Mission: Impossible (part I) City v Villa Thread.
- Thread starter FoxForceFive
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I must admit that when we went to 3-0 I did think 'if we could get 5 it would turn up the pressure on them' but realistically we were never going to catch them on goals and we should have left ourselves open for the sucker punch, even when it went to 3-1 the focus should have been on preserving the lead. Outscoring City was never really on the cards we just needed to win the games and hope for a slip. Thats the naivety of a manger who has never been in this sort of situation before and a team thats too desperate to think clearly
West ham will not draw they will either win or lose.
It would. West Ham would only have to draw. Moron by name. Moron by nature.
Do you even have a fucking clue what's going on around you?
...........
Might be a good idea for you to quit while you're behind...
I don't accept this naivety excuse people are offering up as a reason for Monday's failure. That's just making excuses to deal with the pain, as though the manager being naive is sort of ok.
There is no way on earth an ex-player turned football manager, who's spent his life in the game, who's son is a professional, who was tutored by one of the game's best current managers, who's working at one of the world's biggest clubs, who's paid £millions to manage events as they unfold, can ever dare to claim naivety about the need to protect a lead and close out the game.
As far as I am concerned, his ego tripped him up and kept him sticking to his attacking philosophy in the belief we'd just go up the other end and score again.
So people need to stop hiding behind this balming 'naive' tag and accept the manager and the senior players (who could in fact decide to take matters into their own hands at say, 3-1, and be a lot more cautious), messed up.
There is no way on earth an ex-player turned football manager, who's spent his life in the game, who's son is a professional, who was tutored by one of the game's best current managers, who's working at one of the world's biggest clubs, who's paid £millions to manage events as they unfold, can ever dare to claim naivety about the need to protect a lead and close out the game.
As far as I am concerned, his ego tripped him up and kept him sticking to his attacking philosophy in the belief we'd just go up the other end and score again.
So people need to stop hiding behind this balming 'naive' tag and accept the manager and the senior players (who could in fact decide to take matters into their own hands at say, 3-1, and be a lot more cautious), messed up.
Don't overeact. I didn't criticise his ego, I merely introduced it to the debate as part of making a comment about this trendy idea it was naivety which cost us a win. Every manager has an ego and a philosophy. Wenger's has provided 8 barren years at Arsenal; Mourinho's seems to win things for a few years before he falls out with his club and moves on, Ferguson's dominated the PL for 20 years, and so on.
I dont think its ego, I think its lack of experience, on the managers part anyway, hes had outrageous success this season playing a certain way and then got humbled in the last 2 games, you can beat most teams the same way but not all of them and he needs to learn that. I agree on the senior players though, Gerrard should have been trying to slow down the tempo of the game and let us clear our heads at 3-1, thats what good captaincy is about and unfortunately its something he never learned. Since Xabi left we have never had a player who is capable of just taking the sting out of the game and killing the oppositions momentum, numerous times this season we have raced into an early lead, dropped a goal and then gone into blind panic mode for the rest of the game, its amazing we got away with it as long as we did. Teams that win titles tend to have a player in their ranks that can read which way the momentum in a game is going and steer their side accordingly, we dont, we are all in and while its great to watch its can be suicidal. Hopefully its something we can address during the summer.
What if they're winning by one goal then city score another?
Will the referee tell them next goal wins?
How come you can see that, I can see that, most people on here can see that, but the professionals can't see that sometimes a game needs shutting down? I just can't accept a lack of experience either, especially since, as you say, numerous times this season we've gone into a blind panic after leading easily. How come they didn't learn from that? My answer to my own question is that, actually, what Rodgers and probably the players thought they'd learned from the near misses was that they could just keep attacking even after conceding and that they'd win in the end; like they had up until that point more often than not. Of course, as Ardiles proved at Spurs all those years ago when managing them, eventually you just can't keep outscoring eveyone, every time, and you have to take a win when the tide turns.
