He was. So was Zaha at PalaceThis is just false. He was an exciting player.
I'm not sure he was good enough for that, and now we'll probably never know. Across those two Villa seasons everybody marvels about he scored 14 PL goals in over 60 games and didn't put up big chance creation numbers either. His main value always came from his ball progressing ability, he was a poor man's Hazard. It really was bizarre that City would spend that money on him given how little they needed his skillset...Great player but utterly handcuffed in Peps system. Honestly, hes the sort of player that needs to be given a free role and few top clubs give that role to players like Grealish. A bizarre signing for City honestly.
ThisGrealish doesn't have to do a single thing more to have been entirely worth his fee in relation to City's objectives before purchase. He was a key component in a treble. That's it. Done. Game's over. Mission completed.
The problem with this thread is you're all talking about Man City and then applying the rules and objective critique reserved for normal clubs. It doesn't work. At all.
Grealish doesn't have to do a single thing more to have been entirely worth his fee in relation to City's objectives before purchase. He was a key component in a treble. That's it. Done. Game's over. Mission completed.
What he goes on to do after that is incidental.
He's made a fortune. He's more successful than his wildest dreams at Villa and his profile was elevated at City. They have a treble and the CL - the same trophy PSG have spent a billion on 3 players - let alone the rest of the team - trying - and failing - to attain. They could have parted ways then, but even if he sees out the entirety of his contract there, he did what he was bought for, first and foremost.
Applying normal metrics of normal clubs, that care about the things City simply do not, is asinine, so saying he's a failure because X or Y is outperforming him at a normal club, or reimagining the reaction to what is permissible at City, serves no purpose.
They are a state-owned island and have very little to do with the trials and tribulations of real clubs, which is why they have struggled so much trying to pretend to care about regulations and the rest of it.
Well they should care that they spent 100m on someone that gives you a couple of goals and assist a season.because nobody cares about city
Don’t see Rashford joining any of our rivals. He still loves the club it just isn’t working for him. He’ll respect us as he grew up here. A move abroad works.Swap deal for Rashford?
Swap deal for Rashford?
A walk on part in a war or a lead role in a cageFeels a bit like swapping a donkey for a mule
Yeah it'll probably never happen. I do see a scenario where the divorce gets messy though. If we can't find a buyer and he won't reduce his wage demands, we could have a long standoff.Don’t see Rashford joining any of our rivals. He still loves the club it just isn’t working for him. He’ll respect us as he grew up here. A move abroad works.
I’d add that £100m outlay is an astronomical amount for a normal club, but other state-owned club have spent 10* that on the very best names available and still failed to acquire the CL, so this cost to City isn’t some kind of tragedy; it’s a fantastic investment for what it enabled them to achieve, they’d do it multiple times over if each “flop” is a key component in treble-winning seasons.Yeah true. Some achievements, like a treble, are so big everything becomes justified. Doesn't matter if it was the best use of resources or long term the best decision.
It's like us signing RvP. Basically we got three quarters of a season out of him. For the fee normally nowhere near worth it.
But he won us a league. Fergie's final league win.
So ultimately who cares.
He won't and shouldn't reduce his wage demands. That situation is entirely on the club management. Rashford can sit back an puff his cigar. His agency has earned him that.Yeah it'll probably never happen. I do see a scenario where the divorce gets messy though. If we can't find a buyer and he won't reduce his wage demands, we could have a long standoff.
They definitely were. Mahrez got dropped against anyone decent for an extra midfielder. Silva doesn't create anything that isn't blindingly obvious. Foden had the same fate as Grealish. Sane got dropped every other week. Sterling kept his place by following instructions. Boring, predictable, rehearsed instructions.One thing to consider is that Guardiola did get to see him in training all the time, so presumably if he thought Grealish was good enough for it he would have given him a different role. Afterall De Bruyne's been given free license to do whatever he wants from day 1, and even players like Mahrez, Bernardo Silva, Foden, Sane or Sterling over the years were hardly being held back. Doku and Savinho play with a certain regularity and they the opposite of "safe" players...
But on the other hand Guardiola let City sell Cole Palmer, so...
which is different from being coached to change his play style, and ultimately he played quite a bit and plenty of big games.They definitely were. Mahrez got dropped against anyone decent for an extra midfielder.
again, that's his footballSilva doesn't create anything that isn't blindingly obvious.
so far he doesn'tFoden had the same fate as Grealish.
