playmaker

Agree. On point

Just proves how either we forget how bad JVS, Valkanis and Joyce were or how tolerant we were of underperformance. Vidmar by no means a star performer and quite underwhelming but interestingly enough his metrics are on par with the above. Also what is interesting is that PK is the best manager of all time (by metrics alone) with significant games under his belt, out performing Ange, Muscat and Arnold. Go figure.

I repeat. Fact is, the metrics show that Patty is the best manager we have ever had. Do I want Patty back? Not sure tbh.

That is your opinion and are entitled to it. Mine differ from your conclusions. I didn't say that, you are saying it. I said that they had a squad to potentially win the league. I standby that. If you disagree that's fine. Fact is, the metrics show that Patty is the best manager we have ever had. He has done what Van shit, Valkanis and Joyce never did.

Not saying the Patty is the solution to our problem but please don't forget the squads Van shit, Valkanis and Joyce had. Easy potential season winning squads if they were better managed and equal if not better than what Patty had.

Summary of the game. We need Arslan on the pitch. Tilio did well. New LB looks classy. 1-1 is a good results given everything that has already been mentioned. Quick ball moving counter attacking play was nice to watch and the smurfs found it hard to deal with. Something that the manager and tactician should definitely take notice of. Ref is a nob as he should have yellow carded smurf players early in the game to stop their blatant fouls on our players during our attacking transition. Very bad game management. We move onto next week.

Play for the win. The only way is to create chaos, get Sydney out of their preparation and have them throwing their playbook out. Gk YOUNG Def TALBOT REIS GOOD SOUPRAY FERNANDEZ HALL POLITIDIS Mid TILIO Fwd LECKIE MacLAREN

Ha ha ha. He sees it coming and lets it hit him for the theatrics. I so miss this bloke.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Our only hope is 8 defenders, Arslan and 2 attackers Long ball counter attack 30% possession Gk YOUNG Def TALBOT REIS GOOD SOUPRAY FERNANDEZ HALL POLITIDIS Mid ARSLAN Fwd LECKIE MacLAREN

The most accurate analysis of the thread. 🥴

Of course there is a difference. For the last 5 weeks we have witnessed slow moving, high possession, high defensive line play. Everyone has seen this and pointed at the fact that this is a problem and why we are underperforming. I have said that in those games we would have had a greater chance at success if we had changed our tactics to which others have alludes to also. So we saw against the tards that we didn't play that city way and in my view it was a better performance. So yes there was a change for the better. So if we had played this way for the last 5 weeks would the performances have been better? I think so based on the more solid defence and faster ball movement on transition. The stats also show that this game was played differently. You are saying it was by force, I disagree as I think is was by choice which is OK to agree to disagree. However, even by your rationale, I think we were forced to play differently for the last 5 weeks and chose not to do it, we didn't respond to the needs of the game and we got punished because we chose to play the city way with a list that can't execute it. Against the tards we did respond, played differently and the list was able execute the plan enough to give us a chance of winning. In summary I think it was a good game, good atmosphere, hopefully the players take positives out of the game, the metrics get analysed, and the management became more adaptable to the needs of the game on the day. Over and out. Have a nice week

That's OK. You can have a different opinion. The capitulation of past matches dictate that when we didn't change our tactics and stubbornly kept to the city system, even though the opposition tactics were, as you say 'forcing' us to do so, we got hammered. So yes of course a good manager needs to respond to the opposition tactics and hence my frustration with the one tactic fits all philosophy where obviously it doesn't. The difference between what you and I are saying is nothing more than perception. We saw the same thing. I say it shows the power of using a different system that it more appropiate to our player list and opposition tactics. Now if we gather our strongest team on the park that is more suited to the city system then let's use it, but until then it has been shown not to be successful.

Long ball from defence rather than slow movement through the mids and then out wide which allows the opposition to track back into position and create a defensive block. This sacrifices possession for quick ball movement therefore allowing our defence and DMs to keep their form while exploiting the possibility of the opposition mids being out of position and compressing their time. It is subtle but if you watch our game against Brisbane you can see the difference. It's wasn't perfect though, as you saw when Jamie has possession after the quick transition he had no where to go. In the perfect execution Jamie would receive the ball, pass it off to a runner and/or one two it and get in behind. This scenario is only possible by quick ball movement and not allowing the opposition defensive overload.

Nice game from city. Good to see our manager changed up the tactics and strategies. Interesting to note that we had less possession 46 to 54, we dragged them to our defensive line and then moved the ball quickly into space and had better quality shots at goal. Wasn't perfect by any means but it was enough and gave us the best chances to win the game. 2 games this season not playing the 'city way', both against the Tards arguably a better team, and both showed we can play solid defensively and give ourselves good chances of winning. This game was exactly what was needed. Please do not revert back to that garbage system again as we haven't got the players for it.

I agree and that is my point. If we haven't got the players on the pitch to execute the plan then we modify the plan to give us the best chance of winning. This is basic stuff, and that is why I find it so frustrating seeing this obvious and ridiculous rigidity in our game style. So the round by round scenario that we are witnessing is this. 1. Opposition knows our game plan and plans against it, tweeks their stock system of play and player list to exploit our weaknesses and strengthen their own. 2. We haven't got the players on the pitch to execute our game plan optimally therefore we are comprised from the start, do nothing to adapt to opposition tactics, everyone puts their head in the sand and says 'but we have a system' as if that is enough. It is a ridiculous philosophy. This idea that the city style is a style of play that it beautiful to watch is an oxymoron, as it doesn't matter what style a team plays because the fact is any style is beautiful if it is successful.

As I said months ago, you can not play a 'city' system with the list we have. End of story. And just a note, the only time we didn't was when we played the tards, in which the performance was impressive against a I much better side IMO. So the conclusion is that Vidmar is a capable manager but is being forced to play the city system, as he alluded to in his first interview. The reality is that with a few tweeks and change in tactics we can still be a top 3 team, but with this high possession, high line, and high press, slow build up system we don't stand a chance. The solution is do the opposite of the above and strike on the quick counter. We have the players for this style and the manager is capable to captain the ship. Good luck to Vidmar on telling the tactics controllers to go and take a hike.

We should expect this with no pacey drive from our midfield or our underwhelming wingers. Our front half is a joke.

Or get some decent signings and stop with is youth shenanigans

We did. Like you I don't know what else to say except for Irankunda's meltdowns won us the game.

I agree with the questionable viability of the change however I am pointing to the impact the change will have on us and victory.

It is not pie in the sky stuff jw, they are doing it. 2 divisions and promotion and relegation which will decentralise football and bring people back to the game.

Exactly. But we know they can change up their tactics as we saw with the Victory game, which IMO was a great game. As you do, I fear there is an undercurrent to play the 'city way' no matter what which Vidmar indicated that in his first press conference.

On the fence. He was out-gunned yesterday and had no response. The team seemed rudderless and the manager couldn't tactically respond in my view.

Makes sense that MCFC move away from AAMI. With new Melbourne clubs being added in the next few years which are strategically geographically located, it will change the future blueprint of Australian football going forward. It will definitely move members of Victory and City to the more local clubs where their is more connection to a grass roots identity. Having an attendance of 6k or less in a 35k stadium just doesn't seem viable and it sanitises the experience for onlooker. My prediction is that MCFC and Victory will see a 20 to 30 percent reduction in crowd numbers (Victory more so), which,IMO is the cost of expanding the league to a more grassroots level. It seems smart to me that City grab a foothold in Dandenong before the horse has bolted.