Cole Palmer signs for Chelsea

[Mark Kelly]

5 minutes ago, Ham said:

Gallagher kept Walker quiet though. Look at where they caused us problems all game.  Down their left.  

I thought the experiment worked.  Not that I'd advocate it again though Mark.

Personally I'd have dropped Enzo , used Gallagher there and employed Mudryk to keep Walker quiet .  

[Ham]

24 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Personally I'd have dropped Enzo , used Gallagher there and employed Mudryk to keep Walker quiet .  

So would I.

[Mark Kelly]

9 minutes ago, Ham said:

So would I.

We shouldn't be surprised though , in his first game at PSG Pochettino played Verratti  as a number 10 .

It's because he's a tactical genius .

[Chelsea_Matt]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

Personally I'd have dropped Enzo , used Gallagher there and employed Mudryk to keep Walker quiet .  

How? By comparing insta selfies? 🤣 I do agree though. Enzo has imo by and large been a massive waste of money - in terms of value possibly our worst ever, after Mudryk. 

[Mark Kelly]

11 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

How? By comparing insta selfies? 🤣 I do agree though. Enzo has imo by and large been a massive waste of money - in terms of value possibly our worst ever, after Mudryk. 

Take away Walkers speed and his impact is negated, I suppose thr same could be said of Mudryk but you know what I mean 😁

[boratsbrother]

11 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

When the chips are down he's a coward , he consistently makes decisions that adversely affect the side through his cowardice like playing Gallagher as a left winger as he was scared of Walker , 

 

This pretty much nails why he faces an impossible task at Chelsea. 

He gets stick for being too open and attacking but also gets stick when he's more cautious. 

He's not liked, not rated and no matter what he does with the team I feel he'll never be more than a couple of bad performances away from fans wanting him sacked. Is this because of his connection to Spurs?

Shame because I think he's a really decent guy and doing a decent job so far, and I say that as someone who didn't want him to come here.  Could he have done better? Yes, of course! If he stays,   will he do better next season? I very strongly think he will!

Edited April 21 by boratsbrother

[kev61]

4 hours ago, boratsbrother said:

This pretty much nails why he faces an impossible task at Chelsea. 

He gets stick for being too open and attacking but also gets stick when he's more cautious. 

He's not liked, not rated and no matter what he does with the team I feel he'll never be more than a couple of bad performances away from fans wanting him sacked. Is this because of his connection to Spurs?

Shame because I think he's a really decent guy and doing a decent job so far, and I say that as someone who didn't want him to come here.  Could he have done better? Yes, of course! If he stays,   will he do better next season? I very strongly think he will!

He gets stick because he gets the basics wrong never mind clever tactics that a top manager should have.

There are a few things that demonstrates he is a poor coach.

He puts Gallagher on the wing(a sackable offense on it's own)he starts a player after injury that hasn't played well all season after a game we dominated and looked solid in midfield.

He is a manager clutching at straws I'm afraid.

[boratsbrother]

2 hours ago, kev61 said:

He gets stick because he gets the basics wrong never mind clever tactics that a top manager should have.

There are a few things that demonstrates he is a poor coach.

He puts Gallagher on the wing(a sackable offense on it's own)he starts a player after injury that hasn't played well all season after a game we dominated and looked solid in midfield.

He is a manager clutching at straws I'm afraid.

Yes, he got the tactics so wrong on Saturday  when we should have been 2 or 3 up.

[Mark Kelly]

1 hour ago, boratsbrother said:

Yes, he got the tactics so wrong on Saturday  when we should have been 2 or 3 up.

Maybe , had he had the courage to drop Enzo , play Gallagher as a centre midfielder and Mudryk as an attacking wing forward we would have been 2 or 3 up? 

This is the issue with him , on the surface he gets away with it as the longer the side have been together the more of an understanding they are forging between them , but dig deeper and all the old issues remain , anchored there by one mans rank cowardice in every situation he finds himself whilst he talks endlessly about bravery . 

