Arsenal 0-0 Manchester City: Arsenal dominate but are frustrated in front of goal
The starting line-ups
Arsenal had all the best moments but failed to get the breakthrough.
Arsene Wenger played the same side as in the recent 3-0 victory over Chelsea, which meant no place for Marouane Chamakh or Andrei Arshavin.
Roberto Mancini made five changes, including three of his back four. He also left out Adam Johnson, instead playing Jo on the left.
Arsenal started the match at a very high tempo when in possession, and should have gone ahead in the first couple of minutes when Jack Wilshere’s cross-shot wasn’t reached by Robin van Persie.
Arsenal stand off
Out of possession, however, they were surprisingly calm. In the win over Chelsea they pressed Chelsea’s back four relentlessly, but here van Persie and Fabregas dropped back towards the halfway line and focused on not letting City play through the centre of the pitch. This gave City’s centre-backs time on the ball, and the away side were able to have spells calming the tempo by keeping possession.
It was rarely possession in dangerous areas, though, as they seemed to miss David Silva drifting in off the flank to provide a link between Carlos Tevez and the rest of the side. Yaya Toure played as the midfielder with more license to make contact with Tevez, but he often wandered back into the congested midfield zone to pick up the ball.
Tevez drops deep
In a sense this suited Arsenal quite well – with Alex Song playing higher up than last year as part of a double pivot, rather than as the lone holding player, he was comfortable moving up the pitch to close Toure down, and the resulting large gap between defence and midfield was not exploited by any City midfielder, with James Milner and Jo staying wide.
It did mean, however, that Carlos Tevez had space to drop into, and he dragged Laurent Koscielny out of the back and frequently evaded the Frenchman’s tackles. This looked like City’s best way of creating a chance in the first half.
Arsenal fail to score
At the other end, Arsenal were dominant. They struck the woodwork on more than one occasion and seemed to find it very easy to play through City in the centre of the pitch early on, despite Mancini setting out a narrow side to make this difficult for Arsenal. Nigel de Jong’s booking was a blow for City – until then he’d been dominant in the centre of the park but much of the rest of the game ducking out of challenges for fear of picking up a second yellow.
Arsenal’s passing was excellent but they simply couldn’t find the way through. Tactically, there was nothing wrong with their display, and credit should go to Kolo Toure and Vincent Kompany for dominant displays at the back for City.
Second half
The second period continued in a very similar fashion to the first. City sat back even deeper with Yaya Toure pulled back in a more solid midfield five, which gave City extra protection ahead of their back four. Adam Johnson was brought on for Jo but influenced the game little.
Arsene Wenger had to make substitutions to try and change the game and force the issue, but Andrei Arshavin’s flicks failed to come off, whilst Nicklas Bendtner is rarely effective when playing in a wide role. From that point of view, it was disappointing Wenger didn’t go with two men upfront to provide more of a physical threat in the box, but then considering Arsenal were completely dominant, it’s hard to blame him for not wanting to change the shape of the side.
City negativity
Maybe the defining feature of the game was how little effort City made to win the game. They barely threw men forward, leaving much of the attacking play to Tevez, who played a very difficult role extremely well. Even when they had a couple of promising moments and Arsenal won the ball, City always had their back four in place, with at least two of their central midfielders ahead, and Arsenal were rarely able to open City up on the counter-attack.
There’s no doubt City played for a 0-0, something they’ve done in successive games at the Emirates and in the home game with Manchester United, but even so, to not manage a shot on target in the 90 minutes is poor form for a side going for the title.
Conclusion
It’s difficult to fault Arsene Wenger – his side played excellently as a whole. They didn’t have problems at the back, they passed the ball well in midfield, they created chances but simply failed to convert them, something Wenger couldn’t have helped. Had Wilshere’s pass in the opening stages found van Persie, it would have been a completely different game and quite possibly a big Arsenal win.
Mancini got what he came for with a dogged defensive display. City had to withstand an early Arsenal siege, in a similar way to the opening day 0-0 at Spurs, but were much more comfortable in the second half, although there still has to be an improvement in turning defence into attack – too often City simply had no forward pass from the back.
Arsenal 0-0 Manchester City: Arsenal dominate but are frustrated in front of goal
I can’t believe a title chasing side can set out so negatively, especially with Arsenal’s defence being so weak.
Mancini says he likes to score and win but he is definitely too negative for what the fans want.
He plays on the counter which is great but the problem is when teams shut up shop or don’t fully attack, then he almost doesn’t have a plan B. I remember the ZM article about how great Brazil were at countering when winning but when needing a goal they were clueless.
The same applies to City.
But Arsenal were attacking all match and city still didn’t dare to go forward on the counter
Actually they did.
But Tevez was always left to deal with three or four players by himself. Eventually, he’d either lose it or aim for goal.
Actually they really didn’t. A counter attack usually involves more than just the one player who is already up there. Leaving Tevez to run from the halfway line on his own is by no means a counter attack. If I were him I’d be asking for my wages to be quadrupled on the basis I was doing the work of four men.
I thought it was funny both Mancini and Toure explained how playing four games in ten days forced them to play for 0-0. And what was the reason for the identical display against Man Utd? Fear maybe? Feelings of inadequacy?
The reason the counters didn’t work wasn’t because Tevez was told to beat four men but because both Toure and Milner never joined quick enough.
Probably down to a lack of pace or the fact that neither of them are particularly great at countering. Every attack saw Tevez pick up the ball deep, run at the defence, look for a player (who was still trying to make up the ground) and eventually take it by himself.
Mancini’s plan failed…but they did attempt to play on the counter.
ZM points out “the defining feature of the game was how little effort City made to win the game. They barely threw men forward” and to substantiate his claim I will note that 5 off target shots in 90+ minutes does not equal going forward, so when RA said
“Arsenal were attacking all match and city still didn’t dare to go forward on the counter”
and you replied
“actually they did”
and then proceed to describe what can only be termed “not going forward” there is no conclusion to be drawn but that you are mistaken. You admit it below, when you say, “the counters didn’t work … because both Toure and Milner never joined quick enough.”
That is the definition of not daring to go forward, so what I am trying to figure out is why you felt compelled to disagree with RA ion the first place.
Man City = most boring side ever.
Seriously, every time I catch a game of them on TV it’s ridiculously fucking dull. They do a great job defensively, but who watches football for that?
Yup.
Well see how they play when they get Dzeko. Tevez will probably be able to drop back more and provide the link between City’s boring MF and the target man.
Mancini should play:
——Jong——–Yaya—-
AJ/Mario—–Tevez——Silva
———Dzeko———–
They have the personel. No reason they should be this dull.
Dzeko ‘prefered’ a two-men striker line-up, so far. When Wolfsburg won the title, they played a midfield diamond, with Misimovic as playmaker and Grafite as the big forward (who was top scorer that year).
Now McClaren (and I think his precursor also) tried 4-2-3-1, because Grafite is a little out of form (or no longer as good as a few years ago). Misimovic left and Diego is different type of playmaker (but I think he would also prefer the diamond). Dzeko plays well but does not look that good without the target man next to him (like a lot strikers).
So, I think a 4-4-2 with wingers and two holding midfielders will be the best. Of course the difference to a 4-2-3-1 is not that big, but Dzeko is able to move around and could switch positions with Tevez during a game.
How about a 4-3-1-2 that is modify so that it wouldnt be so reliant on fbs.
Example.
X X
X
X X
X
X–X–X–X
With the second stricker(tevez probably acting as second punta)
aka a player who will try to drift out wide and connect midfield to attack.
Than one of the 3 traditional cm will pull out to make a wide midfielder
persumably milner. (he is good defensively, and if needed he could come into the middle.
Than you could have dzeko as the target forward. Who will benefit from the width provided by tevez, milner, and the fbs who will push fw.
