🫡 For anyone who want the reason why Enzo is going up and down. 

Probably the perfect game to illustrate that there's a lot of potential in this side but that they are always going to be held back as long as Poch is managing us.

Why in the world he changed a working recipe i'll never know. 

 

Just now, OriginalS said:

Probably the perfect game to illustrate that there's a lot of potential in this side but that they are always going to be held back as long as Poch is managing us.

Why in the world he changed a working recipe i'll never know. 

 

Common .. we would have bitten their hand off for a draw.. yes there have been days when we can have a go at the manager.. but not today.

2 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

Probably the perfect game to illustrate that there's a lot of potential in this side but that they are always going to be held back as long as Poch is managing us.

Why in the world he changed a working recipe i'll never know. 

 

Not sure a 1-1 draw away at the Ethihad against a team that has scored in 45 straight home games is a black mark against the manager.

But whatever suits the Agenda.

3 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

Probably the perfect game to illustrate that there's a lot of potential in this side but that they are always going to be held back as long as Poch is managing us.

Why in the world he changed a working recipe i'll never know. 

 

So go head to head with city at their ground and get battered, then moan about Poch being poor tactically. 
He got it right today and made sure the players get some more confidence.

We are building more and more.

Please keep it up. 

Also he’s just stuck two fingers up to the sports media who were licking their lips at us getting spanked!!

8 minutes ago, Jangz said:

Common .. we would have bitten their hand off for a draw.. yes there have been days when we can have a go at the manager.. but not today.

A draw may have been a good result in isolation (it is) but it didn't really do us any favours in our chase for Europe.

Perhaps I am being a bit unfair but the managers subs did cost us today. Nkunku should not have been at the pitch at all and he changed something that was working in favour of something that never was going to work and that boggles the mind.

We seem to be alright when we're playing on the counter attack, but when it's the other way around we struggle. Still a great result

17 minutes ago, Whats_The_Mata? said:

Not sure a 1-1 draw away at the Ethihad against a team that has scored in 45 straight home games is a black mark against the manager.

But whatever suits the Agenda.

It's not an agenda. The subs were a big factor in why we couldn't get out at all in the last 20 minutes. Palmer stays on and it may have opened up a few more counter attacking chances, and seeing as we were doing it all game, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible to do it a few more times. Why would you put Nkunku on and give him nothing to feed off? He was just isolated when Palmer went off.

If this was a one off for Pochettino, nobody would say anything other than it was mistake but mistakes happen. This is a regular occurrence with Pochettino, there are many examples of his tactical subs making us a lot worse. We shouldn't ignore that because we played one of the best teams in the world.

Edited February 17, 20242 yr by Scott Harris

13 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

It's not an agenda. The subs were a big factor in why we couldn't get out at all in the last 20 minutes. Palmer stays on and it may have opened up a few more counter attacking chances, and seeing as we were doing it all game, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible to do it a few more times. Why would you put Nkunku on and give him nothing to feed off? He was just isolated when Palmer went off.

If this was a one off for Pochettino, nobody would say anything other than it was mistake but mistakes happen. This is a regular occurrence with Pochettino, there are many examples of his tactical subs making us a lot worse. We shouldn't ignore that because we played one of the best teams in the world.

I think that's fair, it also doesn't take away from how well we were set up to begin with which you have to credit Poch with.

Make no mistake they were the better team,  they have better players and they were in the ascendency before the subs but we were well drilled, defended well and if not for a lack of composure could have got another goal or two. 

Anyone being critical of Poch based on today is nickpicking, he did well today.

Edited February 17, 20242 yr by Whats_The_Mata?

15 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

It's not an agenda. The subs were a big factor in why we couldn't get out at all in the last 20 minutes. Palmer stays on and it may have opened up a few more counter attacking chances, and seeing as we were doing it all game, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible to do it a few more times. Why would you put Nkunku on and give him nothing to feed off? He was just isolated when Palmer went off.

