Good news: mirror image of first away game last season

[Red Exile]

6 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

Which will be one area where we will miss Wilbs IMO.

agreed!

[pillred]

9 hours ago, RED4LIFE said:

Olè, you are one of the few people who post on this forum I actually take seriously when it comes to describing how things are going on the pitch, and last season you had some massive concerns about us early on in the season (even when we were actually doing well in the first month or two).

To read todays synopsis after getting beat gives me a lot of hope. I always thought we would be better than last year as LJ would know the payers better and we haven't had such a huge influx of players to try and bed in ad last year.

The future is looking bright, I just hope we can build and get more consistent as the season goes on.

synopsis? that was the short version!!

[bearded_red]

15 minutes ago, Olé said:

Regarding Hinds, I think everyone wondered why he didn't come on, because what we lacked in those last 10, as evidenced by O'Dowda repeatedly cutting in from the wing and leading a merry dance weaving along the edge of the box, was anyone whose first instinct was to leather it on goal. There wasn't an out and out finisher there.

I guess the answer to that is who would you have taken off? The obvious choice was Diedhiou but I assume that Johnson felt that he could still be a something out of nothing man, particularly with balls coming in from Eliasson. I think that underestimated how lost Diedhiou had become - that should be our biggest post-mortem IMO. 

The situation of the game I don't actually think it mattered too much who was taken off.

He could have taken off either midfielder and played Reid slightly deeper or even either centre half and played Pack nominally as a defender as in reality by that stage he was pretty much playing like a quarterback anyway.

I wouldn't have taken off Diedhiou at that stage, but if we had the option of a Wilbs or Đurić on the bench I'd have probably been taking him off much earlier in the second half.

[Numero Uno]

The encouraging sign for me is that we've got the football in us. When we were winning games at the start of last season it seemed like a chore to get the result, we weren't zipping the ball about and creating loads of chances. We need to be more clinical at both ends and therefore need to sort the personnel out to achieve that. Perhaps two more incoming needed? Promising but still work to be done.

[chinapig]

5 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

The encouraging sign for me is that we've got the football in us. When we were winning games at the start of last season it seemed like a chore to get the result, we weren't zipping the ball about and creating loads of chances. We need to be more clinical at both ends and therefore need to sort the personnel out to achieve that. Perhaps two more incoming needed? Promising but still work to be done.

LJ says he is only after one more, a striker, though nothing is imminent and it may have to be a loan.

The football is indeed good. The mentality when under pressure I'm not so sure about.

[Merrick's Marvels]

3 hours ago, chinapig said:

'Respect the point' seems to fit. I just don't think we have the players to tighten things up. A powerhouse in midfield would help but I don't think that's LJ's way. More Wenger than Mourinho.

This is exactly my view of Johnson - a naive idealist rather than a pragmatic realist.

His teams will play some great football to watch but he's not a winner, leaving us frustrated and ultimately dissatisfied. 

[REDOXO]

Well I agree with some of the original post but not all by some way.

Yes we were the better side in the first half, however although we were decent tackling we lost possession sometimes by trying to pass a little to much. Gifting them the chance to come forward in a very direct way, which ultimately led to them scoring. We missed chances and our shooting was for the most part poor and did not press our advantage home. LJ himself said it felt like our players thought they were to good and I agree in some ways but, our shooting and chance conversion rate from the midfield in particular is already a cause for concern and I am not convinced by our forwards.

Second half was just a wait until we conceded. Which was coming as we no longer had any kind of real advantage. How there boy can run across our defence and still turn shoot and score from 20 yards past a goalkeeper who got down late is still pissing me off. Centre Backs sought it out.

Bobby of course missed a couple of chances at 1-1 and 2-1 but did we look threatening coming forward second half, I would contend not so much!

Al in all decentish performance against a poor team who beat us. Onto Brentford!....As for our passing and moving, it looks slick until the man in possession is pressurised and then its hot potato passing until the ball is lost. Which Birmingham worked out!

