The mancityfans.net football forum

It needed to change but i would of brought of Zabaleta or Richards. Kudos to Mancini for having the balls to change it so early into the game.

the_georgian_genius wrote:It needed to change but i would of brought of Zabaleta or Richards. Kudos to Mancini for having the balls to change it so early into the game.

Kudos? It didn't actually work mate and I think Bridge brought more to the party than the likes of Micah.

Beefymcfc wrote:

the_georgian_genius wrote:It needed to change but i would of brought of Zabaleta or Richards. Kudos to Mancini for having the balls to change it so early into the game.

Kudos? It didn't actually work mate and I think Bridge brought more to the party than the likes of Micah.

Well it did if you look at the level of performance in the 2nd half, added to the fact we fought back to get a draw.

I would have taken off Zabaleta instead as I think Bridge is a better player, but regardless of whether it was the right player or not, I was pleased to see Mancini make a big change as it was plain to see that we were not in the game at all.

He looked quite sore to me and the commentators stated that he has an abdonimal problem so don't know what this fuss is about?

Beefymcfc wrote:

the_georgian_genius wrote:It needed to change but i would of brought of Zabaleta or Richards. Kudos to Mancini for having the balls to change it so early into the game.

Kudos? It didn't actually work mate and I think Bridge brought more to the party than the likes of Micah.

We were more of a threat with Santa Cruz upfront with Tevez for 60 mins than Tevez on his own for 30 mins. It took him til half time to get into the game but in the second half the ridiculous amount of chances we created i don't think we would of if we had tevez on his own.

Thought Zabaleta and Richards like i said should of come off though.

I think Richards (or Zabs at a push) could have been candidates for subbing but Bridge got the nod because he was carrying a minor niggle. Mancini had to get RSC on to try and make long balls stick and give us a focal point and it worked reasonably well despite RSC's obvious rustiness.

Svensational wrote:So why did he get subbed after 32mins?

Mancini seems to think its because he was playing poor....

I thought he was trying to say he isn't 100% fit so that when he had to change things Bridge was the obvious choice

Looked injured to me

Blue2 wrote:Looked injured to me

He was limping slightly as he went off but I didn't notice the limp before that.

I was thinking Mancini would juggle it around and put Lescott at left back, move Richards to centre half and Zabaleta to right back (or something similar with the defence) to accomodate Santa Cruz as another Striker.

Had it been a like for like substitution then Sylvinho would've come on.

Re Bridge. Mancini said that he needed to make a change and decided on Bridge who has a slight problem/niggle or whatever. I did report on Friday that he left the training early on a buggy!

What amazes me is how often somebody will say kudos to Mancini for making the change early but not why the hell does he have to make a change so early. He keeps starting with the wrong team , wrong tactics and we start games really badly so it's bleeding obvious he has to make an early change. I welcome the day he gets it all right from the start and doesnt need to change tactics and/or personnel.

Douglas Higginbottom wrote:What amazes me is how often somebody will say kudos to Mancini for making the change early but not why the hell does he have to make a change so early. He keeps starting with the wrong team , wrong tactics and we start games really badly so it's bleeding obvious he has to make an early change. I welcome the day he gets it all right from the start and doesnt need to change tactics and/or personnel.

Its scary how often Mancini seems to get the 11 and tactics so wrong from the off. Does he bother to scout the oppositions pattern of play and set our team up to nullify and counter?

We've gone from one manager who regulally got the setup at the start of matches right but lacked the confidence to make changes untill something went seriously wrong to a manager who regulally gets the team and tactics wrong from the off and has to attempt to pull it round mid match by making big decisions, with varying degrees of success/failure.

Grob wrote:We've gone from one manager who regulally got the setup at the start of matches right but lacked the confidence to make changes untill something went seriously wrong to a manager who regulally gets the team and tactics wrong from the off and has to attempt to pull it round mid match by making big decisions, with varying degrees of success/failure.

I think that's just it Grob. We've gone from one extreme to another- careless to overcautious. Looking at how poor Liverpool have been, and Spurs' inconsistency, I can't help but feel that if we had a manager, throughout this season, who was a bit more adaptable in when to attack and when to defend, we'd have run away with this coveted 4th spot.

Hughes was great at winning matches a certain way and Mancini is great at winning them in another, but in the absence of those tactics being effective, we often look(ed) weak and devoid of ideas.

