Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheLouisVuittonDon)
    So disappointing, the team played well and deserved a win. Yeah that is probably the worst bit of bus parking i've seen and they were very lucky to get away with it.
    I think the very fact that City decided they were not going to win is a testament to the quality of the Arsenal team. Even when they set out to defend, they still struggled and were stretched like never before, and they knew it. They do have one of the best defenses in the league in my opinion, and they were made to look average and incompetent in the midfield especially, not like a team that spent 200 mil on recruiting talent. You just can't buy the brand of football we play.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can't see how it can be called the 'worst bit of bus parking' when City got a result that every other team in the division would be happy to come away with from the Emirates.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can't blame City for coming and playing for a point, especially with their second best attacker out, Mancini has set his teams up defensively against big teams away from home everytime I can remember so far. Just seemed unambitious to me for a team with title aspirations, Micah Richards seemed to be their most adventurous player most of the time.
    Very disappointing that we didn't get more out of the game when we were so dominant in the first half hour, and came so close on repeated occasions. In the end city got lucky rather than succeeding tactically. Sagna was an idiot, a red by the standards of today and he should've known that, red mist I guess.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When a team starts time wasting with a whole half left to go, you know you're going to be frustrated. Some of the subs, injuries and free kicks were quite extraordinary.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kevmeister)
    I can't see how it can be called the 'worst bit of bus parking' when City got a result that every other team in the division would be happy to come away with from the Emirates.
    Because they were fortunate not to concede and didn't have a single chance, you really think that's the performance of a team with title aspirations? There hasn't really been a better time to come to the Emirates and have a go
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Economist)
    Because they were fortunate not to concede and didn't have a single chance, you really think that's the performance of a team with title aspirations? There hasn't really been a better time to come to the Emirates and have a go
    If they tried to attack, they would've got bum raped.

    They maybe were lucky to go away with a point, but they'd have needed a miracle to keep Arsenal from netting freely if they didn't have those 8 bodies back. They definitely made the right choice imo.

    edit: There have been much better times to get a win at the Emirates. Fabianski in good form, Djourou actually making sure Arsenal have a good CB, and Nasri and Fabregas in good shape didn't make it a good time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also, if we win 4/5-0, that's a goal difference swing of 8/10, which is worth a point and potentially a place with it being this tight...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    If they tried to attack, they would've got bum raped.

    They maybe were lucky to go away with a point, but they'd have needed a miracle to keep Arsenal from netting freely if they didn't have those 8 bodies back. They definitely made the right choice imo.

    edit: There have been much better times to get a win at the Emirates. Fabianski in good form, Djourou actually making sure Arsenal have a good CB, and Nasri and Fabregas in good shape didn't make it a good time.
    Possibly or possibly not, the 1st goal for them and they could have done us on the counter. A better outlet than Jo would have relieved the pressure on the defence anyway. I just think it's a bad attitude to have for any team to go into a 3 point match with no intent or hope of getting the win let alone one who are aiming for the title. Newcastle camped it up against us but they still had some form of attacking intent even if it was pumping balls to Carroll
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Economist)
    Possibly or possibly not, the 1st goal for them and they could have done us on the counter. A better outlet than Jo would have relieved the pressure on the defence anyway. I just think it's a bad attitude to have for any team to go into a 3 point match with no intent or hope of getting the win let alone one who are aiming for the title. Newcastle camped it up against us but they still had some form of attacking intent even if it was pumping balls to Carroll
    I sorta agree but I don't think, like Mancini says, that they set-up to draw from kick-off. I think they wanted to start defensively and see how much of a threat we were, and then look to attack if they thought they could get a win.

    I think we're quite predictable in that we're either excellent or rubbish. To put it another way, our inconsistency is consistent. You can usually tell in the first 5 mins whether we're going to struggle in the half because we start very slowly or whether we're on our game and the passes are quick. And from the first minute, we opened them up comfortably and Wilshere should've scored. So after that, they were bricking it and didn't fancy getting forward. They got lucky with the shots hitting the post and maybe we should've finished better (especially Wilshere, twice).

