Steve Ireland

[scorer]

Thought Ireland had a shocker on Saturday, as soon as he came on, fresh legs etc.... he just never chased the ball down once and was clearly in the wrong for letting Scholes get free in the area.

He just looked to be totally disinterested.

I am a supporter of Roberto Mancini but felt put Ireland on was a massive tactical error, we effectively played with 10 men.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the manager realises that we'd conceded three goals in 45 minutes twice against this opposition this year, and I think he realised that a point would have been a good result (as he couldn't forsee the tottenham game). I think he probably came to the conclusion that if you crunch the numbers, as in most football matches, the best chance of winning comes if you don't let them score, definitely don't let them score twice. So i think he probably did come up with gameplan that had this as the priority, at least for 60 minutes. That's often the pattern in league matches between top teams, and semi's and finals. keep it tight for 60 minutes, then think again. as it happened, united got on top at exactly that moment. they had us pushed back, and nani was one on one with onuoha repeatedly. so he introduced viera, to match them 3 for 3 in midfield, stop them playing around our box, cut out the supply to nani. if he made a mistake perhaps it was in having several players on the pitch at the end who are not the steady, see-it-out type.

You're right to an extent that top teams do tend to keep it tight for certainly the first half, and build towards a phase of attacking in the second half. However, we did the exact opposite of that. As you say, we made a defensive substitution on 60 minutes. Shockingly, that substitution was done on the basis that Carlos would nominally play from the right. However, he didn't. He just stayed in the middle. So for a full ten minutes we played with nobody from the right. He then put SWP on, for Adebayor, thus limiting our attacking intent further by replacing our only "target" with a winger, and leaving Tevez isolated up top by himself (part of me thinks that was punishment for him directly disobeying Mancini's direction for him to move right). Furthermore, it was quite clear in the final 20 minutes that we were happy to "sit", and play with everyone behind the ball except our "attacking" players ie. Bellers, Tevez, Ade, and then SWP.

in this instant I think utd out did us because they had the better options on the bench. nani coming on targetted an inexperienced fullback who was being supported by an inexperienced winger. in cutting him off, we had to call on a veteran midfielder. it all started from the midfield. they had three players who could pass with ease, we had one. that's always been the weakness in this squad and IMO they targetted it brilliantly. we got them into check but couldn't force mate. when they made substitutions it was check and check mate. they were lucky, and we did play well, but maybe it happened because of the squad. we had four bishops when we needed a rook.

I completely disagree with that. Firstly, I don't think they had better options on the bench, I thought we did. Fergie just had the bollocks to shuffle his pack earlier than we did. Then, Mancini rather than reacting positively to their change, reacted negatively by trying to contain/match United at a point in the game where we actually needed to push them back. Finally, regarding their passing ability from midfield, that was crystal clear ten minutes into the match, yet Mancini did nothing about cutting off Scholes who was dictating play.

Frankly, Mancini bottled it. He played the percentage game as you've suggested, and lost. My opinion is that decisions like that show his premiership naivety.

 

[Esso Blue]

And what does the sun newspaper prove? nothing. And those who didn't know must live underground and only pop up on rare occasions. Real CITY fans follow the action as it happens.

 

[bizzbo]

you're almost arguing my case for me billy. he had to stop nani. what could he do except sacrifice one of the wingers and cut off the supply in midfield? there was no positive move he could make. as it happened, immediately after the viera and swp subs, we did push them back, possibly should have scored twice. but it was at the expense of creativity and sharpeness in attack. swp beat his man but never made the cross. tevez remained anonymous, which is odd given that he's been a little bag of sparks whenever else he's played lone striker this season.

and what move could he have made that cut out scholes? put on zabaleta and tell him to mark him?

our options on the bench just didn't compare. and they just have an infinite supply of rounded midfield players. frankly every man and his dog knows that we don't.

I'm not saying he got it right. I'm saying he nearly got it right. we did finish the stronger team, looking more likely to score. and I don't hear any suggestions as to how he could have stopped nani and got us back on the front foot with one sub, or how he could have won the midfield with the players at his disposal.