Sane didn't get dropped every other week and Sterling reached his best version, curbing the excesses in his game but again, fundamentally playing his footballSane got dropped every other week. Sterling kept his place by following instructions. Boring, predictable, rehearsed instructions.
finally some proper analysis on here.I was in the 4th row on Sunday and right by him as he took a corner. Must say, his backside is rather large in the shorts he wears.
If he went a size up he would return to form.
This is the sort of post that explains why you can't just go off stats.He was. So was Zaha at Palace
I'm not sure he was good enough for that, and now we'll probably never know. Across those two Villa seasons everybody marvels about he scored 14 PL goals in over 60 games and didn't put up big chance creation numbers either. His main value always came from his ball progressing ability, he was a poor man's Hazard. It really was bizarre that City would spend that money on him given how little they needed his skillset...
But then again..
This
Yeah, but he didn't. If he played a big game it was due to injuries. He was a bit part player for them when he would have started every match for more or less any other team or manager in world football. Very few would've had the obsession with midfield control that cost him a place in the team against anyone good.which is different from being coached to change his play style, and ultimately he played quite a bit and plenty of big games.
again, that's his football
so far he doesn't
Sane didn't get dropped every other week and Sterling reached his best version, curbing the excesses in his game but again, fundamentally playing his football
Grealish is the only player who plays nothing like he "natural" style at City, and that's down to City having no need for his main skillset. He's good enough in other ways to make up for it, it's just those are pressing/tracking back and ball retention, rather than anything involving playmaking
he didn't though. He created tons of dangerous situations that lead to good chances, which is different from directly creating those. And most of his attacking production came in transition. He never had a reliable killer final ball that could unlock a set defence, or the ability to dribble past multiple players in tight spaces. He was exceptional when he had lots of space to work withI watched every Villa game in lockdown, and he made Villa an absolute superb watch. He'd beat players and laid on countless chances that a young Watkins wasted.
Yeah, I'm not saying otherwiseHe was rightly rated right up there quality wise in the league that season.
Because he probably is just a slightly above average wide player. His problem is Guardiola doesn't rate him as good enough to be a central figure in their attack, so he gets shunted into a role he isn't particularly suited for in an attacking sense - he absolutely crushed it the treble season with his defensive/off ball work though.Unfortunately, while he's earnt huge money and won a fair number of tainted trophies, his actual entertainment and general level has dropped to slightly above average wide player now. It's sort of a shame in a way, but less so because it's City
He never scored much in general, that's not exactly new. I've already explained why he doesn't dribble much anymoreToday's Grealish gets it, holds it, passes it 5 yards. Never scores, certainly never tries to beat anyone at all, and it's bewildering how little he stands out now.
Gerrard had his best seasons playing off Fernando Torres, Xabi Alonso and Mascherano. He absolutely stood out *more* when he had better teammatesI've always wondered how Stevie Gerrard would have looked at a Chelsea or United when there's top quality players all around him.
I don't think it'd be the massive drop Grealish has had, but I think it'd certainly have stopped all the posts rating him the "best" midfield talent as opposed to looking stratospheres better than all those around him for years.
This is in a nutshell what I'm getting at. Presumably Guardiola is not an idiot who can't tell talent apart. If he relied so much on an elite playmaker like De Bruyne, and in De Bruyne's absence, he never turned that role over to Grealish, that might say something about the latter...This team and system wont work without an absolutely elite level playmaker like prime De Bruyne.
I'm probably in the wrong thread. I think i'm being critical of Guardiola primarily. De Bruyne just isn't the same player anymore and thats been very obviously coming for a long time now. He'll have to find solutions which are either give someone more freedom (grealish seems the most plausible candidate). Or the entire team needs to start taking more risks, which guardiola seems alergic to. Or they can continue being a bit crap until they buy Wirtz or Musiala or something where they'll continue being boring but at least one player might possibly do something sometimes.This is in a nutshell what I'm getting at. Presumably Guardiola is not an idiot who can't tell talent apart. If he relied so much on an elite playmaker like De Bruyne, and in De Bruyne's absence, he never turned that role over to Grealish, that might say something about the latter...
I'll repeat: player whose truly elite skill is ball carrying/dribbling in transition moves to the team that attacks the least in transition, oh and when they do they already have a monster ball carrier/playmaker they can run it through. So what's left for Grealish to do? He doesn't get to do the things that make him a genuinely great attacking player at City - because City rarely attack in those conditions and they have other players to run those situations through when they do. He's not a great 1vs1 dribbler from a standing start - lacks the explosive acceleration for it. He's not a genuis creative passer. He's not a big scoring threat. He's not a big threat off the ball.
