Do City leave you cold?

Fridge chutney said:
City are an incredibly boring club, even if they play nice football sometimes. I genuinely don't care when they win stuff, which is in contrast to how i feel with the Scousers.
Click to expand...
Being a boring club is different from the football being boring.
I don't understand how anyone can say City play boring football.
 
Last edited:
harms said:
The club is very much plastic in so many ways (not that we aren’t those days), but the football they play is scarily close to my own understanding of football perfection. And De Bruyne is just incredible, one of the smartest players of all-time.

I find it hard to understand those who prefer Liverpool’s way of playing.
Click to expand...
It's scary how precise their play is. They are the zenith of chemistry when it comes to football.
 
I think it's possible to admire the way city play without especially enjoying it.

I feel the same way as I did watching Spain in their golden era. Often they'd score an amazing goal that you could only admire, but over 90 minutes the constant ball retention and side to side passing made for a dull spectacle overall.

The thing with city is it's so bloodless and clincal, like a very well-oiled machine. Technically absolutely brilliant but it's almost robotic in it's efficiency and to me, that's not exciting. It's like computer football almost.

It really irritates me to say it, but Liverpool are more exciting to watch. And I loathe every single goal they score.
 
RobinLFC said:
Repeat that long enough and one day you might wake up with City having more CLs and being close to United's PL tally. Young fans growing up don't care one bit who their owners are, they care about being entertained, watching great players, bragging rights about "their club" on the playground, ...

Of course I am incredibly biased but Liverpool being on 6 or 7 CLs, in the grand scheme of things, matters a whole lot less than City winning their first European cup imo. The league, I could totally understand that Utd fans rather see City winning it than us equalling you guys.
Click to expand...

That second paragraph is how I and most of my United fan mates see it. Liverpool win the Champions League? Oh well. We don’t want City winning it. The league however, let City have it, far preferable over Liverpool.
 
miked99 said:
I think it's possible to admire the way city play without especially enjoying it.

I feel the same way as I did watching Spain in their golden era. Often they'd score an amazing goal that you could only admire, but over 90 minutes the constant ball retention and side to side passing made for a dull spectacle overall.

The thing with city is it's so bloodless and clincal, like a very well-oiled machine. Technically absolutely brilliant but it's almost robotic in it's efficiency and to me, that's not exciting. It's like computer football almost.

It really irritates me to say it, but Liverpool are more exciting to watch. And I loathe every single goal they score.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much it.

I will say this though, it’s an insult to compare City to that Spain side. They’re far more entertaining, that Spain side were tortuous to watch.
 
Solius said:
Says everything that most would prefer them to win the league and CL over Liverpool. It's basically like nobody won it.
Click to expand...

I'm not an United-fan, so i don't have any hard feelings towards Liverpool, much prefer them to win it over City.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to taunt City over not winning CL for as long as it lasts though?
 
Morty_ said:
I'm not an United-fan, so i don't have any hard feelings towards Liverpool, much prefer them to win it over City.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to taunt City over not winning CL for as long as it lasts though?
Click to expand...

Yeah but it also guarantees no Liverpool quadruple.

Every scenario is nightmarish tbf.
 
Adisa said:
Being a boring club is different from the football being boring.
I don't understand how anyone can say City play boring football.
Click to expand...

Because watching a team completely dominating a game of football by continuously recycling possession is boring. It's not that it's not impressive how well drilled they are, but it is boring to watch, IMO. Unless you're a fan (or a neutral who for some reason like it) then I guess it's great.
 
Solius said:
Yeah but it also guarantees no Liverpool quadruple.

Every scenario is nightmarish tbf.
Click to expand...
If Liverpool win it then they have 7, more than double what we do, and it starts to look really bad for us.
 
Sylar said:
Until Haaland comes in...
Click to expand...

I actually worry that Haaland if we get him will struggle at City (at least for a bit). He just doesn't seem like a Pep player and could have Ibra like issues.
 
padr81 said:
I actually worry that Haaland if we get him will struggle at City (at least for a bit). He just doesn't seem like a Pep player and could have Ibra like issues.
Click to expand...
Although Haaland is a much better striker than Lukaku people seem to be making the same mistake/assumption they did with us.

