MY TAKE ON PSG VS MAN CITY AS WELL AS LIVERPOOL .

 man city played psg in the uefa champions which is their second big game of this week . before i write about the game let me tell you that in the chess world the deeper the thinking the better your game and your rating . in the game versus psg gaurdiola showed that he has thinking power but was not really convinced that he has got a serious depth to it . in football it is very important that you just do it right never under do it nor over do it . i think in this game gaurdiola's team just did a little than what they should had done . on the offensive front even though man city were a little bit short but on the defensive front i think that they did a good job but i would say that psg were poor . gaurdiola can pat his back that he put psg under pressure but just came short . 

psg started the game with 4-3-3 while man city had the same formation . sterling started the game as the no.9 with mahrez and grealish besides him . man city conceded the first goal before the game could settle down . man city were trying to determine as to how mbappe was going to operate when he made a diagonal run and was left unmarked in the box and psg scored but aafter the goal the game kind of settle down to a familiar tune . psg were sittind back and trying to hit on the counter while city were trying to press psg and win the ball back . the one thing that intrigued me was and was novelty for me was that that when man city won they didnt tried to hit psg with a counter counter attack . but instead they slowed the pace of the game allowed psg to get their shape back as well as get its own shape as to what they wanted to acheive on the offense . they got their both wide players really wide and then they started the offense . for the first 25-30 min psg were playing a high line and trying to press man city also . they too wanted to control the tempo of the game but as soon as city tried to release sterling behind the psg back four they dropped back the other thing for dropping back was that maybe they didnt want to give mahrez the space to operate because he getting to the byline and whipping crosses . meanwhile on the defensive front man city were able to keep psg at bay and it was because the three psg front players are still not in cohesion with each other . man city on the offensive front were poor and lacked ideas . they knew that they would get that space in the middle so they were dependent on the wide players to create something for them . grealish and mahrez were the wide players . first to grealish the opposition is not there to give him space and time on the ball they are going to be tight to him and will be physical with him . instead of complaining when he is fouled .he should just dust up and get along with the game . he is not bad since he can read the game and slip the ball but he needs coaching because his game is one dimensional and the commentators wanted his to take the fullback and run on the outside but he hasnt got that pace and guile to do that like mahrez . what i found intriguing in the first half was that they were just poor . they didnt show any cohesion or tried something different with the ball . the players movement could be read by the opposition . mahrez and grealish stayed wide and saw most of the ball and they just tried to keep coming inside but there was no crisp passing and most importantly as i had pointed out in the last post that man city didnt had a plan as to what they would do when they had the ball in the psg final third . in the first half they were just poor but came the second half . 

in the second half he changed silva and de bruyne's positions . they both came into their natural positions . he kept the shape of the attack the same but what he changed was that he asked de bruyne to make runs in the space between the fullbacks and the centre backs and atleast a couple of times de bruyne had the ball at  his feet but he was not able to find anybody in the box nor was he able to find the back of the goal . this is where gaurdiola was lacking . he found the space that was there to exploit but couldnt complete moves as he needed atleast two or three passes to complete the move . he needed to have a proper no.9 who knows as to when to make moves and what position he should take so that if he is not the target then atleast he keeps the centre backs tied and gets space for other players to exploit inside the box . i think gaurdiola is thinking but not doing it fully . his team is still struggling in the final third . just having ball and dominating ball doesnt counts for anything unless you have a shot at goal and create chances . his team are short of that . although i would credit him that his team did stopped psg in the tracks on offense and did a good defense and most importantly in that rodri's role was very good . 

psg has the three best players in the world as their forwards . but for me they struggled against both psg and club brugge who should had won the match had they taken their chances neatly . i think that they were over confident that is why they were trying to showboat and playing in some hollywood passes . either of neymar or mbappe should really help out his defense because they are getting outnumbered in the middle of the park and that is where the opposition is trying to stretch them and exploit them . i think as far as psg tactics are concerned i think that he has got the players in the right position. neymar drops deep to help his midfield and move the ball while messi stays as a link up between them . but the most important facet of the game was that for the majority of the game man city were able to stop psg in the tracks . they tried to fancy at times and that cost them the possession . if psg are to be the title contenders then i think they need to be more better than that . they couldnt control the tempo of the game and were dependent on playing counter rather than controlling the tempo the game and putting the opposition on back foot . 