I think that would be a better system for city opposed to the 4-4-2 which we have all figured out by now is a bit of a joke.
You must not have watched a lot of City this year then. Great going forward against Villa, Newcastle away was very exciting, both Blackpool fixtures quite good…
Bottom line: Mancini needed a point, he got a point. Isn’t that what good managers do?
Agreed: City came looking for a point, which they got. Only, they needed three as Arsenal have a game in hand, and Man U have two. What happens in Man U’s ‘make-up’ games could very well determine the title. If Man U wins both, they are up 8 pts on City and 5 on Arsenal (assuming Arsenal wins theirs).
The two games in hand are away to Chelsea and the mercurial Blackpool. They’ll probably win them, but they’re not gimmes.
games in hand are fungible.
>> games in hand are fungible
… and the use of such lexemes, grandiloquent gasconade.
“Bottom line: Mancini needed a point, he got a point. Isn’t that what good managers do?”
so what does that make di Matteo, Hughton, Redknapp, Lucescu, and Paciencia (that would be 5 of the 7 managers who beat Arsenal this year)? and you can’t make the excuse that Arsneal were playing at home, because Newcastle, West Brom, and Spurs all won at the Emirates.
I don’t think that City (initially) made no effort to score, they were extremely defensive, but I wouldn’t go as far as saying that there was no effort. Their biggest problem was that Arsenal always attacked with 2-3 less players than City defended with (understandable, it would be stupid to attack with 10 players), so whenever City won the ball back, it was Tevez vs. 3 defenders. And looking at his support, Yaya-great dribbler, poor in other areas of attacking-, Jo-off game-, Milner-not fast enough to provide adequate support-. Therefore, Tevez had to do it all alone (keeping in mind that he’s not the fastest player either, so a ball over the top wouldn’t have worked). Adam Johnson had to come in earlier, before he came in, City had something like 30% possession, and after his entry they went up to 45% within 10 minutes.
I’m not suggesting that possession=better play, but it’s not like they were defending perfectly either, they were conceding chances left, right and centre, and were saved by some great last ditch tackles as well as marginally off target shots by Arsenal.
The only improvement I can think of for Arsenal is perhaps using Walcott’s pace more effectively. They had a stubborn City defence pushed all the way back, so he couldn’t run in behind them. Backing off a little while maintaining possession, luring City forward, then releasing him could have been an alternate approach.
Chelsea game was 3-1 Michael.
Frustrating for Arsenal, fine margins, happy with the performance though. They needed an injection at 75 mins but Fabregas and Van Persie looked exhausted. I hoped he’d bring on Chamakh for Van Persie and play Nasri through the middle.
Arsenal fan here: removing Walcott for Arshavin was a mistake, as was failing to move RVP out left and letting Bendtner roam the CF lanes.
However, how is it that Inter Milan can beat Barcelona the same way City defended Arsenal today and be proclaimed by ZM as having given a heroic performance, while City are said to have exhibited poor form? And don’t give that second leg, they were up 3-1, as an excuse. We’re talking about a championship, in which, clichéd as it may be, every match is a cup final.
In the first leg of that match Inter attacked an awful lot and of course, came away with a win. Also, Inter played a very large portion of that second leg with 10 men, and I think it is common knowledge that trying to throw men forward and attack in the Nou Camp, especially with 10 men, is pretty suicidal.
Mancini did the same. In Manchester he attacked well, but the sending off after 5 minutes resulted in an 0-3 to Arsenal.
At Emirates he defended. It’s no surprise considering they lacked Silva and Balotelli.
City are the second highest scoring away side in the PL, only Arsenal is better by one goal.
At the game at Eastlands earlier this season, Arshavin was through on goal in the first five minutes but was wrongly flagged offside. A minute or two later, Chamakh was through on goal and was fouled by Boyata – who deserved to go off. Mancini played an inexperienced defender and was punished. Arsenal started that game brightly and desreved to be up within the first few minutes – Man city deserved to be a player down and then failed to defend propperly and lost the game 0-3.
The fact city lacked Silva and Bolatelli is no excuse – the squad is immensly strong and should be strong enough to beat an Arsenal team with frankly a pretty woeful home record this season (lost to newly promoted big spenders West Brom 2-3 and Newcastle 0-1).
Well, having a 3-1 lead is an excuse. Not conceding was more important than scoring, so that’s what they tried.
Furthermore, that was Inter’s defined plan (once Motta was sent off). Their gameplan was exclusively to defend. With City, first of all their defending wasn’t great. Had it not been for a heroic performance from Hart and their defenders (minus Richards), their midfield was getting overrun. Even with City’s defensive play, Arsenal hit the post several times.
Secondly, it didn’t seem like City were devoting their entire game to defending, they tried to attack, they simply seemed unable to do it.
To be fair, Inter were gifted a clear offside goal and Barcelona had a clear goal disallowed. It really should have been 3-2 on aggregate for Barcelona. The credit given Inter is a bit too much.
Yes, I know having a man sent off was harsh but that’s not a huge factor when your plan is to sit back with 10 men.
Inter also had a clearly onside 1v1 called off and another really close offside call going Barca’s way before Pedro scored.
what was Pique’s goal then ? Not offside ? How about the great Busqet’s playacting ?
Can barcelona defend like that with 10 men ? they can afford to sit back with 10 men beccause they hav a 2 goal lead. In the 1st leg, Inter were at their attacking best.
Barca vs. Inter, it will never end!
City actually had two chances to score at The City of Manchester before Boyata got sent off. After that they were badly imbalanced and couldn’t get attacks flowing.
Essentially, Inter knew that they were going into that match with a 2 goal lead. Would you honestly go into a CL semi-final against the best team in the world, against the likes of Messi, Ibrahimovic, Henry, Xavi, Toure, Busquets, Alves and Maxwell and try to attack? AFTER getting a man sent off?
More fool you.
Two things.
1) No game in a league game is like a cup game unless its a game between the top two teams and no other team can catch them.
Man City are currently second on the ladder, and need points to catch United and stay aheade of Arsenal (who havea game in hand), Spurs and Chelsea. This was quite possibly the most defensive display of football I have ever seen (bar perhaps North Korea vs Brazil and *that* Inter Barca game). For a team which is chasing the league leaders to go and basically completely ignore the attacking side of the game is quite extraordinary in the Premier league. The fact Inter were a man down has already been mentioned.
2) While Man City defended well, it wasn’t an exceptional display. Arsenal should have been one up inside the first minute when Wilshire’s shot/cross just escaped van Persie, Hart was beaten twice when Arsenal hit the post and Arsenal broke City’s defence on several other occasions. Also, and this is coming from an Arsenal fan – Arsenal played well, but lets face it, they’re no Barcelona.
If Barcelona is so great against teams that park the bus why were they held to a draw by mighty FC Copenhagen in the group stages of the champions league?
Every team has an off day. You could pick rare feats of poor performance for the best team in history, just like you can pick incredibly strong performances from weak teams.
“Arsenal fan here: removing Walcott for Arshavin was a mistake, as was failing to move RVP out left and letting Bendtner roam the CF lanes.”
In the first half, I thought Arsenal looked most dangerous when trying to isolate Zabaleta with Walcott, which is a tactic better achieved when the threat from Nasri is on the other flank. The team lost some directness when Arshavin came on.
You’re right about Bendtner though, wtf was he doing out left.
ZM I’m struggling to fathom what role Mancini has Gareth Barry playing. In their central midfield trio De jong holds and destroys, Toure provides runs forward on and off the ball, but Barry does what exactly? In theory this third player should be a creative passer off the ball, but Barry provides no creativity whatsoever, and is not exactly a defensive monster either.
