"Just pre-season" or should we be concerned about the
defence? 12 goals conceded in 7 games against teams of varying ability could
either be looked at as a team getting to know new systems /
management styles...or could it be some early alarm bells? Certainly there’s no new defensive teammates
who are 'having to get used one another'…yet.
Recent collapses
& lapses
I don’t think I’d even be mentioning this if we’d have
slowly been improving at the back; tightening up and looking a little more solid
as we went though game numbers 5, 6 & 7. But the fact is that 8 of those 12
goals conceded have come in the last 3 matches; albeit against very good
opposition in AC Milan, Bayern Munich and Arsenal.
Nastasic key?
Every City fan I know has nothing but praise for how the
young Nastasic has settled in so quickly at City
since Roberto brought him in from Fiorentina. He looks a very cool and solid defender
who has great positional awareness and ball control. And, so, of course we were
without Nastasic for those final three, very leaky games.
But is that the reason? When without Matija are we really so
soft in the middle [of the defence] and are we really going to fall apart that
easily? I would hope not of course. I’m certainly not pinning the blame on any
one individual here but it’s worth mentioning that if Joleon Lescott is fighting hard (I’m sure he is) to secure more 'starts' and,
indeed, an extension to his current contract then he must be as gutted and
worried as any of the back line to see goals flying in past both Hart and Pantilimon. Boyata too – who is trying to impress –
can’t be too chuffed either…
Words of discomfort
What keeps nagging at me – and has half-prompted me to write this piece – is the words ringing
in my ears from players following certain pre-season games. And, strangely, when I’ve gone to revisit these
pre-season, post match interviews that I know I’ve seen on City’s WEB
site…they’re nowhere to be found!
Hart, Micah, Kompany, Lescott and I’m sure Zabaleta and Milner too have all
come out with words along the lines of ‘getting used to new systems’, ‘getting
used to how the [new] Manager wants us to play’ and ‘we perhaps showed a lack
of concentration at times' (worrying, I’ve heard that one said by a few players
post match recently...)
All fair enough I suppose. Of course we DO have a new
Manager and of course he’s gonna be different to Mancini. But ‘defending is
defending’ isn’t it and, as I’ve said, we’ve not taken on any new defenders to
shake up that department too much have we?
New faces
Now I’m not going to on about Kolarov
again – for regular readers you’ll know my thoughts on him. I’m (still) boring myself
talking about wanting to see the back of him ASAP. And, indeed, I can hardly
blame him for any defensive errors against Arsenal yesterday; being, as he was,
firmly attached to the bench for the whole game.
But we DO need better competition for Clichy at left back and perhaps our
defensive lapses (whatever the reasons) ARE the reasons why we’re constantly
being linked with a variety of central defenders from across Europe .
I just hope they can pinpoint the problem soon being, as we are, just 9 days
away from the big KO!
Management style to blame?
We’ve all heard how our new Manager likes to set up his
teams. “Possessional football”, “Attacking style”, “Attractive” and “Flexible”
are all words that have been used to describe Pellegrini’s
management style. Most of those words & phrases, of course, suggest a very
offensive style and could, therefore, also suggest us being left somewhat
vulnerable at the back.
However, “defensive 4-5-1” and “very solid” are also words
that have been used by those who have studied “The Engineer” and the sides he
has managed and so I suppose that I shouldn’t be overly worried there.
And I’m not worried. A
(very) little concerned perhaps? I suppose so. But only because –
like the man himself, his players and
the board – I’m more & more looking for near perfection from our team these
days after years of hoping for the best but often expecting far less than…
An finally, on this subject matter, I have to remind myself
that as a player Manuel played 479 times for both club and county as a central defender – so he
should know best how to fix any issues at the back.
A quick word on ‘them’…
It’s good to see…
- Rooney is still upset and, more importantly, is further upsetting ‘the camp’ and fans
- Cesc Fabregas appears to be going nowhere
- Everton have issued a ‘hands off’ for both Baines and Fellaini
- They
got beat at home by
- That Gollum looks more and more startled and pressured in his new role. Looking increasingly uncomfortable; there are even (joking?) rumours that the purple nosed, bacon-faced one will be back in charge by Christmas! J
I’ll watch them today (I’m not as
hung over as I thought I would – and should – be after my Ale Trail, long day out
yesterday) and, of course, hope the worse for them. It would be rude not to…
All change…but why?
Is nothing sacred anymore? Of
course certain situations have meant that teams have had to adapt to survive
or, at least, get some much-needed cash in. Caledonian Thistle became Inverness Caledonian Thistle
following a merger many, many years ago. Leyton Orient have changed their name many times in
their early history and, of course, you can’t get a bigger change in English
football that Wimbledon to MK Dons!
We too have gone from St. Marks,
to Ardwick FC to Manchester
City
But more recently is the well
publicised change at Cardiff City
Anyway, that’s sort of old news
now; I’m talking about the proposal of changing the name of Hull City
Sponsorship (however awful you may think of the company your team is getting into bed with) and stadium name
changes are (often understandably) now
commonplace in order to get a much-needed cash injection into your Football Club. But
Hull City already have the nickname ‘The Tigers’ - what’s the point of changing
the name of the football club to incorporate the name “Tigers”? Is it going to
make more revenue? I can’t see how.
However painful change can be for
traditionalist (and I’m one of them to some degree) it is sometimes very necessary
of course. But change for changing’s sake is just downright annoying in my
book.
Do we hate success?
On our Ale Trail travels yesterday
my City friend and I were asked by a Huddersfield Town
fan what we thought of the Abu Dhabi takeover of our Football Club. We, of course, both said that we were delighted
and I was interested to see his reaction. He just couldn’t understand it;
asking in a rather puzzled fashion why we would be happy to become part of a
group of teams who are now making the sport somewhat elitist.
We tried, in vain, to explain that
although they have, of course, ploughed millions of pounds into the first team (and that it has worked in bringing us
success after years of barren trophy cabinets don’t forget); the owners are
also not-only developing the youth set-up but are also improving the area of East Manchester for the community in general. He was
still having none of it.
Even his friend and fellow Huddersfield Town
I’ve been bracing myself for this
kind of questioning for some considerable time now; I just knew that this was
the feeling ‘out there’ amongst many (jealous?) fans of other football clubs. I too
recall being envious when I saw so-called rich investors ploughing their cash
into the likes of Portsmouth
Apart form being a traditionalist (no problem there); I can
only think that this was his reasoning too...
After that we talked with some
fondness about past Huddersfield Town and Manchester
City
I was also talking to them about
my love for their old ground, Leeds Road
 |
| Kippax Stand (before it was re-developed to an all-seater) |
Their new ground is good too and
was, in many ways, the beginning of the ‘new look’ stadiums, my mate pointed out. I’ve not attended
a football match there but did once go to see The Beautiful South and R.E.M. there before all 4
sides were complete. It’s a very prominent stadium from the train-line as you
approach Huddersfield train station.
No comments:
Post a Comment