I think he was winning the battles but lost the war. he ended up trying to see out the game with gamblers on the pitch (swp, ireland, bellamy), instead of the see-it-out sort who are tactically extremely disciplined and adept at keeping the ball. I'll give him a pass, because I've thought for the last six months that we just don't have enough of them.

 

[totallywired]

Without Robinho Ireland is nothing.

 

[Bellamy's Caddy]

I'm glad Ireland's back fit and available for selection. It'll be an open game at the Emirates and he is still the most likely of our midfield to make an incisive through ball if he makes an appearance either from the start or as a sub. He's got the ability, hopefully he can believe in that ability again.

 

[Anonymous]

you're almost arguing my case for me billy. he had to stop nani. what could he do except sacrifice one of the wingers and cut off the supply in midfield? there was no positive move he could make. as it happened, immediately after the viera and swp subs, we did push them back, possibly should have scored twice. but it was at the expense of creativity and sharpeness in attack. swp beat his man but never made the cross. tevez remained anonymous, which is odd given that he's been a little bag of sparks whenever else he's played lone striker this season.

and what move could he have made that cut out scholes? put on zabaleta and tell him to mark him?

our options on the bench just didn't compare. and they just have an infinite supply of rounded midfield players. frankly every man and his dog knows that we don't.

I'm not saying he got it right. I'm saying he nearly got it right. we did finish the stronger team, looking more likely to score. and I don't hear any suggestions as to how he could have stopped nani and got us back on the front foot with one sub, or how he could have won the midfield with the players at his disposal.

I think he was winning the battles but lost the war. he ended up trying to see out the game with gamblers on the pitch (swp, ireland, bellamy), instead of the see-it-out sort who are tactically extremely disciplined and adept at keeping the ball. I'll give him a pass, because I've thought for the last six months that we just don't have enough of them.

Mancini could easily have asked Tevez to press and mark Scholes when United looked to build attacks rather than instructing him of the complete opposite ie. stand off until they get into your half, then chase back.

Look, the bottom line is Mancini has his team play from far too deep at home, when up against decent footballing sides, and it just doesn't work. What's worse it pisses the players off no end.

 

[levets]

you're almost arguing my case for me billy. he had to stop nani. what could he do except sacrifice one of the wingers and cut off the supply in midfield? there was no positive move he could make. as it happened, immediately after the viera and swp subs, we did push them back, possibly should have scored twice. but it was at the expense of creativity and sharpeness in attack. swp beat his man but never made the cross. tevez remained anonymous, which is odd given that he's been a little bag of sparks whenever else he's played lone striker this season.

and what move could he have made that cut out scholes? put on zabaleta and tell him to mark him?

our options on the bench just didn't compare. and they just have an infinite supply of rounded midfield players. frankly every man and his dog knows that we don't.

I'm not saying he got it right. I'm saying he nearly got it right. we did finish the stronger team, looking more likely to score. and I don't hear any suggestions as to how he could have stopped nani and got us back on the front foot with one sub, or how he could have won the midfield with the players at his disposal.

I think he was winning the battles but lost the war. he ended up trying to see out the game with gamblers on the pitch (swp, ireland, bellamy), instead of the see-it-out sort who are tactically extremely disciplined and adept at keeping the ball. I'll give him a pass, because I've thought for the last six months that we just don't have enough of them.

Mancini could easily have asked Tevez to press and mark Scholes when United looked to build attacks rather than instructing him of the complete opposite ie. stand off until they get into your half, then chase back.

Look, the bottom line is Mancini has his team play from far too deep at home, when up against decent footballing sides, and it just doesn't work. What's worse it pisses the players off no end.

What's worse it pisses the players off no end.
=================
Hmmm ?

 

[Anonymous]

Mancini could easily have asked Tevez to press and mark Scholes when United looked to build attacks rather than instructing him of the complete opposite ie. stand off until they get into your half, then chase back.

Look, the bottom line is Mancini has his team play from far too deep at home, when up against decent footballing sides, and it just doesn't work. What's worse it pisses the players off no end.

What's worse it pisses the players off no end.
=================
Hmmm ?

Sorry, I should have written "IMO it pisses the players off no end" - as I have no factual knowledge of the players being pissed off at Mancini's tactics...

 

[levets]

What's worse it pisses the players off no end.
=================
Hmmm ?

