Manuel Pellegrini (cont)

[adrianr]

The system worked in the 2nd half, and that should kill this argument

Well I'd say there's a good argument for not placing quite as much weight on the events of the second half, given they were already 2-0 up away from home in the first leg of a 2 leg tie, but generally yeah, 4-4-2 can work against Barcelona, or Bayern, or anyone.

I've got a Barca supporting friend who was furious with their 2nd half display. He said it showed their weaken mentality under Enrique. From his POV when City pressed them in the 2nd half they didn't deal with it and were very lucky to get away with the win considering the chances our players had.

So when I read a variation on Barca stopped trying in the 2nd half I think that's not even half the story.

Like I say, an argument can be made. There is no absolute truth either way.

 

[PragueBlue]

I would agree with those slating Pellegrini for playing 4-4-2 if the whole game would have been as bad as the first. But the fact that we took the game to Barca and were arguably the better team in the second half shows that it is a mentality problem rather than any tactical ones.

If anything the second half shown that we were more than a match for Barca. Compare that to last year where we didn't even look like causing them problems. Then it seems to suggest that Pellers got the 4-4-2 spot on. Not playing Fernandinho and Navas is a different matter.

Perhaps our improved performance in the 2nd half may have something to do with Barca dropping down into 2nd gear.

 

[BobKowalski]

The system worked in the 2nd half, and that should kill this argument

No it shouldn't. The game should have been over at half time. We were clinging on for dear life. A miracle we got to half time only 2 down. The players had no chance

Haha. You really are a fucking drama queen. Amazing that the fucking idiot has managed to still keep us in the tie hey?

I am always intrigued by how we divide responsibility. The 'fucking idiot' managed to keep us in the tie but is not responsible for us being almost out of the tie in the first place? Do we blame the system or application of the system or the preparation for applying the system? And are we now saying that losing 2-1 at home to Barca with the away leg to come is a positive result? It isn't its just a damn sight better than 3-1. Small mercies and all that.

Before the game I was seduced by the nominal 442. Death or glory. Fuck it lets do it. But if you are going for death or glory then every player has to be 100% up for it and close the spaces down like mad dogs. We didn't. The first goal punctured our fragile self belief and we spent 30 minutes allowing them the freedom of the park. So does Pellers recognise that our mentality and self belief in the CL is a fragile thing at best and deploy a system and personnel that allow us to grow into the game and hopefully progress or go for broke, get a goal and hopefully progress?

Personally I think there is no right or wrong answer. Both approaches are legitimate and the only thing that dictates the narrative is the final result. It works Pellers is a genius. It didn't so he is a clueless numpty. The interesting question for me is did the players buy into what Pellers was selling and whether Pellers has the personality to make them believe it? Is there an argument for a Simeone character who may, at least short term, instil the belief that allows us to go toe to toe and get a result against Barca and from that the confidence and self belief is grown and takes root at the club rather as it has done when it comes to the PL.

Interesting times.

 

[Shaelumstash]

I think the performance in Rome showed that he can play in a 4-4-2, but as with all out and out defensive midfielders he needs a very mobile and industrious support cast around him against the better sides. Milner, Fernandinho and Navas proved ideal. Milner, Silva and Nasri last night manifestly did not. Pairing him with Ya Ya is another non-starter most of the time. The point is though, this problem isn't unique to Fernando, but all specialist players. The problem at City is that instead of accentuating his strengths (not that he appears to have many), we put him in positions that highlight his shortcomings, eg at West Ham and at home to Hull, where our monopolisation of the ball was such that he ended up as a de facto playmaker, something that he was, predictably, ill equipped for......and then of course everyone says he's shit and he can't do this and he can't do that

He didn't play in a 442 in Rome though. Nasri isn't a centre forward. One of the reasons Fernando is so shit in a 442 is because he hasn't got the range of passing, and he's got too much ground to cover defensively from box to box. He's better when he has a small ten yard area to cover and can close down players when they come in to his zone.

Against Roma, Nasri was playing as a third, central attacking midfielder. He was in front of the Ferns, and behind Dzeko. That meant Nasri was responsible for defending the area between our midfield and our centre forward. This meant Fernando had a much smaller area to patrol than in a 442. Nasri also regularly dropped deep and showed feet, giving an option of a ten yard ball which Fernando is well capable of playing. Again, when we play 442, that option is not always there, Aguero, Jovetic, and even Dzeko will show feet, but they don't drop in to midfield like Nasri did. The difference between a 10 yard and a 25 yard pass is huge for a player of Fernando's ability.

Your quite right with your points about Hull, West Ham, and I would add Burnley, he's ill equipped. But your argument that Nasri played as a centre forward against Roma, I'll never agree with because it's simply not true.

If you wish to argue black is white that's your choice, but hopefully you might believe UEFA's own website on the matter. See the attached link, scroll down to the 'Press Kits' section, and then open the 'Tactical Line Ups' pdf.
You'll note that Nasri's average position for the game is that of a forward, tucked in alongside Edin Dzeko........


