Big win over West Ham, although it'd be nice to see City get a win on the road (I watched the highlights of the Chesterfield game, and that first goal was in fact exactly as crap as the announcers made it out to be). Everton is the next chance, though since they're one of just two sides in the EPL still without a loss (Villa are the other) and trounced Liverpool 3-0 at Goodison Park on the 9th, we may be waiting to see one until... well, the next two are Wigan and Charlton, neither of which seems impossible (Charlton are off to a lousy start). Still, the sooner the better.
Samaras' first goal against the Hammers was terrific; shades of Maxi Rodriguez, dare I say? The second was fairly standard but it's a good sign to see someone on City finishing, and simultaneously to see what looks like Samaras perhaps starting to find the plot, after seeming a slow study last year and the start of this one. As Pearce says, he is just 21. If he gets it together, six million pounds will seem like a steal.
Speaking of which, Ishmael Miller, who deserves nearly as much credit as Samaras for that first goal with his blistering 70-yard run. Between him and Richards - and Samaras, for that matter - we could be looking at the start of a great youth movement in Manchester. Now City just need to creep towards Europe, lest the youngsters get impatient and go all SWP on us.
Creeping towards Europe step #1? Win some freaking road games. Keeping a nice record at home would be great, but without some road wins I don't see a top seven finish. (And that's assuming a top-five team wins the FA and Carling Cups, not a total sure thing.)
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Second verse, same as the first
Pulling for Manchester City is starting to make being a Cubs fan look enticing. Sure, exiting a cup that is secondary to the FA Cup in everyone's eyes isn't that big a deal... but two years in a row, both to League One sides? Not cool. And of course, I was listening to both games on the radio over the internet. The difference being that last year it didn't really occur to me that City might not win, whereas this year I spent the whole time on edge, even after Samaras' goal, only to be stabbed right through the heart twice in 20 minutes in half number two.
Yes, the game was on the road, in middling conditions, but it was still against a League One side (and a mediocre League One side at that). Sure, in a single-elimination knockout cup these sorts of things will happen... but it seems to happen to Man City a lot. This is three times in three seasons, in fact, with Oldham in the 2005 FA Cup as well, and heck, there' s still time for a fourth in that span.
So what happened? Well, the defense, which I unwisely professed not to have been worried about, was kind of atrocious. More appropriately, the defense among the midfielders was just horrendous, or at least so it sounded. Every time Chesterfield took possession of the ball in their own end, I wouldn't hear a single City name until Dunne or Distin or Richards finally showed up - but where were guys like Barton, Hamann, and Jordan? Reyna didn't seem to do much on defense either (and in fact his short clear led to Niven's goal). If you're going to run a 3-5-2, the midfielders have to play more defense, and it just didn't seem to be happening. I should stress that as I was only listening to this, I can only say so much about the accuracy of it, but considering the final score, I doubt I'm that far off.
As for the offense, it was the same old story. City should try to get Ruud van Nistelrooy or someone like that - someone who finishes. Because right now, no one on this team seems to be able to do it. Corradi was just off on two or three headers, and while Samaras knocked one rebound in, he didn't do much else. Everyone else seemed pretty invisible.
How inevitable was this loss, given City's recent history in cups and their woeful play so far this season? Here were the ESPN.com headlines on the team pages after each of the three Prem sides crashed out:
Boro (lost to Notts County): "Boro Humiliated"
Fulham (lost to Wycombe): "Fulham Sent Tumbling"
City: "Pressure on Pearce"
Why even focus on the unlikelihood of the loss? This is Man City we're talking about, clearly. Certainly Boro's and Fulham's losses were worse - both were home games, and both opponents were League Two sides, not even League One - but still. Clearly City just need to try and rig the draws so they don't get stuck playing these teams on the road. City's last League Cup home game against a non-Prem team was a 7-1 trouncing of Barnsley in 2004; since then, two road games, two defeats. The Oldham game of January '05 was also on the road, while last year's FA Cup run was conceived almost exclusively at home (Richard's miracle goal to tie was at Villa, so City then won the replay at home).
