Matthews

[Bristol Rob]

Bloke described as being nonchalant by the manager misses a training session.

Reflected view; management and coaching team probably should have been clearer with the player as to how they communicated with him, player should appear to be more distressed at missing the session than they were. 

End result, player misses game and management authority is restored. Player has more time to improve hamstring issue.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, billywedlock said:

For LJ to make the various comments he has, publicly, I assume it is an attitude and application issue. Maybe wrong. Having said that, I am certain the club are surprised and hugely dissatisfied because we had seen him up close and personal last season. 

I fully expect a new right back in January and Mathews to be sent back even if we are still paying loan wages. I cannot imagine it is ideal having someone with what I perceive to be the issues mentioned within the squad. Shame Ayling left, he would have played a lot, and has still looked the best right back in a City shirt this season, albeit for one game 

 

 

Think LJ mentioned something about Matthews partiality to fizzy drinks earlier this season (I assume coke etc rather than champagne , though , on prem wage it may be the latter !!)

Was sat behind our bench for Blackburn game and LJ tore into him big time from sideline on at least two occasions 

think you are right Billy - I suspect if Lee could go back a few months he wouldn't have brought Matthews here

Apparently Fulham have an ex-Spurs RB who might have a Little Promise - how about a look

[BobBobSuperBob]

40 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Yes I think you are right trivial by comparison to some of the Miriad of horse manure we have seen under a succession of managers in SLs reign. But here in is the issue. The club does not take that kind of behavior and nor does LJ (GJesque perhaps) and the different attitude fits with everything else happening at the club  

Luke marked his card and a good offer came in with Matthews as the replacement. (As far as I'm aware City did not actively tout LA, but to be closely associated with peeing in a glass in public view at a public event and watching and laughing did not reflect well on anyone, the players were banned from Cheltenham subsequently and LA made a public apology. This sent its own message about his availability)

The decision to sell Ayling after accepting a good offer was correct at the time with all factors considered, who knew Matthews was going to become a poor mans Nicky Hunt, I certainly didn't. 

Still LA has gone and we have bucket loads to spend from Adomah, Bolaise, LA, KA, JK etc. Let's hope we get better players in Jan and June thru Aug and Matthews and The Swede become football players again and the rest raise their game, including GJ

 

Oxo - LJ said that they circulated LA as available when he explained he couldn't guarantee him a first team spot

[Bristol Rob]

32 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

LJ just said " the key is getting him 100% in his own  mind" no mention of his hamstring or needing to clear up some communication issues . This after multiple other comments in the media. Clearly there are issues that are not as simplistic in nature as you suggest. 

My take on the situation was after having read this.

 

http://m.bristolpost.co.uk/lee-johnson-reveals-misdemeanours-led-to-adam-matthews-being-dropped-from-bristol-city-squad/story-29931307-detail/story.html

[REDOXO]

30 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Oxo - LJ said that they circulated LA as available when he explained he couldn't guarantee him a first team spot

BBSB. Interesting, however playing decision, possibly, as he had Matthews, Little and Moore and he couldn't guarantee LA a first team place and he had significant value (is anyone gauranteed a first team place). Let's face it Mathews was obviously number one in LJs mind, LA  being told this tinged with Cheltenham, probably. However circulating availability is a joined decision. 

Either way the issue is not really LAs departure being incorrect under the then existing circumstances so much as Matthews not being at the races (see what I did there :laugh:) since being loaned from the Premier league obviously as first choice  

With all that said Mark Little has been ok in 'recent' games he's played and it's clear we need Matthews to get his head and body right or bring in someone else. I think most would agree  

On another note from one of your earlier posts, I thoroughly agree LJ would never have brought him here if he had known any of this. I guess that means LA would still be here, MAYBE! Funny old game init?

 

 

[Nogbad the Bad]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Yes I think you are right trivial by comparison to some of the Miriad of horse manure we have seen under a succession of managers in SLs reign. But here in is the issue. The club does not take that kind of behavior and nor does LJ (GJesque perhaps) and the different attitude fits with everything else happening at the club  

Luke marked his card and a good offer came in with Matthews as the replacement. (As far as I'm aware City did not actively tout LA, but to be closely associated with peeing in a glass in public view at a public event and watching and laughing did not reflect well on anyone, the players were banned from Cheltenham subsequently and LA made a public apology. This sent its own message about his availability)

The decision to sell Ayling after accepting a good offer was correct at the time with all factors considered, who knew Matthews was going to become a poor mans Nicky Hunt, I certainly didn't. 

 

 

I don't agree selling Ayling was the correct decision, but that's a matter of opinion and we can agree to disagree about that.

I wouldn't describe Orr and Brooker, for instance, as 'horse manure' and they were forgiven and rehabilitated by the club after far more serious transgressions.

Dean Gerken was also forgiven after being arrested on suspicion of urinating in public and stayed at AG for a further 3 years.

As far as I can see Ayling was caught on camera being immature, but his behaviour was little more than being a giggling onlooker when all's said and done.

Massively hyped up by the media, and his departure - if the incident played a significant part in the decision - a similar over reaction from City imo. 

[REDOXO]

33 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

I don't agree selling Ayling was the correct decision, but that's a matter of opinion and we can agree to disagree about that.

I wouldn't describe Orr and Brooker, for instance, as 'horse manure' and they were forgiven and rehabilitated by the club after far more serious transgressions.

Dean Gerken was also forgiven after being arrested on suspicion of urinating in public and stayed at AG for a further 3 years.

As far as I can see Ayling was caught on camera being immature, but his behaviour was little more than being a giggling onlooker when all's said and done.

Massively hyped up by the media, and his departure - if the incident played a significant part in the decision - a similar over reaction from City imo. 

To be fair my point was the situations created were horse manure and I was agreeing with you. 

But the current reality is the Orr, Brooker Brown situations are unlikely to be tolerated by the board and majority shareholder as discipline is part of the club mantra from signing onnow. Perhaps not so much in the past. 

We see our players in less trouble than ever before so I guess that is showing

On a related note I was once chatting with the then incumbent  Chairman many years ago about players they had to bring in order to get a grip in the dressing room so this kind of thing has been going on with us for donkeys years, plus the excessive drinking smoking (yes smoking) gambling womanizing and footballer attitudes we had culturally. 

LJ says he wants football players not footballers and the right professional attitude and perhaps LA was a victim of that, Matthews may yet be. 

[shelts]

Ayling nice going forward but suspect at defending. Think we might have a happy ending with Mathews, hope so as we are light in that area and he ticks all the boxes possibly for a longer stay than the end of this season. I hope so as I think he's very good when fit. 

[BobBobSuperBob]

5 hours ago, REDOXO said:

To be fair my point was the situations created were horse manure and I was agreeing with you. 

But the current reality is the Orr, Brooker Brown situations are unlikely to be tolerated by the board and majority shareholder as discipline is part of the club mantra from signing onnow. Perhaps not so much in the past. 

We see our players in less trouble than ever before so I guess that is showing

On a related note I was once chatting with the then incumbent  Chairman many years ago about players they had to bring in order to get a grip in the dressing room so this kind of thing has been going on with us for donkeys years, plus the excessive drinking smoking (yes smoking) gambling womanizing and footballer attitudes we had culturally. 

LJ says he wants football players not footballers and the right professional attitude and perhaps LA was a victim of that, Matthews may yet be. 

Agree with what you say Oxo 

The irony is I see Bradley Orr says he holds the club dear to his heart (And that showed in his commitment) because they stood by him when he was jailed - said the Club significantly played a part in ''making him' .Undoubtedly what he would have told many other friends and teammates 

It highlights the call of whether to stick by a player and what the club tolerates , the pros and cons as a real dilemma / call

[Kodjias Wrist]

According to this article we are looking to get a centre back from chelsea to replace matthews 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/564829/Fikayo-Tomori-Bristol-City-Chelsea-news

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

9 minutes ago, Kodjias Wrist said:

According to this article we are looking to get a centre back from chelsea to replace matthews 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/564829/Fikayo-Tomori-Bristol-City-Chelsea-news

 

Think this was raised elsewhere earlier

Grown up at Chelsea with Tammy so could have legs

[JoeAman08]

Funny how things work out. AM has been poor for us this year. No doubt about it. Little has been average(good and bad games). Then the topic goes to a sold RB. It's so easy to say we shouldn't have sold him. Tbf, many questioned it at the time but thought we did good business getting a decent fee for him. He wouldn't have solved our defensive issues one bit. Hell we got 3 points against Leeds because he got caught up the pitch. He's got no place in this topic to be honest. No championship manager would've picked Ayling over Matthews if he had the choice. 

AM will either continue being a disappointment until January or he will get it together and be a top 5 RB in the league. For whatever reason it hasn't worked for him so far but the fact LJ keeps talking about him makes me think he hasn't given up on him and I don't think we should either. 

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Agree with what you say Oxo 

The irony is I see Bradley Orr says he holds the club dear to his heart (And that showed in his commitment) because they stood by him when he was jailed - said the Club significantly played a part in ''making him' .Undoubtedly what he would have told many other friends and teammates 

It highlights the call of whether to stick by a player and what the club tolerates , the pros and cons as a real dilemma / call

Spot on BBSB. However I see the club not tolerating this any more because One possible Bradley Orr = A whole range of **** ups that I could name over 35 years of failure and third tier footy!

Rich young men with boat loads of money need discipline is the current policy. 

[Big C]

Personally I think all this Cheltenham conspiracy theory is rubbish. He wasn't the only City player there. Pack also got his picture in the paper and he seems to be doing ok. Ayling was sold imo for footballing and financial reasons and that's it. We couldn't guarantee him a first team place and Leeds gave us a decent offer. Why does there need to be a conspiracy?

[Major Isewater]

17 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

I don't agree selling Ayling was the correct decision, but that's a matter of opinion and we can agree to disagree about that.

I wouldn't describe Orr and Brooker, for instance, as 'horse manure' and they were forgiven and rehabilitated by the club after far more serious transgressions.

Dean Gerken was also forgiven after being arrested on suspicion of urinating in public and stayed at AG for a further 3 years.

As far as I can see Ayling was caught on camera being immature, but his behaviour was little more than being a giggling onlooker when all's said and done.

Massively hyped up by the media, and his departure - if the incident played a significant part in the decision - a similar over reaction from City imo. 

We can't have players giggling. I'm with the club on this the first sign of a giggle, ship 'em out .

Severe fines for smirkers as well .

[shelts]

Ayling sold because he and the club wanted the move. Simple. Think the club thought they had cover with Mathews vying for the place with Little and Vyner or Moore if pushed.  Cought us out a tad. That's football 

[pongo88]

5 hours ago, Big C said:

Personally I think all this Cheltenham conspiracy theory is rubbish. He wasn't the only City player there. Pack also got his picture in the paper and he seems to be doing ok. Ayling was sold imo for footballing and financial reasons and that's it. We couldn't guarantee him a first team place and Leeds gave us a decent offer. Why does there need to be a conspiracy?

Why does there need to be a conspiracy? Because it's the forum of course! As the saying goes, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.