Do you think that with Dzeko coming in that Mancini may go more positive and sacrifice Barry, moving David Silva more central? Or maybe city should focus on getting a player to play the passer role in midfield. Ever Banega perhaps?
Banega’s barely played this year. They should get Pastore. Now that would be a fun side.
I think a more fitting question would be; why is he even a professional footballer?
Agree..its a mystery what exactly coaches see in him..an article perhaps on the usefulness/uselessness of players like Barry,ZM?
One thing i believe he provides is calmness to the defence..an extra man to fill the gaps in defence..with a good passing range.. a different kind of DM to dejong
ZM did wrote an article about it (players like Barry) sometime ago. You can check it out here http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/07/30/central-midfield-role/.
Barry gives the ball away so much though. Going by that destroyer, passer, creator model, Barry fits into none of the categories. Yaya Toure fits into the destroyer category as well as the passer category, De jong is the pure destroyer, but that still leaves the city midfield needing a creator. I think city could do with the creator/passer as the one playing deeper ala Banega, since a player like Pastore as someone above mentioned would play higher up and operate in the same sort of areas as David Silva.
Forgot to mention the fact that Yaya higher up the field gives city a great counterattacking outlet with his driving runs on/off the ball ala Kaka, which is why Mancini probably plays him there instead of deep.
Barry gave the ball away too much this game, but he is usually a reliable passer. I agree that he is not the most spectacular player, but I don’t understand some of the hate for him.
Barry is also not a very good passer… I don’t think they really have anyone who can naturally play that “Busquets role”. Milner and Yaya Toure are attack-minded, de Jong is a destroyer, and Barry really isn’t that good. I think Liverpool were lucky to fail to sign him because it allowed them to develop Lucas, and now they have Meireles as well (who appears so far to be a better player in all facets of the game).
Banega’s been in and out of the starting lineup this year, but he has the ability to play that role. another suggestion would be Keisuke Honda, who just won the Russian Premier League title with Zenit in his first year.
Yeah, I saw that articles, and I’m aware of the different types of defensive midfielder.
As has been mentioned though, Barry is what exactly? He’s not a Mascherano destoyer, he’s not a Xabi Alonso (CARRICK!) sit deep and dominate play whilst still providing a defensive shield, and he’s no where near the all round quality of Busquets who can pass, break up play, and has brilliant positional play.
“I’m struggling to fathom what role Mancini has Gareth Barry playing. In their central midfield trio De jong holds and destroys, Toure provides runs forward on and off the ball, but Barry does what exactly? In theory this third player should be a creative passer off the ball, but Barry provides no creativity whatsoever, and is not exactly a defensive monster either.”
Three cheers for this! Exactly what City was missing today: an attacking link in the center of the pitch, which would often fall squarely on Toure (compounded by the fact that Milner isn’t too apt to cut in on his left foot and Jo was a disgrace) and thus sacrificing any meaningful attack. Perhaps with Dzeko, Toure moves back into a creative holding role with De Jong and Tevez is AM or they put Silva there and maybe play a 4-3-3.
I’ve been saying this for so long.
Barry is an overrated player who does the basics well but nothing else. He’s not a great destroyer, a great passer or a great attacker.
To start a Barry article, I really do not know what he offers a team, I genuinely believe it’s nothing, especially in the City team, who already have a destroying type of defensive midfielder.
As there are alot of people giving opinions about Barry, what do fans think about Carrick? I think he’s a massively underated player, I can’t see what Barry does better than him to warrant a place in the England team. If we compare them, both sit and hold, both have little pace, Carrick is without doubt better on the ball than Barry, Carrick is also better defensively, his positional sense is better, and he makes ALOT of interceptions in games.
I suppose you could say Barry is a better tackler, but by no means is Barry a particularly good tackler, and Carrick doesn’t need to tackle if he always seems to be in the right positions to break up play, and as articles and comments on here mention, the ‘tackling’ defensive midfielder is in decline in favour of the Alonso/Busquets type of player, and Carrick is certainly more in the Busquets mould of defensive midfielder than the Mascherano type.
Always liked Carrick and I’m not a United fan.
I think he takes a bit too much stick for his performances whereas Barry gets too much praise. I think Barry gets into the England squad on the notion that he can be a defensive midfielder whereas Carrick is simply a central midfielder. This is unfair because a) Barry isn’t a very good defensive midfielder and b) the 2 man midfield doesn’t play to the strengths of a deep-lying playmaker like Carrick. Both highly unfair when Carrick is the superior player in pretty much every aspect.
My only issue with Carrick is his lack of strength. I still remember how Olic threw him off the ball with ease. But like you said, the midfielder’s transition into a more intelligent and composed player means that it’s hardly fair to judge Carrick on something we wouldn’t judge Busquets and Alonso on.
I think Barry should count his blessings for being in that England squad. Scholes, Carrick, Hargreaves, Wilshere, Gerrard and Lampard are far superior players yet he’s still around. It’s funny because prior to the WC he said he had no problem with being the water boy yet when England needed their DM to take charge and protect the back four, he wasn’t anywhere to be found.
hey zonal,
I’d be interested to hear your take on wilshere. he seems to be a pivot player at the moment. he moves the ball out of his feet very quickly, but he’s not really a tackler or a forward-mided midfielder either.
look at cesc when he was 18. he is learning discipline deep in order to be the playmaking middle 3 in 4 2 3 1.
I think that was more a consequence of Arsenal’s formation at the time (4-4-2 in 99% of the games). Fabregas actually played in the middle with Vieira only because of Gilberto’s nagging back injury – he played about half his games on the right wing for the first two seasons of his career.
it’s hard to say what role Wilshere will play in the future. assuming Fabregas leaves at some point, if Ramsey returns to his best form, I imagine he would play deep and Wilshere ahead. but what if the best central midfield is Nasri / Wilshere / Song (for instance if Ramsey has continual injury problems like Diaby)? Nasri would seem to be the more natural player in that advanced role.
isnt Arsene developing a squad very similar to barcelona..even player for player..they are no where near that level but he seems to be aping them..
Cesc,Nasri play xavi iniesta role.wilshire/denilson busquests role.song/diaby keita role.walcott as pedro.chamack what ibra was providing last season.villa as arshavin…they dont have a Messi tho
I think that in the absence of Fabregas, Song and Nasri are locks for this midfield even as the group ages. Ramsey, Wilshire, Diaby, and Denilson will all be fighting for the odd spot or be used as cover. man, it’s a sick squad.
Arsenal’s squad is terrible. Look at the goalkeepers and the defence. The fullbacks can’t attack well. They are only quick but terrible in the air too. They have too many of the same players in midfield and attack. The only player who is really different is Walcott because he can actually play the ball on the outside. Even he is dreadfully inconsistent and Wenger will insist on him becoming a central striker.
I’m not surprised they haven’t won anything for five years and I don’t think they will win anything for the next 5 either
I dont understand how playing for a draw automatically becomes negative. Every game needs different tactics and if the team decides to go for a draw for a purpose, what is wrong ? If you want to win the game, it is your job to force the issue. What is the point in scoring so many goals against weak opponent and defense ? Same goes to barcelona and its fans.
What if you scored 4 against a weak defense arsenal when you cannot score against Inter ? Great teams find a way to adapt to different situations and play accordingly. Thats what Inter did. When needed to attack, they did it and exposed the poor barcelona defense and when needed to defend, they did that too. Can barcelona do that with 10 men ?
i think the point Jan, is that Barcelona would not want to try and do that. just like arsenal wouldn’t want to try and play for 0-0
Maybe.. but that depends on each team.. If you have only good attacking players and poor in defense, you obviously will play attacking game.. if you are good in defense, you do that.. But why call it negative ? Defense is a part of football.. Best balanced sides do both well.. Thats what Inter did last year.. attack ruthlessly when it is needed and defend when needed..
