A day for patience - City vs Crystal Palace thoughts

Today's game against Crystal Palace was a very good win, and one which told us a few things about where Manchester City are today. A few thoughts:

• Firstly the game itself. Today was definitely a day for patience. This season a clear tactical method to use against us has become clear. Sit deep and compact, pack the central area's in front of the defence and hit us on the counter-attack. The best example of how effective this can be was the home defeat to Stoke. Today, Palace attempted the same strategy. The key to defeating teams using these tactics is two things - patience and width. City used both of these very effectively. The number of passes from City (656 compared to 174 for Palace) is a clear indication of how patient they were. The influence of Zabeleta and Kolorov, who each provided an assist, shows that width was used effectively.
• City were clearly the better side, but having said that we did have some luck. At 2-0 the linesman made what can only be described as a howler of a decision in flagging for offside when Palace scored. It probably didn't change the result but at 2-1 you never know.
• I thought the experiment with Milner in the false-9 role worked okay, but nothing more than that. It's obviously only going to be used until we get one of our strikers fit again but, if we are to use it, why not use David Silva in that role? He has played there successfully for Spain.
• During the game, the BT Sport commentators made the point that there is a clear style of play that is different about Manchester City compared to other teams. It has been an ambition of the club for a while now that a clearly identifiable style of play for Manchester City becomes recognisable. Ferran Soriano has stated he wants all Manchester City teams to play in a style that makes them identifiable. Is this a sign that this long-term goal is being achieved?
• The striker injury crisis has opened a door for the EDS kids to make a mark on the first team. Although we chose not to play any of them today, I don't think that is a bad sign. Pozo has played the last few games and while he has done okay, perhaps it was right to allow him to step aside for now. If he had started to struggle it could have set back his development. He has had a taste and the experience means when his chance comes again he will be better equipped to succeed.
• It was good to see Thierry Ambrose on the bench today. Even though he didn't get on the pitch, just being involved in the first team on match day will help his development. Gary Neville made this point in an interesting article on youth development this week. Sometimes a player needs to spend some time around the first team, without playing, in order to learn and absorb what happens.

City now enter the Christmas period level on points with Chelsea, although Chelsea have a game in hand. At this stage of the season, a potential 3 point deficit is nothing. There is still everything to play for in the League.

Why are City in such poor form?

The last few games has seen the worst City performances I can remember for many years. To be blunt, we have looked a shambles. What has gone wrong? Why are City playing so badly?

With hindsight, certain signs of weakness and poor form have been there all season. The home defeat to Stoke showed that our attack is not as potent as it was last season and that we are vulnerable to the counter attack. Then, the away game at Aston Villa may have provided a template for teams to beat us. For much of that game Villa played a high intensity counter-attacking game and City looked vulnerable. Only the combination of Villa's players tiring late on and the introduction of Fernando stopped the counter attacking. Villa are a poor side but the warning was there and better sides have paid attention and taken advantage of it.

West Ham, CSKA Moscow and QPR all played with a game plan very similar to Villa. High intensity, pressing, and fast direct counter attacks. City have not been able to cope, losing two and only avoiding defeat in the third thanks to the genius of Sergio Aguero. So why have we not been able to handle this style?

Perhaps the most important reason is that we aren't scoring as many goals. Last season City were blowing teams away. This meant our opponents couldn't risk playing this way as we would rip them apart. This season, as demonstrated by the early defeat to Stoke, we aren't likely to do this. This is due to a combination of injuries to key players (e.g. Silva and Nasri), poor form (Dzeko's form has fallen off a cliff) and not replacing Negredo. As a result, our opponents are able to take more risks and attack us more.

This has exposed a weakness at the heart of City's team. Playing with just two in the centre of midfield worked for most of last season as most teams sat back and didn't put the two under pressure. But in a couple of key games (e.g. Bayern in the Champions League and Chelsea at home in the league) City was badly outnumbered in midfield. This has happened much more often this season.

Much has been said about Yaya Toure's poor form. While this is a factor, a bigger factor is that a weakness in Yaya's style of play has been exposed. Yaya has been likened to a Diesal engine on the pitch, but for me a better comparison is to an Ent from Lord of the Rings. Ent's are slow to get going but when they do are powerful, destructive and almost impossible to stop. The key here is the slow to get going. Yaya is a wonderful player but he can take a little time to get up to speed. The problem this season is that this has left him looking off the pace whenever we have been hit with high intensity, fast counter attacks.

The exposure of our soft centre has left the back four with little protection and being hit at pace. No back four is going to look comfortable faced with that, and our's has often been left looking a shambles.

So how do we fix this? In the long run the best way would be to start scoring lots of goals again. This would mean teams are more cautious and so there is less pressure on the defence. Unfortunately that is likely to take time to get everyone fit, back in form and get the teams confidence up again. The immediate solution though, is to strengthen the midfield. An extra body in the middle to break up the counter-attacks we are so vulnerable to would help. This would relieve the pressure on the defence and hopefully allow some confidence to return.

A positive sign is that this was tried against QPR which shows that Pellegrini may recognise the issue. I'm not too concerned it didn't have an immediate impact, After the debacle that was the CSKA Moscow game, it may take a few games to turn it around. Hopefully we stick with it and turn things around over the next few games.

