After 4 games, Manchester has two unbeaten teams at the top of England's top division. With a combined goal difference of +27. Re-read that sentence. Yes, that's right. A year is a long time in football, to paraphrase a wise man, but the difference in the way these two teams are playing is surely one of the most impressive things to be drawn to by these statistics.
Last season, despite winning the title, Manchester United won once away all year. They relied heavily on being hard to beat, and scored their usual amount of late goals with their usual "never know when they're beaten" style. City were even more entrenched in not losing, often getting criticised for negative tactics even at home.
This season, it's all changed. I was highly critical of Mancini's cautious style, and everyone hated the way in which United ruthlessly closed down game after game. Now, though, both sides are playing with an attacking fluidity off which even the best teams in Europe would be proud. The credit has to be given to the managers.
Sir Alex Ferguson looks to be well under way with building his 5th or 6th United side. The old guard have pretty much gone (Ryan Giggs being the sole reminder of years gone by). In their place are a very well selected group of young players, who could almost all be in United's first team for another ten years. The recruitment of Smalling, whilst initially baffling, has looked a masterstroke. We all liked the look of Phil Jones, but with his raw edges have already smoothed, he looks like the unflappable Rolls Royce of a defender Rio Ferdinand once was. Ashley Young, a slightly older recruit (a grandfatherly 26), looks like he's been playing with Wayne Rooney for several years, and is now making the most of his undoubted talent in a team which isn't afraid to give him the ball. Rooney himself is enjoying his football again - the smile is back, and the ball again appears glued to his feet. And the Little Pea has returned and is unsurprisingly right amongst the goals.
The best thing for United is however, that despite Paul Scholes retirement, their midfield still dominates anyone they've come across. They can play 4-4-2 with 2 wingers, and be utterly irresistible. Anderson is again showing he has all the talent to be a seriously good midfielder. And Tom Cleverley has made the most of his opportunity, probing and passing away in a Scholes-like fashion until a bad injury yesterday. The question will be who replaces him in the heart of the United Machine. I'm sure Ferguson has an inspiring idea. Or Michael Carrick.
City, on the other hand, had very little need for a rebuilding/replacement programme over the summer. Their recruitment policy had already meant the gears were in place, they just needed time to mesh together, and a little lubrication to free them up. Cue Kun Aguero, already looking like a bargain at £38million (him or the lumbering Andy Caroll for £35m?). Edin Dzeko has had time to settle into the system, and now looks the epitome of the modern leader of the line (Caroll take note). He looks fitter, has great control, links play, and is lethal in the box. He doesn't need to be quick, he has the speed of thought and foot around him of any one from the three of Silva, Nasri, Aguero or the somewhat sheepish Tevez. Watching City ruthlessly cut Spurs apart time and again, and follow it up with a dose of the same against Wigan was a joy for any believer in passing football.
City's strength is the way their players are comfortable with the shape of the team and their role in it. Their defence is solid, with Kompany and Lescott repelling all comers, covered by 2 defensive midfielders, the outstanding De Jong and the immense presence of Yaya Toure. The full backs are fast and powerful, providing width to stretch the opposition, allowing the room for the attacking 3 to move into, whilst a centre forward (Dzeko/Balotelli/Tevez) occupies the centre halves. It must surely have been a frustration for Mancini that he obviously had this plan in his head but didn't yet have the personnel he wanted to play this way.
As good as this all is for English football, my worry is that despite these two modern giants playing this way in the league, there will be an element of caginess creeping back into their games when they inevitably progress to the latter stages of the Champions League. Changing their game to counteract Barcelona has not benefitted United on the two recent occasions they have tried it. I would sincerely hope that whichever of these teams (or Chelsea) eventually face Barcelona, that they continue to play in their own way and let Guardiola worry about their style. Matching up with Barca only allows them to play the way they want. If they had to think about another team's system, and quality, it may make for a different game.
We need to realise that the strength of the English game is the pace and tempo, hopefully the Red and Blue halves of Manchester will demonstrate this to a triumphant conclusion this season.
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Thriving Under No Pressure?
It's that time again. In most major sports, every couple of years, there is some form of major International championships. 2011 is no different, this summer we have proudly sent our Rugby Union teams crusading off to New Zealand in the quest for the holy grail of the Rugby World Cup (RWC).
Although this time there does appear to be a difference. England are travelling, not as holders as they were 4 years ago, but with a somewhat lower weight of expectations. Of course we expect our boys to go over there and show those colonials a stiff upper lip and a resolute defence, but from the point of view of actually winning the tournament, this must be the least pressure these players have faced for several years.
