Man City 3 West Ham Utd 1 (28/09/09)

Relive every moment of every first team game since the beginning of the 2005/06 season. Our archive of matchday threads originally posted in the General Discussion Forum.

Moderator: Gnome

Post Reply
User avatar
Georgee Paris
Posts: 27178
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:07 pm
Location: The Amazing Adventures of Wicked Willy & Fearless Steve
Has liked: 495 likes
Total likes: 1041 likes
Contact:

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Georgee Paris »

I thought we played ok in spells as well last night, have we had a win with Kovac and Parker in the same team yet? I think Hines should have come on a lot earlier - but I'm no manager. I'm sure many will be going wonkey if we don't beat Fulham.
I think we need to perhaps go more attacking at home - ditch the 4-3-2-1 formation or what ever it is and basically use that for certain away games and be prepared to change if it isn't working - I find it odd that we are incapable of using more than one formation or being able to switch during games or at least prepare for each match individually rather than sticking with the same game plan over and over again. I thought the saying was if it ain't broke don't fix it? Well something could do with fixing and I can't believe it takes 90 mins to realize its broke?
User avatar
red iron
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:23 pm
Location: Too close to the Emirates for my liking...

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by red iron »

Romford wrote:Opinions eh !

I actually got a lot of positives out of last night :shock:

Can't understand the stick Noble is getting ...thought him and Parker did well.

Da Costa had a great 2nd half

Still lost with the love in on here about Faubert...his decision making is shocking as is his work rate...but he did actually do a couple of things right so i shouldn't go on.

Felt sorry for Carlton...Zavon only getting a few mins.

Bit of luck and we could have drawn that...not many teams will say that this season at the COM.
Can't really disagree tbh, think we gave it a good go and can draw lots of positives from the performance.

My only real concern was that we looked quite fragile at the back, aswell as failing to distribute the ball effectively from defence
User avatar
Fishbone
Posts: 3662
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Betfair

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Fishbone »

West Ham Matt wrote:We look like relegation fodder.

Diamante and Cole were the only bright sparks.

However, City are a top class team who will finish in the top 3 this year.

Scott Parker, by the way, is f***ing gash.
I knew it wouldn't be long before you came on here to brighten up our day.

Scott Parker gash?? You really do not have a clue do you...
User avatar
bubbles1966
Posts: 67267
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: I'm holding onto nothing, and trying to forget the rest
Has liked: 2486 likes
Total likes: 4389 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by bubbles1966 »

Tactics

City play with Petrov and SWP. So we play without any midfield support for our full backs. Bad tactics. Made worse by the fact that we went through this last year and have decided not to learn the lessons against teams with decent full backs/wide players. 0/10 for the management on this one.

One Man Team


Can't ever ever remember us seeming as dependent on a single player as we are on Cole (sublime finish last night).

Injuries

It's getting a bit silly now. 9 players out - and a lot of the more reliable squad cover has been sold .

At times like this you rely on the manager to get the best out of players.

The whole thing is being exacerbated by the unbalanced nature of the squad - far too many "attacking midfielders" - 1 goal in 6 games between the bleedin' lot of them :lol:

The signings


Diamanti takes a decent dead ball, but in open play he's a dead weight - certainly where he is being played at the moment by Zola. Slow and feeble in possession. Have to get him much more central and no more than 30 yards from goal - otherwise he's pointless.

Jiminez. I'm struggling to see the point - although he did help Faubert when Z and C decided to push him right to stop Petrov taking the piss. What does he do?

Petrov - was available on a free/loan - in the summer. We shop in Italia though.

Organisation

Not very evident anywhere at the club presently.Hopeless at set plays and Kovac is an absolute liability - worse than Mullins. And for that matter even Etherington would do a better job in a wide position than all the people being played there this season.
User avatar
Sloop John B
The voice of reason
Posts: 7484
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:02 pm
Location: On the High Seas
Has liked: 242 likes
Total likes: 477 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Sloop John B »

Wow a lot of depressing stuff written here. I actually came away from the game last night quite pleased. I've been a bit worried about GZs formation and insistance that we're 'almost there' because I haven't seen any signs that the team know how to do this nice passing game. Well last night I have to say I was very impressed with them. After our goal and the start of the second half we looked very good against a team that has been built without financial restraint.

