Very interesting, thanks for the answer. I'll have a dig into that.
Do you find Man City (and other Pep teams) boring?
- Thread starter Tyrion
- Start date
He’s been burned in the big games. I don’t think people would care as much if he went for the slightly more pragmatic approach in only the five or so big games a season that it could be needed.
Also worth noting some of the times he’s been burned had less to do with his attacking structure, the 2021 CL final for example where he inexplicably benched Rodri and played with no DM.
You could say it takes two to tango but I don’t always think that’s the case. Liverpool and Arsenal are above them in the league and face teams looking to sit deep also but their games are way more entertaining. City suffocate teams with possession and suffocate the watching experience too. Passing football doesn’t have to be boring but Pep’s style nowadays is.
I'm sure my opinion is based on jealousy. But yes, i avoid watching city. However I can sit and watch arsenal and Liverpool as I find them exciting, but city are dull
They really are a chore to watch in most (not all) big games. Barça might have ended up like that under Pep too if not for Messi, but to me there's a big difference between Pep's Barça and Pep's City.
Barcelona always pushed the needle to get the victory. City don't really do it that often, they play at such a slow tempo - it's effective but it's boring to watch. I don't know if it's by choice but they seem even worse this season. Maybe down to losing Gundogan and Mahrez? Gundogan took risks off the ball and Mahrez took risks on it. Their replacements don't.
I’m with you on this. Many of my friends (fans of other clubs) are too. It’s the media fawning over Cheaty that get on my nerves. Too boring to watch them so I don’t.
1. But that is what he does
. He plays risk averse against big sides and in big games, and some would say he does it too much. But the team plays more loose in regular games. You don't rack up goal rallies otherwise 2. Worth noting that Chelsea beat City 3 times in the space of 2 months, and Rodri was in bad form, but yes he's made mistakes
3. Of course it's the case that it takes 2 to tango. The teams that are "being suffocated with possession" are not forced to retreat into shells like Arsenal did at the Etihad; they can chase after the ball and push up against City and introduce more chaos. But there's more risk there; Villa did it at Villa Park and won the match while running City ragged in an entertaining game; Arsenal did it at the Emirates and got spanked 4-1 even though the game was entertaining. Arsenal and Liverpool simply don't pose the threat City have, and teams can afford to push up more against them (although that is changing with Arsenal and their games are becoming more of a progression).
Apologies for continuing to derail the thread, but I just wanted to check in and say I took the time to find out about this Diniz fella, with caf thread searches, and googletron. It turns out I found it genuinely very interesting, and I feel there's a bit of a veil lifted. I sorta understand football a little more as a result, which for me, is a win. Cheers for the helpful responses!
I barely ever watch them these days unless its against one of the "bigger" sides. Just boring team to watch, Pep's style has never tickled me, and this might be arguably the best and most chaotic version of it!
Hmm. Maybe the most chaotic version of his City teams. But no way it's anything like that overall, for me it's the most controlled and boring side they have. His Bayern side were very different. His Barça side were patient but they had Messi who was just electric to watch, plus Iniesta, Villa, Pedro etc.
2010/21 is peak Pep, nothing he'll do will top that in terms of the combination of control and enjoyment. Bayern comes after that, City a distant third.
Pep didn't kill Grealish. His inability to effectively dribble against the low block teams killed the Aston Villa Grealish. Mahrez consistently beat his man, either scored or created big chances.
They still found a way of using his other abilities (holding onto the ball) to help the team and not bin him off for a shiny new winger.
They still found a way of using his other abilities (holding onto the ball) to help the team and not bin him off for a shiny new winger.
The most boring part is watching City dominate multiple competitions knowing they are based on wholesale corruption and money laundering. It just nullifies any competition year they win which will inevitability be voided in due course. Altogether a rather pointless exercise.
Goals scored = not boring
feck me great graph lads, that settles it
He’s risk averse and boring as feck, but it’s effective as feck too, he waits to frustrate the life out of the other team & starve them of possession, taking very little risk with the ball. Once someone gets tired or frustrated he wants it punished and they do it brilliantly.
But in basing his entire game on frustration, he manages to frustrate the life out of many neutral football fans too.
Give me Klopp any day, his sides take risks and they attack pretty much always with intent to create, rather than intent to frustrate.
They make it look easy and sometimes it comes across as arrogant and maybe even patronising. Must say though, having not watched them for sometime, I enjoyed the game against Madrid. I was taken in with the movement and variety of Grealish, Silva and Foden's forward play.
City play excellent football with a full squad of players who always want the ball.
Not boring in the slightest. It’s incredible to watch, unfortunately.
Not boring in the slightest. It’s incredible to watch, unfortunately.
Not really
Oh. Yeah sorry. I take it all back. They are a horrible watch.
Agreed. The football is boring and predictable. The only enjoyment as a fan would be from the end product, i.e. winning trophies, but that's heavily tainted by the cheating.
It must be weird to be a City fan and having to lie to yourself about your team's cheating just to find some enjoyment in their "success".
