Petrov praises Mancini's tactics

Fresh from expressing his displeasure of life this season under Mark Hughes, Martin Petrov - perhaps trying to advance contract negotiations - has praised the impact Roberto Mancini has made so far during his brief time at the club, particularly focusing on the tactical changes the Italian has introduced:

"Before the game against Stoke we did a lot of tactical work," he revealed. "We knew we could play better and we needed to work hard to achieve that.

"I think everyone now knows they must work on the pitch and knows exactly what the manager wants from them. I think because of that the team is getting better and better

"It is very clear what each individual must do under this manager and I think that’s normal, because he comes from Italy. Everyone knows what it is in Italy with the tactical stuff. It's good for the players, if you play with everyone helping each other that has to be good for the team. We know we have a very good squad with big players but if you don’t play like a team on the pitch then you can’t win."

It is not something new to hear praise for a new manager from within the squad - we also heard it about Mark Hughes when he took over, but there has been evidence from the three games Mancini has been in charge that there has been a real shift in the approach from the side - something that has brought immediate results in the short term at least.

Some defensive stats

With the three goals shipped against Bolton on Saturday, the focus has fallen firmly back on the defence as further points in the quest for a very attainable 4th spot (I think we can safely assume the top three is locked up) once again slip away.

Looking at the current Premier League table at our goals conceded, I was interested to see how - adjusted over the course of a season - this compared with recent seasons.

Given our current total of having conceded 21, if we continued at our current pace we would return our worst in terms of goals against, matching the total under Sven in 2007/08 (which included the eight goals against Middlesbrough on the final day), but not a great deal more than 2008/09. However, it would be comfortably our best ever goals for total (we are currently on 29) and finally banishing the paucity of 2006/07:

2009/10 F73* A53*
2008/09 F58 A49
2007/08 F45 A53
2006/07 F29 A44
2005/06 F43 A48
2004/05 F47 A39

*Adjusted over 38 games.

Interestingly though, this places 5th out of the current top six in the table as our number of goals scored is 5th out of 6th in top six (Villa have scored 26) and the number of goals conceded is 5th out of 6th (Tottenham have conceded 22).

So far this season we have conceded (in the league) as follows:

0 - 4 times
1 - 5 times
2 - 3 times
3 - twice
4 - once

We also lead the Premier League in terms of goals conceded from throw-in's, and familiar woes from set plays in general have not yet been eradicated - suggesting that familiarity in the box is still something of a work in progress.

As the stats show, we have, in nine of the fifteen games so far, conceded one or fewer goals - which will win more games than not (having only been shut out once). The problem is that on six occasions we have shipped two or more, with the only victory being against Arsenal, by a margin of 4-2.

There is a case I feel though for arguing though that the increased number of goals scored clearly reflects a more attacking outlook and line-up during 2009/10. At times, with Wright-Phillips and either Bellamy/Petrov/Robinho as the wide players in a midfield four, we are almost adopting a 4-2-4 look. Little wonder then that the defence is suffering as a result of a more attacking approach.

It is clear though - and not an unobvious point by any means - that for success to be achieved this season we need to stop conceding multiple times. This is not to say the defence is without fault, but I would argue that the players who, in recent times, have replaced Corluka and Dunne are individually better players, yet have not replicated this as a collective unit thus far - something that, on the evidence of the statistics so far, needs to be the issued rectified if we are to seriously contest for that fourth spot.

Tevez super-sub?

Henry Winter today suggests that - given his cameo on Saturday - that the most effective use of Carlos Tevez may be as an impact player late in the game, one who can take advantage of tired legs with his energy and sparkiness:

After the Argentine attacker delivered a feisty second-half cameo to revitalise Manchester City, it was impossible not to conclude that Mark Hughes’s use of Tévez would influence whether City replaced Liverpool as one of England’s elite four.

Like Sir Alex Ferguson before him, Hughes may be reaching the realisation that Tévez is best deployed only when running against tiring legs, when the game opens up. All hungry heart and whirring limbs, Tévez acts like a shot of adrenalin on a team, particularly one in search of inspiration.