Goal 1 - Johnson doesn't close down quick enough - gives the palace guy space to shoot and it deflects off him in to the corner - if he closes down quicker - there's no shot.
Goal 2 - whoever it is that's left marking in the box (is it Flanagan or Lucas?) because the 2 CB's go up for a corner, drops off his man and gives him space to turn, face goal & score - he gets tight and he block the shot or gets a tackle in.
Goal 3 - the defensive midfield (Gerrard & Lucas) are too far in front on the back four so that when the ball is played in to the space, Skrtle makes the decision to half heartedly come out and challenge - he ends up in no mans land, not making the challenge, but leaving a big fucking hole in behind that can't be closed by anyone else.
There's no ego at play.
There's no bad luck.
I'd almost argue there's no tactical naïveté either.
What there is - is 3 poor decisions from players who looked fucked spent that we were mercilessly punished for.
It all goes back to the fact that we have a team actually challenging for a title with a squad that wasn't built to maintain the sort of challenge it has.
Goal 2 - whoever it is that's left marking in the box (is it Flanagan or Lucas?) because the 2 CB's go up for a corner, drops off his man and gives him space to turn, face goal & score - he gets tight and he block the shot or gets a tackle in.
Goal 3 - the defensive midfield (Gerrard & Lucas) are too far in front on the back four so that when the ball is played in to the space, Skrtle makes the decision to half heartedly come out and challenge - he ends up in no mans land, not making the challenge, but leaving a big fucking hole in behind that can't be closed by anyone else.
There's no ego at play.
There's no bad luck.
I'd almost argue there's no tactical naïveté either.
What there is - is 3 poor decisions from players who looked fucked spent that we were mercilessly punished for.
It all goes back to the fact that we have a team actually challenging for a title with a squad that wasn't built to maintain the sort of challenge it has.
Look - how hard is it for people to understand if one of us (i.e me moron) - does not believe that there will be a draw between Man City and West Ham ? Yes I know mathematically there are three possible outcomes for Man City - but I am assuming that one of them does not exist in this case. Like our manager and our senior players who decided to go for it against Crystal Palace - I think the title was lost against Chelsea. I have no faith in any of Everton, Villa, West Ham to hold City to a draw. That is the reason why the players and manager thought that the only way to potentially do anything was to reduce the GD in the Palace game. I don't think as some have been pointing out on here that it was naivety on our managers part - he did what he had to do which was to go for it so that at least in some way it would be in our hands on that final day and we are not relying on these other teams other than what little shitty pride some of them may have.
Lets face it last season Villa lost 5-0 at City's ground, and this season in the Capital One cup semi-final West Ham lost 6-0 there. The only difference this time is that Carol will be playing which could make it awkward for City. I actually think the plan was this:-
1) Once we had got the 3 goals against Palace - it was just to attack and score many as possible to reduce the goal difference.
2) Belief that we could probably score quite a few goals against Newcastle on the last day.
That said - City are in an awkward situation on Sunday, as they know a draw or win can get them the title, but they cannot afford to lose the game either. They are an intelligent team in that they don't do anything to knacker themselves out - they apply pressure when necessary. I hope big Andy fucks them up a little.
There are 3 possible outcomes in a football match. It's better to have 2 of those variables than just one.
Also, check any bookies. I bet you'll get shorter odds for a West Ham draw than you will a win.
It's not fucking rocket science.
Also, check any bookies. I bet you'll get shorter odds for a West Ham draw than you will a win.
It's not fucking rocket science.
After Goal One goes in, don't have 8 players either in or right on the edge of the Palace box for the corner that resulted in the breakaway Goal Two and especially don't have your two CB's out of place at the same time leaving your novice fullback at the impromptu centreback.
After Goal Two goes in, tuck your wide men in and pull your central midfielders closer to your back four and make something of a bus to get through, rather than maintain your open, attacking formation strung across the middle of the park. Palace were playing 3 up front when they lobbed the ball forward from their own half for the third goal, but we still had our midfield lined up with two wide men and Gerrard and Lucas pushed up towards the half way line, leaving the back four totally exposed.