Basically, he's just a pretty decent player
Maybe but its become a problem for them now.Grealish was bought for his ball carriage - the ability to take the ball 30+ yards up the pitch practically every time unless fouled.
When you have an asset that is guaranteed to take the ball through lines and drive into the half spaces, you can build entire tactical plans around those orbiting. Grealish driving up the pitch to do "nothing" actually equates to enormous driving gains into simple lay offs that have driven 2 waves of attack forward and allowed players from the backline (3rd wave) chances to over or under lap as the opportunities arose. Allied to his willingness to graft defensively, Grealish was a huge component in the game City played to attain their trophy haul that season. It's actually myopic to think about goals and assists and not secondary or tertiary providing for the team in Grealishes case. He did exactly what he was bought to do. The rest would be a bonus.
I feel like people aren't interested in assessing what his purpose was and why he served it so well. Guardiola didn't want a maverick; he wanted a sure thing, and in terms of ball carries, the Grealish they got was the best at it in the PL, and he delivered on it as was intended.
It made him boring and mechanical, but it was what was reauired.
I’d add that £100m outlay is an astronomical amount for a normal club, but other state-owned club have spent 10* that on the very best names available and still failed to acquire the CL, so this cost to City isn’t some kind of tragedy; it’s a fantastic investment for what it enabled them to achieve, they’d do it multiple times over if each “flop” is a key component in treble-winning seasons.
Grealish might be too much like the everyman in that if most of us were handed a retirement plan early, we’d jump at it and go through the motions at the job until it was time to say final goodbyes.
The great pity, I would say, is that we will never get to see what Grealish may have gone on to become. His prime years are fading and it doesn’t look like he is particularly bothered, certainly not in the romantic notion fans want, where talented players do all they can to maximise their potential and possibly wow us with whatever their final form is.
This reminds me of Joe Cole under Mourinho a little bit. Cole did the jobs he was told and had the most successful period of his career, but that unpredictable wild card who used to wow with sudden moments of masterful play was obliterated and whatever that organic trajectory was going to be was no more, and Cole became a perfunctory cog for the remainder of his career rather than a potential star in the making. I’d wager we’ll not see better from Grealish than what has come and gone in his career now.
I don't think he was overhyped, City overpaid for sure but he was an exciting talent. The positions in which he would have played for us were occupied by either Bruno or Rashford though, we were supposedly very interested for a while.
Villa were a poor team when he played for them but on coming up to the PL and the subsequent year he scored and made more goals in both seasons than he ever did at City. That's impressive. It would be like one of Leicester's wide attackers hitting ~15 G/A this season. Off the top of my head, Rafinha might be the last person to make that kind of impact when he came up with Leeds, they are different players but it's rare for a wide attacker in weaker teams to do so well for back to back years.
Correct, but this isn't a consequence of Guardiola "coaching things out of his game". It's a consequence of City itself not giving him the context to be more of a maverick. At Villa he had to try and make things happen in the final third, against back-pedaling defences and with teammates making runs with abandon - because that was 80% of their attack. At City he plays with guys who are much better than him at making things happen in the final third, has fewer opportunities to carry the ball in transition, and often when he does he doesn't have multiple teammates making runs, instead the team wants to stop and set up their attack in other team's half. That's why he looks boring and mechanicalGrealish was bought for his ball carriage - the ability to take the ball 30+ yards up the pitch practically every time unless fouled.
When you have an asset that is guaranteed to take the ball through lines and drive into the half spaces, you can build entire tactical plans around those orbiting. Grealish driving up the pitch to do "nothing" actually equates to enormous driving gains into simple lay offs that have driven 2 waves of attack forward and allowed players from the backline (3rd wave) chances to over or under lap as the opportunities arose. Allied to his willingness to graft defensively, Grealish was a huge component in the game City played to attain their trophy haul that season. It's actually myopic to think about goals and assists and not secondary or tertiary providing for the team in Grealishes case. He did exactly what he was bought to do. The rest would be a bonus.
I feel like people aren't interested in assessing what his purpose was and why he served it so well. Guardiola didn't want a maverick; he wanted a sure thing, and in terms of ball carries, the Grealish they got was the best at it in the PL, and he delivered on it as was intended.
It made him boring and mechanical, but it was what was required.
Because he evidently wasn't good enough to deserve it. City have De BruyneHowever, I do have to question why Pep has created that role for him, instead of trying to accommodate his skill set a little more.