Barcelona and Arsenal are not balanced sides and hence cannot do both effectively.. hence they attack all the time..
people aren’t saying no team should play defensive in any situation. when we play Ipswich in the League Cup, I’m almost positive they’ll play defensively, for obvious reasons. people are saying, when you have a virtually unlimited bankroll (even more than Chelsea), why are you the most defensive team in the top 5 of the EPL? in fact, if you look at the teams, it’s like the amount of resources is inversely proportional to how attack-minded the team is, which shouldn’t be the case…
that said, maybe Mancini’s not in control of the transfers, in which case it would be the board’s fault for not signing enough attacking midfielders (which is their weak area).
That is a question we need to ask the manager and the board of Man city. But I am making a larger point regarding the discussions going on in various forums right from last year’s CL semifinal. Everyone thought Barcelona would win and when it didnt happen, they branded Inter as a negative team and victimized barcelona.
The thing is every team has its own tactics and strengths. To brand the defensive approach as Negative is wrong. Trying to hide their weakness, teams blame the other team for not attacking enough. As Steven has explained below, your attack can only materialize when there are holes left by the opponent. If it doesnt happen that way, teams like Arsenal and Barcelona could not score.
Because Arsenal only play well when teams leave holes for them to exploit. So rather than admitting that they’re not very good at doing something different, they claim that every team they face is ‘not attacking enough’. Have a look at some of Arsenal’s lost points this season and you’ll find that the opposition is very disciplined. Have a look at some of Arsenal’s wins and you’ll find that they either score on the counter (when there’s gaping holes) or when the player is out of position (again, gaping holes).
It’s all very childish. Remember playing cricket in school and that one batsmen was defensive. The bowlers couldn’t get him out so they started complaining that he wouldn’t ’smash the ball’ and it was unfair.
Essentially they’re blaming other teams for their shortcomings. Which seems to have become an Arsenal trait these past few years. I’m sure if Arsenal won 1-0 you wouldn’t hear anything about City being defensive.
I don’t think you quite get the point.
I watched Serbia vs Argentina during the Olympics in 2008 – this was to be the match of the group stage, and recived prime coverage on TV. Unforunately for me and everyone else who watched it, both teams only needed a draw to progress to the knockout stage. What progressed was the most boring game of football I have ever watched. Two teams, neither one attacking and happy to knock the ball around like a leisurely pre game training excercise. Defensive + defensive = boring.
Compare that to say, Arsenal vs Barcelona in the champions league earlier this year, or UTD v City in late 2009 – plenty of goals, plenty of action at both ends of the park, plenty of drama and plenty of suspense – which for spectators is what football is all about frankly.
Theres nothing wrong with taking the defensive option every now and again, but when a team does you must admit it is rather dull. As a fan I like to see my team beat its rivals, and even when it doesn’t Id like to see some clear cut chances on goal.
No I get the point. Essentially there’s an argument here that City never ‘came out to play’. Which they didn’t but it’s hardly like this is a revelation and City’s tactics surprised Arsenal’s player and manager. This is a completely different scenario to Inter v Barcelona because it was something Pep wasn’t prepared for.
Mancini has time and time again played extremely defensive. That’s his style. Wenger should have realised this and tried something different. Agreed that playing against a team who put 11 men behind the ball is hard but then (again) City have done this time and time all season.
I agree that football should be a spectacle but tactics ultimately decide results. We could ask all the managers to go gung-ho but that would completely ruin the tactical side of the game (which I believe is the most interesting).
That’s why I think it’s a case of spitting your dummy out. The team adopted tactics which stifled you. So what? Adopt a new strategy. Don’t complain that they’re so boring or so defensive or anything else. This is partly why Spurs games are so interesting…because Redknapp is a reactive coach.
Hang on… So your saying pep guardiola should have been surprised that a Jose murinho team parked the bus in the second leg of a semi final when they had a two goal lead???
City were very lucky not to concede in this game. It wasn’t a cup game and they weren’t a man down yet they still managed to put in a performance as defensive it’s worthy of a newly promoted team trying to beat relegation.
The corresponding match last season was intimately more. Dull as arsenal chose not to attack.
Surprised….yes. It’s easy to say ‘well Inter had the lead so they were always going to defend’. But the way they defended probably surprised him.
Inter strung together something like 40 or 60 successful passes in that game. That’s 2 successful passes every 180 seconds. So imagine how little of the ball they had. So much so that Mourinho declared after the match that they didn’t want the ball because when they have the ball they have a man out of position. It was basically a training exercise in trying to beat 10 disciplined men.
There’s being defensive and playing on the counter/slowly building up passes and then there’s not wanting the ball at all. If that doesn’t surprise you, then I don’t know what to say.
steven smith, what is childish? all i said is that it is not in the mentality of the current (or recent) arsenal/barcelona sides to play so negatively. that’s just a fact. whether you take that as a good thing or not is up to you. but your reaction to a simple statement was more defensive than city themselves!!!
just so you know, i don’t blame man city for arsenal’s shortcomings. with regard to last night’s game, i blame a combination of mostly bad luck and also a lack of ruthlessness from arsenal. tiredness was also clearly a major factor.
i agree that arsenal should just accept how certain teams are prepared to play against them, and concentrate on improving their own game. but there isn’t a massive amount of room for improvement on last night’s performance – creating the chances they did, arsenal should have won, and deserved to win. so as an arsenal fan it’s hard to complain too much
I didn’t say that you personally were childish. I said that blaming the other team for your shortcomings is a childish way of looking at it. A lot of people on this comments section are doing it.
Arsenal did well and probably should have scored. You were definitely the better team and I’m not taking that away from you. Just simply stating that sometimes people will not always play to your rules or your ways. Rather than saying ‘they’re the most boring team’ or ‘they have an inferiority complex’, try and find another tactic to beat them.
Btw, I’m not attributing those comments to you. Just stuff I’ve read on here.
i apologise, i thought you were responding directly to me.
you’re right though, if you look at barcelona they have to play against teams who waste time and are incredibly negative, week in week out. yet they almost always overcome it.
i think we’re getting there though, and naturally i think you’re wrong about man utd having the title sown up! i see them taking 1 point from their next 2 games – tottenham and blackpool away
@ Steve
No apologies needed I can see how it may have come across. I think Arsenal will get there in time but for now there’s a few things that make me question their title credentials. The centre-back pairing, the goalkeeper and that missing spark to break down stubborn defences. I agree with ZM that had RVP scored you probably would have put 5 past them but it’s a case of ‘we score loads or we miss gilt-edged chance after gilt-edged chance’. That’s probably what’s separating yourselves and United…they can win ugly.
I also wish I had as much faith in Tottenham as you do.
I don’t know whether it’s pure coincidence or not but Tottenham seem to roll over every time they play United. Beat Arsenal and Chelsea in 3 days then lose to United in a very poor performance. I don’t even think that Redknapp is deliberately throwing the game but Tottenham seem to play in fear of United, even when they’re weak. A Rooney-less United last season didn’t have many problems beating Spurs 3-1.
Alot of criticism for City, but after a busy Xmas schedule, they’ve got a tough away game at Arsenal, they’ve done well to get a point against a side who only recently completely took apart the ever increasing joke that is Chelsea FC.
Have only seen highlights on MOTD, interested to know how Richards did up against Nasri? Richards is far from the finished article, I see him as more of an athlete than a footballer, but without doubt he is still better than the defensively USELESS Glen Johnson, who appeared to turn in another absolute shocker tonight.
