I finally gathered the strength to watch the Community Shield match again now, and I'm glad I did. I think I've finally made peace with what happened.
For those who have more effectively blocked the match from their memory, remember this: the score was 2-2 at 60 minutes. United and City played a relatively even match for the last 35 minutes. If anything, City was gaining strength as the game went on, and to my view, the final goal in injury time was against the run of play. Had it not been for that freak mistake by Kompany, I don't know that any of us would feel so poorly about our team.
A Game of Three Thirds
Unlike the typical match, I think this one is better described as a game of three thirds rather than a game of two halves. Each third featured a different combination of formations and styles by the two teams. Much of what happened on the pitch is explainable in terms of these tactical match-ups.
This is of course not to say that United did not play better in general. United looked "sharper" in the sense that they completed more of their passes. City had an uncharacteristically large fraction of their passes go astray, particularly toward the beginning of the match.
However, I don't think that City fans should be overly worried about "sharpness". There are an awful lot of games to come, so City players will get plenty of time to find their touch and start to play together more fluidly.
Many commentators also talked about United's "higher intensity". However, I think this is misleading. What sticks out in your mind is United's high pressing (when City had the ball in their own third) and the speed of their counter-attacks. But this is just the usual United style against big teams. They played the same way against Barcelona, for example, as well as against City in the FA cup. Both times, they walked away empty handed. In short, I think this perceived "intensity" is simply style over substance.
Putting aside sharpness and intensity, the best way to understand what happened in this particular match is via tactics. Furthermore, while the sharpness and form of both teams will be different when these two teams meet again, the tactical questions will remain the same.
So let's look in more detail at what happened tactically in the match. Then let's look ahead at what City will need to do this season.
First Third (0-0)
In the first third, this was much like a rematch of the FA Cup semifinal. United started strongly, while City grew into the match. While United had plenty of possession, they could not create dangerous chances. The reason for this was City's dominance in midfield.
City lined up in their usual 4-2-3-1:
and United in their usual 4-4-2:
In principle, this means City should have a 3 versus 2 (Yaya, Milner, de Jong v Carrick, Anderson) advantage in midfield, and that his indeed how it worked out.
City's dominance of midfield meant that United could only get forward by pushing out to the wings. Their two wingers (Young and Nani) would then send crosses into the box.
When City dominate midfield in this formation, this is often what happens. In other words, City expect teams to attack them in this way, via crosses from the wings. Because our two centerbacks (Lescott and Kompany) have so much protection in front of them, they can worry less about attacks from the front and focus more on attacks from the wings. The end result is that Lescott and Kompany eat these sorts of crosses for breakfast.
This is the reason that, even though United had most of the possession (due to City's poor passing), they weren't able to create many dangerous chances.
In that way, this part of the match followed along the same lines as the FA Cup semifinal. In that match, City dominated midfield and forced United out to the wings. City's defensive line-up prevented United from scoring, but made things a bit harder going forward. However, as the match went on, City got forward more, and in the end, the outcome was was settled by a single goal from Yaya Toure.
However, there was one difference between this line-up and that of the FA Cup semifinal: James Milner was playing in place of James Barry. This difference turned out to be an important one.
The key difference between these two players is that James Milner loves to get forward.
Indeed, he does it so much, you have to wonder whether he forgets what his position actually is. Sometimes he thinks he's the attacking midfielder:
Other times, he thinks he's a striker:
Now, in principle, I suppose we should be happy that Milner wants to attack. But when Milner wants to play out of position, that means some other positionally disciplined player will have to take over his role. In this case, that other player was Yaya Toure. So the effect of Milner pushing forward is that City had Milner attacking instead of Yaya Toure. And I'm not convinced that is such a good trade.
Yaya Toure is a uniquely talented player. He's one of the biggest and strongest players on the pitch. And surprisingly, he's also one of the fastest. Even in this match, on one occasion, he ran away from a smaller United player that anyone would guess was faster.
His combination of physical characteristics means that almost no one can get the ball away him. He provides an ideal target for moving the ball from defense into attack. As we saw in the FA Cup semifinal, he can score goals. And he can also defend extremely well. Indeed, given all of this, one has to wonder whether Mancini's best transfer purchase for City was not Yaya Toure.
With that in mind, is it a positive move to have Milner playing in Yaya Toure's role? I think not. But Milner's constant forward movement meant Yaya felt he had to stay back, so the Milner for Yaya swap was indeed what happened.
