Negative players or negative tactics...

[Anonymous]

You've said this a few times today. You haven't answered this question yet... what has Stevie done this season to make you think he'd have changed the game in any way?

Even in his limited appearances such as against Pompey and at home to Stoke in the cup he created goals with good passes. How many goals have Vieira, De Jong and Barry created between them all season?

Barry 7
De Jong 0
Ireland 4

 

[BobKowalski]

Hughes. Look at his record in away games after 28 or so games. He got it wrong time after time but never changed athing, not just in the 90 minutes but in game after game. Now how many managers in the premier league try to make a change to the game after 30 minutes?

sorry but the change was enforced upon him as bridge was injured....he said so much in his after match interview so it wasnt a masterstroke if thats what you are claiming.

he did however change it at half time so credit where credit is due....i just wish eh would get it right from the start!!!!

Actually I disagree. Mancini had to get RSC on because the short game was going nowhere and hitting the ball long was pointless without someone like RSC to compete for it.

If Bridge had not picked up a niggle then it could have been Richards who was subbed instead with Zabs slotting back. It was a bold, if obvious, move and all that remained was which FB came off. Bridge got the nod because of the niggle.

Its not often you see two FB's replaced by offensive players and its the sort of shit Mourinho pulls whens it going a bit tits. Mancini likes swapping things around and tries to change things when it ain't working. Personally I prefer it to the lets sit there and hope that it all works out for the best.

The frustratingly slow start was nothing to do with tactics. If you start in 2nd gear and the opposition start as if they are on PCP then you are going to struggle. Factor in an early goal which rattled us and we ended up all over the place.

Quite what changed in the 2nd half frankly I haven't got a clue unless Mancini gave them a bollocking to end all bollockings but that doesn't seem his style so who knows but 2nd half we were as good as we were awful in the 1st.

Sometimes I think shit just happens.

Sometimes I forget that this squad is playing its first season together and that maybe it just needs time.

As for the game I am just f**king relieved we got a point as I had written us off about 5 minutes earlier.

That'll teach me :)

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Negative players or negative tactics...

or just negative posters??

I would have taken a point at Sunderland at the start and am satisfied with the point now.

We are still the hardest team to beat in the league.

Sunderland have shown that over the season they have been as good as their league table shows - mid bottom half. We have enough quality in the team to have seen them off by half time, which has been the problem this season - we have allowed mediocre teams a foothold into a game and then spent the rest of the match trying to wrest a point out of them. We even try to adopt a cautionary approach at home, where we should set about a team and not give them a minute's peace and make them defend on the edge of their box for twenty minutes - two goals and the mind set of the opposition is set in stone - they have lost it!

Being the hardest team to beat is a wonderful characteristic and it is one which has been good to teams in the past - it is often the first quality of the team finishing fourth, but we should be a team that is better than 'being hard to beat'. We should be taking far more 'three points' from a game from teams looking over their shoulders at the trap door of relegation.

 

[Project]

Negative players or negative tactics...

or just negative posters??

I would have taken a point at Sunderland at the start and am satisfied with the point now.

We are still the hardest team to beat in the league.

Sunderland have shown that over the season they have been as good as their league table shows - mid bottom half. We have enough quality in the team to have seen them off by half time, which has been the problem this season - we have allowed mediocre teams a foothold into a game and then spent the rest of the match trying to wrest a point out of them. We even try to adopt a cautionary approach at home, where we should set about a team and not give them a minute's peace and make them defend on the edge of their box for twenty minutes - two goals and the mind set of the opposition is set in stone - they have lost it!

Being the hardest team to beat is a wonderful characteristic and it is one which has been good to teams in the past - it is often the first quality of the team finishing fourth, but we should be a team that is better than 'being hard to beat'. We should be taking far more 'three points' from a game from teams looking over their shoulders at the trap door of relegation.

Have you seen their home form?

W6
D7
L2
F24
A15

At home they are a very decent side. Harder to beat than Fulham, Stoke, Spurs etc

 

[JULES]

who says he got it so wrong. Its the same tactics that beat Chelsea so it cant be all bad.

