Sportswash! - Let’s oil stare at Manchester City!

[Stevo985]

34 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Personally, the way they are playing isn't really a consideration when it comes to saying if they've improved year on year. I'd agree they are better to watch but I don't agree they are a better side.

As for the other points raised, I think its a weak argument to use what might happen in the future to support a currently held view that they've improved.

This time last year Man City were 4th, currently they are 3rd with a slightly better points return per game. Come the end of the season that might still be the case, it might not we will have to wait and see. 

As for he might still win a trophy, yes he might. But then City did win the League Cup last season. Now granted the FA Cup is the bigger of the two but he hasn't won it yet and I very much doubt he will. So I don't think that them being int he Semi Final is really evidence they've improved.

Then you have the CL, last season City lost in the Semi FInal. This season they haven't even reached the Quarter Final, which certainly weakens any case for him having improved them.

So all in all, personally I don't agree he has improved them in terms of results which is for me the benchmark, not the way they play.

As for it being the cool thing to say that he is crap. I don't think anyone is saying he is, I think they are saying that he isn't as good as he has so frequently been hailed to be.

It was nothing to do with them being better to watch. They're a better team in terms of results in the league, which I'd argue is the fairest measure. yes they've gone out of the champions league, but that's one tie against a very good team. If they'd drawn Leverkusen in this round they might still be in it and it would be a different conversation.

 

As soon as Man City lose people seem to pile into this thread, tripping over themselves to say how much Guardiola has flopped and how crap City are. it's weird.

[kurtsimonw]

25 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

i dont know but maybe utd? if not then utd must at least be close and look where they are in the league

I know City spent the most in England by about £40m or so, so can't be United. 

[Demitri_C]

11 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Of course you would say he's flopped.

He'll probably finish second in the league and could still win a trophy.

It's not good enough long term, but he's improved them since last season and he'll be expected to kick on next season.

To be fair I don't always agree much with Zatman, but I do in this instance! he has flopped unless he achieves what you say. But in my view they should have been challenging for the title and they haven't whatsoever.

10 points behind Chelsea, also not good enough I would say.

[StewieGriffin]

They're a bit like Arsenal - let them play and they'll destroy you, but press them and get into them (PASHUN! etc...) and it unsettles them and they dont seem to have a way of winning games ugly

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

To be fair I don't always agree much with Zatman, but I do in this instance! he has flopped unless he achieves what you say. But in my view they should have been challenging for the title and they haven't whatsoever.

10 points behind Chelsea, also not good enough I would say.

Chelsea have run away with it. nobody is challenging them, and City are as close as anyone else.
If it wasn't for Chelsea's ridiculous form then City would be right in the title race.

That's no excuse LONG TERM. If it's the same next season then there should be questions.

But it's not as simple as "he's not in the title race". Nobody is in the title race.

[VillaChris]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I think it's fairly clear they're playing better than last season. They'll finish higher in the league and could still win a major trophy.

 

They collapsed and finished 4th. 

They'd be in the title race this season if Chelsea weren't running away with it. They're as "in the title race" as anyone else in the league bar Chelsea.

 

 

It very much seems like the cool thing to say how crap Pep is. It's quite strange.

I honestly don't think their football is any better to watch than under previous two managers....remember when Man. City went to Old Trafford and won 6-1, Spurs 5-1 all in 11/12.

And in 13/14 they beat Arsenal 6-3, Spurs about 11-1 home and away...they could just blow teams away when they felt like it.

Haven't had the season feeling this season...they played well at Old Trafford earlier this season but for most of it they've been nicking games and struggling to impose their game when they play another top 6 team home or away.

[PaulC]

Sane and Jesus look real talents but apart from that I dont think they have spent that well. Pity for them Jesus got injured. I think its a sorting process this season. he has found out which players he can rely on on which he cant. Jesus, De Bruyne, Sane, Silva? Stones? he needs a leader next to him. Aguero, Sterling and that's it the rest will be replaced. Mendy looks awesome at Monaco. I can see them going in for him

Edited March 16, 2017 by PaulC

[Dr_Pangloss]

5 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Sane and Jesus look real talents but apart from that I dont think they have spent that well. Pity for them Jesus got injured. I think its a sorting process this season. he has found out which players he can rely on on which he cant. Jesus, De Bruyne, Sane, Silva? Stones? he needs a leader next to him. Aguero, Sterling and that's it the rest will be replaced. Mendy looks awesome at Monaco. I can see them going in for him

He has made some terrible errors in the transfer market. Stones and Bravo both utterly horrific signings. They are also weak through the middle, instead of signing Sane they should have gone in for Kante. Sane is a very good talent, but they needed to be more pragmatic. Basically he has come in and utterly failed to address their weakness from a playing staff perspective. 