But then, how does any team expect to win anything if they can't win away from home? Someone needs to look into why City are just so atrocious on the road. Quickly. Before next year's League Cup at least. Although at the current rate, City might be lucky just to start in the second round next year, instead of the first.
Next on the schedule: home for West Ham, at Everton, home for Sheffield United. City had really better win at least one of those. Note: City still undefeated at home this year (1-1-0)! Let's keep it that way.
Yes, the game was on the road, in middling conditions, but it was still against a League One side (and a mediocre League One side at that). Sure, in a single-elimination knockout cup these sorts of things will happen... but it seems to happen to Man City a lot. This is three times in three seasons, in fact, with Oldham in the 2005 FA Cup as well, and heck, there' s still time for a fourth in that span.
So what happened? Well, the defense, which I unwisely professed not to have been worried about, was kind of atrocious. More appropriately, the defense among the midfielders was just horrendous, or at least so it sounded. Every time Chesterfield took possession of the ball in their own end, I wouldn't hear a single City name until Dunne or Distin or Richards finally showed up - but where were guys like Barton, Hamann, and Jordan? Reyna didn't seem to do much on defense either (and in fact his short clear led to Niven's goal). If you're going to run a 3-5-2, the midfielders have to play more defense, and it just didn't seem to be happening. I should stress that as I was only listening to this, I can only say so much about the accuracy of it, but considering the final score, I doubt I'm that far off.
As for the offense, it was the same old story. City should try to get Ruud van Nistelrooy or someone like that - someone who finishes. Because right now, no one on this team seems to be able to do it. Corradi was just off on two or three headers, and while Samaras knocked one rebound in, he didn't do much else. Everyone else seemed pretty invisible.
How inevitable was this loss, given City's recent history in cups and their woeful play so far this season? Here were the ESPN.com headlines on the team pages after each of the three Prem sides crashed out:
Boro (lost to Notts County): "Boro Humiliated"
Fulham (lost to Wycombe): "Fulham Sent Tumbling"
City: "Pressure on Pearce"
Why even focus on the unlikelihood of the loss? This is Man City we're talking about, clearly. Certainly Boro's and Fulham's losses were worse - both were home games, and both opponents were League Two sides, not even League One - but still. Clearly City just need to try and rig the draws so they don't get stuck playing these teams on the road. City's last League Cup home game against a non-Prem team was a 7-1 trouncing of Barnsley in 2004; since then, two road games, two defeats. The Oldham game of January '05 was also on the road, while last year's FA Cup run was conceived almost exclusively at home (Richard's miracle goal to tie was at Villa, so City then won the replay at home).
But then, how does any team expect to win anything if they can't win away from home? Someone needs to look into why City are just so atrocious on the road. Quickly. Before next year's League Cup at least. Although at the current rate, City might be lucky just to start in the second round next year, instead of the first.
Next on the schedule: home for West Ham, at Everton, home for Sheffield United. City had really better win at least one of those. Note: City still undefeated at home this year (1-1-0)! Let's keep it that way.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Just like starting over
Not long after Stuart Pearce took over at Manchester City, the club went on a significant streak of matches without a loss. Then came the middle of last season, when they went into a tailspin and in the end were almost lucky to finish as high as 15th. Now, after a 1-1-3 start to this season (including a 4-2 loss to Blackburn on Sunday), City are struggling like crazy and rumor has it that Pearce may be on the hot seat soon, if he isn't already.
City made a lot of signings in the offseason, bringing in Hatem Trabelsi, Ousmane Dabo, Dietmar Hamann, Paul Dickov, and Bernardo Corradi, as well as Swedish national keeper Andreas Isaksson (though he has yet to play). They completed a loan deal for DaMarcus Beasley at the transfer deadline, and he now says he's interested in signing a long-term contract. Yet despite all this new talent, City are failing to win, and to add insult to injury, David James and Andy Cole headed south for Portsmouth, which has stunningly risen to the very top of the table.
