Football XXXVII - Brad'four'd march on

[Spockydog]

Yea, this happened. Not saying a word this time.

Will say Arsenal have won 11 games, lost 2 and drawn 2 in our last 14 since the dumb United loss. We're in pretty good form for the most part and was just able to start Ozil/Walcott in a game together for only the 6th time since 2013. That's encouraging.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that we're going to have a fantastic second half of the season. Looking at our remaining fixtures, I fancy we might even catch City.

[baxus]

Slightly surreal to me to see Liverpool fans afraid to face Bolton and Crystal Palace.

It's because our team has been very hit and miss this season.

We can expect to see them play so well that they don't allow Chelsea a single shot on target and so poorly they can't beat Ludogorets.

It's hard to feel confident in your team in a situation like that.

[mormont]

Against Bayern, sure, they were missing a suspended Toure.

Not sure why that's relevant to 7 other players being first team picks. Unless you're suggesting that City needed Toure to see off Middlesborough, which seems dubious.

And I never said they were ordinary players. I'm talking about the team as a whole.

A team is made up of players, and the team as a whole that City played the other day was certainly not 'pretty ordinary', IMO anyway. It constituted the bulk of the first team of the champions of England.

Only a fool would argue that City are not affected by the absence of Toure - he is the beating heart of that team.

Cliche translation: he's very influential when on form. Just as Silva is, or Aguero is, or Kompany is. When not on form, Toure is not the heart of the team, and the same goes for Silva and Aguero and Kompany.

The problem City had was not just that Toure was missing, but that Aguero and Kompany (and to a lesser extent Navas and Fernando) are out of form and not playing as well as they can. But still, this was a team that was, with only two or three exceptions, the best team City could put out and a team that should have beaten Middlesborough. Liverpool, and Liverpool fans, would do well to bear that in mind.

[Mexal]

The problem City had was not just that Toure was missing, but that Aguero and Kompany (and to a lesser extent Navas and Fernando) are out of form and not playing as well as they can. But still, this was a team that was, with only two or three exceptions, the best team City could put out and a team that should have beaten Middlesborough. Liverpool, and Liverpool fans, would do well to bear that in mind.

These exceptions are huge though. If Chelsea was playing an out of form Costa and lost Matic or Fabregas, they'd be a significantly weaker team (just saw some stats that said without Matic, they've only won 33% of their games and have averaged 2+ goals against per game vs less than 1 with Matic). The same is true for City. The same was true of Arsenal last year when they lost Ramsey, Ozil and Walcott. When you take away the beating heart of the team and your world class striker is just coming back from injury, your team is worse. In most teams, the spine is the most important and if that's where your key injuries are (CB, CM, Striker), you're in for a long day. Should they have beat Boro? Yea, for sure. They were outplayed on that day. But the losses were definitely key to them being outplayed.

[Spockydog]

Not sure why that's relevant to 7 other players being first team picks. Unless you're suggesting that City needed Toure to see off Middlesborough, which seems dubious.

The available evidence would suggest otherwise. ;)

A team is made up of players, and the team as a whole that City played the other day was certainly not 'pretty ordinary', IMO anyway. It constituted the bulk of the first team of the champions of England.

You don't just stick a load of overly expensive supremely talented players together and call it a champion football team. Fielding a competitive, cohesive unit is about so much more than that. And when you have three main components, arguably the spine of the team, that, for whatever reason, are not doing what they should be, then you're going to have problems.

The problem City had was not just that Toure was missing, but that Aguero and Kompany (and to a lesser extent Navas and Fernando) are out of form and not playing as well as they can. But still, this was a team that was, with only two or three exceptions, the best team City could put out and a team that should have beaten Middlesborough. Liverpool, and Liverpool fans, would do well to bear that in mind.

Thank you. From my first post on the matter: All due respect to City, but when you take Toure out of that team, add a decidedly out of form Kompany, and an Aguero returning from injury, what you've got is a pretty ordinary football team.