Then, his 'innovative' tactics, such as playing fullbacks who can't defend at centre half, are at best hubris (believing his own hype that he can 'push the boundaries') and at worst, just utterly brainless. 

[TrentVilla]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

It was nothing to do with them being better to watch. They're a better team in terms of results in the league, which I'd argue is the fairest measure. yes they've gone out of the champions league, but that's one tie against a very good team. If they'd drawn Leverkusen in this round they might still be in it and it would be a different conversation.

As soon as Man City lose people seem to pile into this thread, tripping over themselves to say how much Guardiola has flopped and how crap City are. it's weird.

You said playing better in the league not that their results were better. That is why I assumed you were talking about how they were playing, if that wasn't what you meant than fair enough.

In terms of results though, I think they've won a couple of games more than at this stage last season. So I don't think that is much in the way of evidence of progress. 

In terms of the league being the better measure, well you would as it's the only one that supports the view he has improved them. But you originally brought the potential FA Cup win into it so the point about the League Cup is valid.

I don't personally think you can discount how they've done in the CL as part of a comparison. If he won the CL or took them to the final, it would be considered as progress would it not? 

As for people's posts in this thread, it's a mix of things. A lot of people want to see City fail for the obvious reasons.

There are also a lot of people who think and have long thought that he has been massively over rated by the press/media while at Barca and Munich.

I think his performance to date at City supports that.

Once again I don't think people are saying he is crap.

[PaulC]

I agree with that. He could have not achieved what he did at Barcelona without the likes Messi, Iniesta and Xavi. He was very fortunate to have some of the greatest players to have ever played the game at his disposal.

[bobzy]

56 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

You said playing better in the league not that their results were better. That is why I assumed you were talking about how they were playing, if that wasn't what you meant than fair enough.

In terms of results though, I think they've won a couple of games more than at this stage last season. So I don't think that is much in the way of evidence of progress. 

In terms of the league being the better measure, well you would as it's the only one that supports the view he has improved them. But you originally brought the potential FA Cup win into it so the point about the League Cup is valid.

I don't personally think you can discount how they've done in the CL as part of a comparison. If he won the CL or took them to the final, it would be considered as progress would it not? 

As for people's posts in this thread, it's a mix of things. A lot of people want to see City fail for the obvious reasons.

There are also a lot of people who think and have long thought that he has been massively over rated by the press/media while at Barca and Munich.

I think his performance to date at City supports that.

Once again I don't think people are saying he is crap.

Last season, Man City won 19 games in the league (half).  This season, they've won 17 games with 11 games left.

To compare the 2 seasons in terms of competitiveness - Leicester won the league last season by 10 points.  As things stand, Chelsea would need to win 2 and draw 9 of their remaining 11 games to match Leicester's total - they will bomb on past that.  For all of Man City's documented defensive problems, only the 2 teams above them and Man Utd have a better defensive record in the league.  If anything, they've actually suffered in terms of attack.

I don't understand how he has been "overrated" at Bayern and Barcelona - he achieved pretty incredible feats at both those clubs.  For some reason, there are a whole host of people chomping at the bit for Guardiola to fail (I don't get it, personally) but he looks to be steadying Man City and will turn them into a force next season.

I'm don't think you can call this season a flop but, ultimately, big name foreign managers are judged on their European exploits more so than anything else and in the CL, they've been disappointing.

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Chelsea have run away with it. nobody is challenging them, and City are as close as anyone else.
If it wasn't for Chelsea's ridiculous form then City would be right in the title race.

That's no excuse LONG TERM. If it's the same next season then there should be questions.

But it's not as simple as "he's not in the title race". Nobody is in the title race.

The thing is though Stevo I would argue that city have the squad capable of challenging Chelsea and they have failed to do so. I certainly agree with your second paragraph though that failure like this next year will not be acceptable. 

