₦airaland Forum

mostob:
You can still defend and play for a win.
As for the last paragraph, you want him to just press higher without knowing what city's tactic was all about? why are you talking like this na. Na City we dey talk here o not even Chelsea or United.

Every team has to defend at some point. But any team that focuses a major part of their plan on defending is not planning to win. Even if they eventually win, it was not their plan.

West Ham defended for 90mins against Arsenal and won. Will you tell me they entered that pitch believing they could beat Arsenal? Let's use logic well abeg

mostob:
There is no usual pattern. You adjust depending on what you have in front of you.

So why are you now saying that he planned to not lose? Has anyone planned to lose before?

iamoyindamola:
Nonaits from your post
We have never defended as we did on Sunday which is true and
We didn't attack city as we did to other teams which is also true
So which one is arteta played to win when our wingers turn defenders
I actually love the result and the play but we are being arrogant saying arteta played to win

Exactly.

Let Blueraydick and Jodera come and tell us that that defensive shape is our usual pattern.

If it is then I accept that Arteta planned to win. If not then he planned to draw.

BlueRayDick:
The bold is false . Athletico set their plans to be ultra defensive with an effective attack going forward once in a while under Simoene . They've won two La Liga titles under him and if u check the league table in 2014 and 2021 u will see that simeone's Athletico won more games than anybody in those two seasons .

Setting up ur team to defend is certainly not 100% proof that u play to draw

The bolded is a caveat. Remove that and see that it doesn't align with your point.

Mind you I am a proponent of Defence wins you league.

I listened to Alonso about Pep, he said, surprisingly, that Pep focuses more on his team's defensive shape during training than attack. So a good team that wants to win will both defend and attack.

Every winning team will both attack and defend. But when a team focuses entirely on defending then they plan for a draw. Simple.
Even if they eventually win which is possible it doesn't not change the fact that their plan was to secure a draw

Jodera:


It's really no big deal at all

Thanks for understanding. Sod na my senior for bad mouth.

Jodera:
Yeahh, I love the way we really adapted. Omorr, immediately I saw that first 15m and how they didn't allow us settle, omorr, I knew we don enter. Arteta really really read the game well and kudos to the players for seamlessly adapting to the new tactics.

It's the reason why I brought that link up — "Living the game" that Arteta is always talking about especially his first few years here

Living the game is just all about adapting to the situation on ground. If the opposition decides to be aggressive when you don't expect them to, it means the boys should be super aggressive so that they won't be rolled over. He calls that "to live the game".

It's the main reason why we're hardly bullied or dominated in any aspect anyhow.

It's a very interesting piece.

You made a good point here. I must give Arteta kudos for not going the Wenger way and showing that he can adapt to different opposition. Wenger would not have defended even if it meant losing 5-0

BlueRayDick:
So what did Arteta play to do in 2020 FA cup semi final when we played the same pattern and won city 2-0?

Just take a look at the stats of both matches ; u can see that stats are very very similar. The only major difference is the fact that our attack took more shots at goal and they converted 2 while we didn't convert any in this Sunday match .

I don't think Arteta played to draw at all. Instead I think he came with a pattern to prevent city from playing and his own team making the best out of any opportunity that presents itself . It's simply cos he knows going all out against city is suicide

When a team defends it means they are playing for a draw. You don't defend and say you plan to win. Simple logic.

However as Roland17 said, a coach can employ a less expansive tactics that allows him to stay compact while looking out for an opportunity to go all out. Arteta didn't do that, instead he when he saw that City had ran out of ideas he began to press higher towards the last 20/25mins.

My point is (mind you I am thinking in retrospect) if he had done that from the onset we would have beaten City because they weren't that good as I thought.

Jodera:
Lol....
If two or more people align with same thoughts as mine, Why won't I use their explanations as reference?

Perhaps they'll be able explain better what I couldn't. I don't see what is remotely wrong with that.


For you to write that bolded is downright ridiculous and wrong. Imagine saying I have no point when I and others share the same view.

