Magnússon on his way

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 minute ago, RedRoss said:

Can't believe the uproar. 

You can't knock his attitude or commitment to us but Maggs was poor more than he was good so don't understand the love in.

Ridiculous to say he was mismanaged when no one has any proof there was a disagreement between the two. Also who would he have replaced out of CB's Baker, or Flint or LB's out of Bryan and Kelly? All in my opinion much better consistent players.  Even if Baker and Flint we're injured I would rather have gone with Bailey. 

Showed flashes of a good player, great commitment to the club, cool name and handy long throws sums him up.

Glad we got our money back to reinvest.

 

Agree with all your post except this

His public outing in the media and obvious lack of belief from the manager , shuffling players out of position rather than pick him merely made the situation worse

[The Coach]

6 minutes ago, Olé said:

It's certainly odd to sell a player prior to a World Cup which rarely does anything other than enhance valuation and number of interested parties.

We've literally got a minimum of four and a half hours of free global TV advertising for our player, and we've sold him off before the ads have run.

Two words...Bristol City

[Olé]

44 minutes ago, ZiderMeUp said:

Like signing proven champ players like tomlin and o’neil You mean? 

It's a fair challenge. But Tomlin wasn't proven - his baggage was well known. We got the ability but also all the problems. O'Neil proven but also past it, as all the injuries seem to have shown. Baker and Wright are probably the only players I would put in the bracket myself.

[BRISTOL86]

Don’t forget that Russian clubs pay very good salaries. They could easily double or treble his wages here. 

[RedRoss]

11 minutes ago, Olé said:

It's a fair challenge. But Tomlin wasn't proven - his baggage was well known. We got the ability but also all the problems. O'Neil proven but also past it, as all the injuries seem to have shown. Baker and Wright are probably the only players I would put in the bracket myself.

Really about Tomlin??

 

[City fan 1982]

48 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Can't believe the uproar. 

You can't knock his attitude or commitment to us but Maggs was poor more than he was good so don't understand the love in.

Ridiculous to say he was mismanaged when no one has any proof there was a disagreement between the two. Also who would he have replaced out of CB's Baker, or Flint or LB's out of Bryan and Kelly? All in my opinion much better consistent players.  Even if Baker and Flint we're injured I would rather have gone with Bailey. 

Showed flashes of a good player, great commitment to the club, cool name and handy long throws sums him up.

Glad we got our money back to reinvest.

 

Like in engvall or elision ?  

How have we invested in these two ? 

I wouldnt trust lee with my sons pocket money. 

[Davefevs]

Great post @Olé #94.

Its something I’ve been saying too.  Our success rate appears to be better with recruiting from lower league clubs.  The cost of the supposed low risk European players isn’t as low as you’d want.  Mags at £2m, Engvall at £1.5, Moore (English) at £1.5m, Eliasson at £1.8m, Djúric at £1.6m, plus Hegeler at £150k, Pisano and Steele (English) free.

I think we are paying too much for the first 5 I listed, we should be looking at more of the last 3 as our model.

Lets not forget Diedhiou, a success, but at £5.3m, you’d bloody hope so.  But imagine it had been Diony we’d signed.  I don’t actually believe we were tracking as long as we say we were.

In comparison, O’Dowda at £1.2m (cheaper than any of the first 5) and Brownhill at £200k compensation and Taylor at £300k look much more sensible.  Add to that Bailey Wright at £500k and Paterson for the same figure (both were Championship players) and you wonder why we really put so much emphasis in Europe.

I’ve not even talked about Agent fees....rumours of £600k going to someone in Engvall’s deal.  But I suspect the fees for our Euro players are higher than our English League players.  For some of the good work done by MA, there’s some pretty awful deals in that batch.

Perhaps the Kodjia signing has lulled City into a false expectation of success.  And that was done under the old regime!!

[Colemanballs]

I got the impression that, when he was in the team, the team generally played better than when he wasn't. I'd guess, but don't have time to check, that results were better too. 