<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2015/matches/round=2000548/match=2014387/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague ... index.html</a>

I've had this argument before, people tried to tell me that David Silva played as a centre forward against Bayern. If you don't know the difference between Silva or Nasri playing behind a striker than playing 2 genuine strikers in a 442 I can only assume you've never played the game. I could show you a touch map of Danny Alves 'proving' he's a wide forward, or of Manuel Neuer 'proving' he's a centre half, but it doesn't mean it's true.

 

[TheRisingoftheNorth]

This is the main issue IMO. Once again too many people are getting caught up in wanting to categorise everything neatly into 2 vs 3 midfielders. As has been pointed out more than once, Malaga beat Barca the *game before ours* playing 4-4-2. The difference was every Malaga player on that pitch knew their job.

Whoever we field, the main thing is that they know what their job is and they do it. Constantly chopping and changing is the fastest way to ensure that's not going to happen. However many people you play in midfield, if the first time they play together is against Barcelona it's not going to look pretty.

We don't have that many games until the end of the season. We're out of the cups, and if we're being honest we've got one more CL game left to play. Pick a side and fucking stick to it. At the very least pick a back 4 and stick to that. Chelsea have punched deep into the season with minimal rotation, I'm sure we can manage for the games we have left.

The system worked in the 2nd half, and that should kill this argument

Well I'd say there's a good argument for not placing quite as much weight on the events of the second half, given they were already 2-0 up away from home in the first leg of a 2 leg tie, but generally yeah, 4-4-2 can work against Barcelona, or Bayern, or anyone.

Barca definitely took their foot off the gas at 2-0 and allowed City back into the game. If they had gone for the throat they could have scored more - but I suppose it's not their way.

As for 4-4-2, I would say it could work against anyone, and well done to Pelligrini for sticking with his principles. I for one don't want to see City stacking the midfield and passing the ball around the centre-circle. Unfortunately though, it has to be the right 4-4-2, with the 2 up front recognizing their defensive duties, and all the midfielder comfortable on the ball with a range of passes. I don't think that the line-up on Tuesday fitted that description.

 

[Shaelumstash]

The system worked in the 2nd half, and that should kill this argument

Well I'd say there's a good argument for not placing quite as much weight on the events of the second half, given they were already 2-0 up away from home in the first leg of a 2 leg tie, but generally yeah, 4-4-2 can work against Barcelona, or Bayern, or anyone.

Barca definitely took their foot off the gas at 2-0 and allowed City back into the game. If they had gone for the throat they could have scored more - but I suppose it's not their way.

As for 4-4-2, I would say it could work against anyone, and well done to Pelligrini for sticking with his principles. I for one don't want to see City stacking the midfield and passing the ball around the centre-circle. Unfortunately though, it has to be the right 4-4-2, with the 2 up front recognizing their defensive duties, and all the midfielder comfortable on the ball with a range of passes. I don't think that the line-up on Tuesday fitted that description.

I agree with this. It's not the 442 per se that's the problem, it's the selecting players who aren't suited to it. Fernando is simply incapable of playing in that system, Milner is not really good enough to play centrally in it, so playing them both together while Fernandinho was on the bench was just a bizarre decision. As I posted earlier, the last time Fernando and Milner played together in a 2, they got the runaround by Middlesborough, so to throw them in against Barca was baffling.

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

No it shouldn't. The game should have been over at half time. We were clinging on for dear life. A miracle we got to half time only 2 down. The players had no chance

Haha. You really are a fucking drama queen. Amazing that the fucking idiot has managed to still keep us in the tie hey?

I am always intrigued by how we divide responsibility. The 'fucking idiot' managed to keep us in the tie but is not responsible for us being almost out of the tie in the first place? Do we blame the system or application of the system or the preparation for applying the system? And are we now saying that losing 2-1 at home to Barca with the away leg to come is a positive result? It isn't its just a damn sight better than 3-1. Small mercies and all that.

Before the game I was seduced by the nominal 442. Death or glory. Fuck it lets do it. But if you are going for death or glory then every player has to be 100% up for it and close the spaces down like mad dogs. We didn't. The first goal punctured our fragile self belief and we spent 30 minutes allowing them the freedom of the park. So does Pellers recognise that our mentality and self belief in the CL is a fragile thing at best and deploy a system and personnel that allow us to grow into the game and hopefully progress or go for broke, get a goal and hopefully progress?

Personally I think there is no right or wrong answer. Both approaches are legitimate and the only thing that dictates the narrative is the final result. It works Pellers is a genius. It didn't so he is a clueless numpty. The interesting question for me is did the players buy into what Pellers was selling and whether Pellers has the personality to make them believe it? Is there an argument for a Simeone character who may, at least short term, instil the belief that allows us to go toe to toe and get a result against Barca and from that the confidence and self belief is grown and takes root at the club rather as it has done when it comes to the PL.