If this was a one off for Pochettino, nobody would say anything other than it was mistake but mistakes happen. This is a regular occurrence with Pochettino, there are many examples of his tactical subs making us a lot worse. We shouldn't ignore that because we played one of the best teams in the world.

And the flip side is maybe the reason why we only conceded one. It allowed for an additional player in the middle when the constant cut backs happened. 

17 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

It's not an agenda. The subs were a big factor in why we couldn't get out at all in the last 20 minutes. Palmer stays on and it may have opened up a few more counter attacking chances, and seeing as we were doing it all game, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible to do it a few more times. Why would you put Nkunku on and give him nothing to feed off? He was just isolated when Palmer went off.

If this was a one off for Pochettino, nobody would say anything other than it was mistake but mistakes happen. This is a regular occurrence with Pochettino, there are many examples of his tactical subs making us a lot worse. We shouldn't ignore that because we played one of the best teams in the world.

Palmer was dead. 

Nkunku only recognizable forward. 

No one trusts either Mudryk or Madueke to retain the ball against City’s press. Myself included. 

No midfield depth. Had to bring on f**king Casadei who was poor. 

 

 

Don’t think Poch did anything wrong. 

3 minutes ago, Whats_The_Mata? said:

I think that's fair, it also doesn't take away from how well we were set up to begin with which you have to credit Poch with.

Make no mistake they were the better team,  they have better players and they were in the ascendency before the subs but we were well drilled, defended well and if not for a lack of composure could have got another goal or two. 

Anyone being critical of Poch based on today is nickpicking, he did well today.

Wouldn't say we were the better team but we certainly did better than most expected. And we countered well until we ourselves took away that danger with the subs (which is why i'm frustrated) but a draw at Etihad is a good result in isolation of course so I suppose we should be happy with that.

This could have been 3 points and finally a victory over them. Put Poch decided to play for a clean sheet, away at Man City at min 60' or so?

Yes we had another counter-attack in the second half but the way the game was played there was no doubt that Man City was the better team that should have scored more goals, the plan was to not lose after having a 1:0 at half time and while we didn't lose and thus succeeded in that plan, I can't help to feel that Poch has shown here that he simply isn't made for great things.

5 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

This could have been 3 points and finally a victory over them. Put Poch decided to play for a clean sheet, away at Man City at min 60' or so?

Yes we had another counter-attack in the second half but the way the game was played there was no doubt that Man City was the better team that should have scored more goals, the plan was to not lose after having a 1:0 at half time and while we didn't lose and thus succeeded in that plan, I can't help to feel that Poch has shown here that he simply isn't made for great things.

We would have lost that game and the narrative would have been Poch is tactically inept.

Dammed if he does dammed if he doesn’t!!!

3 minutes ago, El regreso said:

We would have lost that game and the narrative would have been Poch is tactically inept.

Dammed if he does dammed if he doesn’t!!!

It's not about the result itself but in the fact that he was purely defending a narrow lead for the entirety of the second half and from min 70 even with Chalobah in play, there is essentially no difference from this to Conte refusing to do anything other than defending because we were going to concede at some point by default. 

Did he really expect Man City not to score a goal at home? If it was a 0:0 at half time would the plan stay the same? If so, he is in fact tactically inept.

25 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

This could have been 3 points and finally a victory over them. Put Poch decided to play for a clean sheet, away at Man City at min 60' or so?

Yes we had another counter-attack in the second half but the way the game was played there was no doubt that Man City was the better team that should have scored more goals, the plan was to not lose after having a 1:0 at half time and while we didn't lose and thus succeeded in that plan, I can't help to feel that Poch has shown here that he simply isn't made for great things.

Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree with your last sentence, what else could Poch have done here? Palmer and Sterling were knackered bombing up and down the flanks. Would you seriously trust either Mudryk or Madueke to retain the ball as good as either of them? 

