Manchester City under Pep Guardiola | Pep on City v Liverpool ref: "He likes to be special"

Leicester had conceded 20 already after MD13 last season, and no team had a ratio of 2:1 goals for/against at the end of the season. Scoring 2 for 1 conceded will probably get you the title, if you look at the numbers for the last few seasons.
 
ivaldo said:
You what!?
Click to expand...

We d-e-f-e-n-d better. We defend as a team and despite the high press being caught out occasionally we've only conceded 12 goals playing attacking football. No one can say we didn't defend well last 10 minutes today against Burnley and when teams go all hoofball now, we simply abandon the high press and look much better at the back like today.
 
cyberman said:
They don't keep clean sheets, if they only conceded 38 goals this season but it's a goal a game due to a Stones feck up, is it a good defence?
2 goals needed to win every game is a huge disadvantage.
Click to expand...

yes it is. Its not an unbelievably good one but its good enough. Sometimes when you play an attacking game like ours you'll concede more goals than Jose like bus parking.
38 goals is fine.
Leicester won the title with 36 conceded and everyone raved about their defence.
Chelsea the season before with 32 conceded and people raved about Terry and Cahill.
We won the season before and conceded 37.
Season before that you won conceding 43 goals!!!
You have to go back to our first title for a sub 30 goal season. 29 goals, when we were under Mancini and many would say had one of the top defences in Europe.

Taking the last 5 seasons into account than the average goals conceded for champions is 35, much higher for the last 4. So conceding 38 goals even if Stones caused them all would be a perfectly good defence for a championship winning team regardless of how they are conceded.
 
Didn't we have the joint best defence in England last year or something?
That's why stats are meaningless. The only way to make your defence look good is by not watching the game.
 
cyberman said:
Didn't we have the joint best defence in England last year or something?
That's why stats are meaningless. The only way to make your defence look good is by not watching the game.
Click to expand...

You did or at least went close but your defence wasn't to blame for your poor showing, your attack was scoring only 50 or so if I'm not mistaken.

City on the other hand conceded 41 goals in the league and only scored 71 so I'd argue our so called poor defence last season was let down by us scoring around 20 goalss below the standard in our better seasons.

The same season you guys caned us for no.20. We only scored 66.

Our goals conceded have been with 29-40 but in our poor seasons our goals have been 66 & 71, while our better seasons we scored 93, 102, 86 (2nd). The big variance in our poor seasons at City have been us not scoring as many, not our defensive numbers which have only mildly increased on our numbers under Mancini. The seasons we've been poor, its putting the ball in the net thats cost us.
This season we're on course to concede 35 and score 84. So its our scoring thats back up.
 
padr81 said:
We d-e-f-e-n-d better. We defend as a team and despite the high press being caught out occasionally we've only conceded 12 goals playing attacking football. No one can say we didn't defend well last 10 minutes today against Burnley and when teams go all hoofball now, we simply abandon the high press and look much better at the back like today.
Click to expand...
And you cant keep a c-l-e-a-n s-h-e-e-t. Your strikers are having to go out almost every single game and score at least 2 just to take home three points, that isn't what you call a good defense.

Yeah that's the acid test.

Gentleman Jim said:
No.
That's why they are where they are
Click to expand...
Odd to mention it then in a reply to someone using top 4 as an example.
 
ivaldo said:
And you cant keep a c-l-e-a-n s-h-e-e-t. Your strikers are having to go out almost every single game and score at least 2 just to take home three points, that isn't what you call a good defense.

Yeah that's the acid test.


Odd to mention it then in a reply to someone using top 4 as an example.
Click to expand...

76 goals in a season is too much to ask?
We concede feck all more than the other top teams and score the most pretty much every season (though Liverpool may have a say in that this season). I wouldn't worry about us scoring 2 goals a game. We're already averaging over that and have been for the best part of 5 years.
See my post above and you'll see titles to goal conceded.
Our defending is better and its shown, if you wanna say Burnley's hoofball wasn't an acid test, what about Jose's at OT?
 
padr81 said:
76 goals in a season is too much to ask?
We concede feck all more than the other top teams and score the most pretty much every season (though Liverpool may have a say in that this season). I wouldn't worry about us scoring 2 goals a game. We're already averaging over that and have been for the best part of 5 years.
See my post above and you'll see titles to goal conceded.
Our defending is better and its shown, if you wanna say Burnley's hoofball wasn't an acid test, what about Jose's at OT?
Click to expand...
Guaranteeing 2 goals a game is too much to ask.

In the last 11 games you've failed to score 2 or more goals no less than 7 times. 7! And in those same 11 games you've conceded in all but 1. So instead of looking at it by average or whatever way looks favourable to you, how about actually looking at it on a game by game basis hey?
 
