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.

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.