 

[chinapig]

Just now, Merrick's Marvels said:

This is exactly my view of Johnson - a naive idealist rather than a pragmatic realist.

His teams will play some great football to watch but he's not a winner, leaving us frustrated and ultimately dissatisfied. 

Perhaps he will learn from experience but coaches tend to have a philosophy that they stick to regardless. Think Cotts and his refusal to change formation.

Much depends on whether his assistants are prepared to disagree or are yes men I think.

[The Journalist]

I'm so pleased I wasn't the only one.

I posted at half-time that, even if we lost, we were watching a completely different team to any other Lee Johnson has fielded.

[GrahamC]

12 hours ago, Harry said:

Nice one Rob. 

I was in agreement with your 'performance' assessments last season too. So it's definitely encouraging that there are parallels to start this season. 

However, would the biggest early concern be not the parallels but the similarities? How many times, even during our awful form last season, did we surrender leads? I know it's only one game today, but I'm concerned that the naivety to shut down opponents once we're ahead is still there. 

Performance parallels are encouraging. 

Symptomatic similarities still concern me. 

Totally agree, no idea how many away games we lost by the odd goal but (especially during that awful run) it was absolutely loads. You can only "have deserved more than we got" some times, not every time you have an away game..

4 hours ago, chinapig said:

'Respect the point' seems to fit. I just don't think we have the players to tighten things up. A powerhouse in midfield would help but I don't think that's LJ's way. More Wenger than Mourinho.

To repeat my previous point, although he is clearly not a powerhouse, would that not be O'Neil's role?

Break up opponent's play, keep the ball, always be goal side when we are out of possession?

[Dynamite Red]

Great write up. We were excellent 1st half but as Harry tightened the space in the 2nd half we kept resorting to dinks up to Reid and Deidhou which mainly lost us possession. Pack I thought was a liability in the 2nd half and needed another option.

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Totally agree, no idea how many away games we lost by the odd goal but (especially during that awful run) it was absolutely loads. You can only "have deserved more than we got" some times, not every time you have an away game..

To repeat my previous point, although he is clearly not a powerhouse, would that not be O'Neil's role?

Break up opponent's play, keep the ball, always be goal side when we are out of possession?

It should be his role but LJ said recently that the way we play is based around Pack, while Smith seems an automatic choice. In any event O'Neil has rarely delivered and has been plagued with injuries.

LJ  said recently what great options we have in midfield. I disagree precisely because we lack power.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

We are reliant on what midfield turns up at any given game.

Last week Pack was superb throughout and Smith backed him up well, yesterday Smith was superb and Pack was misfiring for most of the game, this is what punctuated our season last year especially away from home Pack seems to perform far better at home than he does away from home and I believe that clouds people's judgement of him. Pack has to find consistency or replace him with Hegeler or Oneil.

[BCFC_Dan]

A very readable report and a very positive sounding assessment too.

I think Johnson is changing the way the team operates to much more of a press-pass-and-move team and he seems to have made very good progress. It's not going to happen overnight but it sounds like we're able to play mediocre Championship sides off the park when they let us. The next step is to work out what to do when they don't let us.

It sounded early in the second half like Birmingham were starting to take a grip on the midfield. I'd have brought on O'Neill either in place of Pack or in a re-shuffled 3 man midfield to match up with the opposition. From the radio commentary there was a certain inevitability about their second goal and it was disappointing nothing was changed to prevent it.

Once Birmingham were ahead then the hell-for-leather tactics made sense again. It sounded like Diedhiou faded quite badly towards the end, which is understandable given how new he is to English football. I think Kodjia used to fade in a similar manner to begin with. Circumstances dictated that Johnson didn't have a lot of options to change the forwards but I don't think any of the unused subs would have made a difference. Hinds seems like he'd be useful when we can't break down a defence and create chances but we were creating them, they were just getting blocked by a Birmingham side playing "Mother in the goal". Likewise I don't feel like Engvall would have added much had he been available. A fit Đurić (or a Wilbraham) might have been a good option, as would a poacher like Taylor, but those options aren't available at the moment. Johnson will need to make a call as to how fit Đurić is going to be this season because he'll need to enter the transfer market if he's not going to be around most weeks.

