Manchester City 0-0 Manchester United: dull game with no drive from the centre of midfield
MANCHESTER CITY: 25 Hart; 17 Boateng, 28 Toure, 4 Kompany, 5 Zabaleta; 34 De Jong, 18 Barry, 42 Toure; 7 Milner, 21 Silva; 32 Tevez. MANCHESTER UNITED: 1 Van Der Sar; 21 Rafael, 5 Ferdinand, 15 Vidic, 3 Evra; 18 Scholes, 16 Carrick, 24 Fletcher; 17 Nani, 13 Park; 9 Berbatov. Usual diagrams back soon (tech problems)
A disappointing match that produced very few goalscoring chances.
Roberto Mancini went with his usual 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 system. Mario Balotelli was suspended so James Milner came in, with David Silva switching to the left.
Sir Alex Ferguson went with his one-striker formation, seeking to match City in midfield by playing Darren Fletcher, Paul Scholes and Michael Carrick. Nani was on the right with Ji-Sung Park on the left. Rafael continued at right-back.
The tempo for the match was set early on, when City simply knocked the ball around in their own half without looking to move it forward, with United pressing when the ball was played into the midfield zone.
The home side started the better but eventually United settled into a rhythm and the game was fairly even. There were only three shots on target in the first half – a long-range free-kick each from Nani and Carlos Tevez, and a right-footed shot from Patrice Evra, who stormed forward from full-back. There was nothing happening in the midfield zone.
Functional midfield
That’s not really the fault of the players in that area, merely a result of the fact that both midfield trios had an overwhelmingly functional feel to them. We can take the ideal midfield trio as possessing (a) a ball-winner (b) a passer and (c) attacking creator. Think of Liverpool with Mascherano-Alonso-Gerrard, Barcelona with Toure-Xavi-Iniesta, Chelsea with Makelele-Tiago-Lampard, Inter with Cambiasso-Motta-Sneijder, Arsenal with Song-Denilson-Fabregas. There are exceptions, of course, but in 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 formations this seems to be the general model.
Similar to City’s 1-0 win over Chelsea, neither side here had anything like a player who would come under (c), and so the sides were content to play in front of each other, producing few chances. City’s most forward-thinking midfield was Toure – someone we’ve just named as a ‘ball-winner’ at the most successful stage in his career (even if he had previously played as an attacking midfielder), whilst United’s was Fletcher, a box-to-box midfielder and far from a creative player.
Little skill in wide areas
The creativity, then, would have to come from wide areas, but none of these players had particularly good games, and often simply came into the central midfield zone. For City, Silva always drifts inside into a trequartista role, whilst the only time Milner went down the line and got a cross in, he found absolutely no-one waiting in the box to take advantage of his ball. For United, Park also moved into the middle, whilst Nani was dealt with well by City – Barry moved across to double up with Pablo Zabaleta. Ferguson swapped Nani and Park briefly after half-time, possibly to get Nani into more space. Neither set of full-backs offered a consistent attacking threat.
Both defences sat very deep and hence the play was stretched across length of the pitch, making the gap between the midfielders and attackers much greater, and making it even more obvious that neither had a ‘link’ player to join the play. It also meant the midfield battle was standoffish – you’d expect crunching tackles here, but there were only two yellow cards in the game – Scholes for an innocuous trip, substitute Wes Brown for a mistimed tackle on the wing.
United press
United were marginally the better side, and the main reason here was that they pressed higher up the pitch, winning the ball closer to the opposition goal. City were keen to retreat into their own third of the pitch and soak up pressure, whilst United’s midfield was a lot more energetic, switching around and making sure the three always had specific men to pick up. The Chalkboard below demonstrates the difference well, through interceptions.
