The main criticism I had of Pellegrini after his first 3 months in charge is that he is not adaptable. He plays the same way, no matter who we are playing. It makes us predictable and easy to figure out for opposition managers. In fairness to him, when we were without a striker in December, he changed the make up of the team, adapted and we played well. Credit to him for that. But really we only changed out of necessity.
Yesterday against Hull, if Yaya was fit, is there any doubt in anyone's mind whatsoever that he would have started? It would probably have been a straight swap for Fernando. As I mentioned earlier, they couldn't really be more different as players. Except for both looking rather lethargic on occasions, Yaya dominates the ball, dictates play, powers through oppositions with his strength and power. Fernando trudges around the centre circle hoping nobody notices he's hiding.
Yet despite these differences in their style of play, Pellegrini will swap them, one for one and expect the same outcome. This is Hull at home, a relegation fighting team. Yaya would have dominated their midfield, we would have took the game to them. Instead we play the apparently defensive minded Fernando. Why? Lampard or Milner are both better on the ball than Fernando, more drive going forwards, better passers, Milner has a higher work rate, Lampard has a great eye for goal. Yet Fernando is picked. Why?
If we were playing Tottenham at home yesterday we'd have picked exactly the same starting line up as we did against Hull. This despite the fact Tottenham are a high pressing, front foot team who play 4 at the back. Hull are a lethargic, relegation threatened team play 3 at the back, which you would assume means we could do with some width and pace to exploit the space down their wings. But Navas, despite coming off the back of his best game for City, is on the bench. Why?
I think the answer to both questions is that Pellegrini doesn't even consider the characteristics of the other team. It's basically an irrelevance to him. He thinks as long as we have "trust" it will all work out in the end. I understand this may have been passed down from above as part of the "hollistic" approach. Well is you are Barcelona 2009-2012 which are probably the best team ever assembled, and you are playing in a league where realistically only two other teams have got any chance of giving you a game, it's fine to be arrogant enough to just stick to what you like and not consider the opposition. But this is the Premier League, the most competitive league in the world. Anyone can beat anyone, as is proven every single week.
You have to take in to account the strengths and weaknesses of other teams, the strengths and weaknesses of your team, and come up with a game plan for every single game in order to win it. Ferguson did this for years. He may have stuck to the same kind of ideals, but if a team had a slow fullback, you can guarantee he's play his quickest winger against him. Pellegrini doesn't look at the game like that.
Navas playing well against Chelsea wasn't by design. It was an accident of being the only right winger available. If Nasri had been fit, Navas probably wouldn't have been played. Navas should have started against Hull to expose the space down their channels. Lampard or Milner should have played instead of Fernando because our midfield should have been on the front foot, not sitting deep and defending against Hull. This is not some kind of specialist tactical insight, it's just common sense!
Whether these decisions are being made by Pellegrini, or above his head, one thing is for sure, with our strongest 11 available, we are good enough to stick to our favoured shape / way of playing and beat anyone in this league. But when that strongest 11 is not available, we have to adapt. We have to analyse our opponents, analyse who we have available, and figure out a game plan of how to win.
Winning is more important than being holistic.
