Shaw_nuff Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 And if we win all 4 with less possession and 1 shot on target in each, what does that tell us? That I will have an awful lot of hats to eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that. I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 And if we win all 4 with less possession and 1 shot on target in each, what does that tell us? It might tell us that you believe in 'if'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that. I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men". It's a figure of speech mate. Id be worried if we had literally had a team of boys out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that. I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men". It's a figure of speech mate. Id be worried if we had literally had a team of boys out there. Boys against men implies that we were beaten by the physicality of the opposition, not their ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that. I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men". It's a figure of speech mate. Id be worried if we had literally had a team of boys out there. Boys against men implies that we were beaten by the physicality of the opposition, not their ability. Id say there was an element of that when it came to 50/50 challenges. They were more powerful then us even on an off day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that.I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men".It's a figure of speech mate. Id be worried if we had literally had a team of boys out there. Boys against men implies that we were beaten by the physicality of the opposition, not their ability. Why does it? Surely means outclassed in all areas, especially ability. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 5, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that. I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men". I honestly wonder if people watch the games sometimes. If people think Man City won't have an easier game than yesterday's all season then they're just plain wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that. I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men". I honestly wonder if people watch the games sometimes. If people think Man City won't have an easier game than yesterday's all season then they're just plain wrong. Ok they left it late but they played very poorly. It's almost like they thought they could just turn up and it almost cost them two points. City play like that against a better team they will lose. When I say easy I mean they were able to win in 2nd gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) They really didn't play "very poorly". At all. Both Pellegrini and Kompany, for example, have said that's the best they've played so far this season. Edited October 5, 2014 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 This discussion isn't really about Paul Lambert any more, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) True. It isn't. Apologies. To get us back on topic, I thought Lambert set us out with a game plan yesterday and whilst it wasn't pretty, it wasn't far off being successful. If Richardson puts away his chance then it could have been different. Like I said in the match thread, I think we played well enough to have beaten man city if they put in a poor performance. But, imo, they'd have beaten the majority of teams in the league playing like they did yesterday and unfortunately that's too good for us. I think Lambert's plan was a good one yesterday. Edited October 5, 2014 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 They really didn't play "very poorly". At all. Both Pellegrini and Kompany, for example, have said that's the best they've played so far this season. Maybe because they've had quite a poor start to the season in terms of performances. They are hardly going to say it was easy are they? They were very complacent in my opinion. To keep it about Lambert - I have no issue with how we set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 True. It isn't. Apologies. To get us back on topic, I thought Lambert set us out with a game plan yesterday and whilst it wasn't pretty, it wasn't far off being successful. If Richardson puts away his chance then it could have been different. Like I said in the match thread, I think we played well enough to have beaten man city if they put in a poor performance. But, imo, they'd have beaten the majority of teams in the league playing like they did yesterday and unfortunately that's too good for us. I think Lambert's plan was a good one yesterday. Did you watch motd? They showed numerous examples of City's sloppiness. They play like that against a better team they will lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted October 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 6, 2014 Did you watch motd? They showed numerous examples of City's sloppiness. They play like that against a better team they will lose. They might call it "sloppiness". I would call it "pressure". Compared to our last 2 games (Arsenal not really a good example - half the side were ill) we really pressed them across the park. This forces errors - or "sloppiness" - and that's what we saw yesterday. I do feel sorry for Lambert, though. He brought on 3 attacking players as second half substitutes.... ... and, almost as soon as he did, the team decided to sit deep, stop pressing and hold on for a draw. That's what lost us the game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Did you watch motd? They showed numerous examples of City's sloppiness. They play like that against a better team they will lose. They might call it "sloppiness". I would call it "pressure". Compared to our last 2 games (Arsenal not really a good example - half the side were ill) we really pressed them across the park. This forces errors - or "sloppiness" - and that's what we saw yesterday. I do feel sorry for Lambert, though. He brought on 3 attacking players as second half substitutes.... ... and, almost as soon as he did, the team decided to sit deep, stop pressing and hold on for a draw. That's what lost us the game. They stopped pressing because they were absolutely shattered. It's not possible to press like that for 90 minutes. But if they could string a few passes together when finally winning the ball back it might have helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 6, 2014 True. It isn't. Apologies. To get us back on topic, I thought Lambert set us out with a game plan yesterday and whilst it wasn't pretty, it wasn't far off being successful. If Richardson puts away his chance then it could have been different. Like I said in the match thread, I think we played well enough to have beaten man city if they put in a poor performance. But, imo, they'd have beaten the majority of teams in the league playing like they did yesterday and unfortunately that's too good for us. I think Lambert's plan was a good one yesterday. Did you watch motd? They showed numerous examples of City's sloppiness. They play like that against a better team they will lose. Yes I did. I stand by it. They'd have lost to a very good team. But that's not what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Lambert is probably the best we could have at the moment and the points gained this season have been quite OK, but that style of play is tragic. The most negative manager in the premier league, puts McLeish to shame. The new Stoke indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that. I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men". I honestly wonder if people watch the games sometimes. If people think Man City won't have an easier game than yesterday's all season then they're just plain wrong. well I'm plain wrong then as Man City will get a fair few easier games this season than that one. No way can you convince me that that will be Man City's easiest game of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 (edited) While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. Edited October 6, 2014 by Mantis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts