Man City Post Match Thread - first defeat in 12

[NaijaFox]

20 hours ago, Adster said:

Is it though?

 

Barnes completely fluffed it and he was always going to collide with Ederson. Not sure why I'm seeing so many people think it was a penalty.

Hope you’ve seen a PK given for the similar collision in the Chelsea vs Spurs game today. 

[TheSomersetFox]

Just now, NaijaFox said:

Hope you’ve seen a PK given for the similar collision in the Chelsea vs Spurs game today. 

Ball was going across goal y'day and they both missed it. Gazzaniga flew past the ball and body slammed Alonso. People who think they're identical are deluded

[yorkie1999]

Dangerous play, it’s about time goalies started getting done for it, winning the ball fair enough, but targeting the player and getting away with murder is not on. Man City’s goalie only had eyes for Barnes and did not even look at the ball.

[Adster]

4 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Hope you’ve seen a PK given for the similar collision in the Chelsea vs Spurs game today. 

Are you blind? It was absolutely nothing like the Barnes chance. 

[PaulW]

I guess we don't need to worry about Man City coming in for Chilwell during the window.......given that Pep obviously identified him as a weak spot in our defense. 

[Guest An Sionnach]

7 minutes ago, PaulW said:

I guess we don't need to worry about Man City coming in for Chilwell during the window.......given that Pep obviously identified him as a weak spot in our defense. 

Every manager in the premiership will try and use that now. Needs cover and that means another defensive midfielder not a back-tracking winger who can't tackle. Either that or its three at the back.

[NaijaFox]

12 minutes ago, Adster said:

Are you blind? It was absolutely nothing like the Barnes chance. 

The match commentators still making the comparison are also blind? 

[NaijaFox]

16 minutes ago, Goober said:

Ball was going across goal y'day and they both missed it. Gazzaniga flew past the ball and body slammed Alonso. People who think they're identical are deluded

Must have missed the ball ending up in the net today. 

 

Where the ball was going or ends up is not determinative of whether a foul has been committed (and a PK is simply a foul in the box). Fouls are routine given even when a ball ends up out of bounds. Neither is a “body slam” necessary for a penalty. Gazziniga received a card for the “body slam” but the penalty was for a foul. 

[NaijaFox]

21 minutes ago, Goober said:

Ball was going across goal y'day and they both missed it. Gazzaniga flew past the ball and body slammed Alonso. People who think they're identical are deluded

PS: And hate to be pedantic, but ‘similar’ and ‘identical’ are not synonymous terms. Merely averring that the substance (not every itty bitty detail) of both situations were similar.

[Adster]

11 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

The match commentators still making the comparison are also blind? 

Ahh, because the commentators are talking about it I forgot it MUST be true. Silly me. 

[NaijaFox]

8 minutes ago, Adster said:

Ahh, because the commentators are talking about it I forgot it MUST be true. Silly me. 

Childish Strawman’s Argument. 
 

It does not mean that must be “true” any more than your position must be “true” because you said it. Merely indicates that it is not a clear-cut situation (as you make it out to be), and that reasonable and rational persons (presuming you are one of course) can disagree about it. 

[NaijaFox]

3 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Double-post

 

[Adster]

2 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Childish Strawman’s Argument. 
 

It does not mean that must be “true” any more than your position must be “true” because you said it. Merely indicates that it not a clear-cut situation (as you make it out to be) and that reasonable and rational persons (presuming you are one of course) can disagree about it. 

 

Okay then whatever you say mate. 

 

It doesn't change the fact the two situations were completely different, hence a different outcome. Get over the fact we lost to the better team. 

[NaijaFox]

4 minutes ago, Adster said:

double-post

[NaijaFox]

15 minutes ago, Adster said:

 

Okay then whatever you say mate. 

 

It doesn't change the fact the two situations were completely different, hence a different outcome. Get over the fact we lost to the better team.

Another silly Strawman’s Argument. You’re on form today.  

[LCFCSOULBOY]

22 hours ago, FoxyJim1987 said:

It was away to bleddy man city you twonk, not home to Cardiff. Incredible how a loss makes us suddenly useless and a win makes us unbeatable. 

Did not say we were crap you tw*t. Said was Puel style which it was. 

[Mike Oxlong]

‘Tis the season of goodwill I see  🎄  🎅 

[SpacedX]

7 minutes ago, LCFCSOULBOY said:

Said was Puel style which it was. 

If that was the case we would have likely started two DMs.

[womp]

It was expected with the form both were showing.

Got no problem how it went with tactics.

Young team,long season and will have go through tough times to learn where they need to get to.

 

 

 

[Deeg67]

12 hours ago, l444ry said:

Looked like we set up to go toe to toe with them and play our normal game. We caught them on a bad day and it didn't work at all. In hindsight we might have done better with someone next to Wilf in a 4-2-3-1 but Brendan got  his hands burned taking the cautious approach at Man Utd. In truth, we would have probably struggled against City in that sort of form whatever set up we had tried. 

Not seeing the connection between MU and MC. Totally different sides and should have been approached differently. To go defensive against United and then use our regular wide formation against Man City was a double blunder by Rodgers. It happens to everybody but let’s face it, he botched both fixtures.

[Deeg67]

5 hours ago, Line-X said:

If that was the case we would have likely started two DMs.

I keep seeing this fuching argument and it never gets any less ludicrous. Do you seriously think Puel wouldn’t have started Tielemans every match if he’d had him? Or even started Silva if ownership had let him?

[Aus Fox]

7 hours ago, An Sionnach said:

Every manager in the premiership will try and use that now. Needs cover and that means another defensive midfielder not a back-tracking winger who can't tackle. Either that or its three at the back.

Not every manager in the Premier League has KDB and Mahrez. 

[Keyworth63]

17 hours ago, ForeverandEver said:

I was thinking during the game if we had someone like Fuchs available to shore up that left back slot it could’ve left Chilwell to man mark Riyad out the game + we know how good Chilwell is at breaking and Riyad not so much at tracking. 
 

They came at us so many times on that left side & it was like historically where Danny Simpson had to defend on his own when Riyad was with us - as Barnes was trying to support Vardy. 
 

KDB - just too good though. 

Yes, remember how Fuchs completely nullified Mahrez in League Cup game last year.

[CosbehFox]

The problem wasnt solely Mahrez with Chilwell. Man City utilised the channel between Chilwell, Cags and Maddison. KdB effectively using the space where Maddison’s defensive work is lacking. You only need to look at the third goal for that 

[Guest Bob Hazels shorts]

Their game plan must've took some planning.

 

Do you play through the center where Ndidi, Evans and Söyüncü are on fire usually or play down the flanks, our left in particular where Chilwell defensive limitations are obvious (particularly to Mahrez) and Barnes offers less than Mahrez used to for us defensively. 

 

The team that pressed first and pressed most was going to win it