i also the game between liverpool vs man city . now it wasnt a great game with man city again playing decent but both all the goals came on the counter attacks . while  cancelo was very good on the offense he was very bad on defense . first off whenever a fullback goes out to press his opposite number and the distance between him and the centre backs then its his responsibility that he doesnt gets beaten . he shouldnt get beaten because if he gets beaten then the shape and the organisation collapases and then for that his centre back has to leave his position and that creates spaces in the defense and it can be exploited . cancello while in the first half was very good because he was conservative in the first half but in the second half he got overconfident which led to two goals against his team . foden is decent but his decision making needs to be better . 

last but not the least there are youtiya's in pakistan who keep on backing their pm and keep on sugarcoating him while he may be doing idiotic things and doesnt understand anything about the world  . same thing can be said about football coaches in england . southgate is the best that is to offer for england . he has no clue as to what is going on the pitch . the journalist or the so called pundits keep on writing plaudits about him . they are just idiots that is why they are there in the idiot box not on the pitch . england were hopeless against both andorra and hungary . well best of luck to them . 

MY TAKE ON CHELSEA VS MAN CITY .

 man city played chelsea in the epl . a few months ago chelsea had defeated city in the ucl final . they had completely outclassed man city in the final although they played on the counter attack but playing counter attack too takes a lot of smart thinking but what was present at that time was absent in this match . when touchel was appointed as the chelsea boss in december i had reservations about him . the thing is that not that he cannot lay  out the team but the thing is that when the things dont work out for you and you have make changes or find that chink in the oppositions armour there is where i think he lacks . gaurdiola's team was a winner in this duel but am i impressed then certainly not . his team dominated the possession but in the first half till the game was not that opened his team was not able to penetrate chelsea and was not able to muster a shot at goal . all his efforts were just shots from beyond the box and if the ball came in the box it was very well dealt by chelsea . let me tell you as to why i am not impressed with gaurdiola . lets say that for the first 10-15 its a feeling out process but after that you should be able to start playing your game and start exerting and play out the game that you had mind . now a coach does has to take into consideration the players that he has as well as the opposition and he has to play and imagine as to how the opponent will responds to his moves and how he can outsmart them . now why was i not impressed with gaurdiola is that there was a break in the first half and he was talking with walker ,rodri and diaz . now its not wrong but for its half as to what he should be doing . yes he is correct in asking walker and rodri to spot something which they had been missing or make adjustments in their positions or asking them to spot the players which they are not seeing but them at the same time he should be asking the front players that when walker,rodri diaz has the ball that they should start the move . they should make these movements and the try to  combine to have a better shot at goal and try to open the opposition . opposition will only give you spaces when you create chaos in their ranks . 

chelsea started the game with 3-5-2 formation while city started the game with 4-2-1-3 formation with foden starting in the no.9 position while de bruyne just behind him . chelsea had two up front with new man lukaku  with werner. the game started with the fimiliar note with chelsea sitting back and hitting city on the counter attack . in this game compared to the ucl final chelsea played deeper . touchel's idea to play upfront sounds very good theoratically but the execution needs to be correct .  first off the way chelsea were just way too one dimensional in their counter attacks . what they wanted to do was that whenever they have the ball they would try to find lukaku who would try to combine with werner where on he would try to release werner beyond the city back four . city could read this game from a long distance and could take the necessary moves . most importantly what was important was that lukaku tried to back into laporte . instead try to bring him out of the comfort zone . make him chase you . in that way the man city's defense does gets disjointed and gaps are created . most importantly even lukaku's touch isnt that good as it should be . the important defect that i found in the chelsea's formation was the lack of no.10 . somebody that would connect between the forward line and the midfield . what he does is that he makes those passes smaller and make it more crisper . he can release a player beyond the back four or can just go beyond lukaku . most importantly the distance between the lines for chelsea was just little more than what was needed . it meant that the ball needed to travel that much more and that allowed the opposition to close you down . most importantly chelsea player one too many touches on the ball and that allowed the opposition to close them down . he chose to substitute the wrong players . he should had replaced jorginiho instead of kante . i had already written in my earlier posts that when jorginiho struggles when he is put under pressure and city just did exactly that. chelsea players like alonso spend too much time on the ball and most importantly their game reading is just poor . touchel needs to teach them that cause the honeymoon period is over . 