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

LJ was certainly stubborn in overlooking Joe's defensive limitations but the other side of the coin is that Mags is no great shakes going forward and still tends to make mistakes through lack of concentration.

In the modern game though there is more emphasis on full backs as attacking rather than defensive players as they have more space to play in than anybody else.

Much of what you say is true, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

In any form of team based ball sport the age old adage remains ever true: Offense wins games, Defense wins Championships.

Don't concede, you never lose.

People cite the likes of Graham and Charlton as building successful yet dull sides, but analyse those at the top of the table and they're as tight as a duck's proverbial. They'll also score most, but much of that differential is in the thrashings of lesser teams dished out. It's not the 5 or 6 nil drubbings that win titles, it's the played badly 1 nil victories that clinch success. 

What's clear from our present personnel is we aren't good enough to play variation. I think we had options for a solid enough back 4 had they been played that way, but sod all creative in front of them to feed the forward line. WeeLee could never decide to **** or bust, hence we ended up in the middle of nowhere.

As for attacking full backs, yes they're worth their weight, save look closely and they're as rare as rocking horse. Good ones cost a fortune. Ones who can't defend, find it difficult to beat defenders, have woeful percentage stats for quality of ball into the box and who, save for the infrequent spectacular strike, threaten only Row Z - well they go for 6-8 million apparently.

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Much of what you say is true, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

In any form of team based ball sport the age old adage remains ever true: Offense wins games, Defense wins Championships.

Don't concede, you never lose.

People cite the likes of Graham and Charlton as building successful yet dull sides, but analyse those at the top of the table and they're as tight as a duck's proverbial. They'll also score most, but much of that differential is in the thrashings of lesser teams dished out. It's not the 5 or 6 nil drubbings that win titles, it's the played badly 1 nil victories that clinch success. 

What's clear from our present personnel is we aren't good enough to play variation. I think we had options for a solid enough back 4 had they been played that way, but sod all creative in front of them to feed the forward line. WeeLee could never decide to **** or bust, hence we ended up in the middle of nowhere.

As for attacking full backs, yes they're worth their weight, save look closely and they're as rare as rocking horse. Good ones cost a fortune. Ones who can't defend, find it difficult to beat defenders, have woeful percentage stats for quality of ball into the box and who, save for the infrequent spectacular strike, threaten only Row Z - well they go for 6-8 million apparently.

We could have gone for and stuck with a Pulis style back 4 made up of centre backs as a matter of policy in a search for more solidity, though I suspect many of our fans would not have been impressed.

Like or not people expect full backs to attack. The last solid pair we had was Orr and Macca but they were criticised for not being our very own Alves and Marcelo.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

We could have gone for and stuck with a Pulis style back 4 made up of centre backs as a matter of policy in a search for more solidity, though I suspect many of our fans would not have been impressed.

Like or not people expect full backs to attack. The last solid pair we had was Orr and Macca but they were criticised for not being our very own Alves and Marcelo.

I still think we played good stuff with the more solid back 4 of BW, AF, NB and HM.  Was that a coincidence with playing Reid and Paterson up front, I don’t know.  Did it release Smith and Pack a little more knowing they always had 3 or 4 defenders “at home”, I don’t know.  Was it Bryan with licence to attack down the left, I don’t know.

But we looked solid, didn’t concede many chances, let alone goals in comparison to the second half of the season.

[Super]

4 hours ago, TheCulturalBomb said:

Defending 1v1 was poor, and his positioning was pretty dire. 

Add that to his decision making being hopeless you have described him perfectly.

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I still think we played good stuff with the more solid back 4 of BW, AF, NB and HM.  Was that a coincidence with playing Reid and Paterson up front, I don’t know.  Did it release Smith and Pack a little more knowing they always had 3 or 4 defenders “at home”, I don’t know.  Was it Bryan with licence to attack down the left, I don’t know.

But we looked solid, didn’t concede many chances, let alone goals in comparison to the second half of the season.

Fair comment but BW and HM were not the full backs as a matter of policy, LJ's preference being for attacking full backs regardless of their defensive limitations.

