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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, steveybadger said:

Walsh came on for Smith quite early on. If the latter had stayed on Palmer would have come on for him or somebody else later on, I suspect. As it happens we ran out of subs 

Why not him instead of Taylor?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the naivety that frustrates me. It was clear that diagonal balls into the box were idea for the Reading keeper and defence. Either overhit or lobbed into the keepers hands. The one that wasn’t got us a goal. 

We lack a leader to boss the game so often. Marlon, Josh and Korey when fit rarely do defence splitting passes so we rely on DaSilva and Hunt too much in that formation. We are a decent team but our inability to break down teams at home looks like costing us. One or two good additions could help that in the summer but the difference between us and the top 5 is a top creative midfielder and a 20 goal a season striker. Neither will be easy to find or cheap but both are essential to progress.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Super said:

Why not him instead of Taylor?

I don't know and I'm not saying I even disagree, just explaining why Taylor and Palmer didn't come on

41 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Bring Palmer on for Pack then!  Keep Weimann on. 

See post above - I don't necessarily disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JonDolman said:

Taylor hasn't been very good for a while now to be fair. Think he might be sold in the summer. We don't know what we will get from Palmer. Even as a sub he can be brilliant or very poor. Hard one for LJ. All I know is he got the starting 11 wrong for sure.

Sag’s can have him back, we can have his replacement goal machine, now what's his release clause?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Johnny Musicworks said:

It is the naivety that frustrates me. It was clear that diagonal balls into the box were idea for the Reading keeper and defence. Either overhit or lobbed into the keepers hands. The one that wasn’t got us a goal. 

We lack a leader to boss the game so often. Marlon, Josh and Korey when fit rarely do defence splitting passes so we rely on DaSilva and Hunt too much in that formation. We are a decent team but our inability to break down teams at home looks like costing us. One or two good additions could help that in the summer but the difference between us and the top 5 is a top creative midfielder and a 20 goal a season striker. Neither will be easy to find or cheap but both are essential to progress.

A 20 goal a season striker is what every club wants but few have, and to get a proven one in today's market would be very expensive.

Another poster commented about Weimann's movement and that he is on a different wavelength from his teammates, who just don't seem to see the runs he makes. This ties in with the points you make in your second paragraph as we miss a midfielder who can control a game and dictate our play. A Hartley or Elliott would be just what we need and with a player of their ilk providing the ammunition we might see FD and AW up their scoring rates so that we don't need a 20 goal striker.

For all there good things LJ has done and achieved with the team, I've long thought that the style of play he wants is one that eliminates as much risk as possible, and that this causes us to be a bit too cautious. This is particularly noticeable in home games, where we often appear to be the exact opposite of what you would expect of a home team .Does this cautionary style of play inhibit our midfield play, which in turn limits the chances we create compared to playing in a more expansive way? 

It's not just defence splitting passes we seem to struggle to create, but also midfielders breaking past the opposition and into the opposing penalty area and making chances through the middle. This was raised on the thread about penalties and  is something we rarely see from our midfield. The one player who seems to have this ability is Palmer, but his opportunities have been limited - perhaps because LJ sees his style of play too risk prone.

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RedDave said:

Bring Palmer on for Pack then!  Keep Weimann on. 

It’s not Fifa where you can go ‘all out attack’. What would your formation/line up be if we made that sub? And if you made it you risk losing the game way more than the gamble to win it. A draw to reading at home isn’t ideal but it’s alot better than losing surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, downendcity said:

A 20 goal a season striker is what every club wants but few have, and to get a proven one in today's market would be very expensive.

Another poster commented about Weimann's movement and that he is on a different wavelength from his teammates, who just don't seem to see the runs he makes. This ties in with the points you make in your second paragraph as we miss a midfielder who can control a game and dictate our play. A Hartley or Elliott would be just what we need and with a player of their ilk providing the ammunition we might see FD and AW up their scoring rates so that we don't need a 20 goal striker.

For all there good things LJ has done and achieved with the team, I've long thought that the style of play he wants is one that eliminates as much risk as possible, and that this causes us to be a bit too cautious. This is particularly noticeable in home games, where we often appear to be the exact opposite of what you would expect of a home team .Does this cautionary style of play inhibit our midfield play, which in turn limits the chances we create compared to playing in a more expansive way? 

It's not just defence splitting passes we seem to struggle to create, but also midfielders breaking past the opposition and into the opposing penalty area and making chances through the middle. This was raised on the thread about penalties and  is something we rarely see from our midfield. The one player who seems to have this ability is Palmer, but his opportunities have been limited - perhaps because LJ sees his style of play too risk prone.

 

Interesting comments...I actually think we play a game that is high risk.

Defensively we are sorted. We as a team are now very organised and have some fantastic defenders.

Offensively...imo, what we try to do, only comes off occasionally, because we don't have the quality of player to do it. However...the more we try, the better they will become. It's planning in progress. LJ imo, is looking at Prem like tactics and asking Championship players to achieve success doing them. They will fall slightly short because of their quality, but will improve over time.

I'd rather we did this, than stagnate. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

How we could have fitted in Palmer in last 20 plus stoppage...one or two possible blueprints.

1)

                   O'Leary

Hunt Kalas Webster Da Silva

Brownhill Pack Walsh Eliasson

                    Palmer

                    Diedhiou

Thinking here is, was a bit asymmetrical in parts. Brownhill-Hunt right side, but definitely the fomer drifting inside as and when.

