Discuss Pellegrini....

[Shaelumstash]

As they say history is written by the winners. The same goes for the narrative of a match and especially so when the winning manager happens to play the British media like a virtuoso.

Equally you cannot dismiss what we saw as Mourinho being 'one lucky bastard'.

That Chelsea with Matic and Luiz shielding the back four and everyone working their collective bollocks off both physically and mentally were designed to stifle and suffocate the midfield and nullify our attacking potency was widely predicted beforehand and lo it came to pass. We would have known this as well and prepared for it accordingly. That we would be unlikely to change our shape was a pretty sure bet given we invariably play the same setup (to change it from Pellers perspective may have been as simple as not wishing to be seen as 'cautious' at home to Mouinho - just a thought) and lo that came to pass as well with the added bonus of DM and not Ferdy in midfield. Mourinho not only gets the team set up he has prepared for it also contains a fundamental weakness. Jose must have figured it was Christmas and his birthday rolled into one.

The end result is that Jose rolls into town and in one match ends our scoring at home sequence, our 100% record this season, does the double over us (the first since...whenever) and draws level on points rather than facing a 6 point gap. So yes the media are going to indulge in a Jose wankfest. And they have a point. And no it may not be a tactical masterclass but it was brutally effective and that is the point. Yes we could have scored first and yes it may have been different. But we could have scored first in the FA Cup final and we should have had a penalty against Bayern and taken the lead in the first 20 minutes in our first ever CL match away. But we didn't and we got 'Tevezgate' instead. Shit happens and shit happened against Chelsea.

For me though (and again this is just me as no one else seems to care) I started really worrying this would end in tears was the sight of Kompany and Nasty tackling each other in our box. That was bad enough but Kompany's reaction was that of a man not in control of the situation or the match. But then I have a fetish for controlling football matches.

I still think our firepower compared to Chelsea and Arsenal means we will win the PL this year. But Jose is marking Pellers card which is why I think the FA Cup match is important and one we need to win. We just don't want to give Jose or Chelsea any more psychological edge. I said earlier that with Jose its either kill or be killed and the war is just starting. Jose has most of the media in his back pocket and its going to be relentless as the season comes to a head. And next season when he adds a striker or two its going to be 10 times fucking worse.

And if you are still unsure how bad its going to get then just ask Pep.

Absolutely spot on.....

As the saying goes 'If' can move mountains' ...........
'If' Silva had scored,
'If' Yaya didn't lose Ivanovic,
'If' Fernandinho, Aguero & Nasri were fit.
'If' Negredo, Jovetic, Milner and Rodwell were all match-fit
'If' my cat could bark it would be my dog.

The fact is that none of the 'Ifs' went for us on the night. Maureen bleated on all week about us being favourites for this match and the title and that we'd possibly end up scoring 4, 5 or even 6 against them, but all week I warned about complacency where he was concerned.

Maureen did what he did in the week leading up to the match because he wanted us to do what we do. He had found weaknesses in our set up and in his opinion had figured out ways to combat us as attested by Terry. The one thing he gambled on is that Pellegrini would fall for it and in an attempt at not appearing to go defensive against Chelsea at home we would line up as Maureen had hoped, predicted and prepared for...... The one thing that would have fucked his 'tactical masterplan' was if Pellegrini did the unpredictable & better played the hand he had been dealt. He didn't, so Game, set and match to Maureen.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. When we played Spurs at home (I'm sure someone will produce a coloured graph backed by logarithmic algorithms and bold over-sized capital coloured letters to counter what I'm saying) didn't Spurs better us in every stat apart from the one's that counted, goals for 0 and goals against 6? Some may point to Monday's stats in an attempt to find a crumb of comfort to soothe themselves after this hurtful defeat, but I forced myself to watch the match again and I drew the same conclusion as watching it live that we were simply beaten by the better team on Monday night and which ever way I look at it, I can't see it any different.

In the aftermath of situations like Monday's game, I always ask myself what would I have done differently and taking into account the injuries and the importance of the match, not losing would have been my number one priority. Yes I would have been more pragmatic for this one crucial match, but I would have done so knowing that this change could easily have been explained away as being necessary because of an injury crisis and the need to get something from the match. With a fully fit squad to choose from, I would have have probably gone for what has worked well for us all season long at home (Bayern apart), but in light of Monday's squad situation, I would have played the hand I was dealt differently.

