Cybereagles

anointed wrote:

txj wrote:

anointed wrote:

txj wrote:

anointed wrote:

Samora Machel wrote:And English pundits would have us think the french League is weak and rubbish. They certainly play very exciting and attacking football

Pep, genius my foot All very well to step into a redy made outfit like Barcelona. At Bayern bayern regressed under him. Now at City he has reached a new low

Source?

Just about every one of them; including the EPL fans who follow them...

When you ask an impotent man how many children he has, he says many.

I apologize that I cannot respond to the above as I lack your experience in the matter heretofore...

When a candidate gets challenged or stuck with an examination question, the candidate begins to look upwards as if the answer is printed in the ceiling.

txj wrote: Agreed. I just simply do not have your experience in the matter heretofore....

benteke wrote:

okidoki wrote:Pep plays only one way, been really disappointed with him.

i noticed that Pep's City doesn't like being attacked.
The teams that have attacked City fearlessly this season have caused them lots of problems and got lots of joy, starting with Celtic in the group stages that was the first sign.

The game against Liverpool this Sunday should be fun to watch.

tfco wrote:

metalalloy wrote:

tfco wrote:

metalalloy wrote: no Nacho, no City!

another houseboy feigning pain

p.s - nacho did play.

The token 2 minutes they give you house negroes to pacify you? wake me up when he is a meaningful part of the team. Till then, NO NACHO, NO CITY!!!!

PS. wouldn't I be feigning joy?

Yaya Toure is from which part of Europe?

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:Anyway, this loss is squarely on naive Pep tactics. Defending is part of the game. You take a 2 goal lead to France yet you start only one recognized central midfielder while allowing Yaya to rot on the bench. Wharraheck. He could've helped to shore up the midfield and also help defend aerial set plays. Na wa.

I don't know that defending or lack thereof was necessarily the key issue in the loss. For me it was clearly the inability to convert the chances created. And there were a legion of them...

The presumption is had they scored one of the missed chances, they would've kept scoring but that's theory and not reality. In reality, when they did score, Monaco took over the initiative and eventually scored the winning goal. What could've happened is not bankable. What's bankable though, is what you already have or had on the score board like the 5 goals from leg 1 and the 1 goal last night before they scored the third. In both of those bankable situations, City was in the driver's seat and in control of their destiny.

This is CL. There are no easy opponents at this level of the competition. Yaya played well in the first leg and even though Pep initially started with an attacking plan - which I understand because its his philosophy, and even though I disagree with his approach, Yaya wasn't an option when they were down and chasing the game at 0-2 but he could and should have brought on Yaya after they had finally managed to battle back and edge ahead on away goals rule with less than 20 mins left. Generally, when teams are holding onto a slim lead with less than 20mins left against a difficult opponent (especially away from home), the manager tightens up the remaining midfield gaps with subs with further consideration on defending set pieces and obvious desperate aerial balls that are lumped in the box with the clock winding down. All the winning manger do this including many that have an attacking philosophy. This one is mostly on Pep and I'm far from his biggest critic but he & City didn't have to go out like this. They should be in the QF.

I understand your point but I'm analyzing the game as it played out, not how it SHOULD HAVE.

And based on how it played out, the key issue was the missed chances.

kofi86 wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:Anyway, this loss is squarely on naive Pep tactics. Defending is part of the game. You take a 2 goal lead to France yet you start only one recognized central midfielder while allowing Yaya to rot on the bench. Wharraheck. He could've helped to shore up the midfield and also help defend aerial set plays. Na wa.

I don't know that defending or lack thereof was necessarily the key issue in the loss. For me it was clearly the inability to convert the chances created. And there were a legion of them...

The presumption is had they scored one of the missed chances, they would've kept scoring but that's theory and not reality. In reality, when they did score, Monaco took over the initiative and eventually scored the winning goal. What could've happened is not bankable. What's bankable though, is what you already have or had on the score board like the 5 goals from leg 1 and the 1 goal last night before they scored the third. In both of those bankable situations, City was in the driver's seat and in control of their destiny.

