Manuel Pellegrini (cont)

[supercity88]

I think you have to be consistent in how much credit or stick you give to managers. Mancini lost the plot in the season he was sacked. He gave up on the title the day we lost at home to the rags. He said Van Persie was the signing that would win them the league and threw a hissy because we failed to sign him. The reason we failed to win the league was because it was clear the players were lacking motivation which was largely down to frustration with the manager.

We were woeful in the CL – awful. We got to the final of the FA Cup which is still a great season in many regards, or would have been had we won it.

Similarly this season we have been inconsistent and we are having a spell that should see us miss out on the title. How awful have Arsenal, Liverpool and the rags been this season. How much better is our squad? Yet look how many points they are behind. In the case of the rags at least it isn’t far at all. Look what Southampton are doing, and they’ve had injuries themselves.

The bottom line is when you score as many as we did last season the defence doesn’t really matter. We were winning games. This season though we simply aren’t creating as much and with the defence we have it’s leading to poor results. The manager has to sort that out. Against Chelsea we defended well, although Kompany was clearly not sharp enough and didn’t show the composure we need at the back.

Interestingly our best spell this season has actually been when we lacked much firepower up top. We had to defend well as we were without a recognised striker. We did defend well and we picked up goals here and there. Professional performances. It’s what Chelsea have done for the most part this season.

As has been mentioned you can win the league by beating your rivals or you can win it by beating everyone else. Last season we slipped up several times and lost to rivals – we won through because aside from Arsenal all the other teams had developing squads or new managers.

This season we should have been kicking on the way Chelsea have. We should have been showing the same improvements. Maybe not thrashing teams the same way but defending well, playing good football and winning games. Winning 2-0 and then conceding twice to Burnley at home is complacency. So what do you do as a manager before the next game? You tell your team to stop fucking about and see the game out – play the full 90+ minutes and perform as well in the first minute as in the last. Instead we went out and did exactly the same before winning the game. So is all good and well? No! The result clouded the recurring issue. We then throw away a 1-0 lead at Goodison within a couple of minutes when we should be knuckling down and seeing the game out. We get out played by Arsenal and then nearly lose to Hull.

At Chelsea we showed desire, hunger, passion and should have won. But we didn’t. The last thing we then could do was fail to win. Pellegrini has to sort out the defence, he has to get the players performing and he has to get them winning games. Fernandinho looks like he’s done. He won a couple of trophies, got in the Brazil team and now he’s picturing retiring back in Brazil. This summer either way requires a big sort out. It’s time for some youth to be involved and unless we finish the season with a trophy or with real improvement it’s time to really consider the managerial position. It depends who might be available. You see what Simeone is doing with Atletico up against two teams that run that league and monopolise it – you have to think he’s worth pursuing. Especially if he can bring some of his creative players with him!

I like Pellegrini, last season was fantastic. But I like winning trophies and I hate Mourinho! I’m sure he can turn it around but we don’t look like a team that just won the league.

 

[uwe rosler 28]

To start 4 players that weren't fully fit on saturday was criminal you could tell after 30 mins that dzeko and nasri were nowhere near ready! Both should have been taken off at half time but were kept on! Add to that that he played 2 players that woefully out of form in zabba, fernando I could understand if he didn't have options to replace them but milner, navas and sagna all had good games last week and would have been better options and jojo could have replaced dzeko! Sometimes I wonder who is actually picking the team ! Time for change at the end of the season all out for pep or give paddy the job they won't be a yes man and definitely won't take the shit the players have been playing week in week out!

 

[Marvin]

Clichy was superb under Mancini and still is

Unfair to look at he layers form in our worst period in 4 years. Had you asked this when we won two trophies last season, you'd get a different answer

We will come good again. but we have learned something about our players. Kompany needs to shed his arrogance and start playing like every game is his last. With Toure gone we have one less leader on the pitch. Against Hull we had Clichy and Nasri who looked up for it, and no one else

 

[jollylescott]

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.

Post of the thread and by some distance.

Some astute observations in this comment. It's certainly an interesting philosophical approach if that is the way he approaches a game and develops a game plan.

In this age of modern football analysis, where all sorts of stats are available at the push of a button, I would be astonished if Pellegrini didn't obtain detailed data of the opposition, study the tapes of their games in collaboration with his managerial team, and then pick the team accordingly. I recall a few months ago the EDS squad sitting down in front of banks of computers and Paddy running through data on their performances, both collectively and individually. By studying this sort of data players at all levels can develop insights into their own performances as well as that of the team.

If the holistic approach means that we adopt a particular style irrespective of who we play, then that would clearly be madness. In defence of Pellers there have been quite a few modifications to the 442 which, to be fair, carried us largely to the title last season.

