Manchester City 3-2 Tottenham Hotspur: a close game that could have gone either way
The starting line-ups
Mario Balotelli’s late penalty gave City a crucial victory.
Roberto Mancini’s side was as expected, although he continues to be attack-minded with the use of Samir Nasri on the flank and James Milner in the middle, rather than opting to name the more defensive-minded Nigel de Jong in the starting XI. City are still without the Toure brothers and Vincent Kompany.
Emmanuel Adebayor is still owned by City so couldn’t play against him – so Harry Redknapp chose Jermain Defoe to start upfront alone.
The game broadly fitted the pattern of the other Premier League game on Sunday (Arsenal v Manchester United) – tame first half, exciting second half.
Opening battle
Early on, the game didn’t quite take the expected pattern. City usually clearly dominate possession at home, whilst Tottenham often form two banks of four quickly and get compact in their own half.
However, Tottenham have been a little more proactive this season, and it was notable how much they pressed high up the pitch in the opening moments. Defoe was joined by another player – sometimes Rafael van der Vaart but more often Gareth Bale, as they shut down City’s centre-backs to try to stop them playing out from the back. Tottenham ended up completing marginally more passes than City in the first half – 234 to 222.
Pressing City
Pressing City at goal-kicks has been a tactic opponents have often used at the City of Manchester Stadium in the past couple of seasons, partly because City often haven’t had a target man to thump the ball to, and long goalkicks therefore usually concede possession. Although they now have Edin Dzeko, he’s not the best at competing with strong centre-backs, and in Younes Kaboul, Spurs have the centre-back who wins more aerial duels per game than any other in the league.
Anyway, with the game played at a relatively slow tempo early on, City persisted with playing the ball out from the back, with Tottenham pushing up to close them down.
The most important impact of this was that Luka Modric looked to start his pressure high up, often leaving Scott Parker alone in front of the back four. This caused Spurs problems, with Nasri, David Silva and Sergio Aguero all looking to move into that zone. The wide players drifted across the pitch to combine, the same tactic City used very well in their 6-1 win at Old Trafford. The patterns of Silva’s passes (received and played) formed a strange diagonal band across the pitch.
Although Tottenham passed the ball quite well when they had it, the strategy of starting pressure high up was arguably not the right approach. Spurs, after all,were going to be at their best when playing on the break, with pace in attacking positions and City lacking their star centre-back. Furthermore, City played no real holding player (and Gareth Barry often looks uncomfortable when having to break up quick counter-attacks) so Tottenham might have been better trying to soak up pressure, forcing City to leave gaps at the back, before pouncing.
It was 0-0 at half time, a fairly quiet half.
Second half
The second half was much more frantic. First, it was that Silva-Nasri combination that opened up Tottenham in the second period, with Silva providing a pass so straight along the centre of the pitch for Nasri that it’s crazy to think they were the two wide players in City’s formation. A second came from a corner kick – Kyle Walker’s positioning could be queried for both goals – and City seemed in command.
Those two goals, rather than an obvious strategic shift, were the catalyst for changing the game. At 2-0 up City could have kept the ball better, but Tottenham came back well – Defoe got a goal after a long ball over the top that Stefan Savic couldn’t deal with, then Bale’s brilliant strike got the equaliser.
That contribution aside, Lennon had a disappointing game, and it was surprising Tottenham didn’t put more effort into playing the ball out to him on the right. Gael Clichy picked up an early yellow card which meant he was reluctant to make a tackle (and also reluctant to try to jump ahead of his opponent to win the ball, his trademark), but he had few difficulties for the remainder of the game.
Final chances
The match could have gone either way – Bale and Defoe managed to waste an excellent opportunity (yet again, on the break, catching City’s defence out high up). Mario Balotelli’s introduction proved crucial, and he’s still probably a better bet against good defences than Dzeko. Dzeko’s clever movement to drag Younes Kaboul out from the back for Nasri’s goal shouldn’t be forgotten, but overall Balotelli’s movement is at least equal to Dzeko’s, his first touch is better, and he’s more of a physical threat too. He won the penalty that he converted himself, but the obvious problem is his lack of discipline, which could have got him into trouble once again. If City could combine Balotelli’s skillset with Dzeko’s mentality, they’d be sorted.
