Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums
Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.
- Start new topics and reply to others
- Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
- Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
- Get your own profile page and make new friends
- Send personal messages to other members.
- Support OTIB with a premium membership
Everything posted by The Swan and Cemetery
Buttler’s test record doesn’t indicate he’s likely to turn into a test player, plus an out and out batsman at 7 is a luxury we can’t afford. Might swap Root and Denly, as think Root prefers a bit more of the shine off and better to sacrifice a lesser player. Roy isn’t an opening batsman in first class cricket so can’t see him hanging on, but might be feasible at 5 (which would mean persisting with Bairstow as WK and think you’re right re him batting and Foakes keeping; and arguably Pope above Roy in pecking order anyway). 7 down is quite a long tail, but probably more stickability than a lot of the batting options available. Basically I agree with you! One other thought: if we can’t find batsman who can score runs, we might as well give Woakes/Curran a spot and try and bowl teams out more quickly. Little point having players in for the sake of it. Prefer your selection overall, but an alternative, with batting bolstered a bit (albeit lacking proven performers 1 to 3), could be: 1. Burns 2. Sibley 3. Denly 4. Root 5. Pope or Roy 6. Stokes 7. Bairstow (WK) 8. Archer 9. Leach 10. Broad 11. Anderson Looking at it, think this shows how light we are in terms of batting talent, as don’t think we’d lose many runs if we got rid of an out and out batsman and replaced with either Foakes as per your team, or Woakes/Curran.
The manager will be working to instructions of those above him/her, so does that absolve Johnson from blame, as Ashton hasn’t correctly inspired/directed him, who in turn hasn’t been appropriately directed by Lansdown? Seems perfectly reasonable (and would happen in any workplace I’ve been in) to lay accountability at all those who’ve contributed to something going wrong, in last night’s case both manager and players. To remove all accountability from the players seems to suggest the ‘workers’ have no ability to make choices re their own effort/performance etc. Set up/tactics, Johnson needs to take responsibility, effort/bottling tackles etc, surely the players can make choices, not rely on external motivation from others (and if it does have to be external - don’t think it does - receipt of a very decent salary might suffice)?
Pack and Brownhill getting off quite lightly on this thread. Seems a very high risk policy to expect zero individual errors from defenders, to enable central midfield to position themselves wherever they like - both consistently too far forward and not getting back in when WBA (in particular Johnstone) had the ball. Neither Kelly's nor Hunt's errors (think both deserve criticism btw) were in particularly dangerous positions, with sensible set up/cover. Could argue that it was our very attacking set up that created all the chances - possibly fair, but a) surely we need to ensure we get into better defensive formations with more urgency when they have the ball and b) "you score 7, we'll score 8" seems optimistic with their frontline and likely conversion of chances %?