Holmesy

Man City are so precise with their passing that they can afford to be a bit more high-risk because they ultimately have less defending to do. They also win the ball back quickly or commit cynical fouls in good positions to negate counter-attacks. We lose the ball so often, and our players aren't quick enough to commit cynical fouls so we need defensive cover more than most. I actually agree with you on Onana. I had no idea how good he was until I saw him play for Villa

If that is the case then fair play to them. That Trippier/Miggy partnership was one of the highlights of EH's reign - such great movement

Exactly why it makes sense to focus overseas - less-affluent clubs more willing to let their prized assets leave because they can't turn the money down. If that what Mitchell means by 'not fit for purpose', I couldn't agree more. Why make life so hard for yourself trying to battle with a team that considers you a rival and doesn't need the money when you could sign an equivalent player for half the money and a lot less hassle.

https://www.facebook.com/share/sanQoeRerK8oPqR1/? some absolute gold in the comments

There was a definite discernible pattern in the season where Miggy was on fire. Those little intricate moves around the box, dinked balls over the top, overlaps etc. were definitely orchestrated. Once that well ran out though, it's been difficult to identify anything that resembles a planned move

His attitude has always been high risk, high reward and he accepts that playing a high defensive line leaves us exposed at times but balances it out with more attacking prowess, so a #6 probably isn't in his nature because it's one fewer attacking options. According to his quote, we have 3 players who can play there already but none of them ever have, so I just don't think it's on his radar at all. His teams have consistently finished in the top 5 for goals conceded in the PL, with our 4th position season being the exception. But I imagine they would also be in the top 5 for chances created (although I can't find anything to back that up). But there's a naivety to it that just doesn't sit well at all. Our 4th placed season showed that balancing a solid defence with an effective attack gets you much greater rewards. He's too intelligent not to realise that so is he just trying to make a point to the board?

I think we should adapt our approach depending on who we’re playing against. We can’t change the centre backs right now, so play more sensibly against teams with those particular attributes to negate our defensive frailties. We could’ve be 2 down with 15 minutes, and at one point Dan Burn pushed up into their half. I think it was for their disallowed goal maybe. Inevitably, it led to us getting caught and him lumbering back with no chance of catching the attacker. Fucking menta! I think we’re at a point where we have been analysed to within an inch of our lives by every opposition team, and because we have no new players we have nothing new for them to adapt to. So the only option available is to do something different with the players we have. Right?

The suicidal high defensive line with 2 very slow CBs is infuriating as well. Playing it away against a team full of pace and one of the most creative players in world football pulling the strings was at best high risk and at worst negligent.

You can’t argue with any of this really. The project needs fresh impetus. However, a manager’s job is to get the best out of what he has, and the very best build effective teams that are stronger than the sum of their parts. They grind out results when things aren’t in their favour. Regardless of the players available to him, form, player’s physical attributes etc. he plays the same formation in the same way and has no plan B - something that has been levelled at him for over a year. That bit is nobody’s fault but his, and I think it will be his undoing unfortunately.

Today was one of the most disjointed performances I’ve seen from us. Where specifically did you see an improvement? It’s a genuine question because maybe you’re seeing something I’m not. Watching that, I can’t think of a single thing I saw that gave me much optimism about the run coming to an end soon.

It’s not the results so much as the performances and the total lack of new ideas.

I agree on not sacking a manager after a run of poor form, but what we’re seeing looks more fundamental. The players look unmotivated and apathetic. I also think our broken record tactics and defensive naivety are contributing to our poor form. I’m not saying I want Eddie to lose his job, but if he doesn’t come up with some new ideas quickly, I don’t think he can be surprised if he does.

One of the most worrying performances I’ve seen from us under EH. We’re going to lose games throughout the season but losing them like that - players not showing for each other, no intensity, no composure, no creativity, constantly giving the ball away, no communication, that pathetic high defensive line and nothing remotely new - is starting to look like there are bigger problems than just form

Fuck this game! Bunch of poorly coached fucking amateurs

Fuck knows what this lot are doing on the training field but they’re not bringing it onto the pitch on match day. They look like they’ve never fucking seen each other before. I don’t know which of the 10 glaring issues we need to priorise sorting out first.

Anyone else see that - we strung 3 passes together! Things are looking up

How are we not learning?

Who’d have through the slowest man in the PL pushing up beyond the halfway line against a pacey attack would be a bad idea?!

I completely agree. If he goes back to Burn at LB I will start calling for him to be sacked - it gave us a blatant vulnerability that our opponents were only too happy to exploit. Continuing with it when it clearly wasn't working had people starting to question Eddie's managerial credentials for the first time.

He's just an absolute credit to himself, his family and the club's that have shaped him. None of it feels forced or false. Just a genuinely good human being and a ruthless competitor. You can't not like the guy.

Yeah, that attacker being our completely redundant right winger. Hall and Trippier fill the wide areas, so in theory we're not losing any attacking prowess but it depends how under the cosh we are.

We're currently playing 3 CMs and we would we still be playing 3 CMs - it's the only area of the pitch where nothing would change.

I disagree - In Trippier/Livra and Hall we have exactly the type of fullbacks we need for a 5-3-2. It also negates the glaring wonky wheel at right wing. Kelly is perfect for the left side of a back 3, and the extra cover gives Schar license to get involved in attacking play. Gordon or Barnes playing at 10 just behind Isak is the only question mark but they're both technically capable of playing that role. I'd argue we're currently better suited to a back 5 than we are a back 4

We also don't have to play 4-3-3. We could play a 4-4-1-1, 5-4-1 or 5-3-2 (which would probably suit our crop of available players better). Sky Sports did a bit on Tuchel yesterday, highlighting the number of different formations uses, and his flexibility and willingness to try new things. We play 4-3-3. That's it! I think we've tried 5 at the back twice? If the current setup isn't working, why not tweak the formation before bringing the likes of Longstaff back into the first team at the expense of someone more talented?!

Fair enough, my bad. Apologies. If Eddie left, I think I would consider Iraola. They strike me as quite similar managers tbh - young, progressive, highly-rated and I don't think it would be the risk you're suggesting. Admittedly, I don't have a deep knowledge of European and world football so other than the obvious big names, I don't know any up-and-coming candidates. Alonso is the obvious one but he's being touted as the next City manager.