Anyway, this loss is squarely on naive Pep tactics. Defending is part of the game. You take a 2 goal lead to France yet you start only one recognized central midfielder while allowing Yaya to rot on the bench. Wharraheck. He could've helped to shore up the midfield and also help defend aerial set plays. Na wa.
I don't know that defending or lack thereof was necessarily the key issue in the loss. For me it was clearly the inability to convert the chances created. And there were a legion of them...
The presumption is had they scored one of the missed chances, they would've kept scoring but that's theory and not reality. In reality, when they did score, Monaco took over the initiative and eventually scored the winning goal. What could've happened is not bankable. What's bankable though, is what you already have or had on the score board like the 5 goals from leg 1 and the 1 goal last night before they scored the third. In both of those bankable situations, City was in the driver's seat and in control of their destiny.
This is CL. There are no easy opponents at this level of the competition. Yaya played well in the first leg and even though Pep initially started with an attacking plan - which I understand because its his philosophy, and even though I disagree with his approach, Yaya wasn't an option when they were down and chasing the game at 0-2 but he could and should have brought on Yaya after they had finally managed to battle back and edge ahead on away goals rule with less than 20 mins left. Generally, when teams are holding onto a slim lead with less than 20mins left against a difficult opponent (especially away from home), the manager tightens up the remaining midfield gaps with subs with further consideration on defending set pieces and obvious desperate aerial balls that are lumped in the box with the clock winding down. All the winning manger do this including many that have an attacking philosophy. This one is mostly on Pep and I'm far from his biggest critic but he & City didn't have to go out like this. They should be in the QF.
I understand your point but I'm analyzing the game as it played out, not how it SHOULD HAVE.
And based on how it played out, the key issue was the missed chances.
ManCity conceded 6 goals and scored 6 over 2 games, they conceded 3 in the return leg and the problem was not scoring more?
edit: Couldn't Monaco have score more goals in both legs as well (including a missed penalty)?
The beauty of reviewing a football match that has been played is that u have data. Its not what they could've or should've done. Its about how the game actually played out, and what were the key factors in it.
The PRIMARY problem on the day was not taking their chances.
The game played out in a way that Monaco beat City and one would think that the number of goals Monaco scored over 90/180 minutes might have been a key factor in it
The primary problem of that day was defending like school boys. Take a look at the second Monaco goal:https://www.clippituser.tv/c/bpmvp
Lemar has the ball on the wing and is facing a city defender. Left-back Mendy makes a run, Lemar passes the ball to him, he crosses the ball and that cross results in a goal. That kind of defending cannot be excused, where was City's second player to offer support?
Fun fact: City has conceded 3, 4 and 1 goals in their away games against Celtic, Barca and Gladbach (failing to win a single game).
Fun fact 2: Guardiola has only won away knock out match in the CL in 10 attempts with City and Bayern.