To walk out or not to walk out?

This week there has been a lot of debate among City fans about ticket prices with suggestions of a walk out during the West Brom game after 60 minutes in protest. For me personally this is a dilemma - do I join the walk out or not? Let me try and explain.

Firstly some background. I'm not a season ticket holder. I never have been due to a combination of factors meaning it's either not been affordable, not worth it as I can't get to enough games, or both. I grew up in Manchester but moved away for University and never got around to moving back. Nothing intentional, just the direction life took me. I now live in Birmingham and so going to a game is a full day trip. Usually when I go I take my son with me and this means going to a game costs a minimum of £100 (usually much more) when you include tickets, travel, food etc.

I've become very aware of the ever increasing ticket prices and, looking forward, it's only going to get more expensive for me personally. My son is now 15. Next season he will be paying adult prices for both the football and train tickets, meaning the cost of going to a game is going to be at least £130, probably higher. And then there is another question - when we he be able to afford to buy his own tickets?

I recently found the ticket from my first ever game hidden away in a scrap book I'd kept as a kid (see above). It cost £2.50 then and if prices had followed inflation, then that same ticket would cost £9.59 today. Instead, a ticket for the recent Spurs game for my son cost £21 (and £44 for me). I was 6 when I went to that game so obviously didn't go on my own, but was going to the occasional game without my parents well before I went to University. I say occasional because I couldn't afford to go more often.

That was in an era when ticket prices were much lower. I can remember being shocked when it cost £10 to go to a pre-season game away at Wolves in the mid-90's. If I found it difficult to justify spending £10 on tickets, how will my son be able to justify £40+ tickets at the same stage in his life?

This is a part of the ticket price debate that rarely gets mentioned. Pricing out the next generation is usually talked about in terms of children and families going to matches. There are lower prices for them, but what happens when they stop being children and start paying adult prices at a time in their life when they are unlikely to be earning much? Will the next generation of support stop going in their late-teens or early 20's?

This issue makes me very sympathetic to the protests, Even ignoring my own personal interest in having lower prices, I think football has it wrong. The next generation of fans will lose the habit of going to games.

So why is this a dilemma? Based on what I've said so far I should be in support of the protest and instinctively I am. But then there is another side to this for me personally and it comes back to what I mentioned earlier about living some distance away and not being able to get to every game.

Typically I get to around 8 games a season. The West Brom game will be the seventh this season and likely my last. I've already bought the tickets (months ago when City decided to put the rest of the season's tickets on sale meaning I had to guess which games I'd be able to get to up to 6 months away, but that's another story), and I'll be spending a long day travelling to the game and back. So do I want to spend all that time and money to only see 2/3 of the game? There is a part of me that doesn't want to do that, and another part that thinks it would be selfish of me to not join in the protest (if it happens).

So there is the dilemma - the conflict between not wanting to feel I've wasted time and money on one of my limited trips to a game, and the need to make a statement for the long term good of every fan.

City v Watford - a game that would have been a struggle last year

Last season there was a template to have success against us. Sit deep, pack the central area's and hit us on the counter-attack. A number of teams had success with this tactic against us (e.g. Stoke and Hull at home). A key to this season will be if we have found a way to play against this. Yesterdays game was a promising sign that we may have.

Yesterday, Watford attempted to use the first part of the template. They sat deep and packed the midfield. The difference was there was no attempt by them to hit us on the counter-attack. The same weekend last year we lost to Stoke who sat deep and scored the only goal of the game from a counter attack when we had a corner. So, while it remains to be seen if we can defend better in these games, the fact that we eventually broke through is a good sign.

Key to the breakthrough was a tactical shift at half time. In the first half it was a 4-2-3-1 formation with Sterling and Navas wide. Navas had a poor half and was at his most frustrating. In the second half, Nasri replaced Navas and we switched to closer to a 4-4-2, with Sterling joining Aguero in the middle. Perhaps Watford were still trying to adjust to this change and this was why Sterling was allowed to drift into the penalty area unmarked for his goal. Whatever the reason, this is the first time we have needed a plan B this season. Last year in similar games we seemed to lack one. The fact we needed it, used it and it worked bodes well for the rest of the season.

