It would be very easy to get all upset at Mark Hughes after today's 1-3 home defeat. Easy, but wrong. Because tactically Hughes got it right. Hang on you are saying, how can he have got it right but City lost 1-3. Read on...
As I noted earlier today when I saw the starting lineup I considered it rather interesting and wondered at the formation. My preference for 4-2-3-1 is known but it made sense that given the personnel deployed that City would go to a 4-1-4-1 which they did with De Jong sitting in front of the back four. Once the game started it became apparent what Hughes had in mind with both Zabaleta and Ireland falling back to De Jong to make a tight midfield triangle.
This effectively blocked Fulham from going through the middle of the park, while long balls over the top could be sniffed out by a combination of Onuoha speed, Dunne guile and Given positioning. This meant that Fulham would have to attack down the wings where the Cottagers had Dempsey and a right winger so non de script I don't even recall his name. You'd bet money on Dempsey not beating you from the wing, even though the American has improved greatly this year and with Zamora and Johnson neutralized this had all the hallmarks of Fulham extending their woeful away form.
Nick a goal somewhere along the line and you have the makings of a 1-0 victory maybe with a second scored towards the end of the game. And it worked. Ireland got the goal and City were winning 1-0 at half time. Now yes it was turgid and boring stuff, but sometimes such a result must be ground out.
But City lost you say. And you are correct, but not because of the tactics. Instead defensive errors from Zabaleta, Dunne, etc., allowed irony of irony, Dempsey to get a couple and the returning Dickson Etuhu the other. This is the tiredness that Hughes referred to after the match "Tired minds sometimes make mistakes on the field." If the players had not made these mental errors City would have won the game. Bored silly we would have been but 3 points would have been in the bag.
Now most City fans would rather have seen Petrov, Elano and Robinho all in the starting lineup and a Keegan-esque attacking philosophy. And yes truth be told so would I. But Hughes had a plan today and if the players had executed correctly the team would have won.
I've said it all along, I'll complain when Hughes gets it wrong (see Vassell, Darius) but I'll support the manager if the fundamental decisions are the correct ones regardless of the result.
Comments
 |
Posted by barca on 04/13/2009
3 straight lost for City........
A good team shouldn't merely depend on the tactic but the style of attacking and defensive too.....
City has a lot of talent players .However under Hughes, City has a boring attacking style and weak defensive style even though he spend so much in the transfer window . No 0ne-two passing , no creative attacking .......merely depend on counterattack and crossing ......
Anyway , result is the most important thing !!! No matter how right the tactic decision is , without a good result , it is FAIL !
Hughes is not the right man for City ! It is not the timing problem , but his style is not suitable for City !
City should have a good manager . without a good manager , City will not get a good result even though City spend more on transferring !
 |
Posted by alfonso on 04/13/2009
Plan has to go according to live play. Should U see the leak in defence. Somethings has to be done. Problem occured is in the defence and also the commitment of the player.U can see that when player lose a ball, the are no eager to fight back for it.
 |
Posted by Martin on 04/13/2009
Wallace,
I have to be honest, I was VERY angy at how the game went on sunday. I had to lower my screaming voice a couple of times since my son was sleeping. This is my observation and tell me if I am way off base here; i think some of the team has given up on sparky. not all of them, but some of them. bellamy and ireland definately have not, but when I watch Robihnio and Elano I just dont see that fire in their eyes to help the team get to 7th place. Again, maybe its just me and i have gone wacky in my thinking this season. And what do you think about sparky keeping his job next season? That is the golden question for me. Can he lead us to the next level and will the players take him seriously?
 |
Posted by Extra Time on 04/13/2009
City has fantastic talent in the side offensively and defensively. DeJong and Kompany were good pickups for City this season but the side as a whole clearly lacks organization. Hughes is just not up to the task of getting it done. He's been gifted 3 outstanding young Brazilian talents that any decent manager would be able to build a team around and get results from (see Jo now at Everton). Instead they've become 3 of the most maligned players in the team... so-called bad attitude, troublemakers, etc... and have gone from promising to wasted. For me the management is responsible for letting that happen. I don't think Hughes and staff appreciates their value or has a clue of how to utilize them with the rest of the squad.
 |
Posted by Garrett on 04/13/2009
I've defended Hughes for the majority of his time at Eastlands and I also thought Sven should've never been fired. Managerial changes are usually a quick-fix solution; however, Hughes has had his chance, bought 'his' players, and its still not working.
Bring in someone who can mold this team into a strong unit. Elano is talented enough to play more, SWP and Ireland are having career seasons and still Citeh can't get Top 7. Dunne and Richards were top CB's last season and Michael Johnson hasn't even made an appearance.
I would be shocked if Hughes is still around next season. He would have to get 7th place or Win the UEFA Cup, anything less and he's gone.
 |
Posted by Paul Fairclough on 04/15/2009
C'mon guys. You expect a quick fix after decades of stagnation.
The club, not just the players, have no guts for sticking with Hughes. get rid, spend more and the magic fix will work.
Posted by Jeli on 04/15/2009
I watched the game and it was all one way traffic until the 28th minute for Fulham. You scored with your first shot of the game, and it took a deflection. City rarely threatened the Fulham goal. If this was an away game, yes, the tactics and performance might be spot on. But at home, an anaemic performance like this is pretty dissappointing
| |
Post your comment |
 |
|