Didsbury Dave said:ranxerox said:I remember reading an article recently linked from zonalmarking.net that made clear a 3 man defence needs a fair amount of time to perfect. Not something easily imposed on a team used to playing 4 at the back. I think we're seeing evidence in all games this year that Mancini's experiments with it are causing problems. It could be part of why Kompany has looked out of form in all games.
Good summary of the tactical battle here
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.zonalmarking.net/2012/09/19/real-madrid-3-2-manchester-city-second-half-switches-leave-city-tactics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.zonalmarking.net/2012/09/19/ ... y-tactics/</a>
Interesting, and he concludes exactly the same as me:
But the key change came from Mancini. Maicon picked up an injury and had to be replaced, and Zabaleta was the natural replacement. When he entered the pitch, Zabaleta clearly signalled ‘3′ to his teammates – which hints that the previous formation had been slightly more flexible. (Mancini had definitely changed system at the break, but if he’d changed to a permanent three-man defence why would Zabaleta need to tell his teammates they were playing three at the back? He would have just replaced Maicon with no further tactical instructions required).
Zabaleta could have been the man to secure the win – Maicon was tired, and Zabaleta could have sat deep alongside the centre-backs and kept that side of the pitch quiet. However, he interpreted the wing-back role in a strange way – charging forward up the pitch unnecessarily (when City were ahead) and also getting drawn into very central positions, leaving the right flank completely bare.
City were now a shambles at the back, particularly down that flank. Kompany seemed completely unsure of his role, sometimes drifting too far towards the touchline (which left an unlikely centre-back pairing of Clichy and Nastasic in the centre), and sometimes remaining so central that Zabaleta was exposed two-versus-one by Ronaldo and Marcelo. Those two players had 15 shots between them over the course of the game – you expect that from Ronaldo, but the space afforded to Marcelo was extraordinary.
Real’s first and third goals came from their left – on both occasions, there simply weren’t enough City players on that side of the pitch. For that, both Mancini’s tinkering and Zabaleta’s poor positional play must take the blame.
Conclusion
The final 15 minutes of the game was unrecognisable from the first 15, and with such a frantic climax to the match, it could have gone either way. Better goalkeeping from Joe Hart, for example, and City would have come away with a result.
But there was a glaring problem with City’s right for the final 20 minutes of the match, with the very basic problem being that City were undermanned on that flank. Somewhere amongst (a) Mancini’s decision to change formation (b) his instructions to his players (c) and Zabaleta’s positioning, City had a clear weakness that was fully exploited by Real.
markbmcfc said:I find it amazing how differently fans see the same thing.
Looked to me like we went 3-5-2 when Kolarov came on, Clichy went more central.
As for Zabba, he got dragged inside for their first goal so Kompany went out wide to pick up Marcelo, who turns inside and shoots in the gap where Vinny should have been. When Marcelo receives the ball Zabba is in the D of our area, probably tracking Tranny, but she should have passed him on and maintained the shape.
Then for the third goal Tranny gets past Zabba far too easily.
The way I saw it, we played 3-5-2 since the 36th minute. When Maicon went off we hadn't conceded, Zabba comes on and we concede three. Not as black and white as that, but that's what happened.
No, you blame the formation. The blame lies with certain players who let the entire squad down both tactically and with their lack of discipline. I'm not saying you don't have a point. I'm saying there's more to it than "Bad Formation!" We weren't tearing up the pitch with a back 4 either.Didsbury Dave said:ranxerox said:I remember reading an article recently linked from zonalmarking.net that made clear a 3 man defence needs a fair amount of time to perfect. Not something easily imposed on a team used to playing 4 at the back. I think we're seeing evidence in all games this year that Mancini's experiments with it are causing problems. It could be part of why Kompany has looked out of form in all games.
Good summary of the tactical battle here
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.zonalmarking.net/2012/09/19/real-madrid-3-2-manchester-city-second-half-switches-leave-city-tactics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.zonalmarking.net/2012/09/19/ ... y-tactics/</a>
Interesting, and he concludes exactly the same as me:
But the key change came from Mancini. Maicon picked up an injury and had to be replaced, and Zabaleta was the natural replacement. When he entered the pitch, Zabaleta clearly signalled ‘3′ to his teammates – which hints that the previous formation had been slightly more flexible. (Mancini had definitely changed system at the break, but if he’d changed to a permanent three-man defence why would Zabaleta need to tell his teammates they were playing three at the back? He would have just replaced Maicon with no further tactical instructions required).
Zabaleta could have been the man to secure the win – Maicon was tired, and Zabaleta could have sat deep alongside the centre-backs and kept that side of the pitch quiet. However, he interpreted the wing-back role in a strange way – charging forward up the pitch unnecessarily (when City were ahead) and also getting drawn into very central positions, leaving the right flank completely bare.
City were now a shambles at the back, particularly down that flank. Kompany seemed completely unsure of his role, sometimes drifting too far towards the touchline (which left an unlikely centre-back pairing of Clichy and Nastasic in the centre), and sometimes remaining so central that Zabaleta was exposed two-versus-one by Ronaldo and Marcelo. Those two players had 15 shots between them over the course of the game – you expect that from Ronaldo, but the space afforded to Marcelo was extraordinary.
Real’s first and third goals came from their left – on both occasions, there simply weren’t enough City players on that side of the pitch. For that, both Mancini’s tinkering and Zabaleta’s poor positional play must take the blame.
