Our inability to set up properly for big games

[mancity1]

A lot of the non pressing was duecto our fear of Leicester's speed. Hence why I continue to point out we really didn't play a high line. Fernandihno often just stayed close to Okazaki, and the CBs (mostly) played the over and under on Vardy too. But every now and then Otamendi would go Rambo for the ball. Fortunately, none of these cost us.

But watching strictly from a tactical rigidity point of view, Silva Zab and Ota were the three worst players tactically. Zab and Silva were particularly bad. Aguero too was very poor tactically and often giving our players no outlet up front by coming down into the middle.

This lack of a Striker outlet early was a big part of our leisurely pace. But since fans don't want to be totally honest here, they often pick on the easy targets.

Watch someone accuse me of slagging Aguero next :)

I will be totally honest.

Defensively we were poor and we conceded two soft goals at set pieces because we failed in doing the basics which has been a hallmark of insipid performances far too often this season.

We got hammered in mid field and to a man every one of our players were not interested in putting any sort of pressure on the opposition when they had the ball.

Basic stuff like letting Vardy run off our last man is just abysmal defending and it was good for us he didn't have his shooting boots on but in truth he didn't need them on Saturday.

If we do the same against Spurs we will get tonked pure and simple , they are faster than us , fitter than us , are passing better than us , creating more space for their players to run it than us and can keep possession better than we do so we will have to change things drastically from last Saturday if we are to avoid being embarrassed again.

The fact that both Leicester and Spurs do not and would not hold a candle to many sides in Europe and by any measure in the past couldn't compete with City sides of the past not only in one off games but over 38 games is a stark reminder of how far we have regressed.

You can blame the manager or the players or both or blame no one if you so choose but it doesn't change the fact that we are playing very average football this year and cannot cope with sides that press and are quick on the break.

As many have said we are one of the easiest sides to work out and play against and give sides an unnecessary advantage because we don't want to do what is required to stamp authority on games.

It requires work rate , desire , organisation , teamwork and pace to name but a few of the things needed at a higher level than your opponent and we don't have it in our squad at present.

Anybody who thinks our midfield did what they were supposed to do on Saturday are kidding themselves.

Not only they did defend poorly , they were nowhere near quick enough or position themselves well enough to assist or be on the end of crosses that might have given their keeper a moment of angst and that included Toure and Ferny.

 

[Dax777]

It's very different watching a live game as you see everything going on, rather than what the director is showing you. You make some interesting points but to take the one about the high defensive line. The point of that is to compress the midfield, so that you can press the opponents high up the field. We usually play with our defensive line about 15-20 yards in front of the 18-yard box but what we don't do is have our midfield close enough to that line to make life difficult for our opponents. Our midfield, particularly players like Silva and Toure, simply don't work hard enough closing opposition players down meaning the defenders are too often exposed to opposition players coming at them, often with with equal numbers or even numerical superiority. We may have been playing a high defensive line on Saturday but Kante and Drinkwater had the run of midfield and were first to every ball. If we's had bodies in the right positions who were prepared to work as hard as those two, we'd have been fine.

But we didn't so they were able to come at us a number of times. On three occasions Joe Hart saved us when Vardy beat the high lines but any or all of those could have resulted in goals so it could easily have harmed us. And in any case, it's well know that the high line is easily countered by pace and long balls and it's no secret that's exactly the way Leicester play so it was asking for trouble to even try it unless we had a plan to cut off their supply. If we did, it wasn't much in evidence.

I agree the high line wasn't responsible for the first or last Leicester goals but look how far up the field Zabaleta and Otamendi were when they tried to tackle Mahrez. Under Pep, the back four would form a defensive screen so that if the first player were beaten, another one would cover. Yet Mahrez was able to skip past a number of players who weren't in any way organised to cover.

You may have convinced yourself that we had an effective plan and weren't actually that bad but any of us who were there would tell you that apart from the ten minutes after the first goal, we were a poor second all over the park.

Since Liverpool, you could view every City game in tactical CAM mode on the NBC Sports Extra App. Ask any blue who leaves in the States. You literally can get home from work and fire up Tactical CAM and watch a replay of any game from this weekend.

It's like being at the stadium, but having the ability to rewind. So the claim of 'you weren't at the stadium' hasn't been legitimate for a while now, but that's neither here nor there.

True, I watch the directors cut live. As i go to bars to watch with other blues, or Rags and dippers sometimes. I personally also find this more enjoyable. Replays are an added bonus. B

But once the emotions are calmed down. Ans im back home I tend to fire up the Tactical CAM and rewatch for tactical nuance.

Then sometimes rewatch while chatting with friends, and sometimes while chatting here or when the stats suggests something I didn't pick up.

True, I'm a bit of a nutter about City, and football tactics and statistics in general.

