You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Player thread : Edin Dzeko (2014/15)
- Thread starter cleavers
- Start date
noise
Well-Known Member
Re: Edin Dzeko (continued)
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Team-news/2014/April/Edin-Dzeko-Title-fight-will-go-to-the-wire-Sunderland-preview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Team-news/20 ... nd-preview</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Team-news/2014/April/Edin-Dzeko-Title-fight-will-go-to-the-wire-Sunderland-preview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Team-news/20 ... nd-preview</a>
The nadir in the 2011/12 campaign came at the Emirates, when Arsenal’s Mikel Arteta fired a late winner which felt like the beginning of the end for City's title hopes.
We all know how that turned out.
The nature of Sunday afternoon’s defeat to Liverpool may have left some supporters feeling similarly funereal but Edin Dzeko knows better than most how quickly things can change at this late stage of the season.
Dzeko had already won the Bundesliga with Wolfsburg before his 90th minute equalising goal against QPR on the final day of the 2011/12 campaign which kick started that stunning finale.
Now the Bosnian believes that history can repeat itself two years later, with the league champions being crowned on the very final day.
“It’s too early to say if Sunday’s result will decide where the title ends up because we still have six games to play and Liverpool and Chelsea both have four left,” the 28-year old declared.
“People talk about pressure and suchlike but that doesn’t really matter – just who wins the most games between now and the end of the season.
"I firmly believe, like the last time we won the title, that it will go right to the wire despite our defeat at Anfield.”
What looks certain is that City won’t be afforded any more slip-ups if they are to capture a second title in three years.
Like in 2012, the Blues require a sprint finish, starting at the Etihad Stadium on Wednesday night when Sunderland are the visitors.
“It was an amazing experience to win the title in 2012 but that was then, this is now and everything is different,” Edin asserted.
“We have a lot of new players and we want to win it again for our fans, the team and the Club and we have to get back on track by beating Sunderland and West Brom in the next week.
“It is very difficult to win titles anywhere and the Bundesliga and the Premier League are among the hardest to win, but I enjoyed winning the league with Wolfsburg and it was amazing to win it with City and I hope to win it many more times as a City player.”
The Sarajevo-born frontman is enjoying his best goalscoring season in his four years as a City player, netting 21 goals in 41 appearances.
Dzeko puts this excellent form down to Manuel Pellegrini and firmly believes that the team will now be even stronger for the run-in, with Sergio Aguero back on board.
“The manager has brought some new things to the team. We are playing aggressive, attacking football and scoring a lot of goals,” Dzeko smiled.
...Edin Dzeko...
“Sergio’s return is great for the team because he is such an important player for us.
"We hope we can see the very best of him in the games that remain.”
Matty
Well-Known Member
Re: Edin Dzeko (continued)
I thought Dzeko was looking tired by the time he was removed, playing the lone striker role is a lot of hard work, it's very rare that someone lasts the full 90 minutes when playing up front on their own. Aguero was always going to get some gametime against Liverpool, he's undoubtedly our best striker. I don't believe Nasri should have been removed to accommodate Aguero as that would have involved a change to the shape of the side, which wouldn't have been a sensible approach at that point (especially given the fact the Aguero substitution was our final allowable change). I don't have any issues with Dzeko being removed at the point he was, regardless of how well he may or may not have played prior to this , he was tiring and was always going to need replacing at some stage, and the extra pace Aguero was going to provide was more useful against a tiring Liverpool defence in a game that was getting quite stretched.
I thought Dzeko was looking tired by the time he was removed, playing the lone striker role is a lot of hard work, it's very rare that someone lasts the full 90 minutes when playing up front on their own. Aguero was always going to get some gametime against Liverpool, he's undoubtedly our best striker. I don't believe Nasri should have been removed to accommodate Aguero as that would have involved a change to the shape of the side, which wouldn't have been a sensible approach at that point (especially given the fact the Aguero substitution was our final allowable change). I don't have any issues with Dzeko being removed at the point he was, regardless of how well he may or may not have played prior to this , he was tiring and was always going to need replacing at some stage, and the extra pace Aguero was going to provide was more useful against a tiring Liverpool defence in a game that was getting quite stretched.
Re: Edin Dzeko (continued)
If he goes, who comes as his replacement?
Aguero is nr. 1 striker, and the style suits him. Lately (last 2 seasons) plagued by fitness issues, but hopefully recovers for the next year. However, as even the mighty Barcelona are experiencing more and more frequently, sometimes even the best of forwards can't do much, and you need plan B - (so analysts are suggesting they get a tall forward and a tall defender).