Carrick
One bright note was the performance of Carrick, who was the outstanding player in the central midfield area. He turned in a top-notch central midfielder performance – completing seven interceptions (more than any other player) and also completing 59 of 61 passes. His midfield partner Scholes’ passing stats were even better – 68 from 69 – but it’s worth pointing out that his one misplaced pass went straight to Tevez in a dangerous position. Not only was Carrick reliable in his distribution, he was also forward-thinking. Often criticized for only playing the ball sideways, a notable number of his passes were played forward.
Conclusion
An instantly forgettable game. Neither side wanted to make the running – United expected City to take the game to them, but Mancini’s tactics are very cautious – wanting to retain the ball, sit back and maybe counter-attack if the opportunity presents itself. Ferguson may have said differently in his post-match interview, but it seemed both managers were content with the draw.
Manchester City 0-0 Manchester United: dull game with no drive from the centre of midfield
It was cowardly of the Beeb to start their highlights show with this borefest. They should have announced that they would run it last, after even the goals from Tuesday’s matches.
Maybe, but then the people who had deliberately avoided the result because they wanted to watch it without knowing would have had their evening ruined.
ZM, would suggest going back to player names instead of the numbers on the board.
See captions
you just added the caption now
u missed it in the original diagram (jus kidding) 
though regular followers of this site (like me) would know..
I had a dream that the diagrams were back to normal XD
there must be at least 3 of these posts for every analysis on here
I agree, I’ve given the new style team layout boards a chance but I still prefer the old style. Sorry!
Haha, it is hilarious people are still saying this. Hey ZM, what’s with the new diagrams?????
Incredible how bad Yaya Toure is playing in an advanced position, sometimes almost as a 2nd striker. Indeed, none of City’s players looked to run with the ball, something that was so lacking… And when Yaya Toure did, his first touch was poor, his final pass was poor and he isn’t fast or a good dribler. Can’t Silva play in the middle? He seems to have all those characteristics.
Strange that Yaya Touré is now considered to be a bad dribbler, back when Barcelona won the CL with him, I remember several occasions where he’d go mad through the center of the pitch and go past 3 or 4 players. Maybe that’s easier to do when you’re the unexpected unmarked midfield man coming from deep, rather than when you’re given the explicit role of the most advanced midfielder.
As for David Silva, actually Football Manager says his best/most natural position is attacking midfielder (center), but I watched very few Valencia matches to be able to confirm that.
Silva almost always played as an AM for Valencia through the years.
Different team, different Yaya. It’s difficult for any (attacking) midfielder to play in such a negative uncoordinated team. Especially after playing at Barca.
Money might be better in Manchester, but football enjoyment must have been much better in Barcelona for Yaya.
i disagree with ZM in that point.. Yaya is certainly NOT a ‘ball-winner’.. ‘Ball-winner’ is a Claude makelele type of player.. Yaya may have the imposing physical presence, but he cannot play there..
He has proved so, many times in the past.. Even when he played for olympiakos in greece, Stoltidis was playing the ‘ball-winner’ position and was covering for him.. In Monaco he was almost playing a classic nuber-10 position..
In barcelona, he had to play deeper, because otherwise he would have been benched, for Xavi and iniesta are better attackers,passers and catalans.
But it is the very nature of that team and its way of playing through relentness passing that enabled him to play a deep-position but not a ‘ball-winner’ one. His last year was bad, and he was benched a lot, because he was more unwilling to stick to his position and he was storming forward all the time..
Toure is by nature, a classic number-8, a player that can carry the ball through the opposition and play the killer-pass also .. but he is not the player to receive the ball in an advanced position and dribble with quick moves or trick his marker.. He is neither the man to stay behind and stick to the DM position..
But he is an excellent footballer, and as long his managers understand his characteristics and use him properly, he can contribute to his full potential..
I think Man U waited for the first 15-20 mins before starting to press City more actively.
Also, Berbatov played a lot differently than he usually does – he would be the first person pressing up whenever Barry would get the ball. It looked like they were more than willing to let Kolo Toure and De Jong on the ball. But Barry and Milner would be closed down immediately.
