Negative players or negative tactics...

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone thinks it's acceptable to go one down or to continually play the first half the way we did.

But I don't think a change in formation would have made us pass better, or make less dumb mistakes, or stop individuals from playing poorly. A more attacking formation wouldn't have guaranteed we wouldn't have gone in 1 or more down at half time, in fact the way individuals were performing I would have thought conceding one or more would have been most likely with a less defensive formation.

Where he fucked up on the day IMO, is taking too long to replace SWP.

I hear what you're saying 100% Moomba and I don't necessarily disagree with much of it, but my gripe is a much broader one.

From what I can see with my own eyes, we are taking exactly the same approach, home or away, whoever the opposition. The buzzwords are "safety first", "defensive organization", "team shape", "hold your position". There's a lack of fluidity, a lack of desire on management's part to go out and beat inferior opposition by playing them off the park.

I fully understand that defensive organization was our biggest weakness under MH, so I can see why these things are important. But it shouldn't be one or the other.

 

[PSmyth07]

Negative Players. Mancini wants the team to attack as a unit and defend as a unit, thats not negative.

Our weak-links yesterday were De Jong and Richards.
De Jong doesn't know how to run with a ball, get into the box and support the attackers
Richards just backs off and lets the attacker cut inside. Malbraque(?) isn't going to beat anyone on pace, just show him wide ffs.

 

[KingofDraw]

I do find it amazing how short memories some fans have.

Mancini started at City with a 442. Something the board had been (wrongly IMO) crying out for ever since the Sven days. Wasn't working, so he went to 451 against Stoke and it worked. Fans applauded him. Stayed 451 for the game at Wolves, wasnt working. Switched to 442 and it worked.

Cue the 442 for a number of weeks where we also steam rolled Blackburn, only to fall short badly against Everton, where Fellaini murdered us. 442 doesnt work you cried... its obvious we have to go back to 451/433. Such was the manner of the defeat, Mancini didn't feel he could trust Barry and De Jong against United, so switched to 451 with 3 "defensive" midfielders. And guess what, we won that night, so he stuck with it at Old Trafford where we narrowly lost and had more than enough chances to at least take the tie to extra time.

The United game had a huge effect on morale, and we were down in the dumps for a good month following that. You asked for Ireland, he gave you Ireland... who flopped against Stoke. The morale stayed low until the Chelsea game, where we played... 451 with three defensive midfielders. AJ looked poor there, and SWP played well enough to retain his spot so it was as you were against Sunderland. So please stop with the revisionist shit about 1) fielding too negative a side when the facts show that we've got more results playing this way under Mancini and 2) SWP shouldn't have started over AJ.

The truth is Mancini doesn't have the personnel to play how he likes, so it's a weekly struggle to find his best team on any given week. This is confounded by the fact we do not have enough quality in central midfield. He wanted Mariga and Vieira for a reason, as he recognised rightly that the midfield is our weakest position by a country mile. We have no options there - if Barry isn't playing well there is nobody to replace him. If Ireland isn't playing well there isn't anybody to replace him in that position. United have Carrick, Anderson, Scholes, Fletcher, Gibson, Hargreaves... if one of them isn't playing well, as Carrick wasn't earlier in the season he loses his place. If one of them is injured, like Hargreaves, there is quality to replace him. Same at Chelsea with Lampard, Essien, Mikel, Cole, Ballack all capable of playing in the middle. We don't have that luxury and it's killed us this year.

good post, i don't think tho we have tried a 442 with 2 real wingers until sunderland. we were using ireland in the right wing. and yesterday i thought it worked alot better than the 3 man midfield.

but you are right. our players are just not good enough. Barry is average, De Jong is average, Vieira is average, ireland is playing shit. zabaleta is inconsistent. but if this is the case i think we should try and keep less of them on the pitch at a time.

a 4 4 2 adds santa cruz someone who can win headers and knock balls down to tevez an get bellamy and johnson in the game. De jong should be in because we dont get anything from our midfield anyway id rather have him to stop their attack. and either vieira or barry after that.

 

[Project]

There was a spell during that 442 when it was Petrov and Bellamy on the flanks. I think next year we may very well see 442, with Johnson and Bellamy on the wings, provided we can bring in some real muscle in the middle of the field. I don't mind De Jong being one of those, but the other has to be somebody with real drive. I hate to say it, but Fletcher like. Or Vieira 5 or 6 years ago. Barry isn't that guy as far as 442 goes IMO. He works as a midfield two in the England side because you have Gerrard slightly in field from the left.

 

[Rammy Blue]

I do find it amazing how short memories some fans have.

Mancini started at City with a 442. Something the board had been (wrongly IMO) crying out for ever since the Sven days. Wasn't working, so he went to 451 against Stoke and it worked. Fans applauded him. Stayed 451 for the game at Wolves, wasnt working. Switched to 442 and it worked.

Cue the 442 for a number of weeks where we also steam rolled Blackburn, only to fall short badly against Everton, where Fellaini murdered us. 442 doesnt work you cried... its obvious we have to go back to 451/433. Such was the manner of the defeat, Mancini didn't feel he could trust Barry and De Jong against United, so switched to 451 with 3 "defensive" midfielders. And guess what, we won that night, so he stuck with it at Old Trafford where we narrowly lost and had more than enough chances to at least take the tie to extra time.

