The mancityfans.net football forum

All season people have been wondering if our inability to attck would cost us, but hae been shut down by the "were 2nd in the league" brigade.

Cant argue with results, but the fact is we will never win anything if we try and play 1-0 Italian games every week. Yes we will have enough class and decent players to be top half/top 4 a lot, but you don't win the league without being able to kill off weaker teams, even if they go a goal up. United, Chelsea etc would have absoloutley bombarded wolves once they went behind, we brought off a striker for a right back.

It's obvious Mancinin is a good manager, with a well drilled team and insists on a heavy workrate. But his tactics have pisseed off Tevez, left Adebayor pissed a few times, Bellers is gone, is it a mere coincidence that the strikers aren't big on him?

Is he going to be able to bite the bullet and adapt to England, sooner rather than later?

Yes Mancini made a few errors yesterday, but after the first quarter everyone bar Silva played utter shite! A bottom 3 team destroyed us and EVERYONE should be held accountable in my opinion.

I also cannot get over the attitude and poor performance of (not so super) Mario, he needs to sort himself out quickly.

We are playing on Thursday so let's take all the negatives from this game and go out looking like a winning side! We need to sort out our mindset before the derby or they will destroy us, and that will make yesterdays loss look like NOTHING!

The whole thing about City the way Mancini wants us to play is to attack as a team and especially defend as one.On the attacking front he does tend to limit the attacking intent of many players but he does want the team to win the midfield and press forward even if we don't often see the midfield getting in front of or alongside the strikers.Then it is up to the key attacking players to deliver.
But on the defensive aspect he spends plenty of time on the training ground working on the team shape and ensuring they all know where they should be when we haven't got the ball.The emphasis is on the team and I feel yesterday that shape wasn't always right. Maybe part of that was the personnel in that Nigel was missing in the middle and also we had 2 "new" players up front.

Just look at the goal difference for the current top 4 teams - we are the only ones with a single figure goal difference. If we want to be serious Top 4 / Title contenders, we need to score more goals.

Simples !!

frannylee wrote:Just look at the goal difference for the current top 4 teams - we are the only ones with a single figure goal difference. If we want to be serious Top 4 / Title contenders, we need to score more goals.

Simples !!

Plus 1 on that!

I think I league position over the past few weeks flatters us, with some wins on the verge of luck. To be in with the chance of winning anything we need to be finishing teams like wolves instead of crumbling and arguing amongst the team ala Manu and Kompany. Look at Chelsea yesterday, THAT is what we need to be doing!!!

We aren't yet functioning properly as an attacking unit it's true. I don't think anyone can accuse Mancini of not trying to attack in recent games though, quite the opposite imo. We started with 3 attacking players yesterday.

At the start of yesterday's game, for a short period, we looked like the best attacking team in the country imo & we even put in some decent crosses. When it went wrong though we failed as a unit & became disorganised. I recon that's down to players losing focus on their jobs because their jobs & their partners, keep changing.

Mario was indeed shite.

I've no problem with someone taking time to settle in, but one striker was performing and we took him off and left the sulky one on?

What the fuck?

Ted Hughes wrote:We aren't yet functioning properly as an attacking unit it's true. I don't think anyone can accuse Mancini of not trying to attack in recent games though, quite the opposite imo. We started with 3 attacking players yesterday.

At the start of yesterday's game, for a short period, we looked like the best attacking team in the country imo & we even put in some decent crosses. When it went wrong though we failed as a unit & became disorganised. I recon that's down to players losing focus on their jobs because their jobs & their partners, keep changing.

3 attacking players? Wow, how very generous of him.............

Although notionally they are there to attack, the two wide players in Mancini's teams are there primarily to defend. When they eventually do get the ball in an attacking sense, they are usually so isolated that they have little in terms of options, so we usually end up defending again soon after. Effectively, we alternate between having 1 and 2 players who contribute to attacking in any given game. Sometimes 3 contribute, but only at home, and only if the moon is in line with Taurus

Contrast that to Chelsea, or even the rags' midfield, and they all start with a minimum of 5 "attacking" players, all getting involved going forwards.

