Momentum matters in football.

Or, more accurately, the perception of momentum. Thus, heading into today's Manchester derby, it's City who are said to be facing the pressure and it's Manuel Pellegrini whose future is being questioned.

Never mind the fact City aren't the side who spent £150 million in the summer. Nor are they the side who've had their worst start in the Premier League era. Nor are they the side who've done worst in their last three league outings: they've gained six points to United's five.

But they fell to West Ham last weekend and to Newcastle in the League Cup on Wednesday and that's enough to raise questions and turn screws, with the media drawing parallels with Roberto Mancini's final campaign. That season, of course, resulted in a failed title pursuit that never looked convincing and, ultimately, his dismissal.

Meanwhile, United snatched a point from Chelsea at Old Trafford thanks to a last-ditch equaliser. They haven't lost since that absurd collapse at Leicester back in September and Louis van Gaal says they're getting better. Which is enough for many to buy into it.

Knee-jerk, anyone? The fact is, United have one point less than at the same stage last season and City have one more. For Pellegrini's men, the gap with the first-placed team going into this weekend was the same as last year - six points.

One is a side that has embarked on a total rebuild and whose progress remains debatable and the other is the most viable candidate to challenge Chelsea for the title. Everything else is narrative, much of it artificial.

As to the game today, United are boosted by the return of Wayne Rooney. With Radamel Falcao out, it spares Van Gaal a difficult decision since, even in the most Utopian of worlds, playing Rooney, Falcao and Robin van Persie at the Etihad seems a real stretch. What we're more likely to get is what we saw against Chelsea. More than enough attacking players, but with fairly clear-cut instructions as far as working off the ball and hitting on the counter are concerned. It's not Van Gaal-like in the sense that, until the World Cup, throughout his career, even when he had inferior personnel to work with, the Dutchman always sought to impose his game on the opposition.

Brazil showed a much more pragmatic Van Gaal and Holland reaped the rewards. Now, with United sputtering in terms of performances, he's opting for a more results-oriented approach, even if it means slowing down the team's development into one matching his vision.

In some ways, it's the opposite of what Pellegrini does. With few exceptions, City line up with two strikers and rarely deviate from a game plan. When the forwards' movement is good and the creative guys are doing their jobs, it serves them well.

The problems arise when the creative pipeline's output diminishes or when chances aren't converted. Or, as has been the case of late, when the opposition capitalises on the defensive frailties. Fernando, back after injury, hasn't been the defensive midfield stopper Pellegrini was hoping for. Eliaquim Mangala has been inconsistent, as you would expect from a raw newcomer. Vincent Kompany has been off his game as well. The philosophical choice for Pellegrini is this: execute better or tinker with the set-up to bolster the defence. He'll lean more to the former, though the absence of David Silva, the main creative threat, will force him to make some kind of adjustment.

Ultimately, if you have better players and the ability to play better football than your opposition, it makes sense to impose your game on the match and let the opposition worry about you. And that's what Pellegrini does. Where City has come up short thus far has been in terms of personnel: underperforming players and individual errors.

And those are what you expect a manager of Pellegrini's calibre to work on in training.

The Manchester derby inevitably brings alums out of the woodwork. It's hard to be original, so one of two things happen: you either say something innocuous that gets turned into tabloid fodder or you say something edgy, pandering to well-worn stereotypes.

Peter Schmeichel did the former. He had the temerity to suggest that "in terms of results right now" City are "bigger" than United. God forbid.

Obviously, City's results have been far better than United's in the past 15 months, but the minute you use that trigger word - bigger - on folks who've been raised on the mantra that the red half of Manchester is the "biggest" thing in the universe, well, it's a clear red flag.

Funny, isn't it? Had he simply said City have been better of late, it would have been OK. Chuck that reference to size in there and all hell breaks loose.

Paul Scholes, famously mute for much of his playing career, chipped in by talking about how City had "a touch of arrogance" because they don't adjust to the opposition. And, of course, Yaya Toure looks "laboured" and "bored". But, of course, he can "step it up when he wants to".

All of this is thinly veiled code aimed at satisfying the usual stereo-types about a certain "type" of player. Funny how some players go through poor spells because they're "unlucky" or "lack confidence" or "don't get enough service" whereas others do so because they're disinterested and won't pull their finger out.

Meanwhile, Roy Keane is doing triple duty: promoting his book; second-in- command to Martin O'Neill with Ireland; and assistant to Paul Lambert at Aston Villa. Nobody could accuse him of being lazy.

Yet, according to Keane, Scholes' media aversion in his playing time was simply because he "couldn't be bothered" and not because he was "camera-shy" or "too humble".

"He's doing it now, isn't he?" Keane said. "Maybe there's more money involved now. And I'd tell him this if he was sat here in front of me."

Of the latter, there is no doubt.