Jump to content

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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BCFC_Dan

  1. BCFC_Dan


    He's clearly capable but he will have a bad game sooner or later and that will be a test for him. If he loses form and the senior keepers are unavailable then we could have a problem. I'm not comparing the two in terms of ability, but I remember Steve Phillips having some very encouraging early games, which he followed up with some nightmare performances. That might have been down to Pulis slating him in public, though. Johnson will need to treat O'Leary as carefully as he is able.
  2. Yes. Nobody abroad is interested in watching English football. That's why the Premier League is so strapped for cash.
  3. Yep. Plus I think it is a valid approach to go out all guns blazing against a recently relegated side. West Brom seem to have adapted to the Championship reasonably well but there is always a chance that they will be unfamiliar with a side like City and will underestimate them. Had we taken one or more of the early chances then I think the approach would have worked. On the other hand, if that game takes place in March between two top 6 sides then I think it would be harder to defend that sort of approach. Maybe we were guilty of expecting the opposition to underestimate us.
  4. Those are tough looking fixtures and we always seem to struggle after international breaks (he says, having not verified this at all) so I'd be happy with 3 draws. Maybe a win at Wigan.
  5. Straight back down after 1 season because the squad wasn't anywhere near good enough. Then: GJ is sacked after a poor start back in the Championship. Millen performs well as caretaker but Lansdown hires Steve Coppell in an attempt to get straight back up. Coppell gives up after a couple of matches because the job is harder than he thought. Millen gets the job permanently. Millen signs Jon Stead and Brett Pitman but the team generally struggles. He's sacked and replaced by promising Scottish manager Derek McInnes. McInnes signs half of Scotland before finding out that none of them are any good at football. He's sacked and replaced by Sean O'Driscoll. City are relegated to League One.
  6. He's the same age as Zak Vyner and nobody seems to worry about him being a flop. I don't know what the exact fee paid for him was but it was money paid out for potential and if he's got what they presumably saw in him then it should be a small amount compared to the value he'll have in future. On the other hand, the lower leagues are full of "former U20 international"s who never quite made it. He'll get the opportunity at City but it's up to him to take it.
  7. I'd say that Paterson, Wright and Baker have all been successful. They were key players in the side that beat Manchester Utd last year, as was Magnússon, who may have moved on but that happens and doesn't make them unsuccessful. Tammy Abraham was a pretty decent signing too. I find it genuinely surprising that some people think City's recruitment has been some kind of disaster in the last few years. Only Engvall has really been an expensive disappointment in that time and sometimes things just don't work out. Nobody succeeds 100% of the time. Furthermore, with some of the more experienced players, they may be doing things in training and the dressing room that we don't see on the pitch. Hegeler and O'Neill hardly set the world alight with their on-pitch performances but we don't know what other influences they had. They might have set positive examples with their professionalism, or maybe helped players out with advice and support. They might not, I don't know, but just because we've not seen them do brilliant things on the pitch it doesn't mean they've not contributed.
  8. I'm glad it's gone. The positive reactions are useful in not ending up with dozens of posts saying "I agree" but to my mind if you disagree with something you should post an explanation as to why you disagree with it.
  9. Sure it does. I never said we were the only club operating on a tight budget. Brentford and Preston are two well run clubs with good management and excellent recruitment plans. They also finished in about the same position as us last season. Cardiff are a Warnock team. He’s brilliant at getting teams out of this league. Everybody knows that. Even so he exceeded expectations with Cardiff. The expectation now is that they’ll stink out the Premier League for 10 months and then come crashing back down.
