Post Match - Roma 1-1

[Pliskin]

49 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. 

Technically the corners could be sideways……

[Angus Scott]

The trouble is we never actually "batter" a team. We have tons of possession & play some very good football, but create very few clear cut chances. I really think there are times when we need the traditional type of centre forward who will win plenty of balls in the air & cause chaos in the opposition defence, think of a Steve Howard type only much better. I can't remember the last time we scored when someone knocked back a far post header across goal for someone to tap in.

I know this will never happen under Brendan but it really ought to be an alternative, plenty of teams have done it to us

[Foxxed]

3 minutes ago, Angus Scott said:

The trouble is we never actually "batter" a team. We have tons of possession & play some very good football, but create very few clear cut chances. I really think there are times when we need the traditional type of centre forward who will win plenty of balls in the air & cause chaos in the opposition defence, think of a Steve Howard type only much better. I can't remember the last time we scored when someone knocked back a far post header across goal for someone to tap in.

I know this will never happen under Brendan but it really ought to be an alternative, plenty of teams have done it to us

If we’d scored 10 would you have included Soton away?

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Technically the corners could be sideways……

Depends which way you're standing.

[David Hankey]

I did like Mourinho's coat, the colour matched his hair!!

[Incognito]

16 hours ago, Deeg67 said:

No question they did a good job (though Fofana was out of position for their goal).  But the fact that Roma had so little interest in going forward made their jobs on Tammy a lot easier.  I'm pretty sure he spent more time in his own box than ours.

Yep, agreed. Was just impressed based on what little ball he did have. Least he worked, and didn't just stand there hands on hips like some do (mind that would probably have helped us lol)

[5waller5]

5 hours ago, Babylon said:

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. 

He mentioned:

Lookman

Lookman

Maddison

Barnes

Maddison

Maddison.

 

Barnes was the only sub in that list. 
 

 

 

 

[Clever Fox]

1 hour ago, Angus Scott said:

The trouble is we actually "batter" a team. We have tons of possession & play some very good football, but create very few clear cut chances. I think there are times when we need the traditional type of centre forward who will win plenty of in the air & cause in the opposition defence, think of a Steve Howard type only much better. I can't remember the last time we scored when someone knocked back a far post header across goal for someone to tap in.

I know this will happen under Brendan but it ought to be , plenty of have done it to us

We've needed that type of player ever since Ulloa left. Brendan is to stuborn to admit it. Our system has been rumbled plus one stray pass or interception and we're back to sq one.

When teams put a block on we struggle to break them down. I understand the desire to play total football, when it's working well it a delight to watch. But when it isn't you need an alternative way to win games. I know the game has moved on since Howard but we need to find someone who can play that modern role like Kane or Abrahams where clever movement and pace ourwits defenders and leads to goals. Or a Ball into the box where we at least have a 50,50 chance of winning instead of whar we have now which is 10% or less.

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, Clever Fox said:

We've needed that type of player ever since Ulloa left. Brendan is too stubborn to admit it. Our system has been rumbled plus one stray pass or interception and we're back to sq one.

When teams put a block on we struggle to break them down. I understand the desire to play total football, when it's working well it a delight to watch. But when it isn't you need an alternative way to win games. I know the game has moved on since Howard but we need to find someone who can play that modern role like Kane or Abrahams where clever movement and pace ourwits defenders and leads to goals. Or a Ball into the box where we at least have a 50,50 chance of winning instead of whar we have now which is 10% or less.

At the risk of getting done for repetition, is this really the case, or do people just keep saying it as if gospel?

[sacreblueits442]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

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

....pretty much, what we do with them is the problem!!!

[MalletFox]

6 hours ago, Babylon said:

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. 

My entire list involved Maddison & Lookman … both started the game!? 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

[Clever Fox]

4 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

At of getting done for , is this really the case, or do people just keep saying it as if gospel?

Yes it's through I have said this before but isn't it blatently obvious for a long time now that we need this type of player in the squad not necessarly to play every game but just to have the option for when it's needed.

Even Liverpool have someone to bring on when their intricate passing isn't working. How many times has Jota dug them out of a hole. Those points are the diffenence between where they are in the table and possibly where we are. Goals make Points.

So you have to ask yourself why can't Brendan see that. I have a theory I don't think Brendan likes signing big strong physical lads because of his own stature. I think he finds them intimidating in some way or other. The only big guy we signed is Vestagaard and he's a gentle giant. I could of course be totally wrong about Brendan.

Why does he keep signing Defenders when we clearly have needs in other parts of the field. I'm hoping he's learning on the job but I guess the Summer window will tell us 

[MalletFox]

1 hour ago, 5waller5 said:

He mentioned:

Lookman

Lookman

Maddison

Barnes

Maddison

Maddison.

