How did Man City destroy MU?

The Manchester derby ended 3-0 in favour of Man City, but more importantly, it exposed the huge tactical gap between Pep Guardiola and Ruben Amorim.

While Pep continued to show flexibility, adapting to make the most of his players' strengths, Amorim locked himself into a rigid 3-4-3 system - and that cost United.

When Pep created a 4v2 situation in midfield

The first half at the Etihad showed why Pep remains a tactical master. He took aim at Amorim's 3-4-3 structure - a system that placed too much pressure on the central midfield duo. By pulling left-back Nico O'Reilly wide to pin down Noussair Mazraoui, while Jeremy Doku moved centrally, Man City immediately created a 4v2 situation against the Ugarte-Fernandes pairing.

Rodri, Foden, Doku and Reijnders formed a “tactical box”, surrounding and controlling the middle. Man United did not have enough men to defend, and the script Fulham used to beat them was repeated exactly. A top team like Man City, with players moving and rotating rhythmically, only needed that simple principle to suffocate the opposition’s midfield.

Pep deployed a large number of troops in the middle of the field.

In Amorim's system, right-sided centre-back Leny Yoro is asked to push forward to catch Doku when he comes in. But that's an impossible task. Doku can drop deep into his own half, while Foden is constantly in the same area. If Yoro pushes forward, he leaves a big gap behind him. If he stays in position, Doku is free to maneuver.

As a result, United’s pressing became half-hearted and patchy. Bruno Fernandes admitted after the match that the team needed to be “more courageous in pressing all over”. But the problem was not just courage, but the setup. Once the “one-on-one” style of play was adopted, any hesitation would create a “free” player for the opponent. And Man City, with their smooth passing and movement, exploited that gap.

With a large number of troops in midfield, Man City easily overwhelmed MU.

If there is one tactical detail that makes Amorim admit total defeat, it is the art of "pinning the opponent" of Man City. Pep does not need to always overwhelm the opponent. He just needs to put the players in the right position to force the opponent to stand still.

O'Reilly pinned Mazraoui on the wing, Reijnders pinned Luke Shaw in a back five, and as a result Doku was free in the middle. It was from such a situation that Doku had time to turn, accelerate and assist the opening goal.

MU's pressing ability was not synchronized, leading to Man City easily exploiting.

Amorim wants the wide centre-backs to push forward to cover the space? Guardiola just pins them down, and the entire 3-4-3 system collapses. That’s the difference between a manager who reads the game like a Go player and a manager who is stubborn and hoping for luck to change the game.

Man United and the disease of missing out on second-line players

Foden’s goal was a natural consequence. Once again, Bruno Fernandes and Ugarte were in the box, but neither marked the late runs. Fernandes, who excels at pressing and passing long, lacked composure in off-the-ball defending. This was not the first time: Fulham’s Emile Smith Rowe had scored from a similar escape before.

Meanwhile, Pep arranged Foden to play behind Haaland, taking advantage of his ability to choose the right time to enter the penalty area. The result was a goal that came as a result of tactical calculation, not chance.

In the match against Fulham, Bruno Fernandes did not mark Emile Smith Rowe.

After the match, public opinion was divided: was the fault the players or Amorim's tactics?

The logical answer is: both. United could improve with better personnel, but the nature of the 3-4-3 system still leaves gaps if opponents rotate properly. When Fulham and City both find the same way to exploit it, it is no longer an individual error but a strategic flaw.

On the other hand, Guardiola proved that a top coach is not afraid to change the details. He put Donnarumma in goal and was willing to play long balls - something that seems strange to Pep's "control" philosophy. But it is this flexibility that makes City more diverse and unpredictable.

Amorim declared: “If you want to change the philosophy, change the coach. I will not change.” A strong statement, but also somewhat naive in the context of top-level football - where adaptation determines survival.

The 3-0 result was more than just a defeat on the scoreboard. It was also the shattering of an illusion: that Amorim could take a system from Sporting Lisbon to the Premier League and apply it intact.

Pep Guardiola once again taught coaches a lesson: you can keep your philosophy, but you have to know how to adjust the details to suit your players and your opponents. Amorim, on the other hand, chose to be steadfast to the point of blindness - and the price was a United team that was tired and out of sync in every important phase.

When will Amorim understand: in the Premier League, stubbornness is synonymous with suicide?

Source: https://znews.vn/man-city-huy-diet-mu-nhu-the-nao-post1585565.html