Do you find Man City (and other Pep teams) boring?

[ROFLUTION]

What is it about City that makes you [people] think they can just carry on and stay at this relentless level for the foreseeable future? It's very clear to me that the ultimate difference maker for them is Pep. Of course having bottomless pockets helps him immensely but City are hardly the only team in the league who can spend money.

What is Chelsea and United's excuse? Why aren't our clubs as consistent and relentless as City? Or even close to it? We've spent a bag full of millions too. Why can't we get close to them in the league? For me the difference is Pep. Once he leaves, they'll return to the levels they showed before him, which was still really good but Mancini and Pellegrini didn't have this league in a headlock the way Pep does.

They're backed to another extend than you, albeit you've spent much lately.

Also I think Pellegrini would have the league in a headlock. Only reason he didn't was mostly that he competed against Fergie. Pellegrini's City was more entertaining btw.

 

[abundance]

I wouldn't say their football is boring but the way they have reduced the variance of their performances to near zero by utilising their massive econonic advantages is boring because it makes the league so much less competitive.

Reading this of on a Man Utd forum, of all places, never ever ever gets old. XD

 

[Sandikan]

To think of this thread when we're struggling to create a decent chance against Wolves at home.

 

[The_Midfielder]

To think of this thread when we're struggling to create a decent chance against Wolves at home.

True

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I've seen a few people describe City as a boring team. The football is nice but it's predictable and unsurprising. Pundits have complained about how uncompetitive the title race is while I've listened to journalists admit they turn their matches off after the first goal.

Contrast that with how entertaining Liverpool v Chelsea was and it suggests that there's something specifically about City that's boring. Is this different to how people treated other title winners?

Yes, I've always found Peps style of play boring. It is effective though. Tactical fouls prevent counter attacks which add to the monotony.

Liverpool, Chelsea much better to watch.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

To think of this thread when we're struggling to create a decent chance against Wolves at home.

Yes, you cannot talk about anything else apart from moaning about United. FFS.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Anybody who says that and supports another team is jealous. Its just sour grapes. If he was managing Utd to all these winning games and trophies we would all be over the moon with it.

My dislike for Liverpool is greater but I can say their style of play is entertaining. Peps teams have always been boring to watch for the neutral.

 

[Sandikan]

Yes, you cannot talk about anything else apart from moaning about United. FFS.

Back in your box pal.
Just pointing out the ludicrous nature of a thread mocking great football, when true boring football is what we're dishing up today.

 

[DoneDaDa]

How can you compare Iron Mike to City? The man destroyed everybody in his prime in the first round or two with no need to be strategic or win a bout on points. United during the 90s or unfortunately the current Liverpool team are a much better analogy

He was strategically, I mean even City destroy teams, before kickoff or within the first 20-30 mins or half the game, however Tyson relied on 3 things:

1. He focused on trying to force mistakes from him opposition

Now this is one thing City do a lot of as well.

2. He'd work on creating openings

This is what City do in terms of creating chances / xG

3. He'd try getting into dominate angles to attack

Again you can liken this to City and their positional play / numerical superiority, they try to get players in 1 v 1 position or try to create a 2 v 1

 

[Lord SInister]

I can understand the Spain hate and some of the later Pep Barca teams, as they would literally play at times like they were trying to set records for passes completed and possession.

But I also think it comes from some fans just not enjoying the more detailed nuance of the game that the best Pep teams play with. If you prefer swashbuckling attackers looking to pull off improvised skills and creating stuff out of nothing, you’re not gonna find that with him. But the spacing, control, movement, quality of pass between the lines that his teams exhibit are exceptional. They pull and stretch teams against their will better than anyone else in the world. It just gets a bit robotic and formulated

I think the problem with Spain, Barcelona and other Pep teams was, they controlled the game for majority of the time and if the opposition team didn't tried to play football, it became extremely mundane as when they could not break down the buses, they used to resort of play acting. But the actual game play, IMO was always breathtaking. Especially Barcelona in peak with almost everyone in the team in the attacking phase was supremely composed on the ball, they knew how to dribble. And it wasn't like Barcelona used to pass the ball sideways just for the sake of possession. Barcelona post him under Villanova, Ti

If there was a team which exploited the negative advantage of tiki-taka, than it was 2012 Spain which was really negative for majority of the game, until Pedro/Torres used to come late on and provide some directness, 2010 team has a bad rep on that regard, they just didn't had anyone other than Villa banging them goals, but that team was really attacking.