Sorry, I should have written "IMO it pisses the players off no end" - as I have no factual knowledge of the players being pissed off at Mancini's tactics...

Wasn't getting at that... Hmmm.... I think you're right. They also think 'shadow football' is a load of bollocks... FACT!

 

[citygirl77]

I know Ireland is to blame for not marking Scholes, but lets go back to were SWP lost the ball in their goal area. THE TWO OF THEM SHOULD HAVE STAYED ON THE BENCH. The draw was there for us.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Well you trendy bastards can carry on blaming Ireland but I'm old school and in my opinion it was very much Robinho's fault.

 

[lee-mcfc]

I know Ireland is to blame for not marking Scholes, but lets go back to were SWP lost the ball in their goal area. THE TWO OF THEM SHOULD HAVE STAYED ON THE BENCH. The draw was there for us.

i agree. dont understand why the two most underperforming(is that a word?) players got a chance to play in a very important match.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

I know Ireland is to blame for not marking Scholes, but lets go back to were SWP lost the ball in their goal area. THE TWO OF THEM SHOULD HAVE STAYED ON THE BENCH. The draw was there for us.

i agree. dont understand why the two most underperforming(sp?) players got a chance to play in a very important match.

Because whilst you see them as two 'underperforming players', which I can't and wont argue with, I see 2 potential match winners. Both players are more than capable of a moment of magic to have won us the game.

 

[lee-mcfc]

i agree. dont understand why the two most underperforming(sp?) players got a chance to play in a very important match.

Because whilst you see them as two 'underperforming players', which I can't and wont argue with, I see 2 potential match winners. Both players are more than capable of a moment of magic to have won us the game.

i know what your saying but if that was me i wouldnt of risked it . playing ireland is like having 10 men on the pitch. then all swp does is get the ball try take on like 3 players and run straight into the defender.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Because whilst you see them as two 'underperforming players', which I can't and wont argue with, I see 2 potential match winners. Both players are more than capable of a moment of magic to have won us the game.

i know what your saying but if that was me i wouldnt of risked it . playing ireland is like having 10 men on the pitch. then all swp does is get the ball try take on like 3 players and run straight into the defender.

I couldn't see us scoring anyway to be honest so I didn't see the harm in what Mancini did. I take your point regarding both players but I thought it was worth a gamble personally.

 

[lee-mcfc]

i know what your saying but if that was me i wouldnt of risked it . playing ireland is like having 10 men on the pitch. then all swp does is get the ball try take on like 3 players and run straight into the defender.

I couldn't see us scoring anyway to be honest so I didn't see the harm in what Mancini did. I take your point regarding both players but I thought it was worth a gamble personally.

me neither but would have settled for a point... oh well hopefully a win vs arse then all we be forgotten about

 

[southaustralianblue]

Its hard to believe he's the same player as last year. What I loved about his game was his ability to patiently hold up the ball in a central position and time the through ball to perfection whilst also making a pain in the arse of himself with those penetrating runs. It's clearly about attitude though. Needs to take the angry pills before playing, he just does not show the passion that he did previously. We deserve better

 

[johnny crossan]

We had four bishops when we needed a rook.

I will treasure the memory forever

 

[Grand Master Ram Rod]

I know Ireland is to blame for not marking Scholes, but lets go back to were SWP lost the ball in their goal area. THE TWO OF THEM SHOULD HAVE STAYED ON THE BENCH. The draw was there for us.

i agree. dont understand why the two most underperforming(is that a word?) players got a chance to play in a very important match.

SWP came on and got Evra booked straight away as usual. United can't handle Shauny, every game they plan to kick fuck out of him. A dangerous player who needed to come on as the game was too big for AJ.

Even though Ireland has been poor this season, he's always capable of creating something as we've seen all last season and sometimes this season. The bad decision though was taking our best player de Jong off for him. Ireland came on to attack, de Jong would have followed Scholes.

The worst sub he did was bring the half arsed Vieira on though. Everyone could see it was the wrong decision and until he brought SWP on we had no shape whatsoever. He's too slow and has no hunger left (and why should he, he's won everything there is to be won). Vieira was where it went wrong for me.