Pearson-ball v Martin-ball

[Spike]

16 hours ago, Taylor10 said:

It’s a flawed argument for me though Dave. People seem to think you can just turn up at a club and make any side a passing side or play attractive football.

Martin has gone from a passing/possession based side to a passing/possession based side that have had the philosophy ingrained in the club at all levels ever since the Martinez days. They also try to recruit players to play that way. I am not disputing Martin’s sides play good football or that he will become a good manager/coach but it’s far easier implementing a style when you have the players to do so. He couldn’t get us playing that way if he came here as we don’t have the players suited to that style. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves on.

This is spot on but what's upsetting is that looking back not so long ago that is exactly the type of players we had and LJ had us playing that style. This is why I think there is so many annoyed fans right now, we were there, there was nothing stopping us from staying there... until we sold those players and replaced them with less technical players and now we're really struggling because of it. 

As much as I was happy with the result yesterday watching Semenyo mess up so many simple and basic passes really summed up a key issue for me. We are awful at keeping possession, add to that the inability for our defenders to keep shape and track threats when playing with a back three and it's not hard to identify why we're struggling. 

We give the ball away far too easily, be it a simple pass that isn't good enough or lumping it up the pitch and being beaten to the ball off the head. Then when defending our back three can't seem to control their shape and who should be pressuring and who should be preventing gaps. Over 90 minutes these two issues combined practically guarantee that we won't have a clean sheet meaning we'll need a minimum of 2 goals to secure 3 points, all of which is a big ask when Martin is not prolific, neither is Weimann, Semenyos decision making still seems to be off and our only natural finisher either isn't sharp due to a lack of game time or isn't even provided good opportunitys to take. 

If we're going to continue to play lump ball then we need the big man, in this case Martin, to have a very creative player and a prolific player supporting him. As it is our prolific player is on the bench most of the time and we don't have a creative player of the quality we need to play near Martin and even if we did he's mostly isolated in this formation as we're playing it. 

I like Pearson, I think he can turn this club around given enough time and backing with transfers, the issue is we're lacking funds, we don't seem to attract the quality of players we need and this means Pearson is almost forced to play this awful football and hope for the best because he doesn't have the players needed to play any kind of cohesive formation. 

I still think we're playing 3-5-2/5-3-2 due to the end of LJs era and Holdens time here. We bought players for that formation and we lack the depth in the squad to change it up. If we were to play 4-4-2 we have no natural right sided midfielder that would suit it nor do we have a quality right back capable of covering for Weimann if he's put in that right midfield role as most of his time is spent making runs off of the ball into advanced areas. If we played 4-4-2 our right side would be massively exposed. Scott could be a right sided midfielder with actual ability to drive at teams but again, we'd need a good right back behind him to offer cover. Even the left side is questionable, O'Dowda is a winger naturally, he's able to play in a left midfield role, but again, he's far better pushing up meaning we'd need an experienced, more defensive left back behind him but instead we have lacking experience or DaSilva who is more of a wing back than a full back as his strength is going forward. 

Simply put we lack quality in wide positions which means we're better off bulking the middle of the park to make up for that and using wing backs as the middle three can chip in when we need a winger or advanced wide player to push forward. 

This squad lacks the quality and depth to change how we play right now, Pearson has identified that and in my view is doing the best he can until he can improve the quality, hence that quote about not bringing players in unless they're the right quality to improve us. 

I know some people will say he's made signings since joining that don't seem to make sense but I think those transfers are more about having temporary depth for the current formation. I personally hope that somehow there will be a situation in the transfer windows where Pearson will be able to get the players he needs to actually change our current formation and style of play, whether that be January or the more likely summer break where he can start making those changes, until then I can't see much changing no matter who is our manager/coach as our squad is hugely unadaptable in its current state. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

I know some people will say he's made signings since joining that don't seem to make sense but I think those transfers are more about having temporary depth for the current formation. I personally hope that somehow there will be a situation in the transfer windows where Pearson will be able to get the players he needs to actually change our current formation and style of play, whether that be January or the more likely summer break where he can start making those changes, until then I can't see much changing no matter who is our manager/coach as our squad is hugely unadaptable in its current state. 

Very pertinent last paragraph.

[B-Rizzle]

7 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

Honestly . One of the most clueless opinions I’ve read 

Moving on from your overly emotive and exaggerate disagreement of my view, what do you think NP is actually developing?

Ive already conceded that he HAS made us more robust than the back end of last season but only just. Don’t forget our limp ends to many games this season and our bad run of home form. I don’t see a particularly cohesive plan to move forward and don’t have huge confidence in his ability to develop players.

I know he’s not inherited a great situation but neither has he seemed to stamp his mark particularly effectively.

You obviously do have faith. Please convince me!

[TV Tom]

23 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Lot of clamour for Russell Martin (or a Martin-ball type) whenever Nige’s tenure is questioned.

Would you be happy playing pretty football but ultimately being in the same position (bar GD)?  Also let’s not forget Swansea have a better squad and budget than us, having only just stopped PPs.

