|
|
Post by Block 22 on Jan 1, 2013 17:20:42 GMT
The result was pretty inevitable today but really frustrated with our performance and Pulis' choice of tactics.
Not really sure why Pulis decided to change the team around and bring Adam back. We fail to create chances as it is, never mind when there isn't a player within 100 yards of our lonely Striker. Should have stuck with 4-4-2 and had more of a go. Both Swansea and Reading did that and both got beaten narrowly by 1 goal. Having said that I don't think City deserved their 3 goal margin. We weren't really under any sustained pressure at all, they had the ball but they didn't look that much of a threat bar 1 Aguero chance. Majority of the time they had the ball they were 35/40 yards from our goal.
Their first two goals were very fortuitous, both times the second ball falling directly to their feet. Their third goal, the foul was clearly out of the box. All in all, not as bad as some people are making out, BUT we should have stuck with the same team and formation instead of rolling over and expecting defeat like we always do.
Still 9th though and an FA CUP run would be nice!
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 1, 2013 17:29:33 GMT
To say we should have stuck to 4-4-2 away at the champions shows how little you know about the game. We would have got mullered and over run in midfield even more.
Frightening to think some people think like this. Unless you have bale one side and ronaldo the other don't even go there
|
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Jan 1, 2013 17:37:54 GMT
Charlie Adam might as well have not been on the pitch anyway for what it was worth. Didn't make any contribution to the game at all. Plus, when Walters is on the pitch it is not as if he is an out-and-out Striker. He does a lot of tracking back and helps the midfield. Just because they are 'champions' doesn't mean you should sit back for the whole of the 90 minutes, we should have fielded the same team we did against Spurs and gone with the same approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jan 1, 2013 17:41:26 GMT
If we had played 4-4-2 we wouldn't have been sticking with it, it would have been completely out the blue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Jan 1, 2013 17:43:15 GMT
If we had played 4-4-2 we wouldn't have been sticking with it, it would have been completely out the blue. You forget that a Pulis 4-4-2 is never actually a 4-4-2 is it? What was wrong with the team we played against Spurs away? Lets be honest, there isn't much difference in class between Spurs and City on a form basis, on paper is a different matter obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jan 1, 2013 17:45:52 GMT
That's what I'm saying we don't ever play anyone version of 4-4-2, Pulis version or otherwise its either 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Jan 1, 2013 17:52:03 GMT
That's what I'm saying we don't ever play anyone version of 4-4-2, Pulis version or otherwise its either 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1. Agree completely. How many times first-half was Kompany confident enough to stroll into our half with the ball, sometimes getting as far as the edge of our 18 yard box? When you only play one attack minded player in his rightful position (Jones) the opposition can get as many players forward as they want. If, Jerome had played up front with Jones, or Walters had played a more attacking role. 1 We might have been able to keep possession a little longer and 2 their centre halves might have been less inclined to get forward! |
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jan 1, 2013 17:57:04 GMT
That's what I'm saying we don't ever play anyone version of 4-4-2, Pulis version or otherwise its either 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1. Agree completely. How many times first-half was Kompany confident enough to stroll into our half with the ball, sometimes getting as far as the edge of our 18 yard box? When you only play one attack minded player in his rightful position (Jones) the opposition can get as many players forward as they want. If, Jerome had played up front with Jones, or Walters had played a more attacking role. 1 We might have been able to keep possession a little longer and 2 their centre halves might have been less inclined to get forward! We should have left it as its been in the last few games, Walters behind Jones, but Pulis feels compelled to shoe horn Adam into the side to try and make it not look like he dropped a bollock buying him, its not as If he changed the team to rest people, it was a very strange team selection for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Jan 1, 2013 18:00:09 GMT
Just on way back.
Not unexpected but still disappointing.
I was really pleased with the team Tone picked as I thought we were going to have a pop at Citeh and see how it went.
As it was we set up more defensively then ever and that was the most annoying part for me as the net result is that we have forward thinking players being asked to defend for 90 minutes.
To me if we are going to defend we may as well use the correct players.
I honestly wouldn't have an issue if we with with 5 at the back and stuck four holding midfielders in with one forward.
At least we'd have more chance to pinch a draw than we did by doing what we did today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 18:02:55 GMT
whos this charlie adam people are going on about? did he play today?
|
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Jan 1, 2013 18:05:25 GMT
whos this charlie adam people are going on about? did he play today? Exactly. In effective to say the least! |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 1, 2013 18:05:41 GMT
Agree completely. How many times first-half was Kompany confident enough to stroll into our half with the ball, sometimes getting as far as the edge of our 18 yard box? When you only play one attack minded player in his rightful position (Jones) the opposition can get as many players forward as they want. If, Jerome had played up front with Jones, or Walters had played a more attacking role. 1 We might have been able to keep possession a little longer and 2 their centre halves might have been less inclined to get forward! its not as If he changed the team to rest people, it was a very strange team selection for me. Agree 100% chap - we said exactly this when the team came through. Walters is completely and uttlerly wasted on the flank and Jones plays much better when Walters is behind him. By pushing Walters out wide, we effectively compromise two players who are in stonking form, just so that Adam can play. It's a total nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Jan 1, 2013 18:07:27 GMT
Just on way back. Not unexpected but still disappointing. I was really pleased with the team Tone picked as I thought we were going to have a pop at Citeh and see how it went. As it was we set up more defensively then ever and that was the most annoying part for me as the net result is that we have forward thinking players being asked to defend for 90 minutes. To me if we are going to defend we may as well use the correct players. I honestly wouldn't have an issue if we with with 5 at the back and stuck four holding midfielders in with one forward. At least we'd have more chance to pinch a draw than we did by doing what we did today. Sounded decent on the stream Jamo, watched it at home with a few beers. You lot were in good voice even at 3-0 down! Turns out I chose a good one to miss, especially at those prices! Completely agree with your analysis, attacking players with defensive duties just doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by PerCyfilth ....Captains Log on Jan 1, 2013 18:24:04 GMT
The white flag was half way up the pole before the coach hit Sandbach services... this was a typical Pulis throwaway game. The ultimate coward when facing top three teams away.. absolutley no ambition whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jan 1, 2013 18:36:37 GMT
When I saw the starting 11 I misguidedly thought we may even have a go!
I should know by now!!
If we're going to try and nick a point pick a team and tactics to try and nick a point.
If we're going to try and win a game pick a team to try and win a game.
We ended up with a team that looked like they were trying to win a game but the tactics of a team trying to nick a draw.
Result - Fucking shambles!!
|
|
