3 central midfielders on. It's bizarre to think that we played Barca and Bayern last season with 2 centre mids, yet against Aston Villa he thought it was essential we play with 3 for the full 90 minutes. A strange way to look at the game in my view.

I also agree that I wish he had rolled the dice earlier. Giving Nacho 6 minutes when we were desperate for a goal was just absolutely infuriating. We played well in the second half, created a few good chances. What was missing? A specialist to get on the end of chances and apply the finishing touch. A centre forward. Kelechi Iheanacho.

Another essay. Ignoring some fairly basic things:

1. MP did not deem his plan fatally flawed after 25 mins. Change was forced on him by Bony's injury.

2. "Feeling bad for Navas" - this is professional sport. No room for sentimentality. He brought Navas on because he saw we had started the game at very low tempo, and Navas always speeds up our game. Very fair call - and justified by the way Navas played and the chances he created.

Also interesting is how you conclude that an 18 year old kid with 1 Premier league goal and that a tap-in is a better finisher than two others with 12 goals between them in 26 appearances. One of whom has been top notch in front of goal hitherto.

 

[forevermancity]

Very odd that he seems to be deploying KDB wide when we know he is devastating though the middle. Treatment of kelechi is hurting the team and not just the young lad. If ever there was a game that needed him it was Sunday. I like pelle but he is one baffling manager.