Team creates loads of chances + adds a striker with a good goal record = unstoppable machine (or in your case even more unstoppable).

While Haaland won't flop I can certainly see systematic issues regarding Pep's system.
 
BusbyMalone said:
Because watching a team completely dominating a game of football by continuously recycling possession is boring. It's not that it's not impressive how well drilled they are, but it is boring to watch, IMO. Unless you're a fan (or a neutral who for some reason like it) then I guess it's great.
Click to expand...
How else can you dominate a game of football if not by keeping possession of the ball?
 
Mogget said:
How else can you dominate a game of football if not by keeping possession of the ball?
Click to expand...

City do it more and better than anyone else. That's the point I was making. Some people like it, some don't. The comment I was responding to was "I don't see how anyone can say it's boring" when in fact I can see exactly why someone would find it boring.
 
I wish to see United as sleekly as City do.

what makes me sad is the fact that all United players are arguably more bigger stars and more important part of their national teams.
 
Dancfc said:
Although Haaland is a much better striker than Lukaku people seem to be making the same mistake/assumption they did with us.

Team creates loads of chances + adds a striker with a good goal record = unstoppable machine (or in your case even more unstoppable).

While Haaland won't flop I can certainly see systematic issues regarding Pep's system.
Click to expand...

I agree, tactically what people don't realize is removing a creator for a finisher means you create less overall and while he'll be more clinical if you are creating 20 less chances a season the team scoring rate might be the same whilst one man instead of several grab the goals IF he maintains his level, if he pulls a Lukaku well...

For example despite not scoring I rate Werner highly at you guys, he's a handful for defenders, make a ton of space for teammates and plays a part in the build up. He doesn't get enough credit for what he does bring to the team. In the CL final, his movement allowed Havertz a clear run on goal for example and he had Cities defenders dragged all over the pitch. Changing x for y just because y scored more goals elsewhere is not always a good decision.
 
BusbyMalone said:
City do it more and better than anyone else. That's the point I was making. Some people like it, some don't. The comment I was responding to was "I don't see how anyone can say it's boring" when in fact I can see exactly why someone would find it boring.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you say that Real and Liverpool twice in the last month have proven that the onus is on the opposition? Games are literally end to end when the opposition come out to play. I'm not saying people have to think we're the best team to watch but the boringness is a result of the opposition.

Take the Atletico game as an example. 155 minute of pure City domination, bit of a snooze fest but the game changed last 30 minute because Atletico changed, City did nothing differently. Now is it boring watching City just camp outside the Watford box while they refuse to even attempt to go forward? Of course it is because what happens is inevitable but that's a Watford problem more than a City one (and again its hard to criticize Watford for it, given the respective resources).

Where I do think City make these games slightly more boring than say Liverpool vs Watford is Liverpool are much more direct with the ball and quite happy to play in chaos.
 
padr81 said:
Wouldn't you say that Real and Liverpool twice in the last month have proven that the onus is on the opposition? Games are literally end to end when the opposition come out to play. I'm not saying people have to think we're the best team to watch but the boringness is a result of the opposition.

Take the Atletico game as an example. 155 minute of pure City domination, bit of a snooze fest but the game changed last 30 minute because Atletico changed, City did nothing differently. Now is it boring watching City just camp outside the Watford box while they refuse to even attempt to go forward? Of course it is because what happens is inevitable but that's a Watford problem more than a City one (and again its hard to criticize Watford for it, given the respective resources).

Where I do think City make these games slightly more boring than say Liverpool vs Watford is Liverpool are much more direct with the ball and quite happy to play in chaos.
Click to expand...

Well, Atletico are a special case in that they seemingly play that way against everyone!

Not sure about the onus being on the opposition, necessarily. There are very few teams that can afford to take the game to City, due to the way they play. You say that it's the opposition that makes it boring, but they set up that way because of how City play. Kind of a chicken and egg situation, I guess. You can get at City, but the reality is, aside from one or two teams, most would lose heavily if they did that.

