Do you think your midfield is strong enough without Nigel?

[King Geedorah]

Is the team's offense strong enough with Nigel?

Often not. Think no goals against Arsenal, home draws to Birmingham and Blackburn, no goals at home to United etc.


I'm happy to accept sometimes we need Nigel, but also intelligent enough to realise sometimes he is a hindrance.

 

[Braggster]

Is the team's offense strong enough with Nigel?

Often not. Think no goals against Arsenal, home draws to Birmingham and Blackburn, no goals at home to United etc.


I'm happy to accept sometimes we need Nigel, but also intelligent enough to realise sometimes he is a hindrance.

Is it as simple as to say that that lack of goals was down to Nigel's presence?

 

[LoveCity]

Is the team's offense strong enough with Nigel?

Often not. Think no goals against Arsenal, home draws to Birmingham and Blackburn, no goals at home to United etc.


I'm happy to accept sometimes we need Nigel, but also intelligent enough to realise sometimes he is a hindrance.

Is it as simple as to say that that lack of goals was down to Nigel's presence?

The "hindrance" was one too many holding players rather than the inclusion of Nigel. For example, we could have played Nigel in several of our free scoring games this season and had Yaya push forward and him sit back like Yaya has been, with the same result. Last season if we had Nasri or that one extra creative player we would have also scored a lot more.

 

[Braggster]

Is the team's offense strong enough with Nigel?

Often not. Think no goals against Arsenal, home draws to Birmingham and Blackburn, no goals at home to United etc.


I'm happy to accept sometimes we need Nigel, but also intelligent enough to realise sometimes he is a hindrance.

Is it as simple as to say that that lack of goals was down to Nigel's presence?

The "hindrance" was one too many holding players rather than the inclusion of Nigel. For example, we could have played Nigel in several of our free scoring games this season and had Yaya push forward and him sit back like Yaya has been, with the same result. Last season if we had Nasri or that one extra creative player we would have also scored a lot more.

I very much agree. Mancini suggests as much in his interview, where he says something along the lines of "if we have Nigel we can attack with more players".

To put the lack of goals in those games down solely to the fact that Nigel was playing is very wrong headed IMO, because (as always) it was about the way the whole team was set up - not about what one player did or didn't do.

 

[Deleted member 14625]

There are too many occasions the two centre backs are ran at by the opposition because they've been exposed without Nigel. We give the ball away in dangerous areas and give free kicks away in dangerous areas more often in midfield without Nigel.

We're obviously not weak, but we are not as strong. Are we strong enough? To win the title?NO!

-- Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:53 pm --

Is the team's offense strong enough with Nigel?

Often not. Think no goals against Arsenal, home draws to Birmingham and Blackburn, no goals at home to United etc.


I'm happy to accept sometimes we need Nigel, but also intelligent enough to realise sometimes he is a hindrance.

I can't see how the inclusion of one player makes the whole XI stay in their own half. That is managerial tactics, not the fact Nigel is on the pitch. He is far more effective for us offensively than many people notice.

He doest give the ball away in dangerous areas like Barry does (even if it's just once in a game it can change the whole game), he doesn't give silly free kicks away in dangerous areas like Barry does [and I'm a fan if Barry!]. When Nigel is on we can push the full backs forward and not worry about being exposed at the back. With the FB's forward we have more attacking players forward than if we hold them back defensively.

 

[Sabster]

I am sure he would have said yes if had asked about Barry or Yaya Toure.

I think Nigel is great against the bigger teams when we need to compress the space in the midfield area.

But against teams in which we are superior to, I think he is superfluous.

I still don't rate his defensive side of the game that highly though - I neither think he makes enough tackles or is athletic enough to cover the ground that a solely defensive midfielder should.

 

[Braggster]

I still don't rate his defensive side of the game that highly though - I neither think he makes enough tackles or is athletic enough to cover the ground that a solely defensive midfielder should.

I view the chief role of the defensive midfielder as being to prevent the centre of the defence being exposed to runners with and without the ball, and to prevent the opposition getting space in area in front of D. It's not really about covering ground or making tackles.

I would note that Fulham's equalizer came because (among other things) Murphy had the time and space to shoot on the edge of the box.

It's exactly these areas in which we are vulnerable when he doesn't play.

 

[Jumanji]

Mancini also said what we all knew that our players have more attacking freedom when Nigel is on the pitch.

 

[Marvin]

We need De Jong, but if Hargreaves can gradually recover his form and fitness over the course of the season that will be a huge boost

Hargreaves really was one of the best English midfielders, and let's hope he can recapture that. I think his comments about the major surgery he had, and the way he will have to manage and adapt his training show that it's going to be a struggle. But there are players like Bellamy, with similar problems who have played the best football of their careers at 30

 

[Josh Blue]

Is the team's offense strong enough with Nigel?

Often not. Think no goals against Arsenal, home draws to Birmingham and Blackburn, no goals at home to United etc.


I'm happy to accept sometimes we need Nigel, but also intelligent enough to realise sometimes he is a hindrance.

You are the worst poster on here!