                                                        

city dominated the game not because they were superior but because chelsea were poor . in the first half city just couldnt penetrate chelsea . gaurdiola thinks theorotically well but to be honest he is dependent on individual players to open the opposition defense . he has got good player in the side but he hasnt got a flair player in the side who can threaten the opposition defense . man city purchased jack grealish for 100 mil . i mean the money just has got no value because if you purchase an average player like grealish for 100 mil who has no pace,no flair and nothing great about him then i think that players like bergkamp and crespo . he is just one dimensional and plays one footed only . i would like him to be coached . he just plays in one zone and operates over there and most importantly he needs to understand that he slows down the game when he takes too many touches and stops the flow of the game which makes it easier for the opposition to stop his team and him. de bruyne was playing behind foden but his trouble is that he is a good player but he needs to move the game around him . the thing is that he passes the ball very well to other players but he needs to play himself cause he has a good shot from distance and that is a very good threat which can create cracks in opposition defense . man city didnt had a great time in the first half they didnt had a clear shot on goal . i had said that gaurdiola was talking with walker and silva but at the same time he should talking with jesus,foden and others who play upfront . man city were just one dimensional in their offense . people expect bigger things from gaurdiola team . where on they expect playing slick crisp tiki taka football and the cohesion between players is exceptional but here it just looks another ordinary team who beat another below ordinary team . 

FINALE.

 italy played england in the final of the euro tournament . first off leading upto the tournament i was reading about gareth southgate and the adjectives that were attached with him . ruthless,intelligent and what not . i was finding that very funny ( people may say that i am taking potshots because he lost then let me tell you i had lauded shevchnko even though ukraine lost . ) to be honest let me ask as to how many suitors will gareth southgate have if he decides tommorow to resign as the england manager and decides to enter  club management . let me tell you let alone the premier league he wont find suitors in the championship and even if some brave sould decides to take a risk then i bet he will be gone by december .  mancini on the other hand may find some suitors but still he still needs to work a little bit more on the game . to be honest i am amazed that a manager who is standing on the sidelines wont utter a single word even after watching getting outplayed . i havent seen such a dumb manager but whose luck is like a mountain where on he is getting there where his predecessors failed to reach . i dont know but certain players were given precedence over the others . why wasnt sterling replaced when he was utterly hopeless in the whole match . i am sorry but i dont think grealish is any good and just another average english player . while for me ben white looks good and should be playing in the middle of the field than in the back four . 

now i dont know as to why he wanted to switch from the working 4-2-3-1 formation to the 5-2-3 formation . may be he had watched the danes as to how they outplayed england for the majority of the match and how beautifully it worked for them and borrowing ideas is southgate's proffession . italy kept the same formation and the same players that had got them in final . the game started with england taking the lead in the first 5 min . the move was the same as to what kane had been doing . he would drop deep and passed the ball to trippier who came into the side because of the change in formation . trippier picked out shaw who was left unguarded by italians because they  hadnt even settled into the game and england seized the chance and scored the goal . the thing is that after they scored the first goal they should had been ascendency . they should had played with more confidence . but the italians adjusted to the game and they started to dominated the game . now i was going to write that england should play a high tempo game so that jorginiho just cannot settle in the game . but to be honest i dont think changing tempo or setting tempo of the game is not what southgate specializes in . his team is just a counter attacking team . after the goal the italians dominated the ball . now just look at the difference between mancini and southgate . mancini was animated and was passing instructions as to what his team needs to do . while southgate seems to be lost as to what was happening before him . england started to sit back as soon as they scored the goal . the italians started to take control of the game and most importantly england was severly pegged back . the reason being that they would bring every player behind the ball and that would hanmper the counter attacking ability . the other thing had been that counter attacking also requires very good cohesion of the team . 

