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.

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.

What is the point of possession when the other team doesn't want the ball?

There is now a clear template for success against City and it is posing questions which, as yet, City have no answer for. This has been evident for much of the season, although the signs of the weaknesses that it exploits go back more than a year. The last couple of games have posed the following question to City - what is the point of controlling possession when the opposition wants you to have the ball? And City have had no answer.

The template for success against City is now this. Sit deep and compact, allow City to have the ball until they get in the final third then work hard to close down the ball. Then, when you do get the ball back, hit with quick counter attacks. By keeping the full backs narrow and the midfielders deep, the space inside that Silva and Nasri exploit just isn't there. And we are incredibly vulnerable to counter attacks.

With hindsight, the first side to use theses tactics against us with a degree of success was Crystal Palace last Christmas. In that game City were lucky to win 1-0, Palace deserved something from the game. This season, Stoke beat us early on this way. Then so did CSKA Moscow, Arsenal and Middlesborough. All at home. The tactic is also being used against us away from home. Villa tried it but ran out of energy late on and allowed Yaya Toure to create one moment of brilliance to decide the game.

So why is this so successful? There are two keys, firstly City are very poor at defending counter-attacks. Secondly, for all their brilliance, City's attack is fairly one-dimensional. There are often comments made online after City score that they just keep trying to score the same goal over and over again. This is perhaps a little harsh, but consider this - City are rubbish at set-pieces. Corners have now got so bad many City fans now fear we are more likely to concede a counter attack goal, than score from the corner.

In principle there is nothing wrong with having a set pattern of play and City have enough quality there to make it work. What it does do, is make it simpler for a team to set themselves up defensively as they know what's coming. This sort of approach was often something the Barcelona team of a few years ago were accused of. They were criticised for the lack of a plan B, even though they were, in my opinion, the greatest team I've ever seen.

That Barcelona team were occasionally undone by teams that posed them the same question I mentioned earlier - what is the point of dominating possession if the opposition doesn't want the ball. Barcelona were beaten in two Champions League semi-finals (by Inter and Chelsea) when the opposition took this approach.

This City team are not at the level of the great Barcelona side but they are a very good side. There is enough talent in the team to find a solution. But they do need to find a solution soon as more and more teams are taking this approach against us.

Arsenal beat City with a very Un-Arsenal performance

Today the better side won. But it wasn't the Arsenal of recent years that beat City, it was a very different performance. They ceded possession, kept compact and worked hard. Then hit us on the counter. And fully deserved to win. On Sky, Gary Neville essentially spent most of the game saying 'I told you' to Arsenal. Here are a few thoughts on City today:

• Yaya was sorely missed today. The Fernando/Fernandinho partnership does not really work when you dominate possession. Both are better as ball-winners than creative players and neither gets forward much. This is where Arsenals different tactics hurt us most. The team was set-up expecting Arsenal to try and go toe-to-toe with us. They didn't which menat we missed Yaya's passing in midfield. Yaya is capable of getting the ball past the defenders to our attackers.
• The introduction of Jovetic improved things but I think this was more down to the change of shape. Arsenal cut off the supply to Silva when he was central in the first half, and then crowded him out. Moving him out wide meant he saw much more of the ball.
• Jovetic himself is too predictable at times. He always tries to shift the ball onto his right foot and away from his body.
• The defending for Arsenals second goal was dreadful. Nothing more really needs to be said.
• Jesus Navas can be a frustrating player. At his best he can provide a great supply line for our attackers. But too often he fails to get the ball past the first man and his reluctance to use his pace and run at his full-back is puzzling.
• How bad have our corners got? I just can't get excited about winning a corner when I feel we are now more likely to concede on the counter than score from the corner.

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.

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 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.