First half/ second half

[Tricky_Trev]

yeah sure, let me know if I got it wrong. I dont usually trust stats because there are so many things at play.
https://www.whoscored.com/Regions/2...amStatistics/England-Premier-League-2015-2016

for example 2016/17

2015/16

Same for tackles and assists and shots etc.... Maybe it is because wed have only played four games!

I don't understand those stats. If you look at them, our numbers for total passes, accurate short passes etc in the 2nd half is 2nd to only Liverpool. So why do we have such a low overall rating? That doesn't seem like a reliable indicator.

 

[Bewar3them00n]

I think it's very rare in the Prem, to dominate for 90 mins.
With the exception of the 1-0 when Vinny scored, and the 3-0 at theirs.
That's why we need to be out of sight by half time, but saying that, against West Ham, we had chance after chance to finish them off, so it might be be our lack of top level ruthless finishing across the board we are missing, which will hopefully come!
But there's no denying someone's in for a tonking sooner or later, we've had a 7-0 recently, a Huddersfield style 10-1 isn't much of a leap for this team if it clicks.....

 

[Maldeika]

I think this is mainly down to fitness levels and ours have dropped over the last couple of seasons. Borussia Dortmund, Barca and Bayern can maintain those levels for the full 90 mins and I'm sure we will get there. I think this is what Pep was referring to when he said we weren't yet at a level to win the league or champions league. Imagine how good we will be when we can play for the full 90, like we did in the opening 45 on Saturday!! God help everyone else.

Borussia Dortmund cannot - that is why they always start against Bayern in high speed and end up loosing in the last 30 minutes. They do not have somebody that can step on the ball and slow down the match - it is all or nothing. Even now - as a ball possession team with Tuchel - that is still their main weakness.

I hope Gündogan has learned that by now, too - as that was the main critics from me I had about him in the national team some years ago. I remember that they were discussing Schweinsteiger vs Gündogan a lot in 12/13 - it was when Gündogan had his first real good period of matches prior to his injury and during a time Schweinsteiger was injured. I remember that friendly in Paris against France that we played and won - and in which Gündogan, Müller and Özil played a fabulous match - but it went up and down all the time and in times when Germany had a lot of ball losses they would have needed somewhen who just would have played it save. Non of the star players at that evening was used by their coaches in the starting formation at the following weekend as they wasted so much energy... Schweinsteiger - like Alonso - can really read a match and get the team to control it. I think that Xavi was the one at Barcelona with that ability.

I think that it is a main characteristics of a good team to use the right times of a match to play some kind of power play - but to know exactly when to slow down and save energy without loosing the control in the match but at the same time take enough risks to win the match.

At Bayern the position or the way Müller acts tells you a lot about what phase of the match we have right now - especially when he is a nominal winger as right now. If he stays on the wing it is the time to play save - if he is permanently near or in the box it is time to power play. With Schweinsteiger - who in my eyes was the best allrounder of the central midfielders as he could play all over the pitch - his actions told a lot, too.

 

[citymad]

Most if the time when a team plays well first half the half time break usually benefits the opposition. You often see it when a team goes in 3 or 4 nil, the second half theres no more goals, the games done.

 

[momo88]

Well seems we are a majority to figure outthr diff between 1st and 2nd half.

For Derby you can add that to the Bravo incident but still had more better chances in the second half united didnt have a shot on target ! exept the offside goal.

the style remind me the Bayern and Barca games they start like a thunder once they score 1 and 2 second then drop deep. us as the opposition we up the game to catch them.

so for me that still one the improvement areas beein able to maintain the edge when you are pressed more. typically saturday when united started the 2nd half strongly we should have converted 1 chances then they are dead.

so still a lot of work to do it is not easy !

 

[SWP's back]

yeah sure, let me know if I got it wrong. I dont usually trust stats because there are so many things at play.
https://www.whoscored.com/Regions/2...amStatistics/England-Premier-League-2015-2016

for example 2016/17

Same for tackles and assists and shots etc.... Maybe it is because wed have only played four games!

Hang on a second. I may be being stupid here but according to those stats we have the most passes and accurate passes in the second half as well.

I don't buy this 'rating' bollocks. Their own table show their best rated team, Everton are averaging only 18 accurate long balls and 183 accurate short passes compared to our 13.5 and 210 for the same measure in second halves.

I've not looked at last season as that's dead and not Pep.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I don't understand those stats. If you look at them, our numbers for total passes, accurate short passes etc in the 2nd half is 2nd to only Liverpool. So why do we have such a low overall rating? That doesn't seem like a reliable indicator.

Agreed. I only mentioned it because I been getting the same impression as the OP did. I don't know how that rating is done.

 

[stonerblue]

I mean, our dominance will be much greater and more consistent once all the pieces are settled and balanced. Also, the current MU team is not very strong (yet). Barcelona will be a better benchmark.

When we battered Bucharest they were 'minnows'. When we battered Stoke they were a 'mid table' side. When we battered West Ham they were 'average'. Now you're telling me we battered united because they're 'not very strong'..?
Before we played all of the above they were either a tricky Euro away for PG's first game, a notoriously tough home team that is often used as a benchmark (will they fancy a wet wednesday night away at Stoke), a team that beat all the top four sides last season and, favourites to win the league with unstoppable new signings and a brilliant manager.
The fact is we've destroyed every team we've played so far and i've yet to see a better side in the league. Arsenal had a good half last night against PSG but still not a patch on City's performances so far.