As it stands we were beaten, but the person I feel most sorry for was Pellegrini. I so wanted him to wipe that smug grin of Maureen's face it hurt inside! Just as in the victory against Bayern, MP learned that in some instances pragmatism doesn't mean you haven't remained true to your attacking instincts, I hope too he will get something similar out of this defeat.

At the highest level of football, it's just as important to know the man as it is to know his team. Guardiola and Maureen have both proved that to us this season and it's no coincidence that they are the only two managers to walk away from The Etihad with any points in their back pockets. Hindsight is a great thing, but looking back at it, both Pep & Maureen set up for Pellegrini rather than Manchester City and the two times MP did the unpredictable away to both, we were clearly the better side and it took a last minute defensive mix up for the Chavs to win and we beat Bayern.

By the look of hurt on Pellegrini's face, this defeat might just be the one needed to drive us on for the remainder of the season. Like I've said before, we lost the battle on Monday but we potentially have 4 wars still to win, and for me that is now our season's priority, idealistically or pragmatically......

The perfect analysis.

 

[6one]

We were undermanned pure and simple and we didn't convert the early dominance into goals.

We could have had a full strength side and still had the same result but I am sure we would have been able to press them alot harder especially with a fit Fernandinho available.

Injuries take their toll , today won't be an easy game.

Exactly my point. If we were under strength, why, for this particular game and opponent, did we set out the way we did? I feel our system, especially after the initial 15 minutes, played more to the opposing team's strengths than ours.

Chelsea are a superb team with some fantastic players and you're right, if we had played a full strength side we may well have lost.

I'm not having a go at Pellegrini as, like I have previously stated, his 'philosophy' of how the game should be played has given me the best football entertainment and pleasure in my time watching City. But surely when you do not have a full strength side from which to choose, and therefore the personnel to carry out a particular philosophy, especially against an opposition like Chelsea, you have to be pragmatic and possibly change things around.

Correct. When a group of football fans are hopelessly out of step with the opinion of the rest of the footballing world there are only really two possibilities: 1. The rest of the footballing world is wrong. 2. Football fans tend to be a little bit biased. My money is on 2.

We were understrength in the area that you're saying we should have beefed up.

How is that possible?

Milner wasn't fit to play from the beginning. Rodwell is never fit enough.

It was futile to introduce Milner when we were chasing a goal, hence why he wasn't used from the bench.

 

[mancity111]

Against Chelsea, I don't happen to think Pellegrini was naïve like some have suggested, rather that he allowed/desired a particular style and footballing philosophy to supersede a more pragmatic approach to the game. It seemed to me that, if anything, it was his stubbornness in not deviating from a preconceived plan, more than any tactical genius on Maureen's part, that affected the game.

Replacing Fernandinho, our midfield lynchpin, with a 33 year old centre half smacked of an unwillingness to adopt a different approach, because it is obvious that Demichelis was not an adequate replacement for Fern.

I suppose the real question is, did Pellegrini really think that the best possible way of winning the game was to set out the way we did, or did he think "This is the way we play"?

Either way, I'm watching the best football I've ever seen and long may it continue.

We were undermanned pure and simple and we didn't convert the early dominance into goals.

We could have had a full strength side and still had the same result but I am sure we would have been able to press them alot harder especially with a fit Fernandinho available.

Injuries take their toll , today won't be an easy game.

Exactly my point. If we were under strength, why, for this particular game and opponent, did we set out the way we did? I feel our system, especially after the initial 15 minutes, played more to the opposing team's strengths than ours.

Chelsea are a superb team with some fantastic players and you're right, if we had played a full strength side we may well have lost.

I'm not having a go at Pellegrini as, like I have previously stated, his 'philosophy' of how the game should be played has given me the best football entertainment and pleasure in my time watching City. But surely when you do not have a full strength side from which to choose, and therefore the personnel to carry out a particular philosophy, especially against an opposition like Chelsea, you have to be pragmatic and possibly change things around.

I cannot argue with your logic but its not the MP way he likes two up front especially at home.

Its more the style of play and the particular personnel available on any given day.