A brave coach plots to exploit the weakness of the opposition , a coward plays Gallagher out of position because he's scared of Walker a man with the footballing IQ of a hotdog. 

Personally I hope he stays and proves me right even after another three or four seasons of almosts and maybe's finally show him up for the fraud he is , one thing I am a thousand percent positive about is that we are not going to win anything under his stewardship because he will always revert to type when the chips are down and that type is a risk averse have what we hold nothing coach.

I'm sure he'll get away with it too as just like he had Kane and Son winning games for him papering over the cracks at Spurs he now has Palmer and Gallagher doing it at Chelsea .

[east lower]

26 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Maybe , had he had the courage to drop Enzo , play Gallagher as a centre midfielder and Mudryk as an attacking wing forward we would have been 2 or 3 up? 

This is the issue with him , on the surface he gets away with it as the longer the side have been together the more of an understanding they are forging between them , but dig deeper and all the old issues remain , anchored there by one mans rank cowardice in every situation he finds himself whilst he talks endlessly about bravery . 

A brave coach plots to exploit the weakness of the opposition , a coward plays Gallagher out of position because he's scared of Walker a man with the footballing IQ of a hotdog. 

Personally I hope he stays and proves me right even after another three or four seasons of almosts and maybe's finally show him up for the fraud he is , one thing I am a thousand percent positive about is that we are not going to win anything under his stewardship because he will always revert to type when the chips are down and that type is a risk averse have what we hold nothing coach.

I'm sure he'll get away with it too as just like he had Kane and Son winning games for him papering over the cracks at Spurs he now has Palmer and Gallagher doing it at Chelsea .

Putting Gallagher out on the left, in my view was done out of pure fear of leaving Fernandez out and the implications that, that decision might have. Putting the centre-half at right back with Doku on the pitch was just pure madness. Put on a full back, we had Chilwell or Gilchrist. 

But that’s the coach he is - lacking tactical skills and cowardly. 

The decision to play Fernandez was abysmal. It just surrenders control of the ball to them, people keep talking about his through ball to Jackson - he created a chance, well done and part of the job. It doesn’t negate the crap played the other 90+ minutes. There’s plenty of non-£100m+ midfielders that can play that ball and more and also cover and press in midfield a bit quicker too.

Edited April 22 by east lower

[east lower]

5 hours ago, boratsbrother said:

Yes, he got the tactics so wrong on Saturday  when we should have been 2 or 3 up.

But, that’s the whole story in a nutshell, he got the tactics wrong - and more to the point is he keeps getting the tactics wrong, especially in big games.

[thevelourfog]

On 21/04/2024 at 12:58, Mark Kelly said:

Personally I'd have dropped Enzo , used Gallagher there and employed Mudryk to keep Walker quiet .  

City finally scored 5 minutes after Mudryk came on, and from shit defending he played a significant part in on his side of the pitch. In the hypothetical world he keeps Walker quiet, it's because City are 2-0 up at half time and spend the rest of the game knocking the ball about in their own half. 

Took a bit of a break from here but surely Mudryk's hand in some of our most ridiculous concessions over the last month didn't go missed? I get the theory that he keeps people honest with his attacking threat but the rapidly evidenced reality is he is one of the first involved in any turnover that leads to an oppo goal. He shouldn't be playing senior PL football.

[boratsbrother]

5 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

Maybe , had he had the courage to drop Enzo , play Gallagher as a centre midfielder and Mudryk as an attacking wing forward we would have been 2 or 3 up? 

This is the issue with him , on the surface he gets away with it as the longer the side have been together the more of an understanding they are forging between them , but dig deeper and all the old issues remain , anchored there by one mans rank cowardice in every situation he finds himself whilst he talks endlessly about bravery . 

A brave coach plots to exploit the weakness of the opposition , a coward plays Gallagher out of position because he's scared of Walker a man with the footballing IQ of a hotdog. 

