Quality wise of course it was bad. We made defensive mistakes and we couldn't pass. We worked hard and got a great result, but quality wise it was a million miles away from what we can produce. Half the team were awful and with the exception of De Bruyne, the others made errors which lead to a goal.Well they had one penalty that shouldn't have been given, one goal that should have been ruled out for offside and another that was pure luck.
What they really created, in terms of genuine chances, we're just 2-3 attempts over 90 minutes. That's PSG, one of the best teams in Europe and at peak form, at home against a team missing their key defender.
If that's a bad performance, well.....
If you read back, i wasn't moaning. I was over the moon with the result considering we hadn't been anywhere near our best. It was actually positive, but then the happy clappers jumped on it so I've spent the last few posts trying to justify why it's ok to say we didn't play well.That's what I like to see on Bluemoon: a really positive post.
For fuck's sake, just enjoy the result, look forward to the second leg and get behind the team, instead of moaning about/at it!
Please delete this post, this is Manchester "Typical City" Football Club you're talking about!82% of teams who draww 2-2 away in the first leg progress.
14 English teams have gotten a 2-2 in Europe away in the first leg, 13 have progressed.
Yeah i don't think either of us are saying they were dominant. I said i thought we were borderline awful in terms of our actual quality, and i thought they were also really poor. They're definitely beatable. Their overall quality in the middle is really poor without Veratti or Pastore, and take away Matuidi for the second leg, and bring in Yaya and maybe even Kompany and we are the favourites and rightly so.Their possession/passes in the final third were nowhere near that, it was far more even than that stat suggests PSG 72% - City 69% which is far more significant considering we were the away team(anything less than a win is bad for the home team they were the ones who needed it more). Key passes even too PSG 11 City 10, couple that with some of their 16 shots being freekicks from far outside the box(half of which from clear dives!) the fact that we had 11 against them hardly shows them as a dominant force in this game... they just weren't. More importantly the stats that matter... both of their goal had a great deal of fortune about them.
Their first goal was undeserved and it did affect us for a long period after it(BT were praising us even before De Bruyne scored) continuing into the second half where the goal came from(that shouldn't have stood) and where the bulk of that possession came from. They are beatable believe it!
Very sorry but I really can't agree with disciplined, well-organized defending. It was shambolic at both ends. Otamendi was disastrous, he runs around like a headless chicken. If it wasn't for the inexplicable one-on-one miss by Ibrahimovic in the first half, it would've been severely punished.
Mangala did very well on a personal level and with some good tactical & positional guidance (Vinny!) I'm sure he could become a great CB. For Otamendi I have no hope.
Let's face it, if PSG would've been their normal efficient selves, City would've been 2-0 down halfway the first half perhaps even with ten man. I think a lot of referees would've given that first penalty shout and a red card on top of it. There's arguments in favor and against, but PSG had a very strong case there in my view (a lot stronger than the actual penalty they got).
Clichy was not good either. Stupidest of yellow cards by the sideline, totally uncalled for. Also lost posession without being under threat a fair number of times. I thought Sagna did a lot better at the other end, but just like Clichy played way too far from the PSG winger. Every time their wing backes moved forward in the second half there was no City player even close to them, they could freely control the ball, run forward a bit more, pick out their best foot and swing in a lovely cross for Ibra, Cavani and the others.
So organizationally, positionally, tactically, City defense was all over the place. Strong guidance required.
Apart from that City fought hard, looked good going forward and deserved the result. But it could've been a totally different story with Ibra in his normal form.
Sorry to disagree guys.
I didn't realise Shay was a Scouser!
Didn't we lose 4-0 twice to Wimbledon the year we won the league under Keegan as well?On another day Luiz would have been sent off after 1 minute and we would have scored 5 so what's your point.
I'm sorry but you don't go to Madrid, Bayern, Barcelona, Juventus, PSG and play open football. Not with the players we have at least. You restrict them and we did that very well and also looked dangerous going forward. If you think that is a poor performance then you should have seen us play Wimbledon at home when we got hammered 3-0 in the late 80's now that was a poor performance.
If you read back, i wasn't moaning. I was over the moon with the result considering we hadn't been anywhere near our best. It was actually positive, but then the happy clappers jumped on it so I've spent the last few posts trying to justify why it's ok to say we didn't play well.
Clichy, Silva, Aguero, Navas, Otamendi were awful. Sagna gave a penalty away, Mangala probably could have been sent off, Fernando made one of the worst kind of errors you will see. Fernandinho and Hart were both poor for their second. Quality wise, we were terrible, nowhere near as good as we can be.
If you read back, i wasn't moaning. I was over the moon with the result considering we hadn't been anywhere near our best. It was actually positive, but then the happy clappers jumped on it so I've spent the last few posts trying to justify why it's ok to say we didn't play well.
Putting it right? Not a chance. Explaining why i thought we were awful....on a thread where you are supposed to talk about the game (good and bad).Good God. You spent all of last night trying to put right your 'borderline awful' comment and no you come up with the classic 'happy clappers'. Brilliant!
Or, alternatively, the referee could have judged that Matuidi got the ball caught in his feet and was not fouled by Mangala, that Luiz hooked Sagna's leg and dived for the penalty appeal. This would have got Luis his second yellow and reduced PSG to ten men with the score still 0-0. So City would not have been, as they were not, 2-0 down and we wouldn't have been, as we weren't, down to ten men. Being their "normal, efficient selves" doesn't ever give them a pass completion rate or a chance conversion rate of 100% or anything like - any more than City.
My point is this. Keane, Ferdinand and the media always judge City performances on what would have happened had absolutely everything that could have gone wrong actually gone wrong while our opponents are expected to have everything go right. Thus, City were lucky Mangala was not sent off, lucky Joe saved a penalty, lucky "Zlatan" (their personal friend?) put a good chance over the bar and they were unlucky to concede two sloppy goals but not at all lucky not to have Luis sent off, not at all lucky to be given a penalty that wasn't and certainly not lucky to be given a goal which should have been disallowed. And that's what you are doing, though for very different reasons. No team can play PSG and prevent them creating chances in 90 minutes, as Real will testify from the group games, but against Real PSG didn't stick them away either. They couldn't stop us creating and taking two chances. That is what actually happened. But you can always play the "what if..." game.