 

Barnes was the only sub in that list. 
 

 

 

 

It really shouldn’t be this difficult to explain … 🤣

[He aint bald]

45 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

At the risk of getting done for repetition, is this really the case, or do people just keep saying it as if gospel?

A bit more gospel than the gospel and loads more gospel than the gospels.

 

Edited 29 April 2022 by He aint bald
removing goospels

[HighPeakFox]

11 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

Yes it's through I have said this before but isn't it blatently obvious for a long time now that we need this type of player in the squad not necessarly to play every game but just to have the option for when it's needed.

Even Liverpool have someone to bring on when their intricate passing isn't working. How many times has Jota dug them out of a hole. Those points are the diffenence between where they are in the table and possibly where we are. Goals make Points.

So you have to ask yourself why can't Brendan see that. I have a theory I don't think Brendan likes signing big strong physical lads because of his own stature. I think he finds them intimidating in some way or other. The only big guy we signed is Vestagaard and he's a gentle giant. I could of course be totally wrong about Brendan.

Why does he keep signing Defenders when we clearly have needs in other parts of the field. I'm hoping he's learning on the job but I guess the Summer window will tell us 

I think you missed my point - I wasn't on about an Ulloa-type player, I was quietly challenging the received wisdom that says 'BR is stubborn, therefore...' 

[Clever Fox]

16 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I think you missed my point - I wasn't on about an Ulloa-type player, I was quietly challenging the received that says 'BR is stubborn, therefore...' 

I think we  can agree on one thing, He's not stupid,  Yet a lot of us on here can see where our shortcomings are, So why cant he not see the bigger picture. 

 

Especially when it's only results that count.  So what else is it if not some form of stubborness. My guess is that Brendan might say he's looking for perfection.

But that's like looking for a Unicorn. That's neven going to happen with this group of players, As good as they are.

[Deeg67]

3 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

We've needed that type of player ever since Ulloa left. Brendan is to stuborn to admit it. Our system has been rumbled plus one stray pass or interception and we're back to sq one.

When teams put a block on we struggle to break them down. I understand the desire to play total football, when it's working well it a delight to watch. But when it isn't you need an alternative way to win games. I know the game has moved on since Howard but we need to find someone who can play that modern role like Kane or Abrahams where clever movement and pace ourwits defenders and leads to goals. Or a Ball into the box where we at least have a 50,50 chance of winning instead of whar we have now which is 10% or less.

Just to be clear, what we play under Rodgers is nothing like total football as Cruyff would define it.  Total football is all about positional flexibility and improvization on the pitch.  Rodgers loves rigid positional alignment and he prefers guys who stay where he tells puts them over the course of the match.  In point of fact, even though the title-winning team was anything but a possession-based side it was much closer to a total football philosophy under Rainieri that season than what we do now - that side featured a lot of guys who drifted around the pitch quite a bit.  TF isn't about possession for its own sake.

Edited 30 April 2022 by Deeg67

[volpeazzurro]

8 hours ago, Foxxed said:

If we’d scored 10 would you have included Soton away?

That was before Rodgers started weaving his magic and fitting an anchor to everyone's shirt so they'd pass it round to each other at the back to soothe the crowd to sleep 😴 

Edited 30 April 2022 by volpeazzurro

[Guest bennytwohats]

2 hours ago, volpeazzurro said:

That was before Rodgers started weaving his magic and fitting an anchor to everyone's shirt so they'd pass it round to each other at the back to soothe the crowd to sleep 😴 

Thanks for reminding us it was before Rodgers started ‘weaving his magic’. I’d completely forgotten those performances of putting 10 goals past teams under Puel.

 

Honestly some of you lot are so consumed by this notion of Rodgers being the enemy that you’ve lost all ability to be objective and/or sensible.

[HighPeakFox]

7 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

I think we  can agree on one thing, He's not stupid,  Yet a lot of us on here can see where our shortcomings are, So why cant he not see the bigger picture. 

 

Especially when it's only results that count.  So what else is it if not some form of stubborness. My guess is that Brendan might say he's looking for perfection.

But that's like looking for a Unicorn. That's neven going to happen with this group of players, As good as they are.

Ah, I understand you better now. Yes, we all have a point of view on this, that's true. Perhaps he's just more willing to take a long term view, or he sees the situation differently? It doesn't have to be stubbornness, it might just be a building process he doesn't want to smash.

[foxinsocks]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Ah, I understand you better now. Yes, we all have a point of view on this, that's true. Perhaps he's just more willing to take a long term view, or he sees the situation differently? It doesn't have to be stubbornness, it might just be a building process he doesn't want to smash.