Personally I hope he stays and proves me right even after another three or four seasons of almosts and maybe's finally show him up for the fraud he is , one thing I am a thousand percent positive about is that we are not going to win anything under his stewardship because he will always revert to type when the chips are down and that type is a risk averse have what we hold nothing coach.

I'm sure he'll get away with it too as just like he had Kane and Son winning games for him papering over the cracks at Spurs he now has Palmer and Gallagher doing it at Chelsea .

Enzo is clearly not fit, shouldn't have played on Saturday and imho shouldn't play again this season. So I will conceed that Poch made the wrong selection there. But Enzo being on the pitch had nothing whatsoever to do with us not being 2 or 3 up. That was entirely down to Jackson, the ref and VAR.

[boratsbrother]

1 hour ago, east lower said:

But, that’s the whole story in a nutshell, he got the tactics wrong - and more to the point is he keeps getting the tactics wrong, especially in big games.

Sorry, but how in the he'll can a manager be held responsible for an individual player fluffing his chances and the ref and VAR making the wrong decisions?  

The team were doing their job keeping City at arms length at one end and creating chances at the other. That is the definition of a team being well set-up and getting their tactics right against a better team.

Quite extrordinary to twist it and  say the exact opposite.

 

[Mark Kelly]

17 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

City finally scored 5 minutes after Mudryk came on, and from shit defending he played a significant part in on his side of the pitch. In the hypothetical world he keeps Walker quiet, it's because City are 2-0 up at half time and spend the rest of the game knocking the ball about in their own half. 

Took a bit of a break from here but surely Mudryk's hand in some of our most ridiculous concessions over the last month didn't go missed? I get the theory that he keeps people honest with his attacking threat but the rapidly evidenced reality is he is one of the first involved in any turnover that leads to an oppo goal. He shouldn't be playing senior PL football.

I don't recall Mudryk being awful defensively at all, in fact I remember being pleasantly surprised how much defensive work he carried out for a show pony. 

I'm sure there's some examples I don't recall and at the back of my mind I have a feeling there was one real howler but I still think wasting Gallagher out there was the wrong decision and that the fact we didn't lose by more wasn't down to a Poch masterclass rather than by City clearly being knackered and finishing worse than us for once. 

[east lower]

1 minute ago, boratsbrother said:

Sorry, but how in the he'll can a manager be held responsible for an individual player fluffing his chances and the ref and VAR making the wrong decisions?  

The team were doing their job keeping City at arms length at one end and creating chances at the other. That is the definition of a team being well set-up and getting their tactics right against a better team.

Quite extrordinary to twist it and  say the exact opposite.

 

So, every game that he gets it wrong is down to someone fluffing their lines. He must be the unluckiest manager ever then - cause it’s only happened to him at three clubs now. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and craps like a duck - chances are it’s a damn duck. 🦆 

That’s the bigger picture, than a striker who had a bit of a mare in front of goal. When I’ve more time, I’ll link you to a tactical analysis that’s spot on, read through it, recommend it.
 

 

[east lower]

15 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Sorry, but how in the he'll can a manager be held responsible for an individual player fluffing his chances and the ref and VAR making the wrong decisions?  

The team were doing their job keeping City at arms length at one end and creating chances at the other. That is the definition of a team being well set-up and getting their tactics right against a better team.

Quite extrordinary to twist it and  say the exact opposite.

 

As promised, go to Reddit Chelsea FC for the video links:

Chelsea vs Manchester City – “Pochettino Set Us Up Perfectly”

OC

 

I’ve seen that takeaway from our FA Cup semifinal against City make the rounds here and on Twitter, and I couldn’t believe my eyes. The focus was especially on how well we were set up in the first half, how compact we were and how little we allowed City. I saw something entirely different. I saw a Man City team that took five minutes to “crack the code”, after which they kept playing through us with ease until we gave up on our tactical setup entirely. The only reason we weren’t absolutely hammered was that City were really poor themselves and constantly failed to capitalize on good situations they found very, very easily. And I’ve got 13 clips just from the first half (with bonus clips at the end) to show you exactly why I’m flabbergasted that people think this was a good performance.

