The Sun (Malaysia)

Silva’s time to shine

> City’s midfield maestro excelled in central role against Chelsea in Community Shield

- BY JACK PITT-BROOKE

IT MIGHT be too early to make prediction­s about the football season at a match where the temperatur­e is 28°C, where the players take organised drinks breaks, at a point in the summer when the schools have only just broken up and there are still four Test matches left to be played.

But sometimes you have to risk being premature and just go with what you see and feel: that this is going to be the season of Bernardo Silva.

That is how good he was on Sunday in the Community Shield, the best player on the pitch by a distance and the main reason why Manchester City lifted the third trophy of the Pep Guardiola era.

Chelsea could not lay a finger on Silva all afternoon, he was always too aware, too sharp, too clever, too incisive.

He directed City’s play with and without the ball, made City’s second and ensuring that every last detail of Guardiola’s plans were executed on the pitch.

Throughout, Silva looked like a player who was flourishin­g in the trust and responsibi­lity that Guardiola had given him. Because last season it felt as if City did not quite get the very best from the clever little midfielder from Lisbon.

The nature of modern football is that the biggest teams have far more money and far more top players than anyone else. That is how Manchester City have ended up with three of the best creative midfielder­s in the country.

David Silva and Kevin De Bruyne are on another level from every other midfielder in the country. But the next best, if it is not Christian Eriksen, might just be Bernardo Silva.

So last season, after making his £43 million (RM228m) transfer to City

from Monaco, Silva had to find his way into the English game. He had to learn that the ball was in play for longer, more like 80 minutes each game, rather than 60 minutes, as he observed himself. And with David Silva and De Bruyne occupying those two attacking midfield positions in City’s 4-3-3, there was no obvious role for him in the team. Silva started 28 competitiv­e games last year but rather than in midfield he played most often on the right of the front three. He is good there but never quite has the accelerati­on to beat his leftback on the outside, forcing him back towards the crowded midfield area. But it never felt like he could control the game as he would want to. That changed on Sunday. David Silva is still not fully fit yet and De Bruyne not ready yet, just three weeks on from playing for Belgium against England in the World Cup third placed play-off game in St Petersburg. So Silva, knocked out of the World Cup at the last-16 stage, is ahead of them already. And he showed that he was more than good enough to step up. He played the first half in that role David Silva usually plays, and he took he game to Chelsea, leading City’s pressing, stealing the ball high up the pitch, running through Chelsea’s unbalanced open midfield with ease. Trusted to be the team’s main creative brains – that is not the case when De Bruyne and David Silva play – he saw more of the ball than usual, made more passes and looked like he was enjoying his spell manning the controls. Silva will never have the physical power and explosive energy of De Bruyne, but he does have all the skills required be the long-term replacemen­t for David Silva, in the role he began in at Wembley. Still just 23, Silva has all the ability in the world and valuable experience to match. That gradual transition from one Silva to the other could happen sooner than anyone thought, and this could be Bernardo’s year. – The Independen­t

 ??  ?? Chelsea's Jorginho (left) vies with Man City's Bernardo Silva during the English FA Community Shield match at Wembley Stadium yesterday. –
Chelsea's Jorginho (left) vies with Man City's Bernardo Silva during the English FA Community Shield match at Wembley Stadium yesterday. –
 ??  ?? come out of a situation where certain highprofil­e moves – specifical­ly Alex Oxlade-Chamberlai­n from an Arsenal that had just lost 4-0 to Liverpool – had created a bit of a distractio­n around the first few games. That was it.“Those were the issues most of the clubs arguing in favour were using, that once the season has started we should know that we can’t possibly sell to another Premier League club,” chairman Richard Scudamore said at the time.“I think they just decided: ‘We’re going to break for the border, go it alone, put our marker down, go with it.’As one figure already involved in some deals this summer told The Independen­t: “A lot less business is going to be done, because there’s a lot less time, and the worst thing is it was all so obvious.”There a number of other reasons the decision beggared belief at the time, and not just because it afforded such a negotiatio­n advantage to foreign clubs with their windows still open, or the fact the first window after the vote involved a World Cup. For example, if the buying clubs were having such trouble getting these “distractin­g” deals done in extended windows, did they really think shortening the timeframe would make it easier? And what of the clubs with wantaway players? Since so much of the previous problems came from them digging their heels in when negotiatin­g, what did they think shortening the timeframe was going to do? Not for the first time, the biggest club put the biggest light on this, and best illustrate some of the complicati­ons. Manchester United were actually one of five clubs – along withManche­ster
come out of a situation where certain highprofil­e moves – specifical­ly Alex Oxlade-Chamberlai­n from an Arsenal that had just lost 4-0 to Liverpool – had created a bit of a distractio­n around the first few games. That was it.“Those were the issues most of the clubs arguing in favour were using, that once the season has started we should know that we can’t possibly sell to another Premier League club,” chairman Richard Scudamore said at the time.“I think they just decided: ‘We’re going to break for the border, go it alone, put our marker down, go with it.’As one figure already involved in some deals this summer told The Independen­t: “A lot less business is going to be done, because there’s a lot less time, and the worst thing is it was all so obvious.”There a number of other reasons the decision beggared belief at the time, and not just because it afforded such a negotiatio­n advantage to foreign clubs with their windows still open, or the fact the first window after the vote involved a World Cup. For example, if the buying clubs were having such trouble getting these “distractin­g” deals done in extended windows, did they really think shortening the timeframe would make it easier? And what of the clubs with wantaway players? Since so much of the previous problems came from them digging their heels in when negotiatin­g, what did they think shortening the timeframe was going to do? Not for the first time, the biggest club put the biggest light on this, and best illustrate some of the complicati­ons. Manchester United were actually one of five clubs – along withManche­ster

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malaysia