Calling them boring isn't necessarily a criticism, they're just very good at what they do, so most teams haven't got an answer for it. I wouldn't categorize it as a "problem", per se, it just is what it is. A lot of people aren't going to like it. If I was a City fan, I genuinely wouldn't give a shite, to be honest.
 
padr81 said:
I actually worry that Haaland if we get him will struggle at City (at least for a bit). He just doesn't seem like a Pep player and could have Ibra like issues.
Click to expand...
I think Kane was the perfect player for that

But from the games I've seen, I've seen Haaland has the ability to drop, drive, link up too.

City don't tend to go for players above the managers head right? If you do get Haaland I'm certain pep would have had a big say

And he's 21 right? That's a smart investment because I think he will only get better. He does look built for this League with his movement and pace
 
BusbyMalone said:
Well, Atletico are a special case in that they seemingly play that way against everyone!

Not sure about the onus being on the opposition, necessarily. There are very few teams that can afford to take the game to City, due to the way they play. You say that it's the opposition that makes it boring, but they set up that way because of how City play. Kind of a chicken and egg situation, I guess. You can get at City, but the reality is, aside from one or two teams, most would lose heavily if they did that.

Calling them boring isn't necessarily a criticism, they're just very good at what they do, so most teams haven't got an answer for it. I wouldn't categorize it as a "problem", per se, it just is what it is. A lot of people aren't going to like it. If I was a City fan, I genuinely wouldn't give a shite, to be honest.
Click to expand...

Thats fair, kinda my point, the opposition sitting in force City to be patient. City being patient forces the opposition to camp in. I find some of our games boring but I don't find our brand of football boring if that makes sense. Its made boring by teams sitting in and of course teams have to sit in so they don't get killed.

I think something like City matches are boring is a very valid opinion as opposed to City play boring football if that makes sense.
 
Sylar said:
I think Kane was the perfect player for that

But from the games I've seen, I've seen Haaland has the ability to drop, drive, link up too.

City don't tend to go for players above the managers head right? If you do get Haaland I'm certain pep would have had a big say

And he's 21 right? That's a smart investment because I think he will only get better. He does look built for this League with his movement and pace
Click to expand...

I agree on the current version of Kane being almost the perfect Pep no.9. The problem being Kane is much older will only drop in value and probably cost twice the transfer fee for similar wages. My think with Haaland isn't so much he cant link up play as much as he's very direct and I think a patient probing system like ours would suit him less than say playing no.9 at Liverpool who bomb forward at breakneck speed. Of course for £65m Haaland is practically a steal so we'd be crazy not to go for him (as long as we're not paying him the rumored half a million a week after tax).
 
It's kind of baffling how this is actually allowed.

 
Solius said:
Yeah but it also guarantees no Liverpool quadruple.

Every scenario is nightmarish tbf.
Click to expand...

Need to hope Real somehow ruins the party, but I've been resigned to a City-Pool CL final for months now. Seems inevitable.
 
Eddy_JukeZ said:
Need to hope Real somehow ruins the party, but I've been resigned to a City-Pool CL final for months now. Seems inevitable.
Click to expand...

I got invited to someone’s birthday where they plan to watch the CL final in a pub. I said I’d rather shit in my hands and clap.
 
miked99 said:
I think it's possible to admire the way city play without especially enjoying it.

I feel the same way as I did watching Spain in their golden era. Often they'd score an amazing goal that you could only admire, but over 90 minutes the constant ball retention and side to side passing made for a dull spectacle overall.

The thing with city is it's so bloodless and clincal, like a very well-oiled machine. Technically absolutely brilliant but it's almost robotic in it's efficiency and to me, that's not exciting. It's like computer football almost.

It really irritates me to say it, but Liverpool are more exciting to watch. And I loathe every single goal they score.
Click to expand...
This sums up my thoughts.
 
