Man City will not win the Premier League this season, and it is Pep Guardiola’s fault.
He may be the most influential tactician in modern coaching, someone who has changed how the game is played from youth levels through to the top professional tiers in every corner of the globe, but he has a weak spot — one that I will argue has possibly derailed more careers than it has helped.
“Load Management”
On this side of the pond, load management only became a widely used term in the early 2010s, emerging first in basketball. Teams like the San Antonio Spurs began resting star players in select games around 2010–12 as a strategic choice to preserve them for later in the season, and the phrase entered the broader sporting lexicon as fans and media began to complain about stars sitting out regular-season contests.
That logic fits North American sport. The NBA has long seasons, large rosters, and a playoff system where what really matters is being healthy in April, May, and June. Teams can afford to lose games along the way as long as they make the postseason.
As it is in most North American sports, the regular season is a means to an end.
Why Soccer Is a Different Problem
It’s one thing to do strategic rest in basketball — a sport with unlimited substitutions, five on the floor at a time, and 12-player rosters. In soccer, it’s different. A team fields 11 players, can make up to five substitutions in 90 minutes, and squads are often 25 players or more.
A Premier League season has 38 league games. Add domestic cups, European competitions, and national team duty and the busiest players often exceed 60 matches in a season, with some pushing past 70 competitive appearances. That does not include friendlies or pre-season.
More importantly, every league game matters. There is no playoff cushion. Points dropped in September count the same as points dropped in April. You cannot coast through the schedule and wait to turn it on later.
Top squads can play three times in a 10-day span multiple times in a campaign, and it is common for elite players to be involved in repeated high-intensity matches week after week for months.
In this environment, load management is not about skipping games.
It is about surviving the season.
The Game Has Changed
As the game has become more physical, the demands on players have risen in measurable ways. High-speed running and sprint distances — the efforts most tied to mechanical load and fatigue — have increased sharply in elite soccer over the past 10–15 years. Long-term tracking shows that high-speed running has risen by roughly 25–30 percent and sprint distance by around 40–50 percent across top leagues, even while total distance per match has stayed relatively stable.
Modern match play now includes more repeated accelerations, more sprints, and higher peak speeds than in previous eras, driven by pressing, transitions, and tactical compactness. These are the exact actions that load the hamstrings, calves, and hip extensors most heavily.
Those rising demands come with a cost. Muscle and soft-tissue injuries, especially hamstring strains, have increased steadily over the past two decades. A large UEFA-led surveillance study showed that hamstring injuries in elite football rose by about 4 percent per year across a 13-year period, making them the single most common injury type in the professional game. More recent work links spikes in high-speed and sprint running to elevated injury risk, particularly when players exceed their habitual sprint exposure.
This means the modern soccer player is not just running more — they are running faster, more often, and with less recovery between efforts.
Depth Is a Load-Management Tool
To deal with this, many teams have started to carry larger squads and rotate more often to protect their best players. The logic is simple. More depth allows minutes to be shared, workloads to be managed, and stars to stay available across long seasons.
Pep Guardiola does not buy into that approach.
He prefers a smaller squad. His view is that it is unfair for players to be part of the group but not truly part of the team. He has spoken often about avoiding “bad faces” in the dressing room, so he keeps the squad lean in the hope that everyone feels involved.
The risk is obvious.
When injuries hit a small squad, there is no buffer. There is no depth to absorb the loss. Minutes shift to players who are not at the same level, and performance drops.
Pep’s Contradiction
“But Stu – City’s squad is pretty big, isn’t it?”
Well, usually, no – but right now, it kinda is.
But – even when the squad is large, Guardiola needs to trust the players at the “end of the bench.” If he does not, they may as well not exist.
After last season’s collapse, City went back into the market and added depth across the pitch. The idea was clear and obvious. A stronger starting eleven and a deeper squad would allow increased rotation, protect key players, and give the group a chance to survive a long season.
That was the theory.
In practice, Guardiola did the opposite. He kept playing the same players. Even when the risks were obvious. Even when fatigue was visible. Even when injuries were already stacking up.
This is not new. Arsenal ran into the same wall last season. Mikel Arteta leaned on a small group of trusted players, week after week, until the team ran out of energy and bodies. The first-choice eleven could compete with anyone. The moment a few pieces went missing, everything unraveled.
Guardiola has walked into the same pattern.
