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

[Scaring Europe to Death]

Are City games boring?
Well yes occasionally, but usually when teams like Wolves and Crystal Palace are taking an eternity to take every goal kick, and never when the opposition are actually trying to win.

However, the fact remains that Pep was part of a long term plan, with the foundations already in place before he arrived.

That's the most important point, because despite all the mythical accusations of unlimited spending resources on the biggest squad in the Premier League, (probably nearer to the truth in the Hughes/Mancini era) City don't currently suffer from any unloved, unwanted, peripheral squad players such as Martial, Lingard, Van de Beek, or Mata. That's why somebody like Zinchenko, (who only cost £1,7m and probably wouldn't get into United's team) always seems full of energy and enthusiasm.

Rodri was the long term replacement for Fernandinho, and Dias was the long term replacement for Kompany. Eventually, a replacement will be found for Aguero and Torres, but somewhere along the line it will all go wrong and then another club will dominate.

That's the unwritten Karma of football as nothing last forever.

 

[Spaghetti]

Bring in a 45 second shot clock. Problem solved.

I’ve been half-jokingly suggesting this since Pep introduced footbore at FCB.

 

[Spaghetti]

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.

Fair enough. I get what you mean about the opposition, but when they’re passing it and flicking it at the back amongst themselves whilst 2 up at home against Elche, it’s not very interesting for a neutral. One team keeping the ball is not my favourite to watch.

Both teams (Pep’s Barça and City) were/are excellent and successful teams, but not fun to watch imo. If I see “City v Watford” as the live game, I’m not excited.

 

[Siorac]

If Pep managed United, we would be loving it.

This is the only honest answer. Who doesn't want to see their own team utterly dominate opponents into submission?

 

[Himannv]

I found Barca to be incredibly boring to watch for most part despite their obvious dominance of world football at the time. I can't say the same for City though - they're a different team and have a slightly different approach to the game that makes them both efficient and attractive to watch.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

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.

So following your logic we can only have one thread in the whole forum. Only if we slate United and fester negativity.

I wish posters like you would get back in your box, or more accurately back into one of the many other threads to criticise United. It is idiocy, you could make your claim in any thread on the forum after a bad United performance.

Bloody knee jerkers.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

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.

Maybe a minority, yes.

But dominating possession followed up by tactical fouls, although effective, is not entertaining when compared with the likes of Klopp at Liverpool.

 

[sangria]

That's the most important point, because despite all the mythical accusations of unlimited spending resources

Unlimited spending resources isn't really a mythical accusation when you're evading FFP by sponsoring yourself.

" Manchester City welcomes Emirates Palace as Official Luxury Hotel Partner "

Emirates Palace
Owner: The government of Abu Dhabi

 

[Fluctuation0161]

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.

This is why its not how much you spend over a given period, necessarily, it's how quickly you can spend it relative to your competition. See Chelsea when Roman first arrived as the best comparison. They massively outspent their rivals over a three year period and then were able to settle into a more measure approach once they had the majority of their squad in-place.

My concern is, City will relentlessly farm 90+ points every season without the variance that usually applies to football teams, and the rest will find it impossible to keep up

This is also a valid point more relevant to City than Barcelona under Pep.

The artificial nature of signing 2 starting 11's to cover any injuries with world class players in backup also makes the competition boring.

It's like watching cycling with Lance Armstrong, you know he's doped up, so it's not fair and entertaining competition.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

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.

It's about scale of spending. City have infinite money available at any time, they don't have a spending cap in each window. Total spending over a long period may be the same, but City have broken spending records in single transfer windows, so problems are fixed instantly. If the new signings fail, instant fix again. No waiting.

 

[sangria]

It's about scale of spending. City have infinite money available at any time, they don't have a spending cap in each window. Total spending over a long period may be the same, but City have broken spending records in single transfer windows, so problems are fixed instantly. If the new signings fail, instant fix again. No waiting.

See the City sponsorship with Emirates Palace, who are owned by the City owners. Even on Bluemoon they recognise this as dodgy, and a test of the FFP rules. Like they say, if it's allowed, it's open season. If it's not allowed, it's legal season. That's the decisive advantage City have over everyone else. Unlimited money, including enough cash to outlast any authorities in legal battles.