This is CL. There are no easy opponents at this level of the competition. Yaya played well in the first leg and even though Pep initially started with an attacking plan - which I understand because its his philosophy, and even though I disagree with his approach, Yaya wasn't an option when they were down and chasing the game at 0-2 but he could and should have brought on Yaya after they had finally managed to battle back and edge ahead on away goals rule with less than 20 mins left. Generally, when teams are holding onto a slim lead with less than 20mins left against a difficult opponent (especially away from home), the manager tightens up the remaining midfield gaps with subs with further consideration on defending set pieces and obvious desperate aerial balls that are lumped in the box with the clock winding down. All the winning manger do this including many that have an attacking philosophy. This one is mostly on Pep and I'm far from his biggest critic but he & City didn't have to go out like this. They should be in the QF.

I understand your point but I'm analyzing the game as it played out, not how it SHOULD HAVE.

And based on how it played out, the key issue was the missed chances.

ManCity conceded 6 goals and scored 6 over 2 games, they conceded 3 in the return leg and the problem was not scoring more?

edit: Couldn't Monaco have score more goals in both legs as well (including a missed penalty)?

txj wrote:

kofi86 wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:Anyway, this loss is squarely on naive Pep tactics. Defending is part of the game. You take a 2 goal lead to France yet you start only one recognized central midfielder while allowing Yaya to rot on the bench. Wharraheck. He could've helped to shore up the midfield and also help defend aerial set plays. Na wa.

I don't know that defending or lack thereof was necessarily the key issue in the loss. For me it was clearly the inability to convert the chances created. And there were a legion of them...

The presumption is had they scored one of the missed chances, they would've kept scoring but that's theory and not reality. In reality, when they did score, Monaco took over the initiative and eventually scored the winning goal. What could've happened is not bankable. What's bankable though, is what you already have or had on the score board like the 5 goals from leg 1 and the 1 goal last night before they scored the third. In both of those bankable situations, City was in the driver's seat and in control of their destiny.

This is CL. There are no easy opponents at this level of the competition. Yaya played well in the first leg and even though Pep initially started with an attacking plan - which I understand because its his philosophy, and even though I disagree with his approach, Yaya wasn't an option when they were down and chasing the game at 0-2 but he could and should have brought on Yaya after they had finally managed to battle back and edge ahead on away goals rule with less than 20 mins left. Generally, when teams are holding onto a slim lead with less than 20mins left against a difficult opponent (especially away from home), the manager tightens up the remaining midfield gaps with subs with further consideration on defending set pieces and obvious desperate aerial balls that are lumped in the box with the clock winding down. All the winning manger do this including many that have an attacking philosophy. This one is mostly on Pep and I'm far from his biggest critic but he & City didn't have to go out like this. They should be in the QF.

I understand your point but I'm analyzing the game as it played out, not how it SHOULD HAVE.

And based on how it played out, the key issue was the missed chances.

ManCity conceded 6 goals and scored 6 over 2 games, they conceded 3 in the return leg and the problem was not scoring more?

edit: Couldn't Monaco have score more goals in both legs as well (including a missed penalty)?

The beauty of reviewing a football match that has been played is that u have data. Its not what they could've or should've done. Its about how the game actually played out, and what were the key factors in it.

The PRIMARY problem on the day was not taking their chances.

txj wrote:

kofi86 wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:Anyway, this loss is squarely on naive Pep tactics. Defending is part of the game. You take a 2 goal lead to France yet you start only one recognized central midfielder while allowing Yaya to rot on the bench. Wharraheck. He could've helped to shore up the midfield and also help defend aerial set plays. Na wa.

I don't know that defending or lack thereof was necessarily the key issue in the loss. For me it was clearly the inability to convert the chances created. And there were a legion of them...

The presumption is had they scored one of the missed chances, they would've kept scoring but that's theory and not reality. In reality, when they did score, Monaco took over the initiative and eventually scored the winning goal. What could've happened is not bankable. What's bankable though, is what you already have or had on the score board like the 5 goals from leg 1 and the 1 goal last night before they scored the third. In both of those bankable situations, City was in the driver's seat and in control of their destiny.

