Jump to content
IGNORED

Did anyone think we weren’t actually that good first half?


Silvio Dante

Recommended Posts

And no, this isn’t wise after the event.

In the first half, up until the second goal, when Sunderland’s heads dropped we weren’t good - with a few notable exceptions (Flint, Pack, Kent). We gave the ball away significantly and didn’t look impressive. In part that was them (harassed us when we had the ball), in part it was us (really, unlike 5 weeks ago, we werent giving ourselves the overload in midfield). I think LJ had the same opinion at that time as we had subs out and warming up after 10 minutes despite being one up. All the calls I heard to RB afterwards were how good we were - but I was genuinely gobsmacked we were 3 up at half time with how ragged we were.

That doesn’t mean I expected it to be 3-3 at full time, and to be fair at HT I thought Sunderland had ‘gone’, but to go against the grain I thought it was a poor and disjointed 90, other than the 10 before HT, not just a poor 45.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was saying the same thing, we really weren’t that great first half. Gave the ball away to many times, lazy, not much closing down except Bobby Reid and if we were playing against anyone half decent we would have got filled in. Sunderland were just so bad defensively, going forward I thought they weren’t bad at all. Our arrogance in the second half cost us and as soon as we gave them a sniff they took the opportunity and we buckled massively. Pathetic performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

And no, this isn’t wise after the event.

In the first half, up until the second goal, when Sunderland’s heads dropped we weren’t good - with a few notable exceptions (Flint, Pack, Kent). We gave the ball away significantly and didn’t look impressive. In part that was them (harassed us when we had the ball), in part it was us (really, unlike 5 weeks ago, we werent giving ourselves the overload in midfield). I think LJ had the same opinion at that time as we had subs out and warming up after 10 minutes despite being one up. All the calls I heard to RB afterwards were how good we were - but I was genuinely gobsmacked we were 3 up at half time with how ragged we were.

That doesn’t mean I expected it to be 3-3 at full time, and to be fair at HT I thought Sunderland had ‘gone’, but to go against the grain I thought it was a poor and disjointed 90, other than the 10 before HT, not just a poor 45.

I agree 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we were sloppy from the start. It was like hot potato for the first 20 minuets. They were poor and they must of been for us to be 3-0 up at halftime playing like that. I questioned our attitude early on as some of the players looked sloppy to me. Then with Bobby going off our intensity dropped off. A bad day at the office IMO. COYR 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

And no, this isn’t wise after the event.

In the first half, up until the second goal, when Sunderland’s heads dropped we weren’t good - with a few notable exceptions (Flint, Pack, Kent). We gave the ball away significantly and didn’t look impressive. In part that was them (harassed us when we had the ball), in part it was us (really, unlike 5 weeks ago, we werent giving ourselves the overload in midfield). I think LJ had the same opinion at that time as we had subs out and warming up after 10 minutes despite being one up. All the calls I heard to RB afterwards were how good we were - but I was genuinely gobsmacked we were 3 up at half time with how ragged we were.

That doesn’t mean I expected it to be 3-3 at full time, and to be fair at HT I thought Sunderland had ‘gone’, but to go against the grain I thought it was a poor and disjointed 90, other than the 10 before HT, not just a poor 45.

I’ve not even read your post, but by the title.... no, we were fortunate to be 3-0 up. We were unusually clinical and hadn’t played well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct OP. 

We were bang average, only possibility for 3-0 was because Sunderland were so poor. 

Having said that we were all saying ‘this has to be 5/6-0’, unfortunately the complacency we were showing in the stands fed down to our happless souls on the pitch!

i havent seen a 2nd half like that for a long time and our post xmas form is attricious. 

Only for so long can we use the ‘tiredness’ factor for excuses as we are getting players back but, more importantly, the newbies arent getting loads of game time either to help the tiredness!

being typically bristolian ( cynical ), we will be 10th by the end of Feb imo, falling away and i will look back on a very wasteful opportunity to had made playoffs. 

Unfortunately, no promotion for me means we lose atleast Bryan and Flint, possibly Reid, in the summer so, whilst they may generate circa £20m in fees, a lot of rebuilding will be needed in the summer and we wont be able to rely on these players anymore as the heart of the team.

we are slowly handing away the great season we were having!

:grr:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunderland's weak link is their slow (both in running and reaction times) and ageing defence. They are tall, that's about all you could give them.

MF I thought they were a match for us (although they had no defensive, Pack style figure breaking up our attacks - only Cattermole and his incessant, unpunished fouls).