 

[Lentwood]

It's about scale of spending. City have infinite money available at any time, they don't have a spending cap in each window. Total spending over a long period may be the same, but City have broken spending records in single transfer windows, so problems are fixed instantly. If the new signings fail, instant fix again. No waiting.

This is the part many, many people overlook. In business, they call it 'being agile' or 'being able to fail fast'. How quickly can you change your business model to react to market conditions? How quickly can you scrap bad ideas and move on?

At United, we fail exceptionally slowly and we find it hard to move on from mistakes. Perfect example - a signing like AWB. Not a 'bad' player, but never a top-level attacking full back. The £50m outlay wouldn't have bothered City one bit. Write that off, stick him in the reserves and then wait for him either to develop as a player or for someone to buy him at some (unhurried) point in the future. In the meantime, just sign someone else, if that doesn't work, rinse repeat until it does....and they can do that for several positions at once in any given season if necessary.

We are stuck buying one or two players a season because we have budgets and we are accountable to shareholders. Sure, we can pay top dollar for those one or two, but that's your lot....and they HAVE to work out, or we're stuck

 

[sangria]

This is the part many, many people overlook. In business, they call it 'being agile' or 'being able to fail fast'. How quickly can you change your business model to react to market conditions? How quickly can you scrap bad ideas and move on?

At United, we fail exceptionally slowly and we find it hard to move on from mistakes. Perfect example - a signing like AWB. Not a 'bad' player, but never a top-level attacking full back. The £50m outlay wouldn't have bothered City one bit. Write that off, stick him in the reserves and then wait for him either to develop as a player or for someone to buy him at some (unhurried) point in the future. In the meantime, just sign someone else, if that doesn't work, rinse repeat until it does....and they can do that for several positions at once in any given season if necessary.

We are stuck buying one or two players a season because we have budgets and we are accountable to shareholders. Sure, we can pay top dollar for those one or two, but that's your lot....and they HAVE to work out, or we're stuck

See the case of their left back, who cost more than AWB, yet whose absence from their squad list is worth more (as an illustration of their supposedly small squad) than the money they'd paid for him. Any other club would find it a crippling burden. City shrugs it off as nothing, and just channel more money from their owners via another of their accounts to fix this problem.

 

[Thunderhead]

This is the part many, many people overlook. In business, they call it 'being agile' or 'being able to fail fast'. How quickly can you change your business model to react to market conditions? How quickly can you scrap bad ideas and move on?

At United, we fail exceptionally slowly and we find it hard to move on from mistakes. Perfect example - a signing like AWB. Not a 'bad' player, but never a top-level attacking full back. The £50m outlay wouldn't have bothered City one bit. Write that off, stick him in the reserves and then wait for him either to develop as a player or for someone to buy him at some (unhurried) point in the future. In the meantime, just sign someone else, if that doesn't work, rinse repeat until it does....and they can do that for several positions at once in any given season if necessary.

We are stuck buying one or two players a season because we have budgets and we are accountable to shareholders. Sure, we can pay top dollar for those one or two, but that's your lot....and they HAVE to work out, or we're stuck

I think that was the case with Transfers for us in the early years, but since 14/15 where we signed Bony and Mangala, with the exception on Mendy I can't think we've dropped a clanger on any transfers since then whereas you've probably been done on VDB, AWB, Martial, Schniderlin, Depay and probably some others, Fred possibly

Yeah we could have moved some of them on but not all, I think the difference between us both at the moment is we have a clear way of playing, a footballing structure at director level who identify players and how they will fit in, United have flip flopped on managers who play different ways so get stuck with players they don't want, we're luck we've had 3 managers since 2009, no idea how many you've had since 2012 but it'll be at least 5 I'd have thought, that has a massive baring on your squad and how it's assembled.

 

[adexkola]

See the case of their left back, who cost more than AWB, yet whose absence from their squad list is worth more (as an illustration of their supposedly small squad) than the money they'd paid for him. Any other club would find it a crippling burden. City shrugs it off as nothing, and just channel more money from their owners via another of their accounts to fix this problem.

They fixed the Mendy problem by playing two midfielders (players treated as rubbish by many football fans) at LB for over 4 years

There's enough stuff out there to nail City with, rather than this making up stuff that other fans do a lot (the 2 first teams thing has to be a running gag at this point)

 

[Lentwood]

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.

