john68 wrote:We seem to continue to be reactive. Allowing opponents to dictate the early game and adapting to their strategies. We do not seem to be asserting our strategies, forcing opponents to adapt to our game and deal with what we are doing.
I think it is clear now that it isn't just seeming to.. plain and simple it is what we do.
Thought this deserved thread of its own to debate this topic. For starters there are some obvious things.
1. we have seen this slow start, not aggressive enough, reactive play many times this season, but mostly under Mancini.
2. the same players then turn it around and become seriously good ( chelsea at Comms )
3. Mancini is on a learning curve in the PL and with these players, even if he is the messiah, he still has to learn it.
So taking these points in mind, there may be two angles to take, one being Mancini's approach, the other being some kind of psychology of the squad.
It seems to me anyway that Mancini is learning his stuff and is not incapable of seeing where problems lie. However he seems to be cautious in reacting to what he sees as the general patterns that we adopt. What i mean by that is i have a feeling that he could see we were always playing too deep since the Everton game and could see this was damaging us. But his answer is not to just react by going gung-ho, but to try and fix the underlying problem, ie. a lack of confidence in the back line and the two DM's. By working on the shape and positioning intently he managed to instill in us a sense of knowing what you are all doing and therefore able to build confidence. But that was slow and carefully done, but seemed to have been done properly if you like.
So what i am saying here is that he wont overreact to any given problem he identifies, he will wait till he is sure that it exists for definate ( eg. more than one games evidence and more than just one or two players playing badly ).
Slow starts.. are costing us points and making life difficult for ourselves. Mancini has now seen in succession two games against very different oppo that followed the same pattern, Chelsea and Sunderland. The fact we did the same at Chelsea means the old argument of being less hyped for weaker opposition doesn't hold water, the 'problem' is something else.
But now that problem is glaring and consistent, Mancini will be aware that he has to do something about it.
For arguments sake lets say that at least part of the problem is that this squad is susceptible to the occassional slow start, but it is difficult to say that is any more so than any other team tbh. So the meat of the argument has to focus on the tactics.
Could it be for instance that there is a difference of interpretation between the management and the players.. like Mancicni is demanding that the players concentrate on getting their collective shape sorted out in reference to the oppo's shape, before thinking about anything else?
IF so, i think we would all agree that in the PL you just wont get afforded that time and luxury. Most prem games have an opening period of sorting the cards, where chaos ensues, the ball pinging around, battles are taking shape in the middle and both teams are in the mix of trying to get a grip on things on the fly. It is as though English teams are trained to do that.. and as a result are both used to it and good at it.
Now maybe Mancini had already identified this as a part of the Prem style before even landing at City, maybe he thinks he has an answer to that and that is what he sold to our owners even before MH got the boot. Either way it doesn't really matter too much as he has to do something about it now rather than in the long term.
I think that most of us would just say, forget it mate, trust that the team are as good as any other team to come out on top in the initial chaos of a game, and just take it from there.
I have a sneaky feeling though that Bob is not going to buy that, he may well think that we are quite close to the ability to stop the oppo, then build on it. We only seem to concede one before waking up and doing what we should have been doing from the start. But that is not good enough by a long way, if we had conceeded a second to iether chelsea or sunderland we may have not got back.
So what is it? alot of you seem to think it is a simple on off switch, that basically when we conceed the switch is thrown and we start to try and play like we can knowing we then have to score.
You might look at Sundays game and say, well if they had had Hilarious in goal it would probs have been 6-1 at he end, but that would be missing the point completely as to wasting the whole of the first half.
If you agree that our players are better at counter attacking play than breaking oppos down, then the options against the weaker teams are better at 0-0, than when they grab a goal and start to defend that. The result at Stamford Bridge was as much the fact that Chelsea continued to attack in force.
I suppose we just seem to start with the idea of soaking up any pressure and taking the sting out of games and so far that just has not worked, but only by a fine margin, one mistake against Chelsea, one against Sunderland, both result in us being 1-0 down.
Mancini has a tricky problem i think, but from what i have seen i get the sense that he will continue with the same. Once again i felt that initially we played too deep in reaction to Sunderlands initial effort. That deepness basically fucks up Barry's game, he looked again off the pace in the first half and unable to make a telling contribution. As Barry is important in setting up getting the ball through to the attackers feet, if he sits too deep or is forced to then imo that is when we struggle to have any link up play with the forwards and wingers.
If you said that we are likely to conceed anyway, to a mistake or something, if we let the oppo push us too deep, then you might just say, well fuck it, tell Barry he is not allowed to drop deep at the start of games ( unless he sees an emergency ) and make him sit higher to recieve the ball. Ok it might mean that the loss of cover puts us at a slightly higher risk, but we could also say that the defenders, De Jong and the two wingers should be able to deal with most circumstances anyway. What is lost in the extra man around the rear of the midfield is gained by having a better outlet of someone of Barry's quality in good long passes and spreading play. imo we would be as likely to be 1 up as to 1 down after the opening period of a game. I also believe that it would suit Barry a lot more and he would play better as a result.
[/center]
