Manchester City v Aston Villa Post-Match Thread

[Monty]

No, but it's magnified it to a large degree. I don't have anything against City having the cash, but what it's shown us is how far behind everyone else is from Man U/Chelsea. City have had to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to regularly crack the top four, no one else is in that position and it just further highlights what it takes to become contenders. We had a good side a couple of seasons ago, but had our best players plucked from us by sides that could throw money at them. Look at the England midfield the other night; Young, Milner, Barry and Downing at one point. You're unable to build a team anymore, the chance to compete is being nullified by the money being spunked at players

I daresay that fans of Wigan and Sunderland would agree that it's annoying when someone else with more money and better prospects comes in and signs your best player.

Very true, however in the cases of the players you're implying at least they came here to be first-team regulars. The way City just bought Milner, definitely our best player that season, and just squadded him was uncomfortable to see. Downing, Young, even Barry, they've gone to be important first-teamers at their clubs. The Milner thing still seems unseemly to me.

[Stu]

No, but it's magnified it to a large degree. I don't have anything against City having the cash, but what it's shown us is how far behind everyone else is from Man U/Chelsea. City have had to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to regularly crack the top four, no one else is in that position and it just further highlights what it takes to become contenders. We had a good side a couple of seasons ago, but had our best players plucked from us by sides that could throw money at them. Look at the England midfield the other night; Young, Milner, Barry and Downing at one point. You're unable to build a team anymore, the chance to compete is being nullified by the money being spunked at players

I daresay that fans of Wigan and Sunderland would agree that it's annoying when someone else with more money and better prospects comes in and signs your best player.

And rightly so. Why did we have to sign N'Zogbia and Bent though?

[Greg N'Ash]

Although the Man City fan makes a good case, the fact is that someone with unlimited wealth has turned up and is literally buying all the top prizes in football like it was some casual purchase. How can that be good for the game? Whatever Man City win now, it won't mean anything. No managerial genius, no team building, no real achievement. Just throw the cash on the table and collect the trophies.

Nice thought, but people only remember the trophies and not how they did it. Take Ferguson's first title, spent a fortune in those days on the likes of pallister, bruce, Ince, Keane as well as all the big money purchases that failed to make the grade - probably would top Citeh's spending if you tried to buy the same type of players now.. Does anyone say ManU bought the league?

I think that most would attribute ManU's success to a combination of having the money to buy top quality players, and being lucky enough to have an outstanding set of youngsters coming through at the same time.

their first title was done with no youngsters - they basically bought a PL winning team - no different from Citeh,

Giggs was definitely a major part of their team in 92/93, although I take your overall point. 

schmeical
steve bruce
Irwin
pallister
parker
ferguson
giggs
Ince
kancleskis
phelan
sharpe
cantona
dublin
Hughes
mclair
wallace
webb

yep. always forget giggs was a bit older than the likes of Beckham

Still that squad taking out giggs, sharpe and ferguson, what it would cost in 2011 doesn't bear thinking about.
For instance Pallister world or british record fee for a defender... whats the record currently?

But weren't Utd able to spend that money having built the club to that position with previous successes, a large fan base, a great manager and spending money they had earnt through that. Not because a super rich businessman showed up and spent the equivilent of a small country's GDP on, at best, a historical also ran.

well they'd been a bit light on previous success since the late 60's. A few fa cup wins over about 15 years i think. And their fan base was not what people recall now. From memory they rarely sold out their ground during ferguson's first years and regularly got attendaces in the low 20's. I'm sure they had a little help in that direction as they didn't have 40 trillion oversea's supporters in those days.

[olaftab]

I'll say one thing that is an indictment of modern football. When a team with 9 internationals in its starting line up gets beaten 4-1 and its fans largely just expected it, it means there is something wrong.

There are two things wrong. One is  the  financial disparity that is eradicating fair and honest competition out of our football

When was there a time when there wasn't 'financial disparity' between some clubs and other clubs?

When we were spending millions and millions of pounds a couple of years ago, were we ruining things for the likes of Wigan and Bolton?

If not, it seems a bit unreasonable for us to be whinging just because there's now someone much richer out there.

Agreed that a level of disparity has always been around but now the scale is so huge with the way Chelsea and Mancity have spent. They have not only bought players to play in their first team but also made strategic  purchases to weaken opposition or deny improvement to competitors.
The difference should  be by how much a club earns in gate receipts not injection of enormous  unaccountable funds.
I am arguing  not just for us  but for the future of football where empty grounds on Saturday afternoon is going to be the case.

[villa for life]

I can remember back in the 80s, when Liverpool had Beardsley and Barnes on the bench for one match. There was as much disparity then as there is now. 

[PeterWithe]

I cant recall Man United ever getting crowds in the low 20s.

Edit; A quick look, they once got a 23k against Wimbledon in 1988.

[old man villa fan]

Are we going to continue to say that we lost because we cannot compete with the top 3 or 4 because of money.  Are we going to use it as an excuse for half-hearted performances against these teams.  I am amazed that people cannot see we are a soft touch these days.  As soon as something goes against us, our heads drop and they give up.  What happened to fighting spirit.

If we had put in a real battling performance yesterday, pushed them all the way and lost by the odd goal or two, it would have taken us into next weeks game in the right frame of mind.  As it is now, it is back to basics (the manager's words) and starting from square one again.  We do not seem to have a plan to build and progress.