the reason why i am criticizing southgate is that his team was playing counter attacking football but are dependent on individual players . there had been no cohesion between them . let me tell you when you attack then you start thinking about defending because if you loose the ball then you should be able to stop the counter and when you are defending then you should be able to counter and exploit the spaces that are left by the opposition . england were sitting back and when defending  they had all the player behind ball .so when they would regain possession they didnt had a plan . when countering you need to have cohesion and most importantly you need to be coached as to how will you exploit the opponents formation and the coach needs to make the adjustments on the go . southgate was just standing there like a statue . i am wondering if southgate is the best option that england then i am wondering as to how degraded coaching options for england are . that is why in premier league not a top six club is managed by a english man . last but not the least if southgate is ruthless then why didnt he substituted sterling who was hopeless . why did he bought rashford and sancho in the last minute of the game. why didnt he gave them enough time so that they could try but then the man is just has a rabbit foot and nothing more . 

italy may have won but they were playing an average team against a hopless boss who has no footballing knowledge . jorginiho who was completely clueless and was blown away by the tempo of the game versus spain was pulling the strings here . mancini had rightly seen that england and what he did was that he congested the play . what happens with this is that not only you play congested ( you can play if you have good cohesion and the opposition is foolish ) the opposition too has to do the same and the thing is that you can press the opposition and regain the possession . while mancini got one thing right . he couldnt improvise to open the english defense . he was dominating the possession but he wasnt troubling the opposition . for me veratti is one of the best in the world . the kid if he gets the best coach then he has the technique and brains to control the game and he could the future ballon dor for me . 

last but not the least this is my final post . while the football has gone rich i havent . i would love to coach a real team and hope to get in the near future . 

                                                                                                          THANK YOU ALL .  

MY TAKE ON THE GAME BETWEEN BELGIUM VS ITALY.

 belgium played italy in the q/f of the euro 21 . lets start the game . belgium started the game with 5-2-3while italy started the game with 4-3-3 formation . before i write about the game let me talk about one player on whose shoulder the entire belgium's offense was depended . lukaku was playing as the no.9 for belgium . we had two lukaku's these season . first off lukaku who was struggling with his first touch when aerial balls were delivered to him. but the same lukaku was unplayable when teams delivered the ball to his feet . the opposition was struggling to contain him . plus lukaku has good legs which makes him really unplayable . while thinking about tactics martinez should had taken this into consideration .

the game started with the belgium sitting back and trying to absorb the italian offense . this is kind of a novelty when the reverse was happening with italins on the offense and controlling the game tempo and dominating possession and doing the pressing which is against their dna . belgium was sitting back and was trying to hit back on the counter with the front three . now the novelty was that the italians who are considered very defensive minded shed their own image and took a new approach . mancini very correctly designed his tactics he rightly thought that belgium are very big side but not very mobile . he knew that he can press them . they are not very mobile and they can be pressed . they conceded the second goal because they wouldnt just come out of their comfort zone to press insigne because they knew that they cannot chase italians .  

the reason for writing the review is about belgium tactics . now belgium played a 5-2-3 . to be honest for me the formation dont make any sense . its how you make it work . so belgium started with 5-2-3 . on the paper it seemed very right . the reason was that they had lukaku in the middle and the fullbacks  can cross the ball and lukaku can be the end of it . as i had already explained as to how lukaku reinvented himself . italy were going to press because they are having one of the most mobile sides and the belgium sides are not very mobile . now my point is that most of these coaches based their tactics on the things that had happened in the past . belgium were keeping lukaku high of the pitch . now these tactics were more like ariggo sacchi's milan who would employ it with van basten but the thing is that what works for milan at that time may or may not work for belgium and it will require some ticking and improvisation which roberto martinez was not able to do . now when martinez kept lukaku high off the pitch he was given aerial balls to contest with two of italy's finest . secondly he was a bit more high off the pitch more than 20-25 yards so the defenders could get tighter on him and would just squeeze him out . thirdly he dint had anybody near him to pass . doku was on the left while de bruyne was dropping deep to help his midfield . 

