Manchester City under Pep Guardiola | Pep on City v Liverpool ref: "He likes to be special"

VP89 said:
Eh? There was far more clear chances than just that. One or two open headers, shots being saved off the line and such.

Chelsea rode their luck heavily in that fixture, there is little doubt about that.
Click to expand...
One header was Fernandinho offside, the other Aguero off-target in a close duel. Shots saved should be credited to the defending team. On the other hand, City themselves scored via an own goal!

Chelsea banked on their defence to keep them in the match for the first hour. That's how their system works, even more so against Pep's City, who always deteriorate in the second half. There was an element of luck, but City might have also needed luck to hang on to, say, a 2:1 win.

I'm not saying Chelsea were the better team, but neither were City. Perhaps a 2:2 draw would have been fair, if such a thing exists.
 
Powderfinger said:
City created tons. De Bruyne also had the chance 1-v-1 with the keeper from the corner of the six yard box, Aguero had multiple shots on target from very good positions and should have buried at least one, they had a bunch of other pretty decent chances that just required a class finish. To have 2.6 xG and not score (the own goal isn't counted in these calculations) is very rare. And of course Chelsea had only 1.6 xG (the Hazard goal in injury time greatly contributing to that figure) and netted three.

CywkpIhXAAAWl1h.jpg:large


As a point of comparison, the 2.6 xG of City in that match is nearly as much as United had in the match against Stoke where you should have battered them.

CtyC2eEXEAAse45.jpg:large
Click to expand...

The point is its not been rare for City this season. They're missing great chances every game. And it's costing them.
 
Kentonio said:
How deeply surprising that Pep didn't get an FA charge despite sarcastically mocking the ref. Funny that considering Jose got charged once for simply saying a ref did a good job, and the FA deciding it was sarcasm.
Click to expand...
I'd be more shocked if he was charged as the FA are a joke.
 
Shubham Ahuja said:
One header was Fernandinho offside, the other Aguero off-target in a close duel. Shots saved should be credited to the defending team. On the other hand, City themselves scored via an own goal!

Chelsea banked on their defence to keep them in the match for the first hour. That's how their system works, even more so against Pep's City, who always deteriorate in the second half. There was an element of luck, but City might have also needed luck to hang on to, say, a 2:1 win.

I'm not saying Chelsea were the better team, but neither were City. Perhaps a 2:2 draw would have been fair, if such a thing exists.
Click to expand...

By way of chances, there is no chance Chelsea deserved a draw. The Augero clearance off the line is a complete fluke, as is the uncharacteristic KDB miss and the scuppered header. I know I'm missing more chances as this is just from memory but I've proved my point here.
 
VP89 said:
By way of chances, there is no chance Chelsea deserved a draw. The Augero clearance off the line is a complete fluke, as is the uncharacteristic KDB miss and the scuppered header. I know I'm missing more chances as this is just from memory but I've proved my point here.
Click to expand...
You seem upset.
 
VP89 said:
Not at the result of course.

I just think City are still bigger force than Chelsea, despite momentum currently favouring the latter.
Click to expand...
Surprised. They're far superior in midfield but we have a better goalkeeper, defence & attack.
 
Powderfinger said:
To have 2.6 xG and not score (the own goal isn't counted in these calculations) is very rare. And of course Chelsea had only 1.6 xG (the Hazard goal in injury time greatly contributing to that figure) and netted three.
Click to expand...

And that emphasizes the difference in finishing quality, doesn't it? A perfect example was Courtois saving de Bruyne's shot and Willian scoring from a similar shot.

I'm not saying City deserved to lose, but they have only themselves to blame for not taking their chances. Moreover, they receded in the face of pressure after conceding the second goal. Chelsea didn't give up after the first hour, despite being constantly on the back foot.

That, by the way, is another trait Chelsea have shown recently: to win after going behind. In this aspect, they definitely trumped City.
 
BlueCelery said:
Surprised. They're far superior in midfield but we have a better goalkeeper, defence & attack.
Click to expand...

Are you a Chelsea or City fan?