So, here’s what we tried to do. When City had possession, our gameplan was to avoid pressuring the CBs directly, instead forming a front 4 with Gallagher, Jackson, Palmer and Madueke to block passing options into midfield. You can see this very clearly in the clips below. But there were two problems with it:

1. It took City just five minutes to figure out they could simply play around either side of our front 4 press to bypass it entirely. They did this especially down their left side, where Grealish was constantly found in acres of space.

2. Our midfield and back line were constantly too deep to support the front 4 in their pressing. This meant that, when it was played through, huge space opened for City centrally.

The combination of both meant that City found it far too easy to progress the ball into our final third. Here are some examples:

• Minute 2: Off to a good start the easiest switch in City’s back line allows Akanji to drive all the way into our half with the ball. It takes a Jackson foul to stop him.

• Minute 5: City have cracked it. This is actually three instances in one: Rodri first realizes and plays the switch to Bernardo Silva. Notice also how Pep gestures with both hands – he’s telling them to play wide. First instance: Rodri’s pass to Silva isn’t accurate enough to allow him to control it and drive with it. Second instance: Rodri threads a super simple pass through the front line and Bernardo is in acres of space, City find themselves 3v1 against Enzo in that part of the pitch (17 seconds in). A combination of Enzo doing well and Silva not making enough of it allows us to recover and City recycle. Instance 3: They recycle the ball to Ake, who plays the easiest ball to Grealish (32 seconds in). Look at the space around Grealish. Fortunately for us, nobody from City shows for the ball in the massive space in front of our back line. Notice how quickly this has happened – a single pass from Ake and Grealish was 1v1 with Gusto with a ton of space to potentially play a pass into.

• Minute 10: At this point, you might already notice how slowly this game was played. We didn’t press City’s CBs and they took their sweet time to construct ways to play through us. In this clip, you’ll notice how absolutely notcompact we were a lot of the time. Our front line is all alone. It shouldn’t surprise anyone, then, that Rodri finds an incredibly simple pass to Alvarez, who’s dropped into the gaping hole where our midfield should be. All he has to do is control the ball properly, lay it off to Akanji (see his reaction) and City would have bypassed our press with just two passes yet again. But we’re lucky – he miscontrols, needs an extra touch and allows us to steal it off him. Palmer takes a speculative shot but it’s harmlessly gathered by Ortega.

• Minute 10: This happens right after Palmer’s shot. Alvarez drops into that same space, Rodri finds him again. This time Alvarez doesn’t mess up, turns (because he’s in acres of space) and looks for Bernardo Silva. Fortunately for us, a combination of the pass being overhit and Silva being knackered after 120 minutes against Real Madrid on Wednesday allows Cucurella to barely get there first.

• Minute 15: If you thought it was bad, it only gets worse and worse from here. This time, all it takes to bypass our front line is the easiest third-man combination between Stones, Ortega and Akanji to set Akanji free in, once again, an enormous gaping hole in the middle of the pitch. He lays it off to Ake who again finds Grealish in acres of space and 1v1 against Gusto. Maybe you’ll start seeing another theme here: Grealish had a really poor game. Once again he slows play down, allowing us to retreat. We get away with it again.

• Minute 18: Minute 18 and this time it’s De Bruyne occupying that left wide space. He’s found just as easily by Ake, lays the ball inside and City have reached our box. A deflection off KdB from Alvarez’ resulting shot bails us out.

• Minute 21: The exact same pattern. Once again, all Ake has to do is play the easiest pass down the line to Grealish and our press is broken, with Grealish in acres of space and the choice to go either side of Gusto. He cuts inside successfully this time and finds Alvarez in the box. Pass, simple dribble, pass – and City have found a player in our box. Alvarez can’t control it and we manage to hoof it away, of course not without handing possession right back to City.

