The many ways of losing to Manchester City

Bournemouth played relatively well in their loss to Manchester City on Saturday, which is about as much as anyone can hope for these days.

It is a truth, universally lied about in pre-match press conferences, that no mid-table manager goes into a match against Manchester City expecting to win. Playing the Citizens has become over the past two seasons an exercise in damage limitation. They haven’t lost to a non-big six side in the Premier League since January of 2017, and have failed to pick up maximum points against non-big six sides on only five occasions (out of a possible 35) since the beginning of last season.

That is a remarkable record, as evidenced by how (comparatively) frequently their closest rivals struggle against similar opposition. In the same time period, Liverpool have dropped points eight times against non-big six sides. Chelsea and Tottenham have done the same on 10 occasions, Arsenal 12 and Manchester United 13. Even in an era when the gap between the richest sides in the league and the rest is greater than it has ever been, City stand out for the ability to dominate lesser opponents.

Of course City benefit from certain financial advantages even compared to the other members of the big six, but this record is primarily a testament to the variety and inventiveness of the attack Pep Guardiola has built. Where Liverpool and Chelsea and the rest often labor to break down deep-lying defenses, City seem to glide through games, overloading one side of the penalty area, then the other, then the other, until their opponents inevitably wilt, unable to handle the sheer relentlessness of the passing, the movement, the quality on the ball.

This dominance has come at a price, however. There is no such thing as objectively beautiful soccer, but if there was it would surely look something like the soccer City are playing under Guardiola. We want quick, creative passing. We want players who are capable of interchanging positions. We want teams who are committed to scoring as many goals as possible, regardless of the occasion, regardless of the opponent. City give us all of this, every week, and in the process remind us that what makes us crave this style of play is perhaps above all the risks inherent in it. Which leaves us with a difficult question: What is beautiful soccer when defeat isn’t on the line, not really?

Bournemouth did all that anyone can expect from a team of their size and financial means to do against City. They had a clear game plan, sitting deep but willing to commit numbers forward when they had opportunities to break. They didn’t give up, as so many teams do, when City scored their opener. They even fought their way back into the game, equalizing through Callum Wilson shortly before halftime.

But they lost. Of course they lost. City moved through their apparently infinite number of gears in the second half. Raheem Sterling terrorized Charlie Daniels (who the Cherries bought for $50K from Leyton Orient, then of League One, in 2011) and City scored a second, then a third and easily could have added a fourth and a fifth in the closing stages.

Eddie Howe’s side emerge from the match with much credit, as it seems they will emerge from the season with much credit. Unfortunately the relevant question for teams such as his facing Manchester City these days isn’t whether or not they won, or even drew, but about the manner in which they lost.