Stop twisting things. They don't share the same view as you. They only explained something which you jumped on as if it aligns with what you said. The guy whose post you are banking on only said Arteta planned to defend and when the opportunity comes he scores. How does that relate to the funny statement that he planned not to lose? Who does that?

Jodera:
Abeggiiii.....
An attacker would see chance to score but he'll dribble unnecessarily and your defense is because he's not a striker

No wonder you said there's nothing wrong with Havertz missing that one on one against Liverpool because according to you, he's not a striker.

No be me and you go follow talk this one

No one is expecting to miss a chance even if he is a goalkeeper. But the fact is that less is expected if the player is not a striker. Haaland missed an open net but it is Kai Havertz that is your problem.

Jodera:
Spy360, this right here is what I and blueray meant when we say that Arteta planned not to lose.

If we "only" plan to win like Man City, it'll be a very open game and trust me, we won't leave there with any point.

I don try, if you no get am then

Whenever you start depending on other people's opinion to 'buttress' an explanation then you know you have no point.

Once again, I advice you not to mention the bolded again in any forum. It sounds silly because it is taken for granted. No one would have done otherwise.

iamoyindamola:
For the first time i have to agree with you
If you didn't attack you can't win, our wingers were to deep and the cf was feeding on scrap
So i don't understand the difference between play not to lose and played for draw

I'm surprised too

purplekayc:
Remaining arsenal fixtures

We have the toughest fixtures. That's what a lot of people think and they are right on paper. But from personal experience, the teams battling relegation are the most difficult especially towards the end of the season. Teams like Nottingham Forest, Luton, Crystal Palace, and Everton are relatively strong and can cause an upset.

Liverpool win face most of them

Jodera:
I remember arguing the bolded here with Spy during the first half of last season when Jesus was experiencing goal drought. I even used pix to illustrate it sef

Good strikers just need to find a good opening to take a shot but for GJ he would want the space to be wide like express way. He'll create a very good opening for shot taking then use another dribble to close it back. After he'll now use another dribble to put himself at a very difficult place/position to score then finally he'll now take a very stupid shot when the position is tight.

GJ hadn't changed one bit

Gabriel Jesus is not a striker. Arteta does not employ a striker role in his tactical plan. His major goal outlet are the wingers. His tactical plan relies more on the wingers for goals that whoever is playing the assumed striker (false 9) role. It is for this reason a player like Nketiah is struggling for shirt despite being a better goal poacher than Gabriel Jesus. This argument is stale.

Lush100:
.

Arteta did not come for a draw he came with a plan.
The pressure will get to city as the clock goes.

Pep left the tactical game he was playing with Arteta in the first half to play ball in the second half.
Arteta wanted to win that match o.
Mancity is not Brentford.

Arteta wanted to strike in the last 15 minutes of the game.

Trossard did not do justice to the chance he had.
He could have passed. Or run more and passed.

The way he was smiling after the game makes you know he achieved his aim. You cannot ask you wingers to defend for 75mins and still claim to plan to win.

Note that I am arguably Arteta's biggest fan here. I am being objective. He didn't plan to win. I am not against it, it's just that especially seeing how it panned out I feel we could have gone for the kill from the start.

Jodera:
I don't think he decided to draw, to me, he decided not to lose.

We had a game plan, we had clear cut chances through the game plan. All we needed was taking the right decisions and be clinical, yet we weren't.

The big difference between first leg and this was that Havertz made the right decision by holding up the ball well and giving a good lay off to Martinelli for a one time shot.
Second leg, same opportunity presented itself but this time to Trossard but he was very very selfish (surprisingly unlike him) and refused to pass to Martinelli. Watching the highlight again, I found out Havertz made a blindside run and if the ball was passed to him it would have been a one on one, yet he ignored the run and went for the hardest of all goals.

That single moment was what caused us to draw this match instead of a possible win

Which one is decided not to lose? Lol. Who decides to lose.

Arteta didn't play to win, hence he played to draw. No one plays to lose.

raumdeuter:
Does Happy Eid or Happy Sallah require extra brain cell to decode knowing that it's a combination of English and Arabic

Off point. If the recipient didn't complain means they understand the greeting.

