Latest News
Negative Italian Tactic's Not To Blame.
Posted by Clarkey311
on
Saturday 27 February 2010
, under |
comments (1)
.jpeg)
After the recent stalemate against Liverpool however, there is a very good argument that these negative tactics are forced by the squad lacking personal within some key areas.
The common misconception amongst fans of our beloved club is that because Mancini is from an Italian background, he must therefore be renowned for his 'negative Italian tactics', far from it in fact.
At Inter he played some of the most adventurous football in the league and I would point you towards the title he won with a magnificent ninety-seven points scoring eighty goals whilst playing his favoured two holding midfielders in the centre which we have become accustom to.
The problems currently facing Mancini's system is the lack real flair and leadership within the midfield. At Inter he had a mixture Zanetti, Cambiasso and Vieira at his disposal in the centre of midfield, providing both a solid defensive platform and commanding leadership. Ahead of the before mentioned players, Mancini's sides included Stankovic, Figo, Ibrahimovic and Suazo all creative flair players capable of producing pieces of individuals brilliance at any given time as well as combining with each other.
Within our current squad there are isn't a player that could even come close to matching any of the flair players mentioned, bar Robinho who as we have all witnessed isn`t a team player. 'One day I would like to be the number one as well, the best player in the world. That is my aim while I am at Manchester City' - Robinho shortly after signing.
Some would argue that Bellamy could be thrown into the flair bracket, but he really lacks the trickery and vision required, despite the work rate and pace. Given last year's performances, Ireland was looking to have more than enough of the creative traits required for Hughes to comfortably allow Elano to leave, yet hasn't really played anywhere near the level we know he can . Meanwhile Elano being an international starter for Brazil with bags of vision and flair, yet dogged by patchy form, a player whom I believe would have only flourished under Mancini's guidance, much like he did under Sven initially, was allowed to leave cheaply.
Having been appointed so near the start of the transfer window, Mancini didn't have very long to work out what each member within the squad could bring to the team, not to mention a rather large cup tie taking up most of his attention. He did clearly attempt to rectify the two problems with the signing of Vieira (leadership) and Johnson (flair) but this still isn't his squad, I'm sure given the money available in the summer he would of bought very few of the player Hughes did. I'm also under the impression that the owners don't want to throw money at another manager's mercy without them proving they deserve the opportunity.
Currently we are really missing a link between the forwards and the midfield whilst playing Barry and de Jong in the centre, there is a real lack of forward drive. Both are very neat and tidy players and solid enough when it comes to protecting the defence but there is no forward momentum on display, so this falls heavily on the wingers.
Johnson has fulfilled this in every game he has featured in so far with his jinking runs and no fear attitude, however finding someone of equal effectiveness on the other flank has proven to be an upward battle for Mancini. Both Petrov and Wright-Phillips go missing in games far too often, especially against the more competitive teams and Bellamy has had trouble adapting to Mancini's training methods, or more to the point his knee has, despite what the media would like you to believe.
A short term fix which Mancini has used frequently thus far is to play a player behind the striker, however once again the squad is very short in personal able to play this role to a high enough standard. Tevez has been the preferred player so far and has been clearly missed over the last couple fixtures. Ireland took over this role against Liverpool and was completely missing in action; worst of all was the incredible work rate commonly associated with the Irishman had also disappeared much like his confidence.
Another common suggestion amongst fans is to player 4-4-2 with Santa Cruz and Adebayor up top, but once again the link is missing for the most part. Adebayor started his City career with a goal which he instigated by coming deep to get the ball and playing Wright-Phillips into space, since then this aspect of his game seems to have vanished or be in vain as he is often the target man and has no one ahead to link up with. With a fellow target man in Santa Cruz up front, Adebayor should be encouraged to drop deep once again in an attempt to link up play giving us another option rather than an aimless punt up field in his general direction.
Mancini's tactics shouldn't be criticised to the extent they are, they are proven to win things in a league often referred to as most tactical in Europe. Given time and resources Mancini will turn us into a force, remember before Mancini's arrival at Inter they had gone seven years without a trophy and a further sixteen without a league title. Some discredit his achievements at Inter because he had the strongest squad after the Calciopoli scandal, yet if the players aren't managed correctly then ultimately you won't succeed in winning anything, the Real Madrid Galáctico's are the perfect example of this.
