supercity88 said:
Bluesincehyderoad.
1. In my opinion it is early days. The league has not taken full shape yet. The games are important yes, of course, but in terms of Pellegrini's City spell, we are very much in the early days.
2. Pellegrini never promised high risk did he? Attacking flowing football yes. But I don't remember risk being involved.
3. I will not talk about the cup games. Newcastle was a second string and for all the errors we kept a clean sheet. We lost 4-2 at home to Villa under Mancini but I would not let that influence my opinion that he had organised a brilliant defence.
4. You clearly do not like the high pressing and high line way of defending. But I am afraid the 4 best teams in Europe play that way. We were so slow on the ball last year whilst Real harrassed us, Dortmund waltzed through us and Ajax pressured us all over the field. We have to move with the times and high pressing is the modern way. It limits the opposition to playing long balls unless they can keep the ball under pressure. And those long balls are often hopeless and end up with giving the ball back. Individual errors are the reason they havent. Away at Cardiff we messed up from corners but they didnt have many other chances, against Villa similarly individual errors ruined a good performance. If you are restricting the amount of chances the opposition have then you will not concede many. Remove the mistakes and we will keep clean sheets. Chelsea at Stamford Bridge is one of the toughest away games there is, Mourinho didnt lose a home game in the league with Chelsea. We limited a quality side to a few chances and messed up at the end.
The stage of the season and its earliness raises questions which are important. There was an acceptance when Pellegrini was appointed that he "needed time" to get the team playing his way. No-one at the club explained at all the time scale envisaged, because they never discuss such matters. Fans do and most fans are clearly uneasy at the very least, especially about our defending. From confident statements that a full preseason enabling us to walk away with the PL, we moved to hearing that it would take a few games to iron out the problems, then it was 10-12 games before we got a "clearer picture", now it's, for some, a problem which can only be solved in the transfer windows, and several at that! Those who admire Pellegrini, or simply feel they must defend him because they are glad Mancini has gone, simply extend the duration of the transition. But I feel there are fundamental flaws in the tactics City are adopting and there's no sign we are coping any better than we did in August. And we cannot just sit back and writ a season off as "transition". The top 3 is the minimum.
The man who promised high risk football was Vinnie Kompany, and it appears more like an eerie prophesy now than a thrilling promise.
I have also confined my comments overwhelmingly to PL matches. I know Newcastle was a second string, but the team cost £150 million, which makes it second string to City, and possibly Chelsea, but to no other English club! A back 5 of Pants, Micah/Zab, Lescott, Boyatta and Kolarov would walk into most PL first teams, and I think the assertions that our defenders aren't any good (I'm not accusing you of saying that!) is nonsense. And yet the same structural failings were there on Wednesday. We've seen them at home as well as away. The manager has to deal with them. And I make my comments without any reference to Mancini. I am judging what I see now, and I see problems. We lost matches under Mancini, we played badly in some games under Mancini, but I'm concerned only about this season at the moment. My concern is how we are playing now, not to defend Mancini or Pearce or Clarke or anyone.
I presume that the four best teams in the world to which you refer are Bayern, Barca, Dortmund and Real? I wouldn't disagree with that if those are the four you mean, and I agree that they play a high pressing, high line defence, but that's the point - they play it, we don't. If you play a high line you have to press and we don't. Those sides play one up front and often, as Bayern did, and as Barca did, none up front: we have been playing two front men. They pack the midfield: we've taken one out of midfield, so we have two CMs who are to get forward, and two wide men. They press the ball as a team: we become involved in stretched games where pressing the ball is actually difficult if not impossible, and we are nowhere near as compact as these sides. The result is that any long high ball doesn't have to be particularly accurate to give us real problems, especially late on. If you study the goals scored by Villa and Chelsea the play is very stretched and we have width but no depth. Now I'm fully aware of the games in the CL last season, and I'm aware that Mancini was blamed for being tactically naive. Barry, I was told as well, simply wasn't up to the calibre of midfielder needed in the CL. Pellegrini was appointed in part because he knew how to win matches in Europe. He's won two, which is nothing to complain about, but one was a minnow from the Czech republic, and in Moscow our defending nearly threw it away: it was shaky to say the least. In the other, at home, to a side of genuine quality, Pellegrini didn't show anything remotely resembling knowledge of how to win. He played the high line, but didn't press; he denuded midfield and kept his two forwards upfield starved of the ball. Then in the interview he all but said the players hadn't performed but that he wasn't going to change the way he played. But, of course, there were those who thought we should shut up moaning because we would only play Bayern once more this season!
I am disappointed with Pellegrini so far, I hope he gets things sorted but I simply cannot be soothed by assertions that it'll soon be OK, he's a nice bloke and he did wonderful things at Malaga.