TWar

This game is so strangely mythologised in hindsight as if we were absolutely woeful. We came up against a top side, both teams played super defensively and kept it really tight, both defences nullified the other attack without creating much, and they won because they scored a flukey goal with their only shot on target. You'd think we were battered 9-0 by the way people talk about it. Also we reached the semis with wins against Wolves and Arsenal. We absolutely could win a cup.

I think it's very unfair to say Armstrong isn't "fit to lace Ings' boots". Ings has scored one more goal than Armstrong this season and that is purely because he is on penalties and Armstrong isn't with Ings having significantly easier fixtures. Ings had one great season where he was massive for us but in the two surrounding it he was fine, 12 goals and 7 goals are good hauls but I very much don't think they are beyond Armstrong for example. Also our best player is JWP. Finally with regards to our first 11: McCarthy = McCarthy Tino > KWP (or he wouldn't be starting) Stephens < Vestergaard Salisu > Bednarek Perraud/KWP > Bertrand JWP = JWP Romeu = Romeu Stu = Stu Djenepo > Redmond (although both were available both seasons so not much in it really) Armstrong < Ings Adams = Adams So really it comes down to if Vestergaard to Stephens and Ings to Armstrong is a bigger step down than Salisu to Bednarek, KWP to Tino, Bertrand to Perraud/KWP, and Redmond to Djenepo is a step up. Personally I think we've gotten mildly stronger. Armstrong will score similar to what Ings got last season imo and Vestergaard had a lot of weaknesses too so wasn't that much clear of Stephens. On the other hand, Livramento is excellent and probably our best player right now, Salisu has also been absolutely immense, Bertrand was dross at the end and both our LB options are much better than him, and Djenepo is mildly better than Redmond although an upgrade here would have been nice.

I'd say Toney doesn't have the adaptation of joining a new team. Armstrong had to completely change how he played from a front three to a front two and get used to the strengths and weaknesses of new players. It was always going to be more of a curve.

The money very much was there in previous seasons. We have objectively lowered our wage bill considerably and objectively sold a lot of players for good money. Where did it all go?

Firstly, Ings was not one of the top 5 strikers in the country as he couldn't stay fit. Secondly Salisu is our best CB. Perraud wasn't "most of our budget" he was £11m, we spent about £40m, he was about a quarter of our budget and we needed LB depth, plus he has started twice. Not sure how you can complain about signing a player good enough to displace our "VERY good RB" for £5m. If we'd spent like £20m it would be more questionable. Armstrong isn't a championship quality striker... he is young and new to the league and hasn't had great service. He will be fine. Lyanco, agreed, poor signing And the kids are good back up. So most of what you say I disagree with to be honest.

The evidence is we made a load of money in transfer fees and we also cut our wagebill and yet we didn't have the money to purchase a decent CB or AM. Why is that? We clearly wanted another AM hence why we were linked to Minimino and we clearly wanted a decent CB too. Where did the money go?

Personally I'm blaming Gao. I think money is being taken out of the club, as I can see no other reason why we would run a £15-20m netspend when previous windows we've made a £10m-25m loss when the team clearly needs quality. The most important roles to improve upon this summer were CB and AM (not including forced replacements like for Ings and Bertrand) and we spent £6m between them on Walcott and Lyanco. Then we lose because Bednarek makes a mistake and we can't create. I don't believe Semmens and Ralph couldn't see that, they were both very clear about the need to improve both roles, I think someone took the money away.

Excellent post. Attacking mid was such a massive issue in the summer and I thought we'd be looking for someone in as well as Walcott. The failure to sign someone who can improve our chance creation ment we can't score and the failure to sign a starting player to accompany Salisu means we have an error in us at the back. Bad combination that.

I think he's been alright. Scored one, won a pen, should have gotten an assist if Che's was given as his, set up a couple that should have been finished. He will be fine for 10 goals this season imo. Not a player I'm worried about. Salisu's partner on the other hand with Stephens out, that is a massive worry. Attacking mid is also a big worry with no Stu. Armstrong is not where we should be directing our concern as it stands.