Akinbahm:
He was given the chance to but baba decided to turn himself to defensive striker... very pathetic.

Arteta asked him to defend. At a point he complained that he could put pressure on Akanji/Lewis, but Arteta insisted.

Roland17:
Arteta can't stop smiling. He looks content with the result. He did not want to drop points and he got that.

He played for a draw. But from what I saw and I believed he noticed it in the second half, had we played our normal game, City would have lost.

iamoyindamola:
For the remainder of the season
It should be partey and rice
Jorghinho have tried
We got into the game with partey

Partey na Baba na.
In the first half Arteta made the team to defend. In the second we came out to attack and press high.

I think that Arteta planned to draw that game. If he had risked it and come all out, we would have had a chance because we were more direct going forward that City was.

raumdeuter:
Moslem fasting will end in a few days. How do you wish Moslems for the celebration that follows?

I'll use a language they will understand. For example I cannot say Unu Islam happy oriri. Because it will not make sense to those it is directed to. Id rather say Special Greetings to my Muslim friends on your holidays. They won't have to spend a brain cell deciding the message.

Arteta clearly showed disappointment on Trossard because of that poor decision. Trossard will enjoy bench for some more time despite being good scoring goals.

BlueRayDick:
We need Partey for Jorginho , Tomiyasu for Kiwior and a Martinelli for Jesus ASAP

Me thinks so too. Partey will bring more control and ability to break City's press.

BlueRayDick:
When he drimble Dalot and score u no vex for am o

He dey over do this one. At least cut once and SHOoT

Roland17:
Our tactic is counter productive. Rice and Jesus have been working really hard to support Jorg, while Havertz has dropped deep to help.

Na Odegaard I no sabi wetin him dey do today.

I don't think it is. City usually does their job in the first half. Stopping them means Pep will try to tinker which is something he can't resist. This would lead to tactical errors. Tactical games like this are usually played in the second half.

Good first half for me. Then let's do the job in the second and go home.

Roland17:
Jesus is a fool

Guy shoot ball or pass the ball, this no be monkey post

Who gave him that name

I miss Martinelli.

GloriousGbola:
Why?

It's not conventional. Happy Easter

GloriousGbola:
English is not the only language in the world and there are Christians who speak languages other than English.

The man is in the middle East and he is using the salutation they use over there.

Or do you think Egyptian Christians say happy Easter?

The irony is that Christianity is an Abrahamic Middle Eastern religion, so why are you tying English to it?

Don't mix English and Arabic.

OasisX:
......Easter Mubarak to Christians.

If you want to share your goodwill just say Happy Easter. Which one is Mubarak? This is the most significant memorial of all Christian celebrations.

FiftyFifty:
You don't want to tell us where Abraham migrated to Jerusalem from even though it's there in your bible. You also don't want to tell us who did David conquer Jerusalem from? And who named the area Judea? Lol. Now that you chose to tell us that the Palestinians migrated there from the "Arab peninsula" despite the undisputable fact that the Palestinians weren't originally Arab, can you substantiate that? Any source?

Was there a State of Palestine before Israel as recent as 1948? No.

So who are the Palestines? Palestine is a name given by the Greeks to refer to Philistines. However the Romans adopted it and expanded it to include all of Judea and Samaria. Today, the Philistines no longer exist as a people. So who then are the Palestines? The are Arab immigrants from Egypt and Jordan who are being used by Iran to claim a nationality that doesn't belong to them just to keep lsrael constantly at war. Hence the reason why no other Arab country given a Bleep about them. Not even Egypt or Jordan.

Let's just pray that HAMAS surrenders to Israel as soon as possible if not more people will die.

FiftyFifty:
Time immemorial? But the biblical sources told us that Abraham the father of the Jews migrated there from Ur Mesopotamia in present day Iraq. That he travelled 800 km to the Iraqi border, another 800 crossing Syria, and another 700 in Egypt, before settling at Canaan, Palestine. How is that land belongs to the Jews from the time immemorial?

The last surviving people that occupied the land are the Jews. Unless you want to resurrect the Hivites and Jebusites.