That's now 10 consecutive wins, a club record. It feels a little false in that the record is spread over 2 seasons, but even if we consider just the first 4 games of the season, this is the best start to a season anyone has had in English football. A long way to go, but so far, so good.

ALL TIME RECORD - City (#mcfc) is the FIRST club in English league history to start with 4 wins, 10+ GF and 0 GA

— MisterChip (English) (@MisterChiping) August 29, 2015

Started with 4 wins and ZERO goals against 1900 Aston Villa (8-0) 1974 Ipswich Town (7-0) 2005 Chelsea (8-0) 2015 CITY (10-0)

— MisterChip (English) (@MisterChiping) August 29, 2015

City demolish Chelsea - I've had worse Sunday's

That was impressive all round. The new stand, the atmosphere and, most significantly, City's performance. Some observations on Sunday's win over Chelsea:

• The new South Stand is impressive, it looks huge. I don't know the stats, but from where I was sat in the third tier of the East Stand it looks taller than the the rest of the stadium. It's just a shame the away fans have a part of it as that has the potential to be a wall of noise.
• The tone for City's performance was set in the first 30 seconds when David Silva spun away from Febregas and played Aguero in on goal with the most beautiful pass that cut straight through the Chelsea defence. After that, City seemed to be causing problems for the Chelsea defence and creating chances almost at will for the rest of the first half.
• When Begovic saved 3 of Aguero's early chances, and then Aguero missed another I started to worry that Aguero was still in his 'getting back to form' phase that he often spends 4 or 5 games going through after an injury. Thankfully, the chances he was getting seemed to accelerate that and he eventually did score.
• The game itself was at times a full on physical battle. Some credit must go to the referee for this. While he didn't get everything right, he let enough go that players could fly into tackles knowing that robust tackles wouldn't be penalised just for being robust. Mostly the game was played in that spirit
• The exception to that spirit was the Fernandinho-Costa personal battle just before half time. As many have said, Fernandinho could have seen red for his elbow. On another day he would have but given the way the game was refereed, perhaps a yellow was right. And what punishment should Costa have got for his snide 'challenge' on Fernandinho a few minutes earlier? In the end, half time came to Costa's rescue as he'd clearly lost it after Fernandinho's challenge.
• The first 15-20 minutes of the second half saw the one period where Chelsea showed any degree of superiority. It ended after Hazard had missed their one good chance and City then decided to spend a few minutes playing keep-ball. I thought this was excellent game management from City. It calmed the game down and took the sting out of any Chelsea revival.
• After that we scored our second goal from a corner of the season. Already! After being generally useless from corners last season, this was always the easiest way to improve the team and the early signs are that we have.

• City were so good in this game it's difficult to single out any individual. Several had excellent games. Aguero got the official man of the match, Kolorov and Mangala were excellent, Sagna had arguably his best game so far for us. But for me, Fernandinho was superb. He did a lot of work in the midfield battle, ensuring City won that battle.
• Finally a mention must go to some superb trolling of Chelsea. Firstly the stadium DJ playing the Dr Who theme before the game and Madness straight after, and the crowd when Chelsea's physios made their appearance. Both hilarious.

It's still early days but so far so good.

Just a good start, or something more?

Last night City beat West Brom 3-0 and already some of the papers are jumping to conclusions about the where the title may go. It's far too early for that but what can we learn from the first competitive game of the season?

Firstly last night was a combination of a very good City and a very poor West Brom. Tony Pulis teams have always approached games against the top teams in the same way. Keep it tight, try and nick something and it it goes wrong don't bother chasing the game. This is a very pragmatic approach and, by not chasing the game, looks at the longer view that it is better for his team to lose 2-0 than risk losing 4 or 5-0 and the damage that would do to a teams confidence. Last night, though, West Brom appeared caught between two thoughts on how to approach the game. The team selection included 2 strikers suggesting they would be more attacking, but then during the game they sat back in the usual way a Pulis team does against the big teams. But the team selection meant they were a man light in midfield which made it much easier for City to move the ball around. Pulis has admitted he got it wrong tactically.

