Following yesterday's draw at Anfield in a game widely labelled as laying a marker down for fourth place, it is ourselves rather than Liverpool who have attracted the most criticism.
Or more accurately, Mark Hughes has.
Given the absences from Liverpool's side in addition to their recent travails on the pitch, there appears to be opinion that the approach to the game was not sufficiently attacking enough for a side with lofty ambitions.
Andy Hunter at guardian.co.uk:
Manchester City should seek a placenta cure for their lack of ambition when they next visit the besieged Belgrade home of Mariana Kovacevic. A point at Anfield is no disgrace, as Mark Hughes mentioned once or twice afterwards, and but for the deflection that aided Liverpool's equaliser, his game-plan could have yielded a victory of renewed intent. Even with mitigation, however, this was a glorious opportunity wasted by City.And Phil McNulty in his piece for BBC sport:
Of course yesterday was a(nother) frustrating afternoon, an impressive second half performance not rewarded with the three points due to a(nother) defensive lapse.
The expensive symbols of their desire to dismantle the Premier League's established order were dotted all over Anfield in a meeting with Liverpool that was custom made to measure the scale of Manchester City's threat this season.
Instead, confronted by a Liverpool team short on confidence and shorn of key personnel before and during the game, City's negativity betrayed a lack of conviction that raises serious questions about their ability to muscle in on the top four.
In isolation though, a point at Anfield is a good return. The difficulty of course is that the draw was our sixth in succession, building up the level of frustration as opportunities to cement a place in the top four slip by.
We were too cautious in the first-half, but this was hardly helped by the disjointed start to the game with the stream of injuries. Whilst the introduction of Tevez was not made until we went a goal down, most sides would have been happy at 1-0 for far longer than the hour mark.
And it is easy to forget that the tactical and personnel change that was made resulted in us taking a 2-1 lead, only for it to be thrown away with some poor defending - not as a result of any lack of ambition.
Fine margins usually separate football matches (unless you're Wigan), and if we hadn't allowed an avoidable equaliser, instead coming away with a win from Anfield would the reports have suggested Hughes had played it exactly right?