Manuel Pellegrini

[Didsbury Dave]

Good post. He seems to be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. We'd just beaten United 4-1 last season when we played Bayern at home. He'd have been slaughtered if he'd changed the formation at that point but he went for it and was called naive as a result.

The one thing I will say is he does often seem to underestimate teams and react too late.

Yeah, he's definitely proved that he can be flexible with his line-ups and tactics despite what some think.

As for your last sentence, I can't disagree but is there a right and wrong time to make changes? The likes of Mourinho and Mancini prefer to make changes early in a game if things aren't going according to plan yet Ferguson was a bit more stubborn and tended to leave it until later in the match. All 3 of those managers have enjoyed success, particularly Mourinho and Ferguson yet they had different approaches so for me it isn't an exact science. Of course, if things go horribly awry early on in a match and the tactics prove to be clearly wrong then changes have to happen sooner. But a manager can end up making too many tactical changes which ends up confusing the players no end, ie: Mancini at Ajax away when he messed around with the defence so much that he ended up shunting Clichy to centre-back.

Good post.

I also think that one of the things which doesn't get acknowledged often enough is how Pellegrini makes changes to the instructions the starting XI must carry out. So you can start a match with Edin dropping off to pick up a midfield player, but end it with him playing off the left hand side. Or you can start a game with Nasri hugging the touchline, but he can quickly be find himself playing in a midfield 3 with Yaya and Dinho with Silva just in front of them. The manager reacts to what the opposition do in this way rather than in hauling one player off after 20 minutes, or fundamentally changing the shape of the side in both attacking and defensive phases of play.

I remember a post Rascal made recently in which he hit the nail on the head when he said that it's almost stupid to try and stick a label on what shape we play. Yes defensively we are set up nominally with two banks of four and the forwards either dropping deep or staying up, however when we attack it's pretty much a revolving door of who takes up what position. This is why it frustrates the fuck out of me when people see the name of two forwards on the team sheet and automatically assume that they're about to see some primitive get it wide and a get a cross in 442 formation.

I alluded to this earlier. You can see the way we make changes throughout the game if you are watching it properly. How often do we come out better in the second half? Lots of times. We went into half time on Tuesday having been poor for 30 minutes but having improved over the last 10 minutes of the half, because we were moving the ball quicker. And he'd clearly decided to introduce Milner after 35-40 mins because he started warming up.

He put Silva on the right and Milner on the left, to shore us up down that side and keep Maicon from bombing on. And that worked, but didn't stop Fernandinho getting isolated. So he introduced Lampard to solve that.

But as you say, there are other subtle changes going on all the time which get communicated from the bench. Wide men swapping, strikers dropping deep, defenders pushing the space etc.

 

[cleavers]

The "reacts too late" thing is never going to go away. You get used to managers and their philosophy on substitutions and Pellegrini's is clear: he backs his original judgement and gives the team time to "click". There have been countless games over the last year where we have started slowly, gone in at half time and then come out better second half after things have been discussed. That's why you mainly see his tactical changes in the 55-60 minute mark. It's how he operates. It isn't going to work every single time but it does work in most.

There was no clearer signal that he was unhappy with the way things were going on Tuesday than when Milner went to warm up 5 minutes before half time, then went in at half time, only to reappear within a couple of minutes to continue warming up. It was perhaps harsh on Navas who wasn't terrible, but it was what had been obvious for most of the half. Milner offers much more, he'll defend more, he can defend, he can tuck in and help in the centre, but he can still attack. Those who continue to claim he is "tactically naive" mustn't watch what goes on.

If it was obvious to most of the crowd that things weren't working after 15-20 minutes, you can be certain it was obvious to MP, and people assume he didn't try to change things earlier than half time, I'm sure he tried to get the players doing the things to change it, without need for change of personnel or formation, it was obvious what was needed, more cover for the fullbacks from Navas and Silva, and one of the strikers giving more help in the centre, I would imagine he was trying to get them to do this, but they just didn't respond, cue Milner warming up, someone he could rely on doing what was asked. Milner on the left, immediately shut down that option for Roma, and Zab is stronger than Clichy so it was the right move.

Lampard then changed the system and we created better attacks, without ever really creating good clear chances.

