Just when you thought we might be good at taking penalties...
Seriously, anyone caught doing a stuttering run-up should be fined. It's almost as bad as chipping it...
Here are my ratings:
Ward: 6 - Not entirely sure of his positioning for the Man City goal, but it was coming anyway. Other than that didn't particularly stand out either way, aside from having to deal with endless backpasses.
Simpson: 6 - Solid, looked sharper than in his previous League Cup outing.
Soyuncu: 7 - Looked at home next to Maguire. It looks more and more like he and Maguire make up a good partnership, while Morgan and Evans another. Mixing them doesn't look entirely comfortable.
Maguire: 7 - Wore the captain's armband and looked determined to act like one. Made some good forays forward.
Fuchs: 7 - Used his years of experience of playing against Mahrez in training and kept him very quiet.
Choudhury: 7 - An interesting watch. No shortage of effort across the pitch and dispossessed his opponents on numerous occasions. I assume he had been given the instruction to keep things simple, which he did, although he grew into the match as it went on. Loves a slide tackle, some coming off brilliantly although others left him on the floor and his opponent running past him. A few possible candidates, but marginally my choice for our MOTM.
Iborra: 6 - More comfortable and assured on the ball than his midfield partners. A midfield 3 with him in it may be worth more of a look, although he can never last 90 minutes and will make some mistakes.
Ndidi: 5 - His touch was atrocious today. Whether it was the wet ball or the close, energetic pressing of Man City, I don't know. Possibly it's a continued lack of confidence. Either way, he has to sort this out.
Ghezzal: 5 - Alright, but no more than that. I'm still not really sure what he brings that isn't just a bit average.
Gray: 7 - Lively, and had the technique to ask Man City some questions. Once again, needs to get his head up in the final third; but there is improvement there.
Iheanacho: 4 - Was trying, despite the frustrations of the fans. But his confidence is shot.
Maddison: 6 - Didn't do a lot for my liking. Picked out some nice passes at times, but also missed a couple of opportunities to play Gray in with an early ball over the top. And his penalty was terrible.
Albrighton: 8 - Excellent touch and finish for the equaliser. Made a nuisance of himself down the right flank and put himself about generally.
Ricardo: n/a - Didn't see much of him. An odd substitution with Okazaki still on the bench.
Player ratings vs. Man City (L. Cup)
posted on 20/12/18
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 4 minutes ago
I assume your sentence was supposed to end "mince pies"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m willing to offer 3 mince pies, 5 Yule logs and 2 Christmas puddings in a set formation. This is on the provision that the Yule logs to side of the plate slide back into position with the mince pies to form a back 5 when needed
posted on 20/12/18
nuneaton - I think it fits the 5 at the back, but getting everyone you want in front of them in a reasonable formation I think is very difficult. On the contrary, I think you end up very quickly having round pegs in square holes in attack.
Black Starr - Those 5 Yule logs will get ripped apart and one of those Christmas puddings is having a major crisis of confidence.
posted on 20/12/18
I don't agree Dunge, using 3-4-3, 3-5-2 or 3-4-1-2 it should be perfectly possible to get 5 forward rather than the 4 (1 really) we commit to at present - all of these formations use at least two front men so would be much better for both Ian and Vards.
posted on 20/12/18
I think you’re a massive 3ist Dunge.
A back 3 have just an equal place in society as a back 4 you know.
Bigot.
posted on 20/12/18
nuneaton - All of those formations will have three centre backs and two defensive midfielders in them. All could work, but only with more energy and more joined-up play between midfield and attack, which will solve 4-2-3-1 as well. There is nothing in those numbers alone that is going to change things.
Merseyside - I'm not threeist. Some of my best friends are threes. But that doesn't change the fact that those that don't change to fours should f#@k off back to where they came from.
posted on 20/12/18
😂
posted on 21/12/18
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 16 hours, 21 minutes ago
nuneaton - All of those formations will have three centre backs and two defensive midfielders in them. All could work, but only with more energy and more joined-up play between midfield and attack, which will solve 4-2-3-1 as well. There is nothing in those numbers alone that is going to change things.
Merseyside - I'm not threeist. Some of my best friends are threes. But that doesn't change the fact that those that don't change to fours should f#@k off back to where they came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunge - do you wear glasses perchance, in which case we can call you four eyes henceforth?
There are at least two things in the numbers Dunge, the classic Claude formation gives you four across the back and two purely defensive midfielders in a 4-2-3-1, so nominally 4 up front. With 3-5-2 (say) there are 3 at the back, the full backs become wing backs and are expected to push further up the pitch, and with two defensive midfielders and one (say Maddison) further forward this gives potentially 5 forward, not 4.
Also we'd be playing with two up front rather than one, which would be better for Ian/Vards as they wouldn't be so isolated.
There may be other reasons why you stubbornly persist in sticking with 4 across the back as your favoured formation but there is potentially some attacking improvement there with three at the back.
posted on 21/12/18
Potentially any improvement would do me right now Nuneaton!
posted on 21/12/18
Anyone who thinks things can't get worse is usually wrong.
posted on 21/12/18
The same is worse Dunge. I vote for change.