[Numero Uno]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

LJ says he is only after one more, a striker, though nothing is imminent and it may have to be a loan.

The football is indeed good. The mentality when under pressure I'm not so sure about.

I'd like to see at the very least least a Keeper who can take a bit of pressure of us when high balls are being slung in and another forward. Frank doesn't let us down but in my view he's not really a keeper who will earn you those extra few points that would make the difference between a comfortable season and one where we are looking over our shoulders.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Having now seen the highlights, both goals conceded were an absolute joke.

Where to start with the first goal, there 3 players on the edge of the box unmarked and Patterson had his back to them ball watching for a start.

There were 3 more players in the box unmarked and bizarrely 4 players including Pack who seemed to have been magnetised to go after the same bouncing ball with the 3 defenders and inevitably all 4 got into each others way, Pack should have been with Patterson watching the 3 players near the edge of the box, ready to get a block in.

it was awful defending of the highest order.

The 2nd goal Eliasson did not do nearly enough to try to stop the goalscorer (he get’s a free pass, because he had not been on the field long) Hegeler then stepped out of central defence because Pack and or Smith were absent without leave, leaving central defence totally devoid of any cover whatsoever, but having stepped out Hegeler did not do nearly enough to get a tackle or block in and then to turn this disaster into a complete disaster and I may be on my own here I would expect a good goalkeeper to stop the shot.

I also noticed that our marking at set pieces was pretty poor all game.

I accept it’s only one game but it was an incredible ground hog day of last season and that for me is worry, I don’t buy into this narrow defeat nonsense that is an argument that LJ and others hid behind most of last season, I view it as when we play like we did yesterday if we do not take our chances, our shape and discipline goes out of the window and teams do not have to do too much to beat us and yesterday like many times last season against inferior teams on the day.

We seemed to have improved our full back play but there seems to still be a lack of midfield discipline at times when covering our centre backs and showed in there 2nd goal.

[cidered abroad]

3 hours ago, chinapig said:

It should be his role but LJ said recently that the way we play is based around Pack, while Smith seems an automatic choice. In any event O'Neil has rarely delivered and has been plagued with injuries.

LJ  said recently what great options we have in midfield. I disagree precisely because we lack power.

We also lack a "tin opener" midfielder who can also chip in with half a dozen goals per season, mostly from distance.

We are playing two central midfielders who can neither attack or defend to Championship standard.

I wait to get assassinated by all the Pack and Smith fans.

[Lanterne Rouge]

4 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

We also lack a "tin opener" midfielder who can also chip in with half a dozen goals per season, mostly from distance.

We are playing two central midfielders who can neither attack or defend to Championship standard.

I wait to get assassinated by all the Pack and Smith fans.

I do agree with this - someone like a Jeff Hendrick type but most of those are out of our league I fear.

[EnclosureSurge]

19 hours ago, Snufflelufagus said:

We are running out of Internet storage space this write up is so long.

Brilliant.

[EnclosureSurge]

Lots of comment from people who were at the game that Birmingham were rubbish in the first half. I wasn't at the game (I had to work) but looking at the extended highlights, after our goal Birmingham thenhave two excellent attempts at goal (great save from FF, Bryan heads off the line) and next they score. Pato then has a good shot saved in the box. Half-time. I'd say that, despite not being there, that makes them as good, if not better, than us by certain standards: ie that of attempts on target. We can have all the lovely one-touch, two-touch passing you want, but if it doesn't result in enough working of their keeper, what's the point? Might as well just shove the ball in the box and old how and sod the aesthetics.

There look to have been as many chances for each team in the 2nd half. Other people at the game will obvs have a more overall view of possession etc, but football doesn't have to be about possession (Cardiff: 31% yesterday, 3-0 winners). It's what you do with it. Birmingham created more chances than we did on having the ball less and put more of them away. End of, more or less, for me.