Do City struggle on smaller pitches?

On Wednesday the following tweet from Jonathon Wilson intrigued me:

Pochettino's point about pitch size is a good one - Manchester City's away record on small pitches is disproportionately bad.
— Jonathan Wilson (@jonawils) October 29, 2014

Is this true? I thought I'd have a look at the stats to see if this was the case.

To do this I looked at City's points per game at each away ground in the Premier League since the start of the 2010-11 season, and then combined those where the pitch is the same size. The most common pitch size in the Premier League is 105 by 68 metres (this is the standard size for international matches). This is the size at 9 current Premier League grounds, including the Etihad stadium (and Wembley). For pitches of this size, City got 1.97 points per away game over that period.

The only bigger pitch City played on in the Premier League during that period is at Ewood Park. That pitch is 105 by 69.5 metres and City won both matches played there. This is too small a sample size to draw many conclusions from.

All the other pitches in the Premier League are smaller but have various dimensions, for example Loftus Road is 102 by 66 metres, Stamford Bridge is 103 by 67 metres. In matches played on pitches smaller than the Etihad, City got 1.51 points per game.

This is a clear difference. City are getting nearly half a point less per game on smaller pitches. There is clearly an issue here, the smaller the pitch the worse City do.


Added comment:

There are two factors which go into the area of a pitch - width and length. So do City have an issue with narrow or short pitches? The answer surprised me in that it looks like its the pitch length which is important. If only pitches which are shorter than 103 metres are considered, City got 1.46 points per game. This reduces again to 1.44 points per game for pitches shorter than 102 metres

Was Negrado allowed to leave due to FFP?

The departure of Alvaro Negredo on the last day of the transfer window without a replacement arriving has surprised many people. That he was looking to leave seemed to be almost an open secret. Rumours have been circulating for a while that his wife wasn't happy in England and was suffering from homesickness. If true, then the best for all concerned is probably a transfer back to Spain. But why was this done so late and with no replacement arriving? This is unlike the carefully planned moves that have characterised City's transfer business in the last two summers. Is the clue to be found in the FFP punishment City received from UEFA a few months ago?

Two aspects of the FFP punishment have been discussed often over the summer - the squad size restrictions and limit on spending on transfers. A third part of the punishment has rarely been discussed. City's wage bill cannot increase. While I'm not certain of the exact details, such as what the monitoring period is, the club will be aware and will have a number they want the total wages to be below after all the transfer business has been done.

This need to restrict wages throws an interesting light on much of City's summer business. Firstly several high wage earners have left (e.g. Lescott and Barry), and secondly several players who would have been among the highest earners (such as Aguero, Silva and Kompany) have signed new long term deals. Normally this would also mean their wages would have increased but a line from City's statement in response to the FFP punishment suggests an alternative. This said:

It is important to note that additional bonuses for performances can be paid outside this number.

The number referred to is the wage bill. Bonuses do not count towards wages for FFP. So have City reduced their wage bill by renegotiating contracts with reduced basic pay but increased bonuses? I doubt UEFA would allow them to abuse this loophole by doing this significantly, but it does suggest City are making efforts to reduce wages.

If the whole of City's summer transfers and the new contracts is looked at from the point of view of the wage bill, it does look like efforts have been made to comply with the FFP wage restriction. Which brings us back to Negredo. What if, after all the summer activity, they looked at the wage bill and weren't certain of passing the FFP test? Perhaps there was an agreement that he would be allowed to leave if a replacement could be brought in, but they didn't find one. This would explain why nothing happened earlier. Then, at the end, there was a need to trim the wage bill a little bit more and Negredo wants to leave. Was he allowed to leave at the last minute due to FFP?

Community Shield - Couldn't be bothered or worryingly underprepared?

The first trophy of the season has gone to Arsenal in the 'traditional season opener' or a 'glorified friendly'. They deservedly beat City who may as well not have turned up in the first half. How worrying City's performance was depends partly on your view of the importance of the Community Shield. I'm of the opinion it's a bit of both the above descriptions. It's a traditional friendly to open the season, a bit more competitive than normal due to the spotlight on it, but ultimately not that meaningful.

In the stadium it was rapidly clear that Arsenal were taking the game more seriously than City. On the pitch City were still in full pre-season mode. Yaya Toure in particular was just wandering around as if it was a game in the park he'd stumbled on and wasn't sure how long he wanted to stay and play for. Other players weren't at full pace either, I can't remember Jesus Navas running at a defender once for example.

Off the pitch, the fans weren't that bothered either. Neither end of the stadium was full, although the gaps at the Arsenal end were much smaller, a few gaps of maybe 10 to 20 seats with a few other seats empty scattered around their end. Club Wembley was, as usual, maybe half-full. In the City end though, there were thousands of empty seats. The two pictures below show the difference between the two ends clearly.

There are reasons for some of this, the distance of City fans from Wembley, cost, the travel issues due to engineering work closing the west coast mainline so that no trains were running between Manchester and London. But the biggest reason is that City fans, like the players, just weren't as bothered with it as Arsenal fans.

