The headlines following Saturday’s one-sided Manchester derby were all about how bad Manchester United were, and few about how good Manchester City were.
That will have been met with a shrug of the shoulders from seasoned Blues, who realise that it is the natural consequence of the Reds being a club that are “bigger” but in no way better, and in some ways it sweetened a beautiful victory.
But United fans can take some solace from the fact that, when analysed, the schooling handed out by the calm, collected Blues was no worse than that suffered by European champions Chelsea when City won 1-0 at Stamford Bridge in September.
In fact, the excited United video analysis team might be thrusting stats under Ole Gunnar Solskjaer ’s nose that show that in some ways United were BETTER than Chelsea on that day, when Pep Guardiola ’s team exacted a degree of revenge for their Champions League final defeat, winning with a Gabriel Jesus goal.
The evidence of the eyes would suggest otherwise, as Chelsea appeared to give City a tougher test in terms of contesting the ball, and that reflects in the possession statistics - Thomas Tuchel’s side had 41 per cent of the ball while United struggled along with just 31 per cent.
But in just about every other stat, City’s dominance of Chelsea was just as emphatic, and those who were at Stamford Bridge will attest to the fact that the current Premier League leaders escaped a mauling that day.
In fact, Cristiano Ronaldo’s volley, easily blocked by Ederson and then stabbed wide by Mason Greenwood from the rebound, was the only shot on target that Chelsea and United mustered between them in those two games. Chelsea had ZERO shots on target from five attempts, United had one from five.
And City were no more incisive against United than they were against Chelsea, managing 15 shots in total at Stamford Bridge and just 13 at Old Trafford.
The corner count also speaks of City’s dominance of Chelsea being greater - the Blues won 13 flag kicks in west London and nine at United.
The greatest contrast between United and City, apart from the obvious tactical mauling Pep Guardiola handed out to Ole Gunnar Soolskjaer, which set the template for the match, was the passing.
The Blues strung together 26 passes in the build-up to Bernardo Silva’s goal, without a United player getting near the ball. It is difficult to remember the Reds building a sequence of more than half a dozen passes, even in their better spells in the game.
But, again, City did the very same thing to Chelsea, restricting the Londoners to 371 passes in the game with a success rate of 83 per cent - United, bizarrely, also made 371 passes in the game, with a success rate of 82 per cent.
The big difference between the two matches is that City made 797 passes against United, and 597 against Chelsea.
That is a reflection of just how much United stood off the Blues, and allowed them possession in their own half. That was understandable - if they had tried to get in the faces of the City players, as they did against Liverpool a fortnight earlier, they could have ended up with a similar mauling in terms of the scoreline.
Chelsea are more astute tactically under Tuchel, and did at least try to disrupt City’s rhythm but, like United, they were lucky to escape with a respectable scoreline.
United fans can take succour from that. If City can do that to Chelsea, who were looking ominously good until that point, they can do it to just about anyone - Liverpool are the notable exception, maybe.
And the fact that City have dominated the Reds before at Old Trafford The 6-1 win in 2011 is the obvious reference point, and that season United bounced back and only lost the title on goal difference to City.
On the other hand, the last time City won at Old Trafford with such embarrassing ease was in 2014 - when they overhauled Chelsea and Liverpool to win the title and the Reds trailed home in seventh.
The message sent by the stats for City’s two superb performances, at Chelsea and now at United, is clear.
Nobody doubted City’s superiority at Stamford Bridge, but the story of Old Trafford was all about how poor United were.
Of course, that is set in the context of having been stuffed 5-0 by Liverpool two weeks earlier, and being flaky in other games - an offence of which Chelsea have not been guilty.
The overwhelming take from that is that it’s time there was more balance about the derby - United were awful.
But City were very, very, very good.