You can argue otherwise until you're blue in the face, but results and performances over the past four weeks back me up on this.

[Alex.]

We're just in a bad run of form and have a few injuries. It happens. It's really nothing more complicated than that. It happened last year and we won the title.

[mormont]

These exceptions are huge though.

Those exceptions included Joe Hart and one of either Mangala or Dimichelis. Not huge, I'd suggest. Really, other than that, who was missing? Toure, sure, a huge miss. Nasri? I'm struggling. And, well, Man City beat Bayern without Toure. Whichever major organ you think Toure represents (heart, spine, spleen, gall bladder :P) , the team don't depend on him utterly.

The available evidence would suggest otherwise. ;)

Would it? Is there available evidence that the team would have won if Toure had played?

[Spockydog]

Would it? Is there available evidence that the team would have won if Toure had played?

No, of course there isn't. But are you seriously trying to assert that City are not a better team when Toure is in the side? Because that would be dumb in the extreme.

Anyway, whatever. As Alex said, they're in a bad run of form and have a few injuries. Not quite sure why you're trying to have an argument here.

ETA: Just re-read your reply to Mexal. So, Toure is a 'huge miss', yet with me, you're trying to argue he wouldn't have made a difference against Middlesborough.

[Mexal]

Those exceptions included Joe Hart and one of either Mangala or Dimichelis. Not huge, I'd suggest. Really, other than that, who was missing? Toure, sure, a huge miss. Nasri? I'm struggling. And, well, Man City beat Bayern without Toure. Whichever major organ you think Toure represents (heart, spine, spleen, gall bladder :P) , the team don't depend on him utterly.

Toure, Nasri, an out of form, recently returned from injury Aguero/Kompany. As has been said, it's their entire spine. Replace Toure with Fernando or Fernandinho and your team is instantly worse. Add in no Nasri (who has been on great form) and a poor Aguero and you have no bite. They make a difference. Not sure why we're arguing this.

Alex said City is on a poor run of form and they are, but the reason they are is because of the reasons we've stated. Injuries affect even top sides, it's why Arsenal had a poor start and poor Jan-Mar last season, why United have been up and down, why Liverpool's form has been mediocre for awhile and why Chelsea are so damn consistent. It's just the way it is.

[mormont]

No, of course there isn't. But are you seriously trying to assert that City are not a better team when Toure is in the side?

No, of course I'm not. Are you seriously trying to assert that the team City put out in the absence of Toure is so 'ordinary' that they were not overwhelming favourites to win?

My point is, and always has been, that what you're saying about how Arsenal 'should not be fearing the likes of Middlesborough' is exactly what 90% of people would have said about City before the tie: and you're rationalising the comparison away with an after-the-fact assessment of the team City put out as 'pretty ordinary' when in fact it should still have won the match handily. Pride goeth before a fall, hindsight is 20/20, and all that.

[Spockydog]

No, of course I'm not. Are you seriously trying to assert that the team City put out in the absence of Toure is so 'ordinary' that they were not overwhelming favourites to win?

My point is, and always has been, that what you're saying about how Arsenal 'should not be fearing the likes of Middlesborough' is exactly what 90% of people would have said about City before the tie: and you're rationalising the comparison away with an after-the-fact assessment of the team City put out as 'pretty ordinary' when in fact it should still have won the match handily. Pride goeth before a fall, hindsight is 20/20, and all that.

Well, I put money on Middlesborough to win, so there's that...

[Mexal]

No, of course I'm not. Are you seriously trying to assert that the team City put out in the absence of Toure is so 'ordinary' that they were not overwhelming favourites to win?

My point is, and always has been, that what you're saying about how Arsenal 'should not be fearing the likes of Middlesborough' is exactly what 90% of people would have said about City before the tie: and you're rationalising the comparison away with an after-the-fact assessment of the team City put out as 'pretty ordinary' when in fact it should still have won the match handily. Pride goeth before a fall, hindsight is 20/20, and all that.

