Sorry like it's nonsense this. Plenty of teams have a go at City, plenty of teams have a go at us. You'd see the exact same stuff on City's forums about us. City don't drop many points as they are an elite side with a great coach. Quite why this is the case is another issue. But city beating teams, easily or otherwise, isn't for us to worry about.
I think the difference is nothing more than this:
City play to control the game, like a bunch of mechanical parts, automatons, moving the ball about and retaining it using safe passes and minutely micromanaged patterns and positions. We, on the other hand, play more on the edge, taking risks, mixing styles and deliberately forcing opposition errors.
When it works our style can be breathtaking and beautiful and infinitely satisfying, whereas City's remains dull and mechanistic all the time. But when it doesn't work we are at greater risk of playing into trouble, and into the opposition's hands, whereas City are still there plodding away in the same automaton like way, a physical realisation of the conceptual clockwork taking place in their manager's head.
The way to get to City is to prevent their clockwork from being set into gear from the start. But that takes a lot of effort from lesser teams, and it's not that teams don't try, it's that their efforts, which
are taking place, can be masked by the plod, plod, plod of the clockwork.
The way to 'get' at us is easier, because we play on the edge and concentrating their efforts upon one area can sometimes visibly overload us, though the concomitant risks are also greater for the opposition.
And that's why it sometimes seems like the oppos try harder against us than against CIty.
