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.

City vs Palace - a few thoughts

A win is still a win. The title isn't won by winning 7-0 against Norwich, it's won on days like this when a team doesn't play well and still finds a way to win. A few observations on the game:

• The game can be summed up by the above photo. Palace set themselves up in a 4-5-1 formation with each line about 10 yards apart. The photo shows this perfectly. They were disciplined and went about the job very effectively. This is classic Tony Pulis tactics. At Stoke he would often set his side up like this away from home. The goal is to keep it tight and try and nick something from the game, and if they concede they still don't change from this tactic, saving themselves for another day.
• This very nearly worked for Palace and it was only thanks to some excellent saves from Joe Hart that they didn't nick something. It's good to have him not only looking back to his best, but also showing a lot of bravery.
• The game was one where we needed to show a lot of patience. We did this and will have more days like this before the end of the season. When the opposition sets themselves up this way an early goal usually means we'll go on to win comfortably. But the longer the game goes on without a goal, the harder it will feel.
• The best way to break down a defence in these circumstances is through movement off the ball and rapid ball movement. This should pull the defense about until the gaps appear. Palace were very disciplined and kept their shape which made off the ball movement difficult - there was no space to move into. The rapid ball movement wasn't helped by the selection of Javi Garcia. He was sat too deep and moves the ball too slowly for a game such as this. Far too often he was next to the centre backs with no Palace player within 20 yards. Eventually Kompany started bringing the ball out of defence but Garcia should not have spent the whole game so deep.
• Dzecko comes in for a lot of criticism from City fans. He isn't as good as Aguero or Negrado, but how many other teams have a third choice striker as good as him? I can't think of a Premier League team. He now has 50 goals for City and we can be thankful he took his one real chance on Saturday so well.

City demolish Norwich - were City good or Norwich rubbish?

My second visit to the Etihad of the season and a first. I'm not sure I've ever seen City score 7 before. When was the last time City scored that many? I can't recall us doing that since the 10-1 victory over Huddersfield in the 80's.

But I'm not sure how good City were. Norwich seemed to allow City to play and didn't really do anything in the game. I'm almost left asking if they actually turned up? They were awful and I've no idea what their game plan was. It wasn't to sit back and get men behind the ball, there was no attempt to use pressing and get pressure on the ball. The result was that Silva, Nasri, Aguero etc had plenty of time on the ball to do what they wanted. This inevitably meant a hammering for Norwich.

I'm not sure there's much point analysing how City played. Defensively there was little to do and in attack they showed what we know already. Given plenty of possession and time on the ball, they will score a lot of goals with the attacking firepower in the squad. I doubt they will get as much possession and time again this season.

Finally, has Yaya found his favourite place on the pitch? If City get a free kick there again, there's a good chance he'll score again.

Thoughts on City vs Everton

For a variety of reasons this was my first visit to the Etihad this season. A few thoughts on the game:

• The first half was fairly even but we dominated the second. During the first half I was worried by the amount of space Everton were getting in midfield, far too much of it.
• A reason for this was Fernandinho. I'm not convinced by him. I put his relative anonymity in the games I've seen on TV down to the type of player he is. I'd assumed he was doing lots of defensive work off the ball but from seeing him live I'm not sure of that. He seemed far too passive and always a yard away from where he should be. And as someone said to me after the game - he tackles from the wrong side. Hopefully this is just while he gets used to the Premier League.
• It was good to have Merlin back. Is there a better creative player in the Premier League? Despite his frustrating reluctance to shoot, his passing is a joy to watch and he ran the game in the second half.
• Most impressive Everton player? Lukaku in the first half. He was a handful. Why Chelsea don't seem to want him I've no idea.
• How bad was the referee? Thankfully his performance didn't affect the result but it was a bizarre performance. There were some tackles in the first half which should have been a yellow card. I'd assumed David Silva had been booked for one so thought he was going to be sent off when he eventually did get a very soft yellow. Late on in the game it seemed every foul got a yellow. There was also a 10 second spell in the first half where he gave Everton a free-kick when it wasn't a foul, allowed them to take a quick one from 10 yards away, then gave a goal kick after a Joe Hart save from Lukaku. 3 out of 3 wrong there.
• The referee's inconsistency extended to the penalty. Either both teams should have had a penalty or neither. The penalty is soft but was for me a foul, as was Nastasic's shove in the first half. See my view of it below:

• And my view of the penalty being scored (Tim Howard a bit unlucky)

 :

• Finally the attendance. Officially over 47,000 but there were never that many in the crowd. I know the attendance is tickets sold, and other clubs have worse issues with this (e.g.United), but I don't understand why some people buy tickets and don't turn up.

Thoughts on City vs Villa

My thoughts on City's loss to Villa on Saturday can be summed up as follows - how the hell did that happen?