Discuss Pellegrini....

[Didsbury Dave]

Tony Gale on the weekend review this morning says Maurenn completely had Pellegrini tactically on Monday night. He may have got the points but I thought we were limited to what we could do with the injuries that we had to key players.

The funny thing you learn about punditry is that a lot of it is largely baseless. 95% of the pundits don't watch us live more than a few times a season, and make their minds up based on a few highlights or, more often, the perceived "truth" which gets accepted because it is repeated so much. It's happened with this Chelsea game: "Mourinho outwitted Pellegrini". Everyone who I know who understands the game and watches City week in week out (and I believe Gary Neville said the same although I didn't see it) has roughly the same opinion: Fernandinho and Aguero were huge misses, City didn't get the breaks and didn't play that well, whilst Chelsea played out of their skins. The press turn into fawning schoolboys around Mourinho and he very cleverly made the entire pre-match build up around him. Therefore many have adopted the simplistic line that "he" won the match.

He set them up in the right way to deal with us, credit for that. But it wasn't rocket science to flood the back of the midfield and try to take Silva and Ya Ya out of the game. I am totally convinced that with more fit players we'd have blitzed them anyway.

 

[hgblue]

Tony Gale right.

Makes Lou Macari and Paddy Crerrand look like founder members of the young governors.

It's fair to say that the consensus of opinion amongst neutrals is that Mourinho did a number on Pellegrini the other night. Maybe, just maybe, people are being a teeny weeny bit biased when they say he didn't?

 

[Chris in London]

Tony Gale right.

Makes Lou Macari and Paddy Crerrand look like founder members of the young governors.

It's fair to say that the consensus of opinion amongst neutrals is that Mourinho did a number on Pellegrini the other night. Maybe, just maybe, people are being a teeny weeny bit biased when they say he didn't?

I don't think people are saying he didn't.

As I read it, most blues are saying that the reason he was able to do a number on us was because we were lacking key players, and it was a close shave for him even so.

Most give credit to Mourinho for adopting the tactics which gave his team its best chance of winning, but his route to victory was smoothed by a number of things (injuries, us missing chances we usually bury) which were beyond his control.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Tony Gale right.

Makes Lou Macari and Paddy Crerrand look like founder members of the young governors.

It's fair to say that the consensus of opinion amongst neutrals is that Mourinho did a number on Pellegrini the other night. Maybe, just maybe, people are being a teeny weeny bit biased when they say he didn't?

I don't think people are saying he didn't.

As I read it, most blues are saying that the reason he was able to do a number on us was because we were lacking key players, and it was a close shave for him even so.

Most give credit to Mourinho for adopting the tactics which gave his team its best chance of winning, but his route to victory was smoothed by a number of things (injuries, us missing chances we usually bury) which were beyond his control.

He's had a load of luck against us in the last few years. We handed him the game in The Barnabau by changing to three at the back and allowing Real to run at us in the wide areas. We gave him a freak winner at The Bridge when we'd been the better team, and he got hugely lucky on Monday night with our injuries and misses. It won't always be like that.

 

[levets]

Tony Gale on the weekend review this morning says Maurenn completely had Pellegrini tactically on Monday night. He may have got the points but I thought we were limited to what we could do with the injuries that we had to key players.

The funny thing you learn about punditry is that a lot of it is largely baseless. 95% of the pundits don't watch us live more than a few times a season, and make their minds up based on a few highlights or, more often, the perceived "truth" which gets accepted because it is repeated so much. It's happened with this Chelsea game: "Mourinho outwitted Pellegrini". Everyone who I know who understands the game and watches City week in week out (and I believe Gary Neville said the same although I didn't see it) has roughly the same opinion: Fernandinho and Aguero were huge misses, City didn't get the breaks and didn't play that well, whilst Chelsea played out of their skins. The press turn into fawning schoolboys around Mourinho and he very cleverly made the entire pre-match build up around him. Therefore many have adopted the simplistic line that "he" won the match.

He set them up in the right way to deal with us, credit for that. But it wasn't rocket science to flood the back of the midfield and try to take Silva and Ya Ya out of the game. I am totally convinced that with more fit players we'd have blitzed them anyway.

We'd have blitzed them if either of those chances had gone in during the first 20 mins... and we would have gone on to win if Silva hadn't missed that sitter to equalize...