By constant pressure at one end of the pitch, they restrict the amount of defending they need to do, and by having a good back 4 they deal with the ball when it comes up the other end, but might let the odd one in. Fucks me off the way we play, because every team who has challenged for a title or indeed won anything in the last 15 years, plays EXACTLY in this way.

Balotelli is a nutter & will turn in moments of genius & utter shite in probably equal measure. Whether that will change & the shite will eventually be eradicated I don't know but I think we'll just have to accept that we're going to get some really strange shit with Balo. He's not even match fit yet though.

the scum have stuck to wingers for years and use them properly and they play the same home or away. 10 days till we play them they will rip us apart if we continue playing like we are. whats happend to bridge? kolov injured who plays left back in the reserves.

johnpb78 wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:We aren't yet functioning properly as an attacking unit it's true. I don't think anyone can accuse Mancini of not trying to attack in recent games though, quite the opposite imo. We started with 3 attacking players yesterday.

At the start of yesterday's game, for a short period, we looked like the best attacking team in the country imo & we even put in some decent crosses. When it went wrong though we failed as a unit & became disorganised. I recon that's down to players losing focus on their jobs because their jobs & their partners, keep changing.

3 attacking players? Wow, how very generous of him.............

Although notionally they are there to attack, the two wide players in Mancini's teams are there primarily to defend. When they eventually do get the ball in an attacking sense, they are usually so isolated that they have little in terms of options, so we usually end up defending again soon after.

Contrast that to Chelsea, or even the rags' midfield, and they all start with a minimum of 5 "attacking" players, all getting involved going forwards. By constant pressure at one end of the pitch, they restrict the amount of defending they need to do.

We had Balotelli, Silva & Ade. They weren't defending apart from as a token gesture. You're referring to how 'Mancini's teams' play but the team plays differently & lines up differently every game, which imo is the problem. Imagine if, as you say, the wide players come back & defend in one game but then suddenly don't in the next? If you're a defender who's used to lining up one way then suddenly that happens & you're also playing next to different players every game, is it not pretty obviously difficult to stay organised & confident in what's happening? Then of course the midfield have to line up differently to fill those gaps. Then in the midst of it all you're all supposed to spring forward & attack like Barcelona?

Too many changes, too soon.

Ted Hughes wrote:

johnpb78 wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:We aren't yet functioning properly as an attacking unit it's true. I don't think anyone can accuse Mancini of not trying to attack in recent games though, quite the opposite imo. We started with 3 attacking players yesterday.

At the start of yesterday's game, for a short period, we looked like the best attacking team in the country imo & we even put in some decent crosses. When it went wrong though we failed as a unit & became disorganised. I recon that's down to players losing focus on their jobs because their jobs & their partners, keep changing.

3 attacking players? Wow, how very generous of him.............

Although notionally they are there to attack, the two wide players in Mancini's teams are there primarily to defend. When they eventually do get the ball in an attacking sense, they are usually so isolated that they have little in terms of options, so we usually end up defending again soon after.

Contrast that to Chelsea, or even the rags' midfield, and they all start with a minimum of 5 "attacking" players, all getting involved going forwards. By constant pressure at one end of the pitch, they restrict the amount of defending they need to do.

We had Balotelli, Silva & Ade. They weren't defending apart from as a token gesture. You're referring to how 'Mancini's teams' play but the team plays differently & lines up differently every game, which imo is the problem. Imagine if, as you say, the wide players come back & defend in one game but then suddenly don't in the next? If you're a defender who's used to lining up one way then suddenly that happens & you're also playing next to different players every game, is it not pretty obviously difficult to stay organised & confident in what's happening? Then of course the midfield have to line up differently to fill those gaps. Then in the midst of it all you're all supposed to spring forward & attack like Barcelona?

Too many changes, too soon.

I agree 100% about the changes aspect.