I feel like he's rationalizing the comparison because he believes Arsenal is a better team, especially at home, than a Championship team, even if the Championship team is pretty good. It's like Leceister City or Burnley getting results at the beginning of the season. It's entirely possible for a team like Boro to beat top teams, especially in Cup ties, but top 4 teams shouldn't go into those games fearing them. They should, and rightly so, expect to win. That's why it was an upset.

[Spockydog]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Mexal. :cheers:

[Spockydog]

And Mormont, would you honestly describe Man City's performances and results in January as anything other than ordinary?

[Raja]

We're just in a bad run of form and have a few injuries. It happens. It's really nothing more complicated than that. It happened last year and we won the title.

I actually thought you lot played quite OK against us, we just ended up scoring at the wrong moments, from city's perspective. Especially before the second goal went in. They were essentially individual mistakes ( Penalty, and one of the Nando's losing their player), on another day, it would have been a draw or a loss for us. Fine margins, and all that.

[Mexal]

I actually thought you lot played quite OK against us, we just ended up scoring at the wrong moments, from city's perspective. Especially before the second goal went in. They were essentially individual mistakes ( Penalty, and one of the Nando's losing their player), on another day, it would have been a draw or a loss for us. Fine margins, and all that.

Really? I felt like City played how Arsenal played at times last year in Jan. Loads of possession, little to no real chances and poor defensively on set pieces/inopportune moments. If Arsenal had played like that, we would be moaning. Didn't see a ton positive about City in that match.

[Raja]

I certainly felt that they had enough chances, or potential chances to at least score a couple of goals against us. The one that really stands out is the ball that was crossed across the box and no one ended up meeting it. I don't think we would have won if it had stayed at 1-0. We scored the second goal at exactly the right time, and that's credit to us, because they were well on top when Giroud scored.

Edit: A bit more composure by one of City's players, would have made a difference. I do think it was closer than the press would have us believe.

[Mexal]

I certainly felt that they had enough chances, or potential chances to at least score a couple of goals against us. The one that really stands out is the ball that was crossed across the box and no one ended up meeting it. I don't think we would have won if it had stayed at 1-0. We scored the second goal at exactly the right time, and that's credit to us, because they were well on top when Giroud scored.

Edit: A bit more composure by one of City's players, would have made a difference. I do think it was closer than the press would have us believe.

That was the one clear chance they had and Koscielny got a boot on it which pushed it over the players who were about to smash it in. Other than that though, can't really remember a single other real chance they had.

[Alex.]

I actually thought you lot played quite OK against us, we just ended up scoring at the wrong moments, from city's perspective. Especially before the second goal went in. They were essentially individual mistakes ( Penalty, and one of the Nando's losing their player), on another day, it would have been a draw or a loss for us. Fine margins, and all that.

I half agree with you. Thought City were dreadful, but we've won games like that before and won. It was individual mistakes inside of a below par performance which opened the door. It was a good performance from Arsenal but nothing revolutionary.

Honestly, I think this talk about City being ordinary is just a reaction to some bad circumstances and don't really see it as very accurate. We do this once a year for about a month and then come back very strong. Writing City off or dismissing us before the very end hasn't historically been a good move, especially in recent years. You all need to cool your guns a bit.

[Mexal]

I half agree with you. Thought City were dreadful, but we've won games like that before and won. It was individual mistakes inside of a below par performance which opened the door. It was a good performance from Arsenal but nothing revolutionary.

Honestly, I think this talk about City being ordinary is just a reaction to some bad circumstances and don't really see it as very accurate. We do this once a year for about a month and then come back very strong. Writing City off or dismissing us before the very end hasn't historically been a good move, especially in recent years. You all need to cool your guns a bit.

It was only revolutionary for Arsenal because we never play that way even though that's what we want from an away game against a top side.

As for City, no one is writing them off. We're recognizing they're on a bad run of form and trying to draw conclusions based on the form of important, recently injured players or the players they're missing. Not really sure where anyone dismissed City or said they couldn't get back to title winning form. It's not like any of those injuries are long term and form is temporary.