By rights, Manchester City should be in something of a mess.
Manchester City take the entertaining path through imperfection
Though they’ve had injuries and other issues, Manchester City are still the best side in England, and ahead of Sunday’s derby, there’s no doubt which of the two Manchester squads are the most fun to watch.
Shaun Botterill/Getty Images
Nothing is going to plan. Up front, they are supposed to have the best striker in the country ... except that Sergio Aguero started the season in a peculiar trough of form, then his hamstring exploded. Wilfried Bony, his erstwhile replacement, isn't as good. At one point this season, they were even forced to throw one of the kids up front, though Kelechi Iheanacho did pop up with a last minute winner.
Behind Aguero, they're supposed to have arguably the two best attacking midfielders in the league ... except that the elusive David Silva is also crocked, and the totally-opposite-of-elusive-but-still-incredibly-good Yaya Toure's form has been patchy and his mood has been miserable.
And behind them? Well, we don't know what Manuel Pellegrini's first-choice central defensive partnership is, and we don't know that he does either. After starting the season with five consecutive clean sheets, City haven't kept one since, and in the 12 games they've played, no pairing has started more than six. Nicolas Otamendi is new, Eliaquim Mangala is either brilliant or a liability, Martin Demichelis is getting on a bit -- no, a lot -- and Vincent Kompany has been playing for his country against his manager's wishes. Naughty Vincent. Off to the subs' bench for you.
Uncertainty at the back and big absences elsewhere: they should, at least in relative terms, be a mess. Yet they're on top of the table, they've scored more goals than anybody else in the league, and given that Chelsea are imploding and Arsenal are Arsenal, they're probably early favorites for the title.
This is down to two things. One is the frankly terrifying depth they have in attack: even without Silva and a peak Toure, it turns out that £100m will buy you plenty of backup. Raheem Sterling -- who is still only 20 years old, even though he gets the scrutiny of a seasoned veteran -- is starting to remember how goalscoring works, and Kevin De Bruyne has taken to the Premier League like a man determined to make Jose Mourinho look even sillier than Chelsea's defenders. Even Jesus Navas has been scampering about willingly, if not to any great effect.
A world separates them in approach, in aesthetic appeal, in the experience of seeing them play. United are dull. City are fun.
More than that, though, there's a question of attitude. Sunday's derby game against Manchester United is going to offer up a telling clash of managerial approaches. Neither side is going to be at their strongest: City thanks to injury, United thanks to the peculiar decision to grant Wayne Rooney tenure. That was only partly a joke. But Louis van Gaal's instinct throughout his time in Manchester has been one of caution. At their best, his United sides have been methodical and patient. At their worst, they've been stultifying, a long and painful exercise in watching a football team slowly congeal, like ketchup left on a plate.
Whether this is down to a lack of trust in his defensive options, a lingering reaction to last season’s collapse against Leicester, or some deep-seated trauma further back in the history of a coach who used to be wedded to attacking football, isn’t really important. What matters is that bland football erodes patience, and never more so than when it’s exposed in a game against the nearest and dearest. For while only two points separate City and United in the league, a world separates them in approach, in aesthetic appeal, in the experience of seeing them play. United are dull. City are fun.
Barring something hugely surprising, we more or less know how Sunday’s game will go. United will seek to monopolize and recycle possession in search of the control that Louis van Gaal craves. City, by contrast, will look to attack at pace down both flanks and get De Bruyne and Sterling running into spaces beyond and around Bony, though they won’t play like fools. United will, presumably, be trying to win, but they will look like they’re trying not to lose. City will look like they’re trying to win. Goals will probably happen, and City are better at those.
Indeed, if you squint a bit and just consider the broad strokes, City look like a little bit like a modern update of Alex Ferguson’s first few title-winning teams: Terrifying in the league, shot through with pace and menace, committed to the spirit of we’re-going-to-score-one-more-than-you, and, as a result, occasionally prone to an amusing collapse. They’re also callow and mysteriously vulnerable in Europe, and are even developing a happy knack for late winners. David Moyes got taken to pieces when he said that United should “aspire” to play the game as well as City, but beyond the poor choice of words, he had a point. If there’s a Manchester team playing slick, quick, attacking football at Old Trafford, it’s supposed to be United.
In truth, all football teams are always in a bit of a mess. Ever since it bloomed into a squad game, something’s always going wrong somewhere. Somebody’s always missing, somebody’s always miserable. But where Van Gaal reacts to his squad’s imperfections by seeking (and often failing to find) control, Pellegrini’s City side cleave to a lighter, more chaotic philosophy. This certainly makes them better to watch, and it may, come the end of the season, make them the better team, as well. More pertinently, come Sunday, it may make Louis van Gaal’s life very awkward indeed.
See More:
