Earthquake2:


If Rodgers had Iheanacho in plans he would have been giving him gametime

Gabriel Jesus gets 15 to 20 minutes every match that does not mean he's better than Aguero

TheGoodJoe:


If that is what you are saying, it is not true. Especially playing under Shakespeare and Puel. Nah.

None would have benched Nacho and none will. You believe in two years they would have by being on the bench with little playing time. Come on.

Yet lots of you want Nacho crucified for being benched by one of the best in the English Premier league.

TheGoodJoe:


So to you, the situation of the game is the same at Manchester City.

Let me elucidate you a bit.

Manchester City scores loads in a lot of game. If we are 2 I'd 3 goals up, we can afford to bring in Gabriel Jesus earlier. If we have not scored, we can afford to bring Gabby earlier too.

Now with your straight and untwisted narrative, tell us the strategic reason why Leicester City who were a goal up and controlling the game should have brought in Iheanacho.

I will give you the two options.

Either they take off a midfielder or defender to bring in an extra striker or
Take off Vardy for Nacho. So tell us why.

Earthquake2:


The two attackers are disposable, Barnes has hardly scored a goal this season, Gray is inconsistent

If Iheanacho does not get on the field it is not because of greatness of competition

TheGoodJoe:


Rodgers has said Nacho is a top striker and that is his role under him. So are you saying Rodgers should go against his assessment and play Nacho where he believes he will not get the best from Nacho?

We had Ghezzal who is brilliant playing the wide roles on the bench. If you are taking any of the wide players, Ghezzal get picked and that is exactly what Rodgers did.

Earthquake2:


Barnes

Earthquake2:


You have not seen two strikers play together?

Rodgers used the 3-4-1-2 a lot in Liverpool not like he's new to it

TheGoodJoe:


It will be a tactical suicide, taking off Barnes from the midfield to bring a striker when Leicester City was leading and controlling the game.

Taking off a midfielder will reduce the numerical strength in the midfield and give Bournemouth an edge to control the game. Rodgers was not going to gamble with his team's control. So your take off Barnes for Iheanacho is totally invalid.

So please, give us a straight narrative why you feel Nacho should have come in early because your remove Barnes is wrong.

TheGoodJoe:


It will be a tactical suicide, taking off Barnes from the midfield to bring a striker when Leicester City was leading and controlling the game.

Taking off a midfielder will reduce the numerical strength in the midfield and give Bournemouth an edge to control the game. Rodgers was not going to gamble with his team's control. So your take off Barnes for Iheanacho is totally invalid.

So please, give us a straight narrative why you feel Nacho should have come in early because your remove Barnes is wrong.

TheGoodJoe:


You are talking of a different scenario. We are talking of the Bournemouth game on the 30th. Not Liverpool. Brendan Rodgers did not start with two strikers but one striker. He got the lead. So why should Nacho come in earlier than he did when Leicester City were leading and controlling the game.

Bolowolowo:

Breaking News: Hakimi sidelined for rest of the season and will most likely miss AFCON. This is a massive blow to Morocco.

Earthquake2:


Reread my earlier statement and not that Barnes and Gray play either side of Vardy as wingers

Earthquake2:


I'm not talking about the Bournemouth game, I'm assessing Rodgers four matches as a whole

It seems like you're twisting narratives and bandying false facts in order to escape from this argument

Earthquake2:


If Rodgers had Iheanacho in plans he would have been giving him gametime

Gabriel Jesus gets 15 to 20 minutes every match that does not mean he's better than Aguero

TheGoodJoe:


They had Ghezzal on the bench. If you are taking Gray or Barnes off, then the person who comes in is a natural player who plays wide. That was Ghezzal and that was exactly what Rodgers did.

Are you saying Rodgers should be tactical naive and play his natural striker (Nacho) wide when he had a brilliant and creative wide player like Ghezzal on the bench?

TheGoodJoe:


We are talking about yesterday after Brendan Rodgers spoke on Nacho's and improving him. By the way, Bournemouth game is one of the four matches.

Give us true facts and straight narrative. I am still waiting.

Why do you think Nacho should have come in earlier. Give us the untwisted narrative.

Earthquake2:


I'm talking about Rodgers situation with Iheanacho

If you're limiting it to the Bournemouth game maybe we are having different arguments

Earthquake2:


If Barnes is changed the person who gets in is the most important attacker on the bench the team would then be subjected to a formation change

You don't tell me Rodgers would be foolish enough to leave a striker who 'he believes' is a goal potential and puts in Ghezzal

TheGoodJoe:


Which kind of limiting?

You are the one that said Nacho should be getting 15-20 minutes each game. I said, tell me about Bournemouth game. You can see you have no reason just that Rodgers should pull out game time out of his a**.

TheGoodJoe:


Hilarious. So when Guardiola wants to change Sterling when he needs a natural wide player, you will advice him to bring in Gabriel Jesus instead of Leroy Sane.

This one is tactical assassination. (sorry, could not let it pass.)

TheGoodJoe:


Hilarious. So when Guardiola wants to change Sterling when he needs a natural wide player, you will advice him to bring in Gabriel Jesus instead of Leroy Sane.

This one is tactical assassination. (sorry, could not let it pass.)

Earthquake2:


Sterling is a more important attacker than Jesus

An important attacker doesn't mean you have to be a CF

Earthquake2:
Iwobi starts for Arsenal

junnyjake:
TheGoodJoe, so what happens if Nacho never get to play in an offensive setup throughout his career?

Earthquake2:


Sterling is a more important attacker than Jesus

An important attacker doesn't mean you have to be a CF

Earthquake2:


If Guardiola wants to make an attacking change and Aguero is on the bench who does he bring?

Chelsea were losing against Cardiff and Hazard was on the bench guess who came on?

This is football 101

TheGoodJoe:


Nacho is only playing the striking role for Rodgers for now. He has made it clear. Just as you will not see him playing Vardy wide too. So expecting Rodgers to play Nacho wide is farfetched.

TheGoodJoe:


Leicester City were leading so your Chelsea analogy is totally off. Leicester City were in control and leading. They did not need to force a goal. They had to secure their goal first.