I've read too many saying he got it wrong on Tuesday, I don't think he did, just that players in the first 40 minutes didn't do what was required, with Yaya and Fernandhino put under too much pressure in the middle to keep the ball, and no support for either fullback allowing them to get runs at us down the side we looked pretty poor, and we couldn't get the ball forward.

I find it very frustrating that people just trot out the "tactically naive" cliché, or at least follow the media pundits like sheep with it, when in fact he made all the changes required to get things right, and we dominated the second half, something a lot of people seem to have dismissed completely, obviously the result is key, and ultimately, though the changes worked, we didn't get the winner.

Far too many people also assume we should win every game these days, but we have no divine right. I thought we'd beat Roma too, and I was certainly guilty of underestimating them because they are Italian, I thought they were a bit of fresh air for Italian football, in that they didn't have 10 behind the ball, and did look to attack, but I think that could also be their downfall against us at home.

 

[BobKowalski]

...Its a huge test for him now to take us to the next round of CL we will learn a lot about him in the two CSKA and the bayern/Roma games...

Not just Pellers but for the squad, the team and the club. At some point we have to stand up collectively and take what should be ours. In this case control of our own fortunes in the group and in the CL as a whole. The mentality exists within the group when it comes to the PL - two firsts and a second shows us that. Its now Pellers task to oversee a transfer of that mentality to the CL. We have the squad and the players we just need to unlock their potential when it comes to the CL.

I still think the biggest problem regarding the UCL is in the players' heads...

Yep and I think a lot of us have come to that conclusion. I had some sympathy for Pellers with his team choice. It was a weakened Roma and if we had started with the right tempo, attitude and application then we would have done better. Give us a nice 1 goal start and we should have been golden. Unfortunately the worms that seem to eat away in our collective heads meant tempo, attitude and application were largely absent which then highlights the weakness of his team choice. We needed more bodies in midfield and a better balance to compensate for this lack of tempo etc.

Perhaps we need a more conservative approach from the start that allows us to play our way into the game and asses the strength of the opposition. Maybe spending 45 mins been given the run around just feeds the doubts and insecurities meaning we never get control of the game even when we do change things.

Its a conundrum but clearly what we do now isn't working and simply repeating things in the hope it finally works isn't much of an answer.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

The "reacts too late" thing is never going to go away. You get used to managers and their philosophy on substitutions and Pellegrini's is clear: he backs his original judgement and gives the team time to "click". There have been countless games over the last year where we have started slowly, gone in at half time and then come out better second half after things have been discussed. That's why you mainly see his tactical changes in the 55-60 minute mark. It's how he operates. It isn't going to work every single time but it does work in most.

There was no clearer signal that he was unhappy with the way things were going on Tuesday than when Milner went to warm up 5 minutes before half time, then went in at half time, only to reappear within a couple of minutes to continue warming up. It was perhaps harsh on Navas who wasn't terrible, but it was what had been obvious for most of the half. Milner offers much more, he'll defend more, he can defend, he can tuck in and help in the centre, but he can still attack. Those who continue to claim he is "tactically naive" mustn't watch what goes on.

If it was obvious to most of the crowd that things weren't working after 15-20 minutes, you can be certain it was obvious to MP, and people assume he didn't try to change things earlier than half time, I'm sure he tried to get the players doing the things to change it, without need for change of personnel or formation, it was obvious what was needed, more cover for the fullbacks from Navas and Silva, and one of the strikers giving more help in the centre, I would imagine he was trying to get them to do this, but they just didn't respond, cue Milner warming up, someone he could rely on doing what was asked. Milner on the left, immediately shut down that option for Roma, and Zab is stronger than Clichy so it was the right move.

Lampard then changed the system and we created better attacks, without ever really creating good clear chances.

I've read too many saying he got it wrong on Tuesday, I don't think he did, just that players in the first 40 minutes didn't do what was required, with Yaya and Fernandhino put under too much pressure in the middle to keep the ball, and no support for either fullback allowing them to get runs at us down the side we looked pretty poor, and we couldn't get the ball forward.

I find it very frustrating that people just trot out the "tactically naive" cliché, or at least follow the media pundits like sheep with it, when in fact he made all the changes required to get things right, and we dominated the second half, something a lot of people seem to have dismissed completely, obviously the result is key, and ultimately, though the changes worked, we didn't get the winner.