It’s difficult to see too much the managers could have done differently. Redknapp brought on Jake Livermore for another body in the centre of midfield, as van der Vaart had a quiet game and often tires late on, but other than that and Balotelli’s introduction, little changed. Both managers wanted to play their own game, take the match to the opposition, and – aside from a brief five-minute spell late on before Defoe’s chance, when everything suddenly calmed down – both wanted to win the game.
Conclusion
That mentality is prevalent in the Premier League this season, which is partly why there have been so many goals in the games between big sides. No-one quite knows (or wants to accept) their position as underdogs and be cautious. All of the top six want to dominate games, control possession and score goals.
As seen here, it results in brilliantly exciting, open matches – but not particularly fascinating tactical battles.
It is such a shame that De Jong had been dropped.
Not really. As you can see Man City wanted to oppose Tottenham’s Modric-Parker partnership as if was some kind of midfield dominance battle. As ZM has stated, Premierleague’s top teams look to dominate the game when they encounter. If Man City played De Jong then either they would have dropped Milner (their passer and-rather inconvinient-playmaker) or Barry (another passer-who really looks like Carrick in many ways).
Sitting a footballer that can’t play couldn’t be further from shame. It’s good for the game.
City won the midfield battle, which is surprising considering the stick Barry and Milner get, and for the praise people (wrongly) give to Spurs for supposedly having the best midfield in the league.
Parker didn’t get much help from Modric, as you aluded to, and was simply swamped. Modric, who many would say is the best player in his position in the country, was completely ineffective.
Nasri again did well. Whilst he’s perhaps not justifying his £23m transfer fee just yet, we shouldn’t forget that he now has 4 goals and 9 assists for City in all competitions.
Lennon doesn’t seem to be trusted when he’s out on the right. There appear to be two reasons for this:
1) Bale is on the left and apparently is the new Ronaldo or Messi, depending on the article. It’s understandable the rest of the team try to play to him as much as possible.
2) Spurs play out through the left-back BAE. If the back four come under pressure, he is generally the one who ends up with the ball and looks to play into midfield, or more often down the line to Bale or maybe a diagonal Modric run.
A third factor may be that when the right-back Walker gets the ball, he wants to run down the line, rather than look for a pass (unlike BAE). In the end, this means that Lennon rarely gets the ball in positions he wants. He’s had this problem since Corluka (who can’t run) lost is place as right-back.
It seemed strange, though keeping with the ‘tactics-less’ Spurs/Redknapp approach, that they weren’t instructed to target Clichy after he got that early yellow card.
The pace of Lennon and Walker running up would have caused so many problems for Clichy, they should have been used more
a possible third reason is Lennon just isn’t good enough against quality players and teams. not a fan. disappointing, if Dafoe and Lennon had a little more quality this game would have turned out differently.
Great match,first half it looked like Bale played more centrally,and A-Ekotto whilst a good fullback wasnt as so effective in the final third as he could have been had he had Bale in a more wide-left position for support down the line. Second half Bale was more on the left-wing position and on the counter he and Lennon were very dangerous.. Defoe should have won the game for them!
Second half i noticed however, Spurs without the ball looked more like a 541/4141. I noticed how Parker continually dropped off and played just in front or sometimes level with Kaboul/King, interestingly i noticed this after Nasri had scored after being put through too easily by the brilliant Silva.
City,impressive team, but definitely miss Toure and Kompany, Milner isnt a “brilliant” CM, but he did put in a good shift in this match as always. Savic had a decent first half, but in the second half he struggled, Kompany is a big player for them.
Thought Walker was brilliant for them.
I miss Huddlestone in Spurs’ midfield, his replacement by Parker is very much akin to Milan’s change from Pirlo to van Bommel. Parker may be more mobile and a better tackler, but no one else can play perfect 70 yard passes but Huddlestone. Without him, they look slower and less creative. He’s much more suited to playing on the break!
