West Brom 0 - 0 City: Five Thoughts
Frustration was the watchword of a Boxing Day clash that saw City dominate possession and territory, yet thanks in large part to a solid defensive performance from West Brom they had to be content with the draw from a game that saw them fail to score for the first time in the Premier League this season. The first half had been a rather listless affair but snapped into life after the break as City began to find their stride. Despite a trio of substitutions, however, City couldn't find a way through rigid opposition and although they got themselves into several good positions lacked the final touch of quality or incisiveness to make the difference.
Looking at the numbers after the game, it was surprising that West Brom had so little of the ball as watching the game they did appear to carry an attacking threat alongside their strong defensive showing. In terms of possession however, City dominated (72.5%-27.5%) and the passing numbers were equally telling (606/670-174/239), particularly in the final third were West Brom managed just 45/79 and completed no through balls. Although City managed to convert this territorial and possession advantage into chances (17) they were limited to just four shots on target during the game.
Whilst there was frustration in front of goal at the back City notched up another clean sheet (their third on the bounce) and it may well be that Kolo Toure has begun to edge his way back in as first choice alongside Vincent Kompany as opposed to merely spelling Joleon Lescott. Toure was not impressive in possession (completing a number of passes in the opposition half) but he led the team in Interceptions and Clearances and was second in terms of Tackles won. Given it was only a matter of weeks ago that he appeared to slip behind Stefan Savic in the pecking order it is some turnaround for the Ivorian and given his form The African Cup of Nations looks to ill timed in terms of his club ambitions.
Perhaps the frustration of the game told on Roberto Mancini post game but in his post -match comments he is clearly unhappy at the scheduling of fixtures over the Festive period:
"I am disappointed only because we play 1 January and 3 January and Liverpool play 30 December and then 3 January against us. I think that at this moment this is not correct. "I'm not happy with this situation because two days [of rest] in this moment when we play every three days is not correct. Sometimes the fixtures can [be] better because to play one game after four days and for us after 48 hours can make a difference."
Although top at Christmas, City have signed their handy cushion eroded by United and given their Cup commitments in early January it is setting up to be a testing time for Mancini and his side: ideal preparation some might say for what will likely be a tense final stretch to the 2011/12 season.
There has been intense focus on both City and United given they are neck and neck in the Premier League table and whenever points are dropped or an emphatic win obtained there is inevitably much read into the longer term ramifications. This scrutiny though has allowed Tottenham handily position themselves, largely under the radar with the microscope pointed firmly in Manchester's direction. After an early season struggle they have rallied to the point whereby winning their game in hand (to be played mid-January) could see them just all but a win away from top spot. Could the title race really not only be the preserve of the Manchester clubs this season?
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nah Danny you got it all wrong! Clearly it was part of the plan to fail to score just before the transfer window opens. Mancini’s just firing a shot across the bows of the Chairman that he needs a new striker STAT! :-) All part of the plan.
Really?
A new striker? That would he real cutthroat city have the goal differential scored in every game(except this) and we need help?
I love our strikers and I would love to keep our core and together see these guys win!
by realfootballer on Dec 29, 2011 4:29 AM GMT via mobile up reply actions
A fourth striker who is a good squad man/veteran in the mold of Zabaletta would be really nice for some cover in case of injury. Having just 3 strikers in the squad when we usually play 2 per game is a little worrisome.
I think we should just keep a young striker from the club as the 4th. Most clubs use their 3rd striker as that squad guy/veteran as you described, but we are fortunate to have the 3 that we have without having the veteran occupy one of those roles. And at that point, looking at a 4th, I think we might as well take an eye to the future within the club itself, something we have rarely done over the past few years
Big players make big plays
Good point
Guidetti is tearing it up in the Eredivisie as well. Though it is a notoriously high scoring league
Danny at the Arsenal blog
If you were picking the squad for a winner-take-all game and had to choose the best possible team, with all players healthy and available, who do you pick?
Danny: Hart, Richards, Clichy, Kompany, Lescott, Barry, Yaya, Milner, Silva, Aguero, Dzeko.
Am I the only one who notices a significant name missing? Am I the only wondering why?
For the record, I agree with every name (including the significant missing name) with the exception of Glichy.
by SufferingBruin on Dec 30, 2011 11:46 PM GMT reply actions
Balotelli?
Not a huge fan of picking ‘bestt XI’s as I don’t think there is such a thing in the current game. I felt (at that time) that a pairing of Aguero/Dzeko was a better one and that Milner was preferable to Nasri.
Since the, there is a valid argument that both selections can be reversed,
by Danny Pugsley on Dec 31, 2011 12:30 PM GMT up reply actions
Agreed.
Nice to have the talent we have, no?
by SufferingBruin on Dec 31, 2011 2:41 PM GMT up reply actions

by 