A very funny match. Fergie’s approach seemed to be to shock them – Evra had a couple of runs in the middle, and so did Park. Berba on the other hand stayed wide for most of the match (check out his heat map on the guardian chalk boards).
It just seems that neither team were willing to risk pushing forward for the win, they were, as you said, just content with the draw.
Carrick was a good deal much sharper than I have seen him in a while. His passes had more of a point to them; the way he created space for Wes Brown to set up Berbatov’s volley shot was great to watch. His form will be important for United. And I wonder if Capello noticed how much better he played than Barry.
United were lacking that finishing touch. You can tell they had immense belief that they could win it in the last 10 minutes but they just couldn’t find the final ball. If the original fullbacks, or at least Evra, had stayed on the pitch, I think they could have nicked it in the end.
Both sides showed each other too much respect with the formations.
yeah but Fergie did not go for the win either,bringing on Hernandez for Berbatov.Utd of old always would go for the win in such situations.Disappointing to see them approach all away games in BPL like they do in Champ League.
BPL? What is this BPL you speak of?
The Hernandez for Berbatov sub might have been different had both Rafael and Evra not been injured and subbed. Hernandez was about to come on when Evra collapsed. If not for that i think we would have seen a bit of time with both strikers on (had it not worked then Berbatov would probably have been subbed for a midfielder 10-15mins later) but without another sub to change the system if it wasn’t working, it was too big a risk.
I think it would have been a better game if
1. Utd hadn’t sustained injuries to their (attacking) full backs. Evra and Rafael were having great great games, looking very comfortable in defence and providing some attacking thrust (especially Evra). Nani (like C.Ronaldo) always looks better with a pacy FB on the overlap.
2. Park’s (and Fletch’s, to a lesser extent) first touch hadn’t been so unbelievably awful today. He has a great attacking game against Wolves, you start to think he’s more than just the high work-rate, tactical option, and then he plays like he did today. Innumerable attacks broke down at his feet, which was such a shame because Carrick was constantly finding him in space. When De Jong and Toure did press for possession,they just couldn’t touch the Utd midfield – except for Park. His lay-offs just weren’t working.
3. Mancini was vaguely exciting (or excitable). A Champion’s League side should be looking to win at home in the 1st half of the season (in squeaky-bum time, maybe you’d rather nab a drab draw, but not when Chelsea are there to be chased). Johnson on late (and only after Utd’s FBs are injured) does not count as going for it.
How can Wes Brown on a yellow, and John frickin’ O’Shea not be worth attacking? Yet he was still hoping for Tevez to single-handedly beat 4 men down the middle of the park.
Great to see Carrick running the show – even when he was on form for Utd, I don’t think I ever saw him take control of the game while Scholes was on the pitch, but he did that yesterday. I did a double-take when he sprayed the ball straight out to the right wing, instead of tapping it to Scholes to let him do it (he doesn’t play that ball as well as Scholes does, mind, but then no one does.)
Man City were unbelievably dull. Their supporters kept up a great atmosphere, but when the last ten minutes came, and the fans were roaring them on, they were still attacking the Utd back 4 with 2 men at a time, and hoping Utd would get carried away chasing a win. Wouldn’t even chance a proper counter-attack.
I think Mancini’s decided he doesn’t need to go looking for wins in these matches – he just needs to pick up Champion’s League football this season, keep his job, and upgrade his squad again next summer, so far as “financial fair play” allows. He’s right, but he’s boring.
Oh man, this was hard to watch. I understand the need to play cautiously against an opponent of Man Utd’s calibre, but seeing as Man City are the home team, I think Mancini should’ve made more of a meal out of it. Balotelli was probably a big loss with his creativity in the final third, and I would’ve played Milner in Yaya’s position.
I think so too, they should experiment with Milner in Yaya’s position, Yaya in Barry’s position and Johnson starting.
i’m not sure why some people are so surprised about how far up the pitch yaya toure was playing. he’s been the most advanced of the three every time i’ve seen city play this season.