The other point is that we do not seem to play as a team but as a side of individuals.  It is almost as though you can hear them think "I'll do my own job and that's all".  Where is the encouragement from the older players to the younger players.

[Dave]

The difference should  be by how much a club earns in gate receipts not injection of enormous  unaccountable funds.

Why weren't you arguing this when Randy was injecting tens of millions of pounds into us then?

[5ft811st2 Durham]

Man U definitely bought the League title in 93 and everyone since.  They'd been trying to buy it since around 1978 so they were bound to succeed sometime and Ferguson was lucky enough to be at Old Trafford long enough to benefit from Liverpool's kamikazee appointment of Souness which briefly left United with no real competion (leeds and us - wow!) so at that point their lavish spending could hardly fail.

If Villa were doing what Man City are I would have mixed feelings, but I'd still enjoy us being able to stick it to Man U, so I can fully understand why City fans have no mixed feelings at all given the humiliations they have had to take over the last 30 years or so from Man U and their arrogant supporters.

Maybe we can take some pride in the fact that we were the last team to win the league without any significant spending at all.

[Dave Clark Five]

It was a pity that James Collins was not fit to play as we could have done with the extra muscle.
Disappointed with Delph again. No ball control and inability to pass accurately. I am sure he is a better player than this.
N'Zogbia worries me even though he only played for a bit and Bent disappears from view far too often.

[BC54 VFC]

N'Zogbia worries me even though he only played for a bit and Bent disappears from view far too often.

Spot on DC5; I was particularly disappointed with Bent's half-arsed performance yesterday - his immobility was very worrying - he only seems to make an effort if he thinks the ball is coming straight to him. A striker should be making the two central defenders work, through regular movement. He needs to take a leaf out of Gabby's book. McLeish's assertions during the week leading up to the game that he has more to his game than 'being a poacher' were proven to be laughable yesterday.

[Mister E]

Are we going to continue to say that we lost because we cannot compete with the top 3 or 4 because of money.  Are we going to use it as an excuse for half-hearted performances against these teams.  I am amazed that people cannot see we are a soft touch these days.  As soon as something goes against us, our heads drop and they give up.  What happened to fighting spirit.

If we had put in a real battling performance yesterday, pushed them all the way and lost by the odd goal or two, it would have taken us into next weeks game in the right frame of mind.  As it is now, it is back to basics (the manager's words) and starting from square one again.  We do not seem to have a plan to build and progress.

The other point is that we do not seem to play as a team but as a side of individuals.  It is almost as though you can hear them think "I'll do my own job and that's all".  Where is the encouragement from the older players to the younger players.

I think this is a fair comment but I don't think it's about fighting spirit; more about having the right players. Ireland and Heskey in MF are not going to give us the opportunity to impose ourselves on opponents. Delph still has a lot to learn and Petrov will always run out of 'legs' as the game lengthens.
Against Everton, earlier in the season, I was really impressed with the way that they swamped the midfield and squeezed the life out of us (even if we managed to sneak a draw). Newcastle did the same at VP. We are certainly a soft touch in midfield, and it's an area where we should have strengthened in the close season.
I said earlier in the season that we're an opposition's dream opposition: easy to read and easy to set up against. Having said that, we've only actually lost once!

[Chris Smith]

  I am amazed that people cannot see we are a soft touch these days.  As soon as something goes against us, our heads drop and they give up.  What happened to fighting spirit.

That's just not true. Our last two away games have seen us come from behind to get a point. As ever people try to extrapolate far too much from one game. You're just twisting the facts to suit a viewpoint.

Man City are a better team than us, in fact they've probably got two teams better than the first team of all but 3 or 4 other clubs. Poor defending cost us a couple of goals yesterday but they've been strong most of the season so I'm prepared to cut them some slack. I think all that did was change the score, not the result. If it had been a tighter game they had Silva, Nasri and Dzeko to bring on to exploit a tiring defence. I think those not getting their knickers in a twist are just being realistic.

[Greg N'Ash]

  I am amazed that people cannot see we are a soft touch these days.  As soon as something goes against us, our heads drop and they give up.  What happened to fighting spirit.

That's just not true. Our last two away games have seen us come from behind to get a point. As ever people try to extrapolate far too much from one game. You're just twisting the facts to suit a viewpoint.

Man City are a better team than us, in fact they've probably got two teams better than the first team of all but 3 or 4 other clubs. Poor defending cost us a couple of goals yesterday but they've been strong most of the season so I'm prepared to cut them some slack. I think all that did was change the score, not the result. If it had been a tighter game they had Silva, Nasri and Dzeko to bring on to exploit a tiring defence. I think those not getting their knickers in a twist are just being realistic.

they may well have beaten us but thats not the point. they barely had to go above 2nd gear - if they'd played like a 400m pound team and we'd played at our best then all the "football's unfair yadda yadda yadda" comments would have some validity. play like that against most teams and you'll get nowt

[Mister E]

I agree with others that we didn't play all that badly and we had one or two decent moments, but we were terribly dull. For much of the 2nd half, as City stroked the ball around and we didn't get a touch, I was very bored, waiting for it all to end. No aggression from Villa, no excitement. Is this what football has become?

We didn't move the ball quickly enough to make the opposition think and chase back; all v pedestrian.