However, I reckon our preexisting perceptions may sway our conclusions one way or the other. Hence why I spend most of my time here challenging the facts. Because I know its only when we begin to agree on the facts that perception can budge. Mines and those of others who disagree with me.

Oh btw, Im not watching vit right now :)

 

[Walking on the blue moon]

i`ve seen at first hand pelligrini`s team selections, imo he is that bad. just in case you`ve forgotten 4-1 against spurs, 1-4 against liverpool, 2-0 destroyed against the might stoke perhaps as bad a performance as i`ve seen since the start of the mancini days if not the hughes day, how many time has manuel got a tune out of this team

No I haven't, indeed I think performance-wise the one against Leicester is not as bad in comparison, though context-wise it's the most severe blow to our title bid. So that's why I think some of the comments here got blown out of proportions. And time is a curious thing isn't it, mancini made as many mistakes as pellegrini (the time he tried 3-5-2?), particularly in the dressing room (which is one of the most dangerous things in football), so it's like pot and kettle. But at the end of the day, this doesn't change the fact that pellegrini is one of the top coaches footballing world has the offer, albeit not one to take us a level further. There is no need to ask him resign or things like that. He may still be able to replicate what he did at the end of last season and turn this around. And Pep is coming after all.

God, I'm nineteen and somehow you lot are even more impatient than me.

 

[Walking on the blue moon]

Ok I spelt causal wrong - my android device sadly - however...

Correlation and Causation in defending

Struggling to defend in one aspect of the defensive game e.g. defending a high line against ANY opposition - in this case Vardy and Mahrez) has a positive correlation on our inability to defend ANY situation against the same team.

This happens everywhere in human physiology. Failure or panic in one aspect of our lives spreads to other related aspects of our lives and there is nothing you can do about it unless you happen to be:
1. A psychopath -or-
2. Located deep into the autistic spectrum where the mind is so attuned to doing something well that nothing can effect it's performance.

This positive correlation has been determined to exist by many, may years of human experiments.
Now whether you believe this positive correlation is a fluke or a causal relationship (i.e. the first triggers the second) depends on the nature of the two tasks and on how closely related the two tasks are.

The presence of stress caused by one activity definitely is ONE causal relationship on the performance of other similar activities. There are years and years of scientific evidence to back this up. For example:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=psychology+when+a+positive+correlation+is+actually+a+causal+relationship&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

So unless you care to state that stress has no effect on defending it is a FACT that there is a causal relationship between defending a high line badly and defending other situations. Of course you may simply continue to state that the two are not related or you may state that our defenders are psychopaths or defensive savants.

While it is true that the stress generated may have adversely affected our defensive performance, it doesn't mean that Leicester's goals are caused by a high line. There are after all too many confounders for it to be closely correlated enough to be a cause. Two of the goals came from set-pieces, but whether it is down to psychological stress or just poor training, no one knows. As for the times those half chances you deem caused by a high line of defence, well we have a couple of those during the game too. If we had capitalized on that, the game might have turned out very differently. But that's beside the point. In fact, only the second goal, which was due to a series of individual errors, could be related to the stress resulted from the failure of a high line to cope with the pace Leicester. However, frustration at the other end of the pitch, careless handling on the ball at attack and a lapse of concentration are also important factors to be considered too. So at the end of the day one cannot draw the conclusion that a high line defence caused poor defending just because of one GENERALISED theory that does not take into account the specific context of the event.

 

[BlueAnorak]

While it is true that the stress generated may have adversely affected our defensive performance, it doesn't mean that Leicester's goals are caused by a high line. There are after all too many confounders for it to be closely correlated enough to be a cause. Two of the goals came from set-pieces, but whether it is down to psychological stress or just poor training, no one knows. As for the times those half chances you deem caused by a high line of defence, well we have a couple of those during the game too. If we had capitalized on that, the game might have turned out very differently. But that's beside the point. In fact, only the second goal, which was due to a series of individual errors, could be related to the stress resulted from the failure of a high line to cope with the pace Leicester. However, frustration at the other end of the pitch, careless handling on the ball at attack and a lapse of concentration are also important factors to be considered too. So at the end of the day one cannot draw the conclusion that a high line defence caused poor defending just because of one GENERALISED theory that does not take into account the specific context of the event.

If you defend a highish line badly - and we did (see PB's eloquent post on the subject) you put pressure on yourselves and quite simply this results in a higher chance of the teams set piece defending going tits up. By being bad in one part of the defensive game plan, it loads the dice against you elsewhere in the defensive game plan my making it more likely that you will make a mistake elsewhere. It's human nature and indeed a scientific fact.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Ah! You've laid it on thick here with the fallacies: Correlation as Causation, appeal to authority, and a red herring counter.

No, I'm not biting. The statement was the supposed 'highline' had no direct effect on the goals conceded. I.E Goals were not conceded due to a breach of the high line.

