Sergio Aguero (£12.2m) owners once again find themselves burned by Pep Guardiola’s rotation policy as he is named on the bench for Gameweek 9.
It represents the second successive away match that the Argentinian has been selected among the substitutes with Gabriel Jesus (£9.5m) chosen to lead the line at Crystal Palace.
Joining him on the bench is Riyad Mahrez (£8.7m), further frustrating those who signed the Algerian international ahead of Gameweek 8.
Against Wolves he was substituted in the 59th minute and this week misses out on a place in the starting line-up for the first time since Gameweek 5.
Those invested in Raheem Sterling (£12.1m) and Kevin de Bruyne (£10.0m) will be much happier ahead of the game as both of them feature in the first XI.
The England international continues his run of matches without a benching to three, while his Belgian colleague is back in the team after missing Gameweek 8 with an injury.
As Guardiola had promised before the international, it has proved not to be too serious and, after a pretty abject start to Gameweek 9, de Bruyne’s owners will be quietly hopeful of attacking returns.
Meanwhile, Guardiola appears to have shaken things up at the back by naming both Fernandinho (£5.2m) and Rodrigo (£5.5m), defensive midfielders by trade, in the two centre-back positions.
Nicolas Otamendi (£5.6m) has come in for some serious criticism of late and finds himself not even in the matchday squad.
Crystal Palace line up in a 4-4-2 formation with Wilfried Zaha (£6.7m) leading the line with Jordan Ayew (£5.1m).
Vicente Guaita (£5.0m) is missing from the squad, which may encourage those invested in the Manchester City attack, as Wayne Hennessey (£4.4m) comes in for him.
Crystal Palace XI: Hennessey; van Aanholt, Cahill, Tomkins, Ward; McArthur, Milivojevic, Kouyaté, Schlupp; Zaha, Ayew.
Manchester City XI: Ederson; Mendy, Rodrigo, Fernandinho, Cancelo; De Bruyne, D Silva, Gundogan; Sterling, Jesus, B Silva.
4 years, 6 months agoHow can they disallow goals like Wood's second and Mina's for literal nothing transgressions by the attacking team and at the same time allow stonewall fouls to go unpunished when its about giving a penalty? The consistency is non existant...
The extremely high bar for "clear and obvious error" is only utilized when the decision is wheter they should give a penalty that wasnt awarded, but not when its about disallowing a goal. Makes no sense.