This is CL. There are no easy opponents at this level of the competition. Yaya played well in the first leg and even though Pep initially started with an attacking plan - which I understand because its his philosophy, and even though I disagree with his approach, Yaya wasn't an option when they were down and chasing the game at 0-2 but he could and should have brought on Yaya after they had finally managed to battle back and edge ahead on away goals rule with less than 20 mins left. Generally, when teams are holding onto a slim lead with less than 20mins left against a difficult opponent (especially away from home), the manager tightens up the remaining midfield gaps with subs with further consideration on defending set pieces and obvious desperate aerial balls that are lumped in the box with the clock winding down. All the winning manger do this including many that have an attacking philosophy. This one is mostly on Pep and I'm far from his biggest critic but he & City didn't have to go out like this. They should be in the QF.

I understand your point but I'm analyzing the game as it played out, not how it SHOULD HAVE.

And based on how it played out, the key issue was the missed chances.

ManCity conceded 6 goals and scored 6 over 2 games, they conceded 3 in the return leg and the problem was not scoring more?

edit: Couldn't Monaco have score more goals in both legs as well (including a missed penalty)?

The beauty of reviewing a football match that has been played is that u have data. Its not what they could've or should've done. Its about how the game actually played out, and what were the key factors in it.

The PRIMARY problem on the day was not taking their chances.

anointed wrote:

txj wrote:

kofi86 wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:Anyway, this loss is squarely on naive Pep tactics. Defending is part of the game. You take a 2 goal lead to France yet you start only one recognized central midfielder while allowing Yaya to rot on the bench. Wharraheck. He could've helped to shore up the midfield and also help defend aerial set plays. Na wa.

I don't know that defending or lack thereof was necessarily the key issue in the loss. For me it was clearly the inability to convert the chances created. And there were a legion of them...

The presumption is had they scored one of the missed chances, they would've kept scoring but that's theory and not reality. In reality, when they did score, Monaco took over the initiative and eventually scored the winning goal. What could've happened is not bankable. What's bankable though, is what you already have or had on the score board like the 5 goals from leg 1 and the 1 goal last night before they scored the third. In both of those bankable situations, City was in the driver's seat and in control of their destiny.

This is CL. There are no easy opponents at this level of the competition. Yaya played well in the first leg and even though Pep initially started with an attacking plan - which I understand because its his philosophy, and even though I disagree with his approach, Yaya wasn't an option when they were down and chasing the game at 0-2 but he could and should have brought on Yaya after they had finally managed to battle back and edge ahead on away goals rule with less than 20 mins left. Generally, when teams are holding onto a slim lead with less than 20mins left against a difficult opponent (especially away from home), the manager tightens up the remaining midfield gaps with subs with further consideration on defending set pieces and obvious desperate aerial balls that are lumped in the box with the clock winding down. All the winning manger do this including many that have an attacking philosophy. This one is mostly on Pep and I'm far from his biggest critic but he & City didn't have to go out like this. They should be in the QF.

I understand your point but I'm analyzing the game as it played out, not how it SHOULD HAVE.

And based on how it played out, the key issue was the missed chances.

ManCity conceded 6 goals and scored 6 over 2 games, they conceded 3 in the return leg and the problem was not scoring more?

edit: Couldn't Monaco have score more goals in both legs as well (including a missed penalty)?

The beauty of reviewing a football match that has been played is that u have data. Its not what they could've or should've done. Its about how the game actually played out, and what were the key factors in it.

The PRIMARY problem on the day was not taking their chances.

Why do you like doing this to yourself? Even in ATF, where you are a specialist, you failed woefully.

1st Leg
Man City vs Monaco
5 Goals 3
8 Total attempts 15
6 On target 6
0 Off target 7

2nd Leg
Monaco vs Man City
3 Goals 1
12 Total attempts 9
8 On target 6
4 Off target 3

txj wrote:And the stats on.chances created?

anointed wrote:

txj wrote:And the stats on.chances created?

I bet those chances of yours were created in the midfield.

You've been backed into a tight corner and you think spinning is the way to go. Abeg define "chances created" because you sound like one Naija commentator of yore who said, "...this is Ademola Adesina moving dangerously into the centre circle..."

I have a feeling I can get those stats on chances created on your blogspot or who else keeps stats on chances created. name 'em and shame the devil bro. That makes two outstanding links you are to provide now.

txj wrote:

anointed wrote:

txj wrote:And the stats on.chances created?

I bet those chances of yours were created in the midfield.

You've been backed into a tight corner and you think spinning is the way to go. Abeg define "chances created" because you sound like one Naija commentator of yore who said, "...this is Ademola Adesina moving dangerously into the centre circle..."

