GARY O’Neil’s decision to line Cherries up at the back in a five-man defence came in for serious flak from fans on social media.

Some questioned why the Cherries head coach did not merely replace the injured Marcus Tavernier like-for-like, instead opting to bring in centre-back Chris Mepham rather than another winger.

But there was merit to Cherries’ approach, and against inferior opposition, it could have been a different story.

O’Neil explained how he opted to draft in another defender in a bid to match City’s front five, namely Julian Alvarez, Erling Haaland, Phil Foden, Ilkay Gundogan, and Jack Grealish.

Pep Guardiola came out after the game and shared how he thought his side had played better during their draw with Nottingham Forest than they did at the Vitality Stadium.

Cherries certainly posed more of a threat to the Cityzens than Steve Cooper’s Tricky Trees. O’Neil’s charges had three times the amount of efforts that Forest mustered, also boasting a higher xG.

City’s expected output stayed roughly the same against Forest’s back four, the biggest difference the fact that Cherries made three costly errors.

Even compared to their last performance, a win over Wolves, Cherries were far more potent.

Again, they almost trebled their attempts on goals compared to the trip to Molineux, with a higher xG stat as well.

The addition of another defender is almost always viewed as a negative move, but Cherries’ back five did not sit back in their own half the entire game, unlike the hunkered down defending they deployed in the final stages against Wolves.

Depending on where Manchester City had the ball, Mepham or Senesi would step up in a bid to close down an area of the pitch.

Bournemouth Echo:

Early on, Mepham could be seen higher up than his wing-back Smith, pressuring City beyond the halfway line.

Bournemouth Echo:

Mepham was usually the most aggressive centre-back, with O’Neil explaining: “(Ilkay) Gundogan normally plays in that pocket as a left number 10.

“But when he recognizes that the right-side centre-back is marking him, he drags them to areas that (the centre-back) doesn't want to go.

"So Meps obviously had decisions to make - whether he goes all the way, wherever he comes off.

“I thought in the main he did it well because he was tricky. Obviously disappointed with the way that they get in for the second goal.

“But it wasn't man marking as such, but we expected that Gundogan would be in that area.

“So we did some stuff on what it might look like for Chris.”

Of course, a centre-back aggressively stepping up out of the defensive line can be exploited, and that was the case for City’s second.

Cherries’ tactical approach did not cost them the game. It was the individual mistakes that were pounced upon by a ruthless side.

For the first goal, Hamed Traore’s loss of possession was costly, with the Cherries defence unable to properly reset.

Senesi did not cover himself in glory by playing Phil Foden onside, whilst the Argentinian and Jordan Zemura will also take some blame for not properly tracking the winger’s run.

It was another run not properly tracked by a defender that led to the second goal. Mepham allowed Gundogan to slip by and go on to deliver a cross to the back stick, which was eventually cut back to Erling Haaland.

With Cherries’ defence in disarray after the first pass through the lines, it is no surprise that Haaland has time and space to prod home.

The mistake for the third goal is the most obvious, and does not need dwelling on. Cherries’ defence has no time to reset when Philip Billing passes the ball to Foden, who finishes well to put the game to bed before the break.

This season, only Eddie Howe’s Newcastle caused more high turnovers (possession gained in a 40 metre radius of the oppositions’ goal) against Manchester City, his side gaining the ball high up the pitch 10 times during the 3-3 draw back in August.

Cherries managed to win the ball high eight times, although City equalled this number.

It should also be pointed out that Cherries did not capitalise upon these turnovers, the side unable to fashion a shot despite winning the ball high up the pitch.

Compared to the approach Scott Parker took in the reverse fixture, it is clear that Cherries attempted to be more aggressive.

In the 4-0 loss at the Etihad, City had seven high turnovers – Cherries had just the one. Cherries’ increased aggression between the two fixtures is also highlighted by the difference in PPDA – passes allowed per defensive action.

PPDA essentially distils how many passes a team allows the opposition to make for every defensive action they take. In August, Cherries were incredibly passive, allowing City to make 44 passes for every defensive action.

On Saturday, Cherries had more than halved that number – a PPDA of 16.7, indicating their braver approach.

However, despite winning the ball higher up the pitch, being more “front-foot” as O’Neil described, Cherries were unable to create clear cut chances.

Yes, they got a goal their game deserved, but they did not capitalise earlier on when they had purple patches.

Again, only Newcastle this season have managed to reach double digits in terms of shots taken in the penalty area in matches versus Guardiola’s side, with Cherries recording the most efforts from inside the 18-yard box this season against City (11).

But all of that is lost when the opportunities are not taken, and when the side is already losing due to lapses at the back.

Not many sides boast the ability to consistently punish mistakes – but unfortunately for Cherries, they face one of them next weekend, when they travel to the Emirates to face league leaders Arsenal.

They must cut out the “uncharacteristic errors” as O’Neil described them, if they are to take anything from north London.