I think their defensive record suggest their defence has been better than it really has.
 
ivaldo said:
Odd to mention it then in a reply to someone using top 4 as an example.
Click to expand...
Odd for a Red not to put up your own team as a counterpoint to the perceived boring football of another team.
 
Gentleman Jim said:
Odd for a Red not to put up your own team as a counterpoint to the perceived boring football of another team.
Click to expand...
Oh someone's getting their knickers in a twist.
 
Last edited:
ivaldo said:
Oh someone's getting their knickers in a twist.
Click to expand...
Not really. If you're going to call our football boring at least have the cajones to admit that yours has been as bad if not worse in recent years rather than hiding behind the Top 4 strawman that you put up.
 
Gentleman Jim said:
Not really. If you're going to call our football boring at least have the cajones to admit that yours has been as bad if not worse in recent years rather than hiding behind the Top 4 strawman that you put up.
Click to expand...
When did I call it boring? Just a simple quote will do.

But on that side note our football has been pretty entertaining recently, we've just suffered from a lack of goals.
 
ivaldo said:
When did I call it boring? Just a simple quote will do.

But on that side note our football has been pretty entertaining recently, we've just suffered from a lack of goals.
Click to expand...
You didn't, another poster did. I apologise to you.
I agree that you've played well recently in stark contrast to some of the offerings of the last few years.
 
Gentleman Jim said:
You didn't, another poster did. I apologise to you.
I agree that you've played well recently in stark contrast to some of the offerings of the last few years.
Click to expand...
No worries. Thanks, although it wasn't exactly a tall order to improve our entertainment value on the last few years!
 
Had some luck but look good but not great. We have been unlucky but look like we are starting to click.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I can't stand baldy as much as the next man but whilst City look far from brilliant they are doing enough at the moment.
Click to expand...

I think it is a good sign tbh, City out of the top 4 are playing the poorest atm and yet still bagging good results whereas Liverpool are still playing some awesome football and almost struggling to get results, and they will pick up injuries soon. Chelsea are at their peak right now.. so will be interesting to see how they go when Costa or Hazard picks up an injury.
 
City do defend better as a team but individual mistakes from Kolarov and Stones have cost about 10 of those goals. Otamendi has been far superior than last year. City wouldn't have made top 4 last season if they had to play Kolarov at CB.
 
Think they will lose Saturday. Chelsea on the better form, and look more of a "team" right now. Good game in store though.
 
Raees said:
I think it is a good sign tbh, City out of the top 4 are playing the poorest atm and yet still bagging good results whereas Liverpool are still playing some awesome football and almost struggling to get results, and they will pick up injuries soon. Chelsea are at their peak right now.. so will be interesting to see how they go when Costa or Hazard picks up an injury.
Click to expand...
Batshuayi looks alright and lets be frank, not bad having Willian on the bench is it lol
 
ivaldo said:
Guaranteeing 2 goals a game is too much to ask.

In the last 11 games you've failed to score 2 or more goals no less than 7 times. 7! And in those same 11 games you've conceded in all but 1. So instead of looking at it by average or whatever way looks favourable to you, how about actually looking at it on a game by game basis hey?
Click to expand...

Instead of cherry picking stats (which incidentally I am not sure you even got right) how about we've played 13 league games so far, so let's look at all 13 shall we? In 13 games, we've failed to score 2 goals, not 7 but 4 times. And that includes the rather ropey spell of 1 win and 3 draws out of 4 games, following the defeat at Spurs.

So taking those 5 games (1 loss, 3 draw, 1 win), if we carry on like that we won't have to worry about how many goals conceded because we'd be finishing around 10th. And assuming we get it back on track, we've scored 2 or more in EVERY other game.
 
Ronetta said:
Instead of cherry picking stats (which incidentally I am not sure you even got right) how about we've played 13 league games so far, so let's look at all 13 shall we? In 13 games, we've failed to score 2 goals, not 7 but 4 times. And that includes the rather ropey spell of 1 win and 3 draws out of 4 games, following the defeat at Spurs.

So taking those 5 games (1 loss, 3 draw, 1 win), if we carry on like that we won't have to worry about how many goals conceded because we'd be finishing around 10th. And assuming we get it back on track, we've scored 2 or more in EVERY other game.
Click to expand...
Instead of assuming I didn't get right, actually look at your results of the last 11 games at time of posting. I didn't say PL games, that's what you've decided to look at.

So tell me, specifically, what stats did I 'cherry pick'
 
I think Arsenal have been more boring to be honest. been jammy as feck this season.
 
B20 said:
I think Arsenal have been more boring to be honest. been jammy as feck this season.
Click to expand...
Both have been unimpressive in my opinion. Either means their luck will eventually run out or they're yet to peak & will be a massive threat in the 2nd half of the season.
 