Pep's team are boring in a sense that they dominate the game too much, that very few games where opposition has a chance. But the actual football, nah.

My dislike for Liverpool is greater but I can say their style of play is entertaining. Peps teams have always been boring to watch for the neutral.

I think their is a section of neutrals who enjoy free flowing controlled choas brilliance, find his team boring. Otherwise some of the passing, dribbling, flicks and goals City score, they are far from the so called boring.

 

[Lentwood]

Reading this of on a Man Utd forum, of all places, never ever ever gets old. XD

United have always had money, but we have also always had budgets. We aren't or have never been a state-owned club who can spend 4/5x what our nearest rivals can spend in one window.

 

[abundance]

United have always had money, but we have also always had budgets. We aren't or have never been a state-owned club who can spend 4/5x what our nearest rivals can spend in one window.

Utd total transfer budget in the last ten years is something like 10% less than City.
That's why it never gets old.

 

[Lentwood]

Utd total transfer budget in the last ten years is something like 10% less than City.
That's why it never gets old.

Well then you missed my point. It's about how quickly you can spend it so you can fix multiple positions at once and move on from your failures quickly.

Plus, nobody is arguing about United - we have been horribly run. We could have spent £2BN and I'm not sure we would have won anything. I'm not saying "it worries me United can't compete", I worry that nobody will be able to compete and we will see the league become like France or Germany

 

[Mark Wuhlberg]

they could go for 9-0 if they want instead they kill the game early in 2nd half

We could've gone for that if it wasn't for De Gea.

 

[DoneDaDa]

They're backed to another extend than you, albeit you've spent much lately.

Also I think Pellegrini would have the league in a headlock. Only reason he didn't was mostly that he competed against Fergie. Pellegrini's City was more entertaining btw.

Incorrect, Fergie retired the summer Pellegrini came in. He was up against Moyes United. Pellegrini was in one of the worst PL era where even Leicester won the league, if he couldn't dominate then he wasn't going to dominate against Conte, Klopp or Tuchel

 

[Tyrion]

Back in your box pal.
Just pointing out the ludicrous nature of a thread mocking great football, when true boring football is what we're dishing up today.

We aren't dishing up anything. The team we support is.

Nothing we say becomes more or less true depending on how well our team is playing.

 

[Mark Wuhlberg]

I wouldn't say their football is boring but the way they have reduced the variance of their performances to near zero by utilising their massive econonic advantages is boring because it makes the league so much less competitive.

Even the very best squads in football history were assembled with imperfections, due to the nature of them being built organically.

What City have is 23 clones. A player gets injured, suspended or leaves and they role another ready-made clone in. There's no drop-off in performances you would usually associate with having a fixture pile-up, having players missing or having to phase players out.

I keep seeing this argument here and it's completely false. First, this was posted on reddit a few days ago and I found it for you, have a careful look:



You can verify squads, matchday squads and bench players from transfermarkt:

https://www.transfermarkt.com/manchester-city/spielplan/verein/281
https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-chelsea/spielplan/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.com/manchester-united/spielplan/verein/985
https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-liverpool/spielplan/verein/31

Especially Manchester United and Chelsea in the past few years spent as much as City have while some of our past expensive purchases like Aguero, Silva, Toure have left the team, along with their wages.

We don't have 23 clones of the same quality, as the above picture proves (and you can look up transfermarkt squads), we actually have 17 first team quality players which include players like Zinchenko who wouldn't play for United.

This was your bench tonight vs Wolves:

26	Dean Henderson	GK
27	Alex Telles	LB
20	Diogo Dalot	RB
34	Donny van de Beek	CM
17	Fred	CM
14	Jesse Lingard	AM
18	Bruno Fernandes	AM
36	Anthony Elanga	LW
10	Marcus Rashford

You have Fred, Alex Telles, Bruno Fernandes, Rashford.

