Discussion: Manuel Pellegrini 2015/16

[super_city_si]

As stated above the "SAME" 442 is idiotic bollocks. Check the facts mate. We'd tried 1 up front twice against Barcelona failing twice. So yes I agree, more of the same...

Yeah bollocks. He lined up with dzeko and aguero. Two forwards. Neither of whom can play midfield. Fucking stupid tactics against Barcelona.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Never once said he was tactically awful. I get it, you don't understand my point. Such statements highlight as much.

I'll make it simple.

I want Pep as manager.

I think he is a better version of Pellegrini.

I think his stuborness will infuriate you and others because he's very similar to Pellegrini. The basis of my point.

You've not responded to any of my basic points.

Would you excuse Pellegrini if he lost 5-0 to anyone?
Would you excuse Pellegrini if he played a back 3 man for man?

I know the answer.

Simple really.

So why repeatedly bring up the 5-0 loss to Madrid if it's not to illustrate you don't think he's tactically very good? What's the purpose of constantly bringing it up?

I'll deal with these one by one:

I want Pep as manager.

Good, me too.

I think he is a better version of Pellegrini.

He's certainly better. A better 'version' implies they are similar, which I don't agree with whatsoever.

The only similarity I can think of them as managers is that they both like playing attacking football, that's it. Pellegrini is more similar to Kevin Keegan (not an insult, I liked Keegan at City). He concentrates on his team, doesn't prepare differently depending on opposition, he gives his players creative freedom and trusts in them to find a way to win. Most of his managerial career in Europe he has played 2 central strikers. Very dour personality in the media, not very close with his players, more of a company man.

In contrast, Guardiola obsessively analyses opponents, prepares for every game differently to deal with the opposition at hand, he's very strict about team shape and allows much less freedom to his players. Most of his managerial career he has played with 1 or 0 central strikers, very rarely, if ever, with 2. Very charismatic personality in the media, players idolise him, more of a maverick personality who is distant from the executives and closer to the players. (I appreciate he is close to Txiki, but they played in the same team for 5 years so he's a personal friend, he has a reputation of being stand offish with executives).

So when you say they a similar, other than playing attacking football, in what way are they similar?

I think his stuborness will infuriate you and others because he's very similar to Pellegrini. The basis of my point.

The 'similar' aspect I don't agree with whatsoever, as I've written above. The 'stubbornness' aspect I don't agree with either. You've been criticising him for playing a ridiculous 3 on 3 at the back against Barca, a strategy I have never seen before in professional football. He changed it after 10 minutes as it wasn't working. That is the polar opposite of stubborn. It's creative, it's inventive, it's brand new thinking, possibly naive, possibly stupid, but certainly not stubborn.

He started out at Barca in a traditional 433, the season after he moved Messi inside and pretty much invented the "False 9" position and played with no central striker, the season after he experimented with 3, and sometimes 2 at the back. He made adjustments every year to the way Barca played, he wanted to change so they didn't become predictable. He prepares differently for every game to deal with opponents different threats and weaknesses. He's tactically adaptable - the opposite of stubborn.

What is stubborn is Pellegrini sticking to 442 when Bayern were dismantling us at home when they had 6 in midfield. Stubborn was when he continued playing Dzeko and Negredo as a front 2 for 3 months when it was clear to anyone who knows anything about football that they weren't suited to playing together, stubborn is when he refused to bring Fernandinho back in to the side last season when it was clear we needed his legs, stubborn was sticking with Fernando far longer than he should have last season when it was clear he wasn't up to it, stubborn is sticking with Willy Caballero, stubborn is playing the snail like Lescott and Garcia in a high line when they're our only available centre backs, stubborn is 442 at home to Barca with Milner and Fernando in midfield, stubborn is playing Jesus Navas every week despite the fact he couldn't cross the road.

However much you think Pep is stubborn, and whatever reasons you've got for thinking that, I can't see how he could possibly be as stubborn as Pellegrini. It's actually one of the things I'm looking forward to - a manager who is adaptable, who will prepare specifically for opposition, set the team up specifically to suit the players he has available, will change during a game if he has to in order to get a result.

In fact, I'd say Guardiola's lack of stubborness in comparison with Pellegrini is one of the things I'm looking forward to most!


You've not responded to any of my basic points.

Which points specifically?

Would you excuse Pellegrini if he lost 5-0 to anyone?

Probably not because I don't rate him as a manager. Fergurson, Mourinho and Guardiola have all lost games 5-0, but they are proven world class managers, that buys you some excuses when you get it wrong. They've proven they are world class over multiple years. Pellegrini hasn't.

Would you excuse Pellegrini if he played a back 3 man for man?

As I stated earlier, I respected Guardiola's risky, alternative strategy more than Pellegrini's "we'll go down like gentlemen" approach.

 

[BillyShears]

Simple really.

You're dealing with one of Bluemoon's highest tactical minds. When Shalum and his Tache say it's the worst tactical performance he's EVER seen from a City manager he clearly has spent the last three decades watching City and therefore knows what he's talking about.