Negredo, the eternal enigma, will probably improve vs his current form, as it can not get much worse, but the question is, will that be enough. Average Negredo from Sevilla will most certainly fail to meet the expectations.
Jovetic, if he ever gets healthy enough to have a run of 3 consecutive games, is not a classical forward, and is in style closer to Nasri then to Dzeko/Aguero/Negredo.
If this 442 thing persists, additional CF is required. Alternatively, switching to 1 CF would allow to keep the current squad, sans Dzeko.
If he goes, who comes as his replacement?
Aguero is nr. 1 striker, and the style suits him. Lately (last 2 seasons) plagued by fitness issues, but hopefully recovers for the next year. However, as even the mighty Barcelona are experiencing more and more frequently, sometimes even the best of forwards can't do much, and you need plan B - (so analysts are suggesting they get a tall forward and a tall defender).
Negredo, the eternal enigma, will probably improve vs his current form, as it can not get much worse, but the question is, will that be enough. Average Negredo from Sevilla will most certainly fail to meet the expectations.
Jovetic, if he ever gets healthy enough to have a run of 3 consecutive games, is not a classical forward, and is in style closer to Nasri then to Dzeko/Aguero/Negredo.
If this 442 thing persists, additional CF is required. Alternatively, switching to 1 CF would allow to keep the current squad, sans Dzeko.
Re: Edin Dzeko (continued)
Yeah he was you are right. But I still think that he should have played atleast 80 mins, It felt, like the team was going for it.
Why not both Dzeko and Aguero instead. I thought Nasri looked poor even though he's a favorite. Aguero needs a support striker and someone that opens up space for him.
Matty said:I thought Dzeko was looking tired by the time he was removed, playing the lone striker role is a lot of hard work, it's very rare that someone lasts the full 90 minutes when playing up front on their own. Aguero was always going to get some gametime against Liverpool, he's undoubtedly our best striker. I don't believe Nasri should have been removed to accommodate Aguero as that would have involved a change to the shape of the side, which wouldn't have been a sensible approach at that point (especially given the fact the Aguero substitution was our final allowable change). I don't have any issues with Dzeko being removed at the point he was, regardless of how well he may or may not have played prior to this , he was tiring and was always going to need replacing at some stage, and the extra pace Aguero was going to provide was more useful against a tiring Liverpool defence in a game that was getting quite stretched.
Yeah he was you are right. But I still think that he should have played atleast 80 mins, It felt, like the team was going for it.
Why not both Dzeko and Aguero instead. I thought Nasri looked poor even though he's a favorite. Aguero needs a support striker and someone that opens up space for him.
Matty
Well-Known Member
Re: Edin Dzeko (continued)
City were playing 4-4-1-1, with Silva in the hole behind Dzeko. If you bring on Aguero and take off Nasri then you either go 4-4-2 with both Dzeko and Aguero up front, or you go 4-4-1-1 with Aguero in the hole. In either of those formations you have to move Silva out of the hole and into Nasri's midfield position. I think we can all agree that on Sunday, as he has been for at least the previous month, Silva was our best player, he was running the game from his position and it would have been foolish in the extreme to move him around and mess with the formation to that degree. The only sensible move was to do a straight swap between the two strikers. Giving Aguero 10 minutes wouldn't really have been worthwhile, so we gave him longer, which given Dzeko's tiredness, was probably the correct call.CityMasta said:Matty said:I thought Dzeko was looking tired by the time he was removed, playing the lone striker role is a lot of hard work, it's very rare that someone lasts the full 90 minutes when playing up front on their own. Aguero was always going to get some gametime against Liverpool, he's undoubtedly our best striker. I don't believe Nasri should have been removed to accommodate Aguero as that would have involved a change to the shape of the side, which wouldn't have been a sensible approach at that point (especially given the fact the Aguero substitution was our final allowable change). I don't have any issues with Dzeko being removed at the point he was, regardless of how well he may or may not have played prior to this , he was tiring and was always going to need replacing at some stage, and the extra pace Aguero was going to provide was more useful against a tiring Liverpool defence in a game that was getting quite stretched.
Yeah he was you are right. But I still think that he should have played atleast 80 mins, It felt, like the team was going for it.
Why not both Dzeko and Aguero instead. I thought Nasri looked poor even though he's a favorite. Aguero needs a support striker and someone that opens up space for him.
