***SPOILERS AHOY!!!*** Football 1st-5th Jan

[fez]

I think City have some good players and have a pretty decent squad, there's still a lot of dead wood, but seeing as they've thrown lots of money at players I doubt the players will want to move and be on less money.

I think City's lack of progress is down to the manager and the system he employs.

It just feels like they have had a bit of kid in a candy shop mentality. When chelsea were taken over, they bought a lot of players in that I had heard little of, but who complemented their existing team and strengthened the squad.

City have just looked at who is out there and said, "hes good, we'll have him" then realised that they hadn't got a cohesive squad and they have a bunch of overpaid individuals. Always reports coming out of players being unhappy, wanting to leave, having training ground bustups, being disrespectful to the manager.

Sort the manager and start to decide what sort of football you want to play, then build your team in that image. I honestly think that without silva, they will struggle in a lot of matches. Lets hope hes back soon eh.

 

[K1LLSW1TCH]

I think City have some good players and have a pretty decent squad, there's still a lot of dead wood, but seeing as they've thrown lots of money at players I doubt the players will want to move and be on less money.

I think City's lack of progress is down to the manager and the system he employs.

I never rated Mancini as a manager and I'm pretty sure most of his Italian successes came during a period when there was a lot of corruption in the Italian leagues?

 

[Tummy]

I really don't get this. One draw against Arsenal and we're not progressing? Second in the league (actual points not theoretical possible maybe ones), his first full season in charge with the chance to make the team his own. I think we're doing alright Quite a lot of positive press today too.

At Christmas he'd done no better then Hughes had and he was sacked, that's not progression.

Most of my comments are to do with the negative, dull and horrible football City have adopted not their league position, and that they (the manager) seem more interested in not losing then they do winning.

 

[Tummy]

I never rated Mancini as a manager and I'm pretty sure most of his Italian successes came during a period when there was a lot of corruption in the Italian leagues?

Yep

I personally don't rate him.

 

[BaZ87]

At Christmas he'd done no better then Hughes had and he was sacked, that's not progression.

City were 6th when Hughes was sacked. I'm pretty sure they were at least in the top 4 at Christmas and currently 2nd so they clearly have progressed.

 

[Adrianr]

At Christmas he'd done no better then Hughes had and he was sacked, that's not progression.

Most of my comments are to do with the negative, dull and horrible football City have adopted not their league position, and that they (the manager) seem more interested in not losing then they do winning.

Last years league, completely different, plus I'm sure we were still better off in position. Brand of football, completely wrong. You've seen that against United and Arsenal, we've played some bloody good football this season. Everyone still thinks Yaya Toure is a defensive midfielder. We simply don't play dull horrible boring football, we just don't. I've seen every game this season, as your not a fan I'm guessing you haven't, even half, or a quarter in fact. Most of the opinions on here are derived from one draw against arsenal and MOTD. If you actually have seen every game and still think we're dull and boring, I can only worry for your definitions of the words. We've scored more than Spurs, we just don't concede 80% of what we score. If that's boring ill take it all day long.

E: I'm on a plane, heading to much warmer climates. Please feel free to continue to discussion though I won't ve here to reply We'll see where City are when I get back

 

[Tummy]

City were 6th when Hughes was sacked. I'm pretty sure they were at least in the top 4 at Christmas and currently 2nd so they clearly have progressed.

I didn't think they were any better off points wise

City are higher up because of the decline in the teams around them.

 

[Tummy]

E: I'm on a plane, heading to much warmer climates. Please feel free to continue to discussion though I won't ve here to reply We'll see where City are when I get back

Have a nice holiday.

 

[drunkenmaster]

What Mancini said after the game, was telling.

He said that his team has played 4 games in 10 days. They are tired. Their aim therefore was to play for the draw.

Given the above, I think Man City got a fantastic result - 1pt at Emirates, with a very tired team. Even Man Utd would be proud of that.

Firstly the team is no less tired than their opposition so that is literally no excuse, likewise its THEIR CHOICE to not rotate players, they've got eleventy billion midfielders, and strikers, and defenders. No excuse at all, whats Bridge done lately, why not rest a left back and give Bridge a game, why not rest Tevez at some point and give someone else a game, etc, etc, etc.