As for the comments about potential City teams , the one that was quoted by Anonymous, I just can’t see Mancini being that attacking, a team with Balotelli and Silva on either wing isn’t going have much tracking back or work rate either. He seems to like YYT in this advanced role, and he’s been effective there, so can’t see him dropping back, and despite City spending money for the absolute fun of it, I don’t think Mancini would have spent £27 million on Dzeko if he doesn’t intend to make him a regular starter… So does this mean we’ll see Tevez put out to the wing? I don’t think City really need Dzeko, I’ll admit, I’ve never seen him play, but I don’t think he’ll be alot better than an on form Adebayor, and by signing him, I expect the influence of Tevez/YYT to be changed/influenced in some way in order to accomodate Dzeko.
Nasri was quiet all day. Tried to threaten but he was double-marked by Milner and Richards. More or less taken out of the game mentally after the first half.
Would you say that was more because of Richards/Milner, how did Micah defend him, did he get up close and personal, pressing high, or did he stand off more and allow the midfielders to double up?
He played off a few feet away from the box, but closer in the box. Never really got close and challenged him, probably for fear of a free kick or penalty. All the City players were very careful about making challenges around the penalty box as most realized they had cover.
Never really worked to deny Nasri the ball, but Nasri never got past him either.
Oi, Arsenal only beat us 3-1, not 3-0…
Arsenal honestly played better here then they did in the 3-0 win
ZM, you are giving Arsenal too much credit. In the review after the game, the ESPN crew (McManaman and ?) pointed out that two of those shots that looked great were actually offside. In particular, Van Persie would have been offside had he got to the ball you mentioned twice above. Also, the follow up shot after hitting the post was offside. Arsenal’s best chance was actually the shot from Van Persie that forced a great Hart save, but that was from 25 yards away. Arsenal’s offense was largely impotent. McManaman said it seemed like the shots from Arsenal were “just bouncing right off City”.
I think this speaks poorly to Arsenal’s offense. Certainly, a well organized side could have found a way through. Barca would have scored 3 goals at least. Berbatov could probably have worked his magic there as well.
Considering that City had Silva and Balotelli out and were playing away at a field where they hadn’t won in 35 years, I think Mancini got the best result he could have hoped for. City was solid and showed they can grind out results.
Actually arsenal managed to get inside their box numerous times, see Wilshire’s shots in the match. In the second half it is fair to say that arsenal found it difficult to get through but it is completely ignorant to say ‘a well organised side could have found a way through’. Look at Barcelona vs Inter last year for example. They could not score the goals required when faced with an extremely defensive and well organised unit despite being at home.
I don’t mean to say they didn’t get through, but that they had fewer shots than it seemed. In particular, Van Persie’s chance mentioned twice by ZM above was offside.
As a City fan, I’d be happy to learn that City’s defense (notably without Kolarov) is simply impenetrable even if that means I’m “completely ignorant”. That would have saved me a lot of stress during the game to know up front.
But honestly, I don’t believe it. For a counter-example to Barca vs Inter last year, see Barca vs Real Madrid earlier this year. Same coach, same tactics, and Barca found a way through… 5 times.
Also, Barca vs Inter last year isn’t even example since Barca won that match 1-0. Inter only won in aggregate because of a 3-1 win at the San Siro. But in the latter game, they were much less defensive.
In other words, Barca found a way through in that game as well.
Well I think comparing Barca v Real Madrid to Barca v Inter is unfair to Real Madrid as Mourinho had already been at Inter, what, three years? This is Mourinho’s first year at Madrid. He needs time to build the side into what he wants it to be.
I acknowledge that you need to adapt your tactics to what you side needs but aren’t City a title-chasing team? Title chasing teams don’t play for draws, especially not when they’re NOT in first. I could understand United playing for a draw at the Emirates or Stamford Bridge (well, not on Chelsea’s current form but you catch my drift), but City are chasing a team and they have teams chasing them. For the love of god, at least try and play some football.
I’m ecstatic that they are in the title hunt because, early in the season, the goal was simply to make it to the Champions League next year.
Even then, I don’t think you can say that title chasing teams don’t play for the draw. As I said above, City was without 3 key players and playing on a field they hadn’t won on in 35 years. A draw seemed like a pretty reasonable goal for the match.
Whether van Persie was offside or not in that instant is pretty questionable.
Kczat what logic or are you using to say something like Barca would have put 3 past this City team? Any? Anything to support that claim or stats? Barcelona would ave struggled to beat this team today as well. In fact, Arsenal pressed efficiently, dominated possession, and are unlucky not to have scored. Joe Hart can be thanked for that. Barca is not a team that isnt without weakness and they play very narrow which would would have fallen into City’s hands. A moment of magic from Xavi or Messi maybe but thats all conjecture. All in all i think a Barca draw would be more likely.
Here’s the logic. Xavi and Messi would pull defenders out of position and weave one through the defense in a moment of magic. Mancini, playing for the draw, would then need to bring the team out of its shell somewhat. But this would open even more holes, which Barca would exploit to score even more goals.
Sound plausible? That’s what happened vs Real Madrid. See: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/11/30/barcelona-5-0-real-madrid-tactics/
Also, if you don’t believe me, watch tonight’s (the 6th) ESPN Soccernet Press Pass. Robbie Earle said the same thing: Arsenal is not as good as some teams like Barca, which could have found a way through this defense.
Arsenal may not be as good as Barcelona, but the latter is the best team in the world. City have held their own against the best in the EPL, and I don’t know who else besides Barca could be expected to easily penetrate them.
I don’t know whether Barca would put a few past City as the situation is purely hypothetical and not worth entertaining.
But I do find it funny when these constant comparisons are made between Barca and Arsenal. Barca have world class talent across the field. Arsenal have Fabregas and soon to be Nasri.
the comparison, if you can understand this, stems from what they are both aspiring to achieve. obviously barcelona are much much closer than arsenal are to achieving their aims, but i think what makes true arsenal fans proud to support their team is the way they go about playing the game, regardless of trophies.
whether city fans are similarly proud of their club should be of no interest to arsenal fans – to quote dylan, “you go your way and i’ll go mine”
Maybe Barca could have scored, maybe not. But they are the best team in the world. It’s not really a revelation to say that Arsenal may have an inferior attack to them.
Berbatov could have worked his magic could he? Like he did when United drew 0-0 with City earlier this season and created far less than Arsenal did? Analysis of that game is even linked to in this article if your memory is that short.
I doubt Barcelona would’ve scored against this team. And you think Berbatov would’ve scored against City? Have you been watching MU lately?
I think if city’s gonna maintain this kind of tactics in the future, they’ll need a deep-lying playmaker
City’s approach to play against Arsenal was somehwhat similar to United’s
I believe the difference was the presence of deep-lying playmaker to spread balls to the forward/wingers to begin counter-attacks
United have Scholes and Carrick. Scholes or Carrick sat very deep in the midfield and spread balls to the attackers.
But City has none and most of the time the deepest midfielder was de Jong. He is a good defensive midfielder but not a good passer. He simply passed balls to the nearest players and because City forwards being outnumbered by Arsenal defenders, they too easily lost possession by Arsenal players.
Agreed. A regista like Xabi Alonso or Pirlo who can spray accurate long passes to the wings would be a huge asset for City. As a Gooner I’m very glad they didn’t have one.
Interesting that you illustrate Toure and Kompany’s dominant performances with their tackling chalkboards when Koscielny, who you say played badly, has one that is equally impressive. I don’t remember him making many mistakes personally but then I was very much watching the match in pub mode. Simply a limitation of the chalkboards?
you’re right – he attempted 7 “tackles” (that includes aerial duels) and won 6 of them. you can make his chalkboard yourself:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/chalkboards/create
it’s funny that despite many english internationals, now with dzeko the starting-eleven that most people wanna they to play will include 1 or 2 english players maximum, some will say even none (given instead of hart…)
It is very good management by Mancini to make the team so solid as a first priority. The next step must be to develop their counter attacking play. Silva was sorely missed. There is a lack of creativity in the team with the likes of Milner and Barry offering little in this regard. Still, Mancini is doing well at playing the long game – be secure, put in a title challenge, build on this foundation next season.