This was our bench vs Arsenal the other day:

13	Zack Steffen	GK
79	Luke Mbete	CB
2	Kyle Walker	RB
25	Fernandinho	DM
8	Ilkay Gündogan	CM
87	James McAtee	AM
80	Cole Palmer	AM
10	Jack Grealish	LW
37	Kayky

Kyle Walker just returned from a recent Covid isolation, Fernandinho is 36 years old.

Here, let's take a look at another game:

United bench vs Newcastle:

26	Dean Henderson	GK
4	Phil Jones	CB
23	Luke Shaw	LB
29	Aaron Wan-Bissaka	RB
31	Nemanja Matic	DM
34	Donny van de Beek	CM
25	Jadon Sancho	LW
36	Anthony Elanga	LW
21	Edinson Cavani	CF

You have 75m Sancho, 45m AWB, Shaw, Matic and Cavani while you have Ronaldo on the pitch, we play with no striker.

Here's our bench on the same matchday vs Leicester City:

33	Scott Carson	GK
13	Zack Steffen	GK
6	Nathan Aké	CB
79	Luke Mbete	CB
47	Phil Foden	CM
80	Cole Palmer	AM
10	Jack Grealish	LW
37	Kayky	RW
9	Gabriel Jesus	CF

Sure we have world class players but so do you and others, we play with Zinchenko on the left back, you choose from Alex Telles and Shaw, we play with Jesus and Gundogan up front, you bring on Cavani. You can also look up matchday shardly 23 clones of unmatchable quality thanks to finances, is there?

We have quality but the real success is in the coaching and team cohesion.

 

[Lentwood]

I keep seeing this argument here and it's completely false. First, this was posted on reddit a few days ago and I found it for you, have a careful look:



You can verify squads, matchday squads and bench players from transfermarkt:

https://www.transfermarkt.com/manchester-city/spielplan/verein/281
https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-chelsea/spielplan/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.com/manchester-united/spielplan/verein/985
https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-liverpool/spielplan/verein/31

Especially Manchester United and Chelsea in the past few years spent as much as City have while some of our past expensive purchases like Aguero, Silva, Toure have left the team, along with their wages.

We don't have 23 clones of the same quality, as the above picture proves (and you can look up transfermarkt squads), we actually have 17 first team quality players which include players like Zinchenko who wouldn't play for United.

This was your bench tonight vs Wolves:

26	Dean Henderson	GK
27	Alex Telles	LB
20	Diogo Dalot	RB
34	Donny van de Beek	CM
17	Fred	CM
14	Jesse Lingard	AM
18	Bruno Fernandes	AM
36	Anthony Elanga	LW
10	Marcus Rashford

You have Fred, Alex Telles, Bruno Fernandes, Rashford.

This was our bench vs Arsenal the other day:

13	Zack Steffen	GK
79	Luke Mbete	CB
2	Kyle Walker	RB
25	Fernandinho	DM
8	Ilkay Gündogan	CM
87	James McAtee	AM
80	Cole Palmer	AM
10	Jack Grealish	LW
37	Kayky

Kyle Walker just returned from a recent Covid isolation, Fernandinho is 36 years old.

Here, let's take a look at another game:

United bench vs Newcastle:

26	Dean Henderson	GK
4	Phil Jones	CB
23	Luke Shaw	LB
29	Aaron Wan-Bissaka	RB
31	Nemanja Matic	DM
34	Donny van de Beek	CM
25	Jadon Sancho	LW
36	Anthony Elanga	LW
21	Edinson Cavani	CF

You have 75m Sancho, 45m AWB, Shaw, Matic and Cavani while you have Ronaldo on the pitch, we play with no striker.

Here's our bench on the same matchday vs Leicester City:

33	Scott Carson	GK
13	Zack Steffen	GK
6	Nathan Aké	CB
79	Luke Mbete	CB
47	Phil Foden	CM
80	Cole Palmer	AM
10	Jack Grealish	LW
37	Kayky	RW
9	Gabriel Jesus	CF

Sure we have world class players but so do you and others, we play with Zinchenko on the left back, you choose from Alex Telles and Shaw, we play with Jesus and Gundogan up front, you bring on Cavani. You can also look up matchday shardly 23 clones of unmatchable quality thanks to finances, is there?

We have quality but the real success is in the coaching and team cohesion.