He might have been able to pack the midfield with an extra body but thought that would go against us over the ninety minutes.

I think we could have played Kolorov in the middle and Clichy at the back and that's about it so we were lacking for midfield types so our choices were limited.

He goes into every game thinking we will win if we stick to our forward press and the defence are up to it.

 

[steviemc]

Against Chelsea, I don't happen to think Pellegrini was naïve like some have suggested, rather that he allowed/desired a particular style and footballing philosophy to supersede a more pragmatic approach to the game. It seemed to me that, if anything, it was his stubbornness in not deviating from a preconceived plan, more than any tactical genius on Maureen's part, that affected the game.

Replacing Fernandinho, our midfield lynchpin, with a 33 year old centre half smacked of an unwillingness to adopt a different approach, because it is obvious that Demichelis was not an adequate replacement for Fern.

I suppose the real question is, did Pellegrini really think that the best possible way of winning the game was to set out the way we did, or did he think "This is the way we play"?

Either way, I'm watching the best football I've ever seen and long may it continue.

We don't have an adequate replacement for Fernandinho. We're all aware of this.

Are you seriously suggesting Pellers thought 'this isn't the best possible way of winning, but I'm stubborn therefore I'll play it anyway?'
Or is it not beyond the realms of possibility that an experienced manager such as Pellers thought, 'this is the way the way the team have played at home all season, we've been unbeaten, it would be a greater risk to field a weaker team in a formation they haven't regularly played?'

I know which one I'm going for.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Exactly my point. If we were under strength, why, for this particular game and opponent, did we set out the way we did? I feel our system, especially after the initial 15 minutes, played more to the opposing team's strengths than ours.

Chelsea are a superb team with some fantastic players and you're right, if we had played a full strength side we may well have lost.

I'm not having a go at Pellegrini as, like I have previously stated, his 'philosophy' of how the game should be played has given me the best football entertainment and pleasure in my time watching City. But surely when you do not have a full strength side from which to choose, and therefore the personnel to carry out a particular philosophy, especially against an opposition like Chelsea, you have to be pragmatic and possibly change things around.

Correct. When a group of football fans are hopelessly out of step with the opinion of the rest of the footballing world there are only really two possibilities: 1. The rest of the footballing world is wrong. 2. Football fans tend to be a little bit biased. My money is on 2.

We were understrength in the area that you're saying we should have beefed up.

How is that possible?

Milner wasn't fit to play from the beginning. Rodwell is never fit enough.

It was futile to introduce Milner when we were chasing a goal, hence why he wasn't used from the bench.

Ultimately Rodwell was on the bench, and he could have started in a three in place of one of our ineffectual strikers. Jovetic could have been played out wide in a five across the middle. Clichy could have started as left back with Kolarov in front, which would have given us a five in the middle.

I grant you that these may be/appear to be simplistic views, however Chelsea dominance stemmed from City being overrun in the middle, something which a lot of City supporters predicted as soon as they heard Fern was out and Demi was his replacement.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Against Chelsea, I don't happen to think Pellegrini was naïve like some have suggested, rather that he allowed/desired a particular style and footballing philosophy to supersede a more pragmatic approach to the game. It seemed to me that, if anything, it was his stubbornness in not deviating from a preconceived plan, more than any tactical genius on Maureen's part, that affected the game.

Replacing Fernandinho, our midfield lynchpin, with a 33 year old centre half smacked of an unwillingness to adopt a different approach, because it is obvious that Demichelis was not an adequate replacement for Fern.

I suppose the real question is, did Pellegrini really think that the best possible way of winning the game was to set out the way we did, or did he think "This is the way we play"?

Either way, I'm watching the best football I've ever seen and long may it continue.

We don't have an adequate replacement for Fernandinho. We're all aware of this.

Are you seriously suggesting Pellers thought 'this isn't the best possible way of winning, but I'm stubborn therefore I'll play it anyway?'
Or is it not beyond the realms of possibility that an experienced manager such as Pellers thought, 'this is the way the way the team have played at home all season, we've been unbeaten, it would be a greater risk to field a weaker team in a formation they haven't regularly played?'

I know which one I'm going for.

I am suggesting that in pretty much every interview I have heard Pellers give about the way we set up, he has placed style of play alongside winning as the thing which he sees as being the most important.