I think City will generally create more than Chelsea will, and Chelseas efficient run in some ways comes down to the foreign system. Clubs here are yet to counter it (Koeman woefully surrendered by trying to play 3 at the back against you). However I think clubs will start sussing it out soon, as someone has already mentioned via overloading on the left flank.
 
VP89 said:
Are you a Chelsea or City fan?

I think City will generally create more than Chelsea will, and Chelseas efficient run in some ways comes down to the foreign system. Clubs here are yet to counter it (Koeman woefully surrendered by trying to play 3 at the back against you). However I think clubs will start sussing it out soon, as someone has already mentioned via overloading on the left flank.
Click to expand...
I've already acknowledged City have a far superior midfield hence why they'll create significantly more chances but again they have a better attack. Hazard & Costa have been the definition of clinical this season & have consistently produced when it matters most.

Apart from Aguero who's been utterly wasteful this season, City lack players of that quality.
 
BlueCelery said:
I've already acknowledged City have a far superior midfield hence why they'll create significantly more chances but again they have a better attack. Hazard & Costa have been the definition of clinical this season & have consistently produced when it matters most.

Apart from Aguero who's been utterly wasteful this season, City lack players of that quality.
Click to expand...

KDB is sublime too tbf, and Silva isn't far off in many moments. If you took Costa out of Chelsea, I think they'd struggle to put teams away more than City without Augero.

Chelsea have been very efficient indeed. I don't know to what extent it's sustainable though.
 
BlueCelery said:
Surprised. They're far superior in midfield but we have a better goalkeeper, defence & attack.
Click to expand...

VP89 said:
Are you a Chelsea or City fan?

I think City will generally create more than Chelsea will, and Chelseas efficient run in some ways comes down to the foreign system. Clubs here are yet to counter it (Koeman woefully surrendered by trying to play 3 at the back against you). However I think clubs will start sussing it out soon, as someone has already mentioned via overloading on the left flank.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear from his statement that @BlueCelery is a Chelsea fan.

City will create more chances, but they won't be as efficient as Chelsea. That's the problem with Guardiola's philosophy. In trying to convert the football pitch into a midfield zone, he undermines the importance of specialist attackers and defenders. Players who provide the end product.

Also, the level of players he requires to play his way are not present at City. Conte has that in his favour. Guardiola only has two options to win consistently: either be ahead 2:0 by the 60th minute every game or set up the team more pragmatically.

I don't think he can do the first, and he won't do the latter.
 
BlueCelery said:
I've already acknowledged City have a far superior midfield hence why they'll create significantly more chances but again they have a better attack. Hazard & Costa have been the definition of clinical this season & have consistently produced when it matters most.

Apart from Aguero who's been utterly wasteful this season, City lack players of that quality.
Click to expand...

De Bruyne is essentially an attacker and he is certainly top quality. There is not much between the Costa/Hazard and De Bruyne/Aguero duos and City's attacking depth is better IMO.

I think people are generally overrating Chelsea's quality and underrating the advantages of superior health and no European football. Chelsea have played the same XI every game during the winning streak (bar Cesc coming in for Matic against City) and have nine players who have played 13-14 league matches. City have two such players, United three, Arsenal six, Liverpool six. There is a ton to be gained from simply being able to play the same players every match and let them gain understanding with each other. This was critical to both Leicester and Spurs last year.
 
Shubham Ahuja said:
It's pretty clear from his statement that @BlueCelery is a Chelsea fan.

City will create more chances, but they won't be as efficient as Chelsea. That's the problem with Guardiola's philosophy. In trying to convert the football pitch into a midfield zone, he undermines the importance of specialist attackers and defenders. Players who provide the end product.
Click to expand...

Both Aguero and De Bruyne have longstanding track records as players with fantastic end product. I would be very surprised if over a big sample Hazard and Costa are significantly better finishers than those two.

People read too much into small samples. Its possible for good finishers to go on a bad run finishing (see Zlatan, for example) and it doesn't necessarily have to do with the system around them.
 
Shubham Ahuja said:
It's pretty clear from his statement that @BlueCelery is a Chelsea fan.

