The phrase "Win or lose as a team"

[bigblue]

Genuinely wondering how people feel towards the saying, "Win or lose as a team." And if the phrase is generally true, does it say anything about how the supporters should behave towards the team (or individuals in the team)?

Doesn't need to be said, but the current City team is setting records for how well we're doing. Best start to a season for 100 years. 39 goals in 11 games. 31 points out of a possible 33. And with us playing every 3 days, there is no set lineup. We have a squad of players who have all contributed (admittedly some more than others). Without the full squad, we wouldn't be on this current run.

It seems very harsh to me when, despite our team's current form, our own fans are constantly trying to single out one or two weaknesses. I know the season is early and we must always improve (as Roberto constantly says), but at some point you just have to appreciate the whole collection of players that are working together.

So is it right/fair for supporters to single out players like Kolarov, Savic, Johnson, Yaya.... when we are in record breaking form, or does singling them out make the team stronger overall?

[CityGer]

It doesn't matter how well we're doing people will always debate individual performances and be critical of certain things.

Im glad of it.

The board would be painfully boring if everyone just came on here after a game and patted each other on the back.

[bigblue]

It doesn't matter how well we're doing people will always debate individual performances and be critical of certain things.

Im glad of it.

The board would be painfully boring if everyone just came on here after a game and patted each other on the back.

Not saying criticism is bad and we should always pat each other on the back. There is a difference between criticizing a player's performance and criticizing a player as an individual. It is the difference between saying a player had a bad game and saying a player is shit, not good enough for the team.

[Slim]

We win as a team, we can lose because of a single mistake, so in theory that can come down to one player.

[Douglas Higginbottom]

We win as a team, we can lose because of a single mistake, so in theory that can come down to one player.

All players make mistakes though in all games.It's up to the team to ensure that the mistakes are not costly.

[CityGer]

Not saying criticism is bad and we should always pat each other on the back. There is a difference between criticizing a player's performance and criticizing a player as an individual. It is the difference between saying a player had a bad game and saying a player is shit, not good enough for the team.

Sorry. Not sure what you're getting at.

[bigblue]

Not saying criticism is bad and we should always pat each other on the back. There is a difference between criticizing a player's performance and criticizing a player as an individual. It is the difference between saying a player had a bad game and saying a player is shit, not good enough for the team.

Sorry. Not sure what you're getting at.

I'll spell it out for you as clear as I can -

Criticizing a player's performance:

Barry isn't marking his man and is a liability on set pieces. When he gets the ball he slows down play and always plays the easy pass. He has the ability, just never shows it or puts in enough effort.

Criticizing a player as an individual:

Barry is a fat piece of shit who is useless in midfield. Will never live up to the price we paid for him and is simply taking up a spot in the team that a better player could fill. If he played for the rags, we be laughing at him all day.
_________________________________________

(While I don't agree with either) The first is a piece of criticism that you can work from and discuss. The second is just a personal attack on the player and an attack on our coaching team's ability to develop a good team. If you still can't tell the difference I can try to break it down even further, but all this is getting away from the main point.

[CityGer]

I'll spell it out for you as clear as I can -

Criticizing a player's performance:

Barry isn't marking his man and is a liability on set pieces. When he gets the ball he slows down play and always plays the easy pass. He has the ability, just never shows it or puts in enough effort.

Criticizing a player as an individual:

Barry is a fat piece of shit who is useless in midfield. Will never live up to the price we paid for him and is simply taking up a spot in the team that a better player could fill. If he played for the rags, we be laughing at him all day.
_________________________________________

(While I don't agree with either) The first is a piece of criticism that you can work from and discuss. The second is just a personal attack on the player and an attack on our coaching team's ability to develop a good team. If you still can't tell the difference I can try to break it down even further, but all this is getting away from the main point.

I understand perfectly as I did the first time I just think you're talking a load of bollocks and trying to make something out of nothing.

[bigblue]

We win as a team, we can lose because of a single mistake, so in theory that can come down to one player.

There is hardly ever a single mistake that causes a goal. Sure there is the occasional shit back pass, but it is almost always a series of mistakes (with only the final mistake being highlighted).

For example the first goal QPR scored: Sure it was bad marking on a set piece, but who lost possession in the first place? And when possession was lost, who failed to show for the ball or make space for the player on the ball? Once we lost possession, why was QPR able to get so far into our territory without immediate pressure on the ball? Was there any chances to win possession back before the free-kick was awarded?