As I explained elsewhere, United and Chelsea have plenty of money available over a given period, but they still have budgets they must adhere too.

City are able to 'fail fast' in that there are no consequences to them for making poor signings. Pep and City have been no better in the transfer market than any other club, and certainly far worse than a club like Liverpool, but they are able to move on from these mistakes instantly.

Case in point, when they were initially taken over by Abu Dhabi, and prior to FFP, they MASSIVELY outspent the average. Not just a little bit, we're talking spending £400m at a time when the average 'very good' player still went for about £30m. At this point, United actually had a positive net spend over a 5YR period because of the financial shackles enforced by the Glazer takeover. This squandered any advantage we had built up over the years, with respect to being able to make changes relatively quickly.

Even given this, when Pep took over, he finished 4th in his first season and proclaimed the current squad couldn't adapt to the demands of his system. So what did he do? Bought four fullbacks and two more CBs, plus a 2nd international GK in two seasons. Over a two year period, City spent over £400m, whilst making very little with regard sales.

United and Chelsea can spend, but both are still outspent (net and real terms) the majority of the time by City. It makes it incredibly hard to catch 'the perfect squad' when they are still outspending you every season!

It also puts huge pressure on the Chelsea and United management team(s) to get their signings right. Lukaku, for example, looks like being an expensive mistake for both teams. At least for United, this was maybe the one occasion in history we DID manage to 'fail fast', quickly making a decision and getting all of our money back. Even then, we spent it on Maguire, who for all his imperfections, we have to stick with because we can't just bin an £80m defender. Plus, that's the key in itself, we had to SELL a striker who started every week to BUY a CB, who we desperately needed at the time. City never, ever have this problem. Just go out and get whoever they want and sort the books out later once the dust settles.

Again, City spent £100m on a single player this season. Has that player been any good? Arguably not really, certainly not £100m worth. Has it affected them? Not one iota, because it doesn't matter, they are 'strengthening from a position of strength' which was always one of SAFs great mantras. It gives you the luxury of time and flexibility. Grealish will have plenty of time to find his feet under little pressure, and if he doesn't, it won't matter, they will sell at a loss and go again for big money on the next flavour of the month.

Honestly, I don't really understand how people can fail to see the difference. Chelsea (your club) and United (my club) both have imperfections in their squads. You are lumbered with a £100m forward who doesn't fit your system and two £120m German lads who have never really found their feet. Yet you have to try and work them in somewhere, you can't just go "sod it, stick them on loan and get three more in". Likewise, we are shackled with the likes of Fred, AWB, Pogba (previously) who have never really fit but are too expensive/difficult to replace.

All of this doesn't mean United or Chelsea can't ever compete, it just means our margin for error is miniscule, whilst City's is massive. Liverpool are the one, shining hope other clubs can cling to (can you believe I am saying that as a United fan), because they have competed on basically a budget of net zero, but they have been fantastically run and managed and it can't last for ever. Eventually Salah, Mane, Henderson, van Dijk etc...will peak and they will have to be replaced on a budget. Can they work miracles again and find superstars for £30m each? I suspect not. I suspect they will struggle to replace at least one or two, just because of natural variance in the success of new players, and that will be that, they too will drop well of the pace.

 

[Thunderhead]

See the case of their left back, who cost more than AWB, yet whose absence from their squad list is worth more (as an illustration of their supposedly small squad) than the money they'd paid for him. Any other club would find it a crippling burden. City shrugs it off as nothing, and just channel more money from their owners via another of their accounts to fix this problem.

eh? since we signed Mendy 4 seasons ago even with his injury problems before his hopefully long sting in jail we haven't just gone and splurged on another left back to replace him, we've just used other players in the squad to fill that gap.

 

[Xaviboy]

I wish he was manager of Man Utd, be nice to watch us control games of football week in week out and have players/squad that looked coached.

Even when Peps teams are having a bad day, they never revert to other ways of playing football.

Plus his teams have took the piss and won Premier league titles/cups with his style of football and looks like they are doing it again this season.

Compared to the shite we have seen over last few years and continue to see I'd take Pep and his football in heartbeat.

 

[SirSean]

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?

This really gives me some Moneyball (the movie about how to win Baseball games based on data) vibes. The superiority can actually become boring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball <-. If anyone is unsure what it is about.

