The mancityfans.net football forum

Posted: **Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:34 pm**

Mr Nool and Doom Merchant have spotted the Yaya thing.

I was actually shocked to see on SSN that Yaya was second in the whole PL on passes made, to some spotty ginger old fella. Yaya had been about 94 passes, despite us being against a top side away and under the cosh for much of it.

Stuff will be fed through him, Silva, Tevez, Milner and/or Robinho. That should be enough to be getting along with.

The thread was about the 'modern playmaker' whereas some are arguing about a 'traditional playmaker' like Bernabia.

Posted: **Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:38 pm**

brite blu sky wrote:i cant take nqdp's comments seriously, nothing personal but seems to me to be looking to make sweeping statements from the perspective of fixed roles for players. I would agree with Ted's ultimate comment - it is just a label for people to try and talk about the dynamics in football. Some teams do seem to operate with the same pattern with the play started or going through the same players all the time, but then a lot of teams dont. In relation to City i really dont think any of us know what Mancini is going to try and engineer and if anything it appears he is going for flexibility and fluid formations that change. IF that was the case, then i would suggest that different players would all take on the role of starting moves, changing the pace of the game and taking responsibility for distribution. Again IF that is the case we may see more of combinations appearing throughout the team, rather than us looking to put everything through a classic 'playmaker'. I think the advantage of shifting players around is quite obvious, it is more difficult for the oppo to isolate and nullify any one key player. The disadvantage as such is that it requires players to be well integrated with each other and consistently on form. City had 60+% of possession in the second half at WHL but for all that couldn't effectively move the ball into the final 3rd and find a player. That to me just suggests that we are not practised enough or have enough players on form. Also that is not giving Spurs any credit for doing a good job in the final 3rd.
As for the idea of Yaya not being able to take the ball forward.. complete tosh.

Imo we created little at Spurs because Tevez & Silva aren't match fit, we had no central striker, nobody in the box & SWP was headless shite. Three fully fit, in form attacking players & a bit more attacking intent would fix it.

Posted: **Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:57 pm**

Ted Hughes wrote:
brite blu sky wrote:i cant take nqdp's comments seriously, nothing personal but seems to me to be looking to make sweeping statements from the perspective of fixed roles for players. I would agree with Ted's ultimate comment - it is just a label for people to try and talk about the dynamics in football. Some teams do seem to operate with the same pattern with the play started or going through the same players all the time, but then a lot of teams dont. In relation to City i really dont think any of us know what Mancini is going to try and engineer and if anything it appears he is going for flexibility and fluid formations that change. IF that was the case, then i would suggest that different players would all take on the role of starting moves, changing the pace of the game and taking responsibility for distribution. Again IF that is the case we may see more of combinations appearing throughout the team, rather than us looking to put everything through a classic 'playmaker'. I think the advantage of shifting players around is quite obvious, it is more difficult for the oppo to isolate and nullify any one key player. The disadvantage as such is that it requires players to be well integrated with each other and consistently on form. City had 60+% of possession in the second half at WHL but for all that couldn't effectively move the ball into the final 3rd and find a player. That to me just suggests that we are not practised enough or have enough players on form. Also that is not giving Spurs any credit for doing a good job in the final 3rd.
As for the idea of Yaya not being able to take the ball forward.. complete tosh.

Imo we created little at Spurs because Tevez & Silva aren't match fit, we had no central striker, nobody in the box & SWP was headless shite. Three fully fit, in form attacking players & a bit more attacking intent would fix it.

im down with that and to me it looked obvious. We were poor in the final 3rd last season when Tevez was quiet. I'm expecting us to struggle for a bit yet against better teams until him and Silva get up to speed. Also Sweep did look poor but again i dont think it is that fair to nail him for it, if we had had more presence in the final 3rd he would have had better options and a bit more room. If we had all players up to speed i think there would have been a good chance Bobby would have had Ade on there too. He went for solidity first and it just about paid off to the detriment of our forward play.

Eventually we should see a lot of mixed play imo and it will be interesting to see what Yaya and Milner together create.

Posted: **Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:07 pm**

Ted Hughes wrote:My definition of a modern playmaker: someone so lacking in other areas of his game that he gets noticed for just the one because people can't think of a word to describe him.

The line about Brazil having 2 deep lying playmakers & 2 attacking playmakers shows what a load of bollocks the whole thing is. Thery had 4 great footballers in the midfield who weren't brilliant at defending, end of story.

Wonder if Dave Beasent was a playmaker? Half Wimbledon's goals came from his lumps upfront. Rory Delap is definitely Stoke's.

The best sides don't need a playmaker as they ALL do it, some players do it a bit better than others for sure but they all do it, even the defenders. That's what we need to aim for & are doing imo.

love it. one of my fave posters on here by a mile...

Rest of World 1 Antti 0

cheers, and i btw took the bus to school because i lived in such a rural bumfuck area of PA growing up. I liked it in hindsight. But now i am City me.

cheers

Posted: **Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:39 pm**

I think this obsession some have with a playmaker is out of date.
Posession is far more important and having a team of players who can pass the ball to each other is what wins games.If this means the best passer of the ball is known as the playmaker then its just making a name for the guy who is probably the best player in the team.
The team that has the majority of posessioon normally wins the game.
It seems to me that if a team can keep the ball and other players move into space where the ball holder can pass to him that is being creative.
The skill level of the game has moved on IMO and its not down to one player now who can pick out a pass,I think the whole team has to be able to do it.
Its not like the old days when a player can just pass back to the goalie and slow the game down nowadays players have to play more or less all the time.
The whole team has to be the playmaker when the opportunity arises and keeping posession until that moment is the way to play the game.

Posted: **Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:59 pm**

King Kev wrote:
Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:Whatever Milner is, he is NOT playmaker....
I will admit that I haven't read the OP (it would take me all week!) so apologies if this has been covered in there.

Milner came 4th in the league for assists last season, surely somebody who creates so many goal-scoring chances for others must be considered a playmaker!?

Has NQDP responded to this yet??

The mancityfans.net football forum

The Playmaker - Long but interesting read

Re: The Playmaker - Long but interesting read

Re: The Playmaker - Long but interesting read

Re: The Playmaker - Long but interesting read

Re: The Playmaker - Long but interesting read

Re: The Playmaker - Long but interesting read

Re: The Playmaker - Long but interesting read