There can be a more nuanced argument made against this, I'm not "right" but the assertion that Birmingham were rubbish just makes the defeat even more galling and ominous. So far - so far, three games into the season, that's not a lot - we play one half decent team and fold. Sounds just like last year. We have lots of the ball and create some chances, but bemoan our lack of killing teams off when on top. Sounds just like last year. We defend like pussies (Pack's header for their first, everybody for their second). Sounds just like last year.

Highlights obvs don't tell the whole story, but it's quite telling that all the supposed near chances reported in the press and by those who were there seem to be present in the 9 mins of action, and more of them fell to the rubbish team. I don't think this result will have any bearing on where we end up - we always were going to and still will finish about 19th - but I wish I could see for myself these improvements people have mentioned. I look forward to seeing them soon. Plus, I'm more than happy to be proved wrong and that possession-based football sees us up into the top half of the table. You Reds!

[Puckle_red]

Discounting the possession as for me possession wins you nothing. I was extremely impressed with the amount of openings we created with intricate, quick passing moves, time and time again we cut them open, we should've taken our chances in the first half.

Birmingham had a couple of flash shots out of the blue which were very good efforts but in the first half I felt it was a matter of time before we scored 2 and 3, sadly the finishing didn't back that up.

2nd half they won the midfield battle and stopped our outlet balls to the front 2 particularly well. I was surprised by the substitution of Paterson as he is a real danger and looked lively in the first half. The two subs at the same time weakened us at a time we needed to get a foothold and for me we didn't recover from that. LJ is right, we need to learn fast and he is certainly included in that.

Still, positive signs despite a disappointing result.

[EnclosureSurge]

2 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

We also lack a "tin opener" midfielder who can also chip in with half a dozen goals per season, mostly from distance.

We are playing two central midfielders who can neither attack or defend to Championship standard.

I wait to get assassinated by all the Pack and Smith fans.

I think this is a good point, we play with two midfielders (Pack/Smith) who have very similar attributes (as well as discrete skills). One of their shared attributes is a distinct lack of goals (making Plymouth on a par with Cheltenham, frankly). Neat and tidy, both; tackle ok/very well; neither really get forward. It was heartening to see Smith in the box when we went 1-0 up and he's talked about and is getting further forward currently...but why?! He's just not a finisher or a great striker of the ball. If Pack had his energy/agility, he'd be better placed in and around the box as he can hit the ball well. They are too similar in their weaknesses yet they are the best central midfielders we have. An odd conundrum. unless we buy a Shelts/MElliott type, we might as well forget goals from central midfield. We are both improved and hampered by having the two of them in midfield. Shame as I like both (and it should be all about who I like).

[Esmond Million's Bung]

This sums up my feelings perfectly about yesterday and comes from an impeccable source.

Chapter 1 verse 2 of LJ's new testament.

“We were very good in patches; 65% of the time we were excellent, but the other 35% we were a bit naïve.

“We had quite an experienced side out today and we didn’t manage the game well enough.

“At 1-0 up we were absolutely cruising and the lads probably started to enjoy it a bit too much, which coincided with us giving a poor ball away while our crowd were giving us the ‘Olé, Olé, Olé’.

“We thought we were better than we are and we got sloppy, giving them the opportunity to launch the ball in our box (leading to the equaliser).

“That gave them something to get hold of, the crowd got behind them and everything changes.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, EnclosureSurge said:

Lots of comment from people who were at the game that Birmingham were rubbish in the first half. I wasn't at the game (I had to work) but looking at the extended highlights, after our goal Birmingham thenhave two excellent attempts at goal (great save from FF, Bryan heads off the line) and next they score. Pato then has a good shot saved in the box. Half-time. I'd say that, despite not being there, that makes them as good, if not better, than us by certain standards: ie that of attempts on target. We can have all the lovely one-touch, two-touch passing you want, but if it doesn't result in enough working of their keeper, what's the point? Might as well just shove the ball in the box and old how and sod the aesthetics.