 

[Thunderhead]

Even given this, when Pep took over, he finished 4th in his first season and proclaimed the current squad couldn't adapt to the demands of his system. So what did he do? Bought four fullbacks and two more CBs, plus a 2nd international GK in two seasons. Over a two year period, City spent over £400m, without making very little with regard sales.

not disagreeing with much of what you posted, but of that £400m spent, how many of those signings failed or since then? 1 or possibly 2 at most wheras you've had Kepa, Morata, Drinkwater, Werner, possibly add in Pulisic, Havertz etc

I agree we have more flexibility than most to allow players to bed in and not fast fail but we've spent incredibly well whereas both Chelsea and United have spent pretty badly and that's the biggest difference.

 

[Lentwood]

not disagreeing with much of what you posted, but of that £400m spent, how many of those signings failed or since then? 1 or possibly 2 at most wheras you've had Kepa, Morata, Drinkwater, Werner, possibly add in Pulisic, Havertz etc

I agree we have more flexibility than most to allow players to bed in and not fast fail but we've spent incredibly well whereas both Chelsea and United have spent pretty badly and that's the biggest difference.

United have spent badly, there's no doubt about that, as have Chelsea. I would still argue City have made mistakes, even recently. £100m on Grealish would be under massive scrutiny now if it were any normal club. Does he even get into your best team at the moment? What's he got? Two goals, two assists in all competitions?

Last season you spent £40m on Ake. That's far more than the majority of 'poor' United signings you mentioned in your initial post, (some of which go back to 2016 - Depay, Schneiderlin and Martial). Has Ake been worth £40m? Not by the measure of any normal club, but for City were money isn't an issue, he probably has been worth £40m, just for the 5-10 games he plays each season.

 

[Thunderhead]

United have spent badly, there's no doubt about that, as have Chelsea. I would still argue City have made mistakes, even recently. £100m on Grealish would be under massive scrutiny now if it were any normal club. Does he even get into your best team at the moment? What's he got? Two goals, two assists in all competitions?

Last season you spent £40m on Ake. That's far more than the majority of 'poor' United signings you mentioned in your initial post, (some of which go back to 2016 - Depay, Schneiderlin and Martial). Has Ake been worth £40m? Not by the measure of any normal club, but for City were money isn't an issue, he probably has been worth £40m, just for the 5-10 games he plays each season.

Ake has been fine, summer before he signed Kompany retired then we lost Laporte so had hardy and fit or useful defenders, we sold Tosin, Otamendi, and let Mangla (bad buy) leave so needed another defender, he's was unfortunate with a hamstring injury last season that ruled him out for half the season and everyone thought Laporte was going in the summer so made sense to sign him then. But he's playing in plenty of matches and is versatile as he can play left back as well as CB which is what I think Guardiola likes, players with the ability to play more than 1 position.

Grealish has been fine, he's never going to be a £100m player and we definitely overpayed but I think he'll be fine, just like Bernardo, Cancelo, Rodri and other, it takes time to adjust to how Guardiola wants you to play, jury is out but he's been fine just not as dynamic as he was at Villa.

edit - our squad is also young now, when Guardiola came it was old, we hadn't signed a full back in 3 or 4 seasons before he came and Zaba, Sagna, Clichy were at the end of their playing career so it made sense to strength that position, but have a look though our signings since Guardiola came and there are very few duds, we swapped Danilo who was fine for Cancelo and cash who for 12 months look like he was a dud for most of that time. Really think this comes from stable management at the top, players who will need to be replaced in next few seasons are KDB, Walker, Gundo and Mahrez who are all now 30/31 everyone else is 28 or younger which is a great position of strength which means you can add 1 or 2 players each season and not need to take risks on 5 or 6 players in one window which is what we did at first.

 

[Lee565]

No not really as city are productive in front of goal, it's not like spain in recent years where they keep possession for the sake of keeping possession but are toothless in front of goal.

 

[adexkola]

United have spent badly, there's no doubt about that, as have Chelsea. I would still argue City have made mistakes, even recently. £100m on Grealish would be under massive scrutiny now if it were any normal club. Does he even get into your best team at the moment? What's he got? Two goals, two assists in all competitions?