whenever  the ball was passed the ball he was backing up in to the centre backs trying to draw out a foul but the centre backs are used to that . they are infact thankful to the player who does that because whoever does that cannot do a quick turn and run with the ball . when lukaku is backing up he is in fact getting in the defenders range and in his territory . more so lukaku was getting pinned by two defenders . the point of keeping lukaku high up the pitch is to stretch the opposition but in trying that they themeselves were getting stretched . what i would had wanted is that i would asked lukaku do drop somewhat deep and he would be fed with floor balls . in this process if the defenders comes out to press him then the shape of the opposition gets disrupted and doku and KDB can explore those spaces . if the defenders doesnt comes back then he can have time and space on the ball and that is what is important . i thought that martinez would do that adjustment in the first half but he didnt . belgium always troubled whenever they kept the ball on the floor and passed the ball around and believed in their ball playing ability . 

in the second half i think martinez asked belgium to press italy but it didnt bear any fruit . belgium got a  goal but it  made  them more one dimensional . they relied more on doku to open up italian defense who had dropped deep in the second half and defended in numbers . belgium depended more and more or doku instead they should had played a whole team  game . 

also i watched the game between england vs ukraine . first and foremost " allah meherban to gadha pehelwan ". gareth southgate is just lucky guy . well the thing that i like about the game is the way sancho operates . the way he passes and moves along with the ball is the way you need to play . but my question is whether southgate can design that offense that way . when jaden sancho moves with the ball the players need to feed the ball to him but at the same time the others need to make the run which sancho can spot . the way sancho plays is what makes football beautiful . other thing is that even though ukraine lost but i think that shevchenko's stock must had gone up . his team was passing well and the movement of the players and their understanding of the game and this comes from the coach who forms those tactics and teaches his players the movement and the way they keep the tempo of the game . the way they could up the tempo of the game and come at england was very pleasing and it does shows shevchenko's understanding of the game . 

MY TAKE ON THE GAME BETWEEN MAN CITY VS CHELSEA .

 man city played chelsea in the final of the ucl . before i write about the game i would like the viewers to read the earlier post about man city's games . 

i had been reading a lot of news about gaurdiola over thinking and touchel staying simple . to be honest why is always thought that gaurdiola does the thinking . let me tell you a simple story before i write about the game . there  was a great painter and the paintings that he would do had a lot of great meaning in them . people would scratch their heads trying to extract the meaning out of the painting that he would do . one day he did something which had no meaning just plain simple but the people kept on scratching their heads trying to find meaning in the piece that he had painted . similar is with gaurdiola i wont say that the team was without any thought but if it is not able to carry out the plan and the coach is not able to make adjustments then i think he hasnt thought through . the changes should had been made earlier . he could see that the plan wasnt working but he kept on having faith in the plan . the best way to describe the game is that chelsea played like a team while man city played like a disjointed unit where on not all the pieces were not in cohesion with each other . the lack of cohesion is evident when you spend time on the ball . 

before talking about the game lets talk about the player selection . gaurdiola selected sterling and mahrez in the wide positions . the idea was that they would run on the defense and would cause chaos in the ranks and players like de bruyne and foden and take advantage of that . but touchel was prepared for that . i dont know whether he prepared the team sheets after seeing man city's team sheet because he played james who is quite good runner and can match sterling in stride was selected . similarly chilwell was man marking mahrez . the instructions were very clear that they should not give sterling and mahrez time and space on the ball cause if they do that then they can cause a lot of problems . 

chelsea started the game with 5-3-2 formation while city started with 4-3-3 formation .instead of rodri or fernandiniho gundogan was selected to play in front of the back four . the game started with the familiar pattern because both the teams play opposite kind of football . while chelsea are set up for counter attack city play possession football ( it is said that way). city had sterling and mahrez in the wide positions with foden in the middle . although chelsea were playing were playing on the counter attack they were not defending deep . they played a relative high line and he had a good thinking about that . even if city were able to open chelsea they had an extra player who could cover for them . playing high means that city would have to cover that extra 10 to 20 yards to the goal to have a good shot in that a defender can do something plus there is the goalkeeper . playing deeper means that you are allowing them to have a direct shot at the goal .  touchel had thought that instead of having a deeper line lets play a high line and its benefit was seen when sterling was released on the goal by a long ball by ederson . james who was guarding sterling could make amends because sterling had to dribble the ball a further 10,20 yards and he could come back and make an interception . 