  10. It isn't necessarily negative to point out problems, real or potential. However realism involves acknowledging the restrictions under which the club operates: We have at best a mid-table budget, with no parachute payments. Aston Villa's parachute payment last season was around the same as City's entire turnover. This dictates the wages we are able to pay. If a player wants to leave it's pretty hard to stop them. There is more to signing players than identifying weak positions in the squad. The Championship is a ridiculously tough and competitive league. Margins between winning and losing are paper-thin. I think it's fine to point out problems. I don't think it's fair to assume, as some seem to, that those problems are caused by stupidity, penny-pinching or a lack of desire for success. What the people running the club are trying to do is very, very hard. There are 24 clubs in the Championship. Not one of them starts the season immune from relegation. Only three can be promoted. At least half a dozen of them are receiving parachute payments. I'm not accusing you of ignoring the above, by the way, or at least not in this thread. My post is a general one that seemed to fit in here.
  11. Happy, given the circumstances. I'd rather have not lost Bryan, Reid and Flint, but the fact is that all three wanted to leave so the only option was to maximise the value received for them and replace them. All three have been replaced with what look on paper to be adequate replacements (though I've no idea about De Silva - is he better than Kelly?) and the squad has been strengthened in other areas: Hunt should be an upgrade on Pisano and Watkins, Eisa and Adelakun should all add something to the attack. It wasn't a window that left me thinking "yes, we should definitely be in the top 6 this year" but realistically we were never in that bracket. We should be able to match or improve on last season if the players play to their potential. I don't think we will be in serious relegation trouble. A profit on transfers should make a dent in the inevitable financial deficit for the season.
  12. Maybe it is to do with FFP. But timing is also dictated by the players' contracts. Bryan wouldn't sign a new one, Flint did but it may have been conditional on being allowed to move. I can't remember when Reid's contract was up but I think it might have been next year too. Timing wasn't really an option with those three unless we were prepared to lose them for nothing next year and / or deal with them being unhappy about not getting a move. I don't think it was ideal to lose them all in the same window but I don't think it was naive. I think it was the best of several undesirable options. You may argue that we should have extended the contracts sooner. That's valid but it doesn't change the fact that the players may want to move and a player who wants to move rarely gives 100%. Additionally, extending contracts before they're due sets a precedent that the club probably wouldn't want to. It's a fine balance between retaining assets and paying more than is necessary / deserved in wages.
  13. Even if I let you have Reid and Bryan it's still less than 30% of the typical starting XI. For £20m. That's what selling at the right time looks like. Even if money were no object you can't just keep players if they've decided they want to go. All three players wanted to test themselves at a higher level and two of them were coming to the ends of their contracts. There's every chance that there was a gentleman's agreement in place with Flint to let him go if an offer came in. Players and agents aren't stupid. We couldn't have just given Reid and Bryan new contracts last year because they'd know that would reduce their opportunity to move on and better themselves.
  14. Is that you, Charles Hughes? I don't have any stats to hand but this is an area in which they can be misleading. It's probably fair to say that the number of sides maintaining possession for possession's sake has declined recently but the stats can deceive. A 30 pass move may end in a foul and a free kick, from which a cross into the box creates a goal. That goes down in the stats as one pass to create the goal, but that opportunity doesn't arrive without the preceding 30 to create the position. The other main ways in which teams play (in my limited understanding) are the "low block" counter attack style, which probably doesn't need such a good ball-playing keeper. This is probably what you have in mind when you refer to a fast break out of defence, and the "high press", which relies on disrupting your opponent's transition from defence to attack. The goalkeeper being able to play football isn't essential for scoring goals here but it's pretty important if you don't want to concede against it.
  15. They're selling the assets at a time when somebody is willing to pay a substantial amount for the players and the players want to move. That's literally the time when a smart person sells. You have a funny definition of the "core", I have to say. Magnússon was a stand-in left back for most of last season, Milan Djuric was fit for a grand total of about 2 months and made 7 starts in his whole time at City, Bobby Reid was an important player last season but that's the only season he's been anything like a key player and Bryan was shifted around the left side from week to week. If Fielding leaves it'll be because the club wants him to because they've replaced him. The only player who's left who was a regular starter in the spine of the team was Flint, and he's been replaced. As it stands, Fielding, Pisano, Wright, Baker, Smith, Pack, Paterson, Brownhill, O'Dowda and Diedhiou are all still at the club. That's 10 players who are at least as "core" as anyone who has left, and it's only a left-back away from being a perfectly good 1st XI. The club are rumoured to have a left back signing from Southampton if Bryan leaves.