Re: Edin Dzeko (continued)
There are several ways to keep Silvas effeciency. You are talking like he is not able to play from other positions than behind the striker. Drop Javi/Ferna deep, press forward up with Nasri and Silva, force Aguero to make overlaps with Silva if necessary. I think Pellegrini realised that he did wrong to put in Sergio instead of Dzeko. Nasri would be better to take off, in that situation. Think that he will not allow himself pressure from the media more over Aguero.
Matty said:City were playing 4-4-1-1, with Silva in the hole behind Dzeko. If you bring on Aguero and take off Nasri then you either go 4-4-2 with both Dzeko and Aguero up front, or you go 4-4-1-1 with Aguero in the hole. In either of those formations you have to move Silva out of the hole and into Nasri's midfield position. I think we can all agree that on Sunday, as he has been for at least the previous month, Silva was our best player, he was running the game from his position and it would have been foolish in the extreme to move him around and mess with the formation to that degree. The only sensible move was to do a straight swap between the two strikers. Giving Aguero 10 minutes wouldn't really have been worthwhile, so we gave him longer, which given Dzeko's tiredness, was probably the correct call.CityMasta said:Matty said:I thought Dzeko was looking tired by the time he was removed, playing the lone striker role is a lot of hard work, it's very rare that someone lasts the full 90 minutes when playing up front on their own. Aguero was always going to get some gametime against Liverpool, he's undoubtedly our best striker. I don't believe Nasri should have been removed to accommodate Aguero as that would have involved a change to the shape of the side, which wouldn't have been a sensible approach at that point (especially given the fact the Aguero substitution was our final allowable change). I don't have any issues with Dzeko being removed at the point he was, regardless of how well he may or may not have played prior to this , he was tiring and was always going to need replacing at some stage, and the extra pace Aguero was going to provide was more useful against a tiring Liverpool defence in a game that was getting quite stretched.
Yeah he was you are right. But I still think that he should have played atleast 80 mins, It felt, like the team was going for it.
Why not both Dzeko and Aguero instead. I thought Nasri looked poor even though he's a favorite. Aguero needs a support striker and someone that opens up space for him.
There are several ways to keep Silvas effeciency. You are talking like he is not able to play from other positions than behind the striker. Drop Javi/Ferna deep, press forward up with Nasri and Silva, force Aguero to make overlaps with Silva if necessary. I think Pellegrini realised that he did wrong to put in Sergio instead of Dzeko. Nasri would be better to take off, in that situation. Think that he will not allow himself pressure from the media more over Aguero.
Matty
Well-Known Member
Re: Edin Dzeko (continued)
Of course Silva CAN play in other positions, but he's at his most effective when he plays behind the striker. Silva was the best player on the pitch in the second half, everything we were creating was coming through him, it would have been a tactical debacle if Pellegrini had moved him out of that position so as to accommodate both Dzeko and Aguero on the pitch. It's also worth noting that the substitution took place when the score was 2-2, we didn't need another goal at that point as the draw was a good result for us. Why would we switch to a more offensive, and by default a less effective defensive, system and run the risk of throwing the game away? Liverpool were effective when breaking at speed in the second half, we'd taken control of the midfield area, so to reduce our numbers in there by adding Aguero and removing Nasri would also have been foolhardy. I'm not remotely convinced Pellegrini realises he was wrong to add Aguero and take off Dzeko, mainly because I don't believe he was wrong to do this. As I said earlier, you can't expect someone to play effectively for 90 minutes when playing as a lone striker. Dzeko was running low on energy at the time he was replaced, it was beginning to show in his ability to make runs, work the defence etc. It was the right time to switch him for Aguero. I doubt Pellegrini ever allows himself to be pressured by the media, and certainly he wasn't when he brought on Aguero. If he'd allowed himself to be pressured then he'd have been for more likely to start Aguero ahead of Dzeko rather than just replace him as a sub later on.
CityMasta said:Matty said:City were playing 4-4-1-1, with Silva in the hole behind Dzeko. If you bring on Aguero and take off Nasri then you either go 4-4-2 with both Dzeko and Aguero up front, or you go 4-4-1-1 with Aguero in the hole. In either of those formations you have to move Silva out of the hole and into Nasri's midfield position. I think we can all agree that on Sunday, as he has been for at least the previous month, Silva was our best player, he was running the game from his position and it would have been foolish in the extreme to move him around and mess with the formation to that degree. The only sensible move was to do a straight swap between the two strikers. Giving Aguero 10 minutes wouldn't really have been worthwhile, so we gave him longer, which given Dzeko's tiredness, was probably the correct call.CityMasta said:Yeah he was you are right. But I still think that he should have played atleast 80 mins, It felt, like the team was going for it.