Far too many people also assume we should win every game these days, but we have no divine right. I thought we'd beat Roma too, and I was certainly guilty of underestimating them because they are Italian, I thought they were a bit of fresh air for Italian football, in that they didn't have 10 behind the ball, and did look to attack, but I think that could also be their downfall against us at home.

Haha. Similar anaylsis to the one I posted at exactly the same time.

Another point: whilst the simplistic analysis at half time was to go to 4231 to shore up the midfield, it would have meant the withdrawal of Dzeko - who looked our biggest threat, and it wouldn't have solved the problem of Maicon getting forward. A manager has to take the whole picture into consideration, and I think Pellegrini does that well usually.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

The "reacts too late" thing is never going to go away. You get used to managers and their philosophy on substitutions and Pellegrini's is clear: he backs his original judgement and gives the team time to "click". There have been countless games over the last year where we have started slowly, gone in at half time and then come out better second half after things have been discussed. That's why you mainly see his tactical changes in the 55-60 minute mark. It's how he operates. It isn't going to work every single time but it does work in most.

There was no clearer signal that he was unhappy with the way things were going on Tuesday than when Milner went to warm up 5 minutes before half time, then went in at half time, only to reappear within a couple of minutes to continue warming up. It was perhaps harsh on Navas who wasn't terrible, but it was what had been obvious for most of the half. Milner offers much more, he'll defend more, he can defend, he can tuck in and help in the centre, but he can still attack. Those who continue to claim he is "tactically naive" mustn't watch what goes on.

If it was obvious to most of the crowd that things weren't working after 15-20 minutes, you can be certain it was obvious to MP, and people assume he didn't try to change things earlier than half time, I'm sure he tried to get the players doing the things to change it, without need for change of personnel or formation, it was obvious what was needed, more cover for the fullbacks from Navas and Silva, and one of the strikers giving more help in the centre, I would imagine he was trying to get them to do this, but they just didn't respond, cue Milner warming up, someone he could rely on doing what was asked. Milner on the left, immediately shut down that option for Roma, and Zab is stronger than Clichy so it was the right move.

Lampard then changed the system and we created better attacks, without ever really creating good clear chances.

I've read too many saying he got it wrong on Tuesday, I don't think he did, just that players in the first 40 minutes didn't do what was required, with Yaya and Fernandhino put under too much pressure in the middle to keep the ball, and no support for either fullback allowing them to get runs at us down the side we looked pretty poor, and we couldn't get the ball forward.

I find it very frustrating that people just trot out the "tactically naive" cliché, or at least follow the media pundits like sheep with it, when in fact he made all the changes required to get things right, and we dominated the second half, something a lot of people seem to have dismissed completely, obviously the result is key, and ultimately, though the changes worked, we didn't get the winner.

Far too many people also assume we should win every game these days, but we have no divine right. I thought we'd beat Roma too, and I was certainly guilty of underestimating them because they are Italian, I thought they were a bit of fresh air for Italian football, in that they didn't have 10 behind the ball, and did look to attack, but I think that could also be their downfall against us at home.

Haha. Similar anaylsis to the one I posted at exactly the same time.

Another point: whilst the simplistic analysis at half time was to go to 4231 to shore up the midfield, it would have meant the withdrawal of Dzeko - who looked our biggest threat, and it wouldn't have solved the problem of Maicon getting forward. A manager has to take the whole picture into consideration, and I think Pellegrini does that well usually.

Hindsight aside, do you think playing Yaya in a MF 2 was the right call against a team like Roma?

 

[BillyShears]

Hindsight aside, do you think playing Yaya in a MF 2 was the right call against a team like Roma?

Are Roma a better team than Chelsea? Do they have midfielders better capable of passing and moving the ball quickly than Chelsea?

I think the answer to your question has been answered several times over the course of the last few pages. We didn't draw because we played two in midfield, we drew because collectively the players were below par.

And the criticism of Toure's performances is becoming rank. He is slowly getting back to his best and was very good against Roma. Out passed, out ran, out everythinged Pjanic, supposedly the best player on the pitch that night.

 

[OB1]

All is not lost by any means so let's keep some perspective.

Take 6 from Moscow and we'll be sat on 7 with Bayern (h) and Roma (a) to go.

Hopefully Bayern do the double on Roma and they'll have qualified on 12 by the time they come to us.

Beat them at the Etihad and we'll be laughing.

Fully agree. I think we're capable of beating both Bayern and Roma, let alone just one of them.

