Just go..........

[blueinsa]

The danger of comparing this season to the previous campaign is that any improvement this season becomes exaggerated by the consensus that we completely underachieved last season.

In my opinion, it is of no relevance whatsoever to use any scale of the club's history as a benchmark for what we are doing this season, be it last season, eleven years ago, or thirty-four years ago. For example, the idea that "Saturday was great because in 1995 we lost 4-0 and 6-0 to Liverpool in the same week", carries no weight.

It is also a problem when all judgements are based on quantifiable data, particularly at this stage of the season. The fact that we have only lost once is enough for some fans to remain content. The fact that we are a few points off the top four with a game in hand presents another reason for some fans to believe in the status quo. These facts cannot be denied, but they can be countered by other statistics, for instance, six points from a possible eighteen, or five wins from twelve.

Mark Twain couldn't have been more true when he said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Hence for now, I am judging City by what I observe at the games as they are taking place. And what I am observing is actually of great concern to City fans. Just as we are a couple of wins from being in the mix, we are two defeats from crisis. Where will the "only one defeat" brigade be hiding should that happen? Chelsea lost back-to-back away games but averted a crisis by virtue of their knack of winning (both prior and post the defeats). This run of draws has definitely done more harm to City than good because it leaves us at a crossroads going into a busy period.

But my real point is that our performances have been alarming given the obvious talent in the squad, and we have shown no signs of improvement in our run of draws. No sign of "gelling". This is because we are not functioning as a team; it should not be the case that fans are worried at every opposition set piece in our half of the pitch, or that we believe that a goal will be scored against us at any minute - this is not deluded arrogance because of our wealth, it is a major flaw that needs serious and urgent attention. If we could see discernible progress in our team, there would be fewer "moaners" frequenting this forum. But to just expect that we will "gel" in time and hope that hanging around waiting for the current regime to produce the goods, is just as "arrogant" as those who believe we should be turning teams over now and more often. Stability is over-rated in football. Mark Hughes should not be protected by the managerial merry-go-round that went before him. If he doesn't start winning soon, he should be gone.

A fantastic post that sums it up perfectly, bravo sir, i doth my cap!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The danger of comparing this season to the previous campaign is that any improvement this season becomes exaggerated by the consensus that we completely underachieved last season.

In my opinion, it is of no relevance whatsoever to use any scale of the club's history as a benchmark for what we are doing this season, be it last season, eleven years ago, or thirty-four years ago. For example, the idea that "Saturday was great because in 1995 we lost 4-0 and 6-0 to Liverpool in the same week", carries no weight.

It is also a problem when all judgements are based on quantifiable data, particularly at this stage of the season. The fact that we have only lost once is enough for some fans to remain content. The fact that we are a few points off the top four with a game in hand presents another reason for some fans to believe in the status quo. These facts cannot be denied, but they can be countered by other statistics, for instance, six points from a possible eighteen, or five wins from twelve.

Mark Twain couldn't have been more true when he said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Hence for now, I am judging City by what I observe at the games as they are taking place. And what I am observing is actually of great concern to City fans. Just as we are a couple of wins from being in the mix, we are two defeats from crisis. Where will the "only one defeat" brigade be hiding should that happen? Chelsea lost back-to-back away games but averted a crisis by virtue of their knack of winning (both prior and post the defeats). This run of draws has definitely done more harm to City than good because it leaves us at a crossroads going into a busy period.

But my real point is that our performances have been alarming given the obvious talent in the squad, and we have shown no signs of improvement in our run of draws. No sign of "gelling". This is because we are not functioning as a team; it should not be the case that fans are worried at every opposition set piece in our half of the pitch, or that we believe that a goal will be scored against us at any minute - this is not deluded arrogance because of our wealth, it is a major flaw that needs serious and urgent attention. If we could see discernible progress in our team, there would be fewer "moaners" frequenting this forum. But to just expect that we will "gel" in time and hope that hanging around waiting for the current regime to produce the goods, is just as "arrogant" as those who believe we should be turning teams over now and more often. Stability is over-rated in football. Mark Hughes should not be protected by the managerial merry-go-round that went before him. If he doesn't start winning soon, he should be gone.