Firstly I'm a Rangers supporter first and foremost but have been a Man Utd fan since Ruud Van Nistelrooy(sp) lit up the league. When Rangers got relegated to the lowest tier of Scottish football we were still getting 50,000 fans attending every other week, and I bet the majority of Man Utd fans would go and watch their team if they were playing in the National league, whereas Man C are just a soulless tourist attraction.
 
Bulletproof91 said:
Firstly I'm a Rangers supporter first and foremost but have been a Man Utd fan since Ruud Van Nistelrooy(sp) lit up the league. When Rangers got relegated to the lowest tier of Scottish football we were still getting 50,000 fans attending every other week, and I bet the majority of Man Utd fans would go and watch their team if they were playing in the National league, whereas Man C are just a soulless tourist attraction.
Click to expand...

In the name of fairness, I'm pretty sure City were also averaging decent crowds when they were in the lower leagues .
 
Yes during the Maine Road era, City were regarded as one of the most passionately supported clubs in the country.

That included the 1998/1999 season when they down in the third tier, while Utd were winning the treble and Stockport were in a higher division than them, when they were getting excellent crowds at Maine Road and taking a lot of fans to away games. I remember their fans dancing in conga lines singing 'bring on Macclesfield'. I think they were also very well supported the previous season when they were relegated to the third tier in the first place. In 1999/2000, I remember when their fans basically took over Ewood Park on the final day of the season as they celebrated promotion; one of the 2 most impressive away followings I've ever seen at our stadium alongside Celtic in the UEFA Cup in 2002/2003.

Also to be fair to them, they were getting crowds of around 40,000 during the season when they scored 10 home league goals (and 0 after New Year's Day) under Stuart Pearce.

The issue they have is that their core support, notably the number of match-going supporters, hasn't really increased that much as they've become successful and won domestic trophy after trophy. Also when Utd and Liverpool season ticket holders don't want to renew or fork out additional money for European and domestic cup games, there are large numbers of other fans to step in take their place. City don't really have that luxury.
 
Bulletproof91 said:
Firstly I'm a Rangers supporter first and foremost but have been a Man Utd fan since Ruud Van Nistelrooy(sp) lit up the league. When Rangers got relegated to the lowest tier of Scottish football we were still getting 50,000 fans attending every other week, and I bet the majority of Man Utd fans would go and watch their team if they were playing in the National league, whereas Man C are just a soulless tourist attraction.
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish, as explained above by @GuybrushThreepwood city aren't big enough yet, to get tourists
 
Morty_ said:
I'm not an United-fan, so i don't have any hard feelings towards Liverpool, much prefer them to win it over City.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to taunt City over not winning CL for as long as it lasts though?
Click to expand...

Agreed but once they win it, there will basically be no point to City anymore. People will get even more bored of them and their fans will hate it even more.
 
Thunderhead said:
Absolute rubbish, as explained above by @GuybrushThreepwood city aren't big enough yet, to get tourists
Click to expand...
Apologises if I offended you pal that certainly wasn't my intention. I was basing my opinion on the few times I've been to watch City. I wasn't impressed with the atmosphere and put two and two together and got five. Saying that you're a City fan on Utd forum which I can't fathom.
 
Bulletproof91 said:
Firstly I'm a Rangers supporter first and foremost but have been a Man Utd fan since Ruud Van Nistelrooy(sp) lit up the league. When Rangers got relegated to the lowest tier of Scottish football we were still getting 50,000 fans attending every other week, and I bet the majority of Man Utd fans would go and watch their team if they were playing in the National league, whereas Man C are just a soulless tourist attraction.
Click to expand...

This is fundamentally wrong and exposes a pretty shameful lack of either knowledge or willingness to research on your part. "City have no fans" is a lazy stereotype and nothing more.

City were getting 30,000+ fans regularly in League One. It's not quite 50,000 but, if we're honest, it's easier to fill a stadium if you're Celtic or Rangers because you have such a high percentage of Scottish football fans. I'd guess at least a quarter of supporters in the country consider themselves Rangers fans, or close enough to make no difference. City probably have what? Two, three per cent at most?

It's also ironic you calling out so-called tourists seconds after admitting that you're what many would consider a glory hunter.
 