Huddlestone can be made to look very good in highlights if you’re watching match of the day; however over a full game he is often found wanting for pace and positioning (not to mention his petulant nasty streak). Parker is a definite upgrade IMO; his 90 minutes of in your face action has allowed us to get the best out of our creative players. THud plays one or two great passes a match and scores one or two rockets per season but Parker complements our other players so much better. When he comes back Hudd will deservedly be 4th choice CM.
I’m not English, so I rarely watch Match of the Day, I don’t form my opinion based on that. I do that by watching as many matches I can.
I know Huddlestone’s lack of mobilty means that he needs an enforcer beside him, and they can’t drop Modric and van der Vaart because of the money invested there, but for the sake of the team I would drop the Dutch.
He’s basically a second striker who can’t play upfront alone, because he’s not strong, nor fast, nor has good movement. The latter two are also why he struggles out wide. He’s a good player, but at the top level he restricts their tactical flexibility; they need to play him as a withdrawn striker and two mobile CMs behind him, because he doesn’t defend either. You can’t play him as a playmaker either, because he’s much more interested in shooting than playing clever passes (this season Modric has just as many assists as him despite playing much deeper, and Adebayor of all people has almost twice as many (7 to 4)).
I think fielding Huddlestone, Modric and Sandro/Parker would allow Spurs to play Bale and Lennon closer to Adebayor and control the game better. In Huddlestone, you’d have a player who can kickstart an attack from 0 to 60 mph with just a pass. In Sandro you have the player who in the defending phase would drop back beside him, mark space then break forward to join the front four which was his style of play at Internacional rather than the “well, if he’s a defensive midfielder, then he’d better defend his arse off!”. In turn, with two such players Modric could focus on creating havoc in the final third rather than orchestrating from deep.
Huddlestone is a good player, but in the current spurs team it would be him and Parker rather than him and Modric, as that would be too ligthweight a midfield i think. Myabe all three could play, but that would mean dropping VDV as ha sbeen suggested and playing a three man midfield with Modric breaking forward. That would be a big change in tactics and style and i cant see it happening just yet. But if it was me i would proabaly go for that sort of midfield, VDV isnt good enough to demand a team built around him, Spurs are bigger than him now and have better players.
Wait, did you just compare Huddlestone to Pirlo?
Read again: I compared the change from Huddlestone to Parker to the change Milan did, allowing Pirlo to leave and inserting van Bommel in his place. But if you wish, I could compare them directly. Both Pirlo and Huddlestone are statues and both are creative players who have the rare ability to play telling passes from deep. Huddlestone is a better defender due to his physique, but Pirlo is able to assert his will on the match better due to better technique and better positioning/reading of the game.
Comparable doesn’t mean that they’re equal, it just means that they’re similar.
Indeed, comparable means you can compare them – which you’ve done well. Shame someone can’t teach Huddlestone to be a decent centre-back. Very comfortable on the ball, and boy could he start of attacks.
He’s played centre-back a few times for Spurs and they’ve never lost when he has.
This game highlighted why Sandro is much missed at Spurs. For all of Parker love shown by the media, Sandro is an instant upgrade to what he offers. Parker tackles well but his other attributes especially ball distribution and retention are rather poor. But midfeild is hardly the major problem for Spurs if they have any title hopes. Defenses win titles and the defensive core of the squad is rather pathetic when compared to the other aspiring top teams. King while the best hardly plays, Gallas is one brain fart away from losing it and Kaboul? if spurs can sign a decent center back, they can cut it close with both united and city
I’ve watched 90 minutes of every Spurs league game but one this season and I’m sorry but this comment is way off the mark. Since the first two games of the season Kaboul has been an absolute rock and was outstanding again yesterday aside from getting dragged out of position for the first goal (where Walker should have tracked better anyway) Gallas has been a great signing and was excellent for us last season but understandably struggles to compete in the air against physical strikers because of his lack of height. However in matches where teams are actually trying to play football (most CL games and Arsenal at the Emirates last season spring to mind) Gallas has always been excellent and shows decent pace for a 34 year old. Out of all our centre backs Dawson is the biggest problem (and you haven’t even mentioned him). No pace or intelligence but most fans give him a free pass on his lack of ability due to his commitment and never say die attitude. In my opinion one of the main reasons we’ve done so well this season is the fact that he hasn’t played.