Brendan rodgers long term view is to.play keep ball and never take a shot.

We are the poster boys for fast counter attacking football.... but that's not where he is taking us.

This is a shame coz he has done some good.... shame he isnt more flexible in condidering other styles of play 

Edited 30 April 2022 by foxinsocks

[gerblod]

8 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

Yes it's through I have said this before but hasn't it been blatantly obvious, for a long time now, that we need this type of player in the squad - not necessarily to play every game, but just to have the option for when it's needed.

Even Liverpool have someone to bring on when their intricate passing isn't working. How many times has Jota dug them out of a hole? Those points are the difference between where they are in the table and possibly where we are. Goals make points.

So you have to ask yourself why can't Brendan see that. I have a theory - I don't think Brendan likes signing big strong physical lads because of his own stature. I think he finds them intimidating in some way or other. The only big guy we signed is Vestagaard and he's a gentle giant. I could of course be totally wrong about Brendan.

Why does he keep signing defenders when we clearly have needs in other parts of the field? I'm hoping he's learning on the job but I guess the summer window will tell us.

Goals make points only if a team score more or as many as their opposition. In City's case a paucity of goals has never been because the team isn't capable of scoring - it's the suppressing blanket that seems to descend on them when they begin to disbelieve that they cannot score goals. Initially, against Roma, they were subject to a concerted attempt to physically dominate them into submission. That wasn't successful - that shows the limitations of physicality when skill and initiative are paramount. 

How can you state that Rodgers keeps signing defenders? For two seasons the team has desperately needed a stand in for Evans. Our solidity at the back depends on his availability. Money was wasted in the summer transfer market on players whose presence is now largely invisible. 

Your theory that Rodgers has a 'little man' complex is interesting. It might be true. If so it would not be something he would necessarily be aware of. Frederick the Great had a regiment recruited formed of tall (for the era) soldiers. But I suspect they'd not be, because of that, good troops. More likely to be good targets. And, being gay, his motives weren't solely about their fighting potential.

Someone mentioned 'total football' in this latter part of the thread. To play this, a manager has to find players of great adaptability, stamina, decisiveness and football intelligence. The way young players are developed in this country - to obey commands, isn't the basis for total football. It's a Dutch thing primarily - and Dutch teams have often displayed a free thinking which has clashed with their managers wills.

I'd love it if we had a manager who told the team to 'play it by ear' - but it requires qualities that are rarely found in such a disciplined sport. Maddison is such a player and KDH, by his dynamism, is another. Vardy and Fofana are also extrovert in their approach. 

Where BR goes from here depends on where we go in this Cup. Win it and the self-belief rockets. Drop out and motivation will be harder to maintain.

[volpeazzurro]

1 hour ago, bennytwohats said:

Thanks for reminding us it was before Rodgers started ‘weaving his magic’. I’d completely forgotten those performances of putting 10 goals past teams under Puel.

 

Honestly some of you lot are so consumed by this notion of Rodgers being the enemy that you’ve lost all ability to be objective and/or sensible.

You really can't compare the two though can you. Puel came when the club was in disarray. A hatchet job, like it or not had to be done and he did it. Did he need to go? Yes, of course,  if nothing else his relationship with the players sounded doubtful and certain man management skills questionable. 

 

On the playing side however he had not one attacking midfielder for a start off until he recruited Tielemans so you can in noway align remotely what he had to work with compared to what Rodgers both inherited and what was built upon very shortly afterwards. Puel had a disparate bunch of players when he arrived of dubious quality together with the Slimani, Silva and Iborra debacle.

 

Ask yourself, how would Rodgers have done if he'd have taken over from Shakespeare, I suggest we'd be in a right mess and I don't think he'd have even taken the job in the first place, he's no mug, he knew he was onto a good thing when he jumped ship from Celtic. 

[volpeazzurro]

11 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

We've needed that type of player ever since Ulloa left. Brendan is to stuborn to admit it. Our system has been rumbled plus one stray pass or interception and we're back to sq one.

When teams put a block on we struggle to break them down. I understand the desire to play total football, when it's working well it a delight to watch. But when it isn't you need an alternative way to win games. I know the game has moved on since Howard but we need to find someone who can play that modern role like Kane or Abrahams where clever movement and pace ourwits defenders and leads to goals. Or a Ball into the box where we at least have a 50,50 chance of winning instead of whar we have now which is 10% or less.

It wouldn't matter if it was Vardy, Iheanacho, Daka, Howard or Worthington, if you don't get the ball to your striker in the right areas, he won't score goals. 

[filbertway]

23 hours ago, AKCJ said:

Chances will be few and far between in the Olympico.

 

Do you want them to fall to Daka, Iheanacho or Vardy?

Kel 100%