  16. Not if that's the model you've chosen to follow it isn't. Selling players at the peak of their value, or at least for the maximum possible when it would be difficult to retain them, is very, very good management. Assuming that Bryan leaves the club will have received over £20m for three players, who cost £300k in transfer fees and relatively little in wages. Not one of them is irreplaceable. Two have already been replaced with competent Championship players. Besides that, the core of the team has not been lost. A centre half, a left back, and a striker we didn't even know we had 12 months ago have left. Most of the first XI is the same as it ever was, unless the manager chooses to change things. Think about all the times in the past when we've held on to our "best" players: Nicky Maynard, Liam Fontaine, Marvin Elliot, Aaron Brown. How many of those sustained the level of performance they were showing when offers came in for them? Pretty much nobody outside Madrid can keep hold of any player they want when another club comes in. The rest of us either sell at the right time or watch an asset depreciate in front of us.
  17. You get what's available too. Look at how many of the top clubs struggle to find adequate goalkeepers, especially those clubs that play a pressing game and need more of a sweeper-keeper. Man City took years to find a suitable one and they have near limitless resources, likewise Liverpool. Arsenal haven't had a truly great one for years. Finding a goalkeeper who is in our price range, willing to sign, and is better than Frank Fielding at the things Lee Johnson wants a goalkeeper to do isn't easy.
  18. I don't think anyone could argue that mistakes weren't made in the period from 2010-15 but I do think they were understandable mistakes. Coppell was appointed because we got carried away with how good we were and thought he'd add the final few missing pieces to complete the picture. Very few people realised then that the squad had decayed as far as it had. Millen was appointed because he had a good spell as caretaker before Coppell and Lansdown wants to be the guy who gives new managers their chance. McInnes was appointed because he'd done well in Scotland and was seen as the "next Owen Coyle", who was at the time one of the most highly rated managers in the country. The budget was cut because it had to be. McInnes was used to working on a smaller budget in Scotland but misjudged the quality of players up there. O'Driscoll was appointed because he's a progressive coach who encourages players to think for themselves and play good football. He was the right man at completely the wrong time. Even then things went fine until Jon Stead was injured, then they collapsed horribly. All those decisions can be looked upon critically with hindsight, and no doubt some questioned them at the time, but I don't remember mass protest against any of them. Indeed the only decision I can recall from that period that caused any real disagreement was that of replacing O'Driscoll with Cotterill, which ironically turned out to be one of the best. So, yes, Lansdown has made mistakes, but not inexplicable ones. I think they're the same mistakes that 90% of fans would also have made. And most of the remaining 10% would have made worse ones.
  19. Pretty sure Hunt is supposed to be able to play anywhere along the back line. I've not seen him play though. I'd happily replace O'Dowda with Bryan and Bryan with Kelly were it not for Kelly's lack of experience.
  20. I think they've got it broadly right but I don't understand how they can be so sure that the rookie manager Lampard will be such a success but Moore, who nearly achieved a miracle with West Brom last season, and Potter, who has done well abroad, will not.
  21. Maenpaa Hunt, Webster, Baker, Bryan Brownhill, Pack, Smith, O'Dowda Paterson, Weimann Basically the team from last December with the closest like-for-like swaps I can think of. If O'Dowda isn't fit then Eliasson can come in for him, or Kelly can play left back and Bryan push forward. All the other new signings can start on the bench.
  22. Last year they thought we were nailed on to go down because we hadn't adequately replaced Abraham and Tomlin.
  23. I thought (going mainly on the televised games) that the games in which Steele played really highlighted how good Frank Fielding's distribution was. Steele was a competent keeper but his passing wasn't great.
  • Create New...