Hi ZM, since you are experiencing tech problems with Microsoft Office, have you considered downloading Openoffice instead? It’s free and has similar functionality, so you can revert to the old diagrams easily.
I’ve tried it but no the diagrams dont work
ZM, obviously you’ve changed something that is causing you all this technical problem (maybe a pc upgrade). maybe it would be better just to revert back. there is an upside, though. never knew Rafael is number 21!!
Thanks for this, very useful advice…
I really hope Mancini gets sacked. He probably will because after spending mega millions on players, I think City fans would want to see fast attacking football, not this. Mancini parked the world’s most expensive bus.
Missed the game, only caught the highlights on MOTD, ‘highlights’ used loosely.
Very good analysis as always ZM, and great to see Carrick back in form, massively underated player, and those stats are very impressive. United don’t really play with a natural holding midfielder, although Carrick can play a holding role, and does it very well. What I don’t understand, is why the hell Barry gets in infront of Carrick for England, it really is a disgrace.
Barry is weak, slow, poor on the ball, poor positionally, I could go on, but you get my point. I doubt Carrick is strong, neither is he particularly fast, but on the ball he is very good, and he always seems to be in the right position to break up play. I am genuinely intrigued to know what people think Barry offers that Carrick doesn’t.
Anyway, focusing more on the game, for all the money City have spent, and of all the players they could have bought, at the moment, for me there still a very average team who will still be some way off of Chelsea/United. As has been mentioned, why does Toure basicaly play an advanced midfield role? He’s decent on the ball, but he’s a destroyer. Silva has the perfect attributes to play the role, yet doesn’t… Barry, De Jong, Toure, very boring and very average midfield.
You’re being harsh on Barry there, he is pretty well-built, and is a calm and reliable passer. They’re quite similar in style of play though, and generally offers the same thing, I think Barry is in-front of the pecking order for England because Carrick was in bad form towards the end of last season and got injured.
De Jong and Toure aren’t average players, De Jong was an important part of the Dutch team that reached the World Cup Final, while Toure was part of the all-conquering 2008-09 Barcelona team. I agree that they aren’t the players to unlock a defence though, and it’s really unnecessary to have Barry, De Jong, and Toure in the same midfield, but I guess you can’t leave a player on 200k per week on the bench?
‘They’re quite similar in style of play though, and generally offers the same thing’
Sorry, but I completely disagree with you there.
Barry is meant to be a defensive midfielder, Carrick does that job better than him, and he is a deep lying playmaker, not a defensive midfielder… Barry doesn’t have the skill, technical ability to play the role that Carrick can do, and Carrick still does a better job than Barry at DM, even though it’s not his position.
Don’t want to turn this into an England discussion, but we’re never going to win NOTHING with the likes of Johnson, Barry, Milner.
Johnson’s a quality player – he’ll mature nicely. And Milner’s at least a good engine, but I’m not quite sure he has the brain – though maybe if he were still at the centre of things, like he was at Villa, I’d be proved wrong. He’s a coach’s dream though – does what he’s told, versatile, goes home early etc.
I agree with you about Barry, though. One thing I noticed from the World Cup, and which is very true at City is that these teams who try to play with the double pivot need to remember to actually pick one of them who can pass accurately over a decent distance.
ZM mentioned the lack of an attacking creative player, but City were lacking a “passer” as well – Barry’s left foot is significantly worse than Carrick’s, and Carrick’s right-footed.
City sat deep partly because they were wary of Scholes and Carrick hitting Nani on the break – whenever Utd started pushing on, there was no one who could play a ball from deep and get the City attack going quickly. De Jong can’t pass at all (he’s a more violent Makelele), and Barry’s left foot is worse than Carrick’s – and Carrick is predominantly right-footed.
It just means that the attack and defence get cut off v. easily from each other, and then attackers start having to drop really deep to get the ball. It makes everything v. containable.