But so far I have been very impressed with peps man city.  Certainly feel pellergrini was more impressive so far

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

You said playing better in the league not that their results were better. That is why I assumed you were talking about how they were playing, if that wasn't what you meant than fair enough.

In terms of results though, I think they've won a couple of games more than at this stage last season. So I don't think that is much in the way of evidence of progress. 

In terms of the league being the better measure, well you would as it's the only one that supports the view he has improved them. But you originally brought the potential FA Cup win into it so the point about the League Cup is valid.

I don't personally think you can discount how they've done in the CL as part of a comparison. If he won the CL or took them to the final, it would be considered as progress would it not? 

 

I've proclaimed my philosophy on "good football" many times so I can promise by "playing better" I meant results wise. Good football, to me, is results based.

Yes they've won a couple more games. If I'm not mistaken they've won 2 less than their total number of wins last season, and they have 11 games left.
Plus they're currently the best form team in the league so if that continues you'd think they'll comfortably surpass last season. Which was my point.

Agree with the point about the league cup. I was more referring to the champions league because it's massively dependant on who you draw. I didn't say you should exclude it just that you need a bit of context. It's not as easy as just saying they  didn't get as far therefore he's flopped.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Stevo985

[Stevo985]

20 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

The thing is though Stevo I would argue that city have the squad capable of challenging Chelsea and they have failed to do so.

It's his first season.

[dudevillaisnice]

To be fair it's Conte's first season too at Chelsea and he arguably had a much tougher situation to deal with.

I think overall Guardiola will come good eventually but this season certainly hasn't gone to plan for them.

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, dudevillaisnice said:

To be fair it's Conte's first season too at Chelsea and he arguably had a much tougher situation to deal with.

I think overall Guardiola will come good eventually but this season certainly hasn't gone to plan for them.

It is and he deserves huge credit.

But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't always go right straight away with every manager. To judge Pep as a failure because of this season is still massively harsh, imo.

[Demitri_C]

13 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It's his first season.

It's contes too!

[Stevo985]

Just now, Demitri_C said:

It's contes too!

 

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It is and he deserves huge credit.

But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't always go right straight away with every manager. To judge Pep as a failure because of this season is still massively harsh, imo.

See above.

Yes it's Conte's. but that doesn't mean every manager in his first season should be judged to that standard. That would be like complaining we haven't won the league in our second season back in the Prem because Leicester managed it.

[TrentVilla]

19 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I've proclaimed my philosophy on "good football" many times so I can promise by "playing better" I meant results wise. Good football, to me, is results based.

Yes they've won a couple more games. If I'm not mistaken they've won 2 less than their total number of wins last season, and they have 11 games left.
Plus they're currently the best form team in the league so if that continues you'd think they'll comfortably surpass last season. Which was my point.

Agree with the point about the league cup. I was more referring to the champions league because it's massively dependant on who you draw. I didn't say you should exclude it just that you need a bit of context. It's not as easy as just saying they  didn't get as far therefore he's flopped.

On the subject of the league form and picking up on your valid point re context, I think that needs some as well.

Man City's form in the league went out the window once they announced he was a dead man walking and there was a clear move to make the CL the primary focus. Much like Chelsea, Man City under performed in the league last season so any credit given for improving performance this season should surely take that into account?

Also at this point the league record year on year is relatively similar, now that probably won't be the case by May but as we stand today I don't think the league performance can be used to evidence progress. 

On the CL of course it is dependent upon who you draw but considering it was probably their main focus I would say he has under performed. I would also say that impressive though they were, Monaco weren't the toughest draw he could have faced. It is also my personal opinion that he himself contributed to their exit with his tactics and team selections in both games. So while progress in the competition is affected by who you draw, I personally think that it is fair to say he didn't do as well in the CL as that auld fella last season.

If I were to accept he had improved them, then I would question the extent of that improvement given the level of the investment made. Not something that I think reflects particularly well on him either.

He isn't a flop but he hasn't been a success either, it remains to be seen if he is next season. I have my doubts.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

He isn't a flop but he hasn't been a success either, it remains to be seen if he is next season. I have my doubts.

It comes down to this. Which I totally agree with. He'd be disappointed with this season, but he's not "flopped".