I'm really impressed with Da Costa who has strength and pace and made a few great tackles last night, if he's the quality of the italian second division get a few more in! Jimenez looked our best attacking threat but he hardly had a sniff. Diamante ...I can't make my mind up about him, he's a bit static at the moment and winds me up with his whinging! (much like KUMB :D )

Noble is my current boo boy but I have to say he done well last night big improvement from Wigan/Bolton. Faubert and Illunga...well that's gotta one of the biggest tests they'll face this season and I don't think they were too far off it. Faubert seemed to wave Tomkins off making a challenge for the first goal, not sure why.

Green....has obviously been told to play from the back, but he really is inviting pressure on himself. Maybe it's the best way for the CB's to learn but it scares the **** outta me.

We're still not getting behind defenses, and Cole looks very isolated. BUT if we continue to play like we did last night I honestly think the results will come for us.

Good support last night as well, think we made them look like the prawn sandwich brigade they'll soon become. :clap:
User avatar
Hampshire Hammer
Posts: 10159
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 3:18 pm
Location: Somewhere south of sanity
Has liked: 2490 likes
Total likes: 77 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Hampshire Hammer »

red iron wrote:
My only real concern was that we looked quite fragile at the back, aswell as failing to distribute the ball effectively from defence
Like you this is my concern, we have gone from having a defence that you could have confidence in to being worried everytime the other team attacks. Upson is a big miss but what they really need is a mouthy organiser, exactly what Neil gave us.
User avatar
PF.
Warsaw's Peter Stringfellow
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:26 pm
Location: Poland
Total likes: 416 likes

Re: Jules is a star?

Post by PF. »

Defensively, he is exactly how not to teach a kid the full-back position.

Positionally all over the place, lunges in far too often, shows the winger the wrong way, gives up chasing back and usually blames everyone but himself.
User avatar
Jackanakanory
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Dismantling a Corby Trouser Press
Has liked: 10 likes
Total likes: 35 likes

Re: behrami, dyer, collison MIA?

Post by Jackanakanory »

Maybe they are saying Collison is injured but are giving him time off to get over his recent bereavement? Funeral etc?
User avatar
ageing hammer
Posts: 25477
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:04 am
Location: Cockney Hammer's stunt double
Has liked: 486 likes
Total likes: 1491 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by ageing hammer »

Romford wrote:Opinions eh !

I actually got a lot of positives out of last night :shock:

Can't understand the stick Noble is getting ...thought him and Parker did well.

Da Costa had a great 2nd half

Still lost with the love in on here about Faubert...his decision making is shocking as is his work rate...but he did actually do a couple of things right so i shouldn't go on.

Felt sorry for Carlton...Zavon only getting a few mins.

Bit of luck and we could have drawn that...not many teams will say that this season at the COM.
In the cold light of day (after the wine has wore off me) I agree with you Romford, that's a very good analysis of last night. If the ref was at the races we could have got a draw, how bad is that against all the millions they spent. What do we expect when we are skint. We will be alright soon if we can just kick start the season next week against fulham and get a few points on the board and opinions will change a little.
bobd_uk
Posts: 7860
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 11:27 am
Has liked: 2 likes
Total likes: 75 likes

Re: Jules is a star?

Post by bobd_uk »

IMO, it wasn't a coincidence that almost all of Man C's attacks came through Petrov down their left. Faubert was so far out of position so often that it was laughable.
User avatar
hammerbenj
Posts: 5968
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:02 pm
Location: Bad Darts!