I was referring to G.Johnson by the way, I’m with you in regards to A.Johnson, but in regards to G.J, defender who simply can not defend, recipe for ABSOLUTE DISASTER.
“De Jong can’t pass at all (he’s a more violent Makelele)”
loved it.. ha ha
I think Barry is just having a bad season… he was the worst player on the pitch against Montenegro, and I remember specifically against Arsenal he stood still and let an player go by him for the opening goal. it could be tiredness – he’s played at least 34 league matches (the vast majority of them for 90 minutes) in every season since 2002-03.
Is Barry really a defensive midfielder though? Wasn’t he more of a free floating central midfielder at Villa? I seem to remember him just roaming about in midfield linking play while S. Petrov was the deepest midfielder. Admittedly I didn’t watch them that much, so please correct me if I’m wrong.
With all due respect, Barry isn’t a defensive midfielder, nor do I think Carrick is a deep-lying playmaker, especially when playing alongside Scholes. I think they are the typical midfielders that ZM highlighted in an article a while ago, a player whose main job is to keep the midfield ticking by playing and receiving short passes, and occasionally offering their bodies as support in attack and defense, an unspectacular but important job. Obviously with Man City showing a lack of attacking intent in the middle of the park, and Carrick the more gifted player technically, he had more license to roam and the difference was more obvious in this match, but I stand by my point that they have similar roles in their respective teams.
I feel England’s problems runs deeper than just Glen Johnson, Barry, or Milner (who I think are good players, actually), the fact is majority of their players simply didn’t perform in the World Cup, and had a bad tournament.
Barry deservedly got into the England XI when he was in good form. His form has dwindled away, so a few months of good form by Carrick could see him into the team. Of course, if Lampard and Gerrard ever showed their best club form for England, they’d rightly be midfield fixtures. But they never do.
These days, Barry IS a defensive midfielder, he may not always have been one, but he is now, despite not playing the role very well.
If Carrick isn’t a deep lying playmaker, I don’t really know what he is. If he has a destroyer alongside him, (one day hopefully it will be Hargreaves) we’ll really start seeing the best of him again.
i think that’s what happen when both teams play counter- attack ,but neither team attacks. leaving a stalemate ! . some very high passing accuracy figures on both sides. yaya toure had 95% for large portions of the game as he regularly does, but dropped to 91% at end of game. kompany had the highest of any defender on show with 93%. you wonder if a few too many “safe” passes were made in forward positions.
while i’m on the subject of passing accuracy ( stats from teleg match centre ) , i was interested to look out for Tiote’s figures y/day after his brilliant performance at Arsenal.
down to 83% but still pretty decent ( at fault for 1st goal though of course ).
2 surprising examples last night of smaller teams out-passing/possessing big sides. wolves had 52% poss’n vs arsenal. 92% for karl henry- impressive & 3 others in midfield 80%+. the other one that really impressed me was Wigan getting 53% possession vs liv’pool. Cleverly was on 95% for much of the game but ended on 89%, 3 others in m/f on 88% , with hendry thomas just in front of the back 4 ( in a 4-1-4-1 ) on a very healthy 84% too.
compare these to Bolton who best m/f last night, Holden had just 67% , and matt taylor & Lee were on approx 55%; despite playing reasonably well, but meant overall posses’n was at just 36%
I’d say City play something of a 4-3-2-1
Why not 4-3-3? Because Silva and Miller (especially not Milner) are not comfortable playing so high up the pitch, and also because City’s midfield bak-of-three practically dictates that the other two drop deeper to help initiate play.
You rarely see Sliva or Milner pinning back the opposing full-backs just wide of the main striker.
ZM, I wanted to ask you about the following point:
“We can take the ideal midfield trio as possessing (a) a ball-winner (b) a passer and (c) attacking creator. Think of Liverpool with Mascherano-Alonso-Gerrard, Barcelona with Toure-Xavi-Iniesta, Chelsea with Makelele-Tiago-Lampard, Inter with Cambiasso-Motta-Sneijder, Arsenal with Song-Denilson-Fabregas.”