Have to say that's a really good post JW and probably the best I've read from someone who isn't happy with where we are at the moment. But I would take issue with some of it.

No one is claiming that we are playing well at the moment or that we are the finished article, whatever side of the fence they are on. However, you can't take a few games out of context. We have to look at last season because we had the same manager who was starting to build the team in his image. And it is tempting to say that we under-achieved in that season but you have to factor in the situation at the end of the previous season and the start of that season.

The club was in utter turmoil, on the very verge of financial disaster, with the owner trying to sell players from under the manager's nose. Then the cavalry arrived on a fleet of camels but there was too little time to take advantage of that and a lot of the uncertainty was slow to go away.

You talk about Chelsea's reaction to a couple of losses but that ignores the fact that they are a stable team that has largely been together and has been successful for a number of years. But what have they won since Mourinho? I suspect it's highly likely they'd have won both the PL and CL at least once in the last two seasons if he was still there.

If you invest money in a business, it takes a few years to generate a return and the same applies to football teams. The fact that we've spent £200m in one season is probably more disruptive than spending £70m in each of three consecutive seasons. Too many new players at one go rarely, if ever, give immediate success. Adding a couple a season is usually much better. You talk about people being "arrogant" when they simply expect us to gel over time. I would turn that round and say that realistic people actually expect it will take time to gel. The question is, how much time will it take until we can say for definite that we haven't/aren't going to? I don't know the answer to that but it won't happen with a flash of light and clap of thunder; it will be gradual. I actually thought that we looked much better last Saturday than we have for a few games and only a very poor clearance from Onuoha (no stick for him I notice) gave them the chance to get back into the game so quickly. We were well on top then and probably would have gone on to win as they got increasingly desperate and presumably would have left gaps, which suits our style.

So have we improved over last season?

Last season we lost at Villa & Wigan. This season we got a point at both. Last season we lost to Fulham at home. This season we got a point. Last season we got a point at Liverpool and we did that again this season. Last season we were easily beaten at the swamp whereas this season we gave them a fright and were robbed of a point largely by some dubious timekeeping. I certainly wouldn't argue that the games against Fulham or Burnley were good ones for us but it's football and shit happens.

But to say if he loses the next few games he should be out is just ridiculous and ruins a good post. Hughes has presumably discussed his plans and expectations with the chairman and the Sheikh himself. I assume they have agreed targets of some sort and finishing top 6 has been publicly mentioned. Whether that is really the target or whether it's just to manage expectations none of us know. If he meets his target then he should stay and if he doesn't then he will go. But we really won't know that until the end of the season (or closer to it). Not now.

 

[John Wayne]

A good post, PB, and one that deserves a reply.

Firstly, you are right to point out that City have not been playing well enough in recent weeks, and correctly imply that whilst all teams go through barren spells, City have managed to keep in touch with the pack. Having watched every game this season (except for the opening game at Blackburn), I think the team's problems extend beyond a plain and simple loss of form. What I witness is a dysfunctional collection of talented individuals that are a team only in name. The likes of Bellamy, Given and Adebayor have earned us points through their own brilliance, rather than us stringing together a number of wins on the back of a good, cohesive performance as a unit. Even in the first five games of the season, I was never comfortable with how we were playing. It is now nearly December and I have been given no reason to change this view. It is tangible signs of cohesion/"gelling" for which I look and they just are not appearing. You rightly say that gelling is a gradual process, but there has been nothing gradual about it. Lescott and Toure looked more fragile against Burnley at home in November than they did against Portsmouth away in August. If you could plot progress on a graph, it would be a diagonally upward line by all logic; City's progress this season looks like a load of squiggles drawn by a two-year-old.

