Manuel Pellegrini (cont)

[somethingelse]

Being the home side first in Europe is always a complete nightmare, tactically the away team knows what to do sit tight and get an away goal, even if you lose away the second half can be turned around

You could set up the first leg with the clear priority not to concede an away goal, if a goal comes your way okay but set the stall out totally not to concede and get a 0-0
Draw the away leg 1-1 and go through ,its that tight in Europe the margins are very small
All the British teams who went out City Spurs Pool Celtic home in the first leg

 

[BillyShears]

Being the home side first in Europe is always a complete nightmare, tactically the away team knows what to do sit tight and get an away goal, even if you lose away the second half can be turned around

You could set up the first leg with the clear priority not to concede an away goal, if a goal comes your way okay but set the stall out totally not to concede and get a 0-0
Draw the away leg 1-1 and go through ,its that tight in Europe the margins are very small
All the British teams who went out City Spurs Pool Celtic home in the first leg

Good post but we're not out yet. :)

Also we need to win our group to be home first. Something which we need to do soon but to do that we have to be more consistent in the group stages.

 

[101toMR]

We are on the back foot because we showed Barca too much respect again.
By the time we actually realise we can beat them then it's too late to do anything about it.
The next leg will be littered with gamesmanship and we will be fucked from pillar to post by shoddy refereeing, our chance was at home and we blew it.

 

[mancity1]

Being the home side first in Europe is always a complete nightmare, tactically the away team knows what to do sit tight and get an away goal, even if you lose away the second half can be turned around

You could set up the first leg with the clear priority not to concede an away goal, if a goal comes your way okay but set the stall out totally not to concede and get a 0-0
Draw the away leg 1-1 and go through ,its that tight in Europe the margins are very small
All the British teams who went out City Spurs Pool Celtic home in the first leg

i think its more about the fact that English sides in the main have no bottle for the battle when push to comes to shove this season and in the main in recent seasons in the big games.

When was the last time a premiership side really dominated an important game in Europe.

I would prefer to have the home tie first because if you dominate possession from the outset which you should had make that count in the first 45 minutes all the pressure falls on the away side and they will either hold back and take a loss to their home ground or push and you can increase your lead on the break.

Lets face it we were shocking in the first 45 minutes and that is where we lost this two legged tie.

Stupid mistake for the first goal and poor marking for the second.

Yes Barca should have had a third but despite our poor first half we could have got away with a 2-2 result , it should have been a 2-2 result despite our shocking lapses in the first half particularly from minutes 16 -40 to use a Mou line.

Shocking set up from the outset , poor defending and again too much respect for an invisible Neymar and a Messi that wouldn't have caused a well organised defence any dramas floating across the lines.

Despite AM losing to Leverkusen a well drilled Leverkusen mind you Barca wouldn't have had half the space we gave them in critical positions if they were up against AM instead of us.

 

[sam-caddick]

Being the home side first in Europe is always a complete nightmare, tactically the away team knows what to do sit tight and get an away goal, even if you lose away the second half can be turned around

You could set up the first leg with the clear priority not to concede an away goal, if a goal comes your way okay but set the stall out totally not to concede and get a 0-0
Draw the away leg 1-1 and go through ,its that tight in Europe the margins are very small
All the British teams who went out City Spurs Pool Celtic home in the first leg

This is why I hate the away goals rule.

The reason it was brought in was to make sure the away teams attacked which it did, but it just made the home teams become more cautious and defensive as a result.

Ridiculous ruling in my opinion.

 

[PragueBlue]

Good to see even yourself, who is about as anti Pellegrini as it gets, can acknowledge that rather than there being a raft of a tactical fuck ups, it was more than anything a case of the players not doing themselves justice in the first 45.

I don't see myself as anti-Pellegrini. I quite like the guy and think he's a decent manager. However, a few of his decisions baffle me and I remain far from convinced that he can take us much/any further than he has done.

I wasn't very happy when he got the job his but, on the whole, think he's done quite a good job thus far and was probably the right man for the job. That won't, however, stop me from questioning some of his decisions if I feel they are wrong.

Personally I feel he made a mistake with a central midfield 2 of Milner and Fernando but we're still in it and I remain hopeful he'll get it right and guide us through to the next round.

 

[kenzie115]

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.

Of course I understand that Nasri and Aguero might approach the same role differently you lemon, and thank you for not insulting my intelligence. Ordinarily I might have not made the Nasri/Jovetic distinction, and loosely classified any such team selections involving either of them in an advanced role as 4-4-1-1, but in the case of the game in Rome I remembered Nasri playing a very similar role to Silva in Munich last year, where Spanish Dave was pushed up right alongside Dzeko. A trip to the UEFA website pretty much confirmed that fact, and whilst Nasri might have dropped back further on occasion than someone like Aguero, who likes to play on the front foot, might have done, overall the pattern is clear - he played a very advanced role, and 4-4-2 was the best description for the formation IMO.
All of that though is a sideshow to the main debate, which was whether Fernando is capable of playing in a 4-4-2, the answer to which is still 'yes', if you give him the right supporting cast and use him against the right kind of opponent. Quite plainly that didn't happen against Barcelona any more than it did at home to Hull, but that does not make the man 'incapable'

I think the problem we have is that when I say 4-4-2, I think of our standard formation which involves Silva and Nasri as the "wingers", which of course they aren't. Perhaps my point should be that Fernando is not suited to a 4-2-2-2, which would be a more appropriate description of our usual set-up. I will never agree that Nasri in Rome or Silva in Munich played as strikers, their average position may have been that of a striker but they didn't play the game as a striker would. I will however go for 4-4-1-1 and with a flat midfield four, which in Rome had Navas and Milner wide, I believe Fernando can function efficiently. However, in Tuesday's game we clearly played a 4-2-2-2, and so Fernando was not suitable for the midfield role. I believe on this we agree.