    At the end of the day, it's a results business. As Mancini said, he'd rather get a point and get boo'd off than get none and get applauded for being brave. I know you're saying that they could've got more, but I highly doubt it. Things were clicking for us today -- committing one man forward means one less body back to stop Nasri and Fabregas. That gap would've been all they needed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    I sorta agree but I don't think, like Mancini says, that they set-up to draw from kick-off. I think they wanted to start defensively and see how much of a threat we were, and then look to attack if they thought they could get a win.

    I think we're quite predictable in that we're either excellent or rubbish. To put it another way, our inconsistency is consistent. You can usually tell in the first 5 mins whether we're going to struggle in the half because we start very slowly or whether we're on our game and the passes are quick. And from the first minute, we opened them up comfortably and Wilshere should've scored. So after that, they were bricking it and didn't fancy getting forward. They got lucky with the shots hitting the post and maybe we should've finished better (especially Wilshere, twice).

    At the end of the day, it's a results business. As Mancini said, he'd rather get a point and get boo'd off than get none and get applauded for being brave. I know you're saying that they could've got more, but I highly doubt it. Things were clicking for us today -- committing one man forward means one less body back to stop Nasri and Fabregas. That gap would've been all they needed.
    Think Denilson would have buried those? Not saying hes a better player than wilshere though
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:

    This picture summarises Arsenal vs City....
    Can't blame them though. Which team won't be happy with 1 point at emirates.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Number 8 looks like Rooney. :holmes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrEboueEmmanuel)
    Toure attacks more, he has scored quite a few, Milner is meant to attack too, Jo is a striker and they started Tevez. They paid alot for those four too. Today Mancini just made everyone defend, and if their defence is so good why would they worry about getting hit on the counter. Surely they should have started Johnson
    (Original post by Economist)
    When you buy De Jong, Barry and Toure you don't need to have 6 more players defending. We did well to close City down but they didn't even try and counter attack. Johnson should have played instead of the hopeless Jo, even SWP would have been a far better outlet. Instead it was one of the biggest bus parks i've seen against Arsenal, even the weaker teams that home come to the Emirates have had a go at our suspect defence and succeeded.
    You guys both quoted me so I'm responding directly to you.

    Do you still not get it? City had a game plan. In this fixture before Christmas they got destroyed 3-0, at home. Now they are away from home, and against a team which loves to counter-attack.

    Mancini obviously had a plan to play defensively and maybe nick one by pumping it long to Tevez. That was his plan, and he executed it (in my opinion) brilliantly. He got the result he wanted, anyway, whereas Arsenal didn't.

    I'm not here to argue about the specifics of where different signings Mancini bought actually play, but I think that De Jong, Barry, Yaya Toure and Milner are quite defensively minded. Milner definitely more so than someone like SWP/Johnson/Walcott/some other pacy attacking winger.



    I could understand if you guys were like "well, we [Arsenal] played an attacking strategy and were unlucky to hit the post 3 times, but well done to City they defended well and Hart played well"

    But instead you are like "how dare City come here and play defensively?! They come and get destroyed on the counter every time, but with honour!"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kevmeister)
    I can't see how it can be called the 'worst bit of bus parking' when City got a result that every other team in the division would be happy to come away with from the Emirates.
    Exactly. I just don't know why they all moan about it. There are a whole host of reasons City needed to play defensively this game (I've listed them several times), they did it, and it worked.

    (Original post by Overmars)
    If they tried to attack, they would've got bum raped.

    They maybe were lucky to go away with a point, but they'd have needed a miracle to keep Arsenal from netting freely if they didn't have those 8 bodies back. They definitely made the right choice imo..
    Yep, exactly.


    I don't understand why everybody is saying "they are definitely not title contenders based on this performance..." either. Smart teams win titles, and smart teams know when to be happy with a point.



    (Original post by marcusmerehay)
    Disappointed by City's tactics tonight, but entirely understandable.

    We were incredibly unlucky not to win that.

    I won't defend Sagna's actions, but it should only have been a yellow, and nothing at all for Zabaleta.

