Yaya Toure - 2016/17 performances

[domalino]

Yeah but my point was that I felt Toure was the most sloppy player during the phase of play that lead to the Son goal. Often a lot of this would be dumped onto the centre backs. I can't see much point in running the show unless you capitalise on it through good play in both boxes.

Reasons for the Son goal

1) The referee denying a penalty seconds before, allowing them to counterattack when they should have been going 3-1 down.
2) Kolarov "Roaming" and getting caught high
3) Clichy playing traffic cone and letting the cross come in under no pressure
4) Kane being offside
5) Otamendi neither committing to Kane nor Son, ending up in no-mans land between the two and effecting neither.


All of those come before any crime of Yaya's. He's 33, fast players will find a way to run off him, no one would criticise Pirlo at Juventus circa 2013 for losing a man, your other players compensate because of the overwhelming positives he brings.

I can't see much point in running the show unless you capitalise on it through good play in both boxes

It's not Yaya's fault the forwards didn't capitalise on opportunities we created with his midfield dominance.

 

[schfc6]

Like I said, I didn't comment on the performance. I don't agree that it is a requirement to watch every minute of every game to have an opinion. If that logic were extended, it would be necessary to watch every match of football he's ever played to see his development, injury history etc. The question is, in that moment, was Toure at fault for that goal? If so, how bad was the error?

I think forming opinion of a game after watching highlights is idiotic. If I just watched the highlights I'd say Lloris was the worst keeper I've ever seen.

 

[snorky]

No reason why someone shouldn't ask the question. Just like there's no reason why I shouldn't reply by asking why the question was posed.

Because you are posting bollocks on Bluemoon about a City player (See domalino post above) and I think there is something in the forum rules, and its a simple enough question.
So, who do you support?

 

[DaveRocky]

Reasons for the Son goal

1) The referee denying a penalty seconds before, allowing them to counterattack when they should have been going 3-1 down.
2) Kolarov "Roaming" and getting caught high
3) Clichy playing traffic cone and letting the cross come in under no pressure
4) Kane being offside
5) Otamendi neither committing to Kane nor Son, ending up in no-mans land between the two and effecting neither.


All of those come before any crime of Yaya's. He's 33, fast players will find a way to run off him, no one would criticise Pirlo at Juventus circa 2013 for losing a man, your other players compensate because of the overwhelming positives he brings.



It's not Yaya's fault the forwards didn't capitalise on opportunities we created with his midfield dominance.

I agree with 1), although I've heard some say that Sterling was offside (although I haven't seen the replay I'd need to see to judge). I'm afraid incorrect decisions are frequent and it doesn't really change the suggestion that the goal could have been prevented if Toure, as the deepest midfielder, with a view of the midfielders in front of him, had dropped back to try to pick up Eriksen.

With 2) I disagree. I believe that Toure's lack of an attempt to mark Eriksen forces Kolarov to roam - because Eriksen is free to drag Kolarov out of position. This kind of thing often gets blamed on the centre backs, in this case I don't agree.

3) I feel that's harsh on Clichy. He needs to track Son and then Kane. I'm not sure he can avoid the movements he makes so I don't agree. It comes after Toure's decision.

In my view 4) is so close that it isn't really worth complaining about either way.

The players didn't so much run off him as he just stood watching them. Numerous people do get criticised for mistakes, despite their net contribution being very positive. Lloris had back pages devoted to him this weekend - the guy is an important part of an outstanding defence.

I agree it isn't Toure's fault that other players missed chances, just like it isn't anyone else's fault that he left Eriksen free.

 

[DaveRocky]

Because you are posting bollocks on Bluemoon about a City player (See domalino post above) and I think there is something in the forum rules, and its a simple enough question.
So, who do you support?

You want me to answer your question, and your first point is to tell me that I'm posting "bollocks" without any substantiation other than to refer to someone else's points? I think I've seen more compelling persuasion tactics than that in my time. I've replied to domalino's post with my responses, and I believe they show that domalino's post did not make very strong points. You "think" there is something in the forum rules? Again, not massively convincing reasoning.

 

[kaz7]

You want me to answer your question, and your first point is to tell me that I'm posting "bollocks" without any substantiation other than to refer to someone else's points? I think I've seen more compelling persuasion tactics than that in my time. I've replied to domalino's post with my responses, and I believe they show that domalino's post did not make very strong points. You "think" there is something in the forum rules? Again, not massively convincing reasoning.

Wumming/trolling won't be tolerated. Fans of other clubs are welcome, as long as they are open about who they support and have a thick skin. Masquerading as a City fan won't be tolerated.
Forum rules @DaveRocky

 

[Ric]

You want me to answer your question, and your first point is to tell me that I'm posting "bollocks" without any substantiation other than to refer to someone else's points? I think I've seen more compelling persuasion tactics than that in my time. I've replied to domalino's post with my responses, and I believe they show that domalino's post did not make very strong points. You "think" there is something in the forum rules? Again, not massively convincing reasoning.

You must admit though that it's a little odd to register on a City forum, admit that you're not a City fan but refuse to say who you support, and then continually criticise City players. So far, Toure, Sane and Otamendi have all been singled out by you.

 

[DaveRocky]

Wumming/trolling won't be tolerated. Fans of other clubs are welcome, as long as they are open about who they support and have a thick skin. Masquerading as a City fan won't be tolerated.
Forum rules @DaveRocky

Are you implying that I am wumming or trolling? If so, on what basis? Are you a moderator? If so, are you saying that I have to answer the question of which football team I support every time someone asks, despite the fact that I've done absolutely no "Masquerading as a City fan" as you imply? Where is there a lack of a "thick skin"?

 

[kaz7]

Are you implying that I am wumming or trolling? If so, on what basis? Are you a moderator? If so, are you saying that I have to answer the question of which football team I support every time someone asks, despite the fact that I've done absolutely no "Masquerading as a City fan" as you imply? Where is there a lack of a "thick skin"?

No that is the rule that covers rival fans in full,Ric is the owner who sets the rules and he has posted to you above so take notice of him

 

[DaveRocky]

You must admit though that it's a little odd to register on a City forum, admit that you're not a City fan but refuse to say who you support, and then continually criticise City players. So far, Toure, Sane and Otamendi have all been singled out by you.

Well I don't know how you define "odd", but so what if it is true? Is there a problem with being "odd"?

From my point of view, telling someone that they're talking bollocks then asking them to answer an irrelevant question is "odd" but you didn't see me labelling people.