Post Match - Roma 1-1

[SouthStandUpperTier]

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

That is absolutely true. Not a striker to fit our system but then, who is? 

The system is fine if you can get runners supporting the lone striker and running in behind (like with Barnes and Lookman for the goal). But we just don't do this nearly enough.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

And as far as I'm aware, that's his one goal to date in a City shirt? 

 

I love Wes, he's probably my favourite player in the squad at the moment. He's absolutely world class and if we could clone him we'd be well set. 

 

But he's shown no evidence of being able to consistently and dangerously attack a set piece. And that's fine, he's in the team to defend. 

 

But let's not pretend he's going to be scoring like John Terry or Sergio Ramos any time soon. 

A bit dismissive? He might well score more than his fair share in the future.

[coolhandfox]

34 minutes ago, Deeg67 said:

Well, I offered one possible option - a midfield diamond with Maddison at the top, Tielemans at the base, and KDH and Lookman on the sides.  You could play that same formation with Albrighton on the left instead of Lookman if you were worried about defensive cover, but I'd prefer Lookman because he's better at keeping possession.

Not for me, but each to there own.

 

 

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, 5waller5 said:

 

13 shots versus 4.

 

The accuracy of those shots was the problem - 1 on target!!

Most of them happened after we went behind and after we started committing men forward. The problem was creating anything that resembled a good chance. 

[Babylon]

3 hours ago, Ian S said:

You really watched a different match to me.

Sound like it if you think we were any good in an attacking sense prior to actually attempting to attack later on after going behind. 

[Basildon Fox]

14 hours ago, tom27111 said:

Can't believe nobody has mentioned Maddison floating the ball to Iheanacho at the back post instead of pulling it back to Barnes, who was absolutely screaming for it.

 

Criminal.

He slipped.

[Ian S]

9 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Most of them happened after we went behind and after we started committing men forward. The problem was creating anything that resembled a good chance. 

We went behind after only 15 minutes so not really surprising is it?

And we actually started the game really well prior to the goal with some decent pressure.

Not all matches can be like Man City vs Real Madrid.

[Ian S]

11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Sound like it if you think we were any good in an attacking sense prior to actually attempting to attack later on after going behind. 

See my previous response, I am sure you would be happier if we were languishing in the championship so you had something to genuinely moan about.

[Royston.]

Anyone mentioned what a knob the ref was?

 

Will he have the 2nd leg too?

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, worth_the_wait said:

I thought Fofana headed the ball quite well from a corner, in Rennes a few weeks back.

...he did, and it also brings to light just how poor the team are in respect to heading the ball!!!

Wilf has always had the problem of mistiming his headers, by rising too soon. We really do not practice the skill because if we did then we would not be so poor. It is strange when you go in YouTube and you watch other teams and their Centre Backs actually contorting their necks and bringing their head forward to meet the ball.

  On Corners why don't we have a player with stature, deep at the back post where someone is going to sit on him. He doesn't have to make a run because he has taken out a player who would normally be stationed on the 6 yard line in the middle of the goal. As a decoy he has by default created an area for a shorter player to run into to exploit.

 When you see the quality of the balls that Wormleighton can put into the box, you can understand how underwhelming we are, in getting on the end of things.

[Tom12345]

16 hours ago, ultrafox said:

Roma parked the bus, something their home fans won't allow them to do next week. So we'll have more space to exploit. 

I'm optimistic about next week.

It is Mourinho. He does what he does. Remember at Chelsea he was the master of 1-0 wins. I won’t be surprised if he plays the same way - he may instead think that the home advantage will help increase chances of mistakes we make which they will seek to exploit.

Edited 29 April 2022 by Tom12345

[jerry]

15 minutes ago, Tom12345 said:

It is Mourinho. He does what he does. Remember at Chelsea he was the master of 1-0 wins. I won’t be surprised if he plays the same way - he may instead think that the home advantage will help increase chances of mistakes we make which they will seek to exploit them.

Concede first and it will be very difficult. Much tougher than the come back against P S V.  Expecting a tight game so will probably be just the opposite 🤔

[MalletFox]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Most of them happened after we went behind and after we started committing men forward. The problem was creating anything that resembled a good chance. 

We started the game brilliantly, really high tempo, moving the ball around quickly and then we got sucker punched with a soft goal after 15mins, so naturally we created more after going a goal down with 5/6ths of the game still left to play!! 🤣🙈

We had plenty of chances and should have won the game, from memory 

 

1. Lookman was practically in 1-on-1 but got the ball stuck under his feet allowing Smalling to block. Great chance to score.