There's no jeopardy with them, there's no overcoming some kind of hurdle nor anything likeable about the club. It's just mechanical and robotic, like watching an FM game as you've mastered tactics.
The only real moments City have had are when they look like they might be losing and I can only think of two: Agüero and Gundogan scoring a late brace 2 years ago when they were neck and neck with Liverpool.
They're football is impressive from a technical viewpoint but there's little entertainment to be had especially after nearly a decade of Guardiola.
They can be very boring with there pass pass and pass. But it’s very effective. Most of there goals are the same though… play it out wide and pass into the box… it’s like a fifa goal. Although recently they’ve been scoring some bangers from outside the box.
yeah I found the Doku, Gvardiol and Kovacic goals really dull yesterday - practically tap ins
this is a real clutching at straws thread - City happen to have had the best team in world football for the past 5 years while our lot have sucked baws
it hurts but it’a true
obviously they have cheated financially but that’s another topic
Did you actually watch the video?Goals scored = not boring
feck me great graph lads, that settles it
He’s risk averse and boring as feck, but it’s effective as feck too, he waits to frustrate the life out of the other team & starve them of possession, taking very little risk with the ball. Once someone gets tired or frustrated he wants it punished and they do it brilliantly.
But in basing his entire game on frustration, he manages to frustrate the life out of many neutral football fans too.
Give me Klopp any day, his sides take risks and they attack pretty much always with intent to create, rather than intent to frustrate.
Insightful video.
Claims of their (City, Arsenal) football being boring (objectively) are bullshit.
"They don't take enough risks". I don't know, playing with suicidal high lines leaving a wide chasm of space behind you seems pretty risky to me.
Plus, these conversations about what side is boring are always one sided.
Games would be way more interesting if the team sitting back decides to be more proactive defending instead of passively defending space and off the ball players (as highlighted in the video, where teams parking the bus are happy to let the CBs and wingers have the ball, double marking strikers and midfielders in the half spaces), because it poses different questions for the attacking players and introduces more motion into the game. However those defensive teams don't defend aggressively because one mistake and you concede the ball in a dangerous area.
And this is how you know most claims of boring are bullshit: when such teams are aggressive against City or Arsenal, and lose, they don't get praised for making the game interesting; they get universally panned for "playing into the opposition's hands". Why is it not boring to park the bus, but it's boring to wait for the right pass instead of forcing it and conceding a dangerous counter?
I find the "positional football is boring" crowd just as tedious as the "positional football is the crown jewel of football" crowd. There's a lot to take in from every match. Limiting yourself to just one style of play is... Life is too short for that
Claims of their (City, Arsenal) football being boring (objectively) are bullshit.
"They don't take enough risks". I don't know, playing with suicidal high lines leaving a wide chasm of space behind you seems pretty risky to me.
Plus, these conversations about what side is boring are always one sided.
Games would be way more interesting if the team sitting back decides to be more proactive defending instead of passively defending space and off the ball players (as highlighted in the video, where teams parking the bus are happy to let the CBs and wingers have the ball, double marking strikers and midfielders in the half spaces), because it poses different questions for the attacking players and introduces more motion into the game. However those defensive teams don't defend aggressively because one mistake and you concede the ball in a dangerous area.
And this is how you know most claims of boring are bullshit: when such teams are aggressive against City or Arsenal, and lose, they don't get praised for making the game interesting; they get universally panned for "playing into the opposition's hands". Why is it not boring to park the bus, but it's boring to wait for the right pass instead of forcing it and conceding a dangerous counter?
I find the "positional football is boring" crowd just as tedious as the "positional football is the crown jewel of football" crowd. There's a lot to take in from every match. Limiting yourself to just one style of play is... Life is too short for that
Their observation about Klopp is spot on as well. He introduces more variance into his positional play (variance/risk is not an objective measure of excitement, it just makes things different) (he actually dialed down on the variance in their title winning season), which partly explains why in some seasons they struggle to make top 4, and in some seasons they push City to the limit, and won the title that one year. its like that devilish fire in Harry Potter that's impossible to control when at full click, we saw that in the game at Anfield against City where there were phases of play that left City discombobulated, but can hurt you in terms of overexertion and being left exposed
Enough about this though, we need deep dive breakdowns of the old school football played by teams managed by Pulis, Big Sam, Roeder, Dyche today...
Enough about this though, we need deep dive breakdowns of the old school football played by teams managed by Pulis, Big Sam, Roeder, Dyche today...
When City playing boring football vs Arsenal a few weeks ago I was thinking Arsenal could make this match interesting but they highly likely would lose.
I wouldn't say Guardiola's teams are boring per say, but they play in such a way that leaves no jeopardy, which is what a lot people find boring. His teams don't play on the transition which slows the game down. Guardiola is in his Louis van Gaal phase now.
This reminds me of our Ajax team that played under Louis van Gaal. That team was called boring by a lot of us older Ajacied, especially those of us who saw the Rinus Michels, Ștefan Kovács and Johan Cruijff teams in the past. People found it seriously boring. Our wingers didn't take on men anymore. In fact, I have friends that cancelled their season tickets saying that the football put them to sleep.
