A brief look at City's Champions League Loss

And why the exclusion of Fernandinho and Rodri is not to blame.

Manchester City faced Chelsea in their first Champions’ League final on Saturday in what was supposed to be the lap of honour on an otherwise wildly impressive season, however a counter attack cooly finished by Kai Havertz ensured Chelsea left Portugal with a hand on each ear of Europe’s biggest trophy.

Before the game I stated that the starting XI, personnel-wise, was perfect. If I were to pick a City XI it would be those players (give or take Mahrez and Walker, who were in great form) but the inclusion of Gundogan at DM and Sterling was one I approved of. It’s a take I still hold despite City registering only a single shot on target all game. The starting eleven was not problematic however the fact that it was visibly different means superficial analysis attributes the entire blame of the loss, on that single factor.

“Why did City play with no DM? That’s why they lost.”

City did play with a DM and an accomplished one too. Gundogan started as City’s DM on the night and had previously played as a lone DM during a 14 game win streak in 18/19 that secured City the league. Since De Bruyne’s return from injury, he has been part of a double pivot too, notably in the game against PSG. Gundogan at DM and Sterling in the front three did not lose City the game.

The reason for the removal of a Fernandinho or Rodri from the starting line-up was to include Raheem Sterling in the XI, an entirely justified decision. Raheem Sterling posed City’s biggest attacking threat on the night. His runs in behind the full back were almost exclusively the only source of the chances City created.

7:20: Sterling makes a run from deep and is picked out wonderfully by Ederson. Slightly loose control allows James the chance to execute a great recovery tackle.

09:16: Sterling picks up the ball in his own half and carries it all the way into Chelsea’s box before crossing it into a very dangerous area, a yard away from Foden, who may have not been expecting the pass. Chilwell intercepts the cross excellently, before Mahrez has a chance to shoot.

26:50: Sterling’s cute first time lay-off sets De Bruyne into space before he finds Foden for City’s clearest chance of the game, again vitally blocked, this time, by Rudiger.

73:45: Fernandinho slides the ball through to find Raheem Sterling in behind James and Chelsea’s defensive line again. Sterling cuts it back into a dangerous area and Jesus is unable to meet it for a tap-in. 

Sterling’s only glaring mistake of the game was a loose pass that lead to a Chelsea counter-attack in the 36th minute but otherwise he was City’s most dangerous forward, pressing well and tracking back diligently on many occasions. His inclusion was warranted.

Unusually, there has been marked criticism around Sterling’s performance. Aside from the unfortunate reasons of preformed bias and dislike against Sterling, it can be assumed that this was in part because Reece James also performed well. Sterling managed to get the better of James on occasion and in other moments James defended well, preventing Sterling from being able to dribble past him, leading to the recycling of possession back to City’s defenders. Only one of James or Sterling being able to have had a good game is a false dichotomy. It is possible for them both to have performed aptly and this was the case. 

The inclusion of Sterling’s profile was valuable and we saw this on the night but to include Sterling would have to be at the expense of another midfielder or attacker. Who could you drop in potentially the biggest game of their career?

Gundogan, arguably the best midfielder in the league this season, with previous Champions League final experience?

Bernardo Silva, who provides structural balance, ability in the small pockets against a packed defence and whose reintroduction coincided with City’s win streak?

Kevin De Bruyne, one of the finest midfielders on the planet with the individual brilliance to win you the game out of nothing?

Foden or Mahrez, the two players who provided the all important goals in the previous Champions League rounds?

The answer for all of those players is seemingly a definitive no. Systematically, the exclusion of one of these players would make sense however holistically, it would show a considerable lack of faith and be detrimental to the dressing room and the aforementioned individuals if those six were not rewarded with a start in this game. 

Logically, Gundogan, an accomplished defensive midfielder, who played in the double pivot to the highest level in the previous round against PSG, slotting in at the expensive of Rodri, who had made some notable errors in recent games, and Fernandinho, a wonderful leader but who’d been caught in transition against Mount in the previous fixture, made sense. Gundogan’s press resistance, positional strictness and ability to build up play, making quick passes with both feet would seem to be a great asset in any big game. 

