Rd 22: #MCYvSYD AAMI Park, Sat 5 Mar 2016, 7.30 pm

[SF33]

22 hours ago, Falastur said:

I was trying to gloss over that bit.

Yeah, obviously no offence intended, but last time that stat got a run was when Tuna had actually scored more times than the Jets for the entire season. Then, that very weekend, we went out and lost, To Newcastle.

[playmaker]

9 minutes ago, jeffplz said:

against a team with their back four and attacking threat not playing

3-0 is a convincing win, what did you expect 10-0 geez, and the team was still better than the Wellington schoolboys we played last week.

[SF33]

I don't know whether Kisnorbo's foul was a straight red, by the letter of the law (apparently it wasn't and it sounds like he knew exactly what he was doing, so good for him), but, in my opinion, it should have been. That can't seriously be worthy of the same penalty as kicking a ball away to waste a bit of time...sorry.

[xXCiTyZeNXx]

What R u guys Going On About. We Won 3-0. This Has been one Of The Best Games we Have Played. We Cant Keep Playing Attacking Or Else We Will Get Caught out And the other Team Will Take Possession, Threw Ball It And A goal. And Caceres Played Well. There Was A few Times he Made A mistake But Most Of The Time He Was Setting Up Goals. A goal Was Set Up By Caceres. Caceres Held The Goal Untill Mooy Ran Past Then He Through Balled It To Mooy Then Mooy Crossed It To Forn And Goal. That Play Was Set Up By Caceres. This Formation We Should Have Done From The Start. 4-4-2. Its Not To Attacking And Not To Defensive

[Dylan]

Just now, xXCiTyZeNXx said:

What R u guys Going On About. We Won 3-0. This Has been one Of The Best Games we Have Played. We Cant Keep Playing Attacking Or Else We Will Get Caught out And the other Team Will Take Possession, Threw Ball It And A goal. And Caceres Played Well. There Was A few Times he Made A mistake But Most Of The Time He Was Setting Up Goals. A goal Was Set Up By Caceres. Caceres Held The Goal Untill Mooy Ran Past Then He Through Balled It To Mooy Then Mooy Crossed It To Forn And Goal. That Play Was Set Up By Caceres. This Formation We Should Have Done From The Start. 4-4-2. Its Not To Attacking And Not To Defensive

Stop holding shift mate

[bt50]

1 minute ago, xXCiTyZeNXx said:

What R u guys Going On About. We Won 3-0. This Has been one Of The Best Games we Have Played. We Cant Keep Playing Attacking Or Else We Will Get Caught out And the other Team Will Take Possession, Threw Ball It And A goal. And Caceres Played Well. There Was A few Times he Made A mistake But Most Of The Time He Was Setting Up Goals. A goal Was Set Up By Caceres. Caceres Held The Goal Untill Mooy Ran Past Then He Through Balled It To Mooy Then Mooy Crossed It To Forn And Goal. That Play Was Set Up By Caceres. This Formation We Should Have Done From The Start. 4-4-2. Its Not To Attacking And Not To Defensive

I Go To School.

I Am Big.

[xXCiTyZeNXx]

2 minutes ago, Dylan said:

Stop holding shift mate

This Stupid HTC Just Goes To Caps As Soon As I click Space

[kingofhearts]

7 minutes ago, xXCiTyZeNXx said:

1 minute ago, xXCiTyZeNXx said:

This Stupid HTC Just Goes To Caps As Soon As I click Space

 

One word at a time mate <3 #progress

Edited March 6, 2016 by kingofhearts

[jeffplz]

7 minutes ago, xXCiTyZeNXx said:

what r u guys going on about. we won 3-0. this has been one of the best games we have played. we cant keep playing attacking or else we will get caught out and the other team will take possession, threw ball it and a goal. and caceres played well. there was a few times he made a mistake but most of the time he was setting up goals. a goal was set up by caceres. caceres held the goal untill mooy ran past then he through balled it to mooy then mooy crossed it to forn and goal. that play was set up by caceres. this formation we should have done from the start. 4-4-2. its not to attacking and not to defensive

fixed

[Shahanga]

13 minutes ago, xXCiTyZeNXx said:

And Caceres Played Well. There Was A few Times he Made A mistake But Most Of The Time He Was Setting Up Goals. A goal Was Set Up By Caceres. Caceres Held The Goal Untill Mooy Ran Past Then He Through Balled It To Mooy Then Mooy Crossed It To Forn And Goal. That Play Was Set Up By Caceres. 