Whats the point in spending half a ruddy billions pounds on a massive squad if you refuse to use it when you get a lot of games together.

As for 4 games in 10 days, in a LOT of weeks in the season you'll play on a sunday, then wednesday, saturday and tuesday, otherwise known as 4 games in NINE days. Theres literally nothing at all unusual about 4 games in 10 days, MANY teams play that many games in LESS days several times a season, the club with the biggest and most expensive squad in the EPL history has no excuse at all.

It was pathetic, no more or less, Newcastle, West Brom both came to Arsenal with smaller squads and came to win.

All that's very well and nice, but Chelsea managed to do it in a season with Mourihno, I'd say the problem with City is the manager.

How come it's taking City so long?

Chelsea became a big club within a season, they won the league a year after abramovich bought the club. Liverpool are not going through a bad patch, they didnt even qualify for champions league last season and certainly wont this season. They have a middle of the table side bar gerrard and torres and I can't see this changing that much without massive investment.

Both of these things are rubbish, Chelsea were 6th twice, then 4th, got bought by Roman, were FANTASTIC under Ranieri and came a strong 2nd, then 1st after that. This wasn't a team that was in a relegation fight a couple times in previous seasons to being bought.

Chelsea were in a massively stronger position than City were when their money came in, not least because Chelsea had spent themselves into a few months away from administration and massive problems over years. City spent almost smeg all for the 15 years before they got sold to a billionaire(one without his assets frozen).

I said at the time, ridiculous to think they'd do a Chelsea, because doing a Chelsea involved 5-6 years of heavy investment and MASSIVE improvement in the league BEFORE Roman bought the club, he only took Chelsea the final step after many many years of slow and steady improvement.

That doesn't excuse how poor a lot of the players in the City squad are, how bad value for money the team is, or how pathetic it is to use tiredness as an excuse to play bad football and be a timid bunch of girls.

 

[Stewy]

^ City just got ownt

 

[sunama]

Whats the point in spending half a ruddy billions pounds on a massive squad if you refuse to use it when you get a lot of games together.

The problem is that they were playing Arsenal at Emirates. How many teams this year have got 1 or 3 points at Emirates this year? I'm not sure, but I can't imagine many have. This was a statistical decision that Mancini took, in that he felt he needed his best players on the pitch, who were also tired. He played for the draw and got it. This is quite normal in Italy, where some teams play for a draw from the get go, or they score 1 goal, then play the remaining game to hold onto that 1 goal advantage. Mancini is Italian. He spent his career playing in Italy, so it makes sense that he is thinking "the Italian way". Similarly, if Kevin Keegan went to manage an Italian side, I'm sure he would attempt to win every game 10-0. I'm not sure if this would work, but you get my drift.

As I stated before, this is Man City's 2nd season of heavy spending and they are rising. To expect them to attempt to beat the established top teams is a little too ambitious and what Man City have done this year is bang on target for them. If they can finish in the top 3 this year, they will be happy. Next year, they will look to move forward and I'm sure in 2013, they will fully expect to win the title (which would entail going to the stadiums of rival teams, including Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea, and attempting to beat them).

I think some people are expecting a little too much, a little too soon. Money does not give instant results and takes a few years to take full effect.

...Chelsea were 6th twice, then 4th, got bought by Roman, were FANTASTIC under Ranieri and came a strong 2nd, then 1st after that. This wasn't a team that was in a relegation fight a couple times in previous seasons to being bought.

Chelsea were in a massively stronger position than City were when their money came in, not least because Chelsea had spent themselves into a few months away from administration and massive problems over years. City spent almost smeg all for the 15 years before they got sold to a billionaire(one without his assets frozen).

I said at the time, ridiculous to think they'd do a Chelsea, because doing a Chelsea involved 5-6 years of heavy investment and MASSIVE improvement in the league BEFORE Roman bought the club, he only took Chelsea the final step after many many years of slow and steady improvement.

