At the conclusion of Pep’s first year at the helm of City, I was lucky enough to be at a block party with retired City center back (and GSB member Joel Jordan’s father-in-law) Dave Watson. This legendary hard-man of the 1970s, actually a gentle soul off the pitch, was eager to engage in a conversation about whether Pep’s brand of football could work in England. In short, he was skeptical. All this short passing in the midfield, and this insistence on playing out of the back… it wasn’t direct enough. The English game was too fast and too physical and you need players who exemplify these qualities: pacey, strong centerbacks (like Dave himself, in his heyday) and a powerful and efficient center forward.

    An unapologetic follower of the cult of tiki-taka, I argued fervently for Pep’s approach, but didn’t have much support at the time. Pep had relegated Joe Hart to the bench in order for Claudio Bravo (supposedly a better distributor) to make short passes to panicked-looking centerbacks and wingbacks who, as often as not, turned the ball over and created an opportunity for the other side. It's hard to believe at this point, but in those early days, City's experiment with Pep-ball was close to becoming a national laughing stock.

    Fast forward to the present. City, by playing Pep’s way, has become dominant. So dominant that the main complaint of the team’s detractors (after “blood money”) is that we are so good that we are boring to watch. City has made an art form out of playing out of the back; a goal-scoring industry out of the striker-less attack. And yet… thinking back to Mr. Watson’s sage ambivalence… it's still true that the jury is out on aspects of Pep’s approach. Time after time, the seemingly unstoppable goal-scoring engine of City’s attack has sputtered out of gas in the latter stages of the Champion’s league, typically against opponents who pack their defensive line and deny City’s midfielders space. The problems have been two-fold: finding a way through a wall of bodies parked in the box, and then finishing the chances they have created. Would a genuine thoroughbred striker be capable of breaking down defensive log jams and capitalizing on rare chances in these tough situations? We’ve all wondered the same thing.

    This weekend, City looks to build early momentum in a fixture that pits the reigning champs against newly promoted Bournemouth. For City supporters, a key point of interest will be watching Erling Haaland continue to explore his role at the forefront of City’s attack. The recent addition of the Norwegian striker to the squad amounts to a fascinating tactical experiment, with an enormous amount at stake.

    Under Guardiola, City have proven that a team can dominate in the Premier League without a classic #9. This is a matter of principle for city’s skipper, and a point of pride. It has seemed at times like Pep’s secondary mission, beside bringing hardware to the Etihad, has been to prove to the world that his brand of football is the best brand of football. And while City has thoroughly dominated English competition in recent years, conquest in Europe has evaded Pep year after year, further begging the question whether a team can win at the very highest echelon of club football without a central point of attack.

    Now, a team built around the lack of a traditional striker has at its disposal arguably the most innately dangerous attacker on the planet – a goal scorer of prodigious gifts, who seems mentally and physically designed to receive the ball in the final third and put it in the back of the net. How will Erling Haaland fit into an offensive setup that was carefully constructed around the intentional absence of exactly the kind of player he represents? To answer this question, we have to think briefly about what exactly Pep has against playing with a clear striker. What exactly are the benefits of a false 9?

    On one hand, Pep doesn’t like playing with a striker because it makes an offense more predictable. He has repeatedly made comments to this effect in interviews, asking why any team would publicly announce to the opposition where they are going to send the ball. It’s a great question. Why would you stick a label on a single player and tell the other team you’re going to repeatedly play the ball into him? This makes life so much easier for the opposing center backs because they know where to focus their attention. Pep’s offense, developed initially around the particular skill-set of Lionel Messi, pulls the ostensible striker back into midfield (hopefully taking a center back or two with him) and then presents the defense with a swirling midfield, out of which any number of players might actually make the decisive run and put the ball in the back of the net.

    (By the way, you can see the influence of this tactical approach on the way Messi continues to play, now a decade removed from Pep’s tutelage – he’s the most potent weapon on the field at all times, but doesn’t announce himself as such, fading into the woodwork for entire periods of the game in order to lull the opposing defense to sleep, before abruptly making a trademark run into the box.)

    The other reason Pep doesn’t like playing with a classic striker, apart from its predictability, is dropping an additional attacker into the midfield allows him to overload that territory, which is the most crucial space to his tactical setup. The ostensible striker becomes an additional central attacking midfielder, and this allows City to dominate possession in the midfield. It also allows the wingers to play extremely wide, a Pep trademark, and it creates localized overloads - 3v2 situations - that allow City’s attackers to play triangles in behind the other team’s backs and penetrate. These are the cornerstones of Pep’s offense – possession, width, and the exploitation of localized overloads that target the little pockets of space between the opponents’ defenders. Simply put, having an extra midfielder is worth more to this approach than having a striker.

    Now, back to the question at hand. How will Erling Haaland fit into this scheme? It’s a truly interesting situation – Pep saying to the world, in essence, “Forget what I’ve been saying and doing for my entire career, we’re going to provide service to this man… just try and stop us.” Has there ever been a striker with more of a target on his back?

    So far, early evidence suggests that Pep is quite willing to adapt his approach to Haaland, rather than expecting Haaland to become vintage Lionel Messi and drop into midfield. The Norwegian striker has largely stayed high up the pitch, and has focused on making diagonal runs behind the defense and getting on the end of crosses, rather than on midfield linkup play designed to release another player in on goal. Last week, letting Haaland be Haaland worked. His two goals in the first game of the season seemed to validate the notion that positioning a prolific point man in front of City’s skilled playmakers – DeBruyne, Gundogan, Grealish, will be a nightmare for the opposing defenders. Perhaps this will hold true throughout the season.

    There are other possibilities that could still work out in City's favor. City have proven that they can outscore practically everyone they face by relying on midfielders to find space in dangerous areas. Those midfielders remain a threat even when Haaland is on the pitch. For the other team's defenders, focusing on him as a target will mean ignoring the runs of Foden, Silva, and Debruyne. Not a great defensive situation to be in. Moreover, if Haaland starts the season off by scoring two goals per game, the double-teams will come, and opponents will attempt to smother Haaland by playing both centerbacks narrow. This prospect must make Pep salivate. He can then exploit the wide spaces, or withdraw Haaland into midfield periodically, false 9 style, and create space behind the lines. The addition of Haaland might not mean a retreat from Pep's principles, but paradoxically an upgrade of his tactical approach. Pep-ball 2.0, in which a minor, but consequential bug has been fixed.

    But many shoes are still to drop. Many questions still unanswered.

    This weekend might provide a partial answer to one of those questions. The Cherries bested Aston Villa in their first game of the season, 2-0, but had only about 30% of the ball, and were fortunate in their success rate when on the attack. It is safe to assume they are still trying to find their footing in the Premier League. All signs point to a game in which City will totally dominate possession and Bournemouth will pack the box and try to deny Haaland space and weather the storm, looking to counterpunch and win a point or three in a low-scoring game. This has been one of the trickiest situations for City – the one where the other team, to paraphrase Pep, decides not to play football. Will Haaland’s height, his physicality, and his clinical finishing ability allow him to overcome a low block? Or will City’s wingers spend the entire game chipping crosses pointlessly into a wall of defenders? Will this year’s City be all too similar to the teams of recent years… dominant but wasteful, creating chances it can’t finish? Can’t wait to find out.