Man City (H) Pre-Match Thread (Sept. 11, 3pm)

[st albans fox]

26 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Brazilian FA won’t take sterling ……….

[Bert]

1 hour ago, MarriedaLeicesterGirl said:

I am not especially worried about Gabriel Jesus and Ederson -- just don't think they will make or break the game. However, I do wonder if FIFA fears a precedent. One of the underlying issues surrounding things such as the European Super League is the ability of clubs to tell national federations to jump in a lake. With their every two year World Cup plan, they might not want to set a precedent.

The thing is if they are allowed to play it sets a precedent and clubs will stop allowing players to go for all sorts of reasons. 

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, FoxyLeon said:

 

Really?

 

The squad screams 352/343 to me.

Sure, we lack a proper left wing back...But we lack a proper right winger for 433 too.

 

I do agree though, that I wouldn't necessarily want both Evans+Vestegaard in a back 3, but Vestegaard did/does play as a left CB in a 3 for Denmark.

 

 

But I do think with a 3 CB system, you could play a Soumare instead of an Ndidi, and be more progressive with the ball.

 

 

 

Without repeating myself too much, the only player 3-4-1-2 or 3-4-3 suits to date has been Iheanacho. Defensively we are worse, our left sided full backs aren't good enough wingback and neither Castagne or Ricardo have ever had a good game for us at left wing back either. Maddison is crap in a 3-4-1-2 and Perez in his supposed favoured position behind the strikers has been an abomination too. It suits Kelechi only, Barnes was nowhere near as good in the first portion of last season when we played 3 at the back and he was up top with Vardy, once we went to 4-2-3-1 both him and Maddison became machines for us from Dec - Feb.

 

 

[Nicolo Barella]

16 hours ago, Fox85 said:

You dont score 5 goals against one of the greatest teams in the world playing defensively.

 

Stats show teams that defend and play defensively nick a goal to win with roughly 2 or 3 shots.

 

So maybe we wasn't playing as defensively as you think

We got three penalties in that game, we beat them fair and square but they gifted us the scoreline. The 5-2 isn't indicative of us running rampant over them all game, we were very good at transitioning the ball to attack from long periods of sitting back. Defensive play doesn't mean never attacking

[urban.spaceman]

Nelson and Braybrooke part of first team training again...

 

 

[Ric Flair]

6 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

We got three penalties in that game, we beat them fair and square but they gifted us the scoreline. The 5-2 isn't indicative of us running rampant over them all game, we were very good at transitioning the ball to attack from long periods of sitting back. Defensive play doesn't mean never attacking

It could have been 6 or 7, we had a few other great chances.

[Pliskin]

Jannik and Johnny progressing well? Then he says most of those players should be available bar Wes and JJ…. So does that mean the two former will be fit? 

[Xen]

16 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Jannik and Johnny progressing well? Then he says most of those players should be available bar Wes and JJ…. So does that mean the two former will be fit? 

They'll be fit enough that they could start against Man City. That doesn't necessarily mean that its a good idea that they start against Man City.

 

Evans is more important to us longer-term imo so I think we'll see him on the bench to protect him a bit more whilst he gets up to speed, and Vestergaard starting so that we've got a more experienced head at the back.

[Sunbury Fox]

23 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Jannik and Johnny progressing well? Then he says most of those players should be available bar Wes and JJ…. So does that mean the two former will be fit? 

Knowing Brendan's injury updates it probably means they'll both be out until 2023.

[st albans fox]

24 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Jannik and Johnny progressing well? Then he says most of those players should be available bar Wes and JJ…. So does that mean the two former will be fit? 

Not sure what ‘they’ll be assessed tomorrow’ after playing a training game last week means unless he meant this last week. Surely if they played last week then it would be known if they’d had any reaction. Did anyone see if they were in the training video ??

[Pliskin]

16 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Surely they don't both start, in fact even when fully fit I'm not sure I want both starting. They don't strike me as defenders that should play together even I a back 3, which I don't want to see us go anywhere near this season either, we don't have the players for it.

As much as we hate it, ric, I think the 3 at the back is Brendans go to when we face sides that are more competent than us. 
 

Id be interested to see a 4-3-3, stick Soumare in the middle and play the three forwards. But I don’t think we will see that because A) Madders won’t be dropped for such an occasion, despite being largely crap recently, and B) who would start on the right?  Kelch perhaps? 
 

