Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Sterile and robotic are words I'd use to describe them. Give Wigan, Norwich, Burnley, West Ham unlimited funds to spend and they'll do the exact same as City have.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 101
|
By:
no, they are high level no doubt.
|
|
By:
Brentford fans are singing about how boring Man City are. This second half has been horrible to watch.
|
|
By:
1.20 away from home?
you wouldn't expect that even in Scotland how short have City been in other games? |
|
By:
At home to Norwich they'd be 1.07 or something.
 |
|
By:
Really is boring to watch when one team sucks the life out of it by having 90% of the ball. Yawn with 70 side way 5yrd passes per 5 minutes
|
|
By:
They didn't even have a shot on target in the second half. If they were playing in my back garden I'd close the curtains.
|
|
By:
Barca under guardiola was the same, xavi, inniesta and busquets would make 300 passes in small triangle as a drill to bore the life out of an opponent. City are the same, it's ball retention at its best. U can't concede if u have the football for 81 minutes of the 90
|
|
By:
No contest games are always boring for me. Nearly all the top teams in Europe play these games more often than not. Watching the likes of Spurs, Arsenal, Man U is much more entertaining the last few years. You genuinely don't know who's going to win most of the time. Chelsea under Roman have nearly always been a boring watch for me, whether they are good or bad, just something very boring about them.
|
|
By:
i still prefer City winning to Utd or Liverpool no matter how boring they are
|
|
By:
City over utd but City have technically become Utd
The prem is boring with the runaway leaders every season |
|
By:
i'm actually staring to like utd
it's so much more interesting when they are just an upper midtable team you never know waht they are going to do, like in the 80s |
|
By:
To be fair I dont gate them anymore, Ive never liked Ferguson he always irritated me with his overrated “mind games”
Keegan and Newcastle lost the title because they couldnt defend not because they had their “minds taken” buy a dour Scotsman City are just tedious now and I loved it when they pipped united to the title under Mancini |
|
By:
Bobby Manc
|
|
By:
Top manager won things at pretty much every club
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
To compete with city you have to be in their face from the off, too many teams stand off them, and let them do the passing routine. Basically got to work your arses off. Too many accept defeat before the ko.
|
|
By:
This discussion shows what the money has done to the game here.
|
|
By:
You try have ago at them you can get results
Stand off park the bus all game you get wracked Beat you up if you let them Far from boring I just want to see them Liverpool man get kick up the air a bit |
|
By:
Spain... Barca... now City.... this tica taca type football does eventually draw the boos from the opposing and neutral fans.
Yep... City are now very boring and their recent success has a very hollow ring to it. I'm guessing that true die hard City fans would agree |
|
By:
i suppose thats what you get when you spend over £700m on players and bring a manager like Pep in
in a few years it will be Abu Dhabi versus Suadi Arabia as they try to out spend each other |
|
By:
1-0 to the Arsenal where boring 30 years ago
This type football in another league People must miss neck brace football of the past ! If there calling this boring , |
|
By:
Get the ball off them then. And then start passing to someone in your team instead of making a poor pass and showing you shouldn't be on anything like the money you are.
|
|
By:
Having their two quickest players on the bench and the other unavailable was a problem last night. ( Sterling , Mahrez , Walker )
|
|
By:
city may well win at a canter but a league thats over before the turn of the year doesnt look good
|
|
By:
Guardiola
champions league titles won without Messi: 0 |
|
By:
he had an extraodrinary array of talent at Barca, half the Spanish national for **** sake, and he was responsible for signing very few of them
|
|
By:
rommel is correct and really bad for the game in this country.
|
|
By:
I find them very boring to watch.....however the opposition sitting off them instead of getting 'athletics level' fit and shutting them down instead of having the best view of their passing skills is truly baffling and idiotic.
|
|
By:
It's all the more remarkable what Liverpool and Klopp have done on the net spend they did. Would be utter dominance under Pep if it wasn't for that. But once Pep goes it won't continue. He is the main reason for the level of dominance, not the money. United have spent more than him since he joined if you include wages.
For all the money he has spent a good chunk of it was on players that didn't really improve City at all. Guys like Mendy, Bravo, Torres, Ake, Nolito, Douglas Luiz, Danilo, Angelino cost about £200m. If you add Stones who has started less than half the league games since he joined and hasn't been great until quite recently and Grealish who hasn't had any impact yet really it's about £350m. I suppose at any other club bar PSG and United he might have had to spend better and not waste as much but it's his tactics that gets them 90+ points more than the quaity of players they have starting. |
|
By:
Klopp has spent 480 million
 |
|
By:
Most of those mentioned just buy up players to stop them going elsewhere. Those teams could field two sides in the premiership comfortably.
|
|
By:
Don't give them ideas about entering 'B' teams into the competition.
|
|
By:
Klopp has spent 480 million Laugh
genuine question - what is the net spend? |
|
By:
2016/17
Liverpool: spend £71.91m;income £76.84m;net spend £+4.93m. Manchester United: spend £166.50m;income £42.53m;net spend £-123.98m. 2017/18 spend £156.49m;income £175.05m;net spend £+18.56m Manchester United: spend £178.56m;income £40.95m;net spend £-137.61m. 2018/19 Liverpool: spend £163.98m;income £37.19m;net spend £-126.79m Manchester United: spend £74.43m;income £27.50m;net spend £-46.94m. 2019/20 Liverpool: spend £9.36m;income £37.44m;net spend £+28.08m Manchester United: spend £204.10m;income £73.06m;net spend £-131.04m 2020/21 spend £74.39m;income £38.88m;net spend £-35.51m. Manchester United: spend £75.15m;income £16.56m;net spend £-58.59m. much less than man u and obviously 2021/22 was the same. Man City and Chelski obviously are the big net spenders what is more impressive about Klopp is that Pep inherited a very strong squad who had already won the EPL and the likes of Aquerro were at their peak |
|
By:
God forbid that Newcastle might be able to spend these sums now
it isn't fair  they are buying success |
|
By:
Pep Guardiola's net spend heading into his fifth season at Manchester City is negative £533m - that was not including the last transfer window
|