Negative tactics will ultimately be the downfall of Mancini at City. It’s exactly the reason they threw away 4th place at the end of last season, and their obvious inferiority complex towards the other big teams is holding them back. Unforgivable with the assets they have.
Pretty pleased with our performance. Just wasn’t to be. For all the talk of a great defensive display from City, the result owed more to luck on their part than any great tactical victory.
Is this the inferiority complex that has seen them beat English champions Chelsea in their last three meetings, as well as taking a point from Utd earlier this season, and taking a point from Arsenal last night?
Mourinho’s mantlepiece suggest that he is the best manager around at the moment, but his style of play hardly epitomises entertainment. Pragmatism trumps style every time, and Mancini got it right last night.
City won’t win the league this year, Dzeko’s arrival will be more of a distraction this season, but valuable lessons will be learned this season to take forward into next season.
Pragmatism is fine.
The fact is the lack of belief/negativity cost them big time last season. While Spurs were attacking and beating Arsenal, Chelsea and City themselves, Mancini and his side started treading water, and in three games against United, Arsenal (who by then were all over the place), and Spurs, they barely had a shot on goal. It was a shocking reversal and I’m surprised Mancini survived it, to be honest.
On top of the negativity of the team selections and tactics, the obvious time-wasting from early on in the game was bizarre as well.
Tbh I agree with this post. Arsenal fans are making out like City have this huge complex which doesn’t exist.
Mancini is currently playing on the counter which is great when you score early and then defend. The problem is that they aren’t scoring early and their attacks are often functional rather than slick and flowing.
City will be much bigger contenders next season. Again, it’s just Arsenal fans saying whatever makes them feel better about their team.
Not in my case, it isn’t. Hell, we’ve probably benefited from Mancini’s tactics. Beating them comfortably earlier in the season, being able to send out a patched-up defence last season and comfortably keeping a clean sheet a week after shipping three in ten minutes at Wigan, and last night.
Hughes’ City side were a much more scary prospect.
1) Beating them comfortably because they were down to 10 men
2) The team still needs to gel together
3) They’re still lacking that creative spark in midfield
4) City have the funds to buy an entirely new squad by the time they face Arsenal
Hughes’ side were scarier because he went all out in attack. Yet for all their attacking prowess they failed defensively. Mancini has sorted that out. So much so that a still gelling together side has kept two clean sheets at The Emirates.
If you don’t think City are a scary prospect, wait until next year. This team is just going to get better.
Scarier as opponents, I guess I could grant you that.
Scarier as contenders at the top of the table? There I won’t agree with you.
Pragmatism WITH style wins. That’s what Arsenal had. There have been a lot of managers who like to play for a draw away from home, but I don’t think that that’s such a good tactic. I don’t know if the statistics back me up on this, but I’m sure more often then not sides that play for a 0-0 end up losing.
The problem with playing for a nil-nil (without trying to attack) is that you’re under pressure for 90 minutes and there are bound to be mistakes, and the more time the ball spends in your half, the more the chances of a penalty or a deflected shot increase. City were actually very lucky that Wilshere and Fabregas narrowly missed good chances. And Kompany was guilty of a handball from a walcott cross.
So when you keep a clean sheet like that, there’s always an element of luck to it. And while luck is part of the game, any tactic that relies on it is bound to fail.
So I don’t think Mancini got it right last night. He won the battle, because he got what he wanted out of the game, but there was certainly a hint of good fortune about it.
I think what saved City in the end was simply the fact that this was such a busy schedule and Arsenal’s unchanged side from Saturday failed to keep the tempo up for 90 minutes. The pace dropped in the second half and City became more and more comfortable in defence.
Wenger on the other hand got his selection and tactics right. The performance was great. I think he had to keep van Persie on because he is Arsenal’s best free kick/corner/penalty taker, and a game deadlocked at 0-0 not going anywhere may just come down to that.
Arshavin and Bendtner would’ve hoped to have made more of an impact, but Arsenal’s midfield had run out of steam too, with neither Fabregas or Nasri able to penetrate well enough.
Arsenal had no attacking central midfielders on the bench. Someone like Diaby could’ve changed the game for them.
Are man city really title challengers? Do they really think they are?
They haven’t improved on their points tally at this stage last year and are in the position they are in because the teams around them have equally messed up this season.
I think city would be happy with the result and look to get results elsewhere especially when they have a few new players or returning players in other games. The aim for City I think would be top 4 and to build up from there maybe take a cup at some point.
I don’t think City believe they can win the league and this shows in their general philosophy on the pitch.
Is anyone a challenger to United? Probably not.
Chelsea have self-imploded, Tottenham are inconsistent, City are far too defensive and Arsenal will also implode around March time as they do each year.
Ferguson must be loving this. They’ve spent about £16m on Smalling and Hernandez and somehow managed to open up a (potentially) 8 point lead at the summit. All without going crazy and bringing in a superstar replacement for Ronaldo. Valencia should be back in the next few months to offer them another option.
If anything, they should gift wrap the trophy for United now.
Its far too early to talk of no one challenging United. A few weeks ago plenty of people said the same about Chelsea. MU have not been impressive this season, especially away from home. That they are unbeaten says more about other teams’ inferiority complex against them than their own ability. There are a lot more twists and turns to come in this title race.
Mancini’s tactics are taking football back into the dark ages,the Italian catenaccio deep defensive style.He has no interest in pressing tactics and taking risks.He was sacked at Inter even though he was successful in Serie A but they knew his tactics belong to another era.He shows no interest in promoting from City’s Academy which has been producing some exceptional talent for several years.The players he buys are largely unexceptional and incapable of playing at a higher plateau.If City do win the League it will be a black day for football.Ancellotti has many problems in his team but he at least has a vision and promoting talented young players is evidence of that.Wenger comes closest to the ideal but his team are some way short of the finished product and whenever they play one of the top teams they are usually found wanting.
Catenaccio went out of favor because teams learned how to beat it, not just because the fans got bored of it. Mancini’s style is certainly defensive, but it is not catenaccio.
Mancini was not sacked because “his tactics belong to another era”. He was sacked because he could not deliver in the Champions League. It took the brilliance of Mourinho to deliver that trophy, so I do not think it reflects too poorly on Mancini. In any case, Mourinho’s tactics were also clearly defensive, so the failure of Mancini to win a CL trophy is not down to his defensiveness.
Finally, there seems a contradiction between your saying Mancini doesn’t take risks and all these others saying the result was down to luck. If it was down to luck, then Mancini’s strategy was risky. It can be one or the other, but not both.
One thing that strikes me after watching Arsenal play several times this season is Gael Clichy’s apparent unwillingness to get forward, even when it is obvious he should do so.
While I consider him a very good full back defensively, I think that in games such as these (when Arsenal are up against a side who defend very deep and are playing for a 0-0) he has to get forward more to provide Arsenal with more width. For example, during the City match there were many times when Carlos Tevez would be the only player in the Arsenal half, and yet Arsenal would have 3 players back there (the two centre backs and Clichy). Clearly this was unnecessary, and Clichy should have been looking to bomb forward at every opportunity, especially seeing as that his opposite winger (normally James Milner) was playing very deep, almost expecting Clichy to get forward all the time.
A similar thing happened when Arsenal played West Ham at the Emirates a few months ago. Again, West Ham sat deep and played for a 0-0. Again, for pretty much the whole match Clichy was reluctant to get forward. Possibly the only time in the whole match he attacked was late on in the 85th minute. Naturally, he found himself with time and space on the wing, and he put in the cross which Alex Song headed in for the winger. If he had done this more often Arsenal could have won the game far easier.