If you study the tape, you can point out a series of 5 or 6 mistakes for 99% of the goals that every team concedes. It may be simple and easy to single out one player, but you are ignoring all the factors that got us in that situation in the first place. Much like any event, once you break it down you are able to recognize all the shades grey behind the initial black and white.

[Slim]

We win as a team, we can lose because of a single mistake, so in theory that can come down to one player.

There is hardly ever a single mistake that causes a goal. Sure there is the occasional shit back pass, but it is almost always a series of mistakes (with only the final mistake being highlighted).

For example the first goal QPR scored: Sure it was bad marking on a set piece, but who lost possession in the first place? And when possession was lost, who failed to show for the ball or make space for the player on the ball? Once we lost possession, why was QPR able to get so far into our territory without immediate pressure on the ball? Was there any chances to win possession back before the free-kick was awarded?

If you study the tape, you can point out a series of 5 or 6 mistakes for 99% of the goals that every team concedes. It may be simple and easy to single out one player, but you are ignoring all the factors that got us in that situation in the first place. Much like any event, once you break it down you are able to recognize all the shades grey behind the initial black and white.

That's utter crap but it's late and I can't be fucked explaining why.

5 or 6 mistakes?

FFS.

[bigblue]

We win as a team, we can lose because of a single mistake, so in theory that can come down to one player.

There is hardly ever a single mistake that causes a goal. Sure there is the occasional shit back pass, but it is almost always a series of mistakes (with only the final mistake being highlighted).

For example the first goal QPR scored: Sure it was bad marking on a set piece, but who lost possession in the first place? And when possession was lost, who failed to show for the ball or make space for the player on the ball? Once we lost possession, why was QPR able to get so far into our territory without immediate pressure on the ball? Was there any chances to win possession back before the free-kick was awarded?

If you study the tape, you can point out a series of 5 or 6 mistakes for 99% of the goals that every team concedes. It may be simple and easy to single out one player, but you are ignoring all the factors that got us in that situation in the first place. Much like any event, once you break it down you are able to recognize all the shades grey behind the initial black and white.

That's utter crap but it's late and I can't be fucked explaining why.

5 or 6 mistakes?

FFS.

Football is 11 vs 11. There is no way that one group of 11 players can score on the other group of 11 players without a series of mistakes being made. It doesn't matter who the individual is that scored. If the TEAM is playing properly, 1 individual mistake should NEVER lead to a goal. If it initially appears that an individual mistake has lead to a goal, then looking deeper will show that the team was not playing properly. When the team is not playing properly, a series of mistakes by multiple players has been made.

If you have ever been a part of a competitive sports team that reviews the tape of your games, this should have been pointed out to you. If your team thinks that one mistake can beat them, your team is shit because they ignore their responsibilities to each other.

To think otherwise is to willfully stick your head in the sand.

[CityGer]

This is getting worse.

[bigblue]

This is getting worse.

Eh, maybe I'm just expecting a step beyond "player 1 is shit" ... "player 2 cost us the goal" ... "If only we bought so-and-so", but it's obvious that kind of talk isn't coming from you.

The notion of the team as a fluid unit is epitomized in Barcelona. When Barcelona score; we can recognize the good spacing by the midfield, the run off the ball that took away a defender, the give and go that put them in position for a shot, and the nice finish at the end. Whether scoring or conceding, it's a team game.

When the opposition scores on City, can we recognize the series of mistakes that led to the goal (giving the ball away, not following their man, positioning themselves too wide/narrow/deep/high, not giving a shout about a player running across, missing a chance for a tackle, forcing the opposition into space instead of where there is support....)? Or are we fixated on the final ball or pass that shows up in the 60 second highlights?

I raise the last question because if we only look to blame a single individual, we more often than not miss the real story. We never know what a player's complete instructions are, and the player who it initially seemed made the mistake could have been covering for a team mate (who was covering for someone else). Football tactics seem to be evolving at an increasing rate and taking a larger importance in games. There's a reason that Newcastle is doing so well, and it isn't just because of their individual skill and willingness to get stuck in. Who thought that losing Barton, Nolan, and Carroll would make them better this year? But from interviews it is clear that Pardew purposely looked to create a team that is build around keeping possession (his scouts identified undervalued players with high pass completion rates).

Before criticizing players for doing their job, we have to make sure that we understand exactly what the player's job actually is. If we were to try and dissect individual Barcelona players based on the "traditional" roles, we'd conclude that most of them ignore their many of their positional duties. But if we take time to understand the Barcelona system, we can appreciate how each player's actions are beneficial to the team.

