Interesting to read no reference here to our press (maybe I missed it), as we are not winning the ball back quickly as we used to and striking with counter attacks that we were once almost on par with Liverpool with whilst having a better possession attacking game.
Also, Anyone ask WHY Pep went to usung inverted wingers?
Did mangers begin to figure out the wingers with our approach with the same sided foot? Did Pep see something else? (Surely he did).
Sane also had more than a few moments where his lack of work rate and switching off caused problems. He also could not play on the left at all, Pep even tried him at wing back once (remember?), but he would not track back.
Pep likes his players versatile, able to switch positions during the game based on what's transpiring and observed. Sane was benched when he didn't do this and eventually led to him wanting to go, imho.
When we had peak Mendy and peak Sane they couldn't play together because both were wide. Pep's goal was I think for the wing backs to provide width and wingers to cut inside. Mendy then got injured and we've been searching and at times finding false solutions that last for a period and then falter. Delph, Zinchenko, the ghost of Mendy, and now Cancelo.
Similar inconsistencies have plagued our backline with Stones and Laporte supposed to be the back line for a decade being born the same day, same year. Recall that? Stones lost himself and that never came back. Vinnie filled the role and Nico at times, but one was injury prone and aging and the other a mistake waiting to happen after 1 great season.
The frist goal Spurs scored could be seen as inexperience between 3 defenders not so used to one another.
Pep also wants to make players happy so there is harmony in the squad and the wingers we have are want to play as inside forwards/inverted wingers and not wide attackers who stay wide providing crosses. Which star wants to be known as the Jesus Navas (before he came to City)?
You can say, "I'm the manager and what I say goes and I don't care if it's not what you want," but that isn't always so simple, no? Pep's selling point is joyous attacking football where you will score and earn reputation. These are ambitious players. Not a bunch of lads playing for Burnley or Sheffield United. Go too far against their ambition and it may mean you lose control or they will leave entirely.
One of the major concerns as some seem to conveniently forget going on about "inverted wingers" as somehow the most ill informed tactical decision ever, because we have had MAJOR PROBLEMS AS MANY FANS HAVE WHINGED ON ABOUT FOR YEARS WITH CLINICAL FINISHING.
It's a waste of two attacking players when you want to score goals if the best technical players are so far from the goal. Pep was the innovator of attacking football as a numbers game. The more players in attack the more chance to score, and again we were not finishing chances and struggled with bus parking even before he arrived.. When you are narrower you can control possession more, but yes, then defenders can pack the box.
We signed Mahrez to help with this, due to his abilities, and inverted wingers/inside forwards get more chances to score. Last season we started to see that Mahrez. This season he's a ghost of himself and seems off the pace. Something is amiss in the squad psychologically, I have speculated. Maybe some infighting and with Silva and Kompany gone Dinho isn't able to hold it together because I think Kev is a bit more abrasive and direct in his personality. It looks nice to us, but maybe some don't love it in some situations.
We also LACK HEIGHT AND JUMPING ABILITY has been an issue since Dzeko left, so wingers on both sides makes more sense when you have a big centre forward. Yes, one can play with wingers and a smaller one, and use low crosses, but all of the issues we used to hear about crosses into nowhere to our shrimp forwards has been an issue forever.
This is ironically ALSO why we have Rodri, who isn't a disaster, he's just not Fernandinho and with our style I do wonder if that is the need given our approach.