de niro said:
Shaelumstash said:
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.
