I'm Totally Confused - What Are Man City Doing?
Tom CTID sent Vital Manchester City the following:
Would you rather support a team who can attack but can't defend, or a team who can defend but can't attack?
When you follow football, whether it be at home or live at a stadium you tend to pick up stats about other teams. For example, on Saturday night I heard Gary Lineker tell the watching viewers of Match of the Day that Wolves v Blackburn would be short of goals because Wolves had only scored 10 goals at home and Blackburn 11 away all season. The game ended 1-1 so it now became 11 and 12.
Now that point for Wolves virtually guaranteed their Premier League survival, which I'm sure pleased their fans, directors, players and probably most neutrals in the game. Now I'm not going to criticise Wolves, I for one like them, they seem like a family club, have an ex City player as their manager, and I'm all for promoted teams staving off relegation.
I'm aware that before the start of the season Wolves main aim was to survive at all costs and they have done that now and can look forward to next season, but would you think its money well spent to cheer just 11 times at home this season?
Manchester City fans can go one better than that of course, we could only manage 10 goals at home one season. Who could forget Stuart Pearce's last season in charge when we didn't score at home between January and August. We were that determined not to score, we even managed to miss two penalties in that period, of course one had to be against Utd.
I know City and Wolves have different targets to aim for, and I know if scoring just 11 goals at home guaranteed you survival I'm sure most clubs in the bottom half would take that, but surely if teams went out to score more goals then they would win more points.
This season we City fans have been fortunate, or unfortunate, to sample both delights. We had a team who could attack well but struggle to defend, under Mark Hughes, and a team who seem to defend well but at times struggle to attack, under Roberto Mancini.
Yes, I am aware that we scored six against Burnley and five against Birmingham, but we have also played out some drab 0-0 games under Mancini. The game on Saturday against Arsenal was poor - I would have turned over if it hadn't have been City playing. It was a similar game to the one versus Liverpool at CoMS where neither team wanted to lose. We didn't look like scoring against Utd last week either.
I realise under Mancini we have gained more points defending well, but I look to when we played Chelsea at Stamford Bridge as a case to attack more. In the first half we were awful against Chelsea, and when Lampard scored I feared the worst, but suddenly we equalised with a fortunate Tevez Goal and it seemed to bring us to life. We couldn't stop attacking after that!
At the weekend against an Arsenal team missing Fabregas, Arsharvin and their first choice centre backs, and with a goalkeeper who has had a torrid season, we didn't seem to attack at all. We only pressed forward briefly when Adebayor came on but still I can't recall a save from their keeper. Was it a point gained or two points dropped? Hopefully it was a point gained and it helps us to 4th spot.
With most clubs raising season ticket prices for next season fans will want to see more entertainment which will require more goals. Maybe the 23 years of following City has made me pessimistic and this is fear of missing out on the top 4 talking, but I can't help wonder if we attacked more we`d win more points.
Interestingly though under Mancini we have gained more points per game than under Hughes, which brings me back to my original question, would you rather support a team who can attack but can't defend, or a team who can defend but can't attack?