There look to have been as many chances for each team in the 2nd half. Other people at the game will obvs have a more overall view of possession etc, but football doesn't have to be about possession (Cardiff: 31% yesterday, 3-0 winners). It's what you do with it. Birmingham created more chances than we did on having the ball less and put more of them away. End of, more or less, for me.

There can be a more nuanced argument made against this, I'm not "right" but the assertion that Birmingham were rubbish just makes the defeat even more galling and ominous. So far - so far, three games into the season, that's not a lot - we play one half decent team and fold. Sounds just like last year. We have lots of the ball and create some chances, but bemoan our lack of killing teams off when on top. Sounds just like last year. We defend like pussies (Pack's header for their first, everybody for their second). Sounds just like last year.

Highlights obvs don't tell the whole story, but it's quite telling that all the supposed near chances reported in the press and by those who were there seem to be present in the 9 mins of action, and more of them fell to the rubbish team. I don't think this result will have any bearing on where we end up - we always were going to and still will finish about 19th - but I wish I could see for myself these improvements people have mentioned. I look forward to seeing them soon. Plus, I'm more than happy to be proved wrong and that possession-based football sees us up into the top half of the table. You Reds!

I listened on the radio, and it seemed like we came out the traps quickly, got our goal, but that it was a far too open game in the first half.  No surprise that they equalised, so 1-1 sounded about right from chances.  We maybe played some neat stuff, but on chances it sounded even(ish).

Second half it sounded like we were sloppy and Birmingham were in the ascendency.  It sounded like around the hour we'd started to settle down and we're beginning to impose ourselves again.  Maybe LJ thought we'd weathered their storm and could now go on and win it, introducing a double wideman swap. Maghoma scores, then they go down to 10 men, and we then create a couple of good chances to get a point.  We also seemed to give away a series of cheap fouls to take the pressure off.

Was the radio commentary near the mark?

[WTFiGO!?!]

I'll look forward to next season's finale of this 'Second Game' Trilogy.

Presumably we'll draw 1-1, our performance will be directly representative of the result and a perfectly natural harmony will be established.  

Due to the equation observed we will show relegation form for the first and final third and be unbeatable between early Autumn and Spring.

Perhaps some of us read in to things far more than is actually necessary or there?

[Harry]

8 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Having now seen the highlights, both goals conceded were an absolute joke.

Where to start with the first goal, there 3 players on the edge of the box unmarked and Patterson had his back to them ball watching for a start.

There were 3 more players in the box unmarked and bizarrely 4 players including Pack who seemed to have been magnetised to go after the same bouncing ball with the 3 defenders and inevitably all 4 got into each others way, Pack should have been with Patterson watching the 3 players near the edge of the box, ready to get a block in.

it was awful defending of the highest order.

The 2nd goal Eliasson did not do nearly enough to try to stop the goalscorer (he get’s a free pass, because he had not been on the field long) Hegeler then stepped out of central defence because Pack and or Smith were absent without leave, leaving central defence totally devoid of any cover whatsoever, but having stepped out Hegeler did not do nearly enough to get a tackle or block in and then to turn this disaster into a complete disaster and I may be on my own here I would expect a good goalkeeper to stop the shot.

I also noticed that our marking at set pieces was pretty poor all game.

I accept it’s only one game but it was an incredible ground hog day of last season and that for me is worry, I don’t buy into this narrow defeat nonsense that is an argument that LJ and others hid behind most of last season, I view it as when we play like we did yesterday if we do not take our chances, our shape and discipline goes out of the window and teams do not have to do too much to beat us and yesterday like many times last season against inferior teams on the day.

We seemed to have improved our full back play but there seems to still be a lack of midfield discipline at times when covering our centre backs and showed in there 2nd goal.