If that is the only reason for the defeat, then there is little to be concerned about. There is also the fact that Arsenal were much closer to full strength than City, which could have played a role. But there is another, much more worrying possibility - City are under-prepared for the season ahead.

One of the negative side-effects of having a large squad full of internationals is that more of our players will be involved late in major tournaments. City had three players on the pitch in the World Cup Final last month. This means they end up returning very late in pre-season. This year it was a week ago. The consequence of this is that City has had a half-strength squad for most of pre-season. This is bound to have an impact on preparations. There is obviously a question mark over the match fitness for the late returning players (which is why none of them played at Wembley) but there will be impacts on the team. New signings will take longer to settle in, understanding within the team will take longer to achieve, and pre-season games will have featured players that will not play once the season starts (e.g. Jack Rodwell).

This is unavoidable as the players do need the break, but has it left City under-prepared for the season ahead? We have a fairly tough opening set of fixtures so do need to hit the ground running. If we aren't ready we could find ourselves falling behind early on. There is one mitigating factor this season - the games are fairly spread out at the start of the season. Partly that is because the season is two weeks longer this year, but it's mainly because there are a lot of international games being played (England play 4 before the middle of October), which should give us time to catch up a little if we are under-prepared.

Is a relatively quiet summer good or bad for City?

At the start of the summer most City fans would have felt that there wasn't much that needed to be done in the transfer window. A new centre back (especially as Joleon Lescott was out of contract and leaving), and some depth added in the centre of midfield were the priorities. Aside from that, there may be a need for new signings but only if they were a replacement and upgrade for someone leaving.

So far the summer has fitted the above. The biggest signing so far is Fernando. This adds strength in the centre of midfield behind (or alongside?) Yaya Toure and Fernandinho. Additionally there is the signing of Bruno Zuculini, a midfielder from River Plate. The latter signing is one I'll confess to knowing little about. At 21 and only costing £1.5million, he may be one for the future. But at that age that should come soon, so I'm a little puzzled by that.

The signing of Bacary Sagna looks like a replacement and upgrade on Micah Richards. Sadly Micah has been injured for most of the last couple of years and has looked a shadow of the player he once was when he has played. This looks a sensible move all round as perhaps a change of club would help Micah re-discover his form of a few years ago. But Micah Richards is still at City. Is the intention still to move him on? Or did the FFP punishment from UEFA and the restrictions on the squad size (and need for homegrown players in the squad) change City's mind about letting him go?

The one signing which is an obvious upgrade is Willy Caballero. With Costel Pantillimon leaving, the probable back-up keeper is much better than before.

But what of players leaving? As the season ended there were two worrying stories that emerged. Firstly there was the ridiculous stories around Yaya Toure. To me, this always looked like an agent stirring things up to try and engineer a better deal or move for the player. Thankfully this appears to be resolved. The other story was that James Milner wanted to leave. Little more has been heard about this which isn't that surprising. Milner always strikes me as someone who will do something in the correct, 'boring' way. If the story is true, he would probably have let the club know as soon as the season was over and then everything would have happened behind closed doors. In this case, it's likely no news will be heard unless there is a transfer. I hope that we keep hearing nothing about this.

Finally, what is left to be done? The obvious one is that so far there has been no central defender coming in. The rumoured signing of Eliaquim Mangala has been just that, rumoured, for months now. If this does go through then on the face of it, City would have done all they 'need' to do. But I do think there is more to be done. There are a number of players in the squad who are perhaps now surplus to requirements. Scott Sinclair and Jack Rodwell are two who spring to mind. In the case of Sinclair, after an underwhelming first season at City he spent all last season on loan at West Brom where he played only 6 games. In Rodwell's case he is now 5th choice in the centre of midfield. Would it be a good move to sell both of these?

So has this been good or bad for City? If, in what is left of the transfer window, a quality centre back arrives and a couple of fringe players leave (either permanently or on long term loans) then I would argue it will have been good. If no centre back arrives then I would be a little worried. There are some out there arguing that City are repeating mistakes made two years ago. True there has not yet been a world class signing but this misses the point. Two years ago City were 2 1/2 years into Mancini's reign as manager. This side is a year into Pellegrini's reign and is still developing. At times last year this was obvious. Two years ago many of the signings came right at the end of the transfer window, too late to be part of pre-season and it felt like they were not first choices. This year City have been active early and appear to have done a lot of their business already. This is a sign that targets have been identified and signed, unlike 2 years ago. If the remaining business is done in the same low-key manner, this will not be a sign of mistakes, it will be a sign of a club knowing what they want and getting it done.

Another World Cup, another round of Blamestorming

Another World Cup campaign has come to an end for England and we're already into yet another round of blamestorming. The pattern has been repeated for decades. England go to a tournament, in most cases don't achieve much, then there is a storm of criticism and a search for something to blame. The unwritten assumption in all this is usually that if this one thing had been changed, we'd have won the tournament.

But we've tried changing things. Take the manager, for example. We've had the people's choice (Keegan), the laid back foreigner (Svenn), the promising young English coach (McClaren), the stern foreigner (Capello), and now we have the experienced, well travelled English coach. The results haven't improved. The cry of 'change this' is mis-guided, we've tried so many things that surely we'd have hit on the right one by accident by now. If there was one thing that could be changed to fix it.