Having said that, City still needed to beat them and they did this superbly. The passing was at times brilliant and they frequently carved West Brom open. A few thoughts on City's performance:

• David Silva is a joy to watch. When he gets plenty of possession and time to use it he can pick apart any defence, as he did last night.
• Yaya Toure was back to his marauding best going forward. But he had almost nothing to do defensively. It is that side of his game that was questioned last season.
• The easiest way to improve last season's team was through one thing - corners. Last season City's corners were dreadful, so to score from one in the first game is a promising sign. Has anything changed? I wasn't paying close enough attention for most of the game but for Kompany's goal I did notice his run started much further out than I remember from last year. Hopefully this is a sign they have been worked on.
• Still the most frustrating player is Jesus Navas. His reluctance to run at and take on the full back is puzzling. He has the pace to get past the defender but seems to not want to use it. Why not? He should be so much better.

Apart from the above, I think it's difficult to say much as West Brom made it far too easy for us going forward and offered so little in attack it's difficult to say anything about our defence. Harder tests await, beginning next week, when we will learn a lot more about the team.

City vs Roma - what can we learn from a pre-season friendly?

As usual a lot more will be made of what happens in pre-season friendlies than should be. That said, a few observations on today's game against Roma.

• Sterling made a lively start. First touch steps on the ball, second scores. All in the first couple of minutes. There were signs that he could work well with David Silva. If they can get an understanding together, and you add Aguero, there's a lot of potential in that forward line.
• Kelechi Iheanacho has talent and played very well. But something is missing. A couple of incidents in the first half highlighted this. First, Silva had the ball on the edge of the box and he stayed close to him instead of making a run. Second, he had the ball on the edge of the box with options both ways but hesitated and lost the ball. His passing and movement off the ball aren't quite there yet. It's hopefully just a lack of confidence and trust in others which means he's reluctant to take a risk. If so, that will come with time.
• Are we switching to a 4-3-3 this season? Pellegrini has always preferred 4-4-2 and at the end of last season it was a 4-2-3-1 formation (which I think gets the best out of David Silva). But we've started with a 4-3-3 in all the friendlies so far. (I'm ignoring the apparent 4-1-4-1 we started the 2nd half with).
• David Silva is a joy to watch (although that's been obvious for years).
• Some of the young players played well. We really need to find a way to get some of them into the team.
• A penalty shoot-out in a pre-season friendly is both pointless and enormous fun.

Why women's football needs a bit of rhythm

Last nights defeat was possible the most gut-wrenching defeat I've ever witnessed for an England team. I've not felt that bad after England got knocked out since at least France '98, and probably not even that (or 90 or 96) felt as bad. Despite that defeat it's been an excellent World Cup for England and women's football in this country. Women's football has come a long way in recent years but still has someway to go. So where is it? And where does it go next?

At international level there are encouraging signs of progress. The expansion of the World Cup to 24 teams, increased coverage and more competitive teams all point to progress. But then FIFA managed to potentially scupper that, not by the decision to use artificial turf in the World Cup, but by their stubborn refusal to admit it was a mistake and to fight any attempt by the players to get it changed to grass. The original decision was odd, but Canada has hosted men's youth tournaments on artificial turf before and so you can see why they decided to do it. Unfortunately, once it became clear this was a mistake and faced fierce opposition among players, instead of acknowledging the issue, FIFA decided to fight the players and even allegedly threatened retaliation against the players. What sort of message did this send about the importance of the women's game to FIFA? It's hard to draw any conclusion other than the players should shut-up and know their place.

