Match Analysis: Pellegrini To Blame For Juventus Loss, Wrong To Drop Kelechi Iheanacho

As much as he has achieved for our club to date I have got to say I find Pellegrini tactically naive and prone to mistakes, he puts far too much trust in our players to just go out and destroy teams, he hesitates to make vital substitutions at important moments and is not animated enough on the touch line as far as I'm concerned. Yeah yeah I know he's qualified and I am not, before someone jumps on the bandwagon I don't play football games as I have a life to live. It doesn't take a qualified genius to see the mistakes made or the cracks opening up, here's where I believe it all started to go wrong.

Right from the start when Manuel Pellegrini all but destroyed Kelechi Iheanacho's perfect start to the season, I can only hope being dropped from our Champions League squad does not affect the kid negatively.

Lets face facts here we only have 3 strikers aka Sergio Aguero, Wilfried Bony and Kelechi Iheanacho, it was clearly stated by Pellegrini himself that Edin Dzeko was not replaced because we have Iheanacho, so why the hell drop Kelechi from our Champions League squad aye? We all know Sergio is carrying a knee issue and Wilfried Bony can't even hit the sky right now. I was so excited by the arrival of Bony but must say, I'm starting to get really frustrated with him right now. He was the worst player on the pitch against Juventus.

Wilfried Bony should have been replaced by Sergio Aguero immediately after half time, by bringing Aguero on for less than 10 minutes was just a complete and utter joke. Pellegrini was clearly hoping for Sergio to bag us a point, play for a bloody draw for crying out loud., either that or he was hoping for a repeat of our title winning miracle against QPR.

Taking Raheem Sterling off the field when Samir Nasri was useless, completely ended all hope of winning our opening Champions League match as far as I'm concerned. Why he isn't playing our strongest attacking lineup is baffling to say the least, there was no valid reason why we couldn't have played Kevin De Bruyne from the start? Why Nasri when he's proven he's only effective off the bench?  In my opinion our strongest attacking mid combo are Sterling, Silva, De Bruyne and all three are fit enough to play.

Yaya Toure is found wanting at times in Europe even with a solid Fernandinho backing him up, Fernando in place of Yaya would have given Silva, Sterling and De Bruyne more space in the final third.

Juventus smelt blood the moment Vincent Kompany forced an own goal against their main man Giorgio Chiellini, they felt robbed by the referee and upped the tempo. Pellegrini bottled it and substituted Kompany at the wrong time fearing he would end up injured, as great as Otamendi is, bringing him straight into the game at such a stupid time when he hasn't ever played a full game for City yet, was just asking for it and what happened? You know the rest. Otamendi should have been played from the start along side Kompany, but no Pellegrini cowards out not wanting to split up Kompany and Mangala and what happens? Mangala was to blame for Juve's equaliser after failing to pick up Mandzukic. A lot of City fans were up in arms in support of Mangala while I warned them Mangala would eventually come undone and start making big mistakes, I believe if Otamendi was started in place of Mangala and if Kompany wasn't taken off we would have won or at least drawn, Pellegrini dropping Iheanacho, his team selection and substitutions led to Juventus's second goal and victory.

On that note well done to Juventus for turning up as Chelsea, effective performance but second most utterly boring team I've ever had the privilege to have to watch. I'd rather watch Crystal Palace in the wind and rain, see you in Turin.

My team selection would have been Iheanacho, Sterling, Silva, De Bruyne, Yaya, Fernandinho, Sagna, Otamendi, Kompany, Kolarov, Hart. Substitutions: Sergio on in place of Sterling and Demichelis on in place of Kompany.

Manuel Pellegrini to blame but I hope he see's the error of his ways for City's sake.

Football Myth Debunk: United Are Not In Manchester, Who Are Ya?

Greater Manchester is a collective mass of 70 local government districts controlled by 10 separate County Borough's as shown in the map above. Each borough is governed by it's own County Council, governed by a single council. The GMC 'Greater Manchester Council' as they are better known are the 10 councils who share power over Greater Manchester, to my knowledge at least 8 of these boroughs partly share/shared the Manchester Postcode M.