Anyway I understood your points as I'm simple. I agree with them too. :)

 

[ninjamonkey]

I still think Klopp would of been a better fit for our side than both Pellegrini and Pep. Our team, with the forwards in particular is tailor made to recreate the Dortmund style that battered us a few years ago. Whilst i'm a fan of possession football in general, i now think our team is better suited to primarily be a pacy high pressing counter team much like Real Madrid. We can still dominate possession in the league against lower opposition but when it comes to the big games, especially in Europe, I think the teams a lot better suited and we'd do a lot better replicating Real Madrid rather than Barcelona.

 

[supercity88]

Never once said he was tactically awful. I get it, you don't understand my point. Such statements highlight as much.

I'll make it simple.

I want Pep as manager.

I think he is a better version of Pellegrini.

I think his stuborness will infuriate you and others because he's very similar to Pellegrini. The basis of my point.

You've not responded to any of my basic points.

Would you excuse Pellegrini if he lost 5-0 to anyone?
Would you excuse Pellegrini if he played a back 3 man for man?

I know the answer.

Simple really.

I don't really understand your definition of stubbornness. I don't think either manager is stubborn. They're both confident in their abilities and strong believers in their overall style of play and playing staff. The major differences for me come down to the details. I think Pellegrini has a strong belief that the details will take care of themselves as long as the players perform as they should in his system. I don't think he spends too much time on looking at the opposing team and their strengths and weaknesses. Barcelona is probably one of the rare games where he has completely changed our setup. I can understand why, because Messi was in sensational form and they're a team you have to prepare for.

What you don't see is a strong analysis of the game as it is being played. You don't see him patrolling the technical area and relaying messages. I wouldn't call it stubbornness, I'd just say he has faith in the system and his players and is patient.

The argument here is, if City played their formation and lineup against Barca, what would the result be if we played 10 times. And what about if Bayern played theirs under Pep? If I remember rightly it was a system to man mark Barca's attacking three, with Alcantara, Alonso and Schweinsteiger in midfield ahead of the defence against Busquets, Rakitic and Iniesta. On paper there wasn't much between those three, if anything. I think it was a bold move but actually made sense and could have been quite effective.

I think our system could have been as well, but Fernandinho had to be involved, the wrong personnel were chosen even before you look at formations. Pep also acknowledged that his system was failing and therefore changed it. Watch most Bayern games and Pep is watching like a hawk and sending messages to his players. Even in that recent win over Wolfsburg, where Lewandowski scored 5 you'll see Pep telling Boateng what he wants him to do to help improve the situation on the pitch. He's more handson which can only be a good thing in my opinion.

As for discussing the whether we'd accept a 5-0 loss under Pellegrini, of course not. We'd scrutinise because in hindsight we can all do better. Bayern lost in the exact same manner that they had beaten Barcelona the previous season. They controlled the game but were picked off. I think both are excellent managers but if we are to replace Pellegrini, Pep is the logical man to go for.

 

[aguero93:20]

Yeah bollocks. He lined up with dzeko and aguero. Two forwards. Neither of whom can play midfield. Fucking stupid tactics against Barcelona.

And the year before we started with one striker in both legs and we lost both legs.

 

[super_city_si]

And the year before we started with one striker in both legs and we lost both legs.

True. I'm not arguing the merit of one or two strikers, I just didn't agree with posters comment that pellegrini tried something different for the Barcelona game. I think he sent the team out the same way he had all through the season with little regard to who the opposition was.

 

[aguero93:20]

True. I'm not arguing the merit of one or two strikers, I just didn't agree with posters comment that pellegrini tried something different for the Barcelona game. I think he sent the team out the same way he had all through the season with little regard to who the opposition was.

We were playing with no strikers, then one striker, in the month or two before the first leg last season so that's a bit revisionist. The way I saw it we were missing the petulant one in midfield to move us up the pitch in possession (Yaya) so he wanted a greater presence up front allowing us to bypass the midfield. It's not a bad idea but we were up against the best side in the world at the time and lost. Boo hoo, sack the manager, it's not like Guardiola and Blanc didn't get worse hidings off them on their way to the treble. As for Fernandinho not starting the match, with the form he was in at the time if he was a dog you would have put him down.

 

[Shaelumstash]

We were playing with no strikers, then one striker, in the month or two before the first leg last season so that's a bit revisionist. The way I saw it we were missing the petulant one in midfield to move us up the pitch in possession (Yaya) so he wanted a greater presence up front allowing us to bypass the midfield. It's not a bad idea but we were up against the best side in the world at the time and lost. Boo hoo, sack the manager, it's not like Guardiola and Blanc didn't get worse hidings off them on their way to the treble. As for Fernandinho not starting the match, with the form he was in at the time if he was a dog you would have put him down.

On the contrary, it's rather revisionist to suggest Pellegrini played 0, 1 or 2 up front at different times due him being tactically adaptable! The majority of the time we played 0 or 1 up front was because we only had that many fit strikers available. The vast majority of the time we had 2 strikers available, no matter how unsuitable as a pairing they were, he played 2 up front.

There were one or two isolated games where we had 2 or more fit strikers available and he chose to play one, but it was a very rare occurrence.

 

[Mad Fax]

You're dealing with one of Bluemoon's highest tactical minds. When Shalum and his Tache say it's the worst tactical performance he's EVER seen from a City manager he clearly has spent the last three decades watching City and therefore knows what he's talking about.

Anyway I understood your points as I'm simple. I agree with them too. :)

Let the grown ups talk Billy. Its a very good discussion and nobody needs your nonsense.