The most serious issue for me is that all of the good things about last season (and there were a few, for example, our home performances/results), seem to have been dismantled this season. Mark Hughes is a dedicated manager, a tireless worker with a sound knowledge of the game, but he has dug his own grave in trying to revolutionise the team. Last season, I am sure we would have beaten Burnley at home, and for that Hughes can take credit. There were times when I'd turn up at Eastlands brimming with confidence that we would win and was often proved right - Hull on Boxing Day was a classic example, a demolition derby and one of the finest games I've seen us play in years. This weekend, I cannot say for sure that we will beat Hull. It's as if we've taken steps backwards in order to go forwards. We have more talent on the books this season, but are we really playing/entertaining that much better?

How can we preach stability when all that goes on at the club is anything but stable? Surely a stable solution would have been to keep our best and most consistent defender, rather than throw out everything that whiffed of "Old City". Stability can only happen with a certain element of continuity. A brand new defence, for instance, has proven to be anything but stable. The concepts of stability and revolution are incompatible. City have had the revolution.

Comparing results with the previous campaign is also misleading; that "we lost at home to Fulham last year therefore a point this season is an improvement", is myopic in that it ignores a whole host of other variables - the opposition, their commitments, etc. To say that dropping points is "football, and shit happens" is a very blase approach. Fans will tolerate it happening on occasion, but not with the alarming regularity we have experienced. It all goes back to tactics, strategy, mentality, ruthlessness, call it what you will but we are lacking in a number of departments.

To finish, I thought we wasted a good opportunity last Saturday. That game was there for the taking but we passed on the offer. I saw 22 men playing with fear and our attacking prowess was totally inhibited by an urge to remain cautious. Why? Because it's Liverpool away dammit! We can't go to their backyard and take them to pieces, that would not be conforming to the ritual of an Anfield away performance. As I said before, Hughes has an acute knowledge of football, but he does not have a "feel" for the game; that is to know when to do certain things at certain times. My opinion is that Liverpool were frail and we could have given them a bloody nose. Whilst I believe the shape of the team was right, the mentality underpinning our performance was one of fear. We chose to play well within ourselves. Had we not, Nedum's mistake would not have mattered.

If we lose our next two games, I maintain that Hughes will be under immense pressure. "The project" with its desirable targets may even be ripped up. Just a hunch. But as Andy Gray says: "You don't spend £200m and hope to finish 6th".

 

[m27]

Hughes has an acute knowledge of football, but he does not have a "feel" for the game...

Another great post. The above point sticks out for me because it's something I've also said to people. Those first half tactics against Liverpool were the generic tactics which you play at Anfield; "Keep it tight for the first half...don't over-commit.....let them play through you.....solid bank of five......no risks....get it up to the big man as soon as possible....we'll change it if they score..." but this was not the usual situation against Liverpool on their own patch. Their best player was missing, their second best player was half fit, they were playing two holding midfielders, confidence was shot to pieces, season in the balance and the crowd was very nervy.

We had the players in that starting line up to swamp Liverpool and kill them dead in the first half hour. But no. I knew we were were in for a long 45 minutes when I saw Bellamy and SWP, clearly under orders, not hassling their defenders as it was passed along the back 4 in the opening 5 minutes ("..solid bank of 5...don't over-commit..."). They were there for the taking but we didn't grasp an opportunity of a lifetime. I mean that as well because I doubt we will ever play a Liverpool side so short of confidence and devoid in quality for a long long time.

Now that doesn't make Hughes bad manager, because it nearly came off, but I wouldn't say that it displays any particular talent as a manager. Credit where credits due though, the substitution was the turning point for us. But that sums Hughes up for me, for everyone of those moments, there's also a Gelson at right-back moment to counter-act it. That may sound like he can't win with me but that's simply not true. I still want to him to succeed and would be amazed if he was dismissed mid-season, no matter what happens.

 

[AlexC83]

A good post, PB, and one that deserves a reply.