The other cry you often here is that the players don't care enough, that they lack passion. This is usually said by people who don't watch much football outside the big games. They seem to think that showing more passion and working harder would make the difference. Even if they were right about the lack of passion, working harder (or running around more) can be counter-productive. Take the game against Italy in Manaus. England's tactics in the game were to allow Italy possession then hit them at pace on the counter-attack. They played well but tired towards the end of the game. This was always likely to happen given the tactics and the conditions the game was played in. Showing more 'passion' earlier on would have led to the team tiring earlier and risking being taken apart late on by an Italy side with more energy.

The plain truth is that the England team is just not as good as we think it is, and hasn't been for a long time. We typically hover somewhere between 5th and 15th in the world, meaning we're a team who should average around the quarter finals or last-16 of the World Cup, which is what we do. In this World Cup we haven't had the results but I felt we played much better, especially against Italy, than in either of the last 2 World Cups. The difference in the results could be down to us simply having a much tougher draw.

If there is no quick fix, how do we improve things? The first thing to ask before answering this question is what is holding us back at international level? The current squad has a good balance of promising young players and experienced, proven winners (at club level). Several members of the squad have won the Champions League. But not enough. In some positions there is a worrying lack of options. For example at right back there is nobody near an out-of-form Glen Johnson, and we haven't produced a good defensive midfielder in years. This highlights the issue - there just aren't enough players of the right quality being produced.

The recent FA commission at least recognised this and identified where there is a problem preventing more players coming through (not enough competitive playing time in the 18-20 age range) but their proposed solution (B teams) would risk ripping apart one of the great strengths of English football - the depth and strength of the football pyramid. Instead of harnessing this to produce more talent that could rise up, the change risks its strength.

But at least the FA Commission identified an issue and proposed a bold and dramatic change to try and solve the issue. The challenge now is to find an alternative, better solution. Beyond proposals to produce more coaches (without answering how these would be funded and how they would be used), I've yet to hear a decent alternative.

Personally I would start earlier. I'd like to see the schools involved. Sadly there didn't appear to be much (if any) involvement from the English Schools FA with the FA Commission. This is a pity as this is where the vast majority of children first come into contact with anything like coaching. I'd like to see a new coaching qualification created for school teachers and set a target of having a qualified coach in each secondary school within 10 years. Flood the school system with coaches, raising standards from the very start of football careers. This could be done if the Academies were all required to train a certain number of teachers each year, with the FA also training teachers.

The truth is that, whichever solution is tried, there is no quick fix. Long term systematic failings in the English game require long term changes and patience to see them through. This is something Germany recognised in the late-90's, and they acted. They didn't stop when they reached the World Cup final in 2002, recognising that as a false dawn due to a team getting a very lucky draw, and they are now seeing the benefits. If English football wants to stop having blamestorming sessions in public after every major championship, it too needs to act and be patient to see it through.

Manchester City Women's WSL Debut, or a work in progress

I've just spent the evening watching Manchester City's women's team make their debut in the Women's Super League. First a slight confession. I haven't watched a huge amount of women's football over the years, just a few England games, one GB game at the Olympics and the odd Women's FA Cup Final. Every time I've made a mental note to watch more and not followed up on it. That said, a few observations on tonight's game

• Considering Manchester City were away at last seasons champions, it was a decent performance. Liverpool probably just deserved to win but City gave them a good game, creating a decent number of chances.
• But they do need to learn when to play out from the back, and when just to clear it quickly. In the first half they were very lucky not to give away at least one goal by playing out almost suicidally.
• Toni Duggan looks like a great player. But City need to learn how to use her talent. On the basis of this game she needs to spend more time on the shoulder of the last defender and needs the right service. Given that, there's plenty of goals there.
• For Liverpool, Gemma Davison was the most impressive player. Lots of pace and a good work rate.
• For City Jill Scott, Steph Houghton and Krystle Johnston had a good game, I was surprised to see Krystle substituted.
• The most noticeable downside for me was that it was too obvious who the full time players were. Each team has 5 full time players and while you would expect these to be the best players in terms of skill, it was also noticeable that the full time players were those quickest and with the higher work-rate. This is a direct result of them being able to train full time . Unfortunately, women's football cannot currently support a full time professional league. It is growing (last season there were 4 full time players per club) but there is some way to go.
• Finally, it's good to see BT Sport will be showing regular live games from the WSL,  I've made a mental note to follow it and definitely intend to follow up on that this time.