Our real defensive problems lie at full back. BAE has improved his consistency but still has one terrible game for every five good ones. Walker is a great prospect and lightning fast but is a complete defensive liability at this moment. Good creative players manage to take him out of the game easily and he switches off too often as was shown yesterday when he was at fault for two goals.
Sorry for the rant but I really could not agree less with what you’ve said about our defence!
No worries about teh rant lol
But I cant believe I missed Dawson who I am full agreement with you who is in my opinion really, really mediocre for this level.
Kaboul, and Gallas(at his current age) arent enough and both wouldn’t get into either united, city or chelsea squads. Fact is they do preform against bigger teams but are woefully inconsistent against midtable or bottom clubs. i agree with your fullback crisis as well. I personally think Ekkotou has done ok but Rose(who i like) as backup is not enough. The same on the right side.
My thinking on your squad situation is that you need a bigger defensive core in terms of depth there if you have had any plans to push for the top of table.
I would take Kaboul over Savic, Luiz or Jonny Evans. Kaboul is certainly not in the class of Kompany or Vidic but I don’t think it’s correct to say that he wouldn’t even make the squad of the other teams considering the 3 players I mentioned regularly do and sometimes start.
I’m not sure where your argument about being ‘woefully inconsistent against mid table clubs’ comes from? Can you give me some examples? As mentioned, the only games I’ve seen Gallas really struggle are up against the likes of Peter Crouch and Kevin Davies, so it’s not really woeful inconsistency but more the fact that he struggles against a particular type of player/team. Kaboul has been very erratic in the past (regardless of whether playing against top or bottom sides) but seems to have improved his consistency this season.
Agree about the lack of depth at full back, luckily neither BAE or Walker have been injured this year. We have Corluka at RB who is the polar opposite to Walker; defensively solid but painfully slow and offers little going forward. BAE is great on his day, he just needs to keep improving his consistency
By “could have gone either way” I hope you mean “should have gone the other way”
Man City – Were lucky to win it in the end, but played well. Savic and Lescott actually played well i thought, with savic winning most challenges in the air, and Lescott covering very well. Defoes goals was the only mistake by savic, while bales goal you just cant stop. The third would be goal was when city were pushing for a winner and were hit on the break. Otherwise City defended well. Richards had a good game first half, getting forward a lot, as Bale was playing more narrow than normal (a recent trend this season for him) and he was a constant threat. In the second half Bale moved wider and stopped Richards moving forward as much. Clichy was disappointing, not really pushing forward as much ans beaten by Lennon a few times. Someone wrote above that the team seemed more accustomed to getting the ball to Bale, which is true and a shame as Lennon looked to have the beating of Clichy.
The midfield combination of Milner and Barry did well (a good sign for England). Barry sat deep and made sure VDV didnt see much of the ball, while also consistently playing the ball forward well to the more creative players. While Milner’s energetic approach complemented this well, with him pressing modric and stopping him having such an influence, while also tracking back well to cover for his team mates and even getting forward on occasion to overload the flanks (ala Giggs yesterday). This meant Spurs couldnt get there two most creative players into the game, which showed.
Further forward, the wide players enjoyed a good fluid game. Silva moved inside and dominated the game, while Nasri looked to play a narrow wide right role, which cleverly exposed the young walker. The two combined excellently (as shown by the first goal) and with Richards storming forward on the right Silva was constantly in the middle of the park controlling the game. Aguero was more quite, receiving most of Parkers attention, but this meant Silva and Nasri could find more space and time on the ball. Dzeko was similarly quiet, losing out in the air too much, but his hold up play and movement were good and it was his movement that created the first goal. Balotelli came on for the customary drama, and won City the game, but easily could have lost it for them too with his dramatics, he needs to remove this sort of antics from this game, or he will keep losing out to Dzeko, a less talented player but a player that works for the team a lot more.