Twenty games into this Premier League season, City have leaned on a tight core of players while others barely see the field. In the draw against Chelsea, Guardiola used only three of his five substitutions, two of them forced by injury, even though the team was visibly fading. He chose to squeeze more minutes out of tired starters rather than turn to the bench.
Foden, Cherki, Rodri, O’Reilly – all clearly out on their feet. They all managed to finish the game somehow.
Not so for starting central defenders Ruben Dias and Josko Gvardiol, who both went down with non-contact injuries, and are now out for weeks.
The decision to not rotate, or not to sub, showed up late in the match. City dominated early, but by the final 15 minutes they were hanging on. Players who had controlled the game were suddenly chasing shadows. Gaps opened. Pressure built. The equalizer felt inevitable.
Look at the minutes. A small group has carried the load. 20-year-old midfielder O’Reilly has started ten straight league games at left fullback, even though City spent around £36 million on Rayan Ait-Nouri [an actual left back] in the summer.
Ballon d’Or winner Rodri played 90 minutes three days after his first game in months, after two hamstring tears, one quad tear, and one ACL tear in the last 15 months. A 31-year-old who was supposed to have a reduced role is among the league leaders in minutes played. This is not smart management.
And so, predictably — oh so predictably to anyone who knows anything about load — City are now dealing with a growing injury list. First-choice defenders are missing. Midfield cover is thin. The bench is filled with academy players who Guardiola does not yet trust to change a Premier League match.
This is the cost of a small rotation.
When you rely on the same group every week, fatigue accumulates. When fatigue accumulates, injuries follow. And once injuries hit a thin rotation, the problem multiplies.
That is why health and performance work has to be woven into technical and tactical decision-making. Load, recovery, and availability are not background issues. They decide who you can actually put on the field.
Guardiola built a deeper squad to give himself flexibility.
Then he refused to use it.
That contradiction is now shaping City’s season.
The Breaking Point
This weekend’s City–Chelsea match was the game Arsenal won the title.
Chelsea were passive in the first half. They barely competed. City could have put the match away early and controlled the rest of the afternoon.
They did not.
This did not come out of nowhere. It was the predictable outcome of how this squad has been used.
One of the most important jobs of a coach is managing load. Not just in training. In lineups. In substitutions. In minutes. In how often the same players are sent back into the fire.
The best managers think in blocks. They see weeks and months ahead. They understand energy as a finite resource. They protect it, spread it, and invest it when it matters.
Poor managers think one game at a time.
What Guardiola did against Chelsea, and frankly what he has done for the last 18 months, reeked of desperation. He kept the same tired players on the field because he was chasing control in the moment, not sustainability over the season.
That way of working ruins squads.
John Stones could have gone down as one of England’s great central defenders. Instead, his body has been broken by years of being pushed back into competition without enough margin. Josko Gvardiol now faces a long absence at a time when his career should be accelerating, not stalling. He might miss out on the World Cup. 100% because of a poor decision from his club team manager.
These are not freak injuries. They are the end point of repeated overload.
Guardiola is a tactical genius. He is almost certainly the most-influential football coach of all time. But in load management he is clueless. He has been reckless. And this season and last, this finally caught up with him.
But he will keep doing the same thing.
And more players will pay the price.
This Is Not About Luck
Guardiola, like many old-school thinkers, will blame injuries on bad luck.
And yes, sometimes luck plays a role.
But most of the time, injuries come from poor management.
Poor management almost always traces back to poor system integration.
When a system breaks, it is rarely one decision. It is a failure of alignment. The objective is unclear. The rules of engagement are not shared. The technical and tactical staff are not working from the same assumptions as the health and performance group.
And too often, even the health and performance teams are not fully aligned with each other.
That is how overload slips through the cracks.
The best organizations do three things well:
- They define clear objectives.
- They establish rules of engagement for how decisions get made.
- And they maintain constant communication across every domain that touches the athlete.
When those three drift apart, chaos follows. In football, training load, match minutes, recovery, and return-to-play decisions start pulling in different directions. Everyone is doing their job, but no one is serving the system.
This is bigger than Guardiola.
It is the result of a broken operating model where tactics, performance, and health live in separate silos. The players sit at the intersection of those silos, absorbing the consequences.
When injuries rise, it is not bad luck.
It is the system telling you it is misaligned.
