Manchester City's stumble at Chelsea highlights its obvious defect | city of manchester
tthe assumption had been that city of manchester They would beat Chelsea on Saturday and follow it up with victory over Brentford on Tuesday to move to the top of the Premier League table. They had won 11 in a row and there seemed to be no reason to think they wouldn't get to 13 and more; That's just what City do at this time of year.
The only hope for their rivals seemed a tough run of fixtures in March, when City faced Manchester United, Liverpool, Brighton, Arsenal and Aston Villa in successive league matches; perhaps that streak was an obstacle that could hinder City's charge for a fifth first division title in six years. The question was how far along they would be by then. Now, however, as Liverpool beat Luton at home next week, City will not begin that vital run of games with an advantage.
That may not matter much: the key will still be City's away games against Liverpool and at home against Arsenal next month. If he wins them, the title will still be his. But that's where Saturday's detail comes into play: City were not very good. It's true that they won the match 2.6 to 1.4 according to Opta's xG model, and it's also true that Erling Haaland wasted a lot of chances (worth 1.7xG, according to Opta), but it's also true that They conceded chance after chance on the counterattack. right in the shape pep guardiola Teams always do it when they are vulnerable.
Nicolas Jackson and Raheem Sterling failed one-on-one in the first half before Sterling scored. Ederson made an excellent save to prevent Sterling's attempt from a Jackson cross in the second half. And there were other moments when a more clinical team than Chelsea could have created chances: Ben Chilwell, in particular, had a golden opportunity to give Jackson or Sterling a chance before the break, only to miss his pass when low. limited pressure. .
This is the nature of pressing with a very high line. When it works, the opponent feels suffocated, unable to release the pressure, but it doesn't take much to go spectacularly wrong, as happened, for example, to Liverpool in the 2020-21 season. Chelsea, with the mobility of Jackson and Sterling, are perhaps unusually well suited to exploiting any space behind City's defensive line, as they did in The 4-4 draw at Stamford Bridge in November. (And with that in mind, Brentford, despite their difficult recent form, may think they have a chance on Tuesday; thanks to their counter-attacking runners, they were the only team to beat City home and away last season and , although They finally lost 3-1 against City. earlier this month, they took the lead in that match).
But that leads to another question: why did City's pressure fail? This is an enormously complex question, but to some extent the answer is that it is an inevitable risk of the Guardiola style. Last season he found protection in the repositioning of John Stones, who came into midfield from the center of defence. However, while Stones recovers from an injury, Manuel Akanji has had to take on that role and the truth is, he's not that good at it. And with Ilkay Gündogan arriving at Barcelona without being replaced, there is a lack of a balancing option in midfield, placing a huge responsibility on Rodri, particularly considering he is the player City now appear to need to score vital goals. Even with Stones, albeit operating at right-back, City showed similar vulnerabilities against Everton the previous week and could have been punished by a more mobile or assured striker than Dominic Calvert-Lewin.
At the same time, City struggled to gain any real fluidity in the first half against Chelsea, when Cole Palmer came in to double Malo Gusto on Jérémy Doku with Moisés Caicedo adding an extra layer of protection, filling the space between Gusto, who set up to remain wide, and the right center back Axel Disasi. Which is one of the beauties of football: the best way to counter Guardiola's immensely complex schemes is surprisingly simple: put men behind the ball and then go straight to a pair of fast forwards.
But with Julián Álvarez going through something of a slump, particularly in his deeper role, City became frustrated; It was only when they started sending in more crosses in the second half that they began to create significant amounts of chances and that, of course, is why Haaland ended up having so many header and volley opportunities. Haaland is a very good header, but due to some peculiarity he has not scored with his head since the Manchester derby in October.
That's two points lost. City were the better team even before they started complaining about the supposed sanctions they should have applied (neither of them make anything convincing claims). They had just won 11 in a row. They are still favorites for the title, but the evidence from Saturday is that it may be a little more complicated than previously thought.