• Minute 22: Fast forward lass than a minute and Ake plays the easiest pass through our front press to find Akanji in that central space again. Just like that, our press is broken. They work the ball to Grealish and just like that, they’ve once again reached our final third. They bounce it around a few times before Rodri uncharacteristically misplaces a simple pass under little pressure. You might have noticed by now how many of these don’t end with us doing something well to win possession, but City being unable to capitalize on promising situations because of their own sloppiness.

• Minute 24: Are you tired by now of City taking only 1-2 passes to find Grealish in the exact same position? Then don’t watch this clip. This, in fact, is a combination of both awful patterns that happened throughout the first half. One simple pass bypasses our front line and finds Rodri in central space. Rodri then finds Grealish completely alone out wide. Fortunately for us, Grealish takes an awful touch, we have time to retreat and the chance is gone.

• Minute 29: Ake. To. Grealish. Two passes and City have found KdB in our box. It takes a last-ditch tackle from Chalobah to block KdB’s shot.

• Minute 35: I mean, at this point, what do you think happens here? Ake finds Grealish, our press is broken and we’re backtracking. Grealish lays it off to Rodri who can now drive at our back line. Fortunately for us, he takes a poor shot instead of passing it to one of the two City players close to him.

• Minute 40: AKE FINDS GREALISH. One pass and City are in our final third. Grealish slows it down too much once again instead of continuing the run. Did City play an exhausting midweek game by any chance?

• Minute 41: Ake… doesn’t find Grealish! Foden does. Two passes and Grealish is 1v1 with Gusto in our final third. Two passes later and they’re in our box. KdB tries a funny flick for some reason and we survive.

So, now you’ve watched basically the same thing happen in one of two ways thirteen times throughout the first half. It was never addressed in that first half, and the only times this didn’t happen was when we stopped pressing high entirely as City pushed us in deeper. In other words, we had a tactical gameplan, but it was so poor that we were constantly pushed in deep with ridiculous ease by a City team that wasn’t even playing well. And this is where I’m so baffled – our gameplan was not to sit this deep. We were forced into it because our actual setup did not work. People mistake this game for a defensive, tactical masterclass when in reality we just got compressed into a deep block because what we actually wanted to do did not work whatsoever, and we had no answer other than abandoning it entirely – which we did at half-time. Once we did that, City took more and more control of the game and we were increasingly chasing shadows.

Does this alone constitute a poor performance and a poor tactical setup? I believe so. When you’re getting cut open by the same 1-2 passes for the whole first half, that’s the manager’s tactical setup failing andthe manager failing to adjust.

[Mark Kelly]

8 minutes ago, east lower said:

So, every game that he gets it wrong is down to someone fluffing their lines. He must be the unluckiest manager ever then - cause it’s only happened to him at three clubs now. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and craps like a duck - chances are it’s a damn duck. 🦆 

That’s the bigger picture, than a striker who had a bit of a mare in front of goal. When I’ve more time, I’ll link you to a tactical analysis that’s spot on, read through it, recommend it.
 

 

Is it Olli on Reddit as if it is I thought so too!

[Chelsea_Matt]

4 minutes ago, east lower said:

As promised, go to Reddit Chelsea FC for the video links:

 

Chelsea vs Manchester City – “Pochettino Set Us Up Perfectly”

OC

 

I’ve seen that takeaway from our FA Cup semifinal against City make the rounds here and on Twitter, and I couldn’t believe my eyes. The focus was especially on how well we were set up in the first half, how compact we were and how little we allowed City. I saw something entirely different. I saw a Man City team that took five minutes to “crack the code”, after which they kept playing through us with ease until we gave up on our tactical setup entirely. The only reason we weren’t absolutely hammered was that City were really poor themselves and constantly failed to capitalize on good situations they found very, very easily. And I’ve got 13 clips just from the first half (with bonus clips at the end) to show you exactly why I’m flabbergasted that people think this was a good performance.