chelsea were playing a game with a good plan in mind . they were determined not to give sterling and mahrez any time and space ont the ball . secondly they played a very compact game . there was a very little space between the lines . whenever the ball in the midfield they would go on to press the ball . they read the city game very good and were able to stop city's attack most of the times . now chelsea were playing on the counter attacks . there were two thing that were noticeable in the first half . werner was told to run in the space which was left by the fullback who was coming forward to join the attack . his finishing was poor but he kept the ball very well . now whenver city lost the ball they would press and chelsea knew that so they moved the ball very well . but in this one thing was very visible first off rudigers passing from the ball . rudiger played some  very good 40-50 yards pass from back to the front . his passing range was the reason that chelsea were able to create so many chances . the second thing that was very much noticable was that the second balls that were won by chelsea . chelsea would pass the ball from back to the front but the man city centre backs would win the headers but chelsea would win the ball back and thus the counter was on . most importantly chelsea played as a team and they had ngolo kante who was just superb . 

city's defense was just hopeless in the first half especially zinchenko who just wasnt able to read the game . the ball was on the left flank so zinchenko should had just congested the back line  . he should had read the game better and stones should had given him the ball about the danger that would arise if he is caught sleeping . he should had seen that havertz was getting direct run to goal and had zinchenko then he wouldnt had been caught on the wrong side of the ball . had zinchenko been inside and havertz had been outside then the ball reaching him would had taken that much more time . he would be much more wider to the goal with an acute angle  shot at goal. city were sixes and sevens when defending they just couldnt decide as to whether they should mark zones or go for man to man marking and they were getting stretched all over the field and chelsea was taking good advantage of that .  

now city's plan with the ball was to stretch the offense with sterling and maharez and the spaces would be exploited by de bruyne,foden and silva but if you had read the earlier post then you might seen the shortcomings in gaurdiola's plan . he doesnt have a proper no.9 around whom his team would play . secondly all the players that i mentioned are no.10's they all like to come deep and then advance with the play . the trouble is that none of them didnt want to run beyond the back line . i really dont know as to why gaurdiola is so much adamant with his plan or whether can he really see the game . there are space behind the back five to explore but not a single pass was played in that direction . both sterling and mahrez were pretty tightly gaurded . i think that garudiola was more dependent on sterling who is just one dimensional and even gaurdiola . sterling just likes to go one way and it was easy for the defender to read that and defend him . this is stupid by sterling he needs to mix things up and keep the defender guessing .he should had moved inside if he doesnt sees the space on the outside . i was wondering as to why even gaurdiola didnt asked him to do that . to be honest i think i would give credit to chelsea's good defending who closed down very well and denied man city too much space for city's players . 

city's best chance came when sterling instead of trying to run passed the ball inside to de bruyne who foxed azipilicueta ( a rare thing)to set up a cross foden who was through on goal . what i find here is interesting . both foden and werner just couldnt sort there feet and scuffed their shots .they should had realized that the ball was going to come to them and should had prepared for that . they should positioned so that they should be ready to take shot without taking an extra touch . 

in the second half gaurdiola realized that his plan wasnt working so be bought fernandiniho who can read the play better and stop the counter in the tracks . secondly he asked his fullbacks to be more conservative but still there wasnt a proper no.9 who would be there in the box . he bought aguero but he likes to run bith the ball rather than be in the box to be at the end of the cross . to be honest in the second half gaurdiola's was out of sorts and didnt had a proper plan to open up the chelsea defense . in the second half chelsea had even dropped deeper because they knew that the energy levels that are in the first half arent there in the second half so they started to play deeper . except for one or two good crosses city couldnt muster anything significant . 

last but not the least man utd had become a medicore club its managed by a manager who has a medicore mentality . if utd are to challenge for the title then they need to change the manager and bring somebody who has fire in the belly and sell some of the worst players in the team like pogba,martial ,mctomminay and many others who are just hopeless . big names but lack the hunger for win.