Why Modern Clubs Are Changing How Decisions Get Made
Which brings me to Chelsea and Manchester United.
Everyone inside professional sport already knows all of what I have written so far – at least those working in health and performance departments.
They all understand how load, fatigue, and injury risk work. The problem is not knowledge. The problem is incentives.
The coaches – the technical and tactical staff – live under constant pressure to win. That pressure pushes them to play their best players whenever they look capable of taking the field. If a player can train, the assumption becomes that he can play.
That is short-sighted.
More clubs are now trying to remove that short-term bias from the decision process. They are changing how decisions get made. Instead of the head coach acting as a single authority [i.e. a “manager”], over the last decade or so, they’ve moved toward a shared governance model. A committee, not a king.
In that model, roles are clear.
The head coach owns tactics.
The health and performance team owns load, recovery, and risk.
Those domains should not overlap. A performance staff should never tell a coach how to play. A coach should not pretend to be an expert in tissue, fatigue, or adaptation.
When it comes to how much a player can train, how often he can play, and when he is safe to return, the health and performance team’s view matters more than the coach’s instinct.
That is how modern clubs protect players.
And it is exactly what Guardiola refuses to do.
Old Authority in a New Game
And that is ultimately the tension Enzo Maresca and Ruben Amorim ran into as well.
They came up in a different model. A manager-led system. One where the manager made the call. One where the buck stopped with them. Their job was on the line, so their instinct carried the most weight.
The good ones would ask for opinions. They would listen to the people around them. But when the moment came, they trusted their gut more than the “overly-cautious” voices from the science and performance teams.
That model made sense when information was limited and systems were simple.
It breaks down in the modern game, where the loads are higher, the calendars are denser, and the cost of getting it wrong is far greater.
That is the gap these managers are now falling into.
Where This Is Headed
This is where the modern game is headed, whether managers like it or not.
The sport has changed. The bodies are bigger. The speeds are higher. The calendar is longer. The margin for error is smaller. The old model — one person, one gut, one final call — no longer fits the system.
The clubs that will win the next decade of football are not the ones with the cleverest tactics. They are the ones with the best decision systems. The ones that integrate tactics, health, and performance into a single operating model. The ones that protect availability as fiercely as they protect shape and structure.
Guardiola is a genius. Somehow, he still got City into the Champions League last season. Somehow, they will still compete this season, despite all the injuries. But he’s still playing a different game.
He is coaching a modern sport with an old governance model. One where instinct beats data. Where short-term control beats long-term resilience. Where the manager’s authority outweighs the system’s warning signs.
That is why this season is slipping away.
Not because City lack talent.
Not because Guardiola forgot how to coach.
Not because the Premier League has changed.
But because he refuses to change how decisions get made.
And in a sport this fast, this physical, and this congested, that refusal now costs titles — and careers.
References
Bangsbo, J., Mohr, M., & Krustrup, P. [2015]. Physical and metabolic demands of training and match-play in the elite football player. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33[6], 589–602.
Barnes, C., Archer, D. T., Hogg, B., Bush, M., & Bradley, P. S. [2014]. The evolution of physical and technical performance parameters in the English Premier League. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35[13], 1095–1100.
Duhig, S., Shield, A. J., Opar, D., Gabbett, T. J., Ferguson, C., & Williams, M. [2016]. Effect of high-speed running on hamstring strain injury risk. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50[24], 1536–1540.
Ekstrand, J., Waldén, M., & Hägglund, M. [2016]. Hamstring injuries have increased by 4 percent annually in men’s professional football. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50[12], 731–737.
Ekstrand, J., Spreco, A., Windt, J., & Khan, K. M. [2020]. Are hamstring injuries the Achilles heel of football? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54[11], 653–659.
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. [2023]. Evolution of match running demands in elite soccer over 15 years. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 5, Article 1116293.
Campbell, J. [2026, January 5]. Manchester City vs. Chelsea Premier League analysis. The New York Times.
Malone, S., Roe, M., Doran, D., Gabbett, T. J., & Collins, K. [2018]. High chronic training loads and exposure to speed increase injury risk in elite soccer. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52[21], 1315–1320.
Modric, T., Versic, S., & Sekulic, D. [2023]. Match running performance trends in elite football. Sports, 11[3], 48.
ESPN. [2019]. NBA load management: What we know and don’t know.
NBA.com. [2019]. Kawhi Leonard and the rise of load management.
