Player Topic: Kelechi Iheanacho (2015/16)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Didsbury Dave said:
Haha. "We should have brought on Nacho" is the most typical binary fan sentiment I've ever seen.

Fans like strikers. Fans like youth products. Fans think in binary "we need a goal=bring on a striker". Utter rubbish. It would have been madness to bring him on because the shape was working, we were playing football around their box, we were creating chances and our striker looked sharp. Silva was the right sub, to open them up with his magic, because they were defending deep and in numbers, and you could certainly have made a case for bringing him on earlier, but we were totally dominant with the personnel we had. I'd have brought on Kolorov for Clichy to give Sterling more of an overlap option late in the game. In the first half there was definitely a case for bringing on Delph for Yaya. There was no case at all in my mind for playing sterling off the striker in the first half and the swap with de Bruyne should have happened well before half time.

But at no point ever in last night's game would it have been sensible to bung another striker on like a desperate Sunday league team.
Click to expand...
Phew! Common sense showing up :) I guess I should just wait till the next day :)
 
Dax777 said:
Lol, my apologies. The hyperbole from the anti crew has gotten me all hyperbolic myself :)

I'm kinda in your boat. Didn't even want MP to start with. Didn't want Mancini fired, not because I particularly thought he was great, but because I didn't think there are that many good coaches.

In my opinion, coaching at the top has more to do with talent and built in credibility. So, either you get someone who has won a lot like Pep and Klopp, or you get a specialist like the crazy Chilean or Van Gaal, who tend to run their players into the ground.

Mourihno used to be in the Pep/Klopp category. Now he is more like Hindink/Ancelloti. Guys who have won and people respect. But by and large, the difference is talent, not coaching. Or how else would one describr the present manager of the year, Luis Enrique?

average at 2 stops, became the coach of a bunch of extremely talented players, and suddenly he seems like a genius. Crushing everyone and everything around. This is a guy half his board wanted to fire a mere 13 months ago.

So, i generally roll my eyes on manager discussions. I think managers are constantly overrated or underrated. They are mostly all average, with some bad ones sprayed in.

So while I'm all for Pep coming, the reason why I want him is mostly for his recruitment. Sure, he'd add some gengenpressing here, some tactical nuance there. But his greatest attribute will be the talent his clout brings to the club.

So until he arrives with all the best young talent in Germany, Spain, and England I support the present coach. Especially in light of the fact that he gets it right (as in doing what 95% of coaches in his position would have done.)

Managers live and die with their stars. Pelegrini will too. And I can't fault him for that.
Click to expand...

Last quick post off-topic, mods, sorry...

Thanks for the reply, that's an interesting viewpoint. I would have to respectfully disagree with your views on coaching in general though. O eblieve that the art and science behind tactics and training is truly amazing. The battlefield has always been the ultimate version of a dynamic, complex team game... football is a close fookin second though! When you follow the evolution of tactics and it's branches all around the world through the decades, getting to have a glimpse at pioneer coaches like La Volpe, Arrigo Sacchi, Rens Mikel, Johan Cruyf... A man like me cannot help but give more weight to 'the collective' over 'the individual.'

Nevertheless, I appreciate I may be wrong in my priorities. football's that amazing that you can constantly learn no matter how many years you've been watching. But yeah, appreciate your argument :)



Back on topic to Iheanacho...

I'd like to see him start against Crystal Palace. He scored his first PL goal in 5 mins against them. Scored 2 great goals against them in the League Cup (one of which was wrongfully denied.) I just think that we could take advantage of that psychological boost he must feel when playing them. Not to mention he's earned some playing time (not a dig at Pellers.) He's also shown great link up play with Aguero and Sterling in particular, who'll both probably start off current form.
 
Didsbury Dave said:
Haha. "We should have brought on Nacho" is the most typical binary fan sentiment I've ever seen.

Fans like strikers. Fans like youth products. Fans think in binary "we need a goal=bring on a striker". Utter rubbish. It would have been madness to bring him on because the shape was working, we were playing football around their box, we were creating chances and our striker looked sharp. Silva was the right sub, to open them up with his magic, because they were defending deep and in numbers, and you could certainly have made a case for bringing him on earlier, but we were totally dominant with the personnel we had. I'd have brought on Kolorov for Clichy to give Sterling more of an overlap option late in the game. In the first half there was definitely a case for bringing on Delph for Yaya. There was no case at all in my mind for playing sterling off the striker in the first half and the swap with de Bruyne should have happened well before half time.

But at no point ever in last night's game would it have been sensible to bung another striker on like a desperate Sunday league team.
Click to expand...

3 shots on target from open play, 2 crosses completed from open play and about 30 unsuccessful, very little support in the area for Aguero. So despite being "totally dominant" we were easy to defend against.
We created 18 chances, we average 15 a game at home so that's decent but how many were clear cut? 1? Where Aguero got in on Howard.

Putting on a striker to open up space and pull defenders out of position, when we do have the Lions share of possession and they are basically playing for the draw is far from this binary bollocks you're spouting.
 
01cravend said:
3 shots on target from open play, 2 crosses completed from open play and about 30 unsuccessful, very little support in the area for Aguero. So despite being "totally dominant" we were easy to defend against.
We created 18 chances, we average 15 a game at home so that's decent but how many were clear cut? 1? Where Aguero got in on Howard.

Putting on a striker to open up space and pull defenders out of position, when we do have the Lions share of possession and they are basically playing for the draw is far from this binary bollocks you're spouting.
Click to expand...

So all them last ditch tackles were easy, were they? For example Stones blocking Sterling's shot, that was easy was it and btw that doesn't go down as a shot on target.

Oh and Yaya's header, that was clear cut too
 
Rolee said:
So all them last ditch tackles were easy, were they? For example Stones blocking Sterling's shot, that was easy was it and btw that doesn't go down as a shot on target.

Oh and Yaya's header, that was clear cut too
Click to expand...

Haha I am aware that it's not a shot on target.

I can't recall any last ditch tackles?...A few good blocks though yes.

Was a clearish chance I guess but from about the penalty spot out it would of had to of been an awesome header to beat the keeper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.