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.