Overall, Man city played a clever game. Centrally Spurs were quiet, with Defoe, VDV and Modric well marshaled through the middle. Out wide they could quite contain Bale and Lennon and both were dangerous, but it was risk they made well, Lennon could beat Clichy, but didnt really have a target in the box, while Bale played more central but couldnt really link up with anyone and was a one man threat really. Attacking wise, Richards charged down the right flank, meaning Silva could move inside and control the game, Aguero and Dzeko created space for both him and Nasri who was there biggest goal threat with one of his best games for a while. It was the classic wide play combination of a playmaker on one side and a more direct option on the other flank. The funny thing is Nasri used to be the playmaker winger for Arsenal, and has definitely changed his game since moving to City (though he best form was on the right for Arsenal when he was the more direct option…).
Spurs – The CB partnership of King and Kaboul was very solid, Kings only mistake lost Spurs the game (harsh) while Kaboul dominated in the air (been a revelation for Spurs this season) and it was when he was dragged out of position and Walker didnt track nasri that lead to the first goal. Otherwise they kept Dzeko and Aguero quiet. Walker had a tough game, losing Nasri for much of the game, while not really contributing attacking wise (if this was a competition of England RBs, there was a clear winner). BAO got forward well (though this left Silva unmarked) and was a good outball for Spurs when under pressure. His forward runs meant Bale could play more narrow, though Richards was brave and pressed forward which meant BAE ended up defending more than thought.
In midfield, Spurs lost the battle. Parker did a hardworking job and kept aguero quiet, but couldnt deal with him, Silva and Nasri, he needed the help of Modric. Modric had a shocker, playing far too high up the pitch and having a quiet game attacking wise (pressed well by Milner). He should have dropped deep along with Parker to help out, and this lost Spurs the game really, strange for such an intelligent player, that he didnt drop deeper to try and get on the ball more. VDV was ineffective too, tracked by Barry, he could find space in front of the defense and was poor at pressing Barry which could have stopped City getting the ball forward.
Out wide, Bale and Lennon were a big threat. Lennon had the beating of Clichy, but didnt see enough of the ball, and even when he did get space or beat clichy, he didnt have anyone in the penalty area to cross too, Defoe was never gonna win out in the air. Bale played a narrow role which he has been playing all season now, leading to his most prolific season goals wise. Here he was Spurs biggest threat, pressing the CB’s into mistakes in possession (needed to stop man city dominating, he and Defoe did this well) and found space in behind Milner to get on the ball and run at the defense, but he wasnt supported enough and most of the time was trying to beta city on his own.
Up front, Defoe was the wrong player to play upfront. Spurs didnt have choice, but he lost every ball in the air (making Lennon ineffective) and could hold up the ball to help Bale. He did well to capitalise on a mistake to get a goal, but it was all he did all game. He could have won the game for Spurs at the end, when a good counter attack lead to Bale giving him a open goal (arguably the reason Defoe was chosen, his finishing skills) but he missed the chance. Small margins like this can change the game.
Overall, City deserved to win really. Spurs were strong in central defense, but both walker and BAE failed to track there men inside and it was only a matter of time till they capitalized. This was confounded by Modric playing too high up to help out Parker in midfield which also meant Spurs could dominate the midfield as usual, as modric and VDV were marked out the game and Parker didnt have the passing skills to get the ball to his team mates further forward. Lennon was dangerous but no big worry for City, Defoe was poor apart from a mistake and counterattack at the end of the game. Bale was there only threat and the fact he nearly won Spurs the game single handedly shows his talent, but they cant rely on him solely if they have serious title ambitions.
How can you say City deserved to win an even game which they should not have won because of a red card?
City as a team were much better than spurs, Spurs just defended well in Central defense and had Bale who nearly won them the game by himself. Spurs were unlucky in the end, and Bale could have won it just before, but they were two nil down and only got back into the game through a mistake in defense and a wonder goal by Bale, rather than a good team performance.
Im a big fan of spurs, and they have been a great team this season, but today they wernt there normal selves and could have played much better.
Goals mainly occur due to mistakes from one team. Besides I do not agree that City was the better side in this game.