I couldn't have put it better, myself.

 

[fez]

Firstly the team is no less tired than their opposition so that is literally no excuse, likewise its THEIR CHOICE to not rotate players, they've got eleventy billion midfielders, and strikers, and defenders. No excuse at all, whats Bridge done lately, why not rest a left back and give Bridge a game, why not rest Tevez at some point and give someone else a game, etc, etc, etc.

Whats the point in spending half a ruddy billions pounds on a massive squad if you refuse to use it when you get a lot of games together.

As for 4 games in 10 days, in a LOT of weeks in the season you'll play on a sunday, then wednesday, saturday and tuesday, otherwise known as 4 games in NINE days. Theres literally nothing at all unusual about 4 games in 10 days, MANY teams play that many games in LESS days several times a season, the club with the biggest and most expensive squad in the EPL history has no excuse at all.

It was pathetic, no more or less, Newcastle, West Brom both came to Arsenal with smaller squads and came to win.





Both of these things are rubbish, Chelsea were 6th twice, then 4th, got bought by Roman, were FANTASTIC under Ranieri and came a strong 2nd, then 1st after that. This wasn't a team that was in a relegation fight a couple times in previous seasons to being bought.

Chelsea were in a massively stronger position than City were when their money came in, not least because Chelsea had spent themselves into a few months away from administration and massive problems over years. City spent almost smeg all for the 15 years before they got sold to a billionaire(one without his assets frozen).

I said at the time, ridiculous to think they'd do a Chelsea, because doing a Chelsea involved 5-6 years of heavy investment and MASSIVE improvement in the league BEFORE Roman bought the club, he only took Chelsea the final step after many many years of slow and steady improvement.

That doesn't excuse how poor a lot of the players in the City squad are, how bad value for money the team is, or how pathetic it is to use tiredness as an excuse to play bad football and be a timid bunch of girls.

How many of chelsea's "awesome" team survived the first season after they were bought. What do all the smaller clubs in the league complain about. Is it that that they can only do slightly better than the season before regardless how well they play and how much they spend. No its all about money.

Chelsea were never going to get into contention for the league without the investment and they bought smart and it worked out.

If both teams got an investment of 100m to spend then I can see your point but that isnt what happened is it. Any club that gets an unlimited transfer kitty should be able to do amazing things. Chelsea did, man city have not. Saying that chelsea were in the top 6 before the investment is completely beside the point.

 

[sunama]

Any club that gets an unlimited transfer kitty should be able to do amazing things. Chelsea did, man city have not. Saying that chelsea were in the top 6 before the investment is completely beside the point.

I disagree strongly with this. In order to get the players/managers/staff, a club needs to have an attraction. Usually, this is a "big name".

Many top players will not come to a club, irrespective of the wages offered, simply because the club is unheard of. Man City are prepared to pay any player on the planet, top wages, yet the top players are not flocking to Man City? Why, because they do not have the back ground of a Man Utd or a Real Madrid.

Try asking Kaka, Ronaldo or Messi to go to Man City (for a 100% wage increase) and it is almost certain they would decline. Why? Because Man City are unheard of around the World.

Similarly, to attract the best staff, the same holds true.

Chelsea scored big when they captured Mourinho. He was and is, the best manager in the World. After his departure, statistically, Chelsea have not been as successful.

Chelsea also had an extra attraction for foreign (top) players - they were coming to London. If you ask any foreigner, where London is, they will all know its in England/UK. Ask the same foreigner where Manchester is and they probably won't even know what it means.

To compare Man City with Chelsea is just plain wrong...for so many different reasons.

 

[Stewy]

He is absolutely amazing but they still would have played ridonculously negatively so I'm not sure it would have made that much difference?

 

[fez]

I disagree strongly with this. In order to get the players/managers/staff, a club needs to have an attraction. Usually, this is a "big name".

Many top players will not come to a club, irrespective of the wages offered, simply because the club is unheard of. Man City are prepared to pay any player on the planet, top wages, yet the top players are not flocking to Man City? Why, because they do not have the back ground of a Man Utd or a Real Madrid.