Es - I know you are not a fan of Marlon, but methinks you are taking your hostility toward him to an unwarranted level.  You're looking for things which aren't there, and leveling blame unfairly, influenced by your dislike of the player.  I'll explain :

Quote "4 players including Pack who seemed to have been magnetised to go after the same bouncing ball with the 3 defenders and inevitably all 4 got into each others way, Pack should have been with Patterson watching the 3 players near the edge of the box, ready to get a block in."

Reality - The structure at this set-piece is quite obvious.  Paterson is patrolling the edge of the box.  Pack is marking his midfield opponent Ndoye.  Pack attacks the first ball.  It ricochets to our 2 CB's who fail to clear.  Pack is not "magnetised to the ball", he is tracking his man Ndoye, whom the ball dropped to from Wright's header.  Had Pack not been "magnetised" to Ndoye, then the player would have had a chance to turn and shoot.  Instead, Pack's presence means Ndoye has to try to manoeuvre the ball, and he loses possession.  Wright's clearance was poor and found the unmarked Gardner on the edge of the box.  Why is Gardner unmarked?  Paterson left his duty of patrolling the edge of the box and wandered to the left, for a reason I can't fathom.  Pack is then left as the only player to try to close down the shot.

Conclusion - How the hell Pack can hold any blame on this goal is only through the eyes of someone who is looking for a scapegoat.  Pack was tracking his direct midfield opponent and managed to successfully prevent him from turning in the box to shoot.  Why you think he should have also been on the edge of the box, when that was someone else's job (Paterson), is beyond me.

Quote "The 2nd goal Eliasson did not do nearly enough to try to stop the goalscorer (he get’s a free pass, because he had not been on the field long) Hegeler then stepped out of central defence because Pack and or Smith were absent without leave, leaving central defence totally devoid of any cover whatsoever."

Reality - The structure at this set-piece is quite clear.  Pack is marking his direct midfield opponent Ndoye.  Eliasson should be staying goal-side of his opposing winger Maghoma.  This should leave Smith as the midfield anchor.
Pack makes the challenge on Ndoye on the touchline.  Eliasson has found himself wrong-side of Maghoma.  Smith is 10 yards to far forward to be correctly acting as anchorman.  Maghoma gets the run on Eliasson, Smith is not in a good starting position to prevent the cross-field run.  Hegeler panics and over-commits to a challenge when he ought to be ushering Maghoma across the field.

Conclusion - You've given Eliasson a "pass" because he's new, but he was caught wrong-side.  You've glorified Smith on many comments since yesterday, yet his duty was not correctly performed in this instance, leading to the big hole in midfield.  How you can place any blame toward Pack for this goal, who was basically tasked with challenging for the initial throw-in, wide on the touchline, is beyond me.  How is he to blame for being "absent without leave", when he was correctly marking and challenging his man on the touchline.  You seem to think, much with your criticism of the first goal, that Marlon should be in two places at once, doing his own job but also covering for the mistakes of others.

I know you don't like Pack, but don't look for criticism when it's not there.  Yes, he made some errors yesterday, but the two goals were not down to him.  1st goal was Paterson not seeing out his duty.  2nd goal was a combo of Eliasson wrong-side, Smith bad starting position and Hegeler poor decision making.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

8 hours ago, Harry said:

Es - I know you are not a fan of Marlon, but methinks you are taking your hostility toward him to an unwarranted level.  You're looking for things which aren't there, and leveling blame unfairly, influenced by your dislike of the player.  I'll explain :

Quote "4 players including Pack who seemed to have been magnetised to go after the same bouncing ball with the 3 defenders and inevitably all 4 got into each others way, Pack should have been with Patterson watching the 3 players near the edge of the box, ready to get a block in."

Reality - The structure at this set-piece is quite obvious.  Paterson is patrolling the edge of the box.  Pack is marking his midfield opponent Ndoye.  Pack attacks the first ball.  It ricochets to our 2 CB's who fail to clear.  Pack is not "magnetised to the ball", he is tracking his man Ndoye, whom the ball dropped to from Wright's header.  Had Pack not been "magnetised" to Ndoye, then the player would have had a chance to turn and shoot.  Instead, Pack's presence means Ndoye has to try to manoeuvre the ball, and he loses possession.  Wright's clearance was poor and found the unmarked Gardner on the edge of the box.  Why is Gardner unmarked?  Paterson left his duty of patrolling the edge of the box and wandered to the left, for a reason I can't fathom.  Pack is then left as the only player to try to close down the shot.

