Observation: Manchester City and a few things about the real Blues

We'll start with Manchester City. I have no clue what on earth Mancini is doing. Why is he playing such a defensive formation? I honestly just don't understand it. They're playing three defensive midfielders in midfield with an additional defensive midfielder in at center half to bring the ball out of defence (even though there is nowhere to go). Then, there are two wings playing deeper back to congest midfield even more and there is no and out and out striker.

Many City fans I have encountered seem to be trying to convince themselves that Yaya Toure isn't a defensive midfielder, but it isn't working on me. They have also tried to convince themselves that Mancini is playing some sort of diamond, but that one isn't working on me either.

I actually quite like the diamond that Mancini could be playing. By putting three defensive midfielders on the pitch with one center half and one central midfielder, things would be very tight and well controlled. By controlling the game tactically and physically the fullbacks would be able to flood forward while midfield covers for them. The width created by the fullbacks would allow the front line to tuck in and move around in a rather dynamic fashion.

Unfortunately that is not happening at the moment, and it seems to me as if this is what the manager was aiming for. The purchase of Kolarov makes me think that the attacking fullbacks were on the cards but no one was brought in to do the same on the right. Boateng was brought in but he made his name as a center half at Hamburg, so it seems unlikely that he will morph into a fullback capable of patrolling the right hand flank.

The other players on the right hand side are Richards and Zabaleta but it seems as if Zabaleta is unliked by Mancini and Richards is rather inconsistent. The other problem is the 'number 10' role. Adam Johnson was tipped for the role behind the strikers by Mancini and David Silva was brought in to do the job, but neither seem to be trusted with playing in the position. Couple all of that with the sale of Bellamy and to a lesser extent Robinho, and it seems as if a switch towards a narrower system is on the cards. But the retension of Wright-Phillips and the use of Milner as a winger seems to shoot that theory in the foot.

It's one thing to have options, it's another to have no clear game plan. For me, I think that only Tevez up front is a big mistake, and all utility and no creativity is another problem. Mancini has got to get Silva (or Johnson) onto the pitch and he has to get another striker in there. If they don't they are going to draw too many games and end up sixth or even fifth again.

On Chelsea, there are three things I have noted over the last few games. First off, John Terry. He is the weakest link in Chelsea's chain and while his ability to organise a defence surpasses anyone else's at the club his positional play has been a bit off and his lack of pace doesn't help. I suspect it may be an unavoidable predicament and something the Anchovy will have to work around but it is still something to dread.

My second point is the different dimensions offered by Kalou and Malouda. Both offer a very high work rate and both can score goals (in fact over the last three years Kalou's goal to game ratio is higher than Malouda's) but both offer a different trump card. Malouda's is that his physical presence and movement gives him the ability to slot in as a center forward, which is of course a massive plus because it allows fluidity up front. Kalou's trump card is quite different: it is his pace. He is just so fast he can get in behind defenders without any difficulty but his small stature does limit the club to more static movement. Not a problem, just a difference.

Third is a simple comment. Ramires did a great job in his first full game for Chelsea. He is clearly still getting to grips with the Premier League but his movement was good, his passing was decent and his defensive commitment was good. He will get better over the next few months as he grows more accustomed to Chelsea's game and the pace of the league but I have no doubt that he will be a hit.

Last point is simple. Over the last two games Chelsea have not done that well in attack. I suspect there may be a few problems that need to be sorted out there, but they are not a major problem. Not saying that they are about to fall to pieces but I do think that there are a few chinks in the armour which need to be looked into rather than papered over.

The Real Problem

Real Madrid have a few problems. Two big ones were evident in their boring draw against Mallorca this weekend: Left back and right back. Their fullbacks were truly atrocious, offering nothing going forward (though they seemed to spend a great deal of time congesting midfield) and constantly being caught out of position during defensive phases.

In my opinion, Real Madrid lost the game because the fullbacks spent more time getting in the way than anything else. There was just no width in their play, and while the lack of runs being made by forward players didn't help the situation, though I have no doubt that this will improve as the team gets to know one another and the manager, the fullbacks needed to get forward and stretch the defence in order to create space for the forwards.

The other problem was in central midfield. Lass Diarra started out sitting deep, with Alonso doing what he does best and Canales in front as the playmaker behind Higuain and between Di Mara and Ronaldo: a clear 4-2-3-1. Clearly it would be Diarra's role to cut crosses out and intercept while helping retain possession but he clearly struggled in this role. He did well to tackle and try to win the ball but when he had the ball there was nowhere for him to go. Alonso was being crowded out while Canales was out on the wings.

