Roberto Martinez discussion

[Khalekan]

I didn't mention the Kyiv game?

I've said multiple times I'm only bothered about this season.

Kyiv was a poor team selection and we paid for it. City was much different.

Well what was Eric Djemba Djemba talking about when he mentioned "pitiful second leg" and not bring worried about beating Kiev in the first match?

And you saying it wasn't pitiful, we'd held our own until the ref intervened.

 

[BlueToff]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35358806

Stats for the 'pitiful' display at the Etihad a few weeks ago here...

Possession
City 55%
Everton 45%

Shots
City 19
Everton 4

Shots on Target
City 5
Everton 2

Corners
City 9
Everton 2

While it's clear from that we didn't test City's keeper as much as we should have, I don't think you'd see too many teams in the same situation that we were in in that game having much more.

It was clear what our gameplan was and up until getting ripped off by the ref with a bad decision, we were well in it.

 

[BlueToff]

City battered us that game, they hit the post twice and offered absolutely no attacking threat down the other end. We didn't deserve anything.

It really showed Martinez up as clueless when the day before the game he came out and said in the press that he wasn't interested in clean sheets, just winning when all we needed to get through was a clean sheet.

Well, hang on...

Look at my post of the stats below.

We battered WBA with over 30 shots on goal, and hit the post twice. City scored from a deflection (how many of our shots deflected just wide on Saturday... quite a few...), a goal that clearly shouldn't have stood and then a good goal from two players with a combined transfer fee of £100mil - and even then Aguero could have been given offside though it was tight.

All we needed to do to get through was a clean sheet???

Guess the last team to keep a clean sheet at City since January 2015 mate... go on, have a guess...

 

[BlueToff]

Well what was Eric Djemba Djemba talking about when he mentioned "pitiful second leg" and not bring worried about beating Kiev in the first match?

And you saying it wasn't pitiful, we'd held our own until the ref intervened.

I believe he was talking about the City game?

Unless we've got crossed-wires, I'm not talking about Kyiv. As I said it was last season and i'm concentrating on this year. At the time I was fuming and it was horrible, because he got it wrong and it cost us, but it's way in the past.

In the City game, I think - after riding our luck a bit after their first goal (which in itself was unlucky but that happens and you've got to get on with it), we were holding our own just as WBA did against us, except we still weren't piling 10 men in the area and playing totally negative. We were simply being pushed back by a side who cost a combined £500mil and had brought on one of the best midfielders in Europe to compliment the best forward in the league...

Even so, it still took a clearly wrong refereeing decision for City to get that crucial second goal.

What annoys me most is "we only needed to keep a clean sheet". Everton are the only side to keep a clean sheet at the Etihad since January 2015 - even the mighty Spurs couldn't manage that the other day when City played nowhere near as well as they did against us.

And, in the same post, he is slating us for "not having offered anything at the other end", see the irony?

Also, those stats I posted seem a pretty fair representation and probably what you'd expect a side trying to hold onto a lead to have when plaing away from home against the wealthiest club in the country who desperately needed to score two goals...

 

[Eric Djemba-Djemba]

Well what was Eric Djemba Djemba talking about when he mentioned "pitiful second leg" and not bring worried about beating Kiev in the first match?

And you saying it wasn't pitiful, we'd held our own until the ref intervened.

They were both pitiful in my opinion. Our 2nd half performance in the City game was shambolic, even though there was a poor decision these things happen, just a week before we should have had a last minute penalty given against us at City in the league game, but didn't. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Eric Djemba-Djemba]

Well, hang on...

Look at my post of the stats below.

We battered WBA with over 30 shots on goal, and hit the post twice. City scored from a deflection (how many of our shots deflected just wide on Saturday... quite a few...), a goal that clearly shouldn't have stood and then a good goal from two players with a combined transfer fee of £100mil - and even then Aguero could have been given offside though it was tight.

All we needed to do to get through was a clean sheet???

Guess the last team to keep a clean sheet at City since January 2015 mate... go on, have a guess...

We had 6 shots on target against West Brom, we barely bombarded their goal. I can't remember a good save that Foster had to make.

Plus you're pointing to a refereeing decision against City, yet talking up our clean sheet at the Etihad a week before. Ironic since we should have had an injury time penalty given against us that game so that doesn't count. I don't remember Martinez kicking up a fuss about that.

 

[BlueToff]

They were both pitiful in my opinion. Our 2nd half performance in the City game was shambolic, even though there was a poor decision these things happen, just a week before we should have had a last minute penalty given against us at City in the league game, but didn't. Swings and roundabouts.

And three days after that we had that terrible offside decision against us vs Chelsea, just a few weeks after having a penalty awarded against us that wasn't vs Stoke.

You say they even out, but they don't.

A penalty is not an automatic goal. On both occasions vs City and Chelsea the decisions were clear-cut and resulted directly in a goal. If it was a penalty that City had scored from in that second leg, I'd agree, but it's totally different.

 

[BlueToff]

We had 6 shots on target against West Brom, we barely bombarded their goal. I can't remember a good save that Foster had to make.

Plus you're pointing to a refereeing decision against City, yet talking up our clean sheet at the Etihad a week before. Ironic since we should have had an injury time penalty given against us that game so that doesn't count. I don't remember Martinez kicking up a fuss about that.

And City had 5 shots on target against us at the Etihad...

As I said previously to somebody else, those stats also don't count hitting the posts/crossbar as 'on target'.