 

2. Lookman missed a free header from a corner 6 yards out. Should have scored.

 

3. Maddison cutting back in and should have squared to Barnes for an open goal. Should have scored.

 

4. With Maddison’s quality, the two times he cut back onto his left foot in the first half, he is more than capable of smashing those in, you’d struggle to call them chances but they felt like opportunities knowing he can hit them from there.

 

And then of course, we did actually score.

 

I really struggle to see how anyone can complain about the performance last night, disappointed not to win, yes, but we battered them for practically the entire game and played with good pace and quality.

[MalletFox]

What are people’s expectations on how Roma will play the 2nd leg, has anyone seen Roma play consistently? 
 

I’m not sure if Jose set them up like that as a one-off to get a decent result to take back to Rome, or was that typical modern day Jose tactics? If it’s a similar type game in Rome I fancy our chances.

[Babylon]

42 minutes ago, MalletFox said:

We started the game brilliantly, really high tempo, moving the ball around quickly and then we got sucker punched with a soft goal after 15mins, so naturally we created more after going a goal down with 5/6ths of the game still left to play!! 🤣🙈

We had plenty of chances and should have won the game, from memory 

 

1. Lookman was practically in 1-on-1 but got the ball stuck under his feet allowing Smalling to block. Great chance to score.

 

2. Lookman missed a free header from a corner 6 yards out. Should have scored.

 

3. Maddison cutting back in and should have squared to Barnes for an open goal. Should have scored.

 

4. With Maddison’s quality, the two times he cut back onto his left foot in the first half, he is more than capable of smashing those in, you’d struggle to call them chances but they felt like opportunities knowing he can hit them from there.

 

And then of course, we did actually score.

 

I really struggle to see how anyone can complain about the performance last night, disappointed not to win, yes, but we battered them for practically the entire game and played with good pace and quality.

You notice that most of the chances you list involve substitutes who can on well into the second half yeah. 
 

Battered them with what was it, one shot on target in over 45mins of football. 

Edited 29 April 2022 by Babylon

[honeybradger]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

And as far as I'm aware, that's his one goal to date in a City shirt? 

 

I love Wes, he's probably my favourite player in the squad at the moment. He's absolutely world class and if we could clone him we'd be well set. 

 

But he's shown no evidence of being able to consistently and dangerously attack a set piece. And that's fine, he's in the team to defend. 

 

But let's not pretend he's going to be scoring like John Terry or Sergio Ramos any time soon. 

I remember him getting quite a few chances to score from headers last season but his finishing was poor

[Benji]

Think it will be key whether Mkhitaryan makes it for the second leg.  They were lost in midfield the moment he went off and that coincided with Maddison getting so much freedom to dictate.  Wouldn't wish injury on anyone but fingers crossed the thigh strain keeps him out just for about a week.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

5 hours ago, Babylon said:

Most of them happened after we went behind and after we started committing men forward. The problem was creating anything that resembled a good chance. 

Possibly because most the game happened with us behind. Not as if we shut up shop when we equalised is it....

[K789]

13 minutes ago, Benji said:

Think it will be key whether Mkhitaryan makes it for the second leg.  They were lost in midfield the moment he went off and that coincided with Maddison getting so much freedom to dictate.  Wouldn't wish injury on anyone but fingers crossed the thigh strain keeps him out just for about a week.

He's out now for at least 2 weeks

[Webbo]

How can anyone say we were negative? We had 11 corners, you don't get those by passing backwards and sideways. 

[Ricey]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How can anyone say we were negative? We had 11 corners, you don't get those by passing backwards and sideways. 

Recency bias. We were unadventurous and slow from the Smalling injury onwards which was really frustrating, but before that we were trying to attack in our own little controlled way.

[HighPeakFox]

4 minutes ago, Ricey said:

Recency bias. We were unadventurous and slow from the Smalling injury onwards which was really frustrating, but before that we were trying to attack in our own little controlled way.

It's not even that - it's just saying something often enough to try and convince us or themselves that it's actually true.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

38 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How can anyone say we were negative? We had 11 corners, you don't get those by passing backwards and sideways. 

Because some people have made their minds up before a balk is kicked. We were terrific last night.

[Phenom]

4 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Because some people have made their minds up before a balk is kicked. We were terrific last night.

We were good and deserved to win but we need more than 2 shots on target to consider us "terrific". Defense looks really good, though, I agree. 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

3 minutes ago, Phenom said:

We were good and deserved to win but we need more than 2 shots on target to consider us "terrific". Defense looks really good, though, I agree. 

We weren't playing a shit side nor a side that came to play.