The folly of City's lack of progressive thought was underlined when they scored twice inside seven minutes through Emmanuel Adebayor and Stephen Ireland once Carlos Tevez was introduced and Liverpool's fragile confidence was actually closely examined.
It begged the question [see this - JPB] as to why City did not try this obvious ploy earlier. Hughes said he did not want City to "go gung-ho." Fair point - but just a little more attacking ambition from a side with such lofty aspirations surely?
And then Andy Hunter on guardian.co.uk:
Hughes bristled at the suggestion of negativity in his tactics and, on the surface, City's sixth successive draw, one that kept them a point and a place above Liverpool, having played one game fewer, represents the most acceptable of a damaging sequence. But Liverpool's patent vulnerability presented their expensive guests with an opportunity for more than containment and late counter-attack, and their manager did not alter course to seize it. His employers have preached patient empire building so far but here they had every right to expect greater ambition.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Hughes certainly did change tactics for this game - giving up on the cavalier 4-4-2 for a more cautious 4-1-4-1. And we did look more defensive than in recent games, for sure. But then we were playing Liverpool away. And given that they play with Lucas, Mascherano and Steven Gerrard in central midfield we would have been swamped had we not changed system.
So the critique can only be over the late introduction of Tévez. And he came on after sixty minutes, which isn't exactly leaving it late. I suppose he could have put Vladimir Weiss on for Craig Bellamy in the last fifteen minutes, but it would have been a big risk. And would Weiss have made that crucial tackle in our box that Bellamy saved us with late on? Those last ten minutes were a seige and it would have been folly to risk losing the match. Ultimately, we lost the match not because of a lack of ambition but because we conceded another avoidable goal. I'm not trying to get Hughes off the hook here, bad defending organisation is his fault too. But I don't think that 'being more attacking' is a solution to our problems.
3 comments:
Hughes is coming in for some huge criticism but have to point out these articles are being produced by anti Hughes protesters.
Lately Paul Ince has been verbally bashing Hughes in his column with if im correct News of the World.
I agree that he is playing it safe when he could be taking a positive gamble every now and then and Hughes first 11 choice has been very 1 sided lately but that is not cause to start calling for his head.
Im hoping Hughes comes good after the January Window by giving Vladimir Weiss more of a chance and pulling a world class centre-half and world class right-back out the bag.
I've no problem with 5 across the middle - after youve conceded 3 at home to burnley, a bit of stability wouldnt go amiss
Hughes is oversensitive to criticism, which gives him a certain air of defensiveness, and oversensitive to the prospect of defeat.
Defeat is fine, it's always a possibility when you really try to win a game. You have to try to win when there are three points up for grabs. Emphasising the importance of winning, as opposed to the dangers of losing breeds an atmosphere where players are free to express themselves without fear of the consequences. Scoring goals and winning games makes you look fearsome to your next opponent. Once you get ahead, they are more likely to concede the game. Drawing consistently gives them the belief that there is a superb chance of taking something even when they are behind.
I repeat, risking the loss is a price worth paying.
As for the fans and media, negativity breeds negativity, but it's up to him to break the cycle.
He has until the end of the season to make his credentials clear, he must concentrate on managing the team's psyche, and not allow himself to be sidetracked by defending his record, as he did yesterday.
Post a Comment