Cup final 1 of 8 - done

Saturday lunchtime ended up being a comfortable win but didn't feel that way until we had a very large slice (about 5 yards worth) of luck. After that, City were dominant, before that Southampton were the better side, although without creating many chances. A few observations on the game

• Dzeko is scoring regularly but still misses several chances a game. Negredo just can't buy a goal at the minute. The effort is there, but the confidence has gone. He just needs some luck.
• The title could come down to this - can City get a second striker fit and scoring. Aguero is close to fitness and it was good to see Jovetic playing and scoring, but we'll need a few goals from Aguero, Negredo and Jovetic between now and the end of the season.
• Southampton dominated possession in the first half through their passing. At times they were knocking the ball about simply and quickly. The key for this was their movement off the ball. This is a side of the game that doesn't come across well on TV, but is noticeable when at the game, Southampton would almost always have a couple of players free in space which meant there was always an easy pass on. They did this by quickly moving away from a marker and positioning themselves half-way between City players. It's very intelligent and effective when a team like Southampton does this.
• Two things changed the game so that City dominated the second half. The 2 goals before half time (the first of which was one of the more obvious offsides you will see), and the introduction of Javi Garcia. I thought Garcia was very effective, sitting a bit deeper than Fernandinho had been. He broke up Southampton's passing rhythm and helped City get their own rhythm going.
• This looked, on paper, to be our trickiest home game left to play. But we can't get complacent. Every game is now a cup final for us. The first is done, there are still 7 to go.

What has gone wrong at United?

As a City fan there is a temptation to gloat after last nights comprehensive victory over United in the derby. I'm certainly enjoying their struggles this season, but last night it shocked me just how disorganised they now are. Why on earth have things gone this wrong?

Everton under David Moyes were always limited but well organised and hard working. Last night United were all over the place. After around 15 minutes I asked out loud what formation they were playing. I couldn't work it out. Today I've read a few articles which have said they changed formation after 10 minutes, but it wasn't as simple as that. There was a distinct lack of organisation and structure to the team.

To be honest I'm not hoping this gets put right too quickly (or ever), it's just a puzzle that a manager who was previously good at organising his team can now have a team so disorganised.

What to do about a problem called Negredo?

Up to the end of January, Álvaro Negredo looked like the signing of the season. In his first 32 games, he scored 23 goals. But it was more than that, the work rate off the ball and physical presence he provided were exceptional. Negredo was flying, then he injured his shoulder in the League Cup semi final against West Ham. Since then, no goals in 9 games and he looks a shadow of the player he was earlier in the season.

What has gone wrong? The first thing is that we had a number of injuries amongst the forwards. Aguero and Jovetic have also been injured. This, combined with Dzeko's erratic form, means Negredo may been back playing before he had fully recovered from his injury. This would undoubtedly have limited his effectiveness initially. Now, the issue is confidence. In short, Negredo is playing like he's got no confidence.

During the Fulham game I spent a bit of time watching Negredo's runs off the ball. There were a couple of things I noticed that, for me, betrayed his low confidence. Firstly he didn't seem to be attacking the ball, and secondly his runs were often into places the ball was unlikely to go, often away from the ball. For the later there can be a good reason for this, a run away from the ball can drag defenders out of position, creating space for other players. But against Fulham, as the lone striker and with a packed defence, it just meant there was often nobody to play the ball forward to. It's almost as if Negredo doesn't want the ball. This is a sure sign of low confidence, wanting the ball to go elsewhere so you don't make a mistake.

An incident late in the game worried me. Navas came charging forward into space, but Negredo's run didn't help. Instead of trying to get in behind the defence so Navas could slip the ball through for him, or trying to drag a defender away to create more space for Navas to run into, Negredo decided to run back, straight at Navas! Why did he do this? Was he hoping that Navas would run past him and carry on alone?

If this sounds overly critical of Negredo then perhaps I should say that the effort is still there. He is trying and the work rate is good. It's just that the decision making is different due to the low confidence.

So how do you fix this? Ideally with a goal or two, however they come. I thought he'd got the lucky break late in the game against Fulham when Steve Sidwell attempted a suicidal headed back-pass inside the 6 yard box, but he couldn't take advantage. Until he gets a goal though, trust and confidence needs to be shown in him. The question is - how long will this take and, at this stage of the season, can Pellegrini afford to be that patient?

Has this season been a success or failure so far?

In late January, the media was full of talk of City winning a Quadruple, the number of goals they were scoring and how it was one of the best teams to watch in years. Now, there is talk that this season may be a failure and that the win at Hull may have saved the season. This is despite City already having won a trophy this year. While both are typical media over-reactions, there has been a change in the atmosphere around City since the end of January. What has caused this and how successful has Manual Pellegrini's first season actually been so far?

At the end of January, City were flying. In the previous 3 months they'd scored 81 goals in 23 games, and were still in all 4 competitions. Since then, just 10 goals in 9 games have been scored and they have gone out of 2 competitions. The turning point in this is fairly obvious - the game against Chelsea in the league. This defeat knocked us off course. Injuries to strikers hasn't helped but suddenly City stopped scoring and this exposed a defence which has, to put it politely, some issues.

But was the last couple of months that bad? The League Cup was won, Chelsea were defeated in the FA Cup, 7 points out of 9 have been picked up in the league since the Chelsea defeat and there was a creditable performance in defeat to Barcelona. Then there was the FA Cup. Frankly that was an embarrassing disaster. It had been coming though. Chelsea apart, we flirted with it in earlier rounds and didn't learn our lesson.