The United game had a huge effect on morale, and we were down in the dumps for a good month following that. You asked for Ireland, he gave you Ireland... who flopped against Stoke. The morale stayed low until the Chelsea game, where we played... 451 with three defensive midfielders. AJ looked poor there, and SWP played well enough to retain his spot so it was as you were against Sunderland. So please stop with the revisionist shit about 1) fielding too negative a side when the facts show that we've got more results playing this way under Mancini and 2) SWP shouldn't have started over AJ.

The truth is Mancini doesn't have the personnel to play how he likes, so it's a weekly struggle to find his best team on any given week. This is confounded by the fact we do not have enough quality in central midfield. He wanted Mariga and Vieira for a reason, as he recognised rightly that the midfield is our weakest position by a country mile. We have no options there - if Barry isn't playing well there is nobody to replace him. If Ireland isn't playing well there isn't anybody to replace him in that position. United have Carrick, Anderson, Scholes, Fletcher, Gibson, Hargreaves... if one of them isn't playing well, as Carrick wasn't earlier in the season he loses his place. If one of them is injured, like Hargreaves, there is quality to replace him. Same at Chelsea with Lampard, Essien, Mikel, Cole, Ballack all capable of playing in the middle. We don't have that luxury and it's killed us this year.

excellent post.

 

[Anonymous]

I do find it amazing how short memories some fans have.

Mancini started at City with a 442. Something the board had been (wrongly IMO) crying out for ever since the Sven days. Wasn't working, so he went to 451 against Stoke and it worked. Fans applauded him. Stayed 451 for the game at Wolves, wasnt working. Switched to 442 and it worked.

Cue the 442 for a number of weeks where we also steam rolled Blackburn, only to fall short badly against Everton, where Fellaini murdered us. 442 doesnt work you cried... its obvious we have to go back to 451/433. Such was the manner of the defeat, Mancini didn't feel he could trust Barry and De Jong against United, so switched to 451 with 3 "defensive" midfielders. And guess what, we won that night, so he stuck with it at Old Trafford where we narrowly lost and had more than enough chances to at least take the tie to extra time.

The United game had a huge effect on morale, and we were down in the dumps for a good month following that. You asked for Ireland, he gave you Ireland... who flopped against Stoke. The morale stayed low until the Chelsea game, where we played... 451 with three defensive midfielders. AJ looked poor there, and SWP played well enough to retain his spot so it was as you were against Sunderland. So please stop with the revisionist shit about 1) fielding too negative a side when the facts show that we've got more results playing this way under Mancini and 2) SWP shouldn't have started over AJ.

The truth is Mancini doesn't have the personnel to play how he likes, so it's a weekly struggle to find his best team on any given week. This is confounded by the fact we do not have enough quality in central midfield. He wanted Mariga and Vieira for a reason, as he recognised rightly that the midfield is our weakest position by a country mile. We have no options there - if Barry isn't playing well there is nobody to replace him. If Ireland isn't playing well there isn't anybody to replace him in that position. United have Carrick, Anderson, Scholes, Fletcher, Gibson, Hargreaves... if one of them isn't playing well, as Carrick wasn't earlier in the season he loses his place. If one of them is injured, like Hargreaves, there is quality to replace him. Same at Chelsea with Lampard, Essien, Mikel, Cole, Ballack all capable of playing in the middle. We don't have that luxury and it's killed us this year.

excellent post.

It's amazing, and more than a little amusing, just how much slack this board is prepared to give Mancini. He has the same compliment of players Hughes had, plus Viera and AJ.

If Mancini doesn't know what his best team is (which he doesn't BTW), after nearly three months in charge, then that is pretty poor IMO.

Whether we play two or three sitting in midfield, two wingers or none, none of those things excuse our inability to impose ourselves upon matches.

 

[Marvin]

How many saves did Given make? How many did Gordon make?

Reading this thread it's as if we were lucky to get away with a point. Reality is Sunderland were clinging on.

Yes we can improve

 

[Soulboy]

I find it bizarre that people think Mancini was negative at Sunderland.

We played pretty much the whole second half with two wingers, two forwards and we pummelled the home side.

When we equalised, in injury time, did we have the manager indicating that we should shut up shop?

Did he fuck. He ran along the touchline urging the players back into position and to try and win the game.

And if it wasn't for the previous manager's ludicrous signings missing chances we should havbe gone on and won it.

Stop pointing fingers at the current manager... he can only pick what he's been left with.

And as I've stated previously (and was rounded upon for it!), the January window was a disaster for us. We had the chance to kick on and too many fucked up.

 

[Nelly's Left Foot]

I don't think anyone thinks it's acceptable to go one down or to continually play the first half the way we did.

But I don't think a change in formation would have made us pass better, or make less dumb mistakes, or stop individuals from playing poorly. A more attacking formation wouldn't have guaranteed we wouldn't have gone in 1 or more down at half time, in fact the way individuals were performing I would have thought conceding one or more would have been most likely with a less defensive formation.

Whilst this argument has some validity it is exactly the one used when things went wrong in matches for the previous manager. More often than not it was individual mistakes that cost then and nothing to do with formations/tactics.

 

[robbieh]

Billy Shears.

I haven't noticed that much slack being given to RM on this board. He is only ever one defeat away from a deluge of abuse from the likes of yourself.

And if some of us do give him the benefit of the doubt it is due to the excellent CV he has unlike the previous incumbent who showed no signs of getting to grips with our defensive problems despite huge expense and plenty of time and was keen to dip further into our owners pockets to cover for his own coaching shortcomings.