However the problem now is that other teams HAVE studied our style and worked out an approach that will work against us. This has been clearly evident against the lower placed teams. Rather than say 'why is it that Burnley/Hull/Middlesborough' play 'like Real Madrid' against us, the real question is have they worked out tactics to defuse us, and if so what have we then done to adapt our style accordingly?

Because other teams now have more confidence as they have developed a similar game plan, the fear factor of coming to the Etihad expecting to lose has gone. Teams are now believing that they can get a result, and guess what, they are.

Therefore Pellegrini has to change our approach. That's why he is being paid top dollar. I hope between now and the end of the season we do see evidence of this. I think the return of Yaya and the arrival of Bony will go a long way to returning us to some semblance of top form.

Nevertheless in my view is the responsibility of both Txiki and Pellegrini to figure out a way to counter the standard opposition approach against us. We need to be more flexible, more adaptable, and more responsive to the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition team. This means not taking, for example, the approach in the Hull game of playing two defensive midfielders, and playing Ed up front without anyone to cross the ball to him.

I sincerely hope Pellegrini has learnt a very big lesson from that game. I am praying that he picks a team to play Stoke which reflects the strengths of the opposition (for example playing Mangala because of his strength in the air).

We still have the key players who won us the title. The ability is there. The pressure is now firmly on Pellegrini to somehow get them back into form.

 

[hgblue]

I think you have to be consistent in how much credit or stick you give to managers. Mancini lost the plot in the season he was sacked. He gave up on the title the day we lost at home to the rags. He said Van Persie was the signing that would win them the league and threw a hissy because we failed to sign him. The reason we failed to win the league was because it was clear the players were lacking motivation which was largely down to frustration with the manager.

We were woeful in the CL – awful. We got to the final of the FA Cup which is still a great season in many regards, or would have been had we won it.

Similarly this season we have been inconsistent and we are having a spell that should see us miss out on the title. How awful have Arsenal, Liverpool and the rags been this season. How much better is our squad? Yet look how many points they are behind. In the case of the rags at least it isn’t far at all. Look what Southampton are doing, and they’ve had injuries themselves.

The bottom line is when you score as many as we did last season the defence doesn’t really matter. We were winning games. This season though we simply aren’t creating as much and with the defence we have it’s leading to poor results. The manager has to sort that out. Against Chelsea we defended well, although Kompany was clearly not sharp enough and didn’t show the composure we need at the back.

Interestingly our best spell this season has actually been when we lacked much firepower up top. We had to defend well as we were without a recognised striker. We did defend well and we picked up goals here and there. Professional performances. It’s what Chelsea have done for the most part this season.

As has been mentioned you can win the league by beating your rivals or you can win it by beating everyone else. Last season we slipped up several times and lost to rivals – we won through because aside from Arsenal all the other teams had developing squads or new managers.

This season we should have been kicking on the way Chelsea have. We should have been showing the same improvements. Maybe not thrashing teams the same way but defending well, playing good football and winning games. Winning 2-0 and then conceding twice to Burnley at home is complacency. So what do you do as a manager before the next game? You tell your team to stop fucking about and see the game out – play the full 90+ minutes and perform as well in the first minute as in the last. Instead we went out and did exactly the same before winning the game. So is all good and well? No! The result clouded the recurring issue. We then throw away a 1-0 lead at Goodison within a couple of minutes when we should be knuckling down and seeing the game out. We get out played by Arsenal and then nearly lose to Hull.

At Chelsea we showed desire, hunger, passion and should have won. But we didn’t. The last thing we then could do was fail to win. Pellegrini has to sort out the defence, he has to get the players performing and he has to get them winning games. Fernandinho looks like he’s done. He won a couple of trophies, got in the Brazil team and now he’s picturing retiring back in Brazil. This summer either way requires a big sort out. It’s time for some youth to be involved and unless we finish the season with a trophy or with real improvement it’s time to really consider the managerial position. It depends who might be available. You see what Simeone is doing with Atletico up against two teams that run that league and monopolise it – you have to think he’s worth pursuing. Especially if he can bring some of his creative players with him!

I like Pellegrini, last season was fantastic. But I like winning trophies and I hate Mourinho! I’m sure he can turn it around but we don’t look like a team that just won the league.

You hit the nail on the head when you correctly state that our best results have been achieved when Pellegrini was forced to adopt a more pragmatic approach. No Silva, no Aguero, no Kompany, no Dzeko, and we go on a long unbeaten run that put us back in the title race and rescued our European campaign. I'd have thought that a penny would have dropped and we would have learned some lessons from this, but no, back to plan A on Saturday with a result and performance that would have come as no surprise to some, We're not calling for a more pragmatic approach because we're anti-Pellegrini, but because we have the best interests of the club at heart, just as much as those who have been solidly behind the manager. We just happen to disagree about what the best approach is.

