[justsomebloke]

100%… winnable game. Don’t understand all the defeatism. If City played better, I’d get it but they didn’t and if we showed more desire, we would have rattled them massively and at the very least tired them out for their champs league final. ETH shares blame though.. clearly preached too much patience and caution. Don’t think he got the whole thing about stopping them from taking our treble crown. Team didn’t look nearly as motivated as home game against them nor home game against Pool. Tiredness a factor but it’s last game before a rest.

That's absurd. Why do you think City didn't play better? Do you think it had something to do with how United packed the central midfield and worked their socks off to a large extent man-marking Rodri and de Bruyne out of the game? Or do you think maybe their failure to get to many clear finishing chances in and around the box had something to do with how our back 4 performed? They looked pretty motivated to me.

 

[Rood]

Agreed. City looked, all things considered, the stronger team but it was tight, and could have gone either way. We had clearly set up to shut them down, and to a large extent we did. The back 4 had a really good game, Varane especially. They didn't really create any big chances. Even their two goals weren't really that - I don't want to take anything away from Gündogan for his two marvellous finishes, but put him in those situations ten times, how many of them does he score on? We at least gave ourselves the chance of a result with how we played.

For most of the game we didn't have much of an attacking presence though. You could argue with the selection - Sancho, Eriksen and Bruno in the forward line behind Rashford seems odd, in a game where we could not expect to have much sustained possession or spend much time in established attacking posture. But I think much of the explanation for that is the defensive needs which obviously had priority. Eriksen had the job of man-marking Rodri, which is presumably why he played as 10 (and which he did pretty well, I think). I suppose ETH figured it was a better use of Bruno to leave him in a freer position, out on the right, instead of saddling him with primary defensive responsibilities in the midfield. Which makes sense, but what I struggle with is the selection of Sancho, a player whose contribution is almost wholly in and around the oppo box, rather than in transition. Why not Garnacho?

Generally Garnacho is better coming in from the bench and he did well as the impact sub yet again, going close to the equaliser which I think we deserved

The only sub I would question is Weghorst as he's virtually useless - I'd have thrown in Pellistri at that point

Sancho is not delivering anywhere near enough but he does tend to be good at retaining the ball which is important Vs City.
The stats back this up as he had a better PA% than either Eriksen or Bruno in this match.

BTW Gundogan got 2 goals from 0.05xG which is crazy

 

[padzilla]

We lost a tight game because our goalkeeper wasn't good enough, yet again he cost us.

 

[justsomebloke]

Generally Garnacho is better coming in from the bench and he did well as the impact sub yet again, going close to the equaliser which I think we deserved

The only sub I would question is Weghorst as he's virtually useless - I'd have thrown in Pellistri at that point

Sancho is not delivering anywhere near enough but he does tend to be good at retaining the ball which is important Vs City.
The stats back this up as he had a better PA% than either Eriksen or Bruno in this match.

BTW Gundogan got 2 goals from 0.05xG which is crazy

Yes, impact sub is clearly the default option with Garnacho in a big game against a strong opponent, and I assume that was a big part in the decision not to start him. I think Sancho actually offers quite a bit to our attacking game, but almost all of it is the sort of things that matter only when you're established in the offensive areas. Which, predictably and in fact, was almost never.

Given the kind of game we had to expect given the opponent and our own game plan, that cried out for the sort of direct threat Garnacho is. It may be that it was nevertheless the right choice, but it certainly can be questioned.

 

[NZT-One]

Weghorst? Really? As someone else wrote there would have been a riot, and rightly so. The bigger question is why not Garnacho instead of Sancho, given that we were obviously going to rely on transitions for our offence.

I don't think Eriksen had as bad a game as most here seem to think. It looked to me like his primary job was to man-mark Rodri out of the game, which he did fairly well. Obviously this limited his offensive contributions.

I've seen two or three tactical game analysis and nowhere something was said about man-marking Rodri. The front four tried to block the central area to force City going out of there, issue was that it left room for Citys "fullbacks" plus, it created problems whenever Haaland fell back and joined the builtup. Thankfull, that isn't his strong suit and at the end of the day, those tactical things didn't really matter because City scored early in both halves completely disconnected from tactical topics.

I think, this game showed Eriksens limitation because even though he was busy, he didn't really influence the game. Citys players were faster, stronger and more decisive than him and made him a bit of a non factor. He still was good whenever he had the ball but in games like yesterday, that isn't the case very often.

We lost a tight game because our goalkeeper wasn't good enough, yet again he cost us.