“Emmanuel Adebayor is still owned by City so couldn’t play against him”
Can anybody elaborate on this? Is it an actual FA policy? Or something written into the loan contract? I find it rather odd that they loan a player and then restrict him playing against his parent club. It would be interesting to understand if its a stipulation due to potential ‘conflict of interests’, or simply a way to restrict a good player playing against your club.
Based on my understanding entirely based on Football Manager, it’s written into the loan contract by the parent club in order to stop a good player playing against you.
I wonder then, did City pick up all of Adebayor’s salary that week?
I thought it was an FA policy to prevent potential conflicts of interest during a match.
It’s actually something which I think is a problem in the game. The advantage gained from loaning out a strong player to a team who aren’t a direct rival is pretty huge, since that team then becomes stronger against every other team in the premiership but if anything weaker against you since they have to drop a player they’re used to having. Think how much stronger Adebayor has made Tottenham this season, if they beat United it’s kind of a mess because City have so much money they’re effectively extending their squad into other teams. United have been benefited too, with Danny Welbeck being dropped against them at one point and a loaned out goalkeeper one time too which makes a huge difference.
One proposal is to limit loans to players -21, there is also an argument going on about changing the reserve system/introducing “feeder clubs”, that would remove the necessity of loaning a player out to develop them.
Its sort of written that you cannot play against your own team. Earlier in the season, in one of the matches between Chelsea and Arsenal, Benayoun who is owned by Chelsea but playing for Arsenal tweeted and congratulated Arsenal when they beat Chelsea. This caused a lot of uproar.
I do have a query, Zlatan Ibrahamovic did play against Barca in the CL this year, though he is under contract with Barca. Does that mean there is one for the teams within the League and one for the Champions League / Europa League?
Not entirely true. Ibra was under contract with Barca last season when they loaned him out to Milan, but the Rossoneri bought him in the summer, so there’s no conflict of interest. Even then, Barca had no intention of bringing him back, they loaned him to make a profit through silly accounting tricks.
I think the ‘rule’ was written in after Real Madrid were embarassingly dumped out of the Champions League back some time ago by Morientes whom they had loaned out to Monaco.
David B:
I think it comes down to this: “Hey can I borrow your spare gun?” “Sure, as long as you don’t shoot me with it…”
LMAO!
Does anybody think City’s formation in this game was similar to the magic rectangle set up Brazil used in 2006?
Indeed, both Nasri and Silva are really narrow when in possession, it does resemble the box formation the Brazilian team was famous for. Ancelotti did the same with Malouda and Anelka on the wings when he was at Chelsea, I wonder if it’s a Italian thing?
Did Ancelotti’s formation not feature only 1 central striker (Drogba) though. But yes it can be quite an exciting formation if you have the right players. (would be interesting to see if Barca played this formation with Iniesta and Thiago behind Messi and Sanchez)
Dear Mr. Cox,
Impressive, as ever.
I just can’t get enough of checking your website. However, I would just like to put two issues up for debate, if you don’t mind:
a) I’m afraid I don’t particularly agree with van der Vaart’s positioning in your chalkboard, because I really believe he was told to be part of a bank of four in Tottenham’s 4×1x4×1. He tried to support Defoe, but, as you mentioned so well, it was more often Bale than the Dutchman going up front.
b) I too was under the impression that Bale had played more centrally (as he has been, recently) and had indeed jotted that down in my notes. Nevertheless, his passing chalkboard shows he was very much hugging the touchline.
Would you care to elaborate on either one of these issues? Once again, fantastic job!
On a) – possibly. I thought it was more accurate to have him dropping back a little. But you might well be right…
b) I was a little surprised his passing was so much on the wing, too. I decided best way to represent it would be to have him on the left, then making run inside
And thanks
Thank you so much for taking some time to reply to me and for elaborating, Mr. Cox.
I really appreciate it.
My pleasure
Hi, i think that i saw you visited my website thus i came to go back the want?.I’m trying to to find things to enhance my web site!I assume its good enough to use a few of your ideas!!
khtup{pobmnbsljoh, cnyzheplar , [url=http://www.bruuecivtq.com]vqjdwsfvik[/url], http://www.qnoqigyvhh.com cnyzheplar
Good article, I’ll be sharing this with my soccer friends on facebook and twitter!