Umm sorry mate, but the player you refer to who held the ball up and played Mooy in was none other than one Bruno Fornaroli.  (they do look alike I know, so i'll cut you some slack)

have a look at this:

 

 

Edited March 6, 2016 by Shahanga
added link

[MHFC-FAN]

4 minutes ago, xXCiTyZeNXx said:

This Stupid HTC Just Goes To Caps As Soon As I click Space

stopusingspacethen...

[hakz7]

22 minutes ago, jeffplz said:

fixed

That must've taken quite a while.

[loriente]

5 minutes ago, hakz7 said:

That must've taken quite a while.

Shift f3 in Word.

You're welcome.

[playmaker]

24 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

Umm sorry mate, but the player you refer to who held the ball up and played Mooy in was none other than one Bruno Fornaroli.  (they do look alike I know, so i'll cut you some slack)

 

 

Caceres was providing good service to Mooy, he was holding up play well so players were in better positions. I like his style of play.

[silva10]

22 hours ago, Jovan said:

Red all day. Seriously that was terrible. 

Sorry have to completely disagree with you

The rules are quite clear. The attacker has to be through on goal with a clear goal scoring opportunity.

Wilkinson would have got across to defend, therefore he didn't have a clear goal scoring opportunity.

 

[playmaker]

There was a defender between the ball and the goal keeper, rules state it is a yellow card. No further interpretation is required.

[silva10]

21 hours ago, playmaker said:

Don't know what you guys are going on about with regards to formation and tactics, as tonight was a typical 442 with centre diamond and the game style was a typical mid field fight. Sure it wasn't a free flowing game that we are used to but it was great to watch IMO. 

The squad selection was understandable but the chemistry was a bit off as to be expected.

Garuccio LB is a bit questionable but he redeemed himself in the 2nd half

Malik tracking back to plug the holes in defence was good to see and obviously the idea worked seeing we did not concede.

I thought Caseres was good in possession and held the ball up well until the others were in better positions.

Bruno, Harry and Mooy, well , nothing to say really except brilliant.

Overall, the structure dictated the style of play to an extent, and the way the game panned out was to be expected with a solid defence, a mid field battle and build up and brilliant finishing. A very pretty picture indeed.

Should hold up well next week against Adelaide.

 

I can't agree with you on Caceres. I thought he was poor in possession. Also, whenever he had the ball in an attacking position, he played it back most if not all times, stopping any attacking momentum. As for the formation, I didn't see a clear structure in our play to convince me the players knew what they were doing. The only time that happened was when we moved to a clear 4-4-2.

 

[playmaker]

Fair enough, I saw it differently. 

I thought the structure and tactics we played was solid and well balanced, hence the 3 0 win. We won in defence, the middle and forward.

Can't ask for much more.

Edited March 6, 2016 by playmaker

[n i k o]

1 hour ago, playmaker said:

You guys are amazing.

Such an unconvincing win where we won defensively, won the midfield battle, destroyed their defence and..... oh yeah, we won 3 0.

Very unconvincing I reckon.... geez.

No doubt fantastic result and so many positives. My impression however for the first 40 minutes was that it was a bit dour. Besides Maliks opportunity we didn't create any other chances, or half chances at that. Both Bruno and Harry appeared to be a bit invisible. Basically there wasn't anything that happened inside the first 40 minutes that created any excitement. Bruno's goal the exception.

Second half was better although it took a little bit of time to brush off the feelings of the first half. By Bruno's second goal it was standard as usual and felt like the exciting team we have been all season. 

In saying all that I feel that in hindsight I'm happier with the nature of the win even though at the time I wasn't. Very business like, didn't give them many opportunities and got the job done. Exactly the type of performance we needed back against Newcastle and Wellington. 

[silva10]

4 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Fair enough, I saw it differently. 

I thought the structure and tactics we played was solid and well balanced, hence the 3 0 win. We won in defence, the middle and forward.

Can't ask for much more.

I thought for most of the first half we were outplayed in midfield. Definitely up to when we scored our first goal. In the second half it was better with Fitzgerald coming on wide and Mooy playing more centrally than he had been.

