Arsenal vs. Manchester City: Arsene Wenger, Roberto Mancini in Tactical Battle

Manchester City host Arsenal at the Etihad Stadium this Sunday for their Round 16 Premier League duel. In comparison to this encounter, the rest of the week's matches are mere undercards. This is the headline, the real deal. So who will win?

While speculation is sweet, I must resist. Let's look instead at the coaches. What tactics will they bring to the match?

If history is anything to go by, we must conclude that, barring any sudden and out-of-character tactical evolution by Roberto Mancini, Arsene Wenger will emerge on top. Here is why.

First of all, in the last three meetings between the two clubs, Wenger has outfoxed Mancini in the tactical duel. For example, in the corresponding fixture last year, Arsenal's attack cut City's midfield and defense to pieces so much so that City's defense looked like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights.

This, of course, led to the red card, which City fans appeal to—naturally—as the cause of their three-nil defeat. The question that must first inform any conclusion, though, is the one that addresses the forced error that led to the red card.

City were so shaken by their first experience that when the return leg was played at the Emirates, they remained tamely in their own half, much like hopeless warriors of a city under siege. Arsenal took four points to the bank, grumbling along the way about how City refused to play football.

Hearing them, one almost thought two sports were played on the field in this second encounter: football by Arsenal, and...what?...Handball by City?!

The third encounter is, of course, the recent Carling Cup match in which City fielded a much stronger team than Arsenal, but only won the match by a stroke of luck. This leads us to the second point.

Two striking things became evident in this third match, the first of which was Wenger's surprising 4-4-2 formation.

This, as easy as it sounds, is what stumped Mancini and led to the early and unplanned substitution of Aleksandar Kolarov, the tame claim afterwards that he had been injured notwithstanding. This, in turn, leads us to the second sub-point.

This pertains to Mancini's tactical astuteness. I have questioned it elsewhere, and I did so not so I could take cheap shots at him, but because I have found his tactical decisions on occasion to be rather questionable. Two examples are on hand.

Manchester City should not have lost the Champions League match against Bayern Munich. That they did owes a great deal to Mancini's bizarre reaction to the goals the team conceded.

Before the goals, City were cruising and it looked like only a matter of time before a City goal would come. But by a turn of hard luck, City conceded a freak goal, freak because these are the kinds of goals that can best be described as unfortunate.

It came from a speculative shot, the rebound of which Mario Gomez scooped home. The second was almost identical.

The point is, these weren't goals conceded because City had been outplayed. They were simple and unlucky goals, and with the way City had been playing hitherto, a comeback wasn't out of the question for City.

But what did Mancini do? He pulled off Edin Dzeko, a striker known for his potency, and fielded Nigel De Jong, a defensive midfielder. Mancini later claimed this was a move to prevent City from conceding more goals. 

I do not buy his argument on this ground: City didn't concede the two goals because of any shaky defensive display. In fact, nobody would have predicted that the first goal wouldn't be City's. Like I said, these were unfortunate goals and were not a result of any tactical miscue. This substitution therefore was made out of cowardice.

And moreover, this was only the first game of the group. City could have afforded to be a little more bold and adventurous; they could have attacked their opponent and pushed for the equalizing goals. They had all of the second half to do so.

Here's the second example. But let me cite someone else who shares similar sentiments to mine:

"

When City went down to 10 men at Stamford Bridge, he took off the only players who could lead a counter attack – Sergio Aguero and David Silva – and replaced them with a defender (Toure) and a defensive midfielder (Nigel de Jong).

He basically conceded any hopes of winning the game with 15 minutes left, with the score level at 1-1, and decided to eliminate any chance his team had of scoring a quick breakaway goal. Someone like Nasri or Johnson could have provided a spark against a tired Chelsea defense on a heavy and soggy pitch. Furthermore, one of those flair players would surely have been able to earn a few free-kicks in City’s attacking third and take the pressure off their defense for a few minutes.

"

To be fair, there's an argument to be made here regarding Mancini's reason for this particular substitution, the nub of which is that he aimed to tie the game and take home a useful point. One can point to the fact that he did bring on a striker after City conceded the second goal.

Still, one must grant that the above argument has merit, for whatever the strength of this counter argument, the two cases I have cited above—the cowardly defensive approach at Arsenal last year and the Bayern Munich match—are damning indictments.

The point being made here is the very reason why Mancini angers his players when he chooses to simply yank them off the field when things are not going as expected, instead of making tactical adjustment to the match, the far better option. But let me rephrase: He does make adjustments; unfortunately they often are not bold ones.

My assessment of Mancini comes to this: He, in short, is not bold enough, if at all. That's why City crashed out of the Champions League. He lacks the courage to persevere with his game plan when said plans encounter a hitch. (This is a weakness other managers should—or can surely—exploit.)

Notice that Pep Guardiola did not simply yank off Victor Valdes for his costly mistake at the Clásico nor Cesc Fabregas, who but for the goal, did not particularly have a good game in this match.

Arsene Wenger, on the other hand, attacks and attacks. This is not to say that this is always the prudent way to go about things. But at least Wenger always believe he can win, even when the situation seems to indicate otherwise.

Two examples come to mind: the Chelsea game at Stamford Bridge and the Champions League victory over Barcelona at the Emirates early this year. On the flip side, this has occasionally cost Arsenal a match.

The key, then, for the two managers is to adjust properly to the changing situations of the match. For Wenger, if he can balance attack with defense, he is likely to take a point or even three from the match.

For Mancini, he could have an easy ride if things go City's way in the early parts of the game.

If they prove frustrating, however, watch for erratic substitutions and loss of belief, which comes inevitably when City plays organized sides that refuse to fold. (Against a lesser side, he displays uncharacteristic boldness; the reason is not hard to understand.)

Two warriors, then, will lead their sides into battle. The most astute tactically should win. The balance between attack and defense will be crucial. One will fold if things refuse to yield; the other will continue to pummel the stubborn wall. 

I hope to write a more technical preview of the match before Sunday. For now, tell me what you think.