So if the personnel selection bodes well for City in theory, why did the team look so toothless? There are numerous reasons but the following section focuses on possibly the main one. For those who seem to be the loudest in their critique of the team, their identification of the problem seems to be misplaced. The ‘City played no DM so they lost’ rhetoric makes less sense in this case. Replacing Gundogan with Fernandinho, for example, would’ve resulted in the same problems. This is because the area Chelsea were able to exploit was City’s shape following the press.

To describe this entirely is too cumbersome for this piece, it would make it far longer than I have time to write for. But briefly, by design, Pep’s City wanted to press with 5 players to match Chelsea’s five in the build up. Bernardo and De Bruyne pushed to press Jorginho and Kante. City’s three attackers pressed Chelsea’s three centre backs; the wingers pressing the outside centre backs with their bodies angled inwards to usher the CBs away from finding the wingbacks (who were free). Mahrez’s body shape was not conducive to preventing Rudiger from finding the out-ball and he often failed to press quickly enough. In spite of this, the decision to implement a 5/5 press itself was risky and flawed in the context of the game.

Mendy in the build up could act as a spare man and if Chelsea found their wingbacks, Zinchenko or Walker had to break their defensive line to press them. The opposite wingback stayed alongside the two centre backs and the three Chelsea attackers occupied the now-three City defenders. This meant Gundogan was often left in the middle with no one to pick up. It was the 3 Chelsea forwards and their attacking wingback against City’s back 4 in transition.

It is possible the players could have initiated the press better, but it was a plan that required immense coordination and was difficult to execute in practice. In retrospect, it failed and afforded Chelsea avenues to exploit, leading to counters on numerous occasions. The pressing structure is not the only thing that went against City; players harbour part of the blame too for individual performances that are beyond the scope of this piece and admittedly, Chelsea deserve praise for executing parts of their plan excellently. This brief overview of City’s pressing structure and shape, however, offers an explanation as to why Fernandinho or Rodri playing in this same system would have been subject to the same pitfalls, possibly more so.

Rodri is at times less positionally aware and has reduced recovery pace in comparison to Gundogan. Although his lateral screening has improved this season, as a lone DM in this system, it is possible he would have struggled to cover the width of the pitch in transition, adeptly. Fernandinho thrives on anticipating and intercepting the ball but as a lone DM, often with no direct counterpart to pick up, he too would be susceptible to being part of a system that fails to prevent counter-attacks. This is exemplified by Chelsea’s attack in the 72nd minute. Pulisic was the recipient of an incredible chance, chipping it wide. Pulisic did not score but it does not mitigate the fact that in the build up prior, Fernandinho too was caught out, and Chelsea were able to get a great sight of goal. The role given to City’s lone DM against Chelsea was one that was innately unfavourable. A direct swap between any #6 on the planet and Gundogan would not have solved the problems that came with the implementation of the press that left City susceptible to the counter-attack.

Even with Fernandinho at #6, Chelsea were able to execute dangerous counter attacks.

Guardiola’s decision to include Sterling at the expense of Rodri or Fernandinho was validated. In my opinion, it was the right one. Those two defensive midfielders were the only players a manager in charge of Manchester City could have realistically dropped and for more than just on-field reasons. The decisions to include Sterling and play Gundogan at DM were not a significant factor in the loss, rather the shape in transition and the unsuccessful City press played a far bigger role, affording Chelsea chances to break. These chances would not have been prevented by a direct substitution between Gundogan and Fernandinho for example. Of course, other reasons for the loss exist; many players had disappointing performances, particularly in possession but these factors as well as an entirely comprehensive review of the game spans beyond the scope of this article. The role of the coach carries the burden of managing these wilding stimulating and conflicting factors without the privilege of retrospect. Even for the greatest managers of all-time, this is a significant challenge that is always tackled with the same vigour and dedication. The only thing that changes is the result.