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by hammerbenj »

red iron wrote:
My only real concern was that we looked quite fragile at the back, aswell as failing to distribute the ball effectively from defence
this is the crux of the matter i feel. i dont think many of us negative peeps ever thought we would win there, draw at best, we didn't play too bad. it's the overall picture i am concerned about. we have such a small squad now and when we get injuries it's really showing (defence and midfield last night) i know trap gets a bad press from some on here (me included) but the fact is his points are valid regarding the current state of the club and that really concerns me for the future. we have a good team on paper better than a few teams in the prem, the problem is getting that team out on the pitch!

benj is concerned.
User avatar
PF.
Warsaw's Peter Stringfellow
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:26 pm
Location: Poland
Total likes: 416 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by PF. »

West Ham Matt wrote: Scott Parker, by the way, is f***ing gash.
To join the long list of mind-boggling comments that come straight from your PC.
User avatar
Sloop John B
The voice of reason
Posts: 7484
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:02 pm
Location: On the High Seas
Has liked: 242 likes
Total likes: 477 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Sloop John B »

West Ham Matt wrote:Scott Parker, by the way, is f***ing gash.
Ha ha. Incredible. Parker for me is our best player by a long, long way. His spins are the modern day equivilent of the Johnny Moncs Step over.
User avatar
Major
%&!$
Posts: 10284
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:52 am
Has liked: 13 likes
Total likes: 338 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Major »

I agree with all of that

Romford, were you in the Stanley last night?
No mate...still in Manc now

Thank f*** i didnt introduce myself :lol:

You lazy b*stard :lol: i got into work today 9.30 with a raging hangover, was driving down the M6 at 4.45 this morning!!!
stammer
Posts: 2242
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:51 pm
Location: Land of the odd shaped balls
Has liked: 13 likes
Total likes: 129 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by stammer »

Major wrote:I have bigger concerns about our ability to exist after this season to be honest, we are absolutley f***ed, finacially and are practically unsaleable, without the current owners taking a massive loss, which they seem unlikley to do. I have been told (Yes by the same unreliable c***) that we really could be going to the wall next year.
That is worrying but it does not add up that the creditors, who basically have had to give their agreement for this tinpot asset management company to be in existence, would allow their return be it 20% on what they are owed against what has been offered for us or whatever become 5% with us being relegated or 0% in going tits up. Whether CB holdings want to hold on to get a price where they can pay the creditors and cream something off for themselves is neither here nor there, the creditors are in a strong legal position and can force CB holdings hand. It would be catastrophic for the creditors if we were allowed to be relegated or go under and that is why I don't believe that it would happen, even if you asset stripped the sum of the parts would not be greater than the going concern.
Scaloni Is The Messiah
Posts: 9296
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:44 pm

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Scaloni Is The Messiah »

Georgee Paris wrote:I find it odd that we are incapable of using more than one formation or being able to switch during games
I think it's a lack of personnel to give Zola the options. Last night we essentially had 12 senior players (14 if you include Stanislas and Hines). There's simply not the scope to play about with formations and tactics without it affecting the quality of the side.
User avatar
sendô
Posts: 44504
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:41 pm
Location: rubbing my eyes in disbelief - we've won a European trophy!
Has liked: 2488 likes
Total likes: 2713 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by sendô »

Well isn't this thread a predictable mix of over the top doom and gloom, and optimistic optimism.

On the face of it, a 3-1 loss away to a good Man City side isn't the end of the world, especially given the injuries we seem to have suddenly picked up. However it was the manner that we conceded that not only pissed me off but gave some cause for concern.

Defence

The area of our team that was the strongest and most reliable last season - the defence - now seems to have become our weakest. Neill released, Collins sold, Upson injured. The first 20 minutes we were appalling at the back. No organisation, no leadership, City's front 4 ripped us to shreds, and it was their poor finishing that gave us the chance to get back into it. Faubert was hopelessly out of position for their first goal. Tomkins showed his inexperience by not closing down Petrov straight away. If Upson had been playing maybe he'd have told him to go to the ball early on, but there seems a touch of the Anton Ferdinands about the lad in that he seems weaker without an experienced CB partner. Da Costa looked for all the world like he was doing his best Gary Breen impression. Caught ball watching on a number of occasions, twisted up by Tevez. He improved as the game went on but then he couldn't get much worse.

The second goal was a very poor free kick to give away in a dangerous area, a typical foul for a forward to give away. As for the third, offside trap or no offside trap, three city players were unmarked at the back post. That is **** defending by anyone's standards.