Perhaps it was too much new talent, and the new Blues just haven't managed to gel yet. For the first four games, Pearce didn't use the same striker setup twice (finally in game five he repeated one, with Corradi and Dickov together up front), and so far only Joey Barton has scored any goals - and one of those was from the spot. From what I've seen, chance after chance goes by the wayside; City's difficulty in finishing last year was a lot of what killed them, and things aren't going to improve if they can't start putting a few balls into the net. (That seems self-evident, but really I'm not especially concerned about City's defense, Sunday's abomination notwithstanding. The scoring is where the major problem lies.) Things are bad enough that the only real news City's made so far this year is the Ben Thatcher fiasco.
So after a dispiriting Sunday match, what looms on the horizon? A mid-week cup-tie in the League Cup with League One side Chesterfield, perhaps ominously just one slot ahead of Doncaster in the third-division table right now. Surely no City fan can forget last year's painful crashout to Rovers; the Chesterfield match is, like that one was, on the road, and with City's offensive troubles they can either use this game to come together, or severely risk stumbling to another early exit.
I suppose I brought this on myself. I could easily have picked Chelsea, or Liverpool, or Arsenal. But it's too late now. For better or worse, I picked Man City, and after last year's League Cup there was no going back for me. Heartbreak has always been part of my life as a sports fan thanks to the Cubs; perhaps I didn't need to add more, but if that's how it's going to be, so be it. I'm not going anywhere.
City made a lot of signings in the offseason, bringing in Hatem Trabelsi, Ousmane Dabo, Dietmar Hamann, Paul Dickov, and Bernardo Corradi, as well as Swedish national keeper Andreas Isaksson (though he has yet to play). They completed a loan deal for DaMarcus Beasley at the transfer deadline, and he now says he's interested in signing a long-term contract. Yet despite all this new talent, City are failing to win, and to add insult to injury, David James and Andy Cole headed south for Portsmouth, which has stunningly risen to the very top of the table.
Perhaps it was too much new talent, and the new Blues just haven't managed to gel yet. For the first four games, Pearce didn't use the same striker setup twice (finally in game five he repeated one, with Corradi and Dickov together up front), and so far only Joey Barton has scored any goals - and one of those was from the spot. From what I've seen, chance after chance goes by the wayside; City's difficulty in finishing last year was a lot of what killed them, and things aren't going to improve if they can't start putting a few balls into the net. (That seems self-evident, but really I'm not especially concerned about City's defense, Sunday's abomination notwithstanding. The scoring is where the major problem lies.) Things are bad enough that the only real news City's made so far this year is the Ben Thatcher fiasco.
So after a dispiriting Sunday match, what looms on the horizon? A mid-week cup-tie in the League Cup with League One side Chesterfield, perhaps ominously just one slot ahead of Doncaster in the third-division table right now. Surely no City fan can forget last year's painful crashout to Rovers; the Chesterfield match is, like that one was, on the road, and with City's offensive troubles they can either use this game to come together, or severely risk stumbling to another early exit.
I suppose I brought this on myself. I could easily have picked Chelsea, or Liverpool, or Arsenal. But it's too late now. For better or worse, I picked Man City, and after last year's League Cup there was no going back for me. Heartbreak has always been part of my life as a sports fan thanks to the Cubs; perhaps I didn't need to add more, but if that's how it's going to be, so be it. I'm not going anywhere.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Champions League "Preview"
There won't be much to this, and it'll probably be either (a) totally inaccurate or (b) spot on only because the groups align exactly as anyone would think. But with the return of Champions League group play, we might as well at least discuss it.