MY TAKE ON THE GAME BETWEEN MAN CITY VS PSG .

 psg played man city in the second leg  of the ucl . psg had to score two goals to reach the finals . mbappe was injured in this tie and so psg selected icardi in place of mbappe to lead the line. even though it was shown 4-2-3-1 it was 4-4-2 . i had already said that players are the ones who execute the coaches plan and the coach has to take into account their weakness and their strength's . icardi is not that mobile he is a good header and finisher of the crosses . for man city they selected zinchenko in place of cancelo who also i like but zinchenko takes nod because i think he is technically a bit better than cancello who is also very good . in midfield fernandiniho came in place of rodri  . i think compared to rodri fernandiniho is bit more mobile even though the age has caught with him . 

the match started with psg chasing and trying to close down man city and in that process they conceded the goal . here the game reading is very important . i had already said that while you go on attack you dont keep your back door open to let the opposition creep through that . that is what is exactly happened in this game . psg went on to press but in that process they forgot that zinchenko was there unmarked and he could open up psg defense . the game then started with man city trying to frustrate psg and play around and keep the ball and if they get out of shape try to exploit it . when psg had the ball i think neymar and veratti were there preffered ball players . just like first leg neymar would drop deep to help his midfield move the ball but here was the catch . now man city could play a high line because icardi is not mbappe who could out run dias and stones . so man city could play a high line and press psg . man city could congest psg and psg didnt had proper plan as to how they would open man city's defense cause whenever they would come near the man city box they would ran into a man city wall who defended very nicely . pochettino had a good plan in mind he brought both wide players di maria and veratti inside so that the full backs can bomb forwarded . the other thing was that by bringing both wide players inside you have advantage and disadvantage both . the advantage is that you can play a crisp tiki taka  game and it can be very fast and the second advantage is that since you congest the opposition too has to congest so when you loose the possession you can press them quickly and try to recover the possession. these are the advantages but there are obvious disadvantages . first thing is that the opposition can read your moves and can stop you in the tracks . pochettino made the right plan but there was wrong execution . first off icardi was not seeing any of the ball and he had little on the game . when you make a plan you need to have a balance of all the sides not just one or two . only neymar,veratti and di maria were preffered on the ball and this hampers the moves because if the opposition can shut you main players then you are blocked . man city knew what they had to do and they just literally shut down neymar and di maria and frustrated them which is what gaurdiola wanted since that would had let to the breakdown in the shape and that is what had happened for the first goal and that is what was gaurdiola had set his team up for . most of the psg's shots were from distance they didnt the necessary compsure . they should had hold on the ball more and should had worked man city more . there desperation cost them the match .

man city had two upfront they were prepared as to what psg were going to do . they knew that psg were desperate and would come hot and would try to close them down . they could play a high line and press psg since they knew that psg didnt had the pace upfront . whenever man city would recover the possession de bruyne or silva either one of them would take positions which had been left open by the fullbacks . the centre back couldnt come too wide since they knew that would put quite a bit of space between them and de bruyne and silva are very good on the ball as well as with pass . once the pressure was released by man city they would pass the ball around frustrating man city and in process eating time . the difference from the first half was that man city were ready this time . they were getting players in the box and were ready to pounce as soon as psg was to make mistake but the onus on psg . 

pochettino just couldnt change things and when he should had . till icardi was on the field he wasnt trusted with a pass . instead of playing a team game psg were dependent on individual skills to open up opposition defense . only veratti,di maria and neymar were trusted with the ball . he should had realized that the forward wasnt coming much into the game . he could have asked di maria to go forward and try something new to confuse the opposition defense . di maria's pace would had caused some worry to opposition . pochettino should had played his team as whole instead of relying on the individuals . 