GuybrushThreepwood said:
The issue they have is that their core support, notably the number of match-going supporters, hasn't really increased that much as they've become successful and won domestic trophy after trophy. Also when Utd and Liverpool season ticket holders don't want to renew or fork out additional money for European and domestic cup games, there are large numbers of other fans to step in take their place. City don't really have that luxury.
Click to expand...

This is true, and it's also why our home atmosphere isn't very good, as the older generation generally don't get as involved with the chanting. If I had to guess, I'd say the Etihad probably has the highest average age in the Premier League. Old Trafford or St James' Park or Ibrox seem to have a much bigger range of ages, meaning more people happy to sing for ninety minutes.
 
Noot said:
This is fundamentally wrong and exposes a pretty shameful lack of either knowledge or willingness to research on your part. "City have no fans" is a lazy stereotype and nothing more.

City were getting 30,000+ fans regularly in League One. It's not quite 50,000 but, if we're honest, it's easier to fill a stadium if you're Celtic or Rangers because you have such a high percentage of Scottish football fans. I'd guess at least a quarter of supporters in the country consider themselves Rangers fans, or close enough to make no difference. City probably have what? Two, three per cent at most?

It's also ironic you calling out so-called tourists seconds after admitting that you're what many would consider a glory hunter.
Click to expand...
I may of used the wrong term in "tourist attraction". I'm certainly not a glory hunter. A glory hunter doesn't trapse around God forgiven grounds in lower league Scottish football to watch their team. I was given free tickets to the Etihad and I used them doesn't make me a glory hunter. I wasn't impressed at all by the support it was like being in the cinema. Anyway you will be pleased to know I've reached my 3 message limit for today so can't address this anymore. Have a good day pal.
 
Noot said:
This is true, and it's also why our home atmosphere isn't very good, as the older generation generally don't get as involved with the chanting. If I had to guess, I'd say the Etihad probably has the highest average age in the Premier League. Old Trafford or St James' Park or Ibrox seem to have a much bigger range of ages, meaning more people happy to sing for ninety minutes.
Click to expand...

Yes that makes sense.

Also it goes without saying that the perennially successful clubs don't tend to have great atmospheres in general. That's because the fans usually turn up expecting to win, to see plenty of goals and to be entertained. For all the hype about Anfield, the atmosphere there for standard Premier League games is nothing special at all with things quickly quieting down after the YAWN anthem ahead of kick-off. I've seen complaints from numerous Liverpool fans about the atmosphere at Anfield, with them saying the same thing.

There has been a lot of talk about the poor atmosphere at Old Trafford over the years including during the prolonged glory days under Fergie. Highbury during Arsenal's pomp was often called the library, Mourinho. The atmosphere at Stamford Bridge has regularly been criticised (including by Mourinho) as they've won trophy after trophy etc. In the Bundesliga, I'd imagine that the atmosphere at Bayern games is mediocre at best compared to that at numerous other stadiums. In La Liga, teams like Betis, Athletic Bilbao Sporting Gijon when they were in the top flight had vastly superior atmospheres at home games compared to Barca or Real etc.

In terms of City, I remember going to Maine Road during its final season in 2002/2003, to watch the City-Blackburn game (an entertaining 2-2 draw between 2 teams that played attractive football at the time). The atmosphere was excellent and one of the best that I've witnessed for a run of the mill league game, excluding relegation / promotion six pointers, local derbies etc. There was a huge contrast between that and the City-Blackburn game that I went to at the Etihad in 2011/2012 (obviously the stature of the two clubs was now very different), when the atmosphere was pretty lousy.
 
padr81 said:
I actually worry that Haaland if we get him will struggle at City (at least for a bit). He just doesn't seem like a Pep player and could have Ibra like issues.
Click to expand...

I fear you worry in vain. He's absolutely a Pep player as I see it - thrives on smart movement, smart, develops strong partnerships with his wingers, works hard, young enough to still be shaped. It's going to be a nightmare - watching possibly the best player my country has ever produced tear it up for City for a decade or more. It's just cruel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.