The way we have played all season holds less significance when you are players down in key areas (which are central to the way we play) and when the opposing team happen to also be having a fantastic season and are coming into considerable form.

 

[silvasleftleg]

Correct. When a group of football fans are hopelessly out of step with the opinion of the rest of the footballing world there are only really two possibilities: 1. The rest of the footballing world is wrong. 2. Football fans tend to be a little bit biased. My money is on 2.

We were understrength in the area that you're saying we should have beefed up.

How is that possible?

Milner wasn't fit to play from the beginning. Rodwell is never fit enough.

It was futile to introduce Milner when we were chasing a goal, hence why he wasn't used from the bench.

Ultimately Rodwell was on the bench, and he could have started in a three in place of one of our ineffectual strikers. Jovetic could have been played out wide in a five across the middle. Clichy could have started as left back with Kolarov in front, which would have given us a five in the middle.

I grant you that these may be/appear to be simplistic views, however Chelsea dominance stemmed from City being overrun in the middle, something which a lot of City supporters predicted as soon as they heard Fern was out and Demi was his replacement.

Rodwell wasn't ready to play against Watford, let alone Chelsea.

I doubt you even watched the game .. Chelsea did not "dominate" and we was not over run in midfield. We had 65% possession.

 

[Nascent Blues]

We were understrength in the area that you're saying we should have beefed up.

How is that possible?

Milner wasn't fit to play from the beginning. Rodwell is never fit enough.

It was futile to introduce Milner when we were chasing a goal, hence why he wasn't used from the bench.

Ultimately Rodwell was on the bench, and he could have started in a three in place of one of our ineffectual strikers. Jovetic could have been played out wide in a five across the middle. Clichy could have started as left back with Kolarov in front, which would have given us a five in the middle.

I grant you that these may be/appear to be simplistic views, however Chelsea dominance stemmed from City being overrun in the middle, something which a lot of City supporters predicted as soon as they heard Fern was out and Demi was his replacement.

Rodwell wasn't ready to play against Watford, let alone Chelsea.

I doubt you even watched the game .. Chelsea did not "dominate" and we was not over run in midfield. We had 65% possession.

I was at the match in 218, like I am at every home match. We were overrun every time Chelsea countered. They attacked with pace and cut through us many times; we also had many chances. If you think that we controlled the pace of the game from the middle of the park then fair enough, it's just not an assessment that I agree with.

 

[silvasleftleg]

Ultimately Rodwell was on the bench, and he could have started in a three in place of one of our ineffectual strikers. Jovetic could have been played out wide in a five across the middle. Clichy could have started as left back with Kolarov in front, which would have given us a five in the middle.

I grant you that these may be/appear to be simplistic views, however Chelsea dominance stemmed from City being overrun in the middle, something which a lot of City supporters predicted as soon as they heard Fern was out and Demi was his replacement.

Rodwell wasn't ready to play against Watford, let alone Chelsea.

I doubt you even watched the game .. Chelsea did not "dominate" and we was not over run in midfield. We had 65% possession.

I was at the match in 218, like I am at every home match. We were overrun every time Chelsea countered. They attacked with pace and cut through us many times; we also had many chances. If you think that we controlled the pace of the game from the middle of the park then fair enough, it's just not an assessment that I agree with.

Over run when Chelsea countered ? Who's fault is that ? Pellgrini? Or the fault of those players who didn't track back ?

 

[Nascent Blues]

Rodwell wasn't ready to play against Watford, let alone Chelsea.

I doubt you even watched the game .. Chelsea did not "dominate" and we was not over run in midfield. We had 65% possession.

I was at the match in 218, like I am at every home match. We were overrun every time Chelsea countered. They attacked with pace and cut through us many times; we also had many chances. If you think that we controlled the pace of the game from the middle of the park then fair enough, it's just not an assessment that I agree with.

Over run when Chelsea countered ? Who's fault is that ? Pellgrini's or ? Or the fault of those players who didn't track back ?

Ah right. So the only time that the players have successfully failed to 'track back' in the last 20 odd games just happens to coincide with when we had a 33 year old centre half playing the Fern role against possibly the strongest midfield in the league.

Thank fuck that was offside.