We all know that whenever England sends a team off to a world championships with any expectation, in almost any other sport, it's practically a national characteristic that they'll stutter unconvincingly through the early phases, lurch into the quarter finals to renewed optimism before crashing out dramatically in a choice of one of half a dozen self-inflicted disasters.
This mainly comes from the football team's (still) amazing inability to match hype with talent every 2 summers. However, this has also recently reared its head in Athletics, with a much-hyped Team GB managing to spectacularly shoot itself in the foot, whilst still achieving the "goal" set for it in terms of medals (a paltry 8). The England cricket team pretty much epitomised the stumble and fail model in the recent ODI World Cup, despite a previous impressive, and unlikely, victory in the less vaunted Twenty20 World Cup.
The Rugby World Cup of 2011 has also got off to the same kind of start as England usually bless us with. A ship shod and indisciplined performance against a spirited Argentina had many supporters purely thankful for any win. A demolition of the two minnows in the group, Georgia and Romania, will not serve to mask the deficiencies of this team, but will set up a clash with Scotland to decide who avoids New Zealand in the next round. At the moment, this is as far as most England fans are bothering to look.
Which all perhaps points toward a lack of expectation which can benefit Martin Johnson's team. In 2007, as holders we were crushed by South Africa in the group stages and barely rated comment for the next 3 weeks before upsetting Australia and France only to lose heroically in the final.
It would seem that this inability to live up the intense media scrutiny and hype, causes pressure which your average Englishman doesn't appear to handle well at all. For us amateurs, think of those missed blacks at snooker or pool, those double faults at critical times on the tennis court, or speaking from personal experience, the complete inability to take a penalty kick (happily not just us amateurs). Even the serene Jonny Wilkinson appeared to get the yips at exactly the wrong time yesterday.
We can hope however, that this national trait can actually be beneficial this time; can England without expectation manage to achieve as much as they did in 2007? Surely the team may start to enjoy the freedom to be less predictable than we've seen so far? It must certainly mean that plan B, and perhaps plan C will be developed. Let's allow the flair players (we have a couple) to get their hands on the ball with no fear of failure. And if we lose spectacularly playing high-risk rugby against the likes of Australia or South Africa, let's at least say that's how we want to play and praise their efforts. I know we'd all rather go down in a blaze of glory.
Although this time there does appear to be a difference. England are travelling, not as holders as they were 4 years ago, but with a somewhat lower weight of expectations. Of course we expect our boys to go over there and show those colonials a stiff upper lip and a resolute defence, but from the point of view of actually winning the tournament, this must be the least pressure these players have faced for several years.
We all know that whenever England sends a team off to a world championships with any expectation, in almost any other sport, it's practically a national characteristic that they'll stutter unconvincingly through the early phases, lurch into the quarter finals to renewed optimism before crashing out dramatically in a choice of one of half a dozen self-inflicted disasters.
This mainly comes from the football team's (still) amazing inability to match hype with talent every 2 summers. However, this has also recently reared its head in Athletics, with a much-hyped Team GB managing to spectacularly shoot itself in the foot, whilst still achieving the "goal" set for it in terms of medals (a paltry 8). The England cricket team pretty much epitomised the stumble and fail model in the recent ODI World Cup, despite a previous impressive, and unlikely, victory in the less vaunted Twenty20 World Cup.
The Rugby World Cup of 2011 has also got off to the same kind of start as England usually bless us with. A ship shod and indisciplined performance against a spirited Argentina had many supporters purely thankful for any win. A demolition of the two minnows in the group, Georgia and Romania, will not serve to mask the deficiencies of this team, but will set up a clash with Scotland to decide who avoids New Zealand in the next round. At the moment, this is as far as most England fans are bothering to look.
Which all perhaps points toward a lack of expectation which can benefit Martin Johnson's team. In 2007, as holders we were crushed by South Africa in the group stages and barely rated comment for the next 3 weeks before upsetting Australia and France only to lose heroically in the final.
It would seem that this inability to live up the intense media scrutiny and hype, causes pressure which your average Englishman doesn't appear to handle well at all. For us amateurs, think of those missed blacks at snooker or pool, those double faults at critical times on the tennis court, or speaking from personal experience, the complete inability to take a penalty kick (happily not just us amateurs). Even the serene Jonny Wilkinson appeared to get the yips at exactly the wrong time yesterday.
We can hope however, that this national trait can actually be beneficial this time; can England without expectation manage to achieve as much as they did in 2007? Surely the team may start to enjoy the freedom to be less predictable than we've seen so far? It must certainly mean that plan B, and perhaps plan C will be developed. Let's allow the flair players (we have a couple) to get their hands on the ball with no fear of failure. And if we lose spectacularly playing high-risk rugby against the likes of Australia or South Africa, let's at least say that's how we want to play and praise their efforts. I know we'd all rather go down in a blaze of glory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