And again, i've just quoted a post of yours on that second point so I'm not gonna repeat myself as it wastes everybody's time

 

[Eric Djemba-Djemba]

And three days after that we had that terrible offside decision against us vs Chelsea, just a few weeks after having a penalty awarded against us that wasn't vs Stoke.

You say they even out, but they don't.

A penalty is not an automatic goal. On both occasions vs City and Chelsea the decisions were clear-cut and resulted directly in a goal. If it was a penalty that City had scored from in that second leg, I'd agree, but it's totally different.

Against Palace at home Barry should have had a penalty given against him, in the first leg against City Mirallas should have had a penalty given against for clipping Navas. Just because we've been crap doesn't mean we haven't had our share of luck this season.

Also with your point on penalties most of them result in goals. Especially when the goalkeeper is Tim Howard.

 

[Tree13]

Two of those shots that were 'off target ' hit the post.

Shots on goal doesn't just mean shots that were off target.

We had over 30 shots, and created over 20 chances. They are the official stats.

To say WBA had 10 men in their area the majority of the second half, I don't think it's bad going.

The problem was the finishing touch which the players couldn't apply after doing the hard work.

Also, it'd be interesting to see how many shots on goal City had against us at the Etihad in the semi, considering how all the Martinez-outters call that such a bad display.

Pal. Seriously, come on.

Ok, have your two that hit the post - it's a reasonable point. It's now eight shots.

Shots off target don't generally lead to goals, at least not as often as shots ON target do. Presumably the system you referred to earlier isn't designed for maximising the number of off-target shots we register in a game.

We had over thirty shots, yes. It's an official stat, I agree. The official stats also say that only six of those shots were on target (and we're adding the two that hit the post, as agreed).

The fact that WBA had ten men in their area for most of the game does NOT make our high number of shots a greater achievement; in fact, in lessens the achievement because WBA were, according to the official stats, conceding huge chunks of possession and territory to us. The natural consequence of these concessions is that we would have an increased opportunity to take more shots, particularly from outside the area.

The crux of this issue is the theory that the likelihood of a shot to be off target or blocked increases in proportion to the distance from which the shot is taken - we took lots of long-range shots because WBA were happy to let us do so, relying on the fact that most of them would be off-target or blocked. The official stats show that WBA were right.

I don't place the blame on the players failing to score 25-yard screamers through a box packed with warm bodies, because that's a very difficult thing to do. I place the blame on a game plan that did not facilitate us having more close-range (and therefore statistically more likely to score) chances.

 

[BlueToff]

Against Palace at home Barry should have had a penalty given against him, in the first leg against City Mirallas should have had a penalty given against for clipping Navas. Just because we've been crap doesn't mean we haven't had our share of luck this season.

Also with your point on penalties most of them result in goals. Especially when the goalkeeper is Tim Howard.

I said in a post earlier in this thread that we have had our fair share of luck.

That is even'd out by the fact we should have had plenty of pens this season that we didn't get.

Penalties are not an automatic goal, and, even though Howard is tosh, he was superb that night at City so no, there is no guarantee City would score.

And i'm not saying that we would have gone onto win the game at the etihad/go through. What I am saying is that we were holding our own up until that point that the game turned on the ref's decision. That's true.

 

[BlueToff]

Pal. Seriously, come on.

Ok, have your two that hit the post - it's a reasonable point. It's now eight shots.

Shots off target don't generally lead to goals, at least not as often as shots ON target do. Presumably the system you referred to earlier isn't designed for maximising the number of off-target shots we register in a game.

We had over thirty shots, yes. It's an official stat, I agree. The official stats also say that only six of those shots were on target (and we're adding the two that hit the post, as agreed).

The fact that WBA had ten men in their area for most of the game does NOT make our high number of shots a greater achievement; in fact, in lessens the achievement because WBA were, according to the official stats, conceding huge chunks of possession and territory to us. The natural consequence of these concessions is that we would have an increased opportunity to take more shots, particularly from outside the area.

The crux of this issue is the theory that the likelihood of a shot to be off target or blocked increases in proportion to the distance from which the shot is taken - we took lots of long-range shots because WBA were happy to let us do so, relying on the fact that most of them would be off-target or blocked. The official stats show that WBA were right.

I don't place the blame on the players failing to score 25-yard screamers through a box packed with warm bodies, because that's a very difficult thing to do. I place the blame on a game plan that did not facilitate us having more close-range (and therefore statistically more likely to score) chances.

Okay, fair enough.

We created chances, but we didn't create enough near their goal/in areas that really mattered, fair to say?

Maybe that's down to the game plan, the players, or a combination of both - as well as WBA defending well. It happens, so I just suppose we're going to have slightly different opinions on it and agree to disagree?

 

[JonnyFitz]

76 hours (approx) have elapsed and the fume caused by those nonsense substitutions still hasn't subsided........it just won't go away

 

[kithnou]

That's churlish in the extreme. Whatever the debate over Martinez in terms of tactics and strategy I dont think there'll be too many dissenting voices concerning his transfer activity.

The feller has done a top job and to deny it just makes you look foolish.

I think you are finding quite a few already in here to be fair

 

[mkrudden]

City battered us that game, they hit the post twice and offered absolutely no attacking threat down the other end. We didn't deserve anything.

It really showed Martinez up as clueless when the day before the game he came out and said in the press that he wasn't interested in clean sheets, just winning when all we needed to get through was a clean sheet.

Lol.

What?!

So you'd have gone to City away and played for the clean sheet. Ie put men behind the ball?

And Martinez is the one that's clueless?

You exceed yourself in every post sir.