So, here’s what we tried to do. When City had possession, our gameplan was to avoid pressuring the CBs directly, instead forming a front 4 with Gallagher, Jackson, Palmer and Madueke to block passing options into midfield. You can see this very clearly in the clips below. But there were two problems with it:

1. It took City just five minutes to figure out they could simply play around either side of our front 4 press to bypass it entirely. They did this especially down their left side, where Grealish was constantly found in acres of space.

2. Our midfield and back line were constantly too deep to support the front 4 in their pressing. This meant that, when it was played through, huge space opened for City centrally.

The combination of both meant that City found it far too easy to progress the ball into our final third. Here are some examples:

• Minute 2: Off to a good start the easiest switch in City’s back line allows Akanji to drive all the way into our half with the ball. It takes a Jackson foul to stop him.

• Minute 5: City have cracked it. This is actually three instances in one: Rodri first realizes and plays the switch to Bernardo Silva. Notice also how Pep gestures with both hands – he’s telling them to play wide. First instance: Rodri’s pass to Silva isn’t accurate enough to allow him to control it and drive with it. Second instance: Rodri threads a super simple pass through the front line and Bernardo is in acres of space, City find themselves 3v1 against Enzo in that part of the pitch (17 seconds in). A combination of Enzo doing well and Silva not making enough of it allows us to recover and City recycle. Instance 3: They recycle the ball to Ake, who plays the easiest ball to Grealish (32 seconds in). Look at the space around Grealish. Fortunately for us, nobody from City shows for the ball in the massive space in front of our back line. Notice how quickly this has happened – a single pass from Ake and Grealish was 1v1 with Gusto with a ton of space to potentially play a pass into.

• Minute 10: At this point, you might already notice how slowly this game was played. We didn’t press City’s CBs and they took their sweet time to construct ways to play through us. In this clip, you’ll notice how absolutely notcompact we were a lot of the time. Our front line is all alone. It shouldn’t surprise anyone, then, that Rodri finds an incredibly simple pass to Alvarez, who’s dropped into the gaping hole where our midfield should be. All he has to do is control the ball properly, lay it off to Akanji (see his reaction) and City would have bypassed our press with just two passes yet again. But we’re lucky – he miscontrols, needs an extra touch and allows us to steal it off him. Palmer takes a speculative shot but it’s harmlessly gathered by Ortega.

• Minute 10: This happens right after Palmer’s shot. Alvarez drops into that same space, Rodri finds him again. This time Alvarez doesn’t mess up, turns (because he’s in acres of space) and looks for Bernardo Silva. Fortunately for us, a combination of the pass being overhit and Silva being knackered after 120 minutes against Real Madrid on Wednesday allows Cucurella to barely get there first.

• Minute 15: If you thought it was bad, it only gets worse and worse from here. This time, all it takes to bypass our front line is the easiest third-man combination between Stones, Ortega and Akanji to set Akanji free in, once again, an enormous gaping hole in the middle of the pitch. He lays it off to Ake who again finds Grealish in acres of space and 1v1 against Gusto. Maybe you’ll start seeing another theme here: Grealish had a really poor game. Once again he slows play down, allowing us to retreat. We get away with it again.

• Minute 18: Minute 18 and this time it’s De Bruyne occupying that left wide space. He’s found just as easily by Ake, lays the ball inside and City have reached our box. A deflection off KdB from Alvarez’ resulting shot bails us out.

• Minute 21: The exact same pattern. Once again, all Ake has to do is play the easiest pass down the line to Grealish and our press is broken, with Grealish in acres of space and the choice to go either side of Gusto. He cuts inside successfully this time and finds Alvarez in the box. Pass, simple dribble, pass – and City have found a player in our box. Alvarez can’t control it and we manage to hoof it away, of course not without handing possession right back to City.

• Minute 22: Fast forward lass than a minute and Ake plays the easiest pass through our front press to find Akanji in that central space again. Just like that, our press is broken. They work the ball to Grealish and just like that, they’ve once again reached our final third. They bounce it around a few times before Rodri uncharacteristically misplaces a simple pass under little pressure. You might have noticed by now how many of these don’t end with us doing something well to win possession, but City being unable to capitalize on promising situations because of their own sloppiness.