Macca- Forster is just as bad but Macca atleast can claim crosses. Jan - Poor, but much better than Lyanco who is our other option so what can you do, I prefer Stephens but so did Ralph until he got injured Perraud - I don't know if Tino can play effectively at RM but he is immense and basically undroppable at RB so KWP and Perraud compete for the LB spot. I'd play Perraud personally but I don't think there is much between them and fullback isn't the issue. Djenepo - Good player, bad finisher, good against the ball. Wish we had signed a new AM. When Stu is fit he is benched hopefully Redmond- Exactly the same as above, but worse and not so handy against the ball Broja - Was wank against Sheffield united apparently according to the guys on radio solent. Seems ok but more of an impact sub imo. Bottom line, we should have spent good money on a CB in summer who could be first choice next to Salisu and had Bednarek and Stephens as back up. We should also have passed on Walcott. If we'd have signed, for example, Rashica/Gray/Lookman and Anderson/Guehi/Tosin and spent £25m instead of £5m then we'd be much better off. It's like I said at the end of the summer, swallowing a massive net spend like we did is akin to hanging Ralph out to dry.

Thanks 🙂

It's fine mate, no drama

I don't post things to convince people I'm knowledgeable, I genuinely find them interesting and hope others do to. And it seems like atleast a couple of people do. Enjoy your Indian, I'm cooking a roast.

Both vids actually compare it to total football and say the differences.

I think reducing everything in those videos I sent you to "passing behind players or into channels" is farcical. Again I have to ask, did you watch them? Do you have any opinions on the rigid rules regarding space occupation relative to other players? Or regarding how a LB might end up as a striker for a bit and the whole team can rotate to allow that? I feel you are only able to call these techniques not innovative because you simplify them to such a degree that your descriptions are completely insufficient to fully incapsulate what is being referenced.

Did you watch the videos? And is this literally all you took from the intricate rotational play between different predefined segments through pretaught automism?

The point is, a passing channel or passing lane is not just "gaps between players", for example the gap between a striker and an attacking mid or the gap between the DM and the CB behind him are not really passing lanes, however the vertical channel which runs between the horizontal positions of an attacking mid, DM, LB, and CB is. Passing lanes are channels that formally exist vertically between the half spaces and widespaces defined by the defensive formation. I dare say this blog post is simplifying things a little and you would be better off viewing the videos I posted. What Pep brought was formally assigning your "segment" in a 20 segment pitch devised by him so as to best cut off vertical passing lanes, and so as to create overloads in the attacking sense. I think if you think Peps positional play methods boil down to "Other players have always ran into space to receive the ball. Defenders have always tried to cut off the space." then you should look into how Pep plays a bit more, as it is a lot more than that and a lot more formal. Both videos really are interesting watches.

I feel like if you don't know what terms mean you could Google them, it's not really my responsibility to define everything I use. For example passing lanes, it's not actually the gaps between players. It's the idea that you can split the pitch into a grid with horizontal and vertical lines and implement a kind of zonal marking but over the whole pitch. This cuts off "lanes" for passing in defence and insured you always have someone to pass to in offence. If I remember correctly Pep institutes that one cannot stand on the same verticle line as another player on your team or two players horizontally. When Pep first arrived at City he physically painted these lines on the pitch. I'm paraphrasing some of this as it's been a while since I read about it but it is really interesting and a good example of his tactical ingenuity. Here are two excellent videos on it for those curious - This also somewhat proves my point. Defining terms which are two words long can take a couple of sentences so if I stopped to define everything you'd never get through the post. I encourage people to Google things they don't know, or watch videos on them by tifo football who are a great resource to explain these things simply.

I heard there was a concert or something. Can't confirm though.

Sorry, I don't want to define terms for you. I suggest you Google them.

I asked this to someone else earlier but if there are no new tactics being developed then why do clubs pay people so much money to do so? Also, for the record, I don't think older formations are basic, I just think we have moved on a lot since them. Be it Jose bringing in the 433 from europe, the 4231 coming in to reintroduce the luxury 10, klopps high pressing automisms, or peps passing lane and half space based possession domination scheme. Things have moved on. To think otherwise is frankly crazy to me. Another question I wonder is how come older managers seem to find their methods get less effective as time goes on? Why are we seeing younger guys like Potter and Ralph rather than seeing the old guard of Curbishley, big Sam, 'arry, and such managing teams? I would argue its because their tactics became outdated but I'd be interested to see your opinion. Also how come basically no one plays a 442 anymore, if its fundementally the same how come most top teams moved away from it around the same time?

Well no one had them so everyone was on a level playing field and someone had to win! Now we have modern techniques basically everyone uses them which is a good endorsement of their merits.

Yeah we don't really have a target man. Then again we have been trying a 4141 which also uses a target man but haven't scored much since so that's not exactly working in an attacking sense.

The wingers still play a different role as do the fullbacks, hence my question regarding Salah and TAA. You don't see players in a 442 with their output because they are dramatically different roles.

I'd guess an attacking 433 with a loan target man and two deeper lying inside forwards.