I thought we played some nice fluent football at times, but the reason we were three up was as much to do with the Sunderland defence as it was with us. Flint's goal and Fammy's first were comedy moments and the stuff of defensive nightmares.

So, yeah, agree with the OP to a degree.

That said, with an uninjured Bobby and a non-tired Fammy for 90 minutes, I think we could've thrashed them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunderland were Quite possibly the worst defensive unit I’ve seen at AG for many a year and that was without Adam Matthews,  Quite staggering we didn’t manage to score in the second half, frankly this was the flukiest result i’ve Seen for decades where so many decisions/ incidents went their way but that’s football, move on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First half we were generally sloppy except for the second & third goals on the break, when we were very clinical. We really missed Bobby in the second half. Anyone else think at half time that LJ should have replaced him with Engvall instead of Diony, as more of a like for like. Also we were anything but clinical in front of goal in the second half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

First half we were generally sloppy except for the second & third goals on the break, when we were very clinical. We really missed Bobby in the second half. Anyone else think at half time that LJ should have replaced him with Engvall instead of Diony, as more of a like for like. Also we were anything but clinical in front of goal in the second half.

LJ himself, reading between the lines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were as poor 1st half as we were in the 2nd . We were 3 up due to suicidal defending and a couple of flurries of decent football but our passing was woeful and our pressing non existent . Sunderland simply stepped up two gears in the 2nd half and the end result was inevitable with our square pegs in round holes . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

And no, this isn’t wise after the event.

In the first half, up until the second goal, when Sunderland’s heads dropped we weren’t good - with a few notable exceptions (Flint, Pack, Kent). We gave the ball away significantly and didn’t look impressive. In part that was them (harassed us when we had the ball), in part it was us (really, unlike 5 weeks ago, we werent giving ourselves the overload in midfield). I think LJ had the same opinion at that time as we had subs out and warming up after 10 minutes despite being one up. All the calls I heard to RB afterwards were how good we were - but I was genuinely gobsmacked we were 3 up at half time with how ragged we were.

That doesn’t mean I expected it to be 3-3 at full time, and to be fair at HT I thought Sunderland had ‘gone’, but to go against the grain I thought it was a poor and disjointed 90, other than the 10 before HT, not just a poor 45.

Was out last night, so this is the first post I’ve read post-match.  I dread what I’m gonna read elsewhere.

I agree, I don’t think we were that great yesterday in the first half.  I thought Sunderland were a match for us in the opening 15-20, despite us getting the first goal (we’ll taken Flint).  Too many casual passes, and apart from Pack and Flint, in that period, no-one was excelling themselves.

13 hours ago, Simon79 said:

I thought we were sloppy from the start. It was like hot potato for the first 20 minuets. They were poor and they must of been for us to be 3-0 up at halftime playing like that. I questioned our attitude early on as some of the players looked sloppy to me. Then with Bobby going off our intensity dropped off. A bad day at the office IMO. COYR 

Carrying on from Silvio’s post, the clock was on 21m;24s when we got our first pass into Diedhiou’s feet.  Yes, we were too casual.  

13 hours ago, Jack Dawe said:

Did anyone think we weren't actualky that bad second half?

Just as I didn’t think we were great to be 3-0 up at h-t, I didn’t think we were that bad in the 2nd half.  The first 10 minutes were a non-event, the next 15 were ours and the last 20 were end to end.  We did play some flowing stuff and had the chances to put the game beyond reach at 3-0 and 3-1.

For me the main reasons we lost our 3 goal lead was Ill-discipline.  We stopped playing 442 and Kent and Pato drifted 1) wherever they wanted and 2) didn’t track back.  They seemed to swap over and Bryan had no help whatsoever.

Very disappointing, but we are gonna have results we don’t expect, however there are a few who need to take a good look at themselves.  Will go into this in other topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we did ok first half, some great moves and a few showboating moments, 3 goals, could have been 5 or 6. 

And I doubt any player in the championship had a better game than Bobby in that first half. 

I know it wasn’t perfect but I’d take it over the majority of first halves I’ve seen over the years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First half we were OK and grew in confidence as the goals went in, whereas Sunderland's players heads dropped. 

In the second half our players were far too casual. I also thought once they had got the first goal LJ should have made changes to shore things up - their right winger especially caused Bryan all manner of problems and I would have brought Magnússon to counteract that threat with Bryan pushed up to left midfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eric04 said:

I though we were as good as we needed to be against a really woeful Sunderland but felt we could play a lot better and score more second half. 

 

You say they were woeful but they dominated possession in the first 25 minutes as I recall it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...