13 Aug 2019 15:39:21
I advocated a very attacking team v City and I still think that was the way to go. I know our defence is suspect and another “solid” defensive midfielder alongside Rice May have made things more difficult for City, but it would also have meant inviting them to make far more opportunities as we would be inviting them on and playing more of the game in our own defensive third.

1.) 13 Aug 2019
13 Aug 2019 19:10:04
Have to agree Markro, playing for a point is what teams who need every ONE point to stay up do. For us to get a euro spot we need 3 points more often, and to beat City you need to score and make THEM chase the game.
1st goal was unlucky, and the main difference at end of day was that they were FAR more clinical with their changes. They are city though and that's what they do. We had opportunities in 1st half and some terrible balls killed them. JW comes to mind for one when he over played it to Anderson when playing Haller in through the centre would have been far better. Taking those chances would have meant a FAR different game. Thought Jack was OK IMO given he and Rice were playing City, Jack's final balls were not his usual quality so he did underperform slightly. Personally I would have played Snodgrass there anyway vs City as he is more aggressive and puts in more legwork.
We need to be more clinical, but we have to remember that only TWO of the 6 attacking players we used were playing regularly last season (Anderson and Antonio) They all need competitive matches to gel and understand one another better.

2.) 16 Aug 2019
16 Aug 2019 18:11:20
we don´t defend as a compact unit, we are way to slow in transition between attack and defense and as a result holes appear on the counter when the ball breaks down! . the personnel are wrong . you cannot have Lanzini, Fornals, Wilshere and Anderson in the same team. that´s nearly half the team with zero defensive attributes. we need grafters in there too and perhaps play more on the counter instead of gung ho especially vs the top teams!