The reason Canales was out on the wings (and not central) was to try and introduce some width into the play. You see, Ronaldo was cutting inside, as you would expect, but Di Mara was playing deeper and more centrally in order to help Diarra and retain possession. While this would have been fine, the plans were foiled by Marcelo and Arbeloa getting forward and drifting inside. By doing this, they allowed the Mallorca wings to move inside (where they wanted to be in order to run at goal) and congest midfield while also providing them acres of space to run into and cross.

As a result of all of this you had Alonso, Diarra, Marcelo and Arbeloa standing within 5m of one another, while the opposition cut passes to Alonso out, and somewhere between the left wing and all of this was Di Mara, who could do nothing with the ball when he got it because he had nowhere to pass forward or run. The forwards were isolated up front because the link man, Canales, was always drifting out wide to inject some width but because he was equally isolated his efforts were in vain. To top it all off the center halves were having to cover for the fullbacks, meaning there was a chasm in front of goal for the strikers to exploit.

The fact that the fullbacks didn't help during the first game of the season really isn't a problem. When there is a new manager, and a new formation, and six new players this kind of thing is to be expected. The real problem is that Mourinho identified the fullbacks as a problem when he arrived and the club didn't buy new ones. To be fair, Sergio Ramos is a wonderful right back but was covering for various injuries to center halves, so was not available, but the left back berth is still a major problem. Jose admitted that he tried to buy Kolarov for 11mil but Manchester City out did Real (with 17mil) and beat them to his signature, Ashley Cole was allegedly too expensive (I didn't know that was possible with Real Madrid) and a fee was agreed on for Maicon but the deal broke down when Real refused to pay him was he was earning at Inter.

All of this comes down to money and a club who could can afford to fork out the big bucks for Kaka and Ronaldo can afford to up their bid to buy what the new manager wanted, and clearly the board didn't approve those deals. Real still haven't learned from their past mistakes: all they want are attractive signings. They still haven't picked up on the fact that a team can't win by playing eight strikers and two defenders.

I have no doubt that Mourinho will get Marcelo and Arbeloa to stay wide, and Ramos will do what he asks of him. I still think they'll win La Liga but I don't see the Special One being happy with not getting what he wants and I don't see him staying very long as a result.

Fergie's Choice

I'm going to get straight to the point. With all due respect to Manchester United and Sir Alex Ferguson, I believe the team are paying the price for the manager's indecision. In the early 2000's (2001 I believe) United were beaten by a Real Madrid who, under Vincente del Bosque, played a zonally pressurised 4-3-3 and subsequently dominated midfield and controlled the game. Being a man who learns from his mistakes, Sir Alex began to change the system the club plays away from the orthodox 4-4-2 and towards the now dominant 4-3-3.

This change seemed to be a gradual one but without a doubt working. Ronaldo playing as a striker off the right wing, but in a slightly withdrawn role, and Rooney moving centrally and onto the left wing meant that there was space for Tevez up front and sufficient movement for the system to be a hybrid of the old 4-4-2 and the future 4-3-3.

At the same time, players like Nani and Anderson were brought in to fit into the wide striker and attacking midfielder roles, and more emphasis was placed on the passing and interception role which Carrick so aptly performs in central midfield. The club seemed to be taking a definite step forward.

But then Berbatov arrived, and things seemed to change. Nani was pushed backwards into midfield while Tevez's work rate was preferred to an additional player in midfield and once again things went well for a bit before going south in a European competition. Suddenly things seemed to shift again with Tevez being released and Ronaldo being sold.

Nani was pushed up again and Rooney was used alone up front, particularly during big European clashes but at the same time Valencia (a classic midfield winger) was bought which appeared to send mixed messages.

Now things seem to have gotten even worse. Hernandez has been bought, and just recently SAF stated in an interview that he has always preferred a dual striker system, but the youth who have been bought (Hernandez, Bebe) and are coming out of the academy (Obertan, Macheda, Wellbeck) clearly fit into a 4-3-3 system.

The squad lacks cohesion. By that I mean that at a club like Chelsea or Arsenal, the first team play a system, in both of those cases a 4-3-3, and the youth academy play the same system. This means that players being promoted can integrate into the first team immediately and there is little or no transition period.