    Best players on the pitch were Song, Djourou and Yaya imo.
    Sagna had to go :/ he thrust his head twice at Zaba...definitely a red card mate. They're a red card every single time.
    I agree Zaba shouldn't have had anything, or a yellow at worst - he 'squared up' to Sagna but that is generally not a red-card offence. (never seen one given)


    (Original post by Overmars)
    Sagna deserved the red. Yes, 15 years ago, that wasn't a red because it was just handbags, but going by the letter of the law, Sagna can't do that. Silly from him. Zabaleta did nothing wrong from what I could see.
    Yep, I agree perfectly with this, too!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Johnson would've started in place of Jo though, a striker, not Milner a more defensively minded mid. You could argue given his build and physicality, Jo is a better defensive option than Johnson anyway, but that's not what you've said.

    I'm very much of the "well, we [Arsenal] played an attacking strategy and were unlucky to hit the post 3 times, but well done to City they defended well and Hart played well" opinion, as you put it, but I don't agree that Mancini executed his plan that well at all, let alone brilliantly. City got a point, in the end, due to a combination of poor officiating - we should have had a pen, and luck - we really should have and easily could have put some of our chances away. Also, Tevez didn't really have a single proper chance that I can think of, so the pump it long to him strategy failed as well. Had the result remained the same but they'd looked defensively solid, I'd be wholeheartedly agreeing that it was a good, if somewhat obvious gameplan, that had been executed well and we'd witnessed a defensive masterpiece, as it stands though, I'm sure City feel lucky to have come away with the result they did, and there's a reason for that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caaakeeey)
    When a team starts time wasting with a whole half left to go, you know you're going to be frustrated. Some of the subs, injuries and free kicks were quite extraordinary.
    Whole half? Try 90mins, Hart was pissing about from the beginning, the ref didn't have a word with him once as far as I could see, though.

    The stadium announcer even took the piss with one of the substitutions, 'Jo will eventualllllly be replaced by number 11, Adam Johnson'.

    I'm not really gonna complain about their time wasting tactics, it's fair enough for them to try it if they feel it's necessary. The ref should have controlled and stopped it though, not only did he fail to actually confront any of the time wasters, but it was only once our players had spoken to him that he stopped his watch on almost every occasion that City were trying it, often a fair while after the event had occurred. Poor.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JK.)
    Johnson would've started in place of Jo though, a striker, not Milner a more defensively minded mid. You could argue given his build and physicality, Jo is a better defensive option than Johnson anyway, but that's not what you've said.

    I'm very much of the "well, we [Arsenal] played an attacking strategy and were unlucky to hit the post 3 times, but well done to City they defended well and Hart played well" opinion, as you put it, but I don't agree that Mancini executed his plan that well at all, let alone brilliantly. City got a point, in the end, due to a combination of poor officiating - we should have had a pen, and luck - we really should have and easily could have put some of our chances away. Also, Tevez didn't really have a single proper chance that I can think of, so the pump it long to him strategy failed as well. Had the result remained the same but they'd looked defensively solid, I'd be wholeheartedly agreeing that it was a good, if somewhat obvious gameplan, that had been executed well and we'd witnessed a defensive masterpiece, as it stands though, I'm sure City feel lucky to have come away with the result they did, and there's a reason for that.
    Which penalty? The handball from Kompany? That was never a penalty...


    Tevez held the ball up brilliantly, the best display I've seen from someone doing that in a long time. He got the ball, dribbled it, turned so he had his back to goal, played simple passes back to the midfield, just held the ball up...with any other striker up front City would have lost the game imo, Tevez actually took a lot of pressure off them by holding the ball up so well.

    And yes, Jo was a better choice than Adam Johnson. Johnson offers nothing defensively and is not good in the air. Jo was meant to be a threat from set pieces and to provide flick ons to Tevez (which I think he did once, but no more). That said, he didn't really work, and Jo was City's worst player by a mile. I still think he was a better choice than Johnson though...if City were attacking Johnson would obviously have been a better choice with his pace, crossing etc, but when they were just pumping it long to Tevez none of that was really applicable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not seen a replay yet, but I had a perfect view and for me it seemed a clear pen at the time, whether the decision was right or wrong it shows a lack of consistency with officiating decisions, again.

    Tevez did a good job at times, but I think you're overplaying that, tbh. The reason we didn't win wasn't Tevez holding the ball up, it was that we didn't finish the clear cut chances we'd worked for ourselves. Perhaps we'd have created more had he not held it up and relieved the pressure as you say, but I don't feel he did hold it up as well as you make out and there's no guarantee we'd have finished an extra chance or two, anyway, on the basis of the rest of the game, we'd have probably just hit the post.