I honestly don't understand what point you are trying to make? What has posting the squads and benches got to do with anything? What haa Kyle Walker having COVID got to do with anything? You mention "36yo Fernandinho" as if the age of a now bit-part player is a negative, whilst failing to note United's two starting CFs are that age. Honestly, it's just an incoherent rant.

City have had econonic advantages over and above what any team in history has had ever, arguably in any league. I don't see how that can be disputed. As rich as some clubs have been, they have always had budgets. City had no budget. They had no books to balance. They had no shareholders to satisfy or loans to repay. There current success is solely attributable to this.

 

[::sonny::]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Stookie]

I don’t watch them or any other teams to be honest. I used to watch every football match going but my love for football is threadbare to say the least.

 

[Hester_manc]

It is understandable to hate City, everybody does. But they have scored 53 goals in 21 games. That is not a sign of boring football.

 

[Kentonio]

Footballs only fun if it's competitive (unless you're one of those football purist people who used to wank yourself silly over Peps Barca or Spain NT getting 97% possession and stringing together 3000 consecutive passes). With City now, the league is feeling less and less interesting.

Look at Chelsea and Liverpool this season. Neck and neck, both getting hit by tiredness and injuries, AFCON about to bite, and both relying on some great players they simply couldn't replace if the wrong injury or collapse in form happened. Meanwhile City just churn along, every player replaceable by someone basically equal on their bench. De Bruyne, their best player is injured? No worries, just switch in another £50-100m guy and keep the winning streak going.

Can anyone seriously argue that the league is more fun with them in it? Other than City fans?

 

[trims]

Footballs only fun if it's competitive (unless you're one of those football purist people who used to wank yourself silly over Peps Barca or Spain NT getting 97% possession and stringing together 3000 consecutive passes). With City now, the league is feeling less and less interesting.

Look at Chelsea and Liverpool this season. Neck and neck, both getting hit by tiredness and injuries, AFCON about to bite, and both relying on some great players they simply couldn't replace if the wrong injury or collapse in form happened. Meanwhile City just churn along, every player replaceable by someone basically equal on their bench. De Bruyne, their best player is injured? No worries, just switch in another £50-100m guy and keep the winning streak going.

Can anyone seriously argue that the league is more fun with them in it? Other than City fans?

Sorry but had to chuckle at the fact that a Chelsea fan is moaning about another team spending extortionate amounts of money to dominate the league.

 

[DoneDaDa]

Sorry but had to chuckle at the fact that a Chelsea fan is moaning about another team spending extortionate amounts of money to dominate the league.

I remember the game against Brighton and someone post on twitter, how their starting 11 cost between 300-400m and another 250m on the bench and another 100m out injured and this man complaining

 

[Winrar]

Pep's Barca side were completely ruthless to the degree that many teams gave up before the ball was even kicked and their midfield, especially prime Xavi and Iniesta, completely sucked out any intensity out of most games because they were so effective at passing the ball and ruthlessly pressuring the opponent to give up possession in the 20-30% of the time they had it.

Pep's City are not quite at this level and won't be simply because his Barca team was full of such generational talents, but it sure feels like this is the closest it's going to get.

 

[Kentonio]

Sorry but had to chuckle at the fact that a Chelsea fan is moaning about another team spending extortionate amounts of money to dominate the league.

Remind me of when exactly we dominated the league?

 

[Karel Podolsky]

To think of this thread when we're struggling to create a decent chance against Wolves at home.

I was thinking the same.

I don't find Pep's teams boring, just not the most entertaining either.

I actually blame their opponents more.

 

[adexkola]

Remind me of when exactly we dominated the league?

04-06?

Under Conte?

 

[RedCurry]

I hate his teams. Mainly because they are almost always the best football teams of their times at some point.

 

[kouroux]

They play football the way it should be. It hurts to admit it but they're an amazing team to watch.

 

[trims]

Remind me of when exactly we dominated the league?

2004-06.

In 04-05 you lost only once and achieved the highest points tally in the premier league which was only broken recently by Man City and Liverpool.
In 05-06 you started the league with 9 wins in a row and the first 6 games of those you didn't concede any goals. You were already >10 points ahead of any other team only 9 games into the season. By around the same stage of the season as we are now (Jan) you were 11 points ahead of the closest challengers.

 

[Spaghetti]

Peps Barca were never boring.