So Gael Clichy : good defensively, has to get forward more in attack
actually, I think most Arsenal fans would say that Clichy gets forward a lot and has no end product, while he makes a lot of mistakes defensively… he and squillaci are the most criticized defenders on the team for making mistakes. personally I think he’s a good player in every department, except his crossing could use some work.
I agree with this so much. Especially when Nasri plays down the left, he constantly looks to cut inside, and the space to his outside is often unoccupied, or you see Fabregas making a run into that space, who looks to cut back and keep possession more than get to the by-line and put the ball across. Considering how often Arsenal face sides who sit incredibly deep and make having 3 defenders deep completely unnecessary you would think they’d find a left back who can play that part of the game, and prevent double teams on Nasri.
First of all, I find it very strange that people keep bringing up the Inter-Barca tie here. It was a two legged cup-tie wasn’t it? It’s such a different scenario, that I wouldn’t even know where to start with.
Secondly, I think it’s a breath of fresh air to have side like ManC in the Prem. Extremely disciplined, often very defensive-minded and the side that everyone can agree to hate. Who would be the bad guy in the prem, if there wasn’t Mancini’s City there?
stoke? wolves? whatever team Allardyce manages next? I don’t think “breath of fresh air” is exactly how I would describe it…
I wouldn’t describe them as a ‘breath of fresh air’. I do however watch them with interest to see if;
A) Mancini make this team title contenders
B) Can we remove the egos?
C) Will he continue to spend ludicrous sums because it’s fashionable or because he actually needs these players?
D) What will happen to their most important player Tevez?
The reason City are so different to Chelsea is because Mourinho came in and knew what he was doing. He had targets, he bought them (albeit for ridiculous prices) and he got the team winning immediately. Mancini’s squad seems to be a bit of a mess who can defend brilliantly at times, attack brilliantly at times…but never do both at the same time.
The Inter-Barca tie is to highlight how taking the ultra-defensive route can be beneficial. However, I think it doesn’t really have a place here because Inter went into the match with a 2 goal advantage and knew that anything other than a 2-0 defeat would take them through. City weren’t afforded that luxury.
A few points. First of all, while I am disappointed with the result as a Gooner, Mancini has made it clear on several occations that his season target is a CL spot. Not the title. So he is doing his job.
Arsenal were horribly unlucky not to have a comfortable lead by half time but sometimes a game comes down to luck. Tactically they were excellent but tactics get you goalscoring opportunities, not goals. Pressing the defence, as you noted earlier, may have gotten some better results, but the players were probably tired from such a short rest between games.
I think Clichy could have given Nasri some more support going forward, Wenger should have instructed him to do this as it was clear City had very little attacking ambition. Nasri had a quiet game, but he was pretty much double teamed every time he had the ball on the left.
Finally, I think Song needs some more work on his shooting to build his confidence. I remember at one point in the second half making one of his runs from deep (the new role he has been playing this season). He basically strolled into the City box with the ball and the defence wasn’t sure who would deal with him. I’m not sure he lost his nerve or decided to pass instead but thet was a great goalscoring opportunity. I don’t remember seeing him doing too many of those, and in a game where, once again, City showed hardly any attacking ambition, it may well have been a more effective tactic for getting a goal (much like his goal against Chelsea in December).
Yeah i noticed that… but it was because it was on his left and I reckon he was scared of going for it and wasting a much needed goal when there was nasri etc on his right.
Should have gone for it though.
That sounds like the most plausible explanation. But my God, if I were a City supporter I would have been screaming at the TV “Somebody pick him up!!!”.
Don’t think there was anything wrong with City’s display. It’s boring but they committed to a plan and executed it perfectly. Questioning their status as title contenders ignore the fact that their defensive displays have been crucial for their position in the table today. If they lose the title race by a point or two, we can look in hindsight and criticise them for being not attacking enough in such games. But right now? They’re well in the title race, ahead of expectations. They have no reason to change their game.
Why is City’s display constantly called “boring”? I can understand that it was boring to Arsenal maybe, but I was sweating for the whole game. It was intense!
each to their own mate, if you enjoy watching your team play that way then good luck to you
(though i would add, that if arsenal adopted the same style as city the intensity of the game that you praise would have been entirely lacking)
“if arsenal adopted the same style as city” What? You don’t enjoy a good staring contest?
For me, it was boring because of the sense of inevitability about it. 10 quality defenders and midfielders behind the ball. As soon as the ball entered that congested centre in front of Joe Hart, it was going to be booted away. In part it was also because of expectations. Two title-contenders, the expectation is usually that they’re at least trying to beat each other. Can’t say I saw that in this match…
Besides “be more open,” what do the City critics want? Missing our most in-form player and our hottest scorer, against a team that will gut you like a fish if you expose your belly, it was a great result. Playing Wright-Phillips, Tevez and Johnson in a 4-3-3 would have been suicidal — 4-4-2 with Tevez and Jo would have resulted in a big midfield rout…
I know the neutrals miss the Mark Hughes “Let’s try to win 6-5″ era, but trust be, City supporters do not. The league is not won by beating the Sky 4 – it is won and lost at the Stadium of Light, Ewood, and Goodison. People bemoaning negative City have likely only watched them vs. Arsenal and Man United.
I’m not entirely sure what was the point of Jo, though. Was he supposed to be more defensive than Adam Johnson? Better at holding the ball up?
Mancini puts Jo on the wing to win diagonal high balls — that’s it. He is not very good at holding the ball up, but he does win quite a few fouls, and makes some intelligent runs. But Wednesday, his only job was to win Hart’s punts.
I was wrong to describe Mancini’s tactics as catenaccio and kczat correctly pulled me up on that.However,I stick to my assertion that Mancini’s tactics belong to another era, or at least they SHOULD belong to another era.It is a great shame that only Guardiola and to some extent Wenger are really trying to follow the lead of great coaches like Michels and Sacchi in promoting pressing football.Other coaches like Benitez and Bielsa do so at times.I did not think that City were lucky to get their point at the Emirates and after a few early scares I had no doubt that it would finish 0-0.
i disagree with your last sentence. if a team sets up purely to deny the opposition chances to score, fails to deny them chances and therefore only achieves its desired 0-0 result through the other team failing to take those chances, then that team has clearly been lucky.
even when arsenal worked space for van persie to shoot in the second half, and joe hart made a fine save, mancini was lucky that van persie didn’t find the top corner. his tactics were designed to stop arsenal creating the space to shoot around the edge of the box, and to block any shots that did come in. therefore his tactics failed, and it was only because van persie’s shot wasn’t quite accurate/hard enough that a goal was not conceded.
this is why a tactical approach, purely concerned with denying the opponent, needs to concede absolutely no chances whatsoever to be considered a success. because chances were created, the fact city got the desired result was down to contingencies out of their control – or in other words, down to luck.
this is what drives the mentality of guardiola and wenger – the desire to achieve success purely on the basis of what they do, not what happens to them. it’s why their teams don’t ‘put the ball in the mixer and see what happens’; it’s why they don’t take shots from unlikely distances ‘in case it takes a lucky deflection’.
and this, i think, is what really lies at the heart of the criticism of city’s approach. it’s not about people failing to appreciate great defending and organisation, and a determination not to concede. it’s not about people criticising them for being happy with a point. it’s about people refusing to accept that a team with such extraordinary resources STILL needs to rely so heavily on luck, factors beyond their control and anti-football tricks (e.g. time-wasting) in order to get what they want.
I agree with your points but I think you’re being far too harsh on Mancini.
Mancini tells the players what to do but errors or miscommunications will always allow the opposition to let a shot off. Just look at Barca v Inter. Bojan missed a glorious header when put clean through. Pique scored. Mourinho’s tactics ultimately worked but he couldn’t stop Barca shooting or creating. He told each player what to do but naturally there was a point when they were a yard too deep or put in poor challenges. Mourinho can’t decide the moves of every single one of his players at every single second of a 90 minute match. What both he and Mancini did do was stop them creating ‘enough’ to put one away.