The above is even more obvious because of what you said about the squad being tired; why were they allowed to continue throwing so many men forward when it was all falling apart?
After Goal Two goes in, tuck your wide men in and pull your central midfielders closer to your back four and make something of a bus to get through, rather than maintain your open, attacking formation strung across the middle of the park. Palace were playing 3 up front when they lobbed the ball forward from their own half for the third goal, but we still had our midfield lined up with two wide men and Gerrard and Lucas pushed up towards the half way line, leaving the back four totally exposed.
The above is even more obvious because of what you said about the squad being tired; why were they allowed to continue throwing so many men forward when it was all falling apart?
You misspelled breaking there lad
Look at this video. Stop it at exactly 4:14 and see how we are lined up as Palace lob the ball forward. Now remember, we are only leading 3-2 here, we desperately need to win and Palace are playing with three up front.
How can the manager not be going crazy on the touchline getting men back to fill our box with bodies? Skrtel's got two men on him (ffs) and zero help. Just what is the manager doing at this point?
How can the manager not be going crazy on the touchline getting men back to fill our box with bodies? Skrtel's got two men on him (ffs) and zero help. Just what is the manager doing at this point?
I shouldn't do this but: -
How hard is it for you to understand that your assumption (i.e. a draw does not exist at this moment in time) is a load of bollocks?
Red Mullet - How are you ? Long time no argue !!!
It is actually very easy for me to understand that it is not bollocks. I do not believe that West Ham are a team that have the will or the ability to hold City to a draw based on past evidence this season. It is a very simple formula I am using and one which a lot of financial people use in their stock calculations where they base future prices on past data. If you look back through the thread you will see my early comment where I said "Oh shot - Villa will lose 5-0" - I was not that far off was I ?
You probably have this wild fantasy that West Ham may manage to get a draw based on what they did against Chelsea - but then you have to consider that Chelsea are predominately defensive in nature and have a poor strike force so the pressure on West Ham's defence was probably not so incessant as it will be when Man City try and probably will (99.99%) batter the fuck out of them. However, there is a part of me that believes that big Andy, and the sublime abilities of Stewart Downing may cause them problems and they may get one of those lucky wins. You could be right - it may be a draw, but unlikely given the past evidence.
See - not really bollocks is it ? - I feel that many posters on here are looking to blame BR, and the senior team on the drawn result when in reality the evidence of my eyes was desperation their part to focus on scoring goals to reduce the GD to get matters into their own hands. There was nothing wrong with what they tried - they gave it everything despite being absolutely physically drained in that game.
It is actually very easy for me to understand that it is not bollocks. I do not believe that West Ham are a team that have the will or the ability to hold City to a draw based on past evidence this season. It is a very simple formula I am using and one which a lot of financial people use in their stock calculations where they base future prices on past data. If you look back through the thread you will see my early comment where I said "Oh shot - Villa will lose 5-0" - I was not that far off was I ?
You probably have this wild fantasy that West Ham may manage to get a draw based on what they did against Chelsea - but then you have to consider that Chelsea are predominately defensive in nature and have a poor strike force so the pressure on West Ham's defence was probably not so incessant as it will be when Man City try and probably will (99.99%) batter the fuck out of them. However, there is a part of me that believes that big Andy, and the sublime abilities of Stewart Downing may cause them problems and they may get one of those lucky wins. You could be right - it may be a draw, but unlikely given the past evidence.
See - not really bollocks is it ? - I feel that many posters on here are looking to blame BR, and the senior team on the drawn result when in reality the evidence of my eyes was desperation their part to focus on scoring goals to reduce the GD to get matters into their own hands. There was nothing wrong with what they tried - they gave it everything despite being absolutely physically drained in that game.
- Status
Similar threads
