Jack Grealish | Man City

padr81 said:
He wasn't great but at least he ran at people the other 4 just scratched their balls and ball watched. Kind of the typical 5/10 Jack in a City shirt. Pretty sure he had all our shots in the first half.
Click to expand...

Probably because teams let him do that because he is dangerous to opposition defence as Jesse Lingard is.

If I had to make my team defend against Haaland, Mahrez, KDB, and Grealish, I know who would I let have the ball the most out of them. There is a reason City struggle as soon as he is starter.
 
I would say he'll leave, but honestly I think being at City suits him down to the ground. Unless City force him out, he'll happily be the bit part player who can afford to get very drunk every chance he gets, while winning trophies.
 
I'm not that surprised that he's having trouble at City. I certainly didnt think he would be worth the money. I did however think he'd still get plenty of assists and some goals. 3 and 3 is terrible for him from last season. Even double that wouldnt have been impressive.

It seems the problems come from his coachability because Guardiola wants him to do some new things he wasnt doing at Villa, and clearly he's not giving the manager what he wants so he doesnt get as much football nor the end product. I think this is quite a major thing because for years caf members wanted us to sign him and make him do different things to what he was doing at Villa, by having him as a number 10/AM instead of playing off the left. That always sounded deluded but it was common.

If he does move on I expect he will go back to being played every week on the left and getting the 16-18 goals and assists combined in the league that he would get at Villa which is what a good attacker, not a great attacker gets you.
 
Amar__ said:
Probably because teams let him do that because he is dangerous to opposition defence as Jesse Lingard is.

If I had to make my team defend against Haaland, Mahrez, KDB, and Grealish, I know who would I let have the ball the most out of them. There is a reason City struggle as soon as he is starter.
Click to expand...

That’s a silly comparison with Lingard. Grealish has been Villa’s main outlet for years, been targeted by opponents with extra marking regularily, and still been able to both create and to score against set defences. He was as effective for Villa as Mahrez was for Leicester, only he had no Vardy.

Mahrez took a year og so to adapt to City’s play, as I recall. The question with Grealish is how adaptable he is, not wether he can be dangerous to a defence per se.
 
Jack Grealish is not perfect for man city. It is just a waste of money.
 
Oh lord! That was a horrible cameo. Tempo justs died with him every time he received the ball (same with Mahrez). 4 blocked shots when he should be looking for crosses as well. Extremely easy to defend against and both him and Mahrez played directly into Dortmunds hands every time they got the ball. Huge difference in tempo and urgency in City’s game when Foden, Alvarez and Bernardo came on.
 
It is quite weird to see what has happened to Grealish. It is obvious the City style does not suit him, he is a player that needs to be the main man, everything going through him, at City, this wont happen.
 
I don't think he really gives a toss anymore, he seems quite ok with sinking into a bit-part role at City on mega money. He's a bit of a party boy anyway, and I don't think he's got the motivation to fight, knuckle down, or work hard to adapt his game to Pep's system. He'll likely fade away under the radar for a few years and move back to Villa. No use crying over £100m badly spent when there's a bottomless pit of cash.
 
At a big club he will never have the play go through him. He could play for foul after foul at Villa because he just got back up and got the ball again. If he did that at City it would slow the play down and he wouldn’t see the ball as much after since KDB etc all demand the ball as well
 
Amar__ said:
Probably because teams let him do that because he is dangerous to opposition defence as Jesse Lingard is.

If I had to make my team defend against Haaland, Mahrez, KDB, and Grealish, I know who would I let have the ball the most out of them. There is a reason City struggle as soon as he is starter.
Click to expand...

You could literally see them panicking and throwing themselves in his way.
Grealish must be the only man I've seen compared to both Lingard and Ronaldinho in the same thread. He's obviously miles better than Ronaldinho and miles worse than Lingard.
 
padr81 said:
You could literally see them panicking and throwing themselves in his way.
Grealish must be the only man I've seen compared to both Lingard and Ronaldinho in the same thread. He's obviously miles better than Ronaldinho and miles worse than Lingard.
Click to expand...

Yeah, everyone was afraid of Grealish. Even Pep who replaced him because of that.

Well he is much closer to Lingard to Ronaldinho anyway in terms of style and quality. Lingard has even more apps and goals for England.
 
He just hasn't got the desire to step up to the next level has he? Has he ever really performed under pressure against big teams?

He's very much a free spirit on the pitch and off it, you get the best out of him when you let him roam and find space. Pep's style confines him too much, you can tell he doesn't enjoy this kind of football. It also seems like he finds the other style of football easier so he can get away with going out on the lash and then getting a goal and assist against a bottom half team in the PL. You can't get away with that in the CL or against the top 4.
 
