Stoke post match thread

[Tom_mcfc]

Pep gave the reason we didn't win in his post-match interview: We didn't take our chances.

If the reason was that we didn't win because he didn't start David Silva, well, it seems he isn't learning that lesson at all.



Sure it does, it's a perfectly legitimate point that you don't have access to the players like Pep does and it's foolish to think he could have played Silva without any difficulties/risks/regression but stubbornly didn't.

In fact, Pep made the same point a week ago to stave off criticism of Klopp's team selection in the FA Cup.



Dunno mate, might have something to do with those 4 games we are playing in 10 days.



Is he fit enough to play 90 minutes though? That hasn't been established.

Perhaps he was fatigued.

We rotated at Sunderland by resting KDB, arguably our most important player last season and much of this, yet you weren't moaning about it because we didn't miss our chances.



Dunno if you've noticed, but Pep hasn't played the same team two games in a row since he took the job. This "winning, confident team" idea is a myth. It's a winning, confident squad.



I think Pep knows what he's doing, but whatever, the rotation wasn't the reason we didn't score. That's all.

We didn't win because we played slow lethargic football. I thought changes are meant to then freshen things up is it not? So why did we play so poorly?
De Bruyne has been poor for a few games now, last night being the worst in a city shirt for me. Resting Silva is absolutely mind bogglingly crazy. We needed to break down a hard ten man defence, I know rest our most creative player. No coincidence he came on and we created a lot more is it. The fact he had to come on surely backs my point up does it not? I am more of a fan of getting the game won then make changes. We wasn't worked at Sunderland and full strength last night would of had more of a chance being a couple up by the hour mark then make changes. Then even rest at Boro if he wants to.

 

[OB1]

Back up why it was a good idea to make changes then mate. I am all ears. if Silva is fit enough to come on and have to run his bollocks off to save the game then he is fit enough to start. If rotating a winning, confident team with momentum is a good idea please tell me why that is.

I'm just not for changing for changing sake and even more so when we are in such good form, people defending him are underestimating the confidence and momentum these runs bring - just look at Chelsea.

Pep didn't want to bring Silva on but he ended up needing to; we still didn't win and Silva missed a virtual sitter so although he had an impact, he didn't win the game for us and we have no way of knowing if he would have done if he had started. We have failed before to be clinical enough at home and it does not all hinge on whether Silva is on the pitch or not.

And Pep does not change for change's sake: there's a good reason for the changes. Unfortunately, things do not always go to plan.

 

[Father Paul]

compare how Bobby manc had us performing at home to how we are doing now and you get an idea of what is expected. Of course you will counter with Bobbys european record. I have nothing against pep at all, what i dont understand is the fawning over him when he has made plenty of mistakes,avoidable ones at that. Hopefully he starts to learn from these mistakes because if he doesn't then expect more Stokes,middlesboros etc. Wouldn't be much of a forum if everyone agreed with everyone.

I am prepared to give Pep a break and lets see what he can produce. We may not have a great season this year but he deserves time. However, I fully agree with your "fawning" reference particularly evident on the thread covering his recent interview conducted during the warm weather training in the Gulf. Some of the glowing comments were embarrassing and way over the top. Pep is still very much a WIP with respect to his project at City. Let's hope that come this May or May 2018 the praise he receives from his admirers is justified.

 

[Tom_mcfc]

Pep didn't want to bring Silva on but he ended up needing to; we still didn't win and Silva missed a virtual sitter so although he had an impact, he didn't win the game for us and we have no way of knowing if he would have done if he had started. We have failed before to be clinical enough at home and it does not all hinge on whether Silva is on the pitch or not.

And Pep does not change for change's sake: there's a good reason for the changes. Unfortunately, things do not always go to plan.

Talk me through Stones for Otamendi then mate? Whilst it wasn't an issue last night and Otamendi had a decent game was that not for changing sake? There was zero need to make that change and then we will probably throw him back in against Falcao. That spark that Silva brought changed the game, not the scorel ine granted and no one can say correctly what would of happened had he of started. Just think though that urgency and them chances created happening from the first minute rather than the 55th or whenever it was.

 

[Jocks Y-Fronts]

You beat me to it - exactly right.

Bomb forward with purpose and then pass backwards - very poor, both of them.

 

[Akiva]

We didn't win because we played slow lethargic football. I thought changes are meant to then freshen things up is it not? So why did we play so poorly?

That's another discussion, but if you want to tell me that KDB, Sane, Aguero et al go to shit because David Silva isn't starting, well, then these are not long term players for us. Obviously that's not the case though.

De Bruyne has been poor for a few games now, last night being the worst in a city shirt for me.

He was poor last night, but he's still one of the best midfielders in the game. We needed him to step up just as Silva did at Sunderland and he simply didn't.

Resting Silva is absolutely mind bogglingly crazy.

To you maybe, but to Pep no.

We needed to break down a hard ten man defence, I know rest our most creative player.