To summarise, I personally feel Fernando would be best at the base of a midfield triangle with at least one of Yaya/Fernandinho and one of Yaya/Silva/Nasri in the most advanced role, but accept that he can be effective in the middle of a flat midfield 4, especially if the players ahead of this flat 4 are one playmaker and one striker.

 

[BillyShears]

Good to see even yourself, who is about as anti Pellegrini as it gets, can acknowledge that rather than there being a raft of a tactical fuck ups, it was more than anything a case of the players not doing themselves justice in the first 45.

I don't see myself as anti-Pellegrini. I quite like the guy and think he's a decent manager. However, a few of his decisions baffle me and I remain far from convinced that he can take us much/any further than he has done.

I wasn't very happy when he got the job his but, on the whole, think he's done quite a good job thus far and was probably the right man for the job. That won't, however, stop me from questioning some of his decisions if I feel they are wrong.

Personally I feel he made a mistake with a central midfield 2 of Milner and Fernando but we're still in it and I remain hopeful he'll get it right and guide us through to the next round.

I've said a couple of times but it's worth saying again. I thought it was at best a baffling decision and at worst an awful decision to pair those two and not play Fernandinho. Think we are in full agreement there.

With regards the idea that a manager, any manager, has taken the club as far as they can, it's a dangerous way to think when they are the current champions. There has to be IMO a fundamental breakdown in important relationships as between Mancini and the board/players. Otherwise as a club you simply never give a manager time to build anything because your standards are wildly unrealistic.

 

[PragueBlue]

Good to see even yourself, who is about as anti Pellegrini as it gets, can acknowledge that rather than there being a raft of a tactical fuck ups, it was more than anything a case of the players not doing themselves justice in the first 45.

I don't see myself as anti-Pellegrini. I quite like the guy and think he's a decent manager. However, a few of his decisions baffle me and I remain far from convinced that he can take us much/any further than he has done.

I wasn't very happy when he got the job his but, on the whole, think he's done quite a good job thus far and was probably the right man for the job. That won't, however, stop me from questioning some of his decisions if I feel they are wrong.

Personally I feel he made a mistake with a central midfield 2 of Milner and Fernando but we're still in it and I remain hopeful he'll get it right and guide us through to the next round.

I've said a couple of times but it's worth saying again. I thought it was at best a baffling decision and at worst an awful decision to pair those two and not play Fernandinho. Think we are in full agreement there.

With regards the idea that a manager, any manager, has taken the club as far as they can, it's a dangerous way to think when they are the current champions. There has to be IMO a fundamental breakdown in important relationships as between Mancini and the board/players. Otherwise as a club you simply never give a manager time to build anything because your standards are wildly unrealistic.

I agree to some extent but given Pellegrini's age, it was unlikely that he was a long-term appointment given the remit of building a dynasty. It seems to me that they don't really want managers much beyond 3 years anyway and the continuity and building will be done by the DOF/CEO.

 

[lastmanback]

Being the home side first in Europe is always a complete nightmare, tactically the away team knows what to do sit tight and get an away goal, even if you lose away the second half can be turned around

You could set up the first leg with the clear priority not to concede an away goal, if a goal comes your way okay but set the stall out totally not to concede and get a 0-0
Draw the away leg 1-1 and go through ,its that tight in Europe the margins are very small
All the British teams who went out City Spurs Pool Celtic home in the first leg

i think its more about the fact that English sides in the main have no bottle for the battle when push to comes to shove this season and in the main in recent seasons in the big games.

When was the last time a premiership side really dominated an important game in Europe.

I would prefer to have the home tie first because if you dominate possession from the outset which you should had make that count in the first 45 minutes all the pressure falls on the away side and they will either hold back and take a loss to their home ground or push and you can increase your lead on the break.

Lets face it we were shocking in the first 45 minutes and that is where we lost this two legged tie.

Stupid mistake for the first goal and poor marking for the second.

Yes Barca should have had a third but despite our poor first half we could have got away with a 2-2 result , it should have been a 2-2 result despite our shocking lapses in the first half particularly from minutes 16 -40 to use a Mou line.

Shocking set up from the outset , poor defending and again too much respect for an invisible Neymar and a Messi that wouldn't have caused a well organised defence any dramas floating across the lines.

Despite AM losing to Leverkusen a well drilled Leverkusen mind you Barca wouldn't have had half the space we gave them in critical positions if they were up against AM instead of us.

Barcelona have beaten AM three times all ready this season .