I posted earlier what my match going Chelsea mate said... Best performance of the season from them... and City weren't that good on the night....

 

[blueinsa]

First chance to post since the game.

Ferny was a huge loss for us and with DM in midfield alongside Yaya, it was always going to be a struggle.

Chelsea deserved the points and credit to them but we had chances despite being poor for the majority of the game.

Ive no doubt its a blip with the injuries finally catching up and we will be straight back on the horse again.

 

[adrianr]

Tony Gale on the weekend review this morning says Maurenn completely had Pellegrini tactically on Monday night. He may have got the points but I thought we were limited to what we could do with the injuries that we had to key players.

The funny thing you learn about punditry is that a lot of it is largely baseless. 95% of the pundits don't watch us live more than a few times a season, and make their minds up based on a few highlights or, more often, the perceived "truth" which gets accepted because it is repeated so much. It's happened with this Chelsea game: "Mourinho outwitted Pellegrini". Everyone who I know who understands the game and watches City week in week out (and I believe Gary Neville said the same although I didn't see it) has roughly the same opinion: Fernandinho and Aguero were huge misses, City didn't get the breaks and didn't play that well, whilst Chelsea played out of their skins. The press turn into fawning schoolboys around Mourinho and he very cleverly made the entire pre-match build up around him. Therefore many have adopted the simplistic line that "he" won the match.

He set them up in the right way to deal with us, credit for that. But it wasn't rocket science to flood the back of the midfield and try to take Silva and Ya Ya out of the game. I am totally convinced that with more fit players we'd have blitzed them anyway.

I'd be fairly confident in saying that had we been able to field our first choice 11, the tactics of both managers would have remained the same, and we would have won. Does that mean Pellegrini was outwitted, Mourinho a genius, or simply just how the chips fell on the day?

The only thing you can accuse Pellegrini of is not adjusting the plan to better suit the players available (even though sticking to the system they're now all more or less accustomed could still be argued the best course of action), yet now predictably we have endless cries for 4-3-3, pragmatism, etc. Winning this league isn't going to rest on playing more like Mourinho, it's going to rest on whether we can get our first choice players back (especially Fernandinho) to play the football that's been sweeping aside nearly all before us until now, teething period aside.

 

[proudbear]

The thing about that game is think what it would of been like if the shoe had been on the other foot.

Lets say we had Fern, Aguero and Nasri fit, so full strength, and they DIDNT have Ramires, Hazard and Willian.
It would of been a completely different game, and guaranteed we would of won.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Tony Gale on the weekend review this morning says Maurenn completely had Pellegrini tactically on Monday night. He may have got the points but I thought we were limited to what we could do with the injuries that we had to key players.

The funny thing you learn about punditry is that a lot of it is largely baseless. 95% of the pundits don't watch us live more than a few times a season, and make their minds up based on a few highlights or, more often, the perceived "truth" which gets accepted because it is repeated so much. It's happened with this Chelsea game: "Mourinho outwitted Pellegrini". Everyone who I know who understands the game and watches City week in week out (and I believe Gary Neville said the same although I didn't see it) has roughly the same opinion: Fernandinho and Aguero were huge misses, City didn't get the breaks and didn't play that well, whilst Chelsea played out of their skins. The press turn into fawning schoolboys around Mourinho and he very cleverly made the entire pre-match build up around him. Therefore many have adopted the simplistic line that "he" won the match.

He set them up in the right way to deal with us, credit for that. But it wasn't rocket science to flood the back of the midfield and try to take Silva and Ya Ya out of the game. I am totally convinced that with more fit players we'd have blitzed them anyway.

We'd have blitzed them if either of those chances had gone in during the first 20 mins... and we would have gone on to win if Silva hadn't missed that sitter to equalize...

I posted earlier what my match going Chelsea mate said... Best performance of the season from them... and City weren't that good on the night....

I saw it, and replied, mate. Your pal has a lot more perspective than a few of our fans and some pundits. Because that's exactly how it was.

 

[CitizenTID]

Having seen the highlights we missed some glorious chances through poor finishing from Silva (unusual) and Dzeko.

Although we might not have "deserved it" (although we did because we are City and they are not), we could have won 2-1 with the chances we had (without considering how the goals would have affected the game of course).