Firstly, you are right to point out that City have not been playing well enough in recent weeks, and correctly imply that whilst all teams go through barren spells, City have managed to keep in touch with the pack. Having watched every game this season (except for the opening game at Blackburn), I think the team's problems extend beyond a plain and simple loss of form. What I witness is a dysfunctional collection of talented individuals that are a team only in name. The likes of Bellamy, Given and Adebayor have earned us points through their own brilliance, rather than us stringing together a number of wins on the back of a good, cohesive performance as a unit. Even in the first five games of the season, I was never comfortable with how we were playing. It is now nearly December and I have been given no reason to change this view. It is tangible signs of cohesion/"gelling" for which I look and they just are not appearing. You rightly say that gelling is a gradual process, but there has been nothing gradual about it. Lescott and Toure looked more fragile against Burnley at home in November than they did against Portsmouth away in August. If you could plot progress on a graph, it would be a diagonally upward line by all logic; City's progress this season looks like a load of squiggles drawn by a two-year-old.

The most serious issue for me is that all of the good things about last season (and there were a few, for example, our home performances/results), seem to have been dismantled this season. Mark Hughes is a dedicated manager, a tireless worker with a sound knowledge of the game, but he has dug his own grave in trying to revolutionise the team. Last season, I am sure we would have beaten Burnley at home, and for that Hughes can take credit. There were times when I'd turn up at Eastlands brimming with confidence that we would win and was often proved right - Hull on Boxing Day was a classic example, a demolition derby and one of the finest games I've seen us play in years. This weekend, I cannot say for sure that we will beat Hull. It's as if we've taken steps backwards in order to go forwards. We have more talent on the books this season, but are we really playing/entertaining that much better?

How can we preach stability when all that goes on at the club is anything but stable? Surely a stable solution would have been to keep our best and most consistent defender, rather than throw out everything that whiffed of "Old City". Stability can only happen with a certain element of continuity. A brand new defence, for instance, has proven to be anything but stable. The concepts of stability and revolution are incompatible. City have had the revolution.

Comparing results with the previous campaign is also misleading; that "we lost at home to Fulham last year therefore a point this season is an improvement", is myopic in that it ignores a whole host of other variables - the opposition, their commitments, etc. To say that dropping points is "football, and shit happens" is a very blase approach. Fans will tolerate it happening on occasion, but not with the alarming regularity we have experienced. It all goes back to tactics, strategy, mentality, ruthlessness, call it what you will but we are lacking in a number of departments.

To finish, I thought we wasted a good opportunity last Saturday. That game was there for the taking but we passed on the offer. I saw 22 men playing with fear and our attacking prowess was totally inhibited by an urge to remain cautious. Why? Because it's Liverpool away dammit! We can't go to their backyard and take them to pieces, that would not be conforming to the ritual of an Anfield away performance. As I said before, Hughes has an acute knowledge of football, but he does not have a "feel" for the game; that is to know when to do certain things at certain times. My opinion is that Liverpool were frail and we could have given them a bloody nose. Whilst I believe the shape of the team was right, the mentality underpinning our performance was one of fear. We chose to play well within ourselves. Had we not, Nedum's mistake would not have mattered.
If we lose our next two games, I maintain that Hughes will be under immense pressure. "The project" with its desirable targets may even be ripped up. Just a hunch. But as Andy Gray says: "You don't spend £200m and hope to finish 6th".

Your posts are well put but I've highlighted a glaring error that you've made because I've heard it on here a few times. You're taking the first half in isolation there and using it as a basis for the whole game. If the team was so inhibited by fear we would've sat back again once we equalised at 1-1 wouldn't we?!

If the team was full of fear SWP wouldn't have drifted out of position to pick up the ball on the left side of Liverpool's box and Ireland wouldn't have bombed forward to apply the finishing touch to the move which put us 2-1 up.

The key to everyone's disappointment was conceding that second goal so soon after going 2-1 up. No one would've mentioned that first half performance (or would've just mentioned we were a bit too defensive) because we would've got one of THE great results in our recent history if we'd kept it at 2-1.

The reason for the recent run of draws is almost exclusively down to our inability to defend. I'd much prefer a solid 2-0 in this game against Hull than a 6-3. We need more stability and solidity, not less.