Interesting times.

Even when the 2 in the centre are Milner and Fernando? Maybe I might have thought 'fuck it let's do it' if fernandinho was in there but only a fucking idiot would put Milner and Fernando in there. After the initial shock at the appalling set up for the game I thought to myself that Pellegrini must have something clever up his sleeve or a decent game plan but half an hour into the absolute horror show when we were being completely humiliated in one of the biggest games in our recent history (and a message to the soft twats before you start - don't give me the 'chimps league', 'bent platini' bullshit and pretend it's not a big game) I thought to myself 'oh no, he's just a fucking idiot'

 

[daztrueblue91]

I would agree with those slating Pellegrini for playing 4-4-2 if the whole game would have been as bad as the first. But the fact that we took the game to Barca and were arguably the better team in the second half shows that it is a mentality problem rather than any tactical ones.

If anything the second half shown that we were more than a match for Barca. Compare that to last year where we didn't even look like causing them problems. Then it seems to suggest that Pellers got the 4-4-2 spot on. Not playing Fernandinho and Navas is a different matter.

Perhaps our improved performance in the 2nd half may have something to do with Barca dropping down into 2nd gear.

Sorry but that's a load of shite.

Barca play Madrid a few days after the 2nd leg and would have wanted the tie to be done and dusted if possible.

If they took a 3 goal lead to the Camp Nou or got a result that meant we had to score 3 clear goals over there then it would have been job done.

As it stands we're still in with a shout and Barca will be pissed off that they couldn't finish us off.

You have to put that down to a much improved performance from us in the 2nd half. We didn't give them as much space and pressed them high up. Forcing them into mistakes and as a result it created chances for us.

 

[welsh_andy]

I would agree with those slating Pellegrini for playing 4-4-2 if the whole game would have been as bad as the first. But the fact that we took the game to Barca and were arguably the better team in the second half shows that it is a mentality problem rather than any tactical ones.

If anything the second half shown that we were more than a match for Barca. Compare that to last year where we didn't even look like causing them problems. Then it seems to suggest that Pellers got the 4-4-2 spot on. Not playing Fernandinho and Navas is a different matter.

Perhaps our improved performance in the 2nd half may have something to do with Barca dropping down into 2nd gear.

think was a bit of both to be fair, we were forced to push the game, would have been interesting if edin had put that sitter away. still think they are vulnerable when we push up, yes granted we were lucky to be on 2 down, but thanks to messi a slim chance we still have, but still a chance,

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

He didn't play in a 442 in Rome though. Nasri isn't a centre forward. One of the reasons Fernando is so shit in a 442 is because he hasn't got the range of passing, and he's got too much ground to cover defensively from box to box. He's better when he has a small ten yard area to cover and can close down players when they come in to his zone.

Against Roma, Nasri was playing as a third, central attacking midfielder. He was in front of the Ferns, and behind Dzeko. That meant Nasri was responsible for defending the area between our midfield and our centre forward. This meant Fernando had a much smaller area to patrol than in a 442. Nasri also regularly dropped deep and showed feet, giving an option of a ten yard ball which Fernando is well capable of playing. Again, when we play 442, that option is not always there, Aguero, Jovetic, and even Dzeko will show feet, but they don't drop in to midfield like Nasri did. The difference between a 10 yard and a 25 yard pass is huge for a player of Fernando's ability.

Your quite right with your points about Hull, West Ham, and I would add Burnley, he's ill equipped. But your argument that Nasri played as a centre forward against Roma, I'll never agree with because it's simply not true.

If you wish to argue black is white that's your choice, but hopefully you might believe UEFA's own website on the matter. See the attached link, scroll down to the 'Press Kits' section, and then open the 'Tactical Line Ups' pdf.
You'll note that Nasri's average position for the game is that of a forward, tucked in alongside Edin Dzeko........


<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2015/matches/round=2000548/match=2014387/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague ... index.html</a>

I've had this argument before, people tried to tell me that David Silva played as a centre forward against Bayern. If you don't know the difference between Silva or Nasri playing behind a striker than playing 2 genuine strikers in a 442 I can only assume you've never played the game. I could show you a touch map of Danny Alves 'proving' he's a wide forward, or of Manuel Neuer 'proving' he's a centre half, but it doesn't mean it's true.

Ha ha, fucking priceless. So the competition's governing body takes the time to chart the overall average (or is it modal - I'm never too sure with maths) position of every player, clearly showing Nasri operating barely a yard or two away from Dzeko, but about 10-15 yards in front of the two Ferns, and yet according to you he was a 'third attacking midfielder'. Call me old Mr Picky, but on the assumption that UEFA used one of them new fangled computer thingys to plot its calculations, rather than an old boy in a raincoat sat up in the stands with a notebook, pencil and binoculars, I'm gonna go with UEFA and you can flannel all you want.

As to my never having played the game before, you could be right. Alternatively you could be hopelessly and utterly wrong........