Interesting, I've seen a few people talking about a tight game, I didn't really feel it was. Seemed like City had a fairly comfortable afternoon with freak goals in both halves settling their nerves and enabling them to stay in 2nd gear without the need of going for more risk. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we played badly but it felt like they brought us close to our limits while we didn't really challenge them. Granted, they didn't reallly create much but neither did we. Half of our xG probably stems from the penalty which, if given against us, we'd probably be fuming about.

But I guess, thats different perspectives, I'd argue if we played the same match just with keepers switched we'll lose it as well. Maybe in a bit more chaotic game but lets not act as if City doesn't have players that can play in chaos as well.

 

[Gycraig]

Game was always one sided, we didn't have a chance in hell. City even rested KDB and still we had no chance. They didn't need to even get out of second gear FFS. ETH thinking this season is a success is delusion. We just fecking lucky that Liverpool, Chelsea and even Spurs had off seasons. Needing a penalty to get back in the game but doing feck all after that... Fastest goal in fa cup history FFS.

Wtf are we going to do in champions league playing like that???

We got enough points to come top 4 in the vast vast majority of seasons it has nothing to do with Liverpool spurs and Chelsea having an off season.

Barely any pundits had us finishing top 4 this season so a trophy and finishing 3rd is definitely “success” however you want to judge it.

 

[justsomebloke]

I've seen two or three tactical game analysis and nowhere something was said about man-marking Rodri. The front four tried to block the central area to force City going out of there, issue was that it left room for Citys "fullbacks" plus, it created problems whenever Haaland fell back and joined the builtup. Thankfull, that isn't his strong suit and at the end of the day, those tactical things didn't really matter because City scored early in both halves completely disconnected from tactical topics.

The commentators on Norwegian TV picked up on it - Eriksen on Rodri, Fred on de Bruyne. Seemed to me to match what I was seeing, and City didn't really get a good midfield game going, at least for most of the game.

 

[padzilla]

I've seen two or three tactical game analysis and nowhere something was said about man-marking Rodri. The front four tried to block the central area to force City going out of there, issue was that it left room for Citys "fullbacks" plus, it created problems whenever Haaland fell back and joined the builtup. Thankfull, that isn't his strong suit and at the end of the day, those tactical things didn't really matter because City scored early in both halves completely disconnected from tactical topics.

I think, this game showed Eriksens limitation because even though he was busy, he didn't really influence the game. Citys players were faster, stronger and more decisive than him and made him a bit of a non factor. He still was good whenever he had the ball but in games like yesterday, that isn't the case very often.


Interesting, I've seen a few people talking about a tight game, I didn't really feel it was. Seemed like City had a fairly comfortable afternoon with freak goals in both halves settling their nerves and enabling them to stay in 2nd gear without the need of going for more risk. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we played badly but it felt like they brought us close to our limits while we didn't really challenge them. Granted, they didn't reallly create much but neither did we. Half of our xG probably stems from the penalty which, if given against us, we'd probably be fuming about.

But I guess, thats different perspectives, I'd argue if we played the same match just with keepers switched we'll lose it as well. Maybe in a bit more chaotic game but lets not act as if City doesn't have players that can play in chaos as well.

What you say makes a lot of sense. There's no question City were much the better team but what I would say is that if we don't concede that second sloppy goal then it could have been a much different story.

In some ways if it were a boxing match, they would have been well and truly ahead on points at the full time whistle but ultimately goals win games. We gifted them two, the second of which especially, far too easily.

It could have ended 4-1 to them for all we know but it was the difference between the teams in the end for better or worse. DDG got down very slowly and even then should still have kept it out. If it was a one-off then fine, but it's happening more and more, which is a worry.

Once again we still have a problem of being able to keep the ball, something that has been the case for nigh on a decade now.

 

[croadyman]

U mean with unlimited funds, 115 breaches, and how to shit on UEFA FFP?

Yeah very true but unfortunately chances are they will never get found guilty

 

[NZT-One]

The commentators on Norwegian TV picked up on it - Eriksen on Rodri, Fred on de Bruyne. Seemed to me to match what I was seeing, and City didn't really get a good midfield game going, at least for most of the game.

Yeah I agree, we blocked the routes to their pivots quite effectively and even their wingers were kept rather quiet, only thing was the man marking aspect that I think wasn't their. Our front four blocked the passing lanes to Rodri and Stones (by leaving one of the outer CBs free) and Fred and Casemiro pushed towards De Bruyne and/or Grealish and Bernado. Neither Rodri nor KDB were chased around, don't think Eriksen would have lasted such a plan for longer than 30minutes. I would agree, we made it difficult for them to play through us but we also didn't make it too hard for them to keep possession. They weren't really dangerous most of the time (neither did we) but they also weren't huffing and puffing and completely out of ideas. The early goals in both halves certainly had an effect on that as well as it really helped them to confidently play a low risk game.