I know you qualify this statement by saying there are exceptions, but it seems to me that at the moment something along the lines of Chelsea’s first-choice midfield is more effective – that is: Lampard, Mikel and Essien. Mikel is both ball-winner and passer, Essien both passer and ‘runner’, and Lampard, both creator but also scorer. Other midfield trios that could fit to this model are Rodwell, Pienaar and Cahill or Huddlestone, Modric and VDV.
I know few players are as energetic as Essien, so the idea of a ‘runner’ is not as applicable, but it seems that the deep-lying playmaker (Pirlo, Mikel, Rodwell, Huddlestone etc.) changes the nature of the 3 and allows for the most attacking of the trio to be both creator and auxiliary forward, with the second midfielder either more energetic (Essien) or more of a passer (Modric or Pienaar)
rodwell, huddlestone and mikel are certainly not deep lying playmakers. Don’t get confused with a defensive midfielder who is a good passer, for a playmaker. A playmaker is a good passer, but also very creative, unlike huddlestone, mikel and rodwell who are merely just good on the ball. Pirlo is a great example, with the likes of Xavi, D.Pizarro, Montolivo too.
Fair point ‘playmaker’ is a loaded term, and probably not the correct one here. Although I agree with you that Pirlo is the epitome of the deep-lying playmaker, or ‘quarterback’ as it can be called, I find it interesting that you don’t think Huddlestone fits in with this. I would certainly place him alongside Pirlo before Xavi, who has played in a more advanced role in recent seasons. Don’t watch enough Italian football to comment on Montolivo or Pizarro.
However, if not a playmaker, I do think there’s more to it than defensive midfielders who can pass a bit. Mikel starts so many of Chelsea’s attacks with his passing, even if they are short or sideways passes. Him, Rodwell, Huddlestone and Pirlo, for me, are all destructor/creators, both ball-winners and the start of so many attacking movements.
Not sure how to define this term other than describe it. Thoughts?
I think that this sort of player really is just a defensive minded center midfielder with good passing.
I think you can break central midfielders into 5 groups:
1) Pure defensive midfielders/ ball-winners (Mascherano, Cambiasso, De Jong)
2) Defensive-minded center midfielders that pass, keep possession, sometimes start attacks. (Huddlestone, Mikel, Carrick, Pizarro). This role varies from team to team, player to player.
3) Deep lying playmakers (Pirlo, Scholes, Alonso). Sit in front of the defense and knock accurate passes to attackers.
4) Box-to-Box players/ runners. Players that do a little of everything, and use their stamina to close down opposition. (Fletcher, Meireles)
5) Attacking Midfielders (Fabregas, Gerrard, Sneijder, etc.)
Obviously there are variations on all of these, especially #2.
A deep lying playmaker in my mind is a technical genius. He is someone who plays defence splitting balls on a regular basis, and gets many assists. In my opinion there are only few deep-lying playmakers in the world. For me, with Mikel/huddlestone/rodwell, are good passers and have good ball retention, although they arent people who are massively creative and you wouldnt see them play unexpected through balls on a regular basis; not to say they couldn’t. It is easier to differentiate the two if you see visually so i recommend typing in “David Pizarro passing” or Montolivo “passing” into youtube.
disagree with ur conclusion ZONALMARKING about being cautious, sitting back etc – a similar conclusion to the sky commentators. In my opinion today was a defending masterclass in the sense, there is no way any team can create good opportunities against you if you close them down quickly, defend narrow and compact, have cover for every pressing player and defend deep enough so the ball cant be played in behind you. Man City and Man United both did this to perfection and thats why no good chances were created. Man United and City evidently both wanted to win the game from the start as they both pressed high up the pitch, rather than sitting deep and playing on the counter. Also disagree with no creativity from the wide players, as when Nani did skin Zabaleta, he was being covered by Barry and so was nullified. Also Man United doubled up on Adam Johnson when he came on, making him ineffective. A great defensive display from both rather than lack of ambition.