B20 said:
I think Arsenal have been more boring to be honest. been jammy as feck this season.
Click to expand...

Yep, I have been impressed with Liverpool, city and Chelsea but arsenal have had amazing luck in certain games. Certainly didn't look a dangerous attacking force in our game against them.
 
Arsenal without Sanchez would be such an average side. I think us with Sanchez would be title contenders.
 
ivaldo said:
Instead of assuming I didn't get right, actually look at your results of the last 11 games at time of posting. I didn't say PL games, that's what you've decided to look at.

So tell me, specifically, what stats did I 'cherry pick'
Click to expand...

Blimey you're a slow one. 11 games you say. Everyone scores things marks out of 11, don't they.

You couldn't *possibly* have chosen the last 11 because in the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 18th games we scored 2 or more, could you. No, of course not. Just randomly chose 11. Of course you did.

Let alone the fact that this has been a debate about whether we can win the league if we continue to concede a goal in most games. The league.
 
Last edited:
Ronetta said:
Blimey you're a slow one. 11 games you say. Everyone scores things marks out of 11, don't they.

You couldn't *possibly* have chosen the last 11 because in the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 18th games we scored 2 or more, could you. No, of course not. Just randomly chose 11. Of course you did.

Let alone the fact that this has been a debate about whether we can win the league if we continue to concede a goal in most games. The league.
Click to expand...


Why is 10 any more relevant than 11, because it's a nice round number? Does it make the point any less relevant? Take 10 if it makes you feel better, doesn't make much difference really does it?

What it shows us is form, you can pretend how you played in the middle of September is an indication of the current state of affairs if you want, you can pretend everything is hunky dory if it spares your feelings.
 
ivaldo said:
Why is 10 any more relevant than 11, because it's a nice round number? Does it make the point any less relevant? Take 10 if it makes you feel better, doesn't make much difference really does it?

What it shows us is form, you can pretend how you played in the middle of September is an indication of the current state of affairs if you want, you can pretend everything is hunky dory if it spares your feelings.
Click to expand...

All I said was you cherry picked. Which you did. You took 11 and only 11 because it made your point look valid and had you taken all the games (or indeed less than 11), you would have had no point at all.

I am not remotely bothered. We're playing shite and 1 point from top whilst doing so. And if you think our October form will be representative of the whole season, dream on.
 
Last edited:
Ronetta said:
All I said was you cherry picked. Which you did. You took 11 and only 11 because it made your point look valid and had you taken all the games (or indeed less than 11), you would have had no point at all.

I am not remotely bothered. We're playing shite and 1 point from top whilst doing so. And if you think our October form will be representative of the whole season, dream on.
Click to expand...
I used the point from where your poor defensive run of form began, how is that different to understand? If I said 10 it wouldn't have made much difference now would it?

It appears you are bothered, otherwise you wouldn't have got so uppity about it in the first place. it's glaringly obvious you have some considerable problems with your defense.
 
ivaldo said:
I used the point from where your poor defensive run of form began, how is that different to understand? If I said 10 it wouldn't have made much difference now would it?

It appears you are bothered, otherwise you wouldn't have got so uppity about it in the first place. it's glaringly obvious you have some considerable problems with your defense.
Click to expand...

Clearly we do, I never said otherwise. Although our goals conceded is joint 3rd in the league, so not exactly a disaster.

I supposed understandably on a United forum, people are hoping we do badly, but the reality is although our defence is shaky we are coping and our attacking options mean we'll still win most games. We've had a rough patch in October but still only lost 1 game and arguably should have taken 3 points in one or two of the games we've drawn.

I expect us to get beaten by Chelsea on Saturday however, unfortunately.
 
Ronetta said:
Clearly we do, I never said otherwise. Although our goals conceded is joint 3rd in the league, so not exactly a disaster.

I supposed understandably on a United forum, people are hoping we do badly, but the reality is although our defence is shaky we are coping and our attacking options mean we'll still win most games. We've had a rough patch in October but still only lost 1 game and arguably should have taken 3 points in one or two of the games we've drawn.

I expect us to get beaten by Chelsea on Saturday however, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
So then why the hell take umbrage with what I said if you agree with me? You're getting away with it at the moment but with Pool and Chelsea are flying and sooner or later it'll catch up with you unless you tighten up.
 
ivaldo said:
You're getting away with it at the moment but with Pool and Chelsea are flying and sooner or later it'll catch up with you unless you tighten up.
Click to expand...

It's all very well saying City can tighten up, they don't have the defenders to do this though. The biggest liability is Bravo but the whole back 4 have plenty of mistakes in them too. There's alot of hyperbole over Pep, he's not going to get Stones playing like Rio no matter how long he's at City for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.