Conclusion
The final 15 minutes of the game was unrecognisable from the first 15, and with such a frantic climax to the match, it could have gone either way. Better goalkeeping from Joe Hart, for example, and City would have come away with a result.
But there was a glaring problem with City’s right for the final 20 minutes of the match, with the very basic problem being that City were undermanned on that flank. Somewhere amongst (a) Mancini’s decision to change formation (b) his instructions to his players (c) and Zabaleta’s positioning, City had a clear weakness that was fully exploited by Real.
Nasri's injury forced Mancini's hand unfortunately. The better first sub would have been Dzeko to occupy Madrid's back line and give Tevez more freedom. If anything, Mancini should have possibly started Dzeko with Tevez but how could he know that both Silva and Nasri would be so invisible?Young said:Bullshit. True, we weren't comfortable with the 3-men defence, it will take time. When we do gel towards the formation, you will see the power of having a 3-men defence.
And I thought it was a genius move to take the opportunity of moving to the 3-men defence against Real. Ronaldo was obviously lacking in tracking back but Maicon, couldn't have the freedom to attack and exploit that. Thus, we switched to 3-men at the back so the wing-backs can exploit the space behind Real's wingers without compromising the defence.
If anything that failed, it was playing Tevez alone upfront, where we started throwing long balls at him while he ran like a headless chicken.
Real was pressing too hard and we weren't comfortable with the pressing, thus we lost possession easy. We must learn how to keep possession effectively and use possession effectively, rather than sloppily throwing them around in attacking moves.
Young said:Bullshit. True, we weren't comfortable with the 3-men defence, it will take time. When we do gel towards the formation, you will see the power of having a 3-men defence.
And I thought it was a genius move to take the opportunity of moving to the 3-men defence against Real. Ronaldo was obviously lacking in tracking back but Maicon, couldn't have the freedom to attack and exploit that. Thus, we switched to 3-men at the back so the wing-backs can exploit the space behind Real's wingers without compromising the defence.
If anything that failed, it was playing Tevez alone upfront, where we started throwing long balls at him while he ran like a headless chicken.
Real was pressing too hard and we weren't comfortable with the pressing, thus we lost possession easy. We must learn how to keep possession effectively and use possession effectively, rather than sloppily throwing them around in attacking moves.
taconinja said:No, you were right. This is speculation, but my take was Zaba's instruction was due to the fact that our back line seemed conflicted and weren't folding into a back three on the right side. He signaled a 3 because that's what we had been doing quite well on the left.wolfie1988 said:wayne71 said:When Zaba came on you can see him give the instruction for 5
Yeah I saw that too. Strange but it was just our shape at the start of the 2nd half defensively was different to the first half. I was probably mistaken to be honest it was just how I saw it at the time.
Its a lot less easy to make out formations on the tv than it is when you are there in the flesh as you only see sections of the pitch at a time so thats probably why i thought it
taconinja said:Nasri's injury forced Mancini's hand unfortunately. The better first sub would have been Dzeko to occupy Madrid's back line and give Tevez more freedom. If anything, Mancini should have possibly started Dzeko with Tevez but how could he know that both Silva and Nasri would be so invisible?Young said:Bullshit. True, we weren't comfortable with the 3-men defence, it will take time. When we do gel towards the formation, you will see the power of having a 3-men defence.
And I thought it was a genius move to take the opportunity of moving to the 3-men defence against Real. Ronaldo was obviously lacking in tracking back but Maicon, couldn't have the freedom to attack and exploit that. Thus, we switched to 3-men at the back so the wing-backs can exploit the space behind Real's wingers without compromising the defence.
If anything that failed, it was playing Tevez alone upfront, where we started throwing long balls at him while he ran like a headless chicken.
Real was pressing too hard and we weren't comfortable with the pressing, thus we lost possession easy. We must learn how to keep possession effectively and use possession effectively, rather than sloppily throwing them around in attacking moves.
The problem was getting him into the game. I'm not questioning his ability or work ethic. Our distribution out of goal was horrendous (and yes I'm quite aware Hart was brilliant stopping shots) which didn't give either Silva or Nasri much chance to be as effective as they can be.Didsbury Dave said:taconinja said:Nasri's injury forced Mancini's hand unfortunately. The better first sub would have been Dzeko to occupy Madrid's back line and give Tevez more freedom. If anything, Mancini should have possibly started Dzeko with Tevez but how could he know that both Silva and Nasri would be so invisible?Young said:Bullshit. True, we weren't comfortable with the 3-men defence, it will take time. When we do gel towards the formation, you will see the power of having a 3-men defence.
And I thought it was a genius move to take the opportunity of moving to the 3-men defence against Real. Ronaldo was obviously lacking in tracking back but Maicon, couldn't have the freedom to attack and exploit that. Thus, we switched to 3-men at the back so the wing-backs can exploit the space behind Real's wingers without compromising the defence.
If anything that failed, it was playing Tevez alone upfront, where we started throwing long balls at him while he ran like a headless chicken.
Real was pressing too hard and we weren't comfortable with the pressing, thus we lost possession easy. We must learn how to keep possession effectively and use possession effectively, rather than sloppily throwing them around in attacking moves.
Nasri's injury helped us because he was a liability. Surprise surprise.
And I wanted to see Aguero or Dzeko on at that point too, and Tevez dropped deeper and wide, because the ball just kept coming back at us. Silva invisible? They couldn't live with him when he got in the game.