Group A
Barcelona
Chelsea
Werder Bremen
Levski Sofia
Werder Bremen is considered by many to be a potential surprise, but in this group? The games between Barca and Chelsea should be good (one would hope), but how do they not both move on? Even if Bremen can hang close, their final game is at Barca (December 5), while Chelsea finishes by hosting the Bulgarians that day. I'd take Barca first and Chelsea second.
Group B
Bayern Munich
Inter Milan
Spartak Moscow
Sporting Lisbon
Hard to imagine the Russians making much noise here. Sporting could surprise, but it would seem foolish to pick anyone other than Bayern (even sans Ballack) and Inter.
Group C
Liverpool
PSV Eindhoven
Bordeaux
Galatasaray
Once again, the group seems pretty straightforward. Liverpool have been good recently at surpassing their domestic form in the CL, so they'll have to hope for that. PSV, semi-finalists in 2004, have been a mixed bag to start the Eredivisie season, but have had little trouble scoring, with six goals from three games. Galatasaray have had some European success in the past, winning the UEFA Cup in 2000 after getting knocked out of the CL and then defeating CL champs Real Madrid in the Super Cup, but it's been a while since that heyday; still, they've got a history of surprises. They may not advance, but Liverpool and PSV shouldn't assume wins in Turkey. Bordeaux are something of an enigma but probably figure not to advance.
Group D
Olympiakos
Roma
Shakhtar Donetsk
Valencia
The Group of... well, not death. More like the group of who the hell knows. There isn't really a standout power in this group (Roma or Olympiakos, maybe) and while Donetsk seems like an obvious minnow, I can't imagine anyone knowing enough about them to say for sure. Clubs from the six major leagues seem to do most of the winning in the CL, at least the past couple years when I've been watching, so it's tempting just to pick Roma and Valencia and be done with it. But I think this one's going to be wide open. Could be the most exciting group top to bottom, but of course no one will see any of the games because it lacks a marquee team.
Group E
Lyon
Real Madrid
Dynamo Kiev
Steaua Bucuresti
Once again, it's easy to pick the big two. And in this case I think I will. Real seemed to struggle last year (including getting steamrolled by none other than Lyon in their opening game), yet advanced anyway mostly by feasting on Olympiakos and Rosenborg. It's hard to believe that Kiev and Bucharest will present significantly stiffer challenges. Lyon, meanwhile, is better than most people tend to realize.
Group F
Manchester United
Benfica
Glasgow Celtic
FC Copenhagen
Man U were simply awful in group play last year, a happening that doesn't figure to repeat itself if they continue their fast start to the domestic campaign. They'll have to contend with Benfica again, but Celtic and Copenhagen are unlikely to be the repeats of Villarreal and Lille. I wouldn't bet against Copenhagen going winless, unless they can top a Celtic team that tends to underachieve in Europe. Man U and Benfica advance if history is any indicator.
Group G
Arsenal
CSKA Moscow
FC Porto
Hamburg SV
Arsenal has looked lousy to start the year, but last year they were embroiled in one of their worst domestic campaigns in years and still managed to roll to the CL final (reversing their tendency to place 1 or 2 in the league and then get knocked out of Europe early). If they play to their capabilities they shouldn't be significantly tested in this group. Not that any of the teams are bad, but only one is Big Six (Hamburg) and it's not exactly its league's best. This really looks like Arsenal vs. Arsenal, but it's not like they're not capable of beating themselves. Porto did win the thing a few years ago, but they don't have Mourinho anymore.
Group H
AC Milan
AEK Athens
Anderlecht
Lille
Like Group G, this looks to be little more than a giant playing against its own weaknesses. Anderlecht had a terrible streak of group games lost over the past couple years and only just broke it after being eliminated. Athens haven't done a whole lot recently, though they did drill Hearts to get to this point, for whatever that's worth. Lille played fairly well last year and have to be considered a strong candidate for second place in the group.