 

[Andrew___K]

When we battered Bucharest they were 'minnows'. When we battered Stoke they were a 'mid table' side. When we battered West Ham they were 'average'. Now you're telling me we battered united because they're 'not very strong'..?

Yes, 'not very strong'. Relatively, of course. EPL teams tend to be overrated on this forum. Strong team wouldn't allow KdB to fly freely across the pitch, wouldn't let one of the world's most talented CMs (Pogba) fail so miserably. Mou is slightly outdated and is not the greatest rival for Pep anymore, IMO. I find Klopp and even Conte more dangerous for our league chances. That's what I want to say mentioning Barcelona or any other strong European side as a benchmark.
I think City has a very long way to go, as Pep's said himself recently. It will take months and years of progress to get to the top (and maybe the strengthening of EPL will help that). You may find me too critical, but the only reason of my doubts about the current team's state is that I expect Pep to build the world's best team in 3-5 years, no less. Not just 'CL winners' but the most dominant team.
As for EPL, yes, City is the best team here no doubt.

 

[SWP's back]

I don't understand those stats. If you look at them, our numbers for total passes, accurate short passes etc in the 2nd half is 2nd to only Liverpool. So why do we have such a low overall rating? That doesn't seem like a reliable indicator.

It's bollocks.

 

[cucumberman]

There will be times when we will look pressured in the first half and then go chains unshackled in the second half. There will be times when we are dominant for the whole 90 and other times conservative for the whole 90 although the latter is unlikely. I don't think it makes a difference, we will see our tactics change because Pep bases his play on reaction. His fundamental will still remain though. Keep control of the ball, play the ball fast, be dynamic in formation, keep the opponent guessing.

 

[SWP's back]

When we battered Bucharest they were 'minnows'. When we battered Stoke they were a 'mid table' side. When we battered West Ham they were 'average'. Now you're telling me we battered united because they're 'not very strong'..?
Before we played all of the above they were either a tricky Euro away for PG's first game, a notoriously tough home team that is often used as a benchmark (will they fancy a wet wednesday night away at Stoke), a team that beat all the top four sides last season and, favourites to win the league with unstoppable new signings and a brilliant manager.
The fact is we've destroyed every team we've played so far and i've yet to see a better side in the league. Arsenal had a good half last night against PSG but still not a patch on City's performances so far.

I like you.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Could be far too early for this type of thread and in no way complaining, but are we looking a lot better first half then second half?

Obviously there was the derby, but very noticable in the West Ham game too.

Is it potentially the case of just simply the high intensity not being able to be maintained, in game management, the opposition making changes etc.

Do any fellow blues feel this is the case or simply that by default you always play one half better then the other and just coincidental the last 2 have been first half.

I think for me I notice it more as always considered we played better after half time in most games, whereas I like the idea of getting the game won early.

Once they're all fit ebough to keep it for for longer we'll get better at maintaining it. Over the last few years under the previous bloke our fitness levels were appalling, we were outworked by everyone last season. This isn't improved upon overnight. I'd imagine it takes a few months at that level.

 

[SWP's back]

Yes, 'not very strong'. Relatively, of course. EPL teams tend to be overrated on this forum. Strong team wouldn't allow KdB to fly freely across the pitch, wouldn't let one of the world's most talented CMs (Pogba) fail so miserably. Mou is slightly outdated and is not the greatest rival for Pep anymore, IMO. I find Klopp and even Conte more dangerous for our league chances. That's what I want to say mentioning Barcelona or any other strong European side as a benchmark.
I think City has a very long way to go, as Pep's said himself recently. It will take months and years of progress to get to the top (and maybe the strengthening of EPL will help that). You may find me too critical, but the only reason of my doubts about the current team's state is that I expect Pep to build the world's best team in 3-5 years, no less. Not just 'CL winners' but the most dominant team.
As for EPL, yes, City is the best team here no doubt.

Small thing but there is no such things as an EPL.

It's the Prem or PL. there's no E. There is only one Premier League. Just like we just say the FA not the EFA. We don't say ANFL or ANBA because that would be silly.

 

[Andrew___K]

Small thing but there is no such things as an EPL.

It's the Prem or PL. there's no E. There is only one Premier League. Just like we just say the FA not the EFA. We don't say ANFL or ANBA because that would be silly.

Thx, I'll take it into account.

 

[stonerblue]

Yes, 'not very strong'. Relatively, of course. EPL teams tend to be overrated on this forum. Strong team wouldn't allow KdB to fly freely across the pitch, wouldn't let one of the world's most talented CMs (Pogba) fail so miserably. Mou is slightly outdated and is not the greatest rival for Pep anymore, IMO. I find Klopp and even Conte more dangerous for our league chances. That's what I want to say mentioning Barcelona or any other strong European side as a benchmark.
I think City has a very long way to go, as Pep's said himself recently. It will take months and years of progress to get to the top (and maybe the strengthening of EPL will help that). You may find me too critical, but the only reason of my doubts about the current team's state is that I expect Pep to build the world's best team in 3-5 years, no less. Not just 'CL winners' but the most dominant team.
As for EPL, yes, City is the best team here no doubt.

That's all fair enough but i disagree with most of it.

 

[stonerblue]

I like you.

Steady on..