skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Bolton 3 - 3 City
- So was Shay Given's penalty save a Mark Robins moment or not? Did those consecutive home wins against the big London sides mark a decisive turning point in our season, or even in the ADUG/Hughes era? Or was it just a high point in the seismograph reading that characterises every Manchester City season since 1894? Ultimately any result at the Reebok on Saturday would have returned an open verdict on this question. But I think the answer is probably more no than yes.
- There was something very attractive, very Mark Hughes, about our fightback. Coming from behind three times - the third time when playing (unjustly) with ten men - is the sign of a team with more grit than we have shown for a while. When the manager said that we would have lost this game last season he is absolutely right. Our failure to come back from losing positions - particularly on the road - was one of the most infuriating aspects of 2008/09.
- But we knew that this team could fight. The issue is whether they can defend. And if the Chelsea win signified anything, it was that our back four was starting to come together, to look like something approaching a working unit. Shay Given and Nigel de Jong took the headlines last Saturday but Kolo Touré and Joleon Lescott were almost as crucial to our taking the three points. And so the question was whether they could continue that form through to this Saturday and hold out goal shy Bolton Wanderers.
- And they flunked it. Three goals conceded, and while Gary Cahill's was a special moment Bolton had enough chances to suggest that Touré and Lescott weren't quite doing as well as they might. Yes, ideally we would have had de Jong and Wayne Bridge rather than Sylvinho and Vincent Kompany; but strength in depth is meant to be our strong point. (Given United's recent injury crisis I am convinced than on any given matchday our bench is the strongest in the Premier League. Have a look and you'll agree with me.)
- But if you're looking for a turning point here's one: Carlos Tévez's gamechanging cameo at Anfield a few weeks ago. That was the first team we saw him do for us what we know he can. And it gave him the confidence to do it. After a quiet game against Hull he has four goals in the last three, and three exceptional performances to match. He is growing in his leadership on the pitch, which, with our other generals Nigel de Jong and Craig Bellamy missing at White Hart Lane, will be crucial.
4 comments:
great analysis. well written. being a city fan has always been maddening, but I have never been driven to despair to this extent before. every match promises answers but only delivers more questions. I confess to being completely flummoxed. some fans seem delirious with what they see, whilst I admit there is much to admire in our spirit, our defending troubles me deeply. I would advise Hughes to bring some semblance of order to our progress, or I will not be responsible for my conduct.
Patience, wizzballs, patience. Not finishing fourth this season will not be the end of the world, nor should it be the end of Hughes's City career.
Progress is being made...and a point at Spurs on Wednesday will be another point gained.
Yes - patience. Money alone does not buy success. In the overall scheme of things, Hughes has not had that much time. I think we all agree he's built a team with fighting spirit, and some real class. He also made major changes in the defence, which I'm sure even he would admit haven't worked out exactly as planned. I'm confident he'll get it right the second time. We've still only been beaten once - no one else can claim that!
no, no more patience. wins or clean sheets before Christmas, or hughes will face the full impotence of my rage.
seriously, my big concern is that winning teams are built from the back. when you build a team around the forwards, then try to trouble-shoot the defence later on, you risk causing problems in other areas of the pitch.
I'm convinced that our problems stem from the wildly imbalanced midfield quartet. the wingers neither become involved in building through the midfield, nor do they cross the ball. they are effectively strikers playing out wide, miles up-field from their fullbacks.
I see the absence of swp and bellamy for the spurs game as a potential blessing in disguise. we will be forced to pass through the midfield, build more patiently. I hope this gives us a more compact shape as a unit, and helps us retain possession for longer. This should relieve the pressure on the back four. it's akin to elano's forced inclusion at right wing in the final games of last year... all of a sudden we became a creative, balanced, passing team. shame he was such an idiot behind the scenes.
Post a Comment