Manuel Pellegrini (cont)

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, etc etc etc etc

 

[Shaelumstash]

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.

Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, etc etc etc etc

Stoke at home - lost 1-0
West Ham away - lost 2-1
CSKA away - drew 2-2
CSKA home - lost 2-1
Burnley home - drew 2-2
Middlesborough home - lost 2-0
Hull home - drew 1-1

etc etc etc

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, etc etc etc etc

Stoke at home - lost 1-0
West Ham away - lost 2-1
CSKA away - drew 2-2
CSKA home - lost 2-1
Burnley home - drew 2-2
Middlesborough home - lost 2-0
Hull home - drew 1-1

etc etc etc

Still including Burnley are we, despite our not playing 4-4-2 that day due to there being no fit forwards at the club? Whatever, your assertion was that Fernando was 'incapable' of playing in a 4-4-2. Roma clearly shows that given the right supporting cast, he is perfectly capable of playing in a 4-4-2.

 

[lasereyes]

I can sort of see what MP was trying to do. it was always likely Barcelona would dominate possession so with a 4-5-1, there was a real chance of a lone striker becoming isolated without any service. Aguero and Dzeko both look like they are returning to form, so playing 2 upfront would create 2 targets and increase the chance of getting around the back of a Barcelona high line. However, knowing it was a high risk strategy, he tried to compensate by putting in Fernando who is more defensively minded than Fernandinho who likes to get forward; and Milner with his work-rate and ability to track back.

The problem is Fernando is nowhere near as good a footballer as Fernandinho so you sacrificed his energy and ball-skill for a formation that might have been sounder on paper.

In hindsight, it looks like a bad move, but keep in mind that Dzeko had a number of golden opportunities including one gilt-edged one from point blank range that he should have taken down and shot from rather than heading straight at the keeper. If he had scored one of those, it is quite likely we would have got a result and maybe even have won.

So if Fernando's quality as a player is the problem, then how about trying out one of our central midfielders in that role? So could MDM play in front of Kompany and Mangala? I know we tried that once before (at home to Chelsea last year), but there were a boatload of reasons why we lost that game beyond just MDM (who at the time was going through a difficult patch).

 

[pudge]

What did the original post say?

 

[Nascent Blues]

It's a barm.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

It's a barm.

Rubbish, it was Tyler.......

 

[OB1]

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.

People explain things for you and you still don't get it. And as EB has not put you straight, he has played plenty of football and has his coaching badges and can write real purty so you are out of your depth trying to get one over on him.

 

[kenzie115]

Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, Roma, etc etc etc etc

Stoke at home - lost 1-0
West Ham away - lost 2-1
CSKA away - drew 2-2
CSKA home - lost 2-1
Burnley home - drew 2-2
Middlesborough home - lost 2-0
Hull home - drew 1-1

etc etc etc

Still including Burnley are we, despite our not playing 4-4-2 that day due to there being no fit forwards at the club? Whatever, your assertion was that Fernando was 'incapable' of playing in a 4-4-2. Roma clearly shows that given the right supporting cast, he is perfectly capable of playing in a 4-4-2.

Interesting that you include Nasri playing behind Dzeko as a front 2, but you claim any game that includes Jovetic doesn't count as 4-4-2 because he's not an out and out striker.

The average position of a player on the pitch does not dictate the way he plays the game. Playing Nasri behind Dzeko results in a much different approach to the game than playing Aguero with Dzeko. If you can't understand that then there's really no hope.

4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-5-1. None of it really matters, what matters is how the 11 players are approach the game. If Nasri plays with Dzeko up front, he drops into midfield and gets involved in build up play. If Aguero plays, he looks to get in behind and so the midfield two are left with much more responsibility for maintaining possession and finding more difficult forward passes.

 

[Balti]

I am not sure if the guy who writes the excellent View from a Blue blog is on here but he wrote an excellent piece on Pellegrini and the Barca game.

With the players we have i can see why he went 4-4-2 but we are just not good enough to go toe to toe with the top sides in Europe yet, bloody hell we just about scraped through the group!
We have to make ourselves hard to beat and hope our quality players produce that bit of magic to sneak a win. Considering Pellegrini was brought in for his European experience he keeps on making the same mistakes over and over.

Indeed

our last manager was seemingly sacked for his poor results and lack of progress in europe

no doubt this one will be too