    The point I was making with Tevez was that he was up top to try a get a goal. Holding the ball up is obviously part of his job, especially in such a game, but ultimately he was there so that once their defensive unit had dispossessed us, they could hit us on the counter, find him and score. Chelsea and United have set up similarly in recent seasons, though not that defensively and they have come away with 3 points. City however, failed to create a single decent chance for Tevez throughout the game, so, imo, this part of their gameplan failed.

    I think that given the circumstances they set up and played the right way. I just don't agree that it was brilliance on Mancini's behalf, the way they set up seemed fairly obvious and their execution of this set up wasn't great. If a top team with such a large defensive element completely parks the bus, yet still gets cut open a number of times, to the point of the opposition running rings around them, I don't see how their performance can be praised so highly, regardless of the score. The score wasn't a result of them controlling the game the way they wished to, it was a result of us failing to finish the clear cut chances which, by taking their defence apart, we'd managed to create.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JK.)
    Not seen a replay yet, but I had a perfect view and for me it seemed a clear pen at the time, whether the decision was right or wrong it shows a lack of consistency with officiating decisions, again.

    Tevez did a good job at times, but I think you're overplaying that, tbh. The reason we didn't win wasn't Tevez holding the ball up, it was that we didn't finish the clear cut chances we'd worked for ourselves. Perhaps we'd have created more had he not held it up and relieved the pressure as you say, but I don't feel he did hold it up as well as you make out and there's no guarantee we'd have finished an extra chance or two, anyway. The point I was making with Tevez was that he was up top to try a get a goal. Holding the ball up is obviously part of his job, especially in such a game, but ultimately he was there so that once their defensive unit had dispossessed us, they could hit us on the counter, find him and score. Chelsea and United have set up similarly in recent seasons, though not that defensively and they have come away with 3 points. City however, failed to create a single decent chance for Tevez throughout the game, so, imo, this part of their gameplan failed.

    I think that given the circumstances they set up and played the right way. I just don't agree that it was brilliance on Mancini's behalf, the way they set up seemed fairly obvious and their execution of this set up wasn't great. If a top team with such a large defensive element completely parks the bus, yet still gets cut open a number of times, to the point of the opposition running rings around them, I don't see how their performance can be praised so highly, regardless of the score. The score wasn't a result of them controlling the game the way they wished to, it was a result of us failing to finish the clear cut chances which, by taking their defence apart, we'd managed to create.
    I'll answer by paragraph (just to keep this clear)

    I was watching on the TV and saw several replays, I honestly don't think it was a penalty. It his Kompany almost under his arm, or right on his shoulder anyway, as he was turning away from the ball. He did have his arm stuck right out (horizontally), and if it hit that it would have been a penalty, but it didn't. No pen imo.


    I don't think they were playing Tevez to hit you on the counter. If they were, they would have played pacy wingers to actually counter-attack. Imo their plan was to hold the ball up with Tevez. He did do really well at this, at the pub I was watching at everyone was amazed, you guys just couldn't tackle him at times, he was just turning one way and the other, playing simple passes...he was amazing I thought.


    You guys played good attacking football, but - maybe slightly controversial here - you didn't actually have that many clear cut chances. I don't think you had a single one-on-one, for example, and Hart didn't have to make many great saves. He saved one from RVP from outside the box, probably the only 'great' save he made. Right near the start one of your players was sliding in on goal and the ball went in front of him - close, but he didn't put it in. You hit the woodwork three times - two of them Hart had covered, the other he was well beaten, fair enough. But although Arsenal had lots of possession they didn't actually have many clear-cut good chances, imo - you'd have to look at the stats for that, but I don't count shots from outside the box really as good chances (unless it's RVP or someone, which Hart saved well), you didn't have any one-on-ones or anything...

    You guys dominated the game at times, especially in the first 20 minutes, but City played well as well, and they executed their plan more effectively than you executed yours. It was a great game to watch as a neutral
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Think it shows citeh's attitude to the arse, they knew they couldn't win so went anti-football. Their fans were possibly the worst away fans I've seen at the emirates (blackpool fans were louder 5 goals down) but who can blame them having to watch that bs I guess..
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.