 

[n i k o]

55 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Caceres was providing good service to Mooy, he was holding up play well so players were in better positions. I like his style of play.

Agree, he's very 'silky' on the ball and did some good things. But he gave away a shit load of balls as well simply through poor ball control. 

[Jovan]

54 minutes ago, silva10 said:

Sorry have to completely disagree with you

The rules are quite clear. The attacker has to be through on goal with a clear goal scoring opportunity.

Wilkinson would have got across to defend, therefore he didn't have a clear goal scoring opportunity.

 

I agree that within the laws of the game it's not a red. It was cynical and the sort of unsportsmanlike conduct that really turns me off. Win at all costs still has a cost.

Maybe I should off said that it should have been a red.

 

[Shahanga]

4 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Agree, he's very 'silky' on the ball and did some good things. But he gave away a shit load of balls as well simply through poor ball control. 

That's what i can't work out.  How can you be silky one minute and have poor control the next?

[n i k o]

5 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

That's what i can't work out.  How can you be silky one minute and have poor control the next?

My opinion is that it's the ability to do things efficiently which Caceras is able to do. Then on the opposite side of the spectrum you have your Mellings who aren't efficient and have to work hard to make things happen. Unfortunately neither one will garuntee you can control a ball better than the other. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by n i k o

[SF33]

7 minutes ago, Jovan said:

I agree that within the laws of the game it's not a red. It was cynical and the sort of unsportsmanlike conduct that really turns me off. Win at all costs still has a cost.

Maybe I should off said that it should have been a red.

 

Yeah, I couldn't agree more with this. He was beaten and he took the bloke out because he thought that he was a good chance of scoring if he didn't (and because he knew the rules, I guess).

It appears that Kisnorbo wasn't wrong and the ref wasn't wrong. But I think the rule is wrong. You shouldn't be able to take an opponent out to that extent. At least try to disguise your intentions.

[playmaker]

30 minutes ago, silva10 said:

I thought for most of the first half we were outplayed in midfield. Definitely up to when we scored our first goal. In the second half it was better with Fitzgerald coming on wide and Mooy playing more centrally than he had been.

 

I thought the first half was a typical midfield battle trying to get ascendancy. It was honours even really but one might argue that our goal on the counter was a result of them forcing an attack and leaving a one on one in their defence.

We won the first half because it was 1 0 and they only had half opportunities to score with our defence playing solidly.

Winning a tactical battle in the midfield really isn't as pretty as an free flowing attacking game we are used too, and winning the battle often isn't as obvious, but ultimately we succeeded quite convincingly as the score was 3 0. 

Personally I love this style of play since I grew up on the Serie A where the games were one and lost in the middle with epic tactical battles, solid defence and one greatly talented striker. Edge of your seat type stuff to those that like that style of play, the slow build ups and high pressure possession or lack there of, depending on the tactics employed. But always well balanced.

[Blackout]

Is someone able to explain why Mooy's cross for Fornaroli's first goal wasn't considered an assist? 

[playmaker]

16 minutes ago, Blackout said:

Is someone able to explain why Mooy's cross for Fornaroli's first goal wasn't considered an assist? 

Maybe because it was deflected off a defender

[jw1739]

42 minutes ago, Blackout said:

Is someone able to explain why Mooy's cross for Fornaroli's first goal wasn't considered an assist? 

I have counted it as an assist in my statistics in the "City's goalscorers and attendances 2015/16" thread.

[Tony999]

On ‎2‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 11:47 AM, n i k o said:

Just remember there's everyone else on the forums that's said the same thing so you can't go claiming a green line for something we all know will happen. 

No one gave me a green line for Koren yet I was the first to call it. Where is the democracy?

7 hours ago, Blackout said:

Is someone able to explain why Mooy's cross for Fornaroli's first goal wasn't considered an assist? 

Was a deflection

[Shahanga]

22 hours ago, SF33 said:

Yeah, I couldn't agree more with this. He was beaten and he took the bloke out because he thought that he was a good chance of scoring if he didn't (and because he knew the rules, I guess).

It appears that Kisnorbo wasn't wrong and the ref wasn't wrong. But I think the rule is wrong. You shouldn't be able to take an opponent out to that extent. At least try to disguise your intentions.

Seb Ryall did they same thing against us earlier in the season.  Was just a yellow, so this evened up the score.  Suck it up sky blue scum.