Increased levels of stress in defending is simply a red herring. Playing the game at all, increases the stress level of the defenders. Conceding early, increases their stress levels too. That by the way happened before we we took control. Or had our defenders playing up with the team.

FFS, Not getting calls affects the stress levels. The weather, affects the stress levels. All these events have a positive correlational effect on the stress levels of the participants. Yet no one is arguing God caused the goals.

So increased stress is a non sequitur.

But I appreciate the link though: I found this article:

'Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being'

To be well worth the click.

So sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" are you?
Thank goodness Pep takes Sports Phycology seriously and will make sure our players are properly conditioned to reduce the impact of bad events in one area of the game on other areas.
Oh read his books by the way if you want evidence for that. Getting players heads focused on playing as a team is just about his number one priority.

 

[JC2]

I will be totally honest.

Defensively we were poor and we conceded two soft goals at set pieces because we failed in doing the basics which has been a hallmark of insipid performances far too often this season.

We got hammered in mid field and to a man every one of our players were not interested in putting any sort of pressure on the opposition when they had the ball.

Basic stuff like letting Vardy run off our last man is just abysmal defending and it was good for us he didn't have his shooting boots on but in truth he didn't need them on Saturday.

If we do the same against Spurs we will get tonked pure and simple , they are faster than us , fitter than us , are passing better than us , creating more space for their players to run it than us and can keep possession better than we do so we will have to change things drastically from last Saturday if we are to avoid being embarrassed again.

The fact that both Leicester and Spurs do not and would not hold a candle to many sides in Europe and by any measure in the past couldn't compete with City sides of the past not only in one off games but over 38 games is a stark reminder of how far we have regressed.

You can blame the manager or the players or both or blame no one if you so choose but it doesn't change the fact that we are playing very average football this year and cannot cope with sides that press and are quick on the break.

As many have said we are one of the easiest sides to work out and play against and give sides an unnecessary advantage because we don't want to do what is required to stamp authority on games.

It requires work rate , desire , organisation , teamwork and pace to name but a few of the things needed at a higher level than your opponent and we don't have it in our squad at present.

Anybody who thinks our midfield did what they were supposed to do on Saturday are kidding themselves.

Not only they did defend poorly , they were nowhere near quick enough or position themselves well enough to assist or be on the end of crosses that might have given their keeper a moment of angst and that included Toure and Ferny.

Good post. Im not sure i would tarnish Fernandinho with the performance of the rest of the midfield, he worked tirelessly but time and again had no support or distribution options. Also, we need to start getting a tune out of Merlin in the big matches. When he plays, we play!

 

[Lancet Fluke]

As for the times those half chances you deem caused by a high line of defence, well we have a couple of those during the game too. If we had capitalized on that, the game might have turned out very differently.

Fucking half chances, you think when they were played in behind the high line and Joe bailed us out, they were half chances? We may have had the odd sniff of a half chance and the one big chance from Fernando's header but it seems slightly disingenuous to roll out the "oh it could have been all so different if we'd just taken our chances" routine because the reality is they had so many more clear cut chances than us. If anything we were fortunate not to end up on the end of a genuine pasting and I think most reasonable City fans are able to admit that.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The high defensive line absolutely requires the midfield and forwards (plus the full backs) to pressure the opposition midfield and defence. That prevents them having time on the ball and getting it to their forwards. But we didn't do that and their midfield were able to play the ball with ease.

But even playing a high-line against Leicester was utterly stupid and shows up the complete disregard for thinking about our opponents from our coaching team. We knew they would cede possession and look to hit us on the break. They've won 5 out of 6 games against the top 8 teams playing that way (and 0 out of 4 at home). So you play a flatter back four (with Clichy & Sagna who are better defensively and quicker) and bring them back 10 yards. You maybe even start Fernando in front of them for extra cover against the runs of Vardy and Mahrez. You don't have to worry about the space between our defence and midfield because it won't really be contested or exploited.

If a coach who is paid millions a year can't or won't see that then we're better off without him. Spurs will be more of the same on Sunday except their defence will be higher than Leicester's. They'll press us in midfield, will break at speed and we won't have the answer again.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

No I haven't, indeed I think performance-wise the one against Leicester is not as bad in comparison, though context-wise it's the most severe blow to our title bid. So that's why I think some of the comments here got blown out of proportions. And time is a curious thing isn't it, mancini made as many mistakes as pellegrini (the time he tried 3-5-2?), particularly in the dressing room (which is one of the most dangerous things in football), so it's like pot and kettle. But at the end of the day, this doesn't change the fact that pellegrini is one of the top coaches footballing world has the offer, albeit not one to take us a level further. There is no need to ask him resign or things like that. He may still be able to replicate what he did at the end of last season and turn this around. And Pep is coming after all.

God, I'm nineteen and somehow you lot are even more impatient than me.

you sit there happy clapping till the season draws to a close and be content with this great squad we have wasting chances to perform while throwing away what could of been golden opportunities to win more silverware.