THE DERBY THAT NO ONE REALLY TRIED TO WIN
Ole and Pep make it a drab affair as both teams seem quite happy to avoid defeat
MAYBE it’s just the season to be jolly careful. Perhaps the extraordinary times we live in call for security over flamboyance. If so, this was a Manchester derby in keeping with the spirit of the age. Like Jose Mourinho and Frank Lampard when Spurs took on Chelsea last month, this felt like a derby neither manager wanted to lose.
Pep Guardiola looks like a man who has settled for middle-aged contentment over youthful dynamism.
Gone are his trailblazing days setting the continent alight with artistic brillance. Now settled in Manchester with his new contract, he is secure, conservative and comfortable. And coaching his least exciting team ever.
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was a man under pressure, having been knocked out of the Champions League in midweek.
So this always had the makings of a humdrum affair.
Guardiola pronounced the game ‘good’ and he could at least point to City having the best opportunities.
Gabriel Jesus shot over after 27 minutes, Riyad Mahrez had a shot blocked by David de Gea in the 35th minute and Kevin de Bruyne hit a rebound over the bar. All were chances that should have been taken.
So they might have won the game. But a Guardiola team has a watermark stamp which guarantees excitement and dynamism and football played in the extremes of possibility. This Manchester City team, with 17 goals in 11 games, is exceptional only in its banality. You can see it in the number of times in a game that De Bruyne throws up his arm in exasperation.
Meanwhile, Solskjaer felt this was the best his team had played in a Manchester derby under him, which seemed bizarre given the scintillating football they played to beat City at The Etihad last season. What he meant, he explained, was that he is now in charge of a team that has more control of a match.
‘That’s what I’m saying — possession on the ball, control,’ he said. ‘Of course, last year we could have blown them away between 10th and 25th minute. We could have scored four goals, an unbelievable counter-attacking performance. But we had 30 per cent possession in the second half and were hanging on. There were less moments to hang here. Maybe that’s because they had more respect for us.
‘I like to think we’ve developed that side of it. We just didn’t have enough t o get t hose counter attacks.’
Therein lies the United conundrum. Are they making progress or treading water? Solskjaer had abandoned the back three which came to grief in Leipzig and reverted to a back four.
The plan was flood the midfield with Scott McTominay, Fred, Paul Pogba and Bruno Fernandes. It’s a standard anti-City device — force them wide and make them play hopeful crosses into the box, rather than allowing them to sweep through the centre of the pitch with incisive passing.
United were good in bits. So, on 29 minutes, when Aaron Wan-Bissaka and Fernandes combined down the right they looked scintillating, even if Fernandes fouled up the final pass. And looked a threat again when Fernandes swept in a ball for Marcus Rashford to run on to, coaxing Kyle Walker into a rash tackle and briefly winning a p e n a l t y, before VAR i ntervened with the offside.
As such, the game l a c ked a definitive moment by which to judge Solskjaer. Yet this week we will be two years into his tenure and still there is no clear idea of what his default formation is. They’re not without spirit and Solskjaer almost fetishises their comebacks like some sacred rite performed in honour of Ferguson. The counter-attack is Solskjaer’s only signature move. All his best performances have come playing that way. And it is true that Sir Alex Ferguson’s team were also a fearsome countering force. But they were so much more than that. They could also break down teams who sat back — whether by design or sheer individual brilliance they found a way, certainly in the Premier League. Too often, Solskjear’s team are baffled when asked to take the initiative. At best you could argue that United are making baby steps. Clearly, the team has more coherence and quality than it did under Louis van Gaal. At its best, it is better to watch than under Jose Mourinho. But if trophies are your thing, you would take Mourinho over Solskjaer any day. United aren’t terrible, despite the calamities in Istanbul and Leipzig. And they have fine players. What might we make of this team if it had Jadon Sancho and RB Leipzig’s Dayot Upamecano, one of Europe’s best centre halves? Those are the players Solskjaer wanted in the summer who United didn’t get. That would make them a strong proposition. But it would still be a team relying on the brilliance of fine players rather than a clear, coached plan. They wouldn’t be bad enough to merit the sack for Solskjaer, nor good enough for a return to glory. Take your pick — either United are l i mpi n g along badly wounded, unlikely to r e c o v e r, or they’re making such steady progress t hat it’s just hard to discern.