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

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

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

Why women's football needs a bit of rhythm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a difference an early goal makes

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

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

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

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

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

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.