Initial Thoughts
Posted by Clarkey311
on
Wednesday 20 January 2010
, under |
comments (0)
Probably Mark Hughes biggest downfall was his reported stubbornness, it was either his way or no way at all, Player such as Dunne and Elano who didn’t fully buy into Hughes idea’s were moved on and there was no doubt a divide within the dressing room. Many a time there were reports in the media of player bust ups with the likes of Richards and Ben Hiam to name a couple, so it is understandable that the team was struggling and not progressing at the rate expected by money spent. Petrov’s recent attack of Hughes on the clubs official website summed it up when he said Hughes didn’t give him a fair chance. Yet under Mancini everyone has a fresh slate and the team seems to have bonded as a whole and want to play for the manager. It was as though Hughes was constantly trying to reinforce he was the boss when it wasn’t required and he should been developing the sides style of play.
Mancini’s tactical awareness really set him apart from Hughes, where Hughes would often only play 4-3-3 no matter what the opposition’s formation is. Mancini isn’t afraid of switching between formations during the game, illustrated in both the Stoke and Wolves games to great success with goals often following shortly after the change. It would seem between both Mancini and Kidd there is always a plan B, C etc, often instigated with a before mentioned formation switch or a substitute. Yet under Hughes with the same squad there was only ever a plan A and some of the substitutions were bewildering to say the least.
Team selection is another point where the managers differ; Mark Hughes could often be accused of playing his favours such as Evans, Adebayor, Toure and Lescott no matter how poorly they performed, whilst players like Petrov, Kompany and Elano lay in the wing. The only tangible reason for this is the fact he demanded that so much money should be spent on the players, hence felt a pressure to stick by them to save face. Mancini on the other hand seems to take the approach of impress me and you’ll play, resulting in all the players being motivated as they feel a legitimate possibility of playing in the first team. Garrido is probably the best example of this, under Hughes he was effectively relegated to the reserves and looked certain to leave the club in favour for firstly cult figure Glauber who wasn’t deemed good enough feature at all, bar a small cameo at Bolton and more recently an aging Sylvinho who hasn’t looked up to much in any of his outings to date. Remember Garrido was part of the defence that impressed many under the tutorage of Hans Backe whilst Sven was at the helm.
Many will say Garrido was found out in the later part of that season, but wasn’t the whole defence? In fact the collapse of Sven’s sole season in charge coincides with the departure of Hans Backe on compassionate leave. Until Mancini took over Backe was never really replaced, it was clear over Hughes entire reign that we were very susceptible from set pieces and poorly positioned defensively. Yet as glaring as this was to many a fan Hughes never truly addressed the situation through training regimes or new coaches and insisted that investing in new defenders would solve the problem. It’s highly unlikely that Dunne has moved on to Villa and recaptured his form whilst Micah Richard’s career stalled because they weren’t good enough. You don’t become captain of Ireland and the youngest ever defender to appear for England respectively because you lack talent. Since Mancini has taken over, the defence is playing like a unit with clear roles for each player, two clean sheets in two games proves this and it can only improve with time.
Hughes also seemed to lack imagination at times, especially with his dealings in the transfer market. By ruling out the possibility of signing player without Premier League experience, he was severely reducing the amount of potential players, hence upping the price of any player he desired, as well as showing that the pressure was starting to take a grip of him. Mancini on the other hand hasn’t been scared of taking calculated risks on unknown players such as Bolatelli and Suazo or high profile player such as Ibrahimovic or Viera despite lack of experience within the league he is managing in.
Finally Mancini’s attention to details seems to be of a vaster importance, In both games Mancini has been on the touchline either talking idea’s over with Kidd or instructing his players of what they need to be doing, even in the last remaining minutes of stoppage time when City are leading comfortably. If anything this shows his players on the field how passionate he is about the game and his desire to ensure the win. Yet under Hughes there would be games where he would remain rooted to his seat looking glumly at his side hoping his initial plan works or complaining about a wrong desission rather than thinking of way to improve the team’s fortunes.