Try asking Kaka, Ronaldo or Messi to go to Man City (for a 100% wage increase) and it is almost certain they would decline. Why? Because Man City are unheard of around the World.

Similarly, to attract the best staff, the same holds true.

Chelsea scored big when they captured Mourinho. He was and is, the best manager in the World. After his departure, statistically, Chelsea have not been as successful.

Chelsea also had an extra attraction for foreign (top) players - they were coming to London. If you ask any foreigner, where London is, they will all know its in England/UK. Ask the same foreigner where Manchester is and they probably won't even know what it means.

To compare Man City with Chelsea is just plain wrong...for so many different reasons.

Im still not understanding your thinking. Footballers don't look at offers from foreign clubs and think "hes offering me 150k a week but where is manchester". Firstly because they will know manchester united and secondly because you can quite easily google manchester and find out a bit more, I very much doubt transfers are based on players geographical knowledge.

Man city have attracted some big names that a lot of other clubs would love to have bought and they still are. Christ, half their team would have been bought by 20 odd clubs had they had the chance.

Try getting messi, kaka or ronaldo to come to the premier league for any club. There are certain players that will never come to the premier league. Why would they; crap weather, hard football, loads of games and being away from family and friends.

Man city should have done more than they have with the money they have. I just looked at chelseas seasons around the time of their takeover and they cleaned out most of the team when they became a success, got rid of the manager so what exactly is it that chelsea had that made it so easy for them to capitalise on their investment?

A cohesive squad and a good manager. When city achieve this then I am sure that they will be a top top side but its just silly to be looking for excuses as to why they are not progressing faster.

Ask 90% of the worlds football fans who manchester united are and where they play and then do the same for chelsea. City's location is of no relevance in comparison to other teams in the top 5 or 6 in the league.

 

[sunama]

I think you are vastly underestimating the lure of living and playing in a big London club.

I'd bet my life that when foreigners were being groomed to join Chelsea (immediately after Abromovic bought the club), the fact that Chelsea was in London, was definitely mentioned to the players.

Why did RA buy Chelsea, in the first place? Why not Man City or Sunderland?

 

[fez]

I think you are vastly underestimating the lure of living and playing in a big London club.

I'd bet my life that when foreigners were being groomed to join Chelsea (immediately after Abromovic bought the club), the fact that Chelsea was in London, was definitely mentioned to the players.

Why did RA buy Chelsea, in the first place? Why not Man City or Sunderland?

Thats what im confused about. Im sure that it does help a bit to be in london. But show me who chelsea have attracted in comparison to city.

Man city persuaded ballotelli, toure, silva, tevez, de jong to join their cause. I think that most people would agree that those guys would all be happier in warmer climates but cities money and ambition persuaded them to join.

Look at chelseas dealings with overseas stars and its a lot thinner on the ground. Our biggest turn off for most foreign players I imagine has more to do with climate, crazy taxes, long season and homesickness rather than location in the UK.

London is a nice thing to be able to say to a potential player but everything I have just mentioned would certainly hold more weight with me if I was a crazy good footballer. The evidence is there in chelseas transfer dealings with top foreign players when you compare it to city's.

 

[Tummy]

Money talks.

 

[Yas786]

Money talks.

Definitely talks when your a greedy so and so, which most of Citys players are without a doubt.

It was a shame to see City play for a draw, Arsenal were unlucky that we hit the woodwork a few times...the most telling stat from last night was shots on target...we had 5 whereas City had nada...zilch....and that says it all about their mentality and the way they went about the game last night.

Im also of the belief that Mancini is not the right man for the job at City, City need a Mouirinho-esque type of manager...a manager who loves a club that has oodles of money to throw around....still surprised that Mancini has lasted this long at City as i dont think hes a very good manager at all.

 

[jakeke]

I think it'd've been a different game if Silva hadn't been injured, tbh.

I disagree, you don't spend £300m on a new squad and then base your entire game plan on one player who is playing decent football. They would have played the same, who's to say Silva would have started, he's an attacker. Jo played ahead of Johnson, what's the guarantee Silva would have played if he's using that logic?