Im not sure what our best formation is, the 4-2-3-1 should work, but Maddison isn’t doing enough in his position to make it work…. I’d be tempted to try once everyone is back (and don’t shoot me for this) but Perez in the ten instead, would he do the parts of the game Madders wouldn’t? One thing I will give Perez credit for is he doesn’t dwell on the ball when it isn’t necessary, he will pop it off quickly. My biggest issue with Madders is how slow he is at recycling possession, every time he has to put his foot on the ball and look for the next Hollywood pass, and be fore you know it the attackers are marked out of the game and we end up, passing sideways and backwards.

 

There needs to be a tweak on the formation, but someone has to miss out for me to make it work, question is, who? 

[Cincinnati Fox]

On 03/09/2021 at 20:14, Unabomber said:

It will still take the stewards an age and will heavily delay us getting in the ground. Also what about if your phone dies or if you’re an older boy who doesn’t have a smartphone? Also to add vaccines are a choice and to have a test still to get to a game is a backwards step imo. 

Print you're vaccine passport out 

[CosbehFox]

Even if the Brazilians can play, it’s worth considering their last game finished in the early hours of this morning. Jesus probably won’t be rested enough to start 

[Pliskin]

Why they want accept your vaccine card as proof seems mad. Why dish them out in the first place? 

[David Hankey]

I'd be happy with a 1-0 win with a Mahrez own goal in the 89 minute.

[Switzfox]

I'm wondering if the stewards will be able to cope with a vaccine passport issued in another country. 

[FoxyJim1987]

15 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Without repeating myself too much, the only player 3-4-1-2 or 3-4-3 suits to date has been Iheanacho. Defensively we are worse, our left sided full backs aren't good enough wingback and neither Castagne or Ricardo have ever had a good game for us at left wing back either. Maddison is crap in a 3-4-1-2 and Perez in his supposed favoured position behind the strikers has been an abomination too. It suits Kelechi only, Barnes was nowhere near as good in the first portion of last season when we played 3 at the back and he was up top with Vardy, once we went to 4-2-3-1 both him and Maddison became machines for us from Dec - Feb.

 

 

Yeah but the point is Maddison and Barnes are in dreadful form whilst Kelechi is on fire and Daka is desperate to start. Soumare could come into a midfield 3 aswell.

[Ric Flair]

18 minutes ago, FoxyJim1987 said:

Yeah but the point is Maddison and Barnes are in dreadful form whilst Kelechi is on fire and Daka is desperate to start. Soumare could come into a midfield 3 aswell.

True

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Pliskin said:

As much as we hate it, ric, I think the 3 at the back is Brendans go to when we face sides that are more competent than us. 
 

Id be interested to see a 4-3-3, stick Soumare in the middle and play the three forwards. But I don’t think we will see that because A) Madders won’t be dropped for such an occasion, despite being largely crap recently, and B) who would start on the right?  Kelch perhaps? 
 

Im not sure what our best formation is, the 4-2-3-1 should work, but Maddison isn’t doing enough in his position to make it work…. I’d be tempted to try once everyone is back (and don’t shoot me for this) but Perez in the ten instead, would he do the parts of the game Madders wouldn’t? One thing I will give Perez credit for is he doesn’t dwell on the ball when it isn’t necessary, he will pop it off quickly. My biggest issue with Madders is how slow he is at recycling possession, every time he has to put his foot on the ball and look for the next Hollywood pass, and be fore you know it the attackers are marked out of the game and we end up, passing sideways and backwards.

 

There needs to be a tweak on the formation, but someone has to miss out for me to make it work, question is, who? 

I fully agree.

 

I'm left scratching my head on what Soumare was brought in for if he doesn't play in big matches, his physicality and ability to get the ball away from danger and on the attack fast is what we've been crying out for. With the state of our defence at the minute it's not wise to add another defender in to just pillocks about on the ball and put ourselves in trouble, get Soumare in instead of Maddison and possibly Iheanacho instead of Barnes if needs be.

[Pliskin]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I fully agree.

 

I'm left scratching my head on what Soumare was brought in for if he doesn't play in big matches, his physicality and ability to get the ball away from danger and on the attack fast is what we've been crying out for. With the state of our defence at the minute it's not wise to add another defender in to just pillocks about on the ball and put ourselves in trouble, get Soumare in instead of Maddison and possibly Iheanacho instead of Barnes if needs be.

Exactly, there’s no point bolstering the defence against city, because we will as you say will just piss around on the ball give it away and watch Mahrez wheel alway celebrating a goal. 
 

Stick Soumare in midfield and piss Rodri off, because he doesn’t like it when people stop him playing football. 
 