Conclusion - How the hell Pack can hold any blame on this goal is only through the eyes of someone who is looking for a scapegoat.  Pack was tracking his direct midfield opponent and managed to successfully prevent him from turning in the box to shoot.  Why you think he should have also been on the edge of the box, when that was someone else's job (Paterson), is beyond me.

Quote "The 2nd goal Eliasson did not do nearly enough to try to stop the goalscorer (he get’s a free pass, because he had not been on the field long) Hegeler then stepped out of central defence because Pack and or Smith were absent without leave, leaving central defence totally devoid of any cover whatsoever."

Reality - The structure at this set-piece is quite clear.  Pack is marking his direct midfield opponent Ndoye.  Eliasson should be staying goal-side of his opposing winger Maghoma.  This should leave Smith as the midfield anchor.
Pack makes the challenge on Ndoye on the touchline.  Eliasson has found himself wrong-side of Maghoma.  Smith is 10 yards to far forward to be correctly acting as anchorman.  Maghoma gets the run on Eliasson, Smith is not in a good starting position to prevent the cross-field run.  Hegeler panics and over-commits to a challenge when he ought to be ushering Maghoma across the field.

Conclusion - You've given Eliasson a "pass" because he's new, but he was caught wrong-side.  You've glorified Smith on many comments since yesterday, yet his duty was not correctly performed in this instance, leading to the big hole in midfield.  How you can place any blame toward Pack for this goal, who was basically tasked with challenging for the initial throw-in, wide on the touchline, is beyond me.  How is he to blame for being "absent without leave", when he was correctly marking and challenging his man on the touchline.  You seem to think, much with your criticism of the first goal, that Marlon should be in two places at once, doing his own job but also covering for the mistakes of others.

I know you don't like Pack, but don't look for criticism when it's not there.  Yes, he made some errors yesterday, but the two goals were not down to him.  1st goal was Paterson not seeing out his duty.  2nd goal was a combo of Eliasson wrong-side, Smith bad starting position and Hegeler poor decision making.

i'm sorry Harry, the same could be said about you and your defence of Pack, the reality for me is just like BCFC he tends to perform better at home than away and that is why many people have a rose coloured view of him.

Pack never needed to enter the circus of 3 defenders who were comically trying to clear the ball, we had enough players to have dealt with the situation, sadly 4 of them decided to try to clear the same ball and failed spectacularly and I am sorry but I never saw Pack or Smith during the build up but certainly one of them got it wrong, if it was Smith it was probably his only mistake.

Pack however casually gave quite a few casual passes away, especially in the first half, in the very 1st minute of the 2nd half he went to sleep at a defensive throw in and they almost scored, twice whilst jumping up and down claiming a free kick for handball after shooting into a defender, the said defender dribbled the ball past him creating a breakaway and he chased a lost cause from the halfway line to the 18 yard box and we were caught out by a quick ball over the top.

I call it as I see it Pack was superb against Barnsley but he was nowhere near his best on Saturday, to be fair to him I am not sure that Patterson and occasionally Brownhill  help matters at times with their lack of discipline.

 

 

[Harry]

14 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

i'm sorry Harry, the same could be said about you and your defence of Pack, the reality for me is just like BCFC he tends to perform better at home than away and that is why many people have a rose coloured view of him.

Pack never needed to enter the circus of 3 defenders who were comically trying to clear the ball, we had enough players to have dealt with the situation, sadly 4 of them decided to try to clear the same ball and failed spectacularly and I am sorry but I never saw Pack or Smith during the build up but certainly one of them got it wrong, if it was Smith it was probably his only mistake.