 

[m27]

AlexC83, I'm sorry, I just don't agree. The first half tactics are imperative as they set the tone for the whole game. Hughes made the substitution because we were losing. Having equalised, that team played the way it did because of the momentum created by the goal and the freedom the revised tactics had given our attack minded players on the pitch. Credit for Hughes for this but don't herald it as some kind of masterstroke. Question, do you honestly think Hughes would have made such an attack minded substitution at 0-0? I don't. He was forced into it.

If we had gone for the jugular from the off and taken a lead he could have gone more defensive in the second half if necessary.

If you think Hughes's tactics have anything to do with SWP drifitng over you are mistaken. That's merely instinct in my book, and the sooner he gives Ireland freedom to act on his instinct the sooner we will start to win football games. Let the other side worry about our talent rather than give our players defensive jobs to do on the opposing side's inferior talent.

 

[AlexC83]

AlexC83, I'm sorry, I just don't agree. The first half tactics are imperative as they set the tone for the whole game. Hughes made the substitution because we were losing. Having equalised, that team played the way it did because of the momentum created by the goal and the freedom the revised tactics had given our attack minded players on the pitch. Credit for Hughes for this but don't herald it as some kind of masterstroke. Question, do you honestly think Hughes would have made such an attack minded substitution at 0-0? I don't. He was forced into it.

If we had gone for the jugular from the off and taken a lead he could have gone more defensive in the second half if necessary.

If you think Hughes's tactics have anything to do with SWP drifitng over you are mistaken. That's merely instinct in my book, and the sooner he gives Ireland freedom to act on his instinct the sooner we will start to win football games. Let the other side worry about our talent rather than give our players defensive jobs to do on the opposing side's inferior talent.

I agree the first half tactics are imperative and I thought the stability was impressive because regardless of how Liverpool are at the minute it's well documented what sort of run we've been on. I'd call it a patient and mature first half performance given our current position.

If we'd gone for the jugular from the off we could've just as easily left ourselves overexposed and created space for Gerrard to do what he does best - inspire Liverpool to victory - but he wasn't able to inspire other than occasionally (like from his excellent set piece delivery for their opening goal).

My point wasn't all about how Hughes played a masterstroke by bringing on Tevez, it was that if we really were so defensive minded for the whole game we wouldn't have given the players any freedom to search out that second goal when the score was 1-1. That fact cannot be ignored as it has by too many on here. And you can't just credit the players and say it was instinct from SWP and Ireland for that but then lay all the blame on Hughes for a defensive approach. It's a contradiction.

 

[BlueRockape]

Bloody hell

Bluemoon with brains all of the above posts great to read some well thought out discussions thanks for the read

And all done with no nastiness

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I keep having this argument on here this week.

We went for Liverpool as soon as the whistle went for the second half. We won the game then threw it away.

I don't believe Hughes can be faulted at all. He picked the right personnel and we played well. Both goals were stupid ones to give away and there was an element of luck about the second.

He's been at fault with team selection for the last 4 or 5 games for me, and his substitutions have been questionable on several occasions. Not this weekend, though. It should have been the win that kick-started our season.

 

[lancs blue]

I keep having this argument on here this week.

We went for Liverpool as soon as the whistle went for the second half. We won the game then threw it away.

I don't believe Hughes can be faulted at all. He picked the right personnel and we played well. Both goals were stupid ones to give away and there was an element of luck about the second.

He's been at fault with team selection for the last 4 or 5 games for me, and his substitutions have been questionable on several occasions. Not this weekend, though. It should have been the win that kick-started our season.

No, we went for Liverpool after going a goal down 5 minutes into the second half. As has been more eloquently posted above I believe Hughes lacks the imagination to be a top 4 manager, the best managers will act from instinct in certain situations and one look at Liverpool's form and line-up on Saturday should have been enough to persuade Hughes that a more attacking approach from the start would pay off. We didn't have to be gung-ho in the first half, just get someone up in support of Ade instead of pinging long balls at him when he had nobody to lay them off to.