Personally, I think that Fergie enjoys the way a 4-4-2 plays and is more comfortable with working it on a tactical level but resigned himself to playing with the single striker up front. With Harold Redknapp and Tottenham's rise to prominence and success while playing a 4-4-2, Ferguson has perhaps had his head turned and seems to be torn between what he prefers and now believes can work versus what experience tells him works.

I think that which ever he chooses he needs to make a final decision. It's not fair on the younger players who are coming through and perhaps not getting a chance, and it's becoming detrimental to the club's results.

Tommy's 25 Prequile

Those of you who watch ESPN will know that at the beginning of the season Tommy Smyth picks his top 25 teams in Europe, no small task. I don't pretend to have as much experience, knowledge or insight as the great Tommy but I will say that in my opinion, the top three teams in Europe are as follows:

Chelsea

Real Madrid

Barcelona

I will be doing a team preview of Barcelona and Real shortly but I do think that Barcelona have the best starting XI in Europe. Real on the other hand have the strongest squad in my opinion, but I still maintain that Chelsea will win the Champion's League.

I think that Chelsea will win the Champion's League because it's a lot of the players' last chance to win, and their midfield is the strongest in Europe. You can't really fault their strikers and their defense is as good as any...

Neutral Numbers

Tactics and formations are the foundation of football, and yet for many they are relegated to being trivial intricacies which unnecessarily complicate the game rather than adding to the rich landscape that makes football what I love.

With England's failure at the World Cup there has been much criticism of Capello's tactics and his formation choice. Many have come out and said that with so many teams playing three in central midfield, the orthodox 4-4-2 is null and void while purists claim that the 4-3-3 is a boring and defensive.

Having considered all of this I have three points to make:

> Formations are neutral, it's how you choose to play that makes you defensive or attacking. As we have seen recently, Manchester City are playing a 4-3-3 with three holding midfielders and two wing midfielders with a single central striker. This, for me, is rather defensive. Chelsea on the other hand are playing with three balanced central midfielders and three strikers in the same formation, and as we have seen they attack relentlessley. Same formation, completely different approach.

> It's all about the players. Every play has different attributes that make them unique, and those attributes are better suited different styles of play and different positions. The formation played needs to work for the players, or the players brought in need to work in the current system. When the Anchovy arrived at Chelsea he tried to play a diamond, but it failed because the players at Chelsea lended themselves to a 4-3-3 formation.

> Any formation can work with the right players. Many have written off the 4-4-2 formation recently, but Tottenham have proven that it can still work. And the way they have done that is by playing it exceptionally well. This is down to the players working exceptionally well within the system. The AC Milan of five years ago proved the power of a diamond (a formation I suspect Ancelotti may be moving towards once again) while Barcelona and Chelsea make an extremely strong case for a traditional 4-3-3.

At the end of the day it really is eleven men kicking a ball around, and a manager has to find a way to fit them all together.

Dynamic DMs

Just before the first game of the season Chelsea concluded their second signing of the season, the Brazilian Ramires. 20 million quid may seem like a lot, but for the 23 year old who did such a fantastic job at the World Cup, I think it could well prove to be a real bargain. Here's why...

As was apparent at the World Cup, the favourite formation in world football at the moment is the 4-2-3-1. The reason being its flexibility. By making small changes the formation can take the shape of a 4-4-1-1 or a 4-3-3 or even a 4-5-1. The presence of two holding midfielders provides defensive stability by cutting crosses out and congesting the area in front of the penalty box. At the same time, in attack it means that fullbacks can easily get forward while adequate defensive cover is at hand.

At the same time, these two players can perform the same duties, while being two very different players. If the team choose to play two more traditional holding midfielders (as Brazil did with Silva and Melo) the midfield will be very different to if there was only one holding midfielder and one deep lying playmaker (as Spain did with Busquets and Alonso), or even two disciplined playmakers (Germany with Schweinsteiger and Khedira).

The biggest weakness in this system is the space between the fullbacks and the holding midfielders. Because the wings are further forward, than they would be in a 4-4-2, but the central midfielders are in the same place, there is a potential gap in midfield just in front of the fullbacks.

As a result of this weakness, teams use inside-out strikers (a striker who's stronger foot is his right, but is playing on the left, or visa versa) to get forward and cut inside through this space to either get centrally and score goals or to link up with the center forward in the box. An excellent example of this is Messi or Ronaldo.

The only way to get around this is to have an extremely high work rate off your wings and fullbacks, and to have a similar level of skill when it comes to attacking ability from both of them. An example of where this did not work was in the Community Shield this season. Both Ashley Cole and Flourent Malouda were not match fit, and as a result they were slow to track back. This left space on the left hand side which Rooney and Valencia exploited exceptionally well at different times, Valencia scoring the first while Hernandez scored the second. In these cases the space was used to cross rather than to cut inside and score.