I am sick to fucking death of seeing Manchester City attract the best players in the world, only to worry about how Karl Fucking Henry or Bret Ormerod is going to influence the game.

United setup the same way for every game in the league - with the very odd exception. They have the mindset that they will create the problems, score one more than the opposition even if it means conceding. That approach for United, Chelsea, Arsenal, over the years has led to them having the best defensive records - surely that is not a coincidence, and Mancini would do well to study Bacon's approach on this aspect.

That is just how English football is, and I think Mancini is trying to be overly analytical in how he sends out his sides. Football is a very simple game, tackle> pass > move. If you have players who can pass and move better than the opposition (which we almost certainly do), then scoring more goals than your opposition should never be a problem.

It is when fuckwits come in with their convoluted idea of how football should be played, that it all goes tits up as footballers on the whole are too uncultured to understand the finer details of a complicated tactical masterplan.

You can maybe avoid losing by concentrating on not conceding, but you certainly can't win without scoring some goals along the way.

johnpb78 wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

johnpb78 wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:We aren't yet functioning properly as an attacking unit it's true. I don't think anyone can accuse Mancini of not trying to attack in recent games though, quite the opposite imo. We started with 3 attacking players yesterday.

At the start of yesterday's game, for a short period, we looked like the best attacking team in the country imo & we even put in some decent crosses. When it went wrong though we failed as a unit & became disorganised. I recon that's down to players losing focus on their jobs because their jobs & their partners, keep changing.

3 attacking players? Wow, how very generous of him.............

Although notionally they are there to attack, the two wide players in Mancini's teams are there primarily to defend. When they eventually do get the ball in an attacking sense, they are usually so isolated that they have little in terms of options, so we usually end up defending again soon after.

Contrast that to Chelsea, or even the rags' midfield, and they all start with a minimum of 5 "attacking" players, all getting involved going forwards. By constant pressure at one end of the pitch, they restrict the amount of defending they need to do.

We had Balotelli, Silva & Ade. They weren't defending apart from as a token gesture. You're referring to how 'Mancini's teams' play but the team plays differently & lines up differently every game, which imo is the problem. Imagine if, as you say, the wide players come back & defend in one game but then suddenly don't in the next? If you're a defender who's used to lining up one way then suddenly that happens & you're also playing next to different players every game, is it not pretty obviously difficult to stay organised & confident in what's happening? Then of course the midfield have to line up differently to fill those gaps. Then in the midst of it all you're all supposed to spring forward & attack like Barcelona?

Too many changes, too soon.

I agree 100% about the changes aspect.

I am sick to fucking death of seeing Manchester City attract the best players in the world, only to worry about how Karl Fucking Henry or Bret Ormerod is going to influence the game.

United setup the same way for every game in the league - with the very odd exception. They have the mindset that they will create the problems, score one more than the opposition even if it means conceding. That approach for United, Chelsea, Arsenal, over the years has led to them having the best defensive records - surely that is not a coincidence, and Mancini would do well to study Bacon's approach on this aspect.

That is just how English football is, and I think Mancini is trying to be overly analytical in how he sends out his sides. Football is a very simple game, tackle> pass > move. If you have players who can pass and move better than the opposition (which we almost certainly do), then scoring more goals than your opposition should never be a problem.

It is when fuckwits come in with their convoluted idea of how football should be played, that it all goes tits up as footballers on the whole are too uncultured to understand the finer details of a complicated tactical masterplan.

You can maybe avoid losing by concentrating on not conceding, but you certainly can't win without scoring some goals along the way.

Tbh though you're basically describing what Hughes was tring to do & that didn't work either, as he was sacked half way through. Either way imo, all managers fuck up. Ferguson took years to get the rags playing like that & he dropped loads of bollocks on the way (& for a season or two they were boring as fuck & my mate, a seasonticket holder, called it 'the graveyard'). He's still dropping bollocks now but the team unit survives. He was given time & eventually got it right. Imo, unless the manager makes an absolute arse of it, they have to be allowed to make mistakes & find their own solutions, which are often the opposite to what fans predict they should do. Even if it's frustrating for us to take, we just have to put up with it. I can do that provided I don't have to read people telling me it's tactical genius when it's actually all over the fucking shop!