As things stand, City have won the League Cup and still have their destiny in the league in their own hands. The league is still a 4 horse race and you could make a case for all 4 to win it (Chelsea have points in the bag, City have games in hand, Liverpool still have both City and Chelsea to play at home, Arsenal have City and Chelsea in next two weeks), but for me it's wide open. So is this a successful season or not?

To answer this we need to take a step back and look at everything. Before the start of the season I thought we'd have had a good season if we:

• finished 2nd or better in the Premier League
• won a trophy
• got past the group stage of the Champions League

2 of those have been achieved and the 3rd is a definitely possible. But the 2 that have been achieved could arguably be said to have been only just achieved. Going out at the first knock-out stage in the Champions League having had a relatively easy group is the bare minimum, and the League Cup is the 4th most important trophy we can win.

Would this be enough for the owners? Not on it's own. In the statement released when Mancini was sacked and in other statements last summer, the owners and management talked of other priorities. Khaldoon Al Mubarak talked of the ambition to try and win everything, while Ferran Soriano set a realistic target of 5 trophies in 5 years. While it wasn't clear from Soriano's comments if the League Cup would be included in his target, winning a trophy in the first year is in line with this target. And City certainly tried to win everything, even the FA Cup despite the disaster (City threw everything at Wigan to try and turn that around).

Soriano also mentioned wanting to see the team progress. This is a vague target but on two fronts we can say this has been achieved. There are far fewer off the field incidents this season. The team seems a much more harmonious (or is much better at keeping it inside the dressing room). The style of play has improved. The owners have spoken of wanting to play attractive, attacking football. At least until the end of January this was certainly the case with City playing some of the best football I've ever seen from a City side.

Unfortunately there is one area where little progress has been made. The owners want players to progress from the academy to the first team. Apart from encouraging performances from Marcos Lopes in the League Cup, this just hasn't happened. The most worrying sign for me was the use of Clichy and then Boyata at right back when Zabaleta and Richards were both injured around Christmas. If you can't trust an academy player when you play Crystal Palace at home when can you? While this may not be Pellegrini's fault (if the players aren't good enough, he isn't going to play them), there is a distinct lack of progress on this.

Has this been a successful season? I would say that overall the club has moved in the right direction, even if the League title goes elsewhere. When he talked about the '5 trophies in 5 years' target, Soriano also said that the manager wouldn't be judged on trophies alone. As we know from the last couple of years a lot can happen in a single game that can make a difference between winning a trophy and not. Off and on the field, most things have moved in the right direction. And any season where a trophy is won and you are in contention for the title until very late in the season cannot be considered a failure.

That was a proper cup final

From the sea of red and white shirts on Wembley Way before the game, to the noise they made in the stadium during the game, the Sunderland fans were magnificent yesterday. Their team were very good as well. Neither deserved to be on the losing side, but then sport doesn't do deserving. You can play badly and win, or play well and lose. For Sunderland it was the latter.

City took a while to get going, both on and off the pitch. The Sunderland end was full well before kick-off, the City end filled up closer to kick-off. A consequence of how often we have each visited Wembley recently perhaps. But once the City end filled up, the noise from both ends of the stadium made for a great atmosphere and a real cup final feel.

In the first half, Sunderland were the better side, battling well and taking a (probably) deserved lead. City took a while to get going but when they did, unleashed two of the greatest cup final goals I've ever seen. At the time I thought Toure's was the better goal. But after getting home and watching the replay's I'm starting to think Nasri's may have been better. Either way, both goals would have been worthy of any final.

At 2-1 though, there was always a chance for Sunderland to get back in it. On another day the ball may have bounced more kindly for them and they would have. Then, who knows what would have happened. Overall City were just the better side, but there wasn't much in it. Both teams (and sets of supporters) were part of a proper cup final.

Finally though, I have to mention the only disappointments of the day and they all relate to problems with Wembley itself. There is always the worlds biggest queue on Wembley Way after the game, this is now expected and well managed but doesn't improve. But the queue's in the toilets are even worse. For a stadium which loudly claimed to have more toilets than any other stadium when it opened, I've no idea how they can be so bad.

Wembley also seems to have the worlds loudest PA system. It somehow drowns out 90,000 fans at times. When will they learn that allowing the fans to create the atmosphere is the best way to do it? Not trying to force an atmosphere with ridiculously loud music.

Lastly, have a look at the photo at the top of this blog. Notice all the empty seats in the Club Wembley area? That photo was taken with about 15 minutes of the game to go. This is disgracful. There were several thousand empty seats there which could have been used by fans of the two teams. The FA needs to look at the terms of the Club Wembley seats when they come up for renewal. If they aren't going to use them for a game, they should be made available for others to use.

The goals have dried up - how worrying is this?

From the start of November until the end of January, City scored 81 goals in 23 games. That's just over 3.5 per game! In February, City have scored 3 goals in 5 games, less than a goal a game. The goals have dried up recently, leading to just 2 wins and a draw from the 5 games. How worrying is this? What has caused this? There are several possible reasons.