The tactic was to stop Arsenal playing and ultimately it worked. You can’t work off a theory that ‘if RVP had hit the ball slightly harder it would have destroyed Mancini’s tactic’. You can apply that to every single scenario where a player scores and say it destroyed the opponent’s tactics. He didn’t hit it harder and Mancini got his desired result.
Yes they rode their luck but luck was only part of the process. Mourinho rode his luck and got the result. Any team that sets up defensively will invariably rely on some form of luck because you can’t expect to stop your opposition from shooting for 90 minutes because A) they will have all the possession and B) You offer no attacking threat so they push more men forward.
“What both he and Mancini did do was stop them creating ‘enough’ to put one away”
this is the point i’m making. by creating one chance, arsenal created enough to potentially win the game. the fact that that potential was not transformed into actuality was nothing to do with city. it was out of their control, so they were lucky. you can’t set up a team to prevent chances, go on to concede chances but get away with it, and then expect credit for the result.
“Any team that sets up defensively will invariably rely on some form of luck”
exactly. this is why city are criticised despite (largely due to factors they cannot be given credit for) getting a good result. this is also why negative football will never be as respected or loved as positive football, because it’s braver to rely purely on one’s own actions than the deficiencies of others, or the will of the gods
You’re basically saying that if the team can shoot…the tactic failed. Which is a REMARKABLY harsh way of looking at the successes and failures of tactics.
Let me give you another example. City defend against Barca for the entire game. Barca have no shots (highly unlikely but work with it) until the 90th min when they win the corner. Xavi flicks the ball in and Toure heads clear. The balls lands to Alves 25 yards out who volleys it at goal. The ball is saved by Joe Hart and the full time whistle blows.
By your reckoning, City’s tactics were defeated despite them holding out for that draw because had Alves hit it to the right, left, bit higher, bit lower or anywhere other than Hart he would have scored. But this completely ignores the fact that he didn’t. Which ultimately means that City’s tactics worked. Yes, it’s a thin line between success and failure but you can’t determine whether a tactic is ‘ingenious’ or ‘lucky’ based on the ability to shoot or not. Because even teams who can’t shoot within a reasonable distance will end up trying pot shots (some of which would be on target).
Like I said, luck plays a part but not to the extent with which you’re saying. If a team set out for the draw and managed to keep the other team from shooting, the match stats would show that not one shot was taken in the entire game from both sides. Which to my knowledge has never happened. So any team who plays for a draw has never successfully implemented their tactics…even though some of them earned draws.
It just makes no sense.
Luck doesn’t exist, if someone fails a clear chance it’s not because he has been unlucky.
Luck doesn’t exist with regards to matters in your own hands, true. A shot hitting the post isn’t unlucky, just close. Referees botching decisions in your favor is luck, however, so there is plenty of luck in football. Ask Gary Neville.
and also, from man city’s point of view, fabregas hitting the inside of the post for example was lucky as this was not a matter in their own hands – even if from arsenal’s point of view, it was not unlucky. to say luck just doesn’t exist is a nonsense
@ Steven Smith:
if the tactic was to deny arsenal chances, then the fact that arsenal created chances shows it failed, regardless of whether those chances were taken. defensive tactics are designed to deny chances – they can have no bearing on whether those chances are actually taken by the opposition.
if the tactic was to restrict arsenal to as few chances as possible, and then hope to high heaven that a combination of good fortune and good goalkeeping would keep the clean sheet in tact, then the tactic worked.
what i am saying is that a tactic which involves (to a considerable degree when you consider all the dangerous situations arsenal were able to create) hoping to high heaven that things just go your way, is a tactic less deserving of praise and admiration than a tactic which does not rely on luck.
so teams that play for a 0-0 draw and get one, despite the opposition having a shot on goal, has indeed successfully implemented their tactics – but those very tactics are inherently flawed and fortuitous, and teams adopting them are less deserving of success.
i wasn’t trying to say that city’s tactics didn’t in fact ‘work’, i was trying to establish exactly why many people didn’t appreciate them, despite the fact that they ‘worked’
People don’t appreciate them because it’s extremely negative and shows no creativeness going forward. It has nothing to do with whether or not the tactic allows for shots.
The tactic was to stop Arsenal scoring which City did. If the tactic was to stop them creating chances, then yes it failed. But any level-headed manager would know that it is impossible to stop a team having a shot on target in 90 minutes if you defend deep. It’s even harder to stop a powerful shot from 25-30 yards. To adopt a defensive tactic, show no attacking intent and expect to keep the shots at 0 is ludicrous.
I just don’t understand why you think a tactic fails if chances are created. Chances are created in every match. Common sense states that the more you create = the greater the chance of scoring. Going defensive means your opposition create less and thus have an even smaller chance of scoring. If Arsenal made 15 chances each match and Mancini knew that going defensive he could reduce it to 8….then he’d gladly accept it. He’s just stopped 7 (potential) goals.
It’s not about providing a blueprint for defending. Well, in a perfect world it is but when you’re playing a team game, there always be errors that you accept. It’s about reducing chances created. Yes, Arsenal could score with any of those shots. Yes, Hart might not always be able to make that save. But you could argue that De Jong shouldn’t have lost possession cheaply or Barry should have been 10 yards deeper or Tevez should have closed down the DM quicker. Before you know it, ’successful’ tactics are based purely on luck.
hmm i’m not sure we’re understanding one another too well.
one last question: do you think a team which sets out to cut down the opposition’s chances from the usual 15 to 8, and has no designs on scoring themselves, ought to be praised for its tactics if those 8 chances are missed and they come away with a 0-0? should a team with such resources and ambition be content with such tactics?
my very last question: imagine in the 93rd minute, bendtner scores a screamer from 40 yards (i hope you have a good imagination) and arsenal win 1-0. there is nothing mancini or the city players could have done. does the fact that they have now failed to get the result they wanted make their tactics and performance any worse? surely not. which suggests that how praiseworthy we deem tactics and performances to be is not linked to results, but purely to what is within one’s control.
sorry if i still don’t explain myself that well. i think it’s a more complicated issue than it seems at first, or maybe i’m just complicating it …
Praised for their defensive tactics? Of course not. No-one wants to see what City did. But this isn’t about appreciating the style of the play…it’s about identifying how successful the tactic was. Which, after looking at the final score…was successful.
This also has nothing to do with ambition or resources. Both Chelsea and Inter had squads consisting of Lampard, Essien and Drogba or Sneijder, Eto’o and Milito and still went defensive against Barca. It’s everything to do with tactics.
You’re unfairly claiming that everything which happened in that match had nothing to do with them on the basis that if they conceded one shot (and they did) then their entire game plan was flawed. Your point about Bendtner perfectly proves that and agrees with everything I’ve said. If Bendtner scored a 40 yard goal, Mancini could not account for that because;
A) The defence and midfielder would be within 40 yards of their goal and thus not able to press
B) The chances of that happening are so rare that Mancini would then have to prepare for eventualities such as scoring 40 yard free kicks or 35 yard volleys which just don’t happen every day
But football is not played on the basis of ‘100% accuracy’. One shot usually does not equal a goal. One corner does not usually equal an assist. I’m not saying that luck wasn’t involved but not to the extent that you claim.
Let me give you another example. Barca are beating Real Madrid 1-0 with 10 minutes to go. Guardiola goes ultra-defensive. Ronaldo has a chance to score but hits his shot wide of Valdes. Was Barca’s result based on luck because their tactic in the last 10 was flawed or did Guardiola make the right call to go defensive and probably stop an addition 4 or 5 shots?