Last season you spent £40m on Ake. That's far more than the majority of 'poor' United signings you mentioned in your initial post, (some of which go back to 2016 - Depay, Schneiderlin and Martial). Has Ake been worth £40m? Not by the measure of any normal club, but for City were money isn't an issue, he probably has been worth £40m, just for the 5-10 games he plays each season.

The scrutiny you speak of is the function of a rabid media's inability to see beyond a signing's first season. The same argument could have been made of any of City's signings that took an entire season to acclimate.

One can maybe call Ake overpriced, but the flop label doesn't apply to him, unless you were expecting him to displace Stones/Dias/Laporte. He's the 4th CB and he's performed adequately for that role.

 

[Lentwood]

The scrutiny you speak of is the function of a rabid media's inability to see beyond a signing's first season. The same argument could have been made of any of City's signings that took an entire season to acclimate.

One can maybe call Ake overpriced, but the flop label doesn't apply to him, unless you were expecting him to displace Stones/Dias/Laporte. He's the 4th CB and he's performed adequately for that role.

I agree with the first paragraph.

The second paragraph really perfectly encapsulates my point. I never called Grealish a flop, I never called Ake a flop. They are not 'flops', they are 'good' players, who as the City fan above puts it, have done 'fine'

Imagine the luxury of being able to sign two players for a combined £140m who you consider to be 'fine'.

 

[Thunderhead]

I agree with the first paragraph.

The second paragraph really perfectly encapsulates my point. I never called Grealish a flop, I never called Ake a flop. They are not 'flops', they are 'good' players, who as the City fan above puts it, have done 'fine'

Imagine the luxury of being able to sign two players for a combined £140m who you consider to be 'fine'.

but the luxury comes from having a squad of good players who can all play in the same system, in 12 months I may have upgraded Grealish to good as most other signings over last couple of seasons with the exception of Dias have also been fine then into 2 and 3 seasons they become great, ala Rodri, Cancelo, Bernardo etc who were just fine in the first season.

I wouldn't be surprised if Guardiola outlasts Tuchel then Chelsea will be into the same territory, new manager doesn't want half the players then buys a ton of new players in who the next manager doesn't want, I honestly believe if Guardiola left tomorrow the club would tell whoever comes in, they are you players make them work and we'll get you 1 or 2 players each window if required.

 

[abundance]

As I explained elsewhere, United and Chelsea have plenty of money available over a given period, but they still have budgets they must adhere too.

Doh, you keep explaining that like it makes some kind of sense, which it doesn't.

A transfer budget is a pretty straightforward concept: a column for what you spend buying players, a column for what you earn selling players, and a column for net.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Then if you want to talk about how City finances its transfer budget with bogus sponsorship deals which are against the spirit of the FFP rules, while Utd does it with real business earnings, well I couldn't agree more but that's a different issue altogether.

The issue we're discussing on the last few page is just that this...

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.

... is plainly bollocks.

Which I hope you can finally concede.

 

[Champ]

Fair enough. I get what you mean about the opposition, but when they’re passing it and flicking it at the back amongst themselves whilst 2 up at home against Elche, it’s not very interesting for a neutral. One team keeping the ball is not my favourite to watch.

Both teams (Pep’s Barça and City) were/are excellent and successful teams, but not fun to watch imo. If I see “City v Watford” as the live game, I’m not excited.

Yeah I get that side of things too, once a team is too dominant, it becomes a bit boring, i think that's probably why I preferred watching Peps Barca and don't enjoy City (also the fact I can't stand city may have an impact too!!), Barca played with a certain swagger, yet still had this insane ability to slow a game down with a few passes then speed it right back up around the edge of the box,
They were a joy to watch when they did that.

 

[horsechoker]

I think it's fine to find City boring as it's a subjective opinion, they've been very successful but people don't have to enjoy it and because they've been successful doesn't mean they're exciting.

 

[Waynne]

If winning consistently is boring then I'll have boring, thanks.

 

[Lentwood]

Doh, you keep explaining that like it makes some kind of sense, which it doesn't.

A transfer budget is a pretty straightforward concept: a column for what you spend buying players, a column for what you earn selling players, and a column for net.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Then if you want to talk about how City finances its transfer budget with bogus sponsorship deals which are against the spirit of the FFP rules, while Utd does it with real business earnings, well I couldn't agree more but that's a different issue altogether.

The issue we're discussing on the last few page is just that this...