Peps City are boring however. They often rely on moments of brilliance to bail them out, yet they often spend moments grinding through games not really pressuring the opposition.

Coupled with the complete imbalance of their squad with everyone else's means it's just not a level playing field, which in itself means it's boring.

Out of interest, how often did you watch Pep’s Barça side? In el clásico matches and late on in the UCL yeah it was entertaining, but in the run of the mill league matches, it was a chore to watch.

The same as with Liverpool, they can overcommit when in possession because as soon as they lose the ball, they foul the opposition and regroup their machine.

 

[AndySmith1990]

Christ. If we dominated teams like they did I guarantee not a single United fan would utter the word boring in the match thread.

 

[Kentonio]

2004-06.

In 04-05 you lost only once and achieved the highest points tally in the premier league which was only broken recently by Man City and Liverpool.
In 05-06 you started the league with 9 wins in a row and the first 6 games of those you didn't concede any goals. You were already >10 points ahead of any other team only 9 games into the season. By around the same stage of the season as we are now (Jan) you were 11 points ahead of the closest challengers.

We were magnificent at the time, but we never dominated in the way this City team have been. We won 2 titles back to back and then didn't win again for another 4 years. United won 3 in a row in between.

My point being that despite other teams having good seasons sometimes, it's pretty much always been competitive (since the equal tedium of United domination in the past), and if teams looked untouchable one year, it rarely lasted into future seasons.

 

[Champ]

Out of interest, how often did you watch Pep’s Barça side? In el clásico matches and late on in the UCL yeah it was entertaining, but in the run of the mill league matches, it was a chore to watch.

The same as with Liverpool, they can overcommit when in possession because as soon as they lose the ball, they foul the opposition and regroup their machine.

I watched them whenever they were on TV, I thought they were superb to a man.

Tactical, thoughtful, controlled and skillful. Near enough the perfect team in my (and many managers/journalists) opinion.

Sometimes the games are a chore to watch because of the opposition, we see it often when the opposition try to nullify the game. That doesn't take anything away from the team though.

I don't see the same with Peps City however, they are more robust and more of a steamroller with less precision about them. They seem to look to get forward quicker than the Barca of old.

 

[deef]

High possession teams are always boring to watch IMO (if you are not a supporter of the team). I hated van Gaals approach too (i know we didn't create nearly as much chances but sill)...

Sure you could say the opposing team makes it boring by sitting deep in their own half but why would they willingly give them space and get punished for it. City has spend a lot of money for very good/world class players and coaches.

I almost wish there was a limitation of allowed back passes during an possession phase so the team have to find quicker solutions to score a goal (I know it would be a stupid rule but i it always comes to my mind when i watch City or similar teams)...

 

[WeePat]

High possession teams are always boring to watch IMO (if you are not a supporter of the team). I hated van Gaals approach too (i know we didn't create nearly as much chances but sill)...

Sure you could say the opposing team makes it boring by sitting deep in their own half but why would they willingly give them space and get punished for it. City has spend a lot of money for very good/world class players and coaches.

I almost wish there was a limitation of allowed back passes during an possession phase so the team have to find quicker solutions to score a goal (I know it would be a stupid rule but i it always comes to my mind when i watch City or similar teams)...

Bring in a 45 second shot clock. Problem solved.

 

[deef]

Bring in a 45 second shot clock. Problem solved.

Great idea

We could also divide the pitch in 3 sections and adapt the offside rule

 

[NasirTimothy]

Reading this of on a Man Utd forum, of all places, never ever ever gets old. XD

The delusion is real. I keep pointing out that aside from City, no club in EUROPE has spent more money than Manchester United in the last 10 transfer windows. Yes, City spend a lot. But guess what? So do Man United. And they don’t exactly get the same results. So what’s the difference?

 

[NasirTimothy]

I've seen a few people describe City as a boring team. The football is nice but it's predictable and unsurprising. Pundits have complained about how uncompetitive the title race is while I've listened to journalists admit they turn their matches off after the first goal.

Contrast that with how entertaining Liverpool v Chelsea was and it suggests that there's something specifically about City that's boring. Is this different to how people treated other title winners?

No. Seen this side live a bunch of times and have always been impressed by the skill they display. And for people to call Pep’s Barca boring?! The mind boggles.