While the artificial turf issue was the biggest own goal from FIFA, there are other issues which reflect the lack of resources devoted to women's football around the world. The game is still semi-professional at best in much of the world. Some of the teams arrived very late in Canada because they didn't have the budget to arrive earlier. This cannot have helped their performance. Also the standard of referee's has been poor. Of the 4 penalties award in the semi-finals, 3 can be best described as questionable. If the teams are struggling for resources, I imagine very little is devoted to the referee's. This needs to change if the game is to progress.

Domestically the picture is better. Over the last few years much progress has been made. The establishment of the Women's Super League has led to the top players being able to be full-time professionals. They may currently be paid nowhere near what the men earn, but is it any coincidence that England's best performance came after their players could train full-time? The FA has been helping to push the game forward, the national team is now one of the best funded in the world, and it's moved the Women's FA Cup final to Wembley this year.

But there is one thing that doesn't seem right to me. The domestic season lacks rhythm. Football fans are generally creature's of habit. The Saturday 3pm kick-off is part of our nations routine. TV companies now move lots of games away from this but even then it's to the same regular time slots. Most weekends, the Premier League has game's kicking off at 12.45, 3pm and 5.30pm on Saturdays. 1.30pm and 4pm on Sundays. and 8pm on Mondays. We know where to find the games, when they are on. In the women's game this is missing. Game's in the WSL seem scattered around and come in bursts. TV coverage also seems scattered around the schedule. From that it's hard to build a habit of going to games or watching them on TV as they are not part of a routine.

This lack of rhythm was also there during the World Cup. Last year, the men's World Cup had games kicking off at the same time every day. For the first couple of weeks it's 3 games a day, at the same time every day. For the TV viewer you know exactly when a game kicks off each evening without looking. In the Women's World Cup. kick-off times and the number of games each day varied. This is a planning issue. It's harder to achieve in Canada because of multiple time-zones, but it isn't impossible.

So if I were to suggest one immediate change for women's football it would be to look at the calender and TV schedules. Try to establish a pattern to it so habit's can form.

A question being widely asked today is whether this is a turning point for women's football in England. The 2012 Olympics gave the game a boost but failed to significantly change one thing - attendance at games remains stubbornly low. Attendance has grown but slowly and from a very low starting point. The real test of whether this is a turning point or not could well be attendance at games. If the calender can be tweaked to get a bit more rhythm to the season then maybe this will finally change. Women's football may not get a better chance.

What a difference an early goal makes

That was much more like it. Much more like the City that was so devastating for much of last season and I think it's safe to say the primary reason for it was something we haven't seen enough of this season - an early goal.

At home, scoring early and then going on to win big was a habit that City had last year. In home league games in November and December last season, the first goal was scored in the 16th, 1st, 8th, 14th, 31st and 66th minutes. This lead to wins of 7-0, 6-0, 3-0, 6-3, 2-1 and 1-0. In the last two games, City scored later and didn't win as comfortably.

The benefits of scoring early are huge. It forces the visiting side to try and come forward and attack. Any thoughts of sitting back and defending become pointless and so there is more space to exploit. This season, City haven't scored an early goal often enough, allowing teams to sit back, defend and hit us on the counter-attack. It has worked far too often.

Aside from the early goal, here are a few other thoughts on the game:

• Has Bony already repaid part of his transfer fee through the effect he has had on Dzeko? The first half was by far the best 45 minutes from Dzeko this season.
• Yaya's influence was huge. It has been clear for the past month how much we have missed him, we just don't have another central midfielder like him (who does?). His passing forward into Silva and Nasri put them in much better positions to create than they have been for the past few weeks,
• Finally David Silva is starting to score more goals. This has always been the part of his game that was missing for me. He now has 9 for the season, his best in a Premier League season.
• Newcastle were woeful but a significant part of that was down to the early goal. There defence was set-up very narrow which was probably part of a game plan to frustrate City by denying Silva and Nasri space inside. The first minute penalty meant that plan had gone up in smoke before they'd even started to use it.