persvenality cult
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,855
Time for an update, here's my fivepenneth...
Yesterday was an interesting game for many reasons.
High profile games often are tight and extremely tactical. They are also subject to closer tactical analysis by the media. Chelsea's formation is familiar to the pundits. The two managers being former adversaries, and the stereotypical view of the Italian as 'tactician', only added to the interest. So it's no surprise that much of the credit for the win was laid upon the manager, even at the expense of the players, some of whom delivered really outstanding displays. Even VK, who excelled in every regard, talked as if City 'having a plan' was the crucial factor. Or, maybe that's just the way his comments were edited... either way, you get the point. Mancini must feel pretty satisfied this morning.
It provided examples of a few things we've talked about in this thread:
1) 'Weak' flanks vs 'Strong' flanks.
Look at that diagram, is it any wonder that City's better attacks came down the left hand side? Milner, Tevez, Silva and Zabaleta targeted Ivanovich. This is because there is a huge gap between him, and his team mate on the right, Anelka. There is also no obvious midfielder assigned to help him out. Mikkel is covering the CB's. Ramires is on the left *which surprises me*, and Essien was asked to play a Lampard esq attacking role... that's something I'll come back to.
In the first half, city lined up with Yaya stayed deep inside the midfield, with Silva on the right. Neither had eye catching halves. Yet they did a good job, because Silva's presence prevented Cole from attacking, Yaya's towering strength contributed to crushing Ramires's confidence. Their presence also contributed to preventing Malouda from isolating Boyata. Boyata was extremely well supported by Kolo Toure, who was freed up to help him by NDJ, who was freed up by Yaya.... the 20 year old played with grit and confidence and delivered several tough challenges.
2) 'Phases' and adaptability.
I believe, in these 'big' games, Mancini's primary aim in the first half is always to prevent the opposition from scoring. I've seen it several times. Utd (H), Arsenal (A), and a few other games, all followed a similar pattern. We shut down their attack, wait for the opposition to feel some urgency, that they must score soon and thus the game opens up a little. Last season, he typically waited until 70-75 minutes before introducing a second CF/ swapping a midfielder for an attacking midfielder.
This time, the added flexibility of our midfielders came to the fore. Yaya pushed well forward at half time, providing support for Tevez, and much, much more. I think the key yesterday was; Yaya is much more suited to the Lampard role than Essien is.
Essien is a decent passer but lacks vision. He has the pace to drive forward but not the ability to dribble in the tight areas. He tends to shoot from distance instead. Yesterday showed, he tends to miss.
By way of contrast, Yaya picked out a few great passes, and executed one very dangerous dribble. He has vision, skill, and the feel for attacking play.
The rest of what we saw was, in my opinion, a vindication for Mancini sticking to his gameplan in the absence of his attacking fullbacks. The GK, CB's, and DM's, were playing the exact same roles they have played all season, and the exact same roles they will play until the end of the season. When more emphasis on attack is needed, we can already get quite a bit more from the same players, as demonstrated by Yaya's flexibility... further to that, we change the players around this 'back 7', at a pinch, we sacrifice one of Barry/NDJ/Toure, for Milner, Silva, SWP, AJ. Ultimately, I believe we will see Balo up with Tevez, with Silva in the hole (Balo cutting in from the left, Silva from the right)....But the basic structure will not change.
---------Hart
----Toure---Kompany
---------NDJ
----Toure---Barry
Is firmly established as the backbone of our team. They showed yesterday that they can out play, and out tackle what is usually considered the biggest, 'strongest' midfield around. They know their roles perfectly, enjoy playing with each other, and believe in each other.
Would they have reached that level yesterday if we'd been messing around with 4-4-2 and all the different organisation that entails?
The last thing I wanted to mention was how much our goal reminded me of Nik's illustration of the defensive organisation of a team in 'full attack' mode. A CB and SB are left behind two DM's. What happened was: City clear. Tevez, in yet another example of his super-human capabilities for hard work and running, forced a weak header, which reached a DM, who was caught two on one by our two players. One comes away with the ball... Tev and Silva sprint forward, recieve the ball... and it's two on two.... a CB and SB. The pundits noted that Cole turned his back on the ball, that he was responsible for holding Tevez up.... He failed, and the goal reminded me of nothing more than Tevez turning Terry and stealing the goal at Stamford Bridge last year.
It also reminded me of the complete balls up in the England Germany game this summer... where, time after time, Barry was left as last man back because both CB's AND the fullbacks had pushed up for the corner. Capello is no mug, presumably he wanted them to use the 'orthodox' system with one CB and one SB covering.
IMO Gareth Barry was simply the fall guy, the fault lay with Terry, demonstrating once again his irresponsible attitude. Yes, he's a fist pumping, blood letting inspiration... but give me a Kompany man, any day of the week. Someone you can rely on.
