OVER THE LAST year or so, there’s been a lot of clichéd talk about the “Premier League landscape shifting”.
But Sunday saw an afternoon in which it felt like the table was shuddered by a tremor in the opposite direction.
Manchester United didn’t just return to the top of the league. They finally converted a seven-point deficit into a one-point lead, with Alex Ferguson making sure to publicly mention that after the2-0 win over West Brom in order to gain maximum psychological advantage.
Because, after an early-season in which City simply seemed overwhelming, their aura has evaporated while a lot of doubts and questions have suddenly become very concrete.
Are they feeling the pressure? Why are they suddenly struggling to score goals? Why is their away form so poor now?
To answer, first of all, there’s an important point which we’ve repeated here before and feel is more relevant now than ever.
No matter how much the landscapes shifts and no matter how many global superstars you sign, it takes a lot more time and integration to alter mindsets and get a team to properly know each other.
Essentially, unless you have a manager like Jose Mourinho – who has proven very adept at radically altering teams in the short term – it’s extremely difficult to win a title race at the first time of asking. Really, teams have to learn to win a league together; to get a knowledge for each other’s nuances, to adjust to the alternating rhythms of a proper push for the championship.
And City are undeniably going through that process at the minute. Having remarkably won 11 of their first 12, they’ve now lost three of their last 10. Not actually a huge difference given that they’ve won seven of those last 10, but enough to start having a tangible effect on the top of the table – particularly with Manchester United doing the exact opposite.
[caption id="attachment_381079" align="alignnone" width="630" caption="Wayne Rooney celebrates his opener against West Brom"]
But, while City are – to a certain extent – slaves to the football world’s major truths, there is no doubt that some of Roberto Mancini’s micro-management has exacerbated the situation.
Throughout his career – and particularly in Europe with Inter – the Italian has been criticised for his game-management; in other words, the more minor alterations to a side’s overall shape that tailor it to individual opponents.
And, when you take a broader view of City’s season, this has undoubtedly been a factor.
Consider this.
A massive 18 of City’s 21 wins have come when they’ve scored the game’s opening goal before the 63rd minute. And – as Alex Ferguson made clear in his thoughts about the 1999 Champions League final – that is generally around the time that managers start to think about making real changes to personnel and formation if things aren’t going their way.
And the other three wins are interesting.
One of them, away against QPR, eventually came in the 74th minute after a topsy-turvy game in which Mancini didn’t actually make any alterations.
The only game in which the manager actually affected a match-winning change was Everton away, when Mario Balotelli was brought on after an hour as the teams drew 0-0.
And the only league game so far that City have actually won with the kind of characteristic champions’ late winner was the 3-2 victory over Spurs that saw a 95th-minute Balotelli penalty.
Tellingly, that is the only actual game-changing goal City have scored after 80 minutes this season.
By contrast, they’ve conceded three of them: away to Sunderland, away to Chelsea and, now, away to Swansea.
Clearly, if a game isn’t going exactly according to Mancini’s pre-game plan, he struggles to manufacture a result.
Today was a case in point. With Swansea’s intense pressing deep in their own half, there was little space for City to move. It’s also been said here before Christmas that City lacked a classic midfield trio of destroyer-passer-creator and, as such, might struggle in such games. For example, they didn’t previously a deep-lying playmaker in the mould of Andrea Pirlo, Xavi, Cesc Fabregas, Daniele De Rossi and even Michael Carrick to pick unseen openings.
And that makes it all the more incredible that Mancini didn’t bring on David Pizarro at the Liberty Stadium. Instead, he introduced Sergio Aguero early on. This might have seemed logical but all it did was congest the space even more near Swansea’s goal.
Moreover, the manner in which City chase games in such situations seems to leave them unusually susceptible to late openings. That very stat of 3-1 against in terms of game-changing goals is very uncharacteristic of title winners.
By contrast, you don’t have to go back too far for United’s: two weeks ago against Norwich. For the champions, that stat is 6-0. And that, of course, is the consequence of two decades of in-built and self-perpetuating experience of such races.