Attack

Going forwards it was the same old story. Cole isolated up front on his own, working hard but not getting much reward. Diamanti and Jiminez showed glimpses of ability but ultimately failed to deliver. I think we're relying too much on those two to come in and deliver at the moment. It's a big ask for them both to come into the PL and make it happen. Maybe a case for Hines up front with Cole against the cottagers?

The Kovac and Parker midfield yielded little in the way of creativity once again. The former almost managed to drag a free shot from 12 yards wide before Cole ****ed it in. Two things seem clear to me. First, when Parker and Kovac play together we lack creativity big time. Second, this 4-3-3 or whatever it is just does not work. Jiminez and Diamanti lack the pace and work rate to support Cole properly. Our full backs get exposed, and we lack creativity in the middle. We had a passage of play in the first half when we strung together god knows how many passed but only ended up going backwards. In the end Faubert pinged a cross to Cole from deep that nearly ended in a goal.

Positives

Carlton Cole looks like a player in good form at the moment. If he had a regular partner up front, and some decent services, people would probably be talking about him in the same way as Darren Bent at the moment. Each time he got near the goal he looked dangerous. City struggled to deal with him - Lescott got totally mugged off for strength before Parker's 'goal'.

Parker looked good. A lovely crunching tackle on the gobby welsh cock. It was nice to see Noble getting a kick in on him aswell. Can't help but feel Nobes is a bit nice sometimes, but he did better last night, especially after Kovac went off.

Diamanti and Jiminez seem to have ability but it isnt happening yet.

Faubert looks decent enough going forwards but a RB he definately is not. Illunga was our best defender by some distance.
User avatar
stu1
Posts: 12579
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:57 pm
Has liked: 668 likes
Total likes: 1036 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by stu1 »

stu1 wrote:Green 6 - poor for the second goal
Faubert 6 - not his fault he had to challenge their forward for a header and no-one came across to cover for the first goal.
Tomkins 5 - rate the kid highly but very poor last night i thought, what was he doing for the first goal?
Da Costa 6 - thought after being chucked in at the deep end in his first game he did well, and look better than Tompkins. Also anyone calling him slow is having a laugh, anyone who can keep up with SWP in a striaght race is not slow.
Ilunga 5 - God knows what he was doing for the third goal, had his hand up for off side before the free kick was even taken and then got beaten in the air by Tevez!
Parker 5 - Decent at breaking up the play, but seems to have forgotten how to pass this season.
Jiminez 5 - Didnt do much, but looks comfortable on the ball, i think he will turn out a decent player
Kovac 6 - played ok, seems to gradually be getting better
Diamanti 6 - Didnt have a great game did the odd good thing but needs to have better decision making.
Cole 6 - probably our best player, wasn't great but did ok, scored a goal and should of had an assist if it wasn't for a terrible terrible decision from the linesman!

Zola 5 - tactics maybe wrong, but with player like dyer, gabbidon, collison, upson and behrami all being out for no reason supposidly i dont think he much option but to pick parker, noble and kovac as our midfield three. The day parker remembers how to pass and has behrami and collison along side him in our centre mid will be a happy day in my eyes!
WestMum wrote: Faubert and Da Costa 6? It is a joke?!
On the basis of what do you disagree? If you say faubert was at fault for the first goal, then i wont even bother to reply to you as clearly dont understand football.

Oh ye has anyone noticed Tomkins can't hit a barn door with a free header from 5 yards out!
joyful
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:17 am

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by joyful »

Romford wrote
No mate...still in Manc now
You're such a hero. Monday night, on tv, doom and gloom all around -- and 900 hammers still turn up and, from the comfort of my sitting room, sounded as if they were outsinging the Mancs all night.

Sirs, I salute you. :thup:
User avatar
ginghamdress
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:35 pm
Location: Say hello to Mr Flibble
Has liked: 73 likes
Total likes: 77 likes

Re: Man City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by ginghamdress »

The ESPN commentator said that behind the corner flag on the far right was where those that wish to sing must go and the West Ham fans would have a hard job out singing them...... and he was serious.
Post Reply