24 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree with your last sentence, what else could Poch have done here? Palmer and Sterling were knackered bombing up and down the flanks. Would you seriously trust either Mudryk or Madueke to retain the ball as good as either of them? 

Having a real plan with e.g. Mudryk would have given us probably 10 minutes less worries as his threat of pace would be there, Man City would have considered to have at least a bit more caution with their play and maybe they wouldn't just put in crosses as often. 

I understand that we also must think ahead towards our Cup final but Poch could have started with Mudryk replacing Sterling which could have brought us some more energy and attacking threat other than the threat of finishing with Sterling, since Mudryk actually wants to run with the ball.

So instead of putting Nkunku solo up front, you would still have for a few minutes Mudryk and Jackson that in the past have managed to create something together and then Poch could have the first less attacking sub on paper with Casadei replacing Palmer.

The last sub of the three would have been Nkunku for Jackson then since Nkunku wouldn't have provided a lot of effort without the ball if he had been given more minutes since he's obviously afraid of not getting injured again.

Chalobah literally just played his first 20 minutes of the season and you're talking about not trusting Mudryk to try and run with the ball and win us some minutes on the opposition half, that's way more likely to happen than Chalobah saving us from conceding a goal...

 

Edited February 17, 20242 yr by Gol15

1 hour ago, Gol15 said:

Having a real plan with e.g. Mudryk would have given us probably 10 minutes less worries as his threat of pace would be there, Man City would have considered to have at least a bit more caution with their play and maybe they wouldn't just put in crosses as often. 

I understand that we also must think ahead towards our Cup final but Poch could have started with Mudryk replacing Sterling which could have brought us some more energy and attacking threat other than the threat of finishing with Sterling, since Mudryk actually wants to run with the ball.

So instead of putting Nkunku solo up front, you would still have for a few minutes Mudryk and Jackson that in the past have managed to create something together and then Poch could have the first less attacking sub on paper with Casadei replacing Palmer.

The last sub of the three would have been Nkunku for Jackson then since Nkunku wouldn't have provided a lot of effort without the ball if he had been given more minutes since he's obviously afraid of not getting injured again.

Chalobah literally just played his first 20 minutes of the season and you're talking about not trusting Mudryk to try and run with the ball and win us some minutes on the opposition half, that's way more likely to happen than Chalobah saving us from conceding a goal...

 

This is not football manger.

26 minutes ago, El regreso said:

This is not football manger.

What do you mean exactly by this comment?

3 hours ago, OriginalS said:

A draw may have been a good result in isolation (it is) but it didn't really do us any favours in our chase for Europe.

Perhaps I am being a bit unfair but the managers subs did cost us today. Nkunku should not have been at the pitch at all and he changed something that was working in favour of something that never was going to work and that boggles the mind.

So what should poch do? 

Mudryk should be perfect. Then you remember the guy will try to invite tripe team and try to dribble through them in your own half. 

53 minutes ago, Zeta said:

What do you mean exactly by this comment?

Meaning that could work in football manager but to believe all that would work in a top level premier league match is fantasy.

Especially a side as ruthless as city, even at the top of our game in the CL final we didn’t go toe to toe with them, so why in havens would that work at their ground. 
The pragmatic approach was to correct one to not get battered. 

3 minutes ago, El regreso said:

Meaning that could work in football manager but to believe all that would work in a top level premier league match is fantasy.

Especially a side as ruthless as city, even at the top of our game in the CL final we didn’t go toe to toe with them, so why in havens would that work at their ground. 
The pragmatic approach was to correct one to not get battered. 

I don't see anything fantastical about what he suggested. Just a different choice of players. How is that Football Manager to suggest?

1 hour ago, El regreso said:

This is not football manger.

Which part, the subs or the part where Mudryk could run with the ball and relieve some pressure?

Maybe for me the more unrealistic idea was what actually happened, in all honesty putting Chalobah on for the first time this season, at the Etihad in order to not concede a goal (which in turn surrenders any notion of even attempting to contest possession) looked like a bad FM move to me.