I still think we're one result away from the penny metaphorically dropping for the players in Europe. Hopefully it'll be one of those two games.

In the meantime lets concentrate on Villa this weekend. We need to keep the routine wins coming in the league to keep the pressure on Jose's mob.

We just need to go one game at a time. It's a cliche but for a good reason and if last season wasn't proof of that...

 

[OB1]

This is the same Pellegrini who this time went to Bayern first game up and kept things compact and defensive so that we could get a point. We came very very close but left with nothing. He learnt from last season and credit to him - it was evidence of him adapting his style. 1pt in that game and 3pts from Roma and the situation is completely different. It is tough from here but if we play with nothing to lose we can win all 4 remaining games. Not time to panic yet.

Good post. He seems to be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. We'd just beaten United 4-1 last season when we played Bayern at home. He'd have been slaughtered if he'd changed the formation at that point but he went for it and was called naive as a result.

The one thing I will say is he does often seem to underestimate teams and react too late.

Before we played United the sheep on this forum were bleating the same cliches. "Play 442 and they'll overrun us" and all this. We went out and destroyed them. Not a single baa was heard on here the following week.

The "reacts too late" thing is never going to go away. You get used to managers and their philosophy on substitutions and Pellegrini's is clear: he backs his original judgement and gives the team time to "click". There have been countless games over the last year where we have started slowly, gone in at half time and then come out better second half after things have been discussed. That's why you mainly see his tactical changes in the 55-60 minute mark. It's how he operates. It isn't going to work every single time but it does work in most.

I am quite sure Pellegrini can see what all the experts in the stands think they see more clearly but his style is not knee jerk reactions at the first sign of trouble. He prepares his team and he expects his players to display some intelligence in reacting to things on the field rather than treating them as wooden headed chess pieces. If supporters don't like that, they can bleat on about it - it's a free country - but he won't suddenly be changing his ways so I suggest people learn to live with and see where we end up rather than having a mad panic when we don't win a game.

He won two trophies last year, including the title, a feat no other City manager has delivered. Yes, he did have the best squad that any City manager has ever had but that was the only way in which he was lucky. We won two trophies in style and that was in no small part due to him being a top manager. Let's not forget that he had to reignite a squad that had badly underachieved in the preceding season (and that is not a dig at anyone just a statement of fact).

 

[hgblue]

Not just Pellers but for the squad, the team and the club. At some point we have to stand up collectively and take what should be ours. In this case control of our own fortunes in the group and in the CL as a whole. The mentality exists within the group when it comes to the PL - two firsts and a second shows us that. Its now Pellers task to oversee a transfer of that mentality to the CL. We have the squad and the players we just need to unlock their potential when it comes to the CL.

I still think the biggest problem regarding the UCL is in the players' heads...

Yep and I think a lot of us have come to that conclusion. I had some sympathy for Pellers with his team choice. It was a weakened Roma and if we had started with the right tempo, attitude and application then we would have done better. Give us a nice 1 goal start and we should have been golden. Unfortunately the worms that seem to eat away in our collective heads meant tempo, attitude and application were largely absent which then highlights the weakness of his team choice. We needed more bodies in midfield and a better balance to compensate for this lack of tempo etc.

Perhaps we need a more conservative approach from the start that allows us to play our way into the game and asses the strength of the opposition. Maybe spending 45 mins been given the run around just feeds the doubts and insecurities meaning we never get control of the game even when we do change things.

Its a conundrum but clearly what we do now isn't working and simply repeating things in the hope it finally works isn't much of an answer.

If we win the Champs League playing 442 I'll wear a United top to work. There's not a cat in hells chance. A more pragmatic approach is required in Europe and it's so blindingly obvious as to be incredibly frustrating that the manager can't see it. Or can he? He certainly went more conservative after the debacle against Munich, so I live in hope that he'll do so again.

 

[uwe rosler 28]

Think everyone is missing the most glaring obvious reason why we were counter attacked so often in the first half against roma it was nothing to do with being over run and only having 2 in midfield the problem was we couldn't pass the ball to a blue shirt we couldn't find the space to work in the forwards players were woeful at holding the ball up all things you need to be good at to play that formation to have threw an extra body in the midfield would have just made it worse. People will say it was better when lampard come on but roma had ran out of gas then and had settled for a point they were sat on the edge of there box and give us all the space we wanted in the midfield.