Yeah i mean what did anyone ever achieve playing the Italian way... the english hell for leather has always being more successful. Oh wait, despite serie A being at its weakest of all time,Italian clubs have 3 Champs league titles to the english leagues 2 in the last 10 years. Italy have also won a world cup using simular tactics.

Enough of the tactics are wrong, theirs no tactic in the world that should make Wolves beat us, neither on our side or theres. With our defence and team, theirs no way we should be conceding 2 against them, none.

Ted Hughes wrote:

johnpb78 wrote:
I agree 100% about the changes aspect.

I am sick to fucking death of seeing Manchester City attract the best players in the world, only to worry about how Karl Fucking Henry or Bret Ormerod is going to influence the game.

United setup the same way for every game in the league - with the very odd exception. They have the mindset that they will create the problems, score one more than the opposition even if it means conceding. That approach for United, Chelsea, Arsenal, over the years has led to them having the best defensive records - surely that is not a coincidence, and Mancini would do well to study Bacon's approach on this aspect.

That is just how English football is, and I think Mancini is trying to be overly analytical in how he sends out his sides. Football is a very simple game, tackle> pass > move. If you have players who can pass and move better than the opposition (which we almost certainly do), then scoring more goals than your opposition should never be a problem.

It is when fuckwits come in with their convoluted idea of how football should be played, that it all goes tits up as footballers on the whole are too uncultured to understand the finer details of a complicated tactical masterplan.

You can maybe avoid losing by concentrating on not conceding, but you certainly can't win without scoring some goals along the way.

Tbh though you're basically describing what Hughes was tring to do & that didn't work either, as he was sacked half way through. Either way imo, all managers fuck up. Ferguson took years to get the rags playing like that & he dropped loads of bollocks on the way (& for a season or two they were boring as fuck & my mate, a seasonticket holder, called it 'the graveyard'). He's still dropping bollocks now but the team unit survives. He was given time & eventually got it right. Imo, unless the manager makes an absolute arse of it, they have to be allowed to make mistakes & find their own solutions, which are often the opposite to what fans predict they should do. Even if it's frustrating for us to take, we just have to put up with it. I can do that provided I don't have to read people telling me it's tactical genius when it's actually all over the fucking shop!

Ultimately, the tinkering of the defensive aspect of the team was the downfall of Hughes too. I wasn't all that bothered about the little run we had just before he was sacked, as I thought we would have finished 5th or above under Hughes too.

The fault with Hughes was over-analysing how we play away from home, and the insistence of playing players regardless of form (Robinho). They way Hughes took the game to the opposition at home was a joy to watch most of the time and of course there will be blips when you play that way, but you take them on the chin, dust yourself down and murder the next team you play. He got it in his head that he primarily had to stop the opposition breaking us down away from home - exactly the type of 180 degree change from week to week that we have already agreed are too hard to make.

If you are going to attack, then you play the same way home and away. Prior to our takeover, can you ever remember, Arsenal, Chelsea or United coming to Maine Road and being defensive? That approach, when mated to the best players is why they are consistently at the top of the league, there is no magical secret to it.

petrov wrote:Yeah i mean what did anyone ever achieve playing the Italian way... the english hell for leather has always being more successful. Oh wait, despite serie A being at its weakest of all time,Italian clubs have 3 Champs league titles to the english leagues 2 in the last 10 years. Italy have also won a world cup using simular tactics.

Enough of the tactics are wrong, theirs no tactic in the world that should make Wolves beat us, neither on our side or theres. With our defence and team, theirs no way we should be conceding 2 against them, none.