Personally I would prefer a solid back 4 who focus on defending plus a strong holding player and let the attacking players do their thing with freedom.

LJ is a bit too gung ho for my taste. 

[B-Rizzle]

8 hours ago, Ryan_BCFC said:

Hörður Magnússon - Out

Sam McQueen - In

 

Can’t see McQueen coming unless JB is off imminently.

More like Hörður out, Lloyd Kelly in (now he’s started establishing himself in the first team over the last couple of months)

[chinapig]

9 minutes ago, B-Rizzle said:

Can’t see McQueen coming unless JB is off imminently.

More like Hörður out, Lloyd Kelly in (now he’s started establishing himself in the first team over the last couple of months)

Kelly's future is as a centre back but in any event assuming Joe leaves as well we will certainly sign another left back.

[Dullmoan Tone]

5 hours ago, RedRoss said:

Also who would he have replaced out of CB's Baker, or Flint or LB's out of Bryan and Kelly? All in my opinion much better consistent players.  Even if Baker and Flint we're injured I would rather have gone with Bailey. 

The very last game when Kelly was selected instead of Maggers must have made him realise he needs to move to play.

The fact that Kelly's inexperience was so woefully found out - made us forget that Maggers came on and played well - the strikers rarely had a sniff in the second half.

I do agree he makes mistakes - most your defenders do - I still think Wolves at home was unforgivable as, with hindsight, it started our collapse.

But my main point is LJ chose Kelly (with no Championship CB experience) instead of Maggers putting him third choice CB - if he goes onto to develop into a brilliant CB no-one other than  LJ can be accountable for not spotting his potential. FWIW I'm not sure I have seen evidence he will.

[Leveller]

6 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

The utter liability of Bryan played at the back any day.

Everyone makes mistakes, but I’d be much happier relying on Bryan as a pure defender than Magnússon.

[Dullmoan Tone]

38 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Kelly's future is as a centre back but in any event assuming Joe leaves as well we will certainly sign another left back.

Did you watch the SU game?

Kelly was completely outclassed at CB, I think his future is definitely at LB.

He was torn to shreds in 45 mins and LJ found out that you can't blood teenagers out of position in the Championship - so there is hopefully no chance of it occurring again with Kelly in central defence.

[chinapig]

12 minutes ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

Did you watch the SU game?

Kelly was completely outclassed at CB, I think his future is definitely at LB.

He was torn to shreds in 45 mins and LJ found out that you can't blood teenagers out of position in the Championship - so there is hopefully no chance of it occurring again with Kelly in central defence.

Like or not that is his position and always has been. It's not going to change on the basis of 45mins.

He will certainly be in the squad next season covering both positions but we are undoubtedly looking to sign a first choice left back.

[Cowshed]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Much of what you say is true, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

In any form of team based ball sport the age old adage remains ever true: Offense wins games, Defense wins Championships.

Don't concede, you never lose.

People cite the likes of Graham and Charlton as building successful yet dull sides, but analyse those at the top of the table and they're as tight as a duck's proverbial. They'll also score most, but much of that differential is in the thrashings of lesser teams dished out. It's not the 5 or 6 nil drubbings that win titles, it's the played badly 1 nil victories that clinch success. 

What's clear from our present personnel is we aren't good enough to play variation. I think we had options for a solid enough back 4 had they been played that way, but sod all creative in front of them to feed the forward line. WeeLee could never decide to **** or bust, hence we ended up in the middle of nowhere.

As for attacking full backs, yes they're worth their weight, save look closely and they're as rare as rocking horse. Good ones cost a fortune. Ones who can't defend, find it difficult to beat defenders, have woeful percentage stats for quality of ball into the box and who, save for the infrequent spectacular strike, threaten only Row Z - well they go for 6-8 million apparently.

Graham and Charlton teams would struggle in modern football ... Jack Charlton team killed games often by back passing - A tactic no longer possible.

