THe assumed Manchester City would beat Chelsea on Saturday and follow that up with a win over Brentford on Tuesday to go top of the Premier League. They had won eleven in a row and there seemed no reason to believe that it wouldn’t be thirteen and more; that’s exactly what City do at this time of year.
The only hope for their challengers seemed to be a tough run of games in March, when City faced Manchester United, Liverpool, Brighton, Arsenal and Aston Villa in successive league games; perhaps that run was a hurdle that could stand in City’s way to a fifth Premier League title in six years. The question was how far ahead they would be by then. But as long as Liverpool beat Luton at home next week, City will not start that crucial series of matches with an advantage.
Perhaps that doesn’t matter so much: the key will still be City’s games, away against Liverpool and at home against Arsenal next month. If you win that one, the title should still be theirs. But that’s where Saturday’s details emerge: City weren’t actually that good. It’s true that they won the game 2.6 to 1.4 according to Opta’s xG model, and it’s also true that Erling Haaland missed a whole bunch of chances (according to Opta is worth 1.7xG), but it is also true in the case where they had chance after chance on half-time – just as Pep Guardiola’s teams always do when they are vulnerable.
Nicolas Jackson and Raheem Sterling both missed one-on-ones in the first half before Sterling scored. Ederson made an excellent save to deny Sterling’s attempt after a Jackson cross in the second half. And there were other moments when a more clinical team than Chelsea could have created chances: Ben Chilwell in particular had a golden opportunity to give Jackson or Sterling an opening before half-time, only to miss his pass when he was under limited pressure. .
This is the nature of very high line printing. When it works, an opponent feels suffocated and can’t release the pressure, but it doesn’t take much for it to go spectacularly wrong, as happened to Liverpool in the 2020/21 season, for example. Chelsea, with the mobility of Jackson and Sterling, are perhaps unusually well adapted to take advantage of any space behind City’s defensive line, as they did in the 4-4 draw at Stamford Bridge in November. (And with that in mind, despite their poor recent form, Brentford may think they have a chance on Tuesday; thanks to their runners on the counter, they were the only team to beat City home and away last season and, although they ultimately lost earlier this month with a 3-1 win over City, they did take the lead in that game).
But that leads to another question, and that’s why City’s push backfired. That’s a hugely complex issue, but to some extent the answer is that it’s an unavoidable risk of the Guardiola style. Last season he found protection in the repositioning of John Stones, who moved from the center of defense into midfield. As Stones recovers from injury, Manuel Akanji has had to take on that role and the truth is he’s just not very good at it. And with Ilkay Gündogan joining Barcelona without being replaced, there is a lack of balance in midfield, leaving Rodri with a huge responsibility, especially as he is the player City now seem to need to score crucial goals. Even with Stones, although operating at right-back, City showed similar vulnerabilities against Everton the week before and could have been punished by a more mobile or confident striker than Dominic Calvert-Lewin.
At the same time, City struggled to find real fluency in the first half against Chelsea, as Cole Palmer doubled with Malo Gusto off Jérémy Doku, while Moisés Caicedo added an extra layer of protection. the space between Gusto, who tended to stay wide, and the right-sided central defender Axel Disasi. That’s one of the great things about football: the best way to counter Guardiola’s immensely complex plans is remarkably simple: put men behind the ball and then go straight to a few quick attackers.
But with Julián à lvarez going through a slump, especially in his deeper role, City became frustrated; It wasn’t until they started creating more crosses in the second half that they started to create significant amounts of chances – which is of course why Haaland ended up with so many header and volley opportunities. Haaland is a very good header, but due to some quirk he has not scored with his head since the Manchester derby in October.
It’s two points lost. City were the better team, even before you get to all their bleating about the supposed penalties they should have conceded (neither statement is convincing). They had just won eleven in a row. They remain favorites for the title, but Saturday’s proof is that it may be a little trickier than widely thought.