Rodger’s finest tactical work after Villa away a few seasons ago was that Man City game last season, we absolutely schooled them. I want to see him grow a pair of bollocks and make a bold decision, drop Maddison and start Daka….. I know Vardy has started well, but let’s look to terrorise their back line and have someone stop the balls into midfield. But I fear it will be another submissive performance with us lifting balls up to Vardy to chase, and Cags to playing with his slippers on again. 

[Ric Flair]

7 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Nelson and Braybrooke part of first team training again...

 

 

Is that Ben Nelson or Ronny Nelson who we've had on trial from Gillingham? I didn't look like Ben to me and I thought he was out injured for a few months.

[Raw Dykes]

16 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Without repeating myself too much, the only player 3-4-1-2 or 3-4-3 suits to date has been Iheanacho. Defensively we are worse, our left sided full backs aren't good enough wingback and neither Castagne or Ricardo have ever had a good game for us at left wing back either. Maddison is crap in a 3-4-1-2 and Perez in his supposed favoured position behind the strikers has been an abomination too. It suits Kelechi only, Barnes was nowhere near as good in the first portion of last season when we played 3 at the back and he was up top with Vardy, once we went to 4-2-3-1 both him and Maddison became machines for us from Dec - Feb.

I agree, and I'd add that we just signed a backup for Barnes, which I don't think we'd bother with if we were intending to mainly use a formation that he doesn't fit into.

[sacreblueits442]

2 hours ago, Pliskin said:

As much as we hate it, ric, I think the 3 at the back is Brendans go to when we face sides that are more competent than us. 
 

Id be interested to see a 4-3-3, stick Soumare in the middle and play the three forwards. But I don’t think we will see that because A) Madders won’t be dropped for such an occasion, despite being largely crap recently, and B) who would start on the right?  Kelch perhaps? 
 

Im not sure what our best formation is, the 4-2-3-1 should work, but Maddison isn’t doing enough in his position to make it work…. I’d be tempted to try once everyone is back (and don’t shoot me for this) but Perez in the ten instead, would he do the parts of the game Madders wouldn’t? One thing I will give Perez credit for is he doesn’t dwell on the ball when it isn’t necessary, he will pop it off quickly. My biggest issue with Madders is how slow he is at recycling possession, every time he has to put his foot on the ball and look for the next Hollywood pass, and be fore you know it the attackers are marked out of the game and we end up, passing sideways and backwards.

 

There needs to be a tweak on the formation, but someone has to miss out for me to make it work, question is, who? 

...I think the catalyst you are looking for is JJ coming back to his best!!!

It will add so much more tempo to our game and he will put us on the front foot. We are not a dynamic team and need to transition from the back and he will give us that with his intelligence, speed and ability on the ball, he looked like he was getting better the more he played.

  For me 4-2-3-1 is our go to shape, we need to bolster up the right and Madders definitely comes out and I would rather see KDH further forward than at #8 as he offers a threat and can contribute goals from than position. Rodgers going for a back 3 is justified in this instance as at this moment we just haven't the quality to go toe to toe with the behemoths in this league. Should we choose to go to 4-3-3 then we can be competitive and also excludes Madders.

  The acquisition of Berardi would elevate this team regarding quality and the mentality to compete with the big teams, players of this stature will raise the mindset of the group.

[Pliskin]

1 minute ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...I think the catalyst you are looking for is JJ coming back to his best!!!

It will add so much more tempo to our game and he will put us on the front foot. We are not a dynamic team and need to transition from the back and he will give us that with his intelligence, speed and ability on the ball, he looked like he was getting better the more he played.

  For me 4-2-3-1 is our go to shape, we need to bolster up the right and Madders definitely comes out and I would rather see KDH further forward than at #8 as he offers a threat and can contribute goals from than position. Rodgers going for a back 3 is justified in this instance as at this moment we just haven't the quality to go toe to toe with the behemoths in this league. Should we choose to go to 4-3-3 then we can be competitive and also excludes Madders.

  The acquisition of Berardi would elevate this team regarding quality and the mentality to compete with the big teams, players of this stature will raise the mindset of the group.

I absolutely agree.

 

Basically someone has to miss out in order for us to pick a shape that works. Basically, I think Maddison is the one we can sacrifice, I mean I don’t dislike him and I don’t think he is a poor player, I just don’t think he does the job we want him to, and I don’t think the job we need him to do suits him. We’re more of a threat out wide and in behind, so absolutely I agree with JJ. I just think Maddison slows us down too much when he gets the ball, and it end up taking everything away from our attacking ability. 
 

I can’t imagine Brendan will go out with the same team as Norwich, so it will be interesting to see what we do. 

[FoxFossil]

Nothing will change

Subs after we are 3 down after 65 mins.

BR put the tit into substitution.