Jump to content

The Official Manchester City Thread


Jonathan Fairfield

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • mrbojangles

    1721

  • Bredbury Blue

    1423

  • RickG16

    1048

  • jellydog

    571

Just now, RonniePickering22 said:

 

Due to the lack of atmosphere?

 

Yes I tend to agree...and home and away is not real either.

 

Its all we are going to get however.

Makes it more equal then. So in actual fact it cannot get much realer. They say that a lot of players perform better in training than in real games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Not sure what to make of our performance. We were good, then we were bad, then... (repeat). Certainly don't look like a championship winning team. Dias had a good debut. Pep has to drop Mendy and play Ake, everything comes down our leftside.

 

Great first 20 mins then Leeds came in to it, then it was like two boxers standing toe-to-toe. Leeds are decent.

 

Cracking game in foul conditions.

Like us you didn't have a full pre-season. Don't let anyone tell you that doesn't make a difference when it comes to elite athletes.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

M.E.N Sport asked fans to pick their strongest side when no injuries, which was:

4-3-3

- Ederson; 

- Walker, Dias, Laporte, Cancelo; 

- Fernandinho, Rodri, De Bruyne; 

- Mahrez, Sterling, Aguero.

 

I think only Cancelo and Mahrez aren't definite choices.

 

As we NO natural width on the left with Sane leaving, we could make use of Mendy going forward (while giving him cover), I'd like us to be trying out a 3-5-2 sometimes:

 

- Ederson

- Dias, Laporte, Ake

- Walker (or Cancelo), Fernandinho, Rodri, De Bruyne, Mendy (or Zinchenko or Cancelo)

- any 2 from Aguero, Sterling and Jesus

 

Teams know to expect us set up always in a 4-3-3, so particularly against decent teams I'd like to see something different and a bit more solid defensively - try not to concede and build from that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

City often take <deleted> about no history, small club. Then we've got the current power grab by Liverpool and Man United's, and talk of the big 6 (those 2 plus Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and City). City historian Dr Gary James has tweeted some good stuff today on those points.

 

1. Of the big 6, 5 of them have been in the lower divisions since the 60s and 4 of them since the 70s.

 

 

2. "in 1945, LFC would’ve been seen as inferior to EFC and MUFC inferior to MCFC. Wolves, Villa and many others would’ve eclipsed them by some way too. We must never have a closed shop or base anything on a current elite. These things change"

 

3. As per the Assoc of Football Statisticians findings around 2003, they concluded:

(1) that over a 30 year period or more, clubs do change in size (ManU seem to be the only exception to that),

(2) During the period 1970 to 2003, City were the 3rd biggest club in England (hey, don't shoot the messenger).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I bought a Sky subscription bearing in mind the absence of any chance of getting to a game or hitting Thailand before Spring or later.

 

Arsenal were unlucky in the first half really despite your tippy tappy meanderings....you lack the creativity without De Bruyne and Silva.

 

2nd half the goons were poor....c'est la vie lol! 

Edited by RonniePickering22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RonniePickering22 said:

Today I bought a Sky subscription bearing in mind the absence of any chance of getting to a game or hitting Thailand before Spring or later.

 

Arsenal were unlucky in the first half really despite your tippy tappy meanderings....you lack the creativity without De Bruyne and Silva.

 

2nd half the goons were poor....c'est la vie lol! 

Agree with that analysis. Aguero looked way off full fitness though. Once he gets going I think they will be a force again. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take that any day of the week. Not at our best I admit but considering injuries, returnee, lack of match fitness etc I'm alright with that. Good to have Aguero back, even though after 4 months he wasn't fully match fit, he gives the opposition defence something to worry about that has been missing with him and Jesus being out.

 

Arteta knows all about our training, what's in Peps head and our weaknesses, so it always going to be a cagey affair. 3 points in the bag and no additional injuries. I'll take that

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RickG16 said:

City playing a 4-2-4 ^__^

 

According to the Guardian:

"City were a 4-3-3 in defence, a rough 3-3-2-2 in possession and a 3-4-3 in the press."

 

Cancelo's position was interesting, kind of a fullback/wingback/central midfield/free role depending on what was happening. Aguero and Sterling weren't static up front, Sterling was constantly dropping in to midfield. So I had it down as more of a 3-4-3.

 

Thought Dias was very solid, same Ake with little coming down his side, but our Right side with Walker and Cancelo gave Arsenal decent chances which was a worry.

 

Tough game, have to admit that for the last 45 i couldn't see us keeping a clean sheet but we did it well in the end.

 

Considering our first choice LB, our best defender, best midfielder and Jesus were all out, Aguero Just back and not fit, we did ok.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...