In truth, United don’t have a squad that’s near the depth or quality of City’s. But they do have a number of players who exactly know their roles, who can draw on all that experience, who have been fortified by the manager’s fierce mentality.
Ultimately, with United, we know exactly what to expect at this point of this season – as proven against West Brom.
With City, we simply don’t. We’ve never seen this collection of players so competitive so far into a season together.
If they are to win a first title in 43 years, though, it seems that Mancini is going to have to make more changes than just those to the landscape.
To say his career in management has been ‘largely unsuccessful’ is incorrect.He did have success at Sunderland.
That’s why I said ‘largely unsuccessful’ rather than ‘entirely unsuccessful’ Eamonn.
To call his management ‘largely unsuccessful ‘ is unfair Paul. He took Sunderland from bottom of the table to win the championship. Success.Then he kept them in the Prem. more success.
Already sick of the Roy Keane stories. I’ve read sweet f**k all about Martin O’Neill who last time I checked, was actually appointed boss, not Keane.
By the way I hope that O’Neill does not start tiptoeing around d**kheads like Stephen Ireland and Darron Gibson, begging them to come play for Ireland. If he puts 11 men out there who replicate the pride, commitment and passion shown by the likes of the Clare and Cork hurlers last month, in every game they play then ill be happy enough. You can’t ask for more than that. Leave the primadonnas at home.
Agreed. Had to laugh at Stephen Ireland being interviewed and saying he’s going to give some consideration to coming back. He hasn’t done anything to merit it since he was playing for City.
Last month, Roy helped his old Forest mate Gary Charles with some coaching at a University of Nottingham football match. I talked to some of the boys – after they got over the shock of Keane walking into their dressing room unannounced, they said he was articulate, obviously enthusiastic about what they were doing, and helpful in his critique. This is just one example of what he’s been doing the last three years; from helping some university players to observing training at Barcelona – he hasn’t just been walking the dogs and working for ITV. He’s been serious about trying to improve his skill set and I suspect he’s had a good old think about where he’s gone wrong in the past in his management style.
Since when does coaching come into international football??? Coaching is done at your club.
Tactics & the motivation are the only thing an international manager (that’s Martin O Neill everyone not Keane, just try remember that) gets to do with the short amount of time with the players……
Good work journo, another nonsense story
Lets take them across the water. Gerrard and Lampard could never play well together as they’ve only ever played one style of football and basically only predominantly for one club.
Coaching them at international level was the only way to get them to change their style of playing. Unfortunately for England it didn’t work. Possibly a good coach may have made it work.
A coach is essential at all levels.
A hotshot…. In precious few days that you have the players, how can you coach them?? Team organisation, tactics & mentally preparing them for an international match should be just scrapped for coaching grown men???
Kids get coached, precessionals listen to tactics
@Kevin: Maybe the lack of success was because they were trying to coach these two top players into a style of football they were both uncomfortable with, rather than having the tactical fluency to play them as they would wish to be played.
People seem to forget Martin O Neill is the manager not Roy Keane
I think your article is very misleading Paul. You are damning his coaching ability by criticising his man management skills. From what I gather he is an intelligent and innovative coach on the training ground whose management career was stifled by issues with the man management rather than the coaching.
I meant ‘coaching style’ in the broader sense of the word, Joseph. Man management can be considered a part of coaching.
Id disagree, man management is part of management, coaching can be a part of management too but would be more widely considered, in the context of British football at any rate, as the work done with players on the training pitch.
Sorry to say that while your articles are normally good I’m afraid you should have given this one a miss, it smacks of Sun type journalism.
FACT: Martin O’Neill is ROI manager
FACT:Roy Keane is his assistant and no doubt part of his coaching staff.
Why is all the talk about Roy and not what Martin brings to the job. From reports I have read, I have no idea one way or the other, O’Neill can be quite tough when he wants to be. So less of the jumping on the Dunphy bandwagon please.