... is plainly bollocks.

Which I hope you can finally concede.

Look at the three years after Pep joined. No "legitimate" club could ever net that over three seasons, so thank you for proving my point.

Which, remember, is about being able to fail fast and react quickly to failure

Imagine if Pep had had to stick with his first or even second set of signings and not just been able to bin them and go again.

Just adding up net is one thing (and even then City have spent £400m more than Utd since Abu Dhabi took over) but it doesnt take into account when and how the money was spent.

So hopefully you concede, City have huge artificial advantages which even the very richest "natural" clubs do not have.

 

[Pink Moon]

No. I think they usually play excellent, exciting football. The tactics the opposition employ to counter his teams is what makes the matches boring.

When they play against a top team who gives them as good as they get the matches are usually entertaining for neutrals.

 

[footballistic orgasm]

Maybe a minority, yes.

But dominating possession followed up by tactical fouls, although effective, is not entertaining when compared with the likes of Klopp at Liverpool.

But City create more goal occasions and score more goals than Liverpool generally, so what exactly makes City less entertaining if it's not the way the opposition teams play when they face them?
Or do you consider Liverpool more entertaining because they conceed more goal occasions?

 

[adexkola]

But City create more goal occasions and score more goals than Liverpool generally, so what exactly makes City less entertaining if it's not the way the opposition teams play when they face them?
Or do you consider Liverpool more entertaining because they conceed more goal occasions?

I'm going to quote this reply from another thread in response to your very pertinent question:

I'm struggling a bit with your post. Are you suggesting that City need to deliberately give the ball away more often in order to make the game more entertaining for the opposition fans? Are you also suggesting that a United side, that, as far as I am aware, has never scored as many PL goals as this City side, prioritised goal scoring in order to make games more entertaining for everyone?

I can't believe that in my 40 years of watching football in England I have overlooked this altruistic and seemingly fundamental part of the game. I trust Lee Cattermole is a transfer target because, my god, we need someone to lose possession more often than the likes of David Silva.

 

[mu4c_20le]

If winning consistently is boring then I'll have boring, thanks.

Support PSG?

 

[NICanRed]

Pep has found out how to play the "beautiful game" beautifully but is it entertaining? I don't think so. I would prefer to watch the Chelsea/Liverpool game from last weekend any time. Entertainment - for me - involves uncertainty, flashes of brilliance and yes even disappointment and if the result is in doubt up to the final whistle all the better.
I watched United beat Barcelona in a pre-season game in Washington where we won (2-1 Nani, Owen - Thiago) and the crowd was chanting "Boring, Boring Barca".
Admittedly Messi and Xavi were missing for them but Chicharito and Valencia were absent for the victors.
Winning supporters will never be bored and will believe they have been entertained. Losers and neutrals will think otherwise.

 

[Hammondo]

I find his team's the most entertaining to watch.

My dad won't watch them because it makes him depressed about United.

 

[abundance]

Look at the three years after Pep joined. No "legitimate" club could ever net that over three seasons, so thank you for proving my point.

Which, remember, is about being able to fail fast and react quickly to failure

Imagine if Pep had had to stick with his first or even second set of signings and not just been able to bin them and go again.

Just adding up net is one thing (and even then City have spent £400m more than Utd since Abu Dhabi took over) but it doesnt take into account when and how the money was spent.

So hopefully you concede, City have huge artificial advantages which even the very richest "natural" clubs do not have.

mmm k

Today I Learned that:

City spending 546m vs 346 over a period of three seasons, right after a period of four seasons where they spent 254 vs 340, and right before a period of four seasons where they spent 240 vs 380....

....actually means being able to outspend 4x your nearest rival any season at will.

 

[Solius]

I would definitely prefer to watch Liverpool over them. I do find City's games quite boring but usually because they're over within 20 minutes.

 

[WeePat]

I would definitely prefer to watch Liverpool over them. I do find City's games quite boring but usually because they're over within 20 minutes.

Could it have something to do with the repetitive patterns City play in. It's well drilled and well coached, it's extremely difficult to pull off with such ease but a lot of the time I can see the passing sequence before it happens and they always execute it to almost perfection. There's very little unpredictability about their game. It's clean. It's precise, but you've also seen it a thousand times because it's the same sequence of passing angles they've been performing over and over.