• Minute 24: Are you tired by now of City taking only 1-2 passes to find Grealish in the exact same position? Then don’t watch this clip. This, in fact, is a combination of both awful patterns that happened throughout the first half. One simple pass bypasses our front line and finds Rodri in central space. Rodri then finds Grealish completely alone out wide. Fortunately for us, Grealish takes an awful touch, we have time to retreat and the chance is gone.

• Minute 29: Ake. To. Grealish. Two passes and City have found KdB in our box. It takes a last-ditch tackle from Chalobah to block KdB’s shot.

• Minute 35: I mean, at this point, what do you think happens here? Ake finds Grealish, our press is broken and we’re backtracking. Grealish lays it off to Rodri who can now drive at our back line. Fortunately for us, he takes a poor shot instead of passing it to one of the two City players close to him.

• Minute 40: AKE FINDS GREALISH. One pass and City are in our final third. Grealish slows it down too much once again instead of continuing the run. Did City play an exhausting midweek game by any chance?

• Minute 41: Ake… doesn’t find Grealish! Foden does. Two passes and Grealish is 1v1 with Gusto in our final third. Two passes later and they’re in our box. KdB tries a funny flick for some reason and we survive.

So, now you’ve watched basically the same thing happen in one of two ways thirteen times throughout the first half. It was never addressed in that first half, and the only times this didn’t happen was when we stopped pressing high entirely as City pushed us in deeper. In other words, we had a tactical gameplan, but it was so poor that we were constantly pushed in deep with ridiculous ease by a City team that wasn’t even playing well. And this is where I’m so baffled – our gameplan was not to sit this deep. We were forced into it because our actual setup did not work. People mistake this game for a defensive, tactical masterclass when in reality we just got compressed into a deep block because what we actually wanted to do did not work whatsoever, and we had no answer other than abandoning it entirely – which we did at half-time. Once we did that, City took more and more control of the game and we were increasingly chasing shadows.

Does this alone constitute a poor performance and a poor tactical setup? I believe so. When you’re getting cut open by the same 1-2 passes for the whole first half, that’s the manager’s tactical setup failing andthe manager failing to adjust.

😬🙈😬🙈😬

[thevelourfog]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

I don't recall Mudryk being awful defensively at all, in fact I remember being pleasantly surprised how much defensive work he carried out for a show pony. 

I'm sure there's some examples I don't recall and at the back of my mind I have a feeling there was one real howler but I still think wasting Gallagher out there was the wrong decision and that the fact we didn't lose by more wasn't down to a Poch masterclass rather than by City clearly being knackered and finishing worse than us for once. 

From memory, he completely bottled a second ball when Sheffield Utd got their equaliser. I think it was the second Man Utd goal where he was easily outmuscled in our own half and within seconds the ball is being crossed into our area. Him and Cucurella pointing at each other about which one of them is going to cover the post they are both responsible for means there's at least a Tweedle Dum to his Tweedle Dee on that specific occasion. 

I don't think he's defensively bad in the sense that he doesn't do the work, or doesn't challenge or track, any of that stuff necessarily. But he is a turnover machine, losing the ball far too easily and putting huge pressure on us overall. It might be justified if he was losing the ball in service of taking risks we score or make real chances from ... but that sadly is hardly ever the case.

He's a complete luxury we cannot afford.

[Ham]

1 hour ago, east lower said:

So, every game that he gets it wrong is down to someone fluffing their lines. 

 

 

Did anyone say that? 

This defeat was down to Jackson and VAR.  Neither did their job. 

We outplayed the European champions and neutrals agree that we should have won.

The Gallagher experiment worked. 

This game was not on Poch. 

[east lower]

4 minutes ago, Ham said:

Did anyone say that? 

This defeat was down to Jackson and VAR.  Neither did their job. 

We outplayed the European champions and neutrals agree that we should have won.

The Gallagher experiment worked. 

This game was not on Poch. 

