FOR Manchester City to win 100 points last season was astonishing, the work of an exceptional team playing at the height of its powers and with sufficient hunger to keep driving for the line long after the title had been secured. But it was also evidence of how football has changed. The old rules don’t apply any more and everybody is going to have to adjust.
In the early seventies, there was troubled talk in the football press of the rise of two “super clubs” who would dominate all others. Leeds and Liverpool, it was perceived, had worked out a method of play that seemed infinitely repeatable, and their consistency gave them a stable financial base that would maintain them at the top of the table in perpetuity.
It didn’t quite work out like that – to a large degree, positive and negative, because of the intervention of Brian Clough – but even then it was recognised that the increasing popularity and commercialisation of the game, its regular exposure on television, would lead to a growing gulf between top and bottom.
It’s been said, but the gulf between the Premier League’s top six and the rest is huge. It’s almost like they’re playing a different sport
— John O'Sullivan (@NotoriousJOS) December 12, 2017
There has never been a time in football history when that gulf was as big as it is now. The rich have kept getting richer and the poor have left behind. As in society, so in football, and read whatever critiques of capitalism you desire into that. That has had an impact on how the game is played.
There is far less expectation now of an even contest, of two teams duking it out, trading blows. Between 2002-03 and 2004-05, the first three seasons in which Opta collated such stats, there were three matches in which one team had 70% or more of the ball. Last season there were 63, and we’re on course to hit a similar figure this time round as well.
But it also affects the perception. Take the reaction to City’s last two games. They lost at Newcastle in a game in which, by most metrics, they were dominant (even if there was an undeniable sense, once Newcastle had equalised, that City would not score again). That used to happen.
Alan Pardew has won three PL away games at Big Six clubs since Arsenal last did so + they haven't won at Old Trafford since Byker Grove ended.
For @unibet on Arsenal's big trip permafrosthttps://t.co/4kWwjogbuZ
— Duncan Alexander (@oilysailor) February 1, 2019
Big teams with serious title aspirations occasionally lost games away against doughty teams from the lower half of the table. It was one of those things. But when you have a season in which a team drops only 14 points, every defeat suddenly feels potentially decisive. For the elite, even a draw is a mini-crisis. By comparison, see the famous Calendar interview with Clough and Don Revie in 1974 in which Revie is incredulous at the notion that anybody could ever match the record of his Leeds side of losing only four games all season.
That means that even a comfortable win is combed for deeper meanings. Arsenal have not won away against a Big Six side in four years. City were expected to beat them on Sunday and in the end did so with a level of ease. But the half hour between Arsenal equalising and City scoring their second was characterised by nervy, sterile play from City. On the touchline Pep Guardiola at times seemed frantic. Because it’s no longer enough that the elite should win; they must win well.
The scrutiny is legitimate precisely because of the expectation of victory. In that half hour, City demonstrated the same flaws that had cost it against Newcastle, Crystal Palace and Leicester. What if had not been for the calming impact of the goal just before half-time? What if City had been playing an opponent with more self-belief and defensive nous than Arsenal?
Pep Guardiola on Newcastle:
"We analyse, we talk, we see which areas we have to improve. It will be completely different against Arsenal. We analyse so we don't repeat again what we did in the last game."#ManCity pic.twitter.com/MDe1RDHCNW
— BBC RM Sport (@BBCRMsport) February 1, 2019
And that’s where we run into a paradox. After the defeat at Newcastle, Guardiola had slightly snappishly pointed out that City had won their previous eight games. They’d scored 26 goals in their previous six games. A couple of decades ago, that would have been almost unthinkable form. But these days, hammering smaller sides is just something that happens. There was no shame for Burnley in losing 5-0 to City.
Demolishing a team, racking up big scores, is all very well. Clearly it cannot be a bad sign. But it doesn’t necessarily mean a side has the wherewithal to eke out a win against a stubborn opponent on a day when an early goal doesn’t come. And there have been signs this season, as in the first half on Sunday, when City have struggled to do that. Similarly, conceding very few goals in games in which they have 70 per cent of the ball doesn’t necessarily mean they will be able to cope defensively against opponents who are able to put them under pressure.
Such distinctions feel very modern. In the past, there was no expectation that the elite would brush aside smaller sides. Defenders defended, rather than spending half their time on the front foot. Defeats and draws were expected, accepted and didn’t feel as though each dropped point could potentially derail a title bid. The game had changed – and the reason for that is economics.