Why not both Dzeko and Aguero instead. I thought Nasri looked poor even though he's a favorite. Aguero needs a support striker and someone that opens up space for him.
There are several ways to keep Silvas effeciency. You are talking like he is not able to play from other positions than behind the striker. Drop Javi/Ferna deep, press forward up with Nasri and Silva, force Aguero to make overlaps with Silva if necessary. I think Pellegrini realised that he did wrong to put in Sergio instead of Dzeko. Nasri would be better to take off, in that situation. Think that he will not allow himself pressure from the media more over Aguero.
Of course Silva CAN play in other positions, but he's at his most effective when he plays behind the striker. Silva was the best player on the pitch in the second half, everything we were creating was coming through him, it would have been a tactical debacle if Pellegrini had moved him out of that position so as to accommodate both Dzeko and Aguero on the pitch. It's also worth noting that the substitution took place when the score was 2-2, we didn't need another goal at that point as the draw was a good result for us. Why would we switch to a more offensive, and by default a less effective defensive, system and run the risk of throwing the game away? Liverpool were effective when breaking at speed in the second half, we'd taken control of the midfield area, so to reduce our numbers in there by adding Aguero and removing Nasri would also have been foolhardy. I'm not remotely convinced Pellegrini realises he was wrong to add Aguero and take off Dzeko, mainly because I don't believe he was wrong to do this. As I said earlier, you can't expect someone to play effectively for 90 minutes when playing as a lone striker. Dzeko was running low on energy at the time he was replaced, it was beginning to show in his ability to make runs, work the defence etc. It was the right time to switch him for Aguero. I doubt Pellegrini ever allows himself to be pressured by the media, and certainly he wasn't when he brought on Aguero. If he'd allowed himself to be pressured then he'd have been for more likely to start Aguero ahead of Dzeko rather than just replace him as a sub later on.
Re: Edin Dzeko (continued)
Good post Matty, I agree with you on some points.
The thing is that we also had Negredo coming in. Now if you are training and are fit, and still get to sit on the bench for a player that has basically been on fire but has not produced anything for two months due to injury then your confidence lowers even more. It's also giving out the wrong signals within the team; Hey this is Sergio Aguero he needs to always play. I mean I love Sergio but I don't think this is the right way of going forward in a team like CIty.
You are right about Dzeko and I understand your points in bringing on Aguero. But we have to be honest seen time from to time that he does not fit in the lone striker role.
I maybe wrong but it felt like Dzeko could bag one, and he was up for it. You could see on his face that he was a bit sad, because he felt he could bring something to the game.
Its like the game against Wigan we rushed Aguero back like he was a Messias and what happened? I like Pellegrini because he does not over praize any player over another as he understands and sees the worth of them all.
Matty said:CityMasta said:Matty said:City were playing 4-4-1-1, with Silva in the hole behind Dzeko. If you bring on Aguero and take off Nasri then you either go 4-4-2 with both Dzeko and Aguero up front, or you go 4-4-1-1 with Aguero in the hole. In either of those formations you have to move Silva out of the hole and into Nasri's midfield position. I think we can all agree that on Sunday, as he has been for at least the previous month, Silva was our best player, he was running the game from his position and it would have been foolish in the extreme to move him around and mess with the formation to that degree. The only sensible move was to do a straight swap between the two strikers. Giving Aguero 10 minutes wouldn't really have been worthwhile, so we gave him longer, which given Dzeko's tiredness, was probably the correct call.
There are several ways to keep Silvas effeciency. You are talking like he is not able to play from other positions than behind the striker. Drop Javi/Ferna deep, press forward up with Nasri and Silva, force Aguero to make overlaps with Silva if necessary. I think Pellegrini realised that he did wrong to put in Sergio instead of Dzeko. Nasri would be better to take off, in that situation. Think that he will not allow himself pressure from the media more over Aguero.