One thing we must be careful of is using the way Manchester City play now, and superimposing it on the past playing styles of the Pep Guardiola's past teams.
His Barcelona in 08/09 is one of the most exciting teams I have seen in my lifetime. They played great transitional football because they had Messi, Eto'o and Thierry Henry as the front three and teams were not sitting back, so they didn't take as many positional "steps" towards goal. As teams started sitting deep, his teams had to be more methodical to break them down. Even then, at Bayern he played transitional football with Douglas Costa and Coman on the flanks. At Manchester City, he had Sane and Sterling, and if my memory serves me correctly, they were close to the top when it came to teams that scored from counter attacks in one of the past seasons. Please do correct me if I am wrong
Guardiola's football is extremely high risk which is very ironic considering that a lot of people seem to think he plays risk free football. We all know Pep Guardiola now wants his team to build in steps as they work their way the opposition goal, but is it his fault? If the opposition simply want to sit in and counter, should he not do what is best for his team to prevent counter attacks? We have seen the games when Liverpool and Manchester City go head to head and those have been some of the highest quality games. When teams do decide to go "toe to toe" with them, they are extremely good to watch. Is it perhaps their domination that is boring?
From a coaching perspective, his team is something that is hard to understand and explain. The difficulty to get a team to play that way cannot be overemphasised. From an observer that grew up watching Piet Keizer marauding down the flanks, I have definitely been more "entertained".
This reminds me of our Ajax team that played under Louis van Gaal. That team was called boring by a lot of us older Ajacied, especially those of us who saw the Rinus Michels, Ștefan Kovács and Johan Cruijff teams in the past. People found it seriously boring. Our wingers didn't take on men anymore. In fact, I have friends that cancelled their season tickets saying that the football put them to sleep.
One thing we must be careful of is using the way Manchester City play now, and superimposing it on the past playing styles of the Pep Guardiola's past teams.
His Barcelona in 08/09 is one of the most exciting teams I have seen in my lifetime. They played great transitional football because they had Messi, Eto'o and Thierry Henry as the front three and teams were not sitting back, so they didn't take as many positional "steps" towards goal. As teams started sitting deep, his teams had to be more methodical to break them down. Even then, at Bayern he played transitional football with Douglas Costa and Coman on the flanks. At Manchester City, he had Sane and Sterling, and if my memory serves me correctly, they were close to the top when it came to teams that scored from counter attacks in one of the past seasons. Please do correct me if I am wrong
Guardiola's football is extremely high risk which is very ironic considering that a lot of people seem to think he plays risk free football. We all know Pep Guardiola now wants his team to build in steps as they work their way the opposition goal, but is it his fault? If the opposition simply want to sit in and counter, should he not do what is best for his team to prevent counter attacks? We have seen the games when Liverpool and Manchester City go head to head and those have been some of the highest quality games. When teams do decide to go "toe to toe" with them, they are extremely good to watch. Is it perhaps their domination that is boring?
From a coaching perspective, his team is something that is hard to understand and explain. The difficulty to get a team to play that way cannot be overemphasised. From an observer that grew up watching Piet Keizer marauding down the flanks, I have definitely been more "entertained".
Great post.
They're incredibly boring, but nobody can stop them. When Pep eventually fecks off surely they'll have a big dip. Rather he can do it at Stoke or not, he's a manager that simply dominates with a chequebook.
They’re fecking boring. Struggling to stay away watching this robotic shite.
Last 5 minutes was fun when they finally started to try taking a risk in attack and attack with intent rather than recycle the fecking ball again.
All depends on how they are treated and what happens with FFP. If the rules get even more relaxed and they get off, they’ll probably just increase their spending to ensure the likes of Mbappe end up there instead of PsG or Real.
You look back at managers like Mancini and Pellegrini though and although they were decent, they never reached anything close to these heights. Even with quality players. Pep Guardiola is a generational chequebook manager and it's difficult to believe they won't have a big dip with him gone.
They won the passing.
They are sterile.
Taking off Haaland and De Bruyne proved to be crucial, as they would have likely scored their pens.
Pellegrini’s a nothing manager. Very average record everywhere.
Mancini a much better example but he came in early at City, was completing with a much worse squad and against Sir Alex United.
The next manager will be at least as good as Mancini and he’ll take over a club with an absolutely miles better squad that have a completely different standing in the game.
Not disagreeing with that, but will he take them to Pep heights? I really don't believe so.
I’ve seen Zidane win 3 CL in a row. They might not get 99 league points every season but if they buy all the best players & pay them the best wages, with no consequences if they don’t work out, they’ll continue winning lots.
Yes, because that's worked out perfectly for us these past 10 years. We've had Di Maria, Pogba, Ibrahimovic, Sanchez, Sancho, Ronaldo, Cavani, Varane, Casemiro, you name it at the club but it doesn't equal automatic success. I think you're underestimating how impactful a generational manager really is.