That's a bit childish mate & nobody is suggesting 'hell for leather' football so it's unneccessarily argumentintive too. The rags & Liverpool have done pretty well in Europe over the years & if Italian tactics are the way to go, how come Spain won the World Cup? There's no single way to play football. Lots of styles have their pro's & cons. It's about getting it right.

petrov wrote:Yeah i mean what did anyone ever achieve playing the Italian way... the english hell for leather has always being more successful. Oh wait, despite serie A being at its weakest of all time,Italian clubs have 3 Champs league titles to the english leagues 2 in the last 10 years. Italy have also won a world cup using simular tactics.

Enough of the tactics are wrong, theirs no tactic in the world that should make Wolves beat us, neither on our side or theres. With our defence and team, theirs no way we should be conceding 2 against them, none.

United did, difference was, they scored more than Wolves, and that, ultimately is what football is all about. History will record United reaching the QF of another competition, not how many they conceded on the way there.

I think the "italian style" works perfectly in the Champions League. That is a cup competition against the creme de la creme, where if you fuck up, you could be 3.0 down by half time and the whole tie is beyond you. Totally different kettle of fish to a 38 game league campaign, where you can play a really shit side 3 days after playing the European Champions. This is the whole problem, the game has become completely overanalysed, if you can beat the European Champions, you can beat the shitters the week after too, so long as the manager doesn't have you playing like you are scared of your own shadow.

johnpb78 wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

johnpb78 wrote:
I agree 100% about the changes aspect.

I am sick to fucking death of seeing Manchester City attract the best players in the world, only to worry about how Karl Fucking Henry or Bret Ormerod is going to influence the game.

United setup the same way for every game in the league - with the very odd exception. They have the mindset that they will create the problems, score one more than the opposition even if it means conceding. That approach for United, Chelsea, Arsenal, over the years has led to them having the best defensive records - surely that is not a coincidence, and Mancini would do well to study Bacon's approach on this aspect.

That is just how English football is, and I think Mancini is trying to be overly analytical in how he sends out his sides. Football is a very simple game, tackle> pass > move. If you have players who can pass and move better than the opposition (which we almost certainly do), then scoring more goals than your opposition should never be a problem.

It is when fuckwits come in with their convoluted idea of how football should be played, that it all goes tits up as footballers on the whole are too uncultured to understand the finer details of a complicated tactical masterplan.

You can maybe avoid losing by concentrating on not conceding, but you certainly can't win without scoring some goals along the way.

Tbh though you're basically describing what Hughes was tring to do & that didn't work either, as he was sacked half way through. Either way imo, all managers fuck up. Ferguson took years to get the rags playing like that & he dropped loads of bollocks on the way (& for a season or two they were boring as fuck & my mate, a seasonticket holder, called it 'the graveyard'). He's still dropping bollocks now but the team unit survives. He was given time & eventually got it right. Imo, unless the manager makes an absolute arse of it, they have to be allowed to make mistakes & find their own solutions, which are often the opposite to what fans predict they should do. Even if it's frustrating for us to take, we just have to put up with it. I can do that provided I don't have to read people telling me it's tactical genius when it's actually all over the fucking shop!

Ultimately, the tinkering of the defensive aspect of the team was the downfall of Hughes too. I wasn't all that bothered about the little run we had just before he was sacked, as I thought we would have finished 5th or above under Hughes too.

The fault with Hughes was over-analysing how we play away from home, and the insistence of playing players regardless of form (Robinho). They way Hughes took the game to the opposition at home was a joy to watch most of the time and of course there will be blips when you play that way, but you take them on the chin, dust yourself down and murder the next team you play. He got it in his head that he primarily had to stop the opposition breaking us down away from home - exactly the type of 180 degree change from week to week that we have already agreed are too hard to make.

If you are going to attack, then you play the same way home and away. Prior to our takeover, can you ever remember, Arsenal, Chelsea or United coming to Maine Road and being defensive? That approach, when mated to the best players is why they are consistently at the top of the league, there is no magical secret to it.