City will create more chances, but they won't be as efficient as Chelsea. That's the problem with Guardiola's philosophy. In trying to convert the football pitch into a midfield zone, he undermines the importance of specialist attackers and defenders. Players who provide the end product.

Guardiola only has two options to win consistently: either be ahead 2:0 by the 60th minute every game or set up the team more pragmatically.

I don't think he can do the first, and he won't do the latter.
Click to expand...

City are still averaging over 2 goals per game so Id argue otherwise. I also think he has multiple specialist attackers with end product.
 
Powderfinger said:
Both Aguero and De Bruyne have longstanding track records as players with fantastic end product. I would be very surprised if over a big sample Hazard and Costa are significantly better finishers than those two.

People read too much into small samples. Its possible for good finishers to go on a bad run finishing (see Zlatan, for example) and it doesn't necessarily have to do with the system around them.
Click to expand...
It's funny you mention Aguero and KdB. I get the strange feeling Pep prefers the latter in a CF role. Lewandowski prospered under him at Bayern because he was good at link-up play. I'm not sure that's Aguero's forte.

It's not just about the attack though. City's defence is shockingly short on quality. They need a new leader in defence, especially if Kompany's health issues continue.

I do agree that it is too early to judge, but for now, Hazard and Costa have a role that suits them. I'm not convinced about Aguero. Add to that defensive issues, and it sums up why I feel Chelsea will be more efficient.
 
Aguero: 10 goals - 61 shots
De Bruyne: 2 goals - 37 shots

Costa: 11 goals - 43 shots
Hazard: 8 goals - 39 shots

I'm taking the latter any day of the week personally. Hazard has raised his game immensely since the switch to 343 & has been the League's best player ever since while Costa is currently playing at a higher level than he was even at Atletico.

Thing I love most about them is they both seem to turn up almost every game. You don't see them scoring 2 or 3 goals in a random against fodder then disappearing in pressure moments. They're consistently scoring huge/important goals at crucial times.
 
BlueCelery said:
Aguero: 10 goals - 61 shots
De Bruyne: 2 goals - 37 shots

Costa: 11 goals - 43 shots
Hazard: 8 goals - 39 shots

I'm taking the latter any day of the week personally. Hazard has raised his game immensely since the switch to 343 & has been the League's best player ever since while Costa is currently playing at a higher level than he was even at Atletico.

Thing I love most about them is they both seem to turn up almost every game. You don't see them scoring 2 or 3 goals in a random against fodder then disappearing in pressure moments. They're consistently scoring huge/important goals at crucial times.
Click to expand...

Nobody is doubting that Costa and Hazard have been more efficient finishers this year. The question is whether that is due to variance or skill. And for that you need to look at larger samples that cover many years.
 
Powderfinger said:
Nobody is doubting that Costa and Hazard have been more efficient finishers this year. The question is whether that is due to variance or skill. And for that you need to look at larger samples that cover many years.
Click to expand...
But conversely, nobody (not me, anyway) is doubting that the skill level of the two duos is similar. So, is the efficiency of one pair due to the system they play in?

Over a season, their numbers will possibly be similar, simply because they are great players. But the ones who turn up in big matches will, in my opinion, be the ones who are more at home in their system. My only doubts in this regard are over Aguero.
 
ivaldo said:
Which would be fine, if the majority of these players didn't come from the Spanish and German leagues; the supposedly tactical superior leagues.
Click to expand...
First time i hear the german league being called tactically superior. German league is the least tactical of the top 4.
As for the players, again, culture. When foreign players move to a foreign league, they will have to adapt to that league. In England, that means less thinking, more running. Keep in mind, the very best teams don't always adapt to the league, as they have enough quality to force the other teams to adapt to them. Mourinho's first chelsea didn't play in the high-tempo, all-out attack typical of the premier league. Neither does Guardiola's city. These are just two examples.