It'll be a huge success of a move money and honours wise, but looks a really bad move for him as an individual footballer.
At Villa he was superb, close to a one man team at times, and absolutely milked most full backs he came up against.
At City he looks absolutely nothing like the same threat
 
City would never rely on him to fill a gap vacated by KDB, Bernardo or Mahrez. If ever one of them three left, City would get into the transfer market before relying on Grealish. The definition of a luxury player, someone who has ability but not reliable. Its also not that he isnt getting in the City team, I reckon he would find a tough time cracking the first 11 at the other top 6 clubs. I for one wouldn't pick him over anyone of Odegaard, Saka or Martinelli. I doubt he would fit in at Tottenham given their 3 at the back and use of wingbacks formation, likewise Liverpool with their 4-3-3. He isnt physical enough with the engine to match to play in that formation. Would be very surprised to see him make the United and Chelsea 11 too. I think I saw a stat that he has completed 90 minutes less than 5 times since signing for City. So even when he does get a start, he is almost always the first one to get subbed.

He will either be a depth player at City, or Villa might deice to give back 50m of their fee to being him back.
 
Where’s the dude who compared to Ronaldinho? :lol: :lol: :lol:

If we spent 100 mil on him and barely played him, it’d be a headline every week. City get a pass though.
 
NewYorkRed said:
Where’s the dude who compared to Ronaldinho? :lol: :lol: :lol:

If we spent 100 mil on him and barely played him, it’d be a headline every week. City get a pass though.
Click to expand...

its probably the English press and punditry class. They say the most insane stuff about English players. I will never forget Thierry Henry's reaction to Micah Richards saying on the night of the CL final where Real Madrid beat Liverpool that he now rates Benzema as high as Harry Kane. At that moment in time Benzema had won 5 CL medals, scored over 300 goals or Real Madrid over 13 seasons and won that particular CL on the back of his own brilliance, doing so well that he is likely to win the Ballon Dor, and only then did Micah Richards decide he is on Harry Kanes level. Henry almost fell of his chair.

Im sure some English pundit has compared Grealish to Ronaldinho with a straight face.
 
Stacks said:
And Hazard
Click to expand...

Hazard is actually a decent comparison, at least the latter Chelsea Hazard. Just a far inferior version. Or a really shit Pires without the scoring. What gets me is Utd fans thinking he would have been perfect for us. How?
 
Bobski said:
Hazard is actually a decent comparison, at least the latter Chelsea Hazard. Just a far inferior version. Or a really shit Pires without the scoring. What gets me is Utd fans thinking he would have been perfect for us. How?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Tricky player that isn’t the fastest but can win plenty of free kicks for his team. Just lacks Hazards explosiveness. Also there was a point where he was deemed the saviour of English football by the media who cried every time he appeared on Englands bench. Some people bought into that hype and so did city.
 
NewYorkRed said:
Where’s the dude who compared to Ronaldinho? :lol: :lol: :lol:

If we spent 100 mil on him and barely played him, it’d be a headline every week. City get a pass though.
Click to expand...

They get a free pass because they're winning regardless. If they were losing and all these big signings weren't delivering then maybe it would be a story. But then City don't sell, no one cares.
 
I think people have been overly harsh on his City career so far but yesterday he was absolutely hopeless. Much better every time he finds himself centrally, sooner rather than later that is were we need to find a spot for him if we want him to succeed here
 
Bobski said:
Hazard is actually a decent comparison, at least the latter Chelsea Hazard. Just a far inferior version. Or a really shit Pires without the scoring. What gets me is Utd fans thinking he would have been perfect for us. How?
Click to expand...
they say this about everyone and said this about Sancho despite him needing extremely specific conditions to excel.
Donut said:
He will be at Arsenal in 2 years. Bet your house on it.
Click to expand...
he's better than that
Swedish_Plumber said:
Would’ve been better coming to United
Click to expand...
I believe so too.
 
Bit like Zaha imo. Works when gets the ball alot and in dangerous positions, but won't be effective in a dominant, possession-based system.
 
He’s a United fan at heart thats why he’s not bothered about playing well for City just there to rinse a £300k per week wage to go clubbing and get hammered every day. I think he would have been a better signing for us and would have been far better for us than he is for City.
 
Amar__ said:
Yeah, everyone was afraid of Grealish. Even Pep who replaced him because of that.

Well he is much closer to Lingard to Ronaldinho anyway in terms of style and quality. Lingard has even more apps and goals for England.
Click to expand...

Of course he is, only an idiot would think Grealish is fit to even be Ronaldinho's waterboy, but he's still 5x the player of Lingard.
 
padr81 said:
Of course he is, only an idiot would think Grealish is fit to even be Ronaldinho's waterboy, but he's still 5x the player of Lingard.
Click to expand...

Lingard is obviously overreaction to show how bad he is, my first comparision of Grealish was always Nasri(you can find it in my older posts here) , they are identical players for me.

Generally good players, but not good enough to play through the middle, no pace to play wide at highest level, and neither have enough end product to compensate. Rich man's Lingard.
 
Amar__ said:
Lingard is obviously overreaction to show how bad he is, my first comparision of Grealish was always Nasri(you can find it in my older posts here) , they are identical players for me.

Generally good players, but not good enough to play through the middle, no pace to play wide at highest level, and neither have enough end product to compensate. Rich man's Lingard.
Click to expand...

Nasri is a great comparison actually.
 
bosnian_red said:
Nasri had a season or 2 far surpassing any season Grealish has had in his career though
Click to expand...
Yeah, also Nasri is probably one of the most talented player I have ever seen in a City shirt, he just didn't want it enough often enough
 
You must log in or register to reply here.