Mule at least works harder.Feels a bit like swapping a donkey for a mule
You can't use the first sentence as a run-on and not see the contradiction, surely? Every human on the planet gets better by doing, repetitively and expediently until they are determined masters of a skill/craft. By removing the opportunities to even explore that element of his game, Grealish is reduced - or marginalised - as a specialist with a specific job to do in the team, one he's the best in the entire league at, and very probably the reason he was targeted by City in the first place, but a specific job nonetheless.Correct, but this isn't a consequence of Guardiola "coaching things out of his game". It's a consequence of City itself not giving him the context to be more of a maverick. At Villa he had to try and make things happen in the final third, against back-pedaling defences and with teammates making runs with abandon - because that was 80% of their attack. At City he plays with guys who are much better than him at making things happen in the final third, has fewer opportunities to carry the ball in transition, and often when he does he doesn't have multiple teammates making runs, instead the team wants to stop and set up their attack in other team's half. That's why he looks boring and mechanical
Because he evidently wasn't good enough to deserve it. City have De Bruyne
Oh, and it's not true that he doesn't try and take people on. He tries that all the time. He's just not a good enough dribbler to consistently beat his man quickly in the kind of spaces he operates in now - lacks the acceleration and/or agility for it - and as a result often ends up drawing a second defender to him, at which point he makes the right play: a 10 yard lay off for a teammate, the one that's now been left wide open because his defender is helping on Grealish. In the few instances in which he has the space and the time attack a defender 1vs1, he often beats him(unless the defender backs away so much he doesn't need to)
Correct, but this isn't a consequence of Guardiola "coaching things out of his game". It's a consequence of City itself not giving him the context to be more of a maverick. At Villa he had to try and make things happen in the final third, against back-pedaling defences and with teammates making runs with abandon - because that was 80% of their attack. At City he plays with guys who are much better than him at making things happen in the final third, has fewer opportunities to carry the ball in transition, and often when he does he doesn't have multiple teammates making runs, instead the team wants to stop and set up their attack in other team's half. That's why he looks boring and mechanical
Because he evidently wasn't good enough to deserve it. City have De Bruyne
Oh, and it's not true that he doesn't try and take people on. He tries that all the time. He's just not a good enough dribbler to consistently beat his man quickly in the kind of spaces he operates in now - lacks the acceleration and/or agility for it - and as a result often ends up drawing a second defender to him, at which point he makes the right play: a 10 yard lay off for a teammate, the one that's now been left wide open because his defender is helping on Grealish. In the few instances in which he has the space and the time attack a defender 1vs1, he often beats him(unless the defender backs away so much he doesn't need to)
The point I'm making is, Grealish isn't being instructed to play like this specifically. He, like Doku, Savinho, Mahrez, etc, is given freedom to make his own decisions once he gets the ball in the final third. I don't know if the reason Grealish plays so boring and mechanical is because he thinks that's what he should do, or if it's because that's the player he naturally is. He always struck me as a -relatively- risk-averse player in the final third, the type who'd rather wait for the right opening than try and force oneAt other clubs, under managers who don't see the game in such a binary fashion, the "Villa Grealish" goes on to a bigger club and isn't anywhere near as efficient as Guardiola made him, but becomes a better version of the player he got to that club as. Better decision making; better understanding of the game; better understanding of self and when and what to do in certain positions/situations via the aforementioned honed and refined practice, etc. etc.
Through the eyes of a fan of flamboyance and expression, Guardiola getting his hands on this type of player - one he deems exceptional for one thing, but not good enough for the other - it's got to be seen as a loss "to the game" because one stem of free-flowing expressionism has been lost, and another Grealish then has to take on the mantle because the one that was there no longer has his. The problem here is, Grealish's don't come around often, which is why it's going to be seen as sad when one is lost to the system despite the success it brought the club who purchased him.
I agree. He was never a big G/A man, his ball carrying was good level but it was mostly out wide to win free kicks, he never really had that incisiveness in the final third.He was nothing special even at Villa.
I picked that because I agreed with the rest, duh. You framed that sentence as an open question, and I gave you my take on it. And I also didn't mean to play him in the middle(though yes, that would have worked better). I meant City could have run more of their attack through him, the way Guardiola's Bayern run its attack through Robben/Ribery(and Douglas Costa)99% of my post was agreeing with you, you picked on the 1% that had a different perspective and made an irrelevant point about De Bruyne. I never said to play Grealish centrally.
I think that's a sign you're a little too invested in this.