Having said that, Diego Costa's goal was just shocking. As if the entire City team switched their brains off
TwoSheds said:
I can. Pep used his squad's strength in midfield well but didn't manage to get his strong forward line firing enough to score the goals to win. He also picked a near suicidal defensive lineup with better defenders in Sagna and Clichy on the bench.

Conte on the other hand had his team soaking up the pressure, despite his fairly shite defenders, and used his clinical forward line to great effect.

Tactical battle owned.
Click to expand...
Conte did what he had to do with the limited options at his disposal. But the whole point of sitting deep is to prevent your opponent from creating many clear cut chances to score, while using counter attacks to create a few clear cut chanves of your own. Chelsea failed in preventing city from creating chances. They were succesfull in creating great chances on the counter. Only half of their tactical plan worked. Hence they didn't win the tactical battle. They were simply more clinical in taking converting their chances.

They also won the mental battle. Never left the game even after city went up and looked poised to close the game. City on the other hand folded after Willian's goal
 
Last edited:
VanGaalEra said:
Bit of a touchy interview and he reminds of Veron in this video.

Click to expand...


Only saw first 7 minutes.. I found it quite funny actually and don't think there was much wrong with what he's said.
 
Lay said:
Only saw first 7 minutes.. I found it quite funny actually and don't think there was much wrong with what he's said.
Click to expand...

His response to the question of who's fault the fracas was made me laugh.

Doesn't he look like Veron?
 
VanGaalEra said:
His response to the question of who's fault the fracas was made me laugh.

Doesn't he look like Veron?
Click to expand...

Yeah :lol: The fans? You? me? Who play?
Great response.

And yes, slightly.
 
giorno said:
In some cases, culture. In others, club/fans. In others, it's the players. And in others, there's no difference. Don't think guardiola is working on the tactical aspect any less then he did at barcelona/bayern. I do believe his current group of players is not as smart and talented as the previous ones, so they are taking a longer time to adapt
Click to expand...
Well it looks someone here speaks the same language!!!
 
ivaldo said:
So why do these managers all of a sudden become tactically inferior when they move to England, what compels them to set their teams with in a comparatively tactically naïve way just because they move countries?

It's not one game though is it?
Click to expand...
Look do you understand what I said?

I just mentioned that the Premier League is behind at a tactical level, if you do not agree with me fine, I am not saying nothing that others said in the past, if you think it is the best congratulations, you won the gold medal.
 
I honestly thought that both teams' lack of quality (in terms of players) on the day got exposed. You look at that Chelsea team and its fair to say that those players almost gifted city the game despite being well organised by their manager. Some of the mistakes they made at the back, and in midfield which lead to City chances were unforgivable. Cesc was typically a defensive liability in midfield with Conte shuffling them around to try to paper over the cracks when they were under pressure. I thought for the first 35 the teams were basically equal, then City took control for the next 25 mins or so then the comeback started. You could certainly feel that the pressing from city after the midway point in the second was falling apart and Willian gave chelsea some much needed drive in transition.

If either of those clubs aim of reaching the standards of the spanish duo and bayern they are going to have to invest more. None of cities defenders should be playing at that level and he always seems to have some mediocre attackers on the pitch. As for Chelsea Alonso isnt the answer and Cahill is a problem waiting to happen.
 
SCP said:
Look do you understand what I said?

I just mentioned that the Premier League is behind at a tactical level, if you do not agree with me fine, I am not saying nothing that others said in the past, if you think it is the best congratulations, you won the gold medal.
Click to expand...
If you don't want to engage in a discussion then a discussion forum probably isn't the play for you buddy. And if you want to beleive tired stereotypes then go ahead and beleive them, ciao.
 
giorno said:
First time i hear the german league being called tactically superior. German league is the least tactical of the top 4.
As for the players, again, culture. When foreign players move to a foreign league, they will have to adapt to that league. In England, that means less thinking, more running. Keep in mind, the very best teams don't always adapt to the league, as they have enough quality to force the other teams to adapt to them. Mourinho's first chelsea didn't play in the high-tempo, all-out attack typical of the premier league. Neither does Guardiola's city. These are just two examples.