You're implying, again, that Sane, KDB, Aguero and Yaya aren't good enough on their own without Silva, which does a serious injustice to said players.

No coincidence he came on and we created a lot more is it. The fact he had to come on surely backs my point up does it not?

Not really, maybe he was fatigued and could only operate at 100% for 30 minutes or so. Maybe he only had the impact he had because he came off the bench. Or maybe not. It proves nothing.

What he did do though, was miss a golden chance to win us the game.

I am more of a fan of getting the game won then make changes.

You think Pep doesn't want to win the games?

We wasn't worked at Sunderland and full strength last night would of had more of a chance being a couple up by the hour mark then make changes. Then even rest at Boro if he wants to.

You don't know the state of the players, how they feel, how they train, anything.

Fact is, Pep has rotated every single game this season. Sometimes it works and you don't even notice. Sometimes it doesn't and you complain.

The difference is, we were much, much better than Stoke and should have taken our chances. 11 David Silva's wouldn't have made a difference if we fluffed all our opportunities. Some games it's like that.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

As usual it comes down to the "Pep knows best" argument stopper.
Oh well - I wonder if he's as complacent as some of the attitudes on here this morning - or whether he's seething, wishing he'd played a stronger team and nailing 3 achievable points before the next 3 lottery prem games (stongest team or not). If it placates you - yes -I would also concede he must feel let down by some of the individual performances.
Pep does indeed know what's best and also what's needed in the long term - but nobody is infallable and we gave away points and momentum last night.

 

[Father Paul]

Not saying your logic is bollocks mate, I just hate it as a defence. Up until recently every one who has won the league would of been involved in European football. We have played is it 9 games more? 2 of them being the qualifiers where we didn't break a sweat and the final Celtic game where we made changes and was a dead rubber. I just think it is crazy how professional footballers, paid absolute millions have to be dropped but a team that will end up playing maybe 10 games less are fine. I just had a look at minutes played and to be fair it counted the Euros but Sterling has played 50 minutes more than Hazard since then. One is bang in form and carrying his team to the title, the other got dropped last night needlessly where his style would of opened up a stubborn Stoke more.

He hyped up John Stones before the game, so he is playing better, getting confidence, manager behind him with momentum and erm dropped. Crazy.

I am not entirely comfortable with it as a defence either but it is a fact of modern day football and is applied almost universally. Similar approaches apply in other sports
particularly rugby. On the surface you would expect that professional footballers should be able to play 2 games a week all season. This fixture was particularly problematical as it involved a change of date. We only had two days rest after the Sunderland game and maybe that was not enough time for lets say Sterling or Stones to recover fully. Perhaps the medical advice was to rest these guys for last nights match because to play them may increase the chance of injury. What do you do if you are the manager in this situation?
I know its frustrating but what can you do. The bottom line is that you need 7 or 8 players who you can rely on to do a job when drafted in when the number one is not available.

 

[Bluep*ss]

It must have been said somewhere in the last 67 pages but you do not hope to win if you do not SHOOT. We had 1 shot on target Kolorov.
Against Sunderland 1shot in first half. Just not good enough.

 

[Tom_mcfc]

That's another discussion, but if you want to tell me that KDB, Sane, Aguero et al go to shit because David Silva isn't starting, well, then these are not long term players for us. Obviously that's not the case though.



He was poor last night, but he's still one of the best midfielders in the game. We needed him to step up just as Silva did at Sunderland and he simply didn't.



To you maybe, but to Pep no.



You're implying, again, that Sane, KDB, Aguero and Yaya aren't good enough on their own without Silva, which does a serious injustice to said players.



Not really, maybe he was fatigued and could only operate at 100% for 30 minutes or so. Maybe he only had the impact he had because he came off the bench. Or maybe not. It proves nothing.

What he did do though, was miss a golden chance to win us the game.



You think Pep doesn't want to win the games?



You don't know the state of the players, how they feel, how they train, anything.

Fact is, Pep has rotated every single game this season. Sometimes it works and you don't even notice. Sometimes it doesn't and you complain.

The difference is, we were much, much better than Stoke and should have taken our chances. 11 David Silva's wouldn't have made a difference if we fluffed all our opportunities. Some games it's like that.

Most of your defence is ifs, buts and maybes though it isn't it? He might of been able to play x amount of minutes etc? What did he do? Do you not understand football? The second he came on we created chances, scoring them is another matter. If you cant see the control and influence he has on a game then it is pointless even talking to you. He has bossed every game for us during this run, best form he has shown in years.

I said in my first post that people will say " we should of had enough to beat Stoke" well I will say again we should of had enough to beat Boro, Saints, Everton and not needed last minute winners against Sunderland and Swansea. So my point and frustration is resting in the type of games we have dropped points in when we have been full strength. Bizarre to not show teams more respect that come and face us when every one has the same game plan and it nearly works for every time that's rocked up.