1. Regression to the mean - for 3 months City scored at a frankly ridiculous rate, at some point this rate was bound to drop. Form fluctuates up and down, and so this could be just a blip. We were above average for 3 months and then below for a month. If this is the case then the goals should return soon.
2. Opponents have worked us out - we're now well into the second half of the season. Other teams have had plenty of time to study how we play, to look at what other teams have done against us that has/hasn't worked, and so to adjust their tactics against us. For example, the game against Arsenal showed what happens when you try and meet fire with fire, but Crystal Palace showed what is possible by being defensive. Arsenal were destroyed, and Palace could easily have got something out of the game - their tactics very nearly worked. If teams are concentrating on stopping us scoring and adapt their tactics, this will make it harder to score. The key to this is that City need to adapt their own tactics. The FA Cup game against Chelsea could be a sign that we are willing to do this.
3. Injuries to key players - it's not a coincidence that our early struggles in defense coincided with a series of injuries at centre back. We've recently been missing some key players (e.g. Aguero, Nasri) who would have given us added firepower. No side, however deep their squad, is as good if multiple key players are out injured. This is especially true if the injuries are concentrated in one position. Early in the season injuries to centre backs meant Javi Garcia played out of position there, recently multiple injuries in midfield meant Demichelis played there. This usually means the team's performance will drop.
4. Loss of form of key players - the early season defensive struggles were, in part, due to Joe Harts poor form. Recently Negredo's form, for example, has been poor. This happens as form can fluctuate and usually a player can be rested and given a bit of time to get his form back. The injury to Aguero, however, has meant this can't happen.

The most likely explanation is a combination of the above. Of the above, 3 and 4 do happen. The problem is that they have both happened in the same area of the team. Usually they will be scattered  throughout the squad and so the depth of the squad can be used to cover for this. Point 1 above should come to an end, the goalscoring should fluctuate back up. The reason to worry would be point 2. If teams are finding a way to stop us then we need to make adjustments of our own. Can we do that? The rest of the season will hinge on how big a factor this is and if we can find an answer.

What a difference 12 days make!

Tonight's FA Cup game was very different from the League game just 12 days ago. Then, City were outdone tactically and physically. Tonight, there was only one team in it. For me the major difference was in midfield. While it helped being able to play a midfielder (Garcia) instead of a defender (Demichelis) in central midfield, I think the selections of Jovetic and Milner was also pivotal. In the league game, Navas and Negredo played. Both of these are excellent players but they don't do a lot to help in the centre of midfield. That's fine when we are winning the battle there, but in the League game we didn't. Milner does more work defensively than Navas, and Jovetic plays a deeper role than Negredo, meaning City had more bodies to help in the midfield battle. This meant City dominated the game.

As well as progressing to the next round, it was good to see Jovetic finally showing us what he can do. I thought he, Silva, Toure and Milner were all excellent. Hopefully, the lessons from the two games against Chelsea will be listened to when preparations for the Barcelona game are made.

Outdone tactically and physically - thoughts on the loss to Chelsea

For the second time this season, City have lost at home. Both times we have lost the tactical battle and the workrate of the opposition has caused major problems. The game against Bayern was widely regarded as the best team in the world teaching us a lesson. Last night, probably the best coach in the world did the same. A few thoughts:

• Tactically I think the key was the work rate of Chelsea's front 4 when we had the ball. Their pressing was brilliant. They picked their moments and then hunted down the ball. The result was that on many occasions our central defenders faced a wall of 3 Chelsea players when they had the ball. This cut off easy passes out and made it very difficult for us to build from the back.
• One result of the pressing from the front was that when we did get the ball forward it was through long or risky passes far more often than normal. As a result we often went forward without the fluidity we've seen, there was less control and more chaos when we had the ball.
• Another result of the pressing was that Chelsea often won the ball back higher up the pitch and with our players forward. This gave them plenty of scope for counter-attacking, something they hit us with many times.
• Plenty will be said about Demichelis playing in midfield, for me he gave a convincing impression of a central defender playing 10 yards too far forward. But it highlights a worrying lack of depth in the squad in central midfield. Behind Yaya and Fernandinho, we only have Garcia and Rodwell. Rodwell is almost permanently injured, and with Garcia and Fernandinho out injured the only options were to move Milner inside or Demichelis.
• The central midfield issue also highlights another worry - where are the academy players? This was something that I noticed at Christmas when, with Zabeleta and Micah Richards out, Clichy played at right-back against Fulham. While Chelsea may not be the game to throw a kid into, Fulham away might be. Where are the academy players to fill in?
• Chelsea deserved to win last night, and it could have been by more as they hit the post 3 times. Despite that, it's not all doom and gloom. We also created chances. On another night we'd have got something from the game.
• City, Chelsea and Arsenal are separated by 2 points. It's a 3 horse race for the title now. With Arsenal facing a very tricky next month, their 2 point lead at this stage is nothing. The title could go to any of us.

ITV's FA Cup 'highlights', or little more than the goals

Last nights FA Cup highlights show on ITV annoyed me. City were first game up yet the highlights were brief. The game of the day had little more than 5 minutes action. ITV again showed how poorly they cover football.

I can understand their (and BT Sports) decision to pick other games for live coverage. Picking FA Cup games s notoriously difficult. The 'magic' of the cup means you're never sure where the story will be. Though the TV companies don't always help themselves by, for example, always picking Man United no matter who they play. But a highlights show should be able to react to the days events and concentrate on the days stories. This is something Match of the Day does every week, showing more of the bigger stories of the day.