Yesterday was an interesting game for many reasons.
High profile games often are tight and extremely tactical. They are also subject to closer tactical analysis by the media. Chelsea's formation is familiar to the pundits. The two managers being former adversaries, and the stereotypical view of the Italian as 'tactician', only added to the interest. So it's no surprise that much of the credit for the win was laid upon the manager, even at the expense of the players, some of whom delivered really outstanding displays. Even VK, who excelled in every regard, talked as if City 'having a plan' was the crucial factor. Or, maybe that's just the way his comments were edited... either way, you get the point. Mancini must feel pretty satisfied this morning.
It provided examples of a few things we've talked about in this thread:
1) 'Weak' flanks vs 'Strong' flanks.
Look at that diagram, is it any wonder that City's better attacks came down the left hand side? Milner, Tevez, Silva and Zabaleta targeted Ivanovich. This is because there is a huge gap between him, and his team mate on the right, Anelka. There is also no obvious midfielder assigned to help him out. Mikkel is covering the CB's. Ramires is on the left *which surprises me*, and Essien was asked to play a Lampard esq attacking role... that's something I'll come back to.
In the first half, city lined up with Yaya stayed deep inside the midfield, with Silva on the right. Neither had eye catching halves. Yet they did a good job, because Silva's presence prevented Cole from attacking, Yaya's towering strength contributed to crushing Ramires's confidence. Their presence also contributed to preventing Malouda from isolating Boyata. Boyata was extremely well supported by Kolo Toure, who was freed up to help him by NDJ, who was freed up by Yaya.... the 20 year old played with grit and confidence and delivered several tough challenges.
2) 'Phases' and adaptability.
I believe, in these 'big' games, Mancini's primary aim in the first half is always to prevent the opposition from scoring. I've seen it several times. Utd (H), Arsenal (A), and a few other games, all followed a similar pattern. We shut down their attack, wait for the opposition to feel some urgency, that they must score soon and thus the game opens up a little. Last season, he typically waited until 70-75 minutes before introducing a second CF/ swapping a midfielder for an attacking midfielder.
This time, the added flexibility of our midfielders came to the fore. Yaya pushed well forward at half time, providing support for Tevez, and much, much more. I think the key yesterday was; Yaya is much more suited to the Lampard role than Essien is.
Essien is a decent passer but lacks vision. He has the pace to drive forward but not the ability to dribble in the tight areas. He tends to shoot from distance instead. Yesterday showed, he tends to miss.
By way of contrast, Yaya picked out a few great passes, and executed one very dangerous dribble. He has vision, skill, and the feel for attacking play.
The rest of what we saw was, in my opinion, a vindication for Mancini sticking to his gameplan in the absence of his attacking fullbacks. The GK, CB's, and DM's, were playing the exact same roles they have played all season, and the exact same roles they will play until the end of the season. When more emphasis on attack is needed, we can already get quite a bit more from the same players, as demonstrated by Yaya's flexibility... further to that, we change the players around this 'back 7', at a pinch, we sacrifice one of Barry/NDJ/Toure, for Milner, Silva, SWP, AJ. Ultimately, I believe we will see Balo up with Tevez, with Silva in the hole (Balo cutting in from the left, Silva from the right)....But the basic structure will not change.
---------Hart
----Toure---Kompany
---------NDJ
----Toure---Barry
Is firmly established as the backbone of our team. They showed yesterday that they can out play, and out tackle what is usually considered the biggest, 'strongest' midfield around. They know their roles perfectly, enjoy playing with each other, and believe in each other.
Would they have reached that level yesterday if we'd been messing around with 4-4-2 and all the different organisation that entails?
The last thing I wanted to mention was how much our goal reminded me of Nik's illustration of the defensive organisation of a team in 'full attack' mode. A CB and SB are left behind two DM's. What happened was: City clear. Tevez, in yet another example of his super-human capabilities for hard work and running, forced a weak header, which reached a DM, who was caught two on one by our two players. One comes away with the ball... Tev and Silva sprint forward, recieve the ball... and it's two on two.... a CB and SB. The pundits noted that Cole turned his back on the ball, that he was responsible for holding Tevez up.... He failed, and the goal reminded me of nothing more than Tevez turning Terry and stealing the goal at Stamford Bridge last year.
It also reminded me of the complete balls up in the England Germany game this summer... where, time after time, Barry was left as last man back because both CB's AND the fullbacks had pushed up for the corner. Capello is no mug, presumably he wanted them to use the 'orthodox' system with one CB and one SB covering.
IMO Gareth Barry was simply the fall guy, the fault lay with Terry, demonstrating once again his irresponsible attitude. Yes, he's a fist pumping, blood letting inspiration... but give me a Kompany man, any day of the week. Someone you can rely on.