For far too long now I've heard and read about the Red and Blue Half of Manchester? In most of those cases it has been suggested that both clubs represent Manchester. If that's the case how can Manchester United claim to represent the entire Greater Manchester area as Manchester 'United' or Manchester even when a Manchester City FC already exists? Or when Bolton, Wigan, Stockport, Oldham, Rochdale or Bury etc all have their own official County clubs.

Back in 1878 Newton Heath was a neighbouring Lancashire town, Manchester had a smaller area back then until the City of Manchester expanded to include the likes of Newton Heath among other area's. By 1890 Ardwick, as in Ardwick Association FC aka Manchester City FC were already inside the boundaries of Manchester 3 years before Newton Heath.

In 1894 Ardwick Association FC were renamed Manchester City FC and announced as the representative club of Manchester by Manchester City Council and recognised by the Lord Mayor of Manchester.

In January of 1902 Newton Heath's very own club Captain Harry Stafford scoured Greater Manchester for 4 local business men who all paid around £500 each to save the club in exchange for shares after receiving a Winding up Order due to a large amount of DEBT. In April of 1902 those businessmen decided they needed to change Newton Heath's name to Manchester United to try gain more prestige due to being over shadowed by Manchester City FC.

In 1904 Manchester City won Manchester's first nationally recognised honour by winning the FA Cup after winning the Second Division title in 1899. By this time Manchester City were truly recognised as the City of Manchester's true representatives.

In 1910 Manchester United moved out of Manchester and into the neighbouring Borough of Trafford to date, that's currently almost 105 years (14/09/2015) that they have been outside the walls of Manchester. In my opinion they represent a myth, a lie and disrespect to Manchester City and the rest of Greater Manchester, their claim too Manchester or Greater Manchester is both invalid and hollow.

In the early 1960s a large population of Manchester supported both United and Manchester City, my father included supported both clubs as a child up until United became bankrolled and more successful by which time most Manchester schools boys betrayed City in favour of following the majority in pledging allegiance to United, despite this Manchester City still pulled in an impressive amount of support as documented by history, yet Manchester City FC refused to go away too this very day.

Last year I asked a United fan to explain to me what 'United' stood for, I reminded them that Manchester already had a club before United even existed aka Manchester City, and that it can't be that they represent Greater Manchester as a whole because the borough's also have official clubs themselves. They replied by saying 'United' represents their global fan base, I quietly chuckled under my breath.

I felt obliged to type this out after an article titled There's another Teenager in Manchester making headlines this weekend? referring to Anthony Martial of Trafford United and Kelechi Iheanacho of Manchester City FC. that's right Trafford, NOT Manchester.

In my opinion the argument over whether Manchester is red or blue is just hollow and pointless, what does matter is that Manchester City FC hold the honour of being Manchester's only true representatives and that Manchester City still hold a huge amount of local support. Despite decades of financial trouble, despite decades of  uncertainty and relegation and despite having to watch our unwelcome neighbours buying glory and goading every other club around with their wealth and success.

I can only hope our new age support currently growing do not do the same as the rags, for that to come about we need to help educate them if they stray from the path that our club and fan base have long walked. A path of level headed humility and pride, our sensibility and respect for those who we believe deserve respect. Not once have I met a fan of another club outside the established elite with a bad word to say about a Manchester City fan, that speaks volumes for our fan base as it stands.

We've long been branded as the bitters but we all know this was never the case, I myself went to school with a lot of United fans in the late 1980s and early 1990s and not once did it ever bother me what they said or what their club achieved. It always seemed to be them doing the mouthing off but I have to say the fact we were for a majority of the time in different leagues meant I hardly paid them any attention at all, it was like they never even existed until Derby day that is. I admit I had a healthy level of envy but that was about as far as my emotion went, after all Manchester City were my love and what happened elsewhere had no real interest for me.

I've always been of sound mind that they are bitter at the fact we represent who they falsely try to represent, we stand for what they want to stand for and that our very existence proves their clubs foundations, clubs current name are based on a myth.

Rant over.