As for Bridge, I thought he looked pretty good today and if it was a purely tactical switch (who knows what's true), taking one of the holding midfielders out might have been a better option. Bridge seems to have a good understanding with Bellamy, with one overlapping and the other cutting inside to give options/space etc., so we lost that and ended up with Zabaleta out of position and a little uncomfortable. Santa Cruz (despite being hopelessly poor himself today) freed up Tevez and allowed him to have more of an influence, but we carried on with effectively two holding players. If Zabaleta had come off, with RSC coming in, we could have still maintained a disciplined enough shape but RSC may well have benefited from Bridge's overlapping and delivery from wide (which is one of his strong points).

Colin the King wrote:

Grob wrote:As for Bridge, I thought he looked pretty good today and if it was a purely tactical switch (who knows what's true), taking one of the holding midfielders out might have been a better option.

Im of the opinion that once when we are pushing to try and score goals to get ourseves back into games, we can do without Nigel De Jong.

Infact almost everytime we go a goal down to 'inferior' opposition, I would haul him off for someone who can help the team attack.

Bridge must have been carrying a knock today, to take him off otherwise would have been pretty senseless

Grob wrote:

Colin the King wrote:

Grob wrote:As for Bridge, I thought he looked pretty good today and if it was a purely tactical switch (who knows what's true), taking one of the holding midfielders out might have been a better option.

Im of the opinion that once when we are pushing to try and score goals to get ourseves back into games, we can do without Nigel De Jong.

Infact almost everytime we go a goal down to 'inferior' opposition, I would haul him off for someone who can help the team attack.

Bridge must have been carrying a knock today, to take him off otherwise would have been pretty senseless

Agree with that. We've seen how influential he can be against the likes of Chelsea and Arsenal (he's been really outstanding in the big games) but as you say, when we're the ones attacking it negates the need for him to be on the pitch. I remember Hughes taking him off on a couple of occasions for Petrov- with varying success- but something similar would surely be better than changing personnel and keeping the same system.

The other thing is that, when analysing our midfield a while back (viewtopic.php?f=119&t=30294&p=98769#p98769) I found that Barry and Ireland was a much more successful partnership in terms of results. While de Jong played an important part in games against big/better opposition, those two with two wingers played seven, won six and drew one- a far better record than any other combination of players.

But then they're the ones with the coaching badges.

I think sometimes Bobby can be a bit mischievous in his after-match interviews, whilst keeping a straight face. In this case firstly about Bridge and secondly about the pitch being fine.

Grob wrote:

Douglas Higginbottom wrote:What amazes me is how often somebody will say kudos to Mancini for making the change early but not why the hell does he have to make a change so early. He keeps starting with the wrong team , wrong tactics and we start games really badly so it's bleeding obvious he has to make an early change. I welcome the day he gets it all right from the start and doesnt need to change tactics and/or personnel.

Its scary how often Mancini seems to get the 11 and tactics so wrong from the off. Does he bother to scout the oppositions pattern of play and set our team up to nullify and counter?

We've gone from one manager who regulally got the setup at the start of matches right but lacked the confidence to make changes untill something went seriously wrong to a manager who regulally gets the team and tactics wrong from the off and has to attempt to pull it round mid match by making big decisions, with varying degrees of success/failure.

Both of these are sound, solid statements imo

Chinners wrote:

Grob wrote:

Douglas Higginbottom wrote:What amazes me is how often somebody will say kudos to Mancini for making the change early but not why the hell does he have to make a change so early. He keeps starting with the wrong team , wrong tactics and we start games really badly so it's bleeding obvious he has to make an early change. I welcome the day he gets it all right from the start and doesnt need to change tactics and/or personnel.

Its scary how often Mancini seems to get the 11 and tactics so wrong from the off. Does he bother to scout the oppositions pattern of play and set our team up to nullify and counter?

We've gone from one manager who regulally got the setup at the start of matches right but lacked the confidence to make changes untill something went seriously wrong to a manager who regulally gets the team and tactics wrong from the off and has to attempt to pull it round mid match by making big decisions, with varying degrees of success/failure.

Both of these are sound, solid statements imo

I've said this before, why does Mancio get praise fro actually getting the set-up wrong? Fare play, he has the balls to change it so early but in reality there should be no need. He may not know the teams he is playing as yet, but the likes of Kiddo sure have been around long enough to give enough input on how other teams play (plus video/stats evidence).

Wayne may have a niggling injury but he didn't show any problems at the time and was having a decent game getting up and down the wing. Yes, bring Roque on by all means and take off one of the many DM's, but it does seem that Wayne is always the first to be substituted as has been seen in his last few games.