Ah!!! I see it differently from your perspective and for Madrid to win doesn't mean Man City didn't do well. Wait a minute, did you mean a club that scored twice didn't do well, I mean with better possession in addition?
How many goals you scored, how many ball possession percent you had, and how many opportunities you created in the match, don't mean anything if after the final whistle of referee, you are the loser. It's sport, it's football, and result at the end means all.
I doubt that, they even played so well in my view except that you guys only praise the winner. Man City scored in both halves while Madrid only scored in the second half and the last one that delivered the winner to them was luckily scored at the injury time. This shouldn't call for undermining the brilliant effort of Man City, and needless to say, Real Madrid is not a lesser club, Man City played with a strong club, so Man City did well in my opinion but fate only decided the winner to be Madrid.
Manchester City played well in most of minutes of the match, but in the end they lost it, and this means the match is terrible for them. It also harms their chance in a second match and in an aggregated result by losing at home in the first leg match.
Like in another big match recently with Arsenal, Manchester City played well before they collapsed and yes, that match is a terrible one for them, not good one.