I have a feeling I can get those stats on chances created on your blogspot or who else keeps stats on chances created. name 'em and shame the devil bro. That makes two outstanding links you are to provide now.

If you don't know how to look up the stats for that say so, or just watch the game again, specifically the second half.

Fact remains City created enough chances to negate its failures in defence.

txj wrote:

anointed wrote:

txj wrote:And the stats on.chances created?

I bet those chances of yours were created in the midfield.

You've been backed into a tight corner and you think spinning is the way to go. Abeg define "chances created" because you sound like one Naija commentator of yore who said, "...this is Ademola Adesina moving dangerously into the centre circle..."

I have a feeling I can get those stats on chances created on your blogspot or who else keeps stats on chances created. name 'em and shame the devil bro. That makes two outstanding links you are to provide now.

If you don't know how to look up the stats for that say so, or just watch the game again, specifically the second half.

Fact remains City created enough chances to negate its failures in defence.

theDunamis wrote:

txj wrote:

anointed wrote:

txj wrote:And the stats on.chances created?

I bet those chances of yours were created in the midfield.

You've been backed into a tight corner and you think spinning is the way to go. Abeg define "chances created" because you sound like one Naija commentator of yore who said, "...this is Ademola Adesina moving dangerously into the centre circle..."

I have a feeling I can get those stats on chances created on your blogspot or who else keeps stats on chances created. name 'em and shame the devil bro. That makes two outstanding links you are to provide now.

If you don't know how to look up the stats for that say so, or just watch the game again, specifically the second half.

Fact remains City created enough chances to negate its failures in defence.

So Monaco just came on the field to suck air. And I guess Monaco didn't create "enough chances to negate its failures in defence" or is that nonsensical reasoning only reserved for the team you support??????

“City could have won the game easily in the second half but because they are human beings they missed a few chances.

txj wrote:

anointed wrote:

txj wrote:And the stats on.chances created?

I bet those chances of yours were created in the midfield.

You've been backed into a tight corner and you think spinning is the way to go. Abeg define "chances created" because you sound like one Naija commentator of yore who said, "...this is Ademola Adesina moving dangerously into the centre circle..."

I have a feeling I can get those stats on chances created on your blogspot or who else keeps stats on chances created. name 'em and shame the devil bro. That makes two outstanding links you are to provide now.

If you don't know how to look up the stats for that say so, or just watch the game again, specifically the second half.

Fact remains City created enough chances to negate its failures in defence.

kofi86 wrote:

txj wrote:

anointed wrote:

txj wrote:And the stats on.chances created?

I bet those chances of yours were created in the midfield.

You've been backed into a tight corner and you think spinning is the way to go. Abeg define "chances created" because you sound like one Naija commentator of yore who said, "...this is Ademola Adesina moving dangerously into the centre circle..."

I have a feeling I can get those stats on chances created on your blogspot or who else keeps stats on chances created. name 'em and shame the devil bro. That makes two outstanding links you are to provide now.

If you don't know how to look up the stats for that say so, or just watch the game again, specifically the second half.

Fact remains City created enough chances to negate its failures in defence.

that is what we wanted to hear. If they have go into a game with a 2 goal lead and still need to score 2 more goals to negate their failures in defence, then the PRIMARY issue is the bad defending. That's why they needed to score those goals in the first place.

kofi86 wrote:

txj wrote:

anointed wrote:

txj wrote:And the stats on.chances created?

I bet those chances of yours were created in the midfield.

You've been backed into a tight corner and you think spinning is the way to go. Abeg define "chances created" because you sound like one Naija commentator of yore who said, "...this is Ademola Adesina moving dangerously into the centre circle..."

I have a feeling I can get those stats on chances created on your blogspot or who else keeps stats on chances created. name 'em and shame the devil bro. That makes two outstanding links you are to provide now.

If you don't know how to look up the stats for that say so, or just watch the game again, specifically the second half.

Fact remains City created enough chances to negate its failures in defence.

that is what we wanted to hear. If they have go into a game with a 2 goal lead and still need to score 2 more goals to negate their failures in defence, then the PRIMARY issue is the bad defending. That's why they needed to score those goals in the first place.