 

[kenzie115]

We need to change our style a bit, it’s currently all too predictable. We concentrate so much on retaining possession that teams know they can sit deep, allow us to have the ball in our third and the middle third and we’ll just knock it around nice and slowly. They move like a table football team, from side to side across the edge of their box, waiting for us to eventually try and pass through the lines. When we do play forward passes, too many players don’t believe they can make the difficult pass and so choose the easy option and just keep the ball. We don’t wear the opposition down because we don’t switch play quickly enough, it’s all two and three touches.

What we need is actually to give the ball away more often. It sounds counter-productive, but if we tried riskier passes, tried being more adventurous with our movement and general play, we’d either find ourselves creating an opening (i.e. if the risky pass was successful) or we’d surrender possession. By giving the opposition more of the ball, they feel like they have to do something with it. This will draw them out. If they try and pass the ball around in their default position, on the edge of their own box, they’re risking us winning it back in a dangerous area, so they’ll start to move up the pitch. Obviously them having more of the ball will mean they have more attacks. However, if we anticipate this, we can set up to defend properly, with players in position. I’d rather face 30 attacks a game from the opposition where we are set up to defend, than 10 counter attacks with the majority of our players in the opposition’s half. The main advantage to this though would be we’d have more space in the opposition’s half when we attacked, provided we’re a little more direct, which would give us a much better chance of creating an opening. Basically, we’d attack less often and defend more often, but we’d be more dangerous when attacking and be more prepared when defending.

So far this season, we only changed our style when our hand was forced through injuries, and this coincided with our best run of form. Now that we’ve got an almost full complement of players to choose from, we’re back to the predictable, slow build up play with a lack of cutting edge and penetration. I’m hoping Bony’s introduction to the side will result in or coincide with a slight change in style, if not, I can see us struggling (relatively so) through to the end of the season and the best we can hope for is 2nd place. However, get it right and we could go on a run like Liverpool did last season and push Chelsea all the way.

While Bony’s introduction will be one key moment in the coming weeks, I also see the Barca tie as another. There’s no way we’ll play our usual game against Barca, even if we weren’t struggling with it domestically, I’d still expect to see a change of approach for these games. This could work in our favour, and if we manage to progress, it’ll be such a lift for the whole club, that it could push us on towards the title too.

 

[Shaelumstash]

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.

Post of the thread and by some distance.

Thanks a lot mate. Most of the other mods have accused me of being a WUM for saying similar things, good to know at least one mod has got his head screwed on :-)

Roll on Wednesday, let's go and stuff them and show them why we're champions.

 

[the originalkippaxman]

Some great posts on here. My concern with Pellegrini is he doesn't seem to have an idea of what qualities and strengths his players can offer and in what formation.

Fernando and Fernandinho work well together in a 4-5-1 which is allowing a creative midfielder behind the striker. They have never worked well together in a 4-4-2. They are very similar in being a defence midfielder breaking play up with very limited creativity. That is not a bad thing we had a great example in that when we had Nigel. Pelle got it so badly wrong on Saturday and should have played Milner in the middle instead of one of them or play with 1 up front. He is making too many of these mistakes with his formations thinking he can just throw 11 men out and they will get the win.

 

[flb]

Some great posts on here. My concern with Pellegrini is he doesn't seem to have an idea of what qualities and strengths his players can offer and in what formation.

Fernando and Fernandinho work well together in a 4-5-1 which is allowing a creative midfielder behind the striker. They have never worked well together in a 4-4-2. They are very similar in being a defence midfielder breaking play up with very limited creativity. That is not a bad thing we had a great example in that when we had Nigel. Pelle got it so badly wrong on Saturday and should have played Milner in the middle instead of one of them or play with 1 up front. He is making too many of these mistakes with his formations thinking he can just throw 11 men out and they will get the win.

Fuck knows what formation and team he will play then once Bony is in the team

44 fucking 2 i presume !

 

[OB1]

I think he has had fairly abysmal luck with refereeing decisions; yet again yesterday we were denied a stonewall penalty.

Do you think we need to start bitching about that? We don't have to go full on Mourinho but it does send out a message to the team as much as anyone else. Sometimes being seen to fight battles is just as useful as winning them. There is a sort of 'passive acceptance' about us at the moment and maybe the players would like to see the guy in charge of the team taking up the fight on their behalf. Anything right now to shake things up could prove useful.

Just a thought.

I think the club has a way in which it wants its represenatives to comport themselves and it does not include public bitching. That message should go throughout the club and be understood by all. The club should track these things and give the manager ammo to gently make some points in his pressers if need be and behind the scenes, if it is justified, we should put pressure on the relevant authorities.