I’d agree with this.
Both sides defended brilliantly and there was hardly a mistake all game. When I read the headlines “bore draw” this morning I nearly spat out my coffee. If people find matches like this boring they probably shouldn’t be watching top level footy. Try LEague 1 instead (i’m a saints fan and its nothing if not entertaining)
A defending masterclass…..well thats what you’d expect from any Premier League team if they got 8 players behind the ball and only had to deal with 3 or 4 attackers at a time. The only exception to this was when Evra got forward and central which lead him to getting the only shot on target from open play.
And a bore draw was exactly what it was…… if both sides head out with a mindset that 0-0 would be a good result then a bore draw is what we are likely to get.
neither team put 8 men behind the ball though. If you watched the game it was of high tempo and great intensity in terms of pressing high up the pitch and when either team couldnt press high (e.g cos its physically impossible to do so for 90 minutes) they made sure the opponents were closed down quickly in dangerous areas. And for your argument of lack of numbers forward; take Man United for example – Berbatov, Park and Nani were joined by fletcher seeing himself very high up the pitch, scholes got close to berbatov several times, and wes brown was constantly bombing forward and was practically playing right wing in possession; thus making 5 and sometimes 6 players forward simultaneously.
You can not make the same argument for City though, can you? Even in the last 10 minutes their counter-attacks were just Tevez + A.N Other.
Atrociously dull.
Utd were reasonably attacking, for an away team, but City had at least 8 men behind the ball at all times – only Silva and Tevez stayed high up the pitch.
Hey 3rdnald0. I really like your analysis here. It was one of those entertaining 0-0 game with skills and discipline at its highest level. Goals are not everything in football.
I agree… this was a bore draw, just united were more attacking.
It is difficult to fault a manager that plays to his team’s strengths (clearly their physicality in central midfield). The fault would obviously be with the transfer team (you can bet your ass Mancini doesn’t have sole authority over transfers) and their failure to acquire attacking midfielders or attacking fullbacks. Based on Wilson’s article about the 4-2-1-3, Silva is too attacking for the 1 role, but ideally suited to cut inside and create (rather than score, like Balotelli would on the other side). Therefore he needs an overlapping fullback on his outside (preferably Dani Alves) and a progressive midfielder behind him (I personally would sign Modric). This leaves Toure to drop into defense, allow the fullbacks to attack, Silva/Balotelli/Tevez converge in the middle, and Modric orchestrates from deeper.
well to be fair his first choice fullbacks, Richards and Kolarov, are pretty attack-minded – they’ve just had injury problems. finding good attacking left backs is especially hard… in the EPL, Evra and Cole are better than Kolarov, and Clichy’s not awful, but that’s about it.
There seemed no effort to get any City players behind the fullbacks. No pace at all. I suppose Balotelli might help a bit in that regard.
There must have been three City counterattacks in the 2nd half when every City player was exactly in the center of the pitch, allowing multiple defenders to defend narrow. It reminded me of the screen shots ZM showed after the Spain-Switzerland World Cup match, with everyone congested in a zone not more than 10 yards wide. Too easy.
what about Leighton Baines ?
@ZM
OT
You write great articles. I like the fact that we see some games from Portugal etc. Will you write something about Bundesliga football in the next weeks? Maybe Schalke – Werder (the ‘clash’ of two disapointing teams this season; nice to know what tactics you will see in this teams) or a DFB Cup game. but when I think about it, there are not that many big games in the next Bundesliga rounds.
Hey ZM, love your articles. I’m a huge football novice, but reading this website and its cerebral approach to the game is very illuminating. I know its probably too much to ask for an analysis or two on the a-league (I’m australian) but how about one on the socceroos next january at the asian cup?
Hi. Thanks! Yes will try and cover some of the Asian Cup. A-League might be a bit of a stretch, but if there’s demand I’ll try…
Whether one saw a bore draw or an outstanding display of the defensive arts, the fact is that Mancini played for a draw at home. That is disgraceful.
