BigFish 1,988 Posted March 2 5 minutes ago, lake district canary said: I accept it's part position the modern game but it's the way we do it that is the issue. It looks so pedestrian, so tentative and slow. The Sunderland commentator today was mystified about our playing "walking football" as the home team. Well clearly you don't accept it or understand it. It is there to draw the opposition into positions that free space elsewhere, rather than move the ball into offensive positions. If the opposition don't react you keep doing it until they do. It is a long journey back to Sunderland so perhaps their commentator can use the time to contemplate why they are going home with no points and no goals. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conrad 171 Posted March 2 3 hours ago, Conrad said: One of the most turgid halves of football that I've seen at Carrow Road this season! Vast improvement in the 2nd half. Moved the ball a damn sight quicker and, as a result, created opportunities. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,514 Posted March 2 16 minutes ago, BigFish said: Well clearly you don't accept it or understand it. It is there to draw the opposition into positions that free space elsewhere, rather than move the ball into offensive positions. If the opposition don't react you keep doing it until they do. It is a long journey back to Sunderland so perhaps their commentator can use the time to contemplate why they are going home with no points and no goals. They were watching it on t'telly 🙂 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt. Pants 4,264 Posted March 2 We edged the game on chances but not a lot of quality from either team. Sunderland's season is over and we live to fight another day. A hard fought win but a tough watch in difficult conditions. Did Van Hooijdonk actually touch the ball? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,540 Posted March 2 11 minutes ago, BigFish said: Well clearly you don't accept it or understand it. It is there to draw the opposition into positions that free space elsewhere, rather than move the ball into offensive positions. If the opposition don't react you keep doing it until they do. It is a long journey back to Sunderland so perhaps their commentator can use the time to contemplate why they are going home with no points and no goals. I clearly do understand the reasons for it. The reality of it with us though, is that Gibson and Hanley look so devoid of any confidence on the ball and only when Mclean or Sara take over does some meaningful forward pass happen. It is SO predictable. No variation, no imagination, no positivity. Sunderland were quite happy to sit back, we were happy to keep the ball at the back. Makes for a kind of non-football, hence the "walking football" jibes from commentators. Yes, we won, but lets not pretend our playing the ball around at the back is high quality. At times it looks completely inept. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccanary 84 Posted March 2 A few thoughts... Weather was bloody awful A poor game that was probably only ever going to produce a one goal win Weather was awful Sargent finish the only real bit of quality in the game Weather was bloody awful Barclay and snakepit in fairly good voice. Atmosphere wasn't the best this season but far from the worst. The sun came out briefly A hard fought win that we just about deserved. Did I mention the bloody awful weather........glad I'm home in front of the fire with a beer now. onwards and upwards😁 OTBC 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conrad 171 Posted March 2 32 minutes ago, BigFish said: Well clearly you don't accept it or understand it. It is there to draw the opposition into positions that free space elsewhere, rather than move the ball into offensive positions. If the opposition don't react you keep doing it until they do. It is a long journey back to Sunderland so perhaps their commentator can use the time to contemplate why they are going home with no points and no goals. I have nothing against the ball being passed around, but, in the 1st half, it was moved around so slowly that Sunderland were able to walk into their required defensive positions. In the 2nd half we adopted the same approach, but moved the ball between players much quicker. Thus giving Sunderland less time to adapt and, as a consequence, we created more and better scoring opportunities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheGunnShow 5,972 Posted March 2 Quiet match thread for 7:45 pm on a Saturday night, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grumpy 122 Posted March 2 1 hour ago, BigFish said: Well clearly you don't accept it or understand it. It is there to draw the opposition into positions that free space elsewhere, rather than move the ball into offensive positions. If the opposition don't react you keep doing it until they do. It is a long journey back to Sunderland so perhaps their commentator can use the time to contemplate why they are going home with no points and no goals. This 100% Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grumpy 122 Posted March 2 51 minutes ago, lake district canary said: I clearly do understand the reasons for it. The reality of it with us though, is that Gibson and Hanley look so devoid of any confidence on the ball and only when Mclean or Sara take over does some meaningful forward pass happen. It is SO predictable. No variation, no imagination, no positivity. Sunderland were quite happy to sit back, we were happy to keep the ball at the back. Makes for a kind of non-football, hence the "walking football" jibes from commentators. Yes, we won, but lets not pretend our playing the ball around at the back is high quality. At times it looks completely inept. Yes Gibson and Hanley are not the most skillful of players although to be fair to Gibson he has more in his locker than Hanley when it comes to passing out of defence. But surely the whole point is exactly as you point out,they are giving McLean and Sara time to drop back and receive the ball to create any attacking play which is how Wagner wants us to play and has been happening for months. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,540 Posted March 2 1 minute ago, Grumpy said: Yes Gibson and Hanley are not the most skillful of players although to be fair to Gibson he has more in his locker than Hanley when it comes to passing out of defence. But surely the whole point is exactly as you point out,they are giving McLean and Sara time to drop back and receive the ball to create any attacking play which is how Wagner wants us to play and has been happening for months. I remember both Hanley and Gibson playing the ball well with confidence in the Farke era. Now they rarely look to play the ball forwards, relying almost totally on Sara and Mclean. It is why we look better with Mclean in defence - he adds that one extra body confident enough to play the ball. Reminds me of the Ron Saunders to John Bond era - in reverse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert N. LiM 4,432 Posted March 2 5 hours ago, TheGunnShow said: Wonder if Lungi's going to come on and plant one on O'Nien after that kissing incident last time out? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yellowrider120 767 Posted March 2 5 hours ago, lake district canary said: It's so cr*p watching Gibson and Hanley pass it around as nether has the confidence/ability to play it forwards and end up waiting for Mclean or Sara to drop back and take it on, usually with a hopeful - wayward - ball forwards. It looks so laboured and uninspiring. When the tempo is higher we look a lot better, but it starts at the back - or should do. Spot on and this is exactly what has got most fans well and truly 'wound up'. It's eff all to do with fans 'not understanding creating angles' or 'not appreciating the modern game' etc. We play the ball far too slowly out of defence and very few players there look at all comfortable in so doing. If you haven't got the personnel then get the ball forward quicker and contest the 'second balls'. You'd be amazed at how often this can be effective and turn defence into attacking positions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigFish 1,988 Posted March 3 16 hours ago, yellowrider120 said: Spot on and this is exactly what has got most fans well and truly 'wound up'. It's eff all to do with fans 'not understanding creating angles' or 'not appreciating the modern game' etc. We play the ball far too slowly out of defence and very few players there look at all comfortable in so doing. If you haven't got the personnel then get the ball forward quicker and contest the 'second balls'. You'd be amazed at how often this can be effective and turn defence into attacking positions. It is very much about fans "not understanding" and "not appreciating" the modern game. This dated idea of getting the ball forward quickly and then contesting second balls is how the game was played last century or at lower level. Needlessly giving the ball away in the hope that the opposition makes a mistake is not hoe the Elite game is played now or has been for a couple of decades. This is not just about Wagner, either as Farke got the old tippy-tappy ctiticism as well. Fans have every right to say this stuff, but all it demonstrates is how little they understand of what they are watching. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A K Narey 86 Posted March 3 I do understand the rationale behind playing the ball out from the back but I believe that we look better and much more dangerous when we look to move the ball quickly. The slowly, slowly passes between the centre backs and keeper give the opposition too much time to reset their defence. Disclaimer - I am only a fan who has been watching City for 50 years, not a professional coach! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Monty13 2,235 Posted March 3 18 hours ago, lake district canary said: I clearly do understand the reasons for it. The reality of it with us though, is that Gibson and Hanley look so devoid of any confidence on the ball and only when Mclean or Sara take over does some meaningful forward pass happen. It is SO predictable. No variation, no imagination, no positivity. Sunderland were quite happy to sit back, we were happy to keep the ball at the back. Makes for a kind of non-football, hence the "walking football" jibes from commentators. Yes, we won, but lets not pretend our playing the ball around at the back is high quality. At times it looks completely inept. Gibson provided the cross for the winner. He’s also provided some good penetrative passes at times this season. While I agree that Gibson and Hanley aren’t the most dynamic ball playing CBs, I don’t think they are devoid of confidence particularly, they are playing the role they are asked to. As far as I can see McClean, Sara and Nunez take over 1 because they have a far better long pass, but also mainly tactically so the CBs can spread out and allow the FBs to range forward. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 9,710 Posted March 3 19 hours ago, lake district canary said: I clearly do understand the reasons for it. The reality of it with us though, is that Gibson and Hanley look so devoid of any confidence on the ball and only when Mclean or Sara take over does some meaningful forward pass happen. It is SO predictable. No variation, no imagination, no positivity. Sunderland were quite happy to sit back, we were happy to keep the ball at the back. Makes for a kind of non-football, hence the "walking football" jibes from commentators. Yes, we won, but lets not pretend our playing the ball around at the back is high quality. At times it looks completely inept. Gibson was absolutely excellent on the ball for a defender yesterday. My god people see what they want to see rather than what's actually happening at times. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 9,710 Posted March 3 57 minutes ago, BigFish said: It is very much about fans "not understanding" and "not appreciating" the modern game. This dated idea of getting the ball forward quickly and then contesting second balls is how the game was played last century or at lower level. Needlessly giving the ball away in the hope that the opposition makes a mistake is not hoe the Elite game is played now or has been for a couple of decades. This is not just about Wagner, either as Farke got the old tippy-tappy ctiticism as well. Fans have every right to say this stuff, but all it demonstrates is how little they understand of what they are watching. Spot on. Farke got ridiculous criticism first season and start of second for it. He even got it start of the covid title season! We actually get the ball forwards much quicker under Wagner as McLean dropping deep splitting the CBs gets the fullbacks into overload positions allowing the diagonal long switch to happen much quicker than the build up under Farke. But there will be games with low blocks particularly at home where we have to be patient and no teams moves the ball quickly for 90 minutes. We never did under Farke, people have just decided we did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