What you say makes a lot of sense. There's no question City were much the better team but what I would say is that if we don't concede that second sloppy goal then it could have been a much different story.

In some ways if it were a boxing match, they would have been well and truly ahead on points at the full time whistle but ultimately goals win games. We gifted them two, the second of which especially, far too easily.

It could have ended 4-1 to them for all we know but it was the difference between the teams in the end for better or worse. DDG got down very slowly and even then should still have kept it out. If it was a one-off then fine, but it's happening more and more, which is a worry.

Once again we still have a problem of being able to keep the ball, something that has been the case for nigh on a decade now.

Yeah that is totally true. The longer a game can be kept open, the bigger the chance for something happening in your favor where the other teams doesn't have enough time to force back.

 

[Oscar Bonavena]

Am I the only one who thinks too many people are giving DDG a free pass on the first goal?

It was well struck, no doubt, but it was not a rocket. The replay behind the goal saw him watching the ball as it sailed past him, so he had a good sight of it but his foot movement was non-existent. It was like his feet were in cement. And it happened a few times in that game.

 

[cletus7]

That's absurd. Why do you think City didn't play better? Do you think it had something to do with how United packed the central midfield and worked their socks off to a large extent man-marking Rodri and de Bruyne out of the game? Or do you think maybe their failure to get to many clear finishing chances in and around the box had something to do with how our back 4 performed? They looked pretty motivated to me.

…I don’t buy into the theory it was entirely because we stifled them. I might have bought into it if we were 2 up and they were trying desperately to come back… but given that they had a lead most of the game with another cup final around the corner I honestly think it suited them to do minimum when onus was on us to do maximum. Doing the maximum extends to trying very hard to create and score.. not taking plaudits for stifling a team that are already ahead.

 

[Fitchett]

Am I the only one who thinks too many people are giving DDG a free pass on the first goal?

It was well struck, no doubt, but it was not a rocket. The replay behind the goal saw him watching the ball as it sailed past him, so he had a good sight of it but his foot movement was non-existent. It was like his feet were in cement. And it happened a few times in that game.

I agree. I was sat behind the goal and I was fuming at him for not making an effort to save it. He made as much effort as I did, whilst picking up his £375,000 weekly wage.

 

[Winrar]

Am I the only one who thinks too many people are giving DDG a free pass on the first goal?

It was well struck, no doubt, but it was not a rocket. The replay behind the goal saw him watching the ball as it sailed past him, so he had a good sight of it but his foot movement was non-existent. It was like his feet were in cement. And it happened a few times in that game.

He really should've made the effort to save it, or at the very least pretended to.

 

[padzilla]

He was wrong footed for the first goal, something which happens a lot with him... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65735832

 

[Bearded One]

…I don’t buy into the theory it was entirely because we stifled them. I might have bought into it if we were 2 up and they were trying desperately to come back… but given that they had a lead most of the game with another cup final around the corner I honestly think it suited them to do minimum when onus was on us to do maximum. Doing the maximum extends to trying very hard to create and score.. not taking plaudits for stifling a team that are already ahead.

This is the point I am making and maybe you just put it more eloquently than I ever would. City were ahead for roughly 75% of the game and the game was level for maybe around 25%. Given that they have their “most important game in their history” coming up soon, I think they had little incentive to up the tempo. That was for us to do and inspite of our best efforts tactically,(which I appreciate) we didn’t do enough to really hurt them, unfortunately.

They were content to just allow he game go bye when we put the shackles on some of their most dangerous players.This meant that the game petered out and there was no urgency to shake things up from either of us until star boy came on

 

[GueRed]

Comfortable dominant game from City, we didnt put them on the back foot enough.
Not enough attacking quality and leadership on the pitch from United IMO.

It was all powderpuff stuff, all huff and puff. We only kept them at bay for most part because we sat in deep.

The goals conceded were shit. Moronic 'defending'
feck city

 

[GueRed]

Am I the only one who thinks too many people are giving DDG a free pass on the first goal?

It was well struck, no doubt, but it was not a rocket. The replay behind the goal saw him watching the ball as it sailed past him, so he had a good sight of it but his foot movement was non-existent. It was like his feet were in cement. And it happened a few times in that game.

No. I think de Gea has received a lot if not more than enough criticism.

If anything it looks like Casemiro, Fred, Lindelof and Varane have been given a free pass by fans.
The 'defending' from those four was soft, tepid and unforgivable for me.

No one showed leadership and dominated any of their situations. it was a long fecking ball. Poor.
15 seconds in as well on such occasion!? you'd think with their experience they'd be focused and tuned in form the get go? doesn't reflect well on the mentality of the team conceding that early...