I think this is a little too simplistic an argument though. Tevez's impact on Saturday was undeniable of course, and his introduction coincided with our best spell of the game and one that saw us take the lead after going behind.

Was this because his 'hungry heart and whirring limbs' galvanised the team into action, waking them from their slumber? To suggest this was a one man show is doing a disservice to Stephen Ireland and Shaun Wright-Phillips in particular, both instrumental in our comeback as much as the introduction of Tevez into the fray.

Given the manner of Tevez, he is a very noticeable figure on the pitch - moving around the front line, dropping deep and always seeking the ball. Naturally this will make his impact coming off the bench that bit more noticeable, yet this is not reason enough to pigeon hole him as a 'super-sub'. There are plenty other options equally capable of coming off the bench and changing the course of a game.

The qualities of Tevez are evident to see and apply whether they are utilised from the first whistle or after seventy minutes; to suggest the very same qualities limit his usefulness to being a role player is somewhat wide of the mark.

Not ambition enough?

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:

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.

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.

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?

Ireland's scare

Stephen Ireland has spoken about the recent incident where he was taken to hospital following the Fulham win:

"Thankfully it wasn't too serious because at the time I thought that was the end of me but I don't even know what it was. I've had every test that there is and still don't know what it was.

"It took me a while to get right but I'm back on track. Everything is looking positive."

Following his return to fitness he has yet to force his way back into the starting line up, but following a fourth successive draw at the weekend, there has been plenty of talk on the blogs about the need to alter the formation that has been used in recent games.

Admittedly three of the four draws have come away from home, but there is a feeling that we have lacked creativity and guile, missing the spark that can turn a point into a victory. The natural answer to this of course is Ireland, so successful during 2008/09 but yet to truly get going this season - first playing in a more withdrawn role before spending recent games on the sidelines.

There is a nice discussion in the comments section of this post over at TLDORC where much of the talk has centred over the role of Nigel de Jong and whether his inclusion is inhibiting our attacking options.

For what it's worth I don't the issue is playing a midfielder whose primary purpose is to stall the opposition, but switching from the 4-3-3 seen earlier in the season. I can see why Hughes made the switch with a series of away games, but looking ahead to Saturday weare at home to Burnley - who have a miserable away record this season - so my guess is he goes with a more attacking look to the side.

Rather than exclude de Jong though, I think Shaun Wright-Phillips makes away. With both Barry and de Jong in the centre, this would allow Ireland at the head of the midfield trident. Not quite a fantasista but more forward than so far this season to supplement the front three (likely Bellamy, Adebayor and Tevez).

Back at home, and in a more comfortable formation, this should see us return to winning ways.

Shades of Arsenal

So thinks former Arsenal player (and City fan) Lee Dixon in his BBC column (with a nod to Jack for the link):

I'll say it again, balance will be the key to City's success this season.

But they are still a tour de force going forward as well.

At Fratton Park, they employed Emmanuel Adebayor as the key frontman, with Carlos Tevez, Bellamy, Wright-Phillips and Ireland supporting and inter-changing behind.

There's something Arsenal-esque about City this season. All the forwards swap positions, drift wide, drop deep, as well as burst behind the defence. They have a similar fluidity and movement - even if they are not quite up to Arsenal's standards on that front just yet.

It is a good point Dixon makes regarding the make up of our attack, with Adebayor the focal point with Tevez, Robinho, Wright-Phillips and Bellamy a fluid support cast, capable of switching positions and making it difficult for defences to control.

Whilst other positions have been ugraded during 2009, it is the attack where the most fundamental change has been seen. 2008/09 saw a largely lifeless attacking threat and Hughes has certainly remedied this with the moves he has made.

The loser in this though could be Martin Petrov. An out and out 'old style' attacking threat on the wing, far less of a fit in Hughes' 2009/10 formation from what we have seen so far.

He still remains an attacking threat, and Hughes (much to the relief of the majority of fans) values him highly enough to thwart a move to Tottenham, but the majority of his action may be coming off the bench as it is difficult to see Hughes opting for Petrov in his 'go-to' side.