But even though ITV put City's game on first they also didn't help themselves by spending almost as long after the game on interviews and so-called analysis. In total they spent 5 minutes and 9 seconds showing action from the game, and 4 minutes and 13 seconds showing people talking about it. The result is that apart from the goals I got no impression of how dominant Watford reportedly were in the first half, of how poor City were in the first nor how good they were in the second half. I only saw the goals and a couple of other chances.

100 up, and counting...

This season is ridiculous. I've never seen a team scoring at this rate for this many games, and it's a joy to watch your own team do it. The numbers are getting silly:

• 103 goals in 34 games, an average of 3.03 per game
• 68 in 17 at home, an average of 4 per game
• 60 in 22 in the league, 2.73 per game
• 18 in 6 Champions League games, 3 per game
• 16 in 4 in the League Cup, 4 per game
• Seven times 5 or more goals have been scored 

Any of those statistics would be impressive at this stage of the season, the Premier League is currently averaging 2.69 goals per game. City are doing better than that on their own! At this rate, City will finish the Premier League season with 104 goals. The record is 103.

Even if you assume City only played the minimum number of games they have remaining this season (i.e. they lose in the next round of each cup competition), then City are currently on course to score around 156 goals this season. I've not found a definitive answer, but a few articles have mentioned that the current record is 147 goals set by Chelsea last season.

The above stats are incredible. City are scoring goals at a record setting pace. But, goals alone don't win trophies. Despite all the recent talk about a potential quadruple, City are still only 2nd in the Premier League and face a difficult last-16 tie with Barcelona in the Champions League. We could easily end the season winning nothing.

Despite that note of caution, reaching (and passing) 100 goals for the season is a good time to pause and acknowledge just what an astonishing display of attacking football we have been privileged to watch so far this season.

Are Manchester City guilty of 'financial doping'?

Ever since the takeover by Sheikh Mansour, Manchester City have often been accused of financial doping. But are they actually guilty of it?

The first thing is to understand what it means. Most people take it to mean the club is living beyond it's means with a wealthy owner pumping money in to keep the club going. It is called doping because the extra finance, which the owner will not get back again, gives the club a perceived unfair advantage over other teams, who only have the money they generate themselves in which to pay for players. By putting additional money in, the owner allows the club to have players they wouldn't otherwise have been able to afford, improving the team by a method that is perceived to be unfair.

Currently that appears to be what is happening at Manchester City. Large sums of money have been lost by the club, paid for by the owner putting more money, in the form of equity, into the club. They certainly aren't the first club that has had an owner doing this. For example, Jack Walker and Dave Whelan put their money into Blackburn and Wigan respectively. Both got promotions and won a trophy as a result. Other owners have done the same.

There are also other cases of shareholders investing money in a club. Tony Adams has claimed the real reason for Arsenals success was money invested by Danny Fiszman. I've heard several Arsenal fans claim this isn't financial doping as the investment was in the form of loans which were eventually repaid. According to this logic, a club can temporarily live beyond it's means as long as the money is eventually repaid and it's not financial doping. This has some logic to it. It allows, for example, for investments which would lead to an increase in revenue such as a new stadium.

Which leads us to some observations on what is happening at Manchester City. After the takeover there was a statement from Sheikh Mansour which contained the following:

• "I have bought the club in a private capacity and as part of my personal business strategy to hold a wide portfolio of business investments."
• "I am.....a long-term investor"

The above imply that, in the long term, Sheikh Mansour wants to see a return on his investment. That is, Manchester City are temporarily living beyond there means and eventually the owner will get his money back. If that is correct, how is that different from the investment by Danny Fiszman in Arsenal? The scale in terms of amount invested and time to get a return are different, but the basic principle is the same.

There is an obvious question of if there will be a return. The club is about to issue new accounts, but it's unlikely there will be a profit at this stage. The ongoing investments (such as the vast Etihad Campus) will prevent that. But there has been some return already. The club is worth a lot more than when it was purchased. This is obviously not yet enough. However, I doubt Sheikh Mansour expects to get his money back yet. In Abu Dhabi, there are vast investments which are being made with a view to life after they run out of oil. They are thinking of very long term investments.

If we accept that Sheikh Mansour intends to eventually make a profit on his investment, then the answer to the question of financial doping depends on if you think there should be a time limit to how long a club can live beyond it's means. UEFA thinks there should be some limits, which is why the Financial Fair Play rules are being introduced.

So are Manchester City guilty? That depends on the answer to two questions, will Sheikh Mansour see a return on his investment and how long should he be allowed to wait for a return?

Update 29/1

Today City announced their latest financial results. While there was still a big loss, it was almost half the previous year. The trend is clearly down. There is also a huge amount of long term investment being done - the Etihad Campus, New York City, the women's team etc - none of which will see a return for years, and plans for more in the form of a stadium expansion. And there is the effect of the significant increase in the TV deals for both the Premier League and Champions League which has yet to kick in. I do think Sheik Mansour intends to see a return on his investment in the long term as discussed above, and that may start sooner rather than later.