Attacking full backs at the higher level of the game are commonplace. If you want to analyse teams at the top of the table what you will really see is that they are better on the ball than their peers. Its less mistakes controlling the ball and less misplaced passes that create tightness. That is modern football, and many teams score up to a third of their goals from transition from pressing he opponents in possession.

Modern football is very much about possession. 

At is zenith defenders are now very good on the football because they are going down the route of universality. Many want far more than just defenders, they want footballers, again football at its peak is about players not being one dimensional specialists, and that starts in many sides from the Keeper out through the XI.  

Solid is frequently mistake ridden because solid loses the ball more, meaning solid has to defend more and very frequently concede more because they lack tactical flexibility to deal with challenges, and teams have less possibility.

Bristol Citys players were clearly good enough to play fast and snappy to feet. 

[BCFC_Dan]

Lovely bloke, competent footballer, not a winner. I don’t think either GJ or Cotterill would have played him much.

I’ll be sad to see him go but if we have to sell players then he’s a good choice to move on.

[Offside]

Good luck to him. Decent player who for whatever reason doesn't fit into LJ's plans (and is part of the worrying trend of players signed by LJ who are subsequently deemed to be not good enough). At least it seems we'll recoup some of our money.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Fair comment but BW and HM were not the full backs as a matter of policy, LJ's preference being for attacking full backs regardless of their defensive limitations.

Personally I would prefer a solid back 4 who focus on defending plus a strong holding player and let the attacking players do their thing with freedom.

LJ is a bit too gung ho for my taste. 

I’m not sure what LJ’s preference is anymore!  I’m being serious.  His selections went away from his principles in the new year.  Was as fickle as most of us!!

[Natchfever]

I think hes better suited abroad but would wait post WC. Unlke some signings he has had lots of game time but just hope we dont lose too much (apologies if fee mentioned earlier)

[Super]

3 hours ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

The very last game when Kelly was selected instead of Maggers must have made him realise he needs to move to play.

The fact that Kelly's inexperience was so woefully found out - made us forget that Maggers came on and played well - the strikers rarely had a sniff in the second half.

I do agree he makes mistakes - most your defenders do - I still think Wolves at home was unforgivable as, with hindsight, it started our collapse.

But my main point is LJ chose Kelly (with no Championship CB experience) instead of Maggers putting him third choice CB - if he goes onto to develop into a brilliant CB no-one other than  LJ can be accountable for not spotting his potential. FWIW I'm not sure I have seen evidence he will.

That was more down to Sheff U coasting the second half. They barely had an attack.

[RT's Vaseline Tub]

Should sell him after the World Cup if he has to go when his value is higher after a decent showing. 

Typical of Mark Ashton when we could make a tidy profit but let it slip through our fingers by doing a rushed deal with no due diligence to quote on of his favourite sound bites.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

If true I find it amazing that people are surprised, it has been blatantly obvious that LJ does not rate Magnússon.

[Bryans Left Peg]

12 hours ago, RedRoss said:

Really about Tomlin??

 

Interesting to see the yellow card spike in his second season with us.

I assumed he constantly moaned like **** at the ref everywhere he played.

[JamesBCFC]

16 hours ago, hodge said:

Think you're picking the wrong transfer for this case if its the wider issue of the strategy, Mags definitely had the potential to be a player at this level and has played fairly well for us. But it hasn't worked for him with the chances he was given and we're making our money back at minimal loss in the wages/signing on fee. If we can largely make the money back on players we pay bigger fees for then sell a few on for big profit then the strategy will work. 

Im not even sure if we have taken a loss here.

With the drop in value of the pound over the last couple of years any loss in money (on transfer fees alone) will be very small indeed.

[chinapig]

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not sure what LJ’s preference is anymore!  I’m being serious.  His selections went away from his principles in the new year.  Was as fickle as most of us!!

Yes, he started out wanting a high pressing, quick passing game, which was good news imo. But he over reacts when things aren't going well, ending up with a scatter gun approach to tactics.

Injuries didn't help but I'd rather he shut out the noise from fans and stuck to his guns. He's often accused of having no plan B but in fact he has too many plans!