It may seem very difficult to find fullbacks who are as skilled as strikers going forward, but it is not impossible. Inter Milan were extremely strong down the right wing because Maicon is extremely able as an attacking right winger, and he was afforded opportunities to get forward because Eto'o had such a high work rate. When fit, Malouda and Cole do the same thing on the left wing for Chelsea, while Bosingwa and Anelka work well on the right.

But the above problem can be eliminated completely if the correct type of players are used as holding players. Germany played with two central midfielders in front of their back four, and because both were highly disciplined as well as tactically aware they were able to be more dynamic. By that I mean they sat deep most of the time, but drifted to the left and the right as required. When teams tried to push their wings forward, the fullbacks stayed deeper, and the midfielders got forward rather than the fullbacks. That way, the system changed as the game dictated.

This system worked very well for Germany, but is by no means a new idea. Chelsea did something similar by playing Essien and allowing him to get forward, while Mikel was used as more of a sweeper at times. A similar effect was achieved by playing Essien and Ballack in a diamond formation.

But with the loss of Ballack, the club need another Essien to be able to do this effectively. Kaby has been bought at a young age, and is being groomed for this position, but at 16 years old is too young to come into the first team. Ramires on the other hand, provides exactly what is required. Essien Mark II.

The biggest plus with Ramires' arrival is the array of options available. Chelsea now have Essien, Ramires who are more like box to box central midfielders while Mikel is more of a Makalele holding midfielder and Matic who is a Serbian Xabi Alonso. With Kaby coming through, central midfield looks to be very strong and dynamic...

Liverpool Analysis

Of all the teams in the Premier League, Liverpool must be the most disappointing. Two seasons ago they were my second favourite club to watch (Chelsea again being my favourite, particularly under Hiddink) but last season they were simply woeful.

This season the club have a new manager and things are looking as if they may well improve, though I am less convinced than many. For me, there are just so many problems, the squad seems to lack cohesion.

Here is the first team squad according the the site

Diego Cavaliera (GK)

Glen Johnson (DF)

Alberto Aquilani (MF)

Daniel Agger (DF)

Fabio Aurelio (DF)

Steven Gerrard (MF)

Fernando Torres (FW)

Joe Cole (FW)

Daniel Pacheco (FW)

Milan Jovanovic (FW)

Sotirios Kyrgiakos (DF)

Maxi Rodriguez (MF)

Dirk Kuyt (FW)

Ryan Babel (FW)

Javier Macherano (MF)

Lucas (MF)

Danny Wilson (DF)

Jamie Carragher (DF)

David N'Gog (FW)

Pepe Reina (GK)

Jay Spearing (MF)

Christian Poulsen (MF)

Krisztian Nemeth (FW)

Charles Itandje (GK)

Nabil El Zhar (MF)

Stephen Darby (DF)

Jonjo Shelvey (MF)

Martin Kelly (DF)

Stephen Irwin (DF)

Martin Skrtel (DF)

Lauri Dalla Valle (FW)

Nathan Ecclestone (FW)

Daniel Ayala (DF)

Martin Hansen (GK)

Peter Gulacsi (GK)

Dean Bousanis (GK)

Victor Palsson (MF)

Thomas Ince (MF)

David Amoo (MF)

Gerardo Bruna (MF)

Jack Robinson (DF)

Emiliano Insua (DF)

Brad Jones (GK)

Damien Plessis (MF)

That is 44 players. That's a very big squad and to be honest, I haven't even heard of half of those guys. But it seems as if this squad just doesn't have any direction, particularly if you consider there are seven goalkeepers.

To be honest, I don't really want to comment on Liverpool at the moment, simply because we don't know what direction the club will take with the new management. There are some positions which seem to be sorted, like the holding midfield position. Macherano and Poulsen are both excellent players, and having cover in that position is imperative for a team competing in multiple competitions.

At the same time, there are other positions which are over populated, like the attacking midfield position. Gerrard, Joe Cole and Aquilani seems too much, and then in a central midfield / deeper lying playmaking position there is no one.

The real question will be how Hogson decides to line the team up. At Fulham he played a 4-4-1-1 but the Liverpool setup was based on a 4-2-3-1 with Gerrard behind Torres. How he will fit the two together, we shall have to wait and see, but here's how I'd set it all up.