Just thought it was interesting.

Haven’t read any of the replies so don’t know if anyone else has mentioned the fact that they lost their 4 best players pre-season, personally i’m a Martin fan and would of loved to of seen him and his style of football at AG, do they have a better budget than us? And yes, I would prefer “pretty” football to “lump ball”

[The Bard]

On 11/12/2021 at 21:37, B-Rizzle said:

Haven’t said I hate it. I’m just incredibly uninspired - probably more so than any other time in my 20+ years following City.

Can you not see that a load of young players are cutting their teeth at the moment and doing okay?  That we've been left in a mess by Ashton and fingers crossed are recovering from it without the usual relegation to League 1.   It might not be inspiring but it does mean that if we do recover we will be in a strong position  over the next few years.  In the long term this is far more important that signing 4th choice Chelsea players for £millions. 

[TMWANG50]

Its an interesting comparison but far more to both clubs back stories.

Swansea - played nice football under Cooper but never had any shots just passed the ball sideways and to death some fans actually didn't like that style as it was boring to watch. Since getting relegated from the Prem they have been all about saving money for the American owners, so have been tyring to offload virtually everyone on the playing staff of any value over the summer and ths a major reason why Cooper left, They've brought in a few players but certainly don't have a huge budget far from it, they've needed free transfers like Smith and Pato to make up the numbers.

Martin has been in the job 131 days could you judge any body on that in the football world given the similar mess he adopted to Pearson? Has Nige done any better with his 291 days in charge the table suggests not and the style of football most people are in agreement is atorcious to watch.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

I had a think about this, and I think we needed Pearson we were in big trouble and he's fixed some of those things, I think we were in a similar situation to O'Driscoll when he took over, he was the wrong man at the wrong time and we plummeted, he couldn't turn it around as he didn't have the tools.  Pearson on the other hand has been focusing on building fitter stronger players, and is now focusing on the tactical elements of the game I think had we focused on the latter before former we would have been in a very bad place this season.   

I think the other thing to note is where Swansea were before Martin took over, they finished 4th and he took over a team full of confidence, I think he's probably done a fairly poor job if I'm honest, he's made them arguably worse.   I always think it takes about a whole season for a new coaches effect to fully come through on the team, so I'll reserve my judgment until the end of the season, but my gut tells me that we will be a lot closer together than we should be, as Swansea should be in the mix if we're honest and we should be around about middle of the pack.

[HappyClapper]

Aside from the Swansea comparison,(who I do think we’ll finish above) the issue with Pearson seems to be between those who want to see something better now and those who are prepared to give it more time. FWIW my view is that NP has identified the traits needed to be successful in this league and the one above. He talks a lot about pace, power, desire and then technical ability and decision making. You can coach / train to improve some of these aspects but it seems to me that some our players have low ceilings.

Therefore in order to be successful we will have to find ways to buy most of that in. I’m guessing we will need 8+ first team players over the next few windows. With that goal in mind it then for me just becomes a question of how much we can enjoy the journey. For me, if we can compete, and I can see that we continue to work the plan, that is enough for me to keep the faith. I appreciate others will have a different view.

 I honestly think it’s the first time in my life (first game in ‘76/77) that we have a proper plan that I understand and believe in it. I think we’ve muddled along at best previously. That’s not to say that I don’t get as frustrated with the games, but I’m desperately trying to keep the bigger picture in mind.

Get to my age and patience is one of the few virtues you’ve got left.

[Davefevs]

@TMWANG50

@Lorenzos Only Goal

@HappyClapper

All good posts with slightly different points / arguments.

[Supersonic Robin]

Think this highlights the difference between aesthetics and effectiveness quite nicely. Lots of fans confuse the two IMO. When people say we look worse than Derby, Hull, Peterborough, Swansea etc, do they mean we look a less effective team, or do they actually mean we just play less aesthetically pleasing football?

The narrative from both our fans and neutrals this season has generally been that City are awful, and Swansea look great. Statistically, City and Swansea are pretty much as neck and neck as possible so far:

• Both City and Swansea are level on points (27)
• Swansea have scored 2 goals more (24 vs 26)
• Swansea have conceded 1 goal less (32 vs 31)
• City and Swansea are 18th and 17th respectively in Infogol's xP table.

Swansea are almost certainly more aesthetic, but they aren't really a much better team so far this season looking at the above.

Interestingly, the biggest difference between us and Swansea is that (xG wise) we both create and concede far more chances than they do. There's an argument that we're the exciting one of the 2 teams, and Swansea are the boring/defensive one!

 

[BS4 on Tour...]

On 11/12/2021 at 20:27, Davefevs said:

Why not?  It’s sparking discussion. I’m trying to work out whether pretty football but same results is more important.

Well for me, if we can play pretty football and be on 27 points or play dull, boring football and be on 27 points, I’d go for the pretty football. If it produces the same results/points total then I wouldn’t understand why anyone would think otherwise?