Pack however casually gave quite a few casual passes away, especially in the first half, in the very 1st minute of the 2nd half he went to sleep at a defensive throw in and they almost scored, twice whilst jumping up and down claiming a free kick for handball after shooting into a defender, the said defender dribbled the ball past him creating a breakaway and he chased a lost cause from the halfway line to the 18 yard box and we were caught out by a quick ball over the top.

I call it as I see it Pack was superb against Barnsley but he was nowhere near his best on Saturday, to be fair to him I am not sure that Patterson and occasionally Brownhill  help matters at times with their lack of discipline.

 

 

Not sure you're quite getting the point I'm trying to make.  I'm not claiming Pack had a great game, so this is in no way a one-eyed defence of him.  Your comments though are certainly a one-eyed attack.
I don't know what it is you expect, but at the risk of repeating myself, the structure for that first goal was clear - Paterson is meant to be covering the edge of the box, Pack is tracking his man Ndoye.  You continue to think that Pack should've been covering the edge as well.  As I said, he can't do 2 people's jobs.  Blame is squarely at Paterson's door.
Then you backtrack on your criticism of him on the 2nd goal by saying "I never saw him during the build up".  That confirms to me that you haven't actually watched and understood the structure and how the play developed - you've just seen someone run across our empty midfield and automatically blamed Pack.  If you would care to watch and understand how we were set up from the throw-in, you'll see that Pack was not to blame for this goal, Smith was too high and Eliasson wrong-side.

I'm not against fair criticism of anyone, but you are searching (nay,scarping) for a reason here, and you are wrong.

[cheshire_red]

I spoke to a Season Ticket holding Blue Nose yesterday. He was very impressed with our passing gam in the first half and mentioned we had obviously been together as a team for a while to be able to play in that manner. However, second hlf he said they bullied us and we were just not street wise and had no one able to either put a foot in or a foot on the ball and take the pressure off us.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

10 hours ago, Harry said:

Not sure you're quite getting the point I'm trying to make.  I'm not claiming Pack had a great game, so this is in no way a one-eyed defence of him.  Your comments though are certainly a one-eyed attack.
I don't know what it is you expect, but at the risk of repeating myself, the structure for that first goal was clear - Paterson is meant to be covering the edge of the box, Pack is tracking his man Ndoye.  You continue to think that Pack should've been covering the edge as well.  As I said, he can't do 2 people's jobs.  Blame is squarely at Paterson's door.
Then you backtrack on your criticism of him on the 2nd goal by saying "I never saw him during the build up".  That confirms to me that you haven't actually watched and understood the structure and how the play developed - you've just seen someone run across our empty midfield and automatically blamed Pack.  If you would care to watch and understand how we were set up from the throw-in, you'll see that Pack was not to blame for this goal, Smith was too high and Eliasson wrong-side.

I'm not against fair criticism of anyone, but you are searching (nay,scarping) for a reason here, and you are wrong.

Agree to disagree but to clear up a couple of points here.

For the first goal I am saying Pack had no need to join in with the already 3 man circus attempting and failing to successfully clear the ball.

For the 2nd goal your one eyed defence of Pack has made you twist or even re invent what I have said, I clearly on both occasions have said either Pack or Smith have failed to do their job in fact I even added "if it was Smith it was probably his only mistake".

And I am all for praising players when they deserve it, like I heaped praise on Pack against Barnsley and when they play not so well I will call it as I see it and I think your version of events is wrong and you are searching (nay scraping) for a reason to shift blame from Pack onto Smith.

Both Birmingham goals came as a catalogue of team failures, the marking for the first goal was pathetic 6 players in and around the box unmarked a recipe for disaster and the whole midfield went to sleep for the throw in for the 2nd causing a loss of shape and Hegeler to step out of his defensive position and make a half hearted decision.

For tonight I would drop Hegeler and Patterson to the bench and bring in Baker and Eliasson and make sure the centre midfield pairing are well aware that if they lose their discipline ONeil and Hegeler are waiting to replace them.