I just watched the stretch of the game Beasley played, and I agree with these comments 100%. Beasley also forced one turnover in the attacking half of the field and forced another Portsmouth player who was beyond midfield to turn, dribble back, and drop the ball to his keeper. Also, in his own third of the field, he didn't allow a single right-footed cross -- this was encouraging, since earlier in the year, he allowed a few crosses in too easily. At this level, he's not going to skin attackers the way he did in MLS, but I thought he had a good game defensively. (Also, I was surprised how much I agree with the "City misses Reyna" comments ... send these guys Benny! )
They do, Reyna was a very good two way midfielder for City, no one could take that away from him. Unlike on the national team, he was aggressive and really helped City when he played well, but unfortunately, he decided to go back to the Bulls after inguries crepped back in. I haven't seen the game, but once again, people are overreaching and reacting on this situation. Beasley will be fine and City are in the top half right now and still with a shot at Europe unbelivably. And through Pierce has made a lot of questionable decisions, he is a well liked manager form the players and the fans.
Not to divert this onto an old familiar topic completely - but in the most recent MLS Cup, there was hardly any offensive half combination either. TT's goal came off a long run and Ching's off a deflection. Houston could probably compete athletically with ManCity but the Premiership is another level of competition entirely.
Why bring facts into this? Just to comment. ManCity's highest position this season has been 10th and there were there not too long ago. They also have a game in hand (which even if they won right now they couldn't climb into the top half of the table but would be darn close).
look at the standings for a sec..I myself am not a big fan of stats in general....but: if ManCity is so terrible.... why do they have only 2 points less than YA-studded Fulham and 6 points less than Gooch' s Newcastle, with a GAME IN HAND to boot?.... I mean gee, aren't you far more patient with these other teams' performances?.... and yet over the course of the season, they do not seem that much better on paper than DMB's Manchester City...
I don't dislike City. believe what you like though. If you've watched this side play, they play very ugly, dispassionate soccer. Fulham actually play an attractive brand of soccer. They attack, they pass the ball well, and they actually look like they care about what's going on. On paper, an unbiased fan would take Fulham over City anyday.
how often do you watch them?... if i put into a ranking the worst games Fulham and Newcastle have played this season (that i have watched...maybe 2-3 games of each) ....yikes, it's enough to go bunkers..... but again how bad can City be if they've gotten almost the same points per game as Fulham and Newcastle?!?!...to the extreme that you see this particular's club limitations enough in your view to merit DMB giving a thought at playing in MLS.....? Are Man City's problems so much worse than other clubs? Nothing a change in coach cannot fix...? Or i remember not long ago Samaras was playing well for them and making the whole team better..... SO neither him nor someone else can brighten their prospects....? Are they cursed or something in your view? My main beef is to how seemingly easily you go all pessimistic on them, as opposed to other clubs with YA members on them.... and who are not much better (a couple of them actually minimally better) standings-wise What's next?.... "Demerit come to MLS, your team is crap!!!?!?!"
if Beasley was a Central Defender, I wouldn't have a problem with him staying with City. I've watched them a handful of times, probably around 5. Again, Fulham play good soccer in general, even if they lose trying. They won't try to make the game ugly, and Coleman gets them to play with a lot of effort.
Sidenote to all this banter... People have different opinions of what they consider "good" or "attractive" soccer which differs from how effective the team is. Effectiveness is measured in points and shown on a league table. This isn't really disputable. "Good" and "Attractive" are really in the eyes of the beholder. Arguing for or against a person's personal opinions in these areas is likely not going to make a difference. Pointing out that they have about the same number of points per games is a good thing as a metric, but it's unlikely to change a person's perception of their game. That's all...
ManCity probably has $40M in revenues more than Fulham. (an undisputable fact, according to Wahoo). Pearce and perhaps the current management will be soon parting and the team is bound to improve. If you look player-for-player, both Fulham and ManCity are major underachievers, btw, and neither is out of danger. Last year, Pearce ended the season by losing eleven games in a row (another fact, Wahoo). If he pulls a similar trick this year, his team is going down. And DMB is going back to Holland.
Careful with wording, I didn't claim this. It may be a fact (or not) but its not attributable to me. That said - indisputable facts normally don't contain the word "probably" Again you are making it appear that i am asserting things... just pointing out to all that I never claimed Pearce (ManCity) lost 11 games to end last year. Largely because they didn't. A quick fact check shows that Manchester City did indeed lose 11 of their last 12 games in all competitions and 9 of their last 10 EPL games. However, they won the 4th game from the end - a 1-0 victory over Aston Villa on April 25th and I checked the match report --- Pearce was managing that day. ManCity scores/schedule from 2005/6.