To play Yaya in the most advanced midfield position is ludicrous. His dribbles were pointless, every time running out of gas & losing the ball, with no teammate near him. City’s few crosses were met by…no one.
Yaya may or may not be creative, but it hardly matters when only one teammate is advancing with him. Silva or even Milner would offer a better attacking threat in the middle, not that Mancini is interested in putting an attacking threat on the field. Silva must be asking himself why he came to Manchester (for the money, obviously.) And playing Boateng, a natural central defender, at fullback, instead of Johnson, just shows what a coward Mancini is.
So he’s got some injuries — he has the largest, most expensive squad in the league. Just as with Chelsea under Mourinho, a team that has spent so obscenely surely has an obligation to its fans to entertain while winning. If you spend that much money the two can’t be mutually exclusive.
If City’s aim is to be the most detested team in England, they’re off to a good start. Now all they need to do is win something.
I don’t understand, why is there an obligation to entertain when a team spends obscenely? The only obligation is success (for Mancini, and probably the sheiks as well), entertainment can come later, and if their goal is a top 4 finish, then they are on the right track.
Low played Boateng at FB too. Don’t think he was ever accused of being a coward.
And Silva and Milner are not better AM options than Yaya. Silva is most suited as a free-role winger (the one he is playing now), and Milner is… simply inferior. Mancini’s problem is that he’s got to work with Milner and Barry, two very average players (wouldn’t mind them at Blackpool though) but essential to keep some Englishness amongst the team.
i am not able to access the diagrams
At OT United won’t play like what city did yesterday.
i wont be too sure of that.We would still go 4-5-1 because our midfield 2 will get overpowered by their 3.
One thing that has been bugging me alot… Why is it that it is generally accepted that players fit into 4 groups; Goalkeeper, Defender, Midfielder, Striker! Surely the difference between a winger and a central midfielder is far too big to consider putting them in the same group! With defenders, it would not be unheard of to put a centre-back at full back, but imagine putting someone like Robben (who is mainly listed as a midfielder) in a defensive midfielder role! It seriously should be: Goalkeeper, Defender, Midfielder, Winger, Striker. Okay, there are some players that can play both in the center or out wide, but certainly it is plain to see which position those players prefer!
Great stuff as always ZM. I was dreading this match for weeks. After the heart attack inducing four games the two Manchester teams played last season I was expecting fireworks. Instead what we got was sh*t on a stick. A coma inducing affair. I know all the City fans will try to excuse it as they are so desperate for trophies they will take anything, but this was inexcusable. After United (my team) took 6 points off them and knocked them out of the CC last season Mancini owed it to them to get revenge. Instead they got “ha ha, we were able to get a nil nil draw at home.”
The defences were good yes, but its not as if anyone was getting overwhelmed with numbers. Its easy for defenders to look good when there are only 3 men attacking. United had a lot of unfit or semi-fit players due to injuries and the virus bug. But Mancini was too afraid to open up and go for it in case he went a goal down to a counter and had to chase the game. They spent yet another 100 plus million on players in the summer and are not much better off (if at all) than they were last year or the year before. Only difference is that Liverpool are weaker, otherwise they would be the 5th or 6th best team in the league and after spending over a half a billion quid on players. City fans should be furious with their manager and the team. Mancini is a coward, he has two very good attacking midfielders yet refuses to play then together even wide. Silva should have been on the opposite side of Johnson with Milner in support (Toure’s spot) and Toure and De Jong deep protecting the back four and starting out attacks. A 4-2-3-1 would have been a much better option. Barry has been rubbish for a long time now, he would not have been missed. The two wide players could have kept both Evra and Rafael back and Park and Nani honest.
Neither team was great, but United failed to score due to Nani and Park having poor games, the midfielders however supported United’s attacks. City did not score because they hardly tried, at home, in need of revenge, against a weakened side.