Having said that, Diego Costa's goal was just shocking. As if the entire City team switched their brains off

Conte did what he had to do with the limited options at his disposal. But the whole point of sitting deep is to prevent your opponent from creating many clear cut chances to score, while using counter attacks to create a few clear cut chanves of your own. Chelsea failed in preventing city from creating chances. They were succesfull in creating great chances on the counter. Only half of their tactical plan worked. Hence they didn't win the tactical battle. They were simply more clinical in taking converting their chances.

They also won the mental battle. Never left the game even after city went up and looked poised to close the game. City on the other hand folded after Willian's goal
Click to expand...

The whole point of Conte's sitting deep and packing the central areas is to not concede goals despite having shite defenders. And they only conceded an own goal from a mistake off Cahill, ergo it worked.

If that was a one off game I might agree with you but Chelsea have been winning like that for many consecutive games now. And similarly City failing to win. It's not a coincidence - Conte is getting his tactics right while Guardiola is not.
 
TwoSheds said:
The whole point of Conte's sitting deep and packing the central areas is to not concede goals despite having shite defenders. And they only conceded an own goal from a mistake off Cahill, ergo it worked.

If that was a one off game I might agree with you but Chelsea have been winning like that for many consecutive games now. And similarly City failing to win. It's not a coincidence - Conte is getting his tactics right while Guardiola is not.
Click to expand...

I don't get why football fans get so caught up in the idea that just because you've won a match that means the tactics worked and were spot on. And if you lose, well the tactics/ subs/ starting line up didn't.

Chelsea could have lost that game. They didn't, which was an excellent result for them. But play that game back and it could happen. Would that mean the same tactics...were wrong?

I see it as akin to someone going all in on unsuited 2-7 in poker pre flop and winning. They've won sure. But that doesn't mean they used the right tactics.

I'm not even saying that Conte used the wrong tactics or didn't get it spot on or that Chelsea didn't deserve to win. But winning is not the justification for that.
 
Let's stick with that analogy with the poker. The way to tell if it's like going in with a 7-2 would be to see if he keeps winning wouldn't it? If it were a metaphorical 7-2 then it would be a one off. Chelsea are on a brilliant winning streak so it must be a good hand unless he's the luckiest manager in the world. Also note that they were in terrible form until he switched to the current tactics.

City on the other hand keep missing chances, conceding daft goals and dropping points. That is what suggests Guardiola's playing a bit of a 10-6, even if not quite a 7-2.
 
TwoSheds said:
Let's stick with that analogy with the poker. The way to tell if it's like going in with a 7-2 would be to see if he keeps winning wouldn't it? If it were a metaphorical 7-2 then it would be a one off. Chelsea are on a brilliant winning streak so it must be a good hand unless he's the luckiest manager in the world. Also note that they were in terrible form until he switched to the current tactics.

City on the other hand keep missing chances, conceding daft goals and dropping points. That is what suggests Guardiola's playing a bit of a 10-6, even if not quite a 7-2.
Click to expand...

Again, I didn't say that Conte got his tactics wrong or that Chelsea haven't deserved this winning streak.

All I'm saying is that winning a match does not necessarily mean that the manager has gotten the tactics right, anymore than a loss means the manager got it all wrong.
 
africanspur said:
Again, I didn't say that Conte got his tactics wrong or that Chelsea haven't deserved this winning streak.

All I'm saying is that winning a match does not necessarily mean that the manager has gotten the tactics right, anymore than a loss means the manager got it all wrong.
Click to expand...

A really unhelpful point then considering I never suggested winning a match was what made his tactics better than Guardiola's. The fact they were better is what makes them better.
 
TwoSheds said:
A really unhelpful point then considering I never suggested winning a match was what made his tactics better than Guardiola's. The fact they were better is what makes them better.
Click to expand...

Well not exactly. But you did say this:

'And they only conceded an own goal from a mistake off Cahill, ergo it worked.'

Is that not pretty much saying the same thing? We only conceded one goal ergo the tactics were right.

It is hardly like you genuinely shut Man City out from creating good chances. They still created some huge chances, including an open goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.