MY TAKE ON THE GAME BETWEEN PSG VS MAN CITY .

 on wedenesday man city played PSG in the uefa champions league s/f . now nobody will even question pep gaurdiola because he is the master of tactical games . whatever he does is just beyong question by ordinary people . i want to ask this did he played a negative formation . its not about him playing de bryune in the no.9 position cause he had done this before but it is the kind of game that they played . it doesnt matter who plays where but who was there to be in the box . who was supposed to be at the end of the crosses . the thing was there was nobody who trying to get in the box .whatever the play was that was outside the box . doesnt matter how much you dominate the possession but if you cannot threaten the opposition goal then that possession and domination has no meaning at all . ciritics might say that man city scored two goals but both those goals were on free kick and a cross not by interplay . other than a foden solo run which he made on his own there was not a single shot on goal by man city. they were outplayed in the first half . they came back in the second half and i would credit them for that cause PSG should have had some confidence in them and coach should had calmed them down . they lost that plot and are down from the first leg but they are not out and if they can play the way in the first half of this tie then i think they are still in the tie and it has many a twist and turns and if gaurdiola keeps on playing negative then i think that he may come to regret about it . 

the game started with psg playing a 4-4-2 formation with mbappe and neymar upfront . while man city started the game with 4-3-3 formation . gaurdiola selected cancelo as the left back while he has two left backs at his disposal . the reason of playing cancelo as the left back is that he is right footed and him facing di maria who is left footed makes the match up even cause di maria likes to cut inside . cancelo being right footed as his strong on di maria's strong side so he can very well counter di maria . the game started with similar pace with both team trying to dominate whenever they had the ball and press upfield when they loose the ball and if the opposition can beat the press then sit back in shape and try to absorb the offense . there is definite reason why neymar was coming deep to help out his side move the ball upfield . neymar is very good on the ball and even when pressed can dribble the ball out of the press and can really open the opposition up . while mbappe has the pace and man city were scared of it and they were playing and not letting have any space behind the back four to exploit . so man city were stretched vertically . in the first half man city were not trying to close down neymar they were letting come deep and have the possession and he was causing all sort of problems for man city . veratti and di maria were coming inside which was allowing the fullbacks to come forward and cause many problems to man city defense because they were getting stretched . 

i had seen people talking about man city and psg's press . to be honest most of the teams are very well prepared against the press they can be pressed on one move but the managers make the necessary positional changes to beat the press .when any team gets pressed they just move the ball from one flank to other . so even in this game whenever teams were spread they would just spread the ball and try to stretch the game and get some time and space on the ball . in the first half man city were playing deep and were getting torn apart by psg . if somebody watches the first half of this game then the interplay between neymar and mbaape and other psg players was like pro's playing against school children . the only thing lacking and for which they must be cursing was the finishing which even they lacked in the bayern game . they were just causing man city from all sides . i think psg would score more than two in the first half and the tie would be over . 

i dont know told this but i think in the second half and i would credit this to the commentators who made the right spot . man city started to play more compact . they started to play more upfield and started to press and started denying the space that neymar was getting . the game changed when de bruyne scored of the equalizer for man city . city scored the second just minutes later and psg started to chase the game and in that they lost the concentration and discipline that is required to chase the game and they lost . 

the most important thing that i said in the first para was that whether gaurdiola played negative . man city had three in the middle and three upfront with debruyne in the middle . i dont mind de bruyne not playing as an out and out forward . but then there has to somebody who has to at the end of the cross in the box . but then if gaurdiola doesnt wants it then its his choice. but then there are other alternatives in opening the opposition defense where on you can have a very good interplay and open the opposition or midfielders can go beyond the striker or that the wide players can make diagonal runs in the box but the problem was that none of this was happening . they were having possession but the movement was all outside of the box . even when the ball was pass wide there was nobody inside the box for the cross . there are no good interplay nor were they taking shots from outside of the box . other than the two goals man city didnt present with any threat to the psg goal . i would like to commend the commentators that they were calling for a proper no.9 to be in the match or they wanted gundogan to go beyond de bruyne who was dropping deep . there were no diagonal runs by mahrez or foden . they were staying wide trying to stretch the defense but there was  no great interplay trying to bring the ball inside . i dont think that man city were ever threatning in the match . it doesnt matters whether they dominated the possession but they just didnt threatened psg goal . i think the tie is very much alive and hope to see a good match .