At the end of the day he is learning what qualities the players he has inherited have got.

Did he sign SWP, Did he sign Santa-Cruz, Will either be here in August. NoWhen players have shockers on the scale some did today, in particular SWP then there isnt much the manager can do. The only error i think he made was not bringing Johnson on for SWP at half time. Barry, RSC, SWP, Tevez, Viera all had glorious chances to score. Another day and we stuff them out of sight and everyone is happy.

He is making the team solid, thats not being negative, you build a team from the back and not the front. He has a style of play going forwards and until he gets the kind of players that will suit that attacking style its hard to judge him properley.

Look at Ancelotti, Mourinho, Hidding, etc. they all play this way. They teach the team to defence, and once that is sorted let them attack.

agree with all you said apart from underlined

 

[Seosa]

Players. I think the majority of the squad is now on Mancini's side, but there are one or two glitches....

 

[JULES]

sorry but the change was enforced upon him as bridge was injured....he said so much in his after match interview so it wasnt a masterstroke if thats what you are claiming.

he did however change it at half time so credit where credit is due....i just wish eh would get it right from the start!!!!

Actually I disagree. Mancini had to get RSC on because the short game was going nowhere and hitting the ball long was pointless without someone like RSC to compete for it.

If Bridge had not picked up a niggle then it could have been Richards who was subbed instead with Zabs slotting back. It was a bold, if obvious, move and all that remained was which FB came off. Bridge got the nod because of the niggle.

Its not often you see two FB's replaced by offensive players and its the sort of shit Mourinho pulls whens it going a bit tits. Mancini likes swapping things around and tries to change things when it ain't working. Personally I prefer it to the lets sit there and hope that it all works out for the best.

The frustratingly slow start was nothing to do with tactics. If you start in 2nd gear and the opposition start as if they are on PCP then you are going to struggle. Factor in an early goal which rattled us and we ended up all over the place.

Quite what changed in the 2nd half frankly I haven't got a clue unless Mancini gave them a bollocking to end all bollockings but that doesn't seem his style so who knows but 2nd half we were as good as we were awful in the 1st.

Sometimes I think shit just happens.

Sometimes I forget that this squad is playing its first season together and that maybe it just needs time.

As for the game I am just f**king relieved we got a point as I had written us off about 5 minutes earlier.

That'll teach me :)

of course it does, but try telling that to some of the people on here!

 

[Marvin]

Negative players or negative tactics...

or just negative posters??

I would have taken a point at Sunderland at the start and am satisfied with the point now.

We are still the hardest team to beat in the league.

Sunderland have shown that over the season they have been as good as their league table shows - mid bottom half. We have enough quality in the team to have seen them off by half time, which has been the problem this season - we have allowed mediocre teams a foothold into a game and then spent the rest of the match trying to wrest a point out of them. We even try to adopt a cautionary approach at home, where we should set about a team and not give them a minute's peace and make them defend on the edge of their box for twenty minutes - two goals and the mind set of the opposition is set in stone - they have lost it!

Being the hardest team to beat is a wonderful characteristic and it is one which has been good to teams in the past - it is often the first quality of the team finishing fourth, but we should be a team that is better than 'being hard to beat'. We should be taking far more 'three points' from a game from teams looking over their shoulders at the trap door of relegation.

Firstly only Chelsea and Villa have won at SOL in the League

Secondly it was Bruce who put 10 men behind the ball in the 2nd half, and Mancini who took both full backs on and gambled.

 

[masterwig]

Even in his limited appearances such as against Pompey and at home to Stoke in the cup he created goals with good passes. How many goals have Vieira, De Jong and Barry created between them all season?

Barry 7
De Jong 0
Ireland 4

Barry has played 2398 minutes in the Premier League compared to Ireland's 1400 (according to fantasy.premierleague.com). So you'd expect him to have created and scored considerably more goals than Ireland.

I just don't see the centre of midfield creating enough, it is all coming from the wings or Tevez.

 

[Rammy Blue]

putting Stevie Ireland on would have been pointless yesterday as the pitch was far too poor.

bob got his subs correct imo.