I don't think anyone is really an expert on what the City system is. We may have a good idea, but the system hasn't been around long enough for outsiders to fully understand all the nuances involved. So when we are playing this well as a team, are such harsh criticisms of individual players really valid?

[Ted Hughes]

This is getting worse.

Eh, maybe I'm just expecting a step beyond "player 1 is shit" ... "player 2 cost us the goal" ... "If only we bought so-and-so", but it's obvious that kind of talk isn't coming from you.

The notion of the team as a fluid unit is epitomized in Barcelona. When Barcelona score; we can recognize the good spacing by the midfield, the run off the ball that took away a defender, the give and go that put them in position for a shot, and the nice finish at the end. Whether scoring or conceding, it's a team game.

When the opposition scores on City, can we recognize the series of mistakes that led to the goal (giving the ball away, not following their man, positioning themselves too wide/narrow/deep/high, not giving a shout about a player running across, missing a chance for a tackle, forcing the opposition into space instead of where there is support....)? Or are we fixated on the final ball or pass that shows up in the 60 second highlights?

I raise the last question because if we only look to blame a single individual, we more often than not miss the real story. We never know what a player's complete instructions are, and the player who it initially seemed made the mistake could have been covering for a team mate (who was covering for someone else). Football tactics seem to be evolving at an increasing rate and taking a larger importance in games. There's a reason that Newcastle is doing so well, and it isn't just because of their individual skill and willingness to get stuck in. Who thought that losing Barton, Nolan, and Carroll would make them better this year? But from interviews it is clear that Pardew purposely looked to create a team that is build around keeping possession (his scouts identified undervalued players with high pass completion rates).

Before criticizing players for doing their job, we have to make sure that we understand exactly what the player's job actually is. If we were to try and dissect individual Barcelona players based on the "traditional" roles, we'd conclude that most of them ignore their many of their positional duties. But if we take time to understand the Barcelona system, we can appreciate how each player's actions are beneficial to the team.

I don't think anyone is really an expert on what the City system is. We may have a good idea, but the system hasn't been around long enough for outsiders to fully understand all the nuances involved. So when we are playing this well as a team, are such harsh criticisms of individual players really valid?

Yes.

Next.

[stefano]

"Win or lose as a Team" is just hypocrisy and cliché. at the end of the day world players won you games and titles and Teams made ​​up of mediocre players are defeated even if they "play as a team"

[Alex Sapphire]

shame I thought this looked like a promising topic to discuss
but I'd better not offer an opinion or someone will steal my dinner money

[MSG77]

There is hardly ever a single mistake that causes a goal.

Unless an English keeper is involved. Then it's probably 50/50.

If you study the tape, you can point out a series of 5 or 6 mistakes for 99% of the goals that every team concedes.

5 or 6? You are talking shit. 2 or 3? Maybe. I agree that its not just one player most of the time. But you are really overanalyzing to come up with 6 players out of 11 who fucked up on a single goal. Let alone 99% of the time.

And I think you'll find that the ones who are singled out are the ones in the 2 or 3 players consistently fucking up to let in goals. Players who do the right thing 95% of the time get the benefit of the doubt. Its the repeat offenders who get the personal attacks.

As for the personal attacks - yes, they are probably unwarranted. That being said - its a football forum. Lighten the fuck up. Its a place to blow off steam. Does it really matter what gets said on these things? If the players read them - they shouldn't. Its fake life on the internet where you can say virtually anything you want.

Can't believe so many words have been put down in this thread over virtually nothing. Personal attacks are bad and not just one player is responsible for a goal. No shit. Somehow it got me to post a lengthy response (which I obviously rarely do), although I'm not sure why.

[bigblue]

Well I was expecting an actual discussion on the question. Maybe even a coherent argument or intelligent opinion. Instead, we got something similar to this:



No point in bashing the analysis from most media outlets when you get no better from here

[Kladze]

Well I was expecting an actual discussion on the question. Maybe even a coherent argument or intelligent opinion.

No point in bashing the analysis from most media outlets when you get no better from here

Maybe because there was nothing to analyse?

[Patrick]

"Win or lose as a Team" is just hypocrisy and cliché. at the end of the day world players won you games and titles and Teams made ​​up of mediocre players are defeated even if they "play as a team"

Surely city have taught you that is tosh in the last few seasons?

Greece in 2004 and England rugby in 2003 spring to mind as other examples