Second Third (2-2)
The middle third was also even, but much more open. City changed positions and United changed tactics. Both sides scored twice.
Milner's movement in the first part of the game created a dilemma for Mancini: what should he do about Milner playing in Yaya's role?
In the 36th minute, he decided the best option was to let Milner attack, but he needed to make sure that there was some creativity in central midfield as well. His decision was to move Milner onto the wing and move Silva centrally. So in effect, Silva was playing in Yaya's original role (attacking midfielder), Milner was in Silva's (wing), and Yaya was in Milner's (defensive midfielder).
For a time, this switch worked very well. Silva assisted the first goal and was involved in everything that was going on up front, including the second goal. Indeed, this appeared to be a very good move offensively.
Unfortunately, the outcome of matches is not determined solely by what your team does. The other team gets their say as well.
In the second half, Fergie's men changed tactics. He knew they were getting overrun in midfield, so he asked his four attacking players (Rooney, Wellbeck, Nani, and Young) to take turns dropping back into midfield. Each attacking player took a turn, though Rooney the most often.
Technically, this brought the midfield battle to 3 versus 3. However, this was also not the same 3 that City had used in the first half. In particular, Silva was now playing in Yaya's role. And while Silva does work hard in defense, he is not Yaya Toure.
United quickly started to get the upper hand in midfield, and they started to create chances through the middle. This finally started to create real danger for City.
United's first goal was nearly identical to City's first. Each was scored from a set piece, a free kick about 25 yards out and near the sideline. Both balls were floated into the box where a defender (Lescott and Smalling) managed to get free with the ball to score an easy goal.
United's second goal was rather different. It was scored right through the center, where United now had numbers. They had not only their 4 attacking players involved, but also Cleverly was able to get forward and bring a fifth body into the penalty area.
United should be given credit for what was a great goal. However, the tactical situation did not help City here. Silva's defensive responsibilities on the wing are different from those playing in central midfield. Indeed, the ball was played past Silva in the move that led to the goal, and one has to wonder whether the bigger faster Yaya Toure would have been able to do more to stop it.
Possibly worse than that, however, was the fact that Balotelli did not track back at all during that drive by United. Balotelli was on the wing, while United went mostly through the center, but Balotelli should have been closeby, which may have freed up other players to help stop United.
Final Third (0-1)
The final third was even and tight. City reverted to their original tactics, while United stuck with those that had worked in the second half. City grew stronger as the match went on, but both sides continued to create chances. Finally, a freak mistake by Kompany allowed the game winner.
Immediately after the second goal, Mancini changed again. He needed to get Yaya back into his attacking position, so he brought Gareth Barry in and withdrew an attacking player. The player he chose to remove was Balotelli, most likely because he had failed to track back just before. (Later on, he would also switch Milner for Johnson, but that was a like-for-like substitution that did not change the tactical situation.)
These changes immediately made City more solid defensively. Had United gone back to their first half tactics as well, we might well have seen a repeat of the FA Cup semifinal. However, United stuck with their new approach: attackers dropping into midfield to make it 3 versus 3. The result was an even match, where both sides were able to create chances.
Nonetheless, the remaining 30 minutes of regular time passed without a goal from either team. City grew into the game more and more, finally getting some sustained pressure on United in the final 10 minutes. But the match remained quite even and could well have gone either way. (Of course, you know what way it went.)
What the Future Holds
What can we learn from this about the remainder of City's season?
First off, as I said above, I think we don't need to worry about sharpness. That will come for City. Indeed, City already looked quite sharp against Intern Milan, and what seemed like a lack of sharpness here may have been more about giving too much respect to United.
Tactically, the big questions relate to how City will play in big matches:
- Can James Milner stay defensively disciplined and curb his enthusiasm for getting forward? If not, then I don't expect him to play against big teams. This Milner for Yaya switch did not work well and does not seem like a good idea in any case.
- Can Silva or Nasri or Aguero play in Yaya's role? At this point, I would have to think the answer is no. Silva was not the same defensive force as Yaya, and I see no reason to think that Nasri or Aguero would do any better. Yaya is unique, and we need him in this position for these matches.
Against smaller teams, we may well see Milner pushing forward or even a 4-4-2 formation. I'm sure that will produce some exciting football. But when City play against United, Chelsea, Arsenal, and other top teams, my best guess is that Yaya will continue to be the key player.
No comments:
Post a Comment