I think the rags were sometimes over attacking when they came to our place & got their arses spanked though. When the rags play at Chelsea they sometimes pack the midfield but as you say, they don't make too many tactical changes too often. They have a few systems they know & even those systems were the source of many arguments amongst fans when they were learning them, espescially when Rednose 1st played Rooney as a lone striker. It took about a year for that to really be effective. They have changed small details quite a lot over the years though but have always managed to keep a continuity & adapt their game to suit the new players. It took Ferguson quite some years & lots of signings to find that formula after trying lots of different formations.

Not sure he'll keep it going with the same success in the future though.

Ted Hughes wrote:

petrov wrote:Yeah i mean what did anyone ever achieve playing the Italian way... the english hell for leather has always being more successful. Oh wait, despite serie A being at its weakest of all time,Italian clubs have 3 Champs league titles to the english leagues 2 in the last 10 years. Italy have also won a world cup using simular tactics.

Enough of the tactics are wrong, theirs no tactic in the world that should make Wolves beat us, neither on our side or theres. With our defence and team, theirs no way we should be conceding 2 against them, none.

That's a bit childish mate & nobody is suggesting 'hell for leather' football so it's unneccessarily argumentintive too. The rags & Liverpool have done pretty well in Europe over the years & if Italian tactics are the way to go, how come Spain won the World Cup? There's no single way to play football. Lots of styles have their pro's & cons. It's about getting it right.

sorry mate, wasn't having a go at you personally and maybe i worded it a bit harshly. Sorry for that, my knickers are still in a twist over last night. Mancini dropped a bollock yes with the Ade sub but imho thats the height of it.

But we should beat Wolves regardless of what shape we take the field in. If anyone here says they thought we were going to lose yesterday after 20 minutes despite our tactics than imho they are talking crap. Our tactics didn't change, we just stopped playing.

United, Spain and Barca etc.. have won with style but only with truly great teams behind them. Liverpools CL victory saw them play the Italian way, while Milan played the attacking football. And United's most recent CL success saw them play as negative as can be to eliminate Barca.
Imho its not his negative tactics that I think is costing us (despite the fact its not easy on the eye), its the fact that he couldn't motivate a team to come out after a heavy defeat to Arsenal and play with some passion.

petrov wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

petrov wrote:Yeah i mean what did anyone ever achieve playing the Italian way... the english hell for leather has always being more successful. Oh wait, despite serie A being at its weakest of all time,Italian clubs have 3 Champs league titles to the english leagues 2 in the last 10 years. Italy have also won a world cup using simular tactics.

Enough of the tactics are wrong, theirs no tactic in the world that should make Wolves beat us, neither on our side or theres. With our defence and team, theirs no way we should be conceding 2 against them, none.

That's a bit childish mate & nobody is suggesting 'hell for leather' football so it's unneccessarily argumentintive too. The rags & Liverpool have done pretty well in Europe over the years & if Italian tactics are the way to go, how come Spain won the World Cup? There's no single way to play football. Lots of styles have their pro's & cons. It's about getting it right.

sorry mate, wasn't having a go at you personally and maybe i worded it a bit harshly. Sorry for that, my knickers are still in a twist over last night. Mancini dropped a bollock yes with the Ade sub but imho thats the height of it.

But we should beat Wolves regardless of what shape we take the field in. If anyone here says they thought we were going to lose yesterday after 20 minutes despite our tactics than imho they are talking crap. Our tactics didn't change, we just stopped playing.

United, Spain and Barca etc.. have won with style but only with truly great teams behind them. Liverpools CL victory saw them play the Italian way, while Milan played the attacking football. And United's most recent CL success saw them play as negative as can be to eliminate Barca.
Imho its not his negative tactics that I think is costing us (despite the fact its not easy on the eye), its the fact that he couldn't motivate a team to come out after a heavy defeat to Arsenal and play with some passion.

I can't argue against the fact that the team seemed under motivated & Mancini is pretty much agreeing, but tactically it's not when things are going well that it falls apart, it's when something goes wrong. We were fine storming forward until Wolves got stuck in then we were a shambles as a team defensively. Imo that's down to all the changes in recent weeks gradually undoing the hard work that Mancini put in organising the defensive aspect of the team. We effectively have to do it all again now.