This is meant to be a rhetorical question, right?
We do not operate this way, it's not in this team's culture. The benefit from such a choice? Absolute zero:
a. No credit for it (hardly a surprise, since we do not get the credit we deserve anyway, for the quality of our football, our achievements etc).
b. It is perceived as a weakness (or should I say, another weakness) opponents are encouraged to exploit...
And don't get me started on officials. Passively observing -and tolerating- rivals kicking the shit out of our players. A recurring theme through the years. The Leeds match away being a recent example. That **** could have broken Jack's leg that afternoon, ending his career. For naïve people ready to provide excuses, you know, Leeds were in a tough position, they had to use physicality (is that what it's called?), that kind of shit:
a. No problem. As long as they are ready to face consequences, pay the price according to the rules. Not the case though, was it?
b. In the following two matchdays, Leeds faced Arsenal (A) and Chelsea (H). They lost both matches and finished both with 10 men, Ayling (27') and D. James (24'), respectively, shown early straight reds...
Seems that the rules are not the same when it comes to City. A team that was never ever protected from thuggery on the pitch. On the contrary, officials will punish us with yellow cards on the first given opportunity (the correlation between fouls committed and yellow cards has always been interesting...). While pundits will encourage rivals to be "brave" (...) towards us. And the media will always be there elaborating on convenient narratives, regarding Fernadinho's tactical fouls, for example, and so on, and so on...