There are posters on the forum and people at matches that are as entrenched in the polar opposite view to mine - and of course that’s their prerogative. The fact they are way off the mark with blaming singular or two errors in finishing or defensive work  for not winning games and don’t see the bigger picture is the problem for them.

That game on Saturday was there for the taking and we didn’t do it. City were way off their best, but their coach has the ability to firstly get a balanced side on the pitch and secondly took off one of their worst players and put on a game changer. Ours put on a centre-half at right back with a full back on the bench and another who’s only first team appearances have been at full back.

Ours plays a half-fit midfielder against a team where you need players who can run and keep running, who can nip in and get to that slightly mis-hit pass. 

Would Jose, Conte, Tuchel have done better - damn well they would.

We never ever had control of that game, never.

As for neutrals, the moment neutrals start saying nice or consolation type words about us is the moment we know we are well away from being any sort of side that might challenge or win things.

[paulw66]

7 hours ago, east lower said:

Putting Gallagher out on the left, in my view was done out of pure fear of leaving Fernandez out and the implications that,

This is so wrong, for various reasons. 

1. he could have played Gallagher and Enzo centrally  if he had wanted to, with Palmer on the right. Like he has for most of the season. 

2. If Poch was picking players down to price tag, as you imply with the "fear of leaving Fernandez out" then explain why Chalobah, Silva, and Gallagher (combined transfer fee of zero pounds) played ahead of Disasi, Badishile, Mudryk or Sterling. It doesn't add up.

7 hours ago, east lower said:

Putting the centre-half at right back with Doku on the pitch was just pure madness. Put on a full back, we had Chilwell or Gilchrist. 

 

Gilchrist is a centre half.

2 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

City finally scored 5 minutes after Mudryk came on, and from shit defending he played a significant part in on his side of the pitch.

I find this posturing over the goal we conceded a bit of a joke. We defended pretty well for the whole game. Even the goal they did get had a touch of fortune, deflecting off Petrovic and landing at Silva's feet. that was pretty much the sum of their efforts in the whole game, aside from Foden's half chance in the first half. 

City are a very good team, with a stack of talented attackers. They were going to create a chance eventually. In fact, if you offered any team just 1 goal conceded when you play City, you'd take it. We'd all have taken it at the start. 

We had to score ourselves a goal to win the game, and we failed. 

 

It's the equivalent of losing 4-3 and blaming the forwards. 

 

 

[McCreadie]

1 hour ago, thevelourfog said:

But he is a turnover machine, losing the ball far too easily and putting huge pressure on us overall. It might be justified if he was losing the ball in service of taking risks we score or make real chances from ... but that sadly is hardly ever the case.

He's a complete luxury we cannot afford.

If we recover to the point where we have 10 men behind the ball BEFORE they score, it's disingenuous at best to suggest it's on Mudryk. That's a bit like VAR going back two minutes to rule one of our goals out...

We got unlucky with 2 deflections, **** happens.

[thevelourfog]

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

I find this posturing over the goal we conceded a bit of a joke.

Eh? I'm not "posturing" over anything, or particularly moaning about having conceded 1 goal in 90 minutes to Man City. I'm responding specifically to the idea Mudryk helps with much of anything, let alone nullifying a City player, if he starts. 

I think the fairest thing for you to do when replying to posts would be to read them in context first.

42 minutes ago, McCreadie said:

If we recover to the point where we have 10 men behind the ball BEFORE they score, it's disingenuous at best to suggest it's on Mudryk. That's a bit like VAR going back two minutes to rule one of our goals out...

We got unlucky with 2 deflections, **** happens.

This also seems a bit weird. Yeah, shit happens. Do we not bother with any kind of analysis when the same shit happens again and again, then? That would seem the disingenuous take.

If you want to argue that goals conceded aren't all on Mudryk, fine, but please do that with someone who suggested they are. If you want to argue that Mudryk doesn't cause significant defensive problems often, then please do that, open to challenge.

The mess we're in really obviously isn't just on one player.