Group A
Barcelona
Chelsea
Werder Bremen
Levski Sofia
Werder Bremen is considered by many to be a potential surprise, but in this group? The games between Barca and Chelsea should be good (one would hope), but how do they not both move on? Even if Bremen can hang close, their final game is at Barca (December 5), while Chelsea finishes by hosting the Bulgarians that day. I'd take Barca first and Chelsea second.
Group B
Bayern Munich
Inter Milan
Spartak Moscow
Sporting Lisbon
Hard to imagine the Russians making much noise here. Sporting could surprise, but it would seem foolish to pick anyone other than Bayern (even sans Ballack) and Inter.
Group C
Liverpool
PSV Eindhoven
Bordeaux
Galatasaray
Once again, the group seems pretty straightforward. Liverpool have been good recently at surpassing their domestic form in the CL, so they'll have to hope for that. PSV, semi-finalists in 2004, have been a mixed bag to start the Eredivisie season, but have had little trouble scoring, with six goals from three games. Galatasaray have had some European success in the past, winning the UEFA Cup in 2000 after getting knocked out of the CL and then defeating CL champs Real Madrid in the Super Cup, but it's been a while since that heyday; still, they've got a history of surprises. They may not advance, but Liverpool and PSV shouldn't assume wins in Turkey. Bordeaux are something of an enigma but probably figure not to advance.
Group D
Olympiakos
Roma
Shakhtar Donetsk
Valencia
The Group of... well, not death. More like the group of who the hell knows. There isn't really a standout power in this group (Roma or Olympiakos, maybe) and while Donetsk seems like an obvious minnow, I can't imagine anyone knowing enough about them to say for sure. Clubs from the six major leagues seem to do most of the winning in the CL, at least the past couple years when I've been watching, so it's tempting just to pick Roma and Valencia and be done with it. But I think this one's going to be wide open. Could be the most exciting group top to bottom, but of course no one will see any of the games because it lacks a marquee team.
Group E
Lyon
Real Madrid
Dynamo Kiev
Steaua Bucuresti
Once again, it's easy to pick the big two. And in this case I think I will. Real seemed to struggle last year (including getting steamrolled by none other than Lyon in their opening game), yet advanced anyway mostly by feasting on Olympiakos and Rosenborg. It's hard to believe that Kiev and Bucharest will present significantly stiffer challenges. Lyon, meanwhile, is better than most people tend to realize.
Group F
Manchester United
Benfica
Glasgow Celtic
FC Copenhagen
Man U were simply awful in group play last year, a happening that doesn't figure to repeat itself if they continue their fast start to the domestic campaign. They'll have to contend with Benfica again, but Celtic and Copenhagen are unlikely to be the repeats of Villarreal and Lille. I wouldn't bet against Copenhagen going winless, unless they can top a Celtic team that tends to underachieve in Europe. Man U and Benfica advance if history is any indicator.
Group G
Arsenal
CSKA Moscow
FC Porto
Hamburg SV
Arsenal has looked lousy to start the year, but last year they were embroiled in one of their worst domestic campaigns in years and still managed to roll to the CL final (reversing their tendency to place 1 or 2 in the league and then get knocked out of Europe early). If they play to their capabilities they shouldn't be significantly tested in this group. Not that any of the teams are bad, but only one is Big Six (Hamburg) and it's not exactly its league's best. This really looks like Arsenal vs. Arsenal, but it's not like they're not capable of beating themselves. Porto did win the thing a few years ago, but they don't have Mourinho anymore.
Group H
AC Milan
AEK Athens
Anderlecht
Lille
Like Group G, this looks to be little more than a giant playing against its own weaknesses. Anderlecht had a terrible streak of group games lost over the past couple years and only just broke it after being eliminated. Athens haven't done a whole lot recently, though they did drill Hearts to get to this point, for whatever that's worth. Lille played fairly well last year and have to be considered a strong candidate for second place in the group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)