Of course Silva CAN play in other positions, but he's at his most effective when he plays behind the striker. Silva was the best player on the pitch in the second half, everything we were creating was coming through him, it would have been a tactical debacle if Pellegrini had moved him out of that position so as to accommodate both Dzeko and Aguero on the pitch. It's also worth noting that the substitution took place when the score was 2-2, we didn't need another goal at that point as the draw was a good result for us. Why would we switch to a more offensive, and by default a less effective defensive, system and run the risk of throwing the game away? Liverpool were effective when breaking at speed in the second half, we'd taken control of the midfield area, so to reduce our numbers in there by adding Aguero and removing Nasri would also have been foolhardy. I'm not remotely convinced Pellegrini realises he was wrong to add Aguero and take off Dzeko, mainly because I don't believe he was wrong to do this. As I said earlier, you can't expect someone to play effectively for 90 minutes when playing as a lone striker. Dzeko was running low on energy at the time he was replaced, it was beginning to show in his ability to make runs, work the defence etc. It was the right time to switch him for Aguero. I doubt Pellegrini ever allows himself to be pressured by the media, and certainly he wasn't when he brought on Aguero. If he'd allowed himself to be pressured then he'd have been for more likely to start Aguero ahead of Dzeko rather than just replace him as a sub later on.
Good post Matty, I agree with you on some points.
The thing is that we also had Negredo coming in. Now if you are training and are fit, and still get to sit on the bench for a player that has basically been on fire but has not produced anything for two months due to injury then your confidence lowers even more. It's also giving out the wrong signals within the team; Hey this is Sergio Aguero he needs to always play. I mean I love Sergio but I don't think this is the right way of going forward in a team like CIty.
You are right about Dzeko and I understand your points in bringing on Aguero. But we have to be honest seen time from to time that he does not fit in the lone striker role.
I maybe wrong but it felt like Dzeko could bag one, and he was up for it. You could see on his face that he was a bit sad, because he felt he could bring something to the game.
Its like the game against Wigan we rushed Aguero back like he was a Messias and what happened? I like Pellegrini because he does not over praize any player over another as he understands and sees the worth of them all.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Re: Edin Dzeko (continued)
I agree with you in the main. However, Silva has been superb lately wherever he's been playing and I just SO wish we had started 4-1-4-1 or 4-5-1, or even 4-2-3-1 with Garcia (in lieu of Navas or Nasri) and/or Fern in front of our back four. Even though this would have meant moving Silva out to the left, it was a sacrifice worth making in my view because they wouldn't have had anything like the space we gave them. We would have weathered the 30 minute storm so much better and won the game, I am certain of it. Still, no use crying over spilt milk.
Matty said:City were playing 4-4-1-1, with Silva in the hole behind Dzeko. If you bring on Aguero and take off Nasri then you either go 4-4-2 with both Dzeko and Aguero up front, or you go 4-4-1-1 with Aguero in the hole. In either of those formations you have to move Silva out of the hole and into Nasri's midfield position. I think we can all agree that on Sunday, as he has been for at least the previous month, Silva was our best player, he was running the game from his position and it would have been foolish in the extreme to move him around and mess with the formation to that degree. The only sensible move was to do a straight swap between the two strikers. Giving Aguero 10 minutes wouldn't really have been worthwhile, so we gave him longer, which given Dzeko's tiredness, was probably the correct call.CityMasta said:Matty said:I thought Dzeko was looking tired by the time he was removed, playing the lone striker role is a lot of hard work, it's very rare that someone lasts the full 90 minutes when playing up front on their own. Aguero was always going to get some gametime against Liverpool, he's undoubtedly our best striker. I don't believe Nasri should have been removed to accommodate Aguero as that would have involved a change to the shape of the side, which wouldn't have been a sensible approach at that point (especially given the fact the Aguero substitution was our final allowable change). I don't have any issues with Dzeko being removed at the point he was, regardless of how well he may or may not have played prior to this , he was tiring and was always going to need replacing at some stage, and the extra pace Aguero was going to provide was more useful against a tiring Liverpool defence in a game that was getting quite stretched.
Yeah he was you are right. But I still think that he should have played atleast 80 mins, It felt, like the team was going for it.
Why not both Dzeko and Aguero instead. I thought Nasri looked poor even though he's a favorite. Aguero needs a support striker and someone that opens up space for him.
I agree with you in the main. However, Silva has been superb lately wherever he's been playing and I just SO wish we had started 4-1-4-1 or 4-5-1, or even 4-2-3-1 with Garcia (in lieu of Navas or Nasri) and/or Fern in front of our back four. Even though this would have meant moving Silva out to the left, it was a sacrifice worth making in my view because they wouldn't have had anything like the space we gave them. We would have weathered the 30 minute storm so much better and won the game, I am certain of it. Still, no use crying over spilt milk.