Left side definitely more orthodox but with Eliasson having potential to get forward with Palmer and Weimann creating a loose 4-3-3. While you still have a bit of an engine room in the form of Brownhill, Pack and Walsh. 

2) Alternative? Much the same but take Diedhiou off and keep Weimann on- let that potentially uber fluid front 3 drift, kind of a 4-3-3 but also potential to become more rigid in phases. May have some defensive issues though!

The horrible injury to Smith, with the resultant need to change him for Walsh? Undoubtedly restricted LJ's options at rolling the dice. Hot day, Weimann may well have needed to be replaced at that stage...first version could've been interesting though IMO. Second more of an idea moving forward.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GTFABM said:

It’s not Fifa where you can go ‘all out attack’. What would your formation/line up be if we made that sub? And if you made it you risk losing the game way more than the gamble to win it. A draw to reading at home isn’t ideal but it’s alot better than losing surely?

I’m aware it’s not FIFA. 

I would have played this which is hardly gung ho! 

                 O’Leary

Hunt. Kalas. Webster. Dasilva

         Brownhill   Walsh

  Weimann. Palmer. Elliason

               Diedhiou 

Edited by RedDave
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even before smith went off we were struggling to create too many openings. We needed more creativity.  Palmer should have come on for Smith and brownhill moved to smiths position. I believe the negative substitution cost us the win. (Not hindsight I said it at the time of the injury). 

By the way Walsh did well particularly 2nd half. 

Edited by aa_bcfc
Added text.
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

How we could have fitted in Palmer in last 20 plus stoppage...one or two possible blueprints.

1)

                   O'Leary

Hunt Kalas Webster Da Silva

Brownhill Pack Walsh Eliasson

                    Palmer

                    Diedhiou

Thinking here is, was a bit asymmetrical in parts. Brownhill-Hunt right side, but definitely the fomer drifting inside as and when.

Left side definitely more orthodox but with Eliasson having potential to get forward with Palmer and Weimann creating a loose 4-3-3. While you still have a bit of an engine room in the form of Brownhill, Pack and Walsh. 

2) Alternative? Much the same but take Diedhiou off and keep Weimann on- let that potentially uber fluid front 3 drift, kind of a 4-3-3 but also potential to become more rigid in phases. May have some defensive issues though!

The horrible injury to Smith, with the resultant need to change him for Walsh? Undoubtedly restricted LJ's options at rolling the dice. Hot day, Weimann may well have needed to be replaced at that stage...first version could've been interesting though IMO. Second more of an idea moving forward.

 

For God sake man your talking to much sense putting up formations like that, please leave this thread immediately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Super said:

Why on earth was he not brought on today? That was a game that was crying out for a bit of magic and he certainly should have come on instead of Taylor if not before then. 

100% agree

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, spudski said:

Interesting comments...I actually think we play a game that is high risk.

Defensively we are sorted. We as a team are now very organised and have some fantastic defenders.

Offensively...imo, what we try to do, only comes off occasionally, because we don't have the quality of player to do it. However...the more we try, the better they will become. It's planning in progress. LJ imo, is looking at Prem like tactics and asking Championship players to achieve success doing them. They will fall slightly short because of their quality, but will improve over time.

I'd rather we did this, than stagnate. 

Absolutely!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Johnny Musicworks said:

It is the naivety that frustrates me. It was clear that diagonal balls into the box were idea for the Reading keeper and defence. Either overhit or lobbed into the keepers hands. The one that wasn’t got us a goal. 

We lack a leader to boss the game so often. Marlon, Josh and Korey when fit rarely do defence splitting passes so we rely on DaSilva and Hunt too much in that formation. We are a decent team but our inability to break down teams at home looks like costing us. One or two good additions could help that in the summer but the difference between us and the top 5 is a top creative midfielder and a 20 goal a season striker. Neither will be easy to find or cheap but both are essential to progress.

And a different Head Coach who will know how to keep all the supporters happy by playing entertaining, winning football in home matches!

To the inevitable Johnson lovers, I'll give you the Sheff U and WBA home games. The rest have been pretty awful, especially against sides in the bottom six.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, aa_bcfc said:

Even before smith went off we were struggling to create too many openings. We needed more creativity.  Palmer should have come on for Smith and brownhill moved to smiths position. I believe the negative substitution cost us the win. (Not hindsight I said it at the time of the injury). 

By the way Walsh did well particularly 2nd half. 

Smith has never been a creative midfielder. His job is/was to break up play and win or intercept the ball. Walsh is a similar type of player so him coming on was like for like.

Palmer is a very different type of midfielder. His strengths are creating opportunities with his vision for a smart pass as we saw at Forest. Had he come on for Smith then City would have become more open. 

LJ made the right call.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Between heaven and hell said:

For God sake man your talking to much sense putting up formations like that, please leave this thread immediately. 

Next thing you know he'll be posting that logical and sensible ffp stuff and analysis of club's accounts!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weimann, Eliasson, they always go forward with the ball, try to do something. Think Weimann is a classplayer. Palmer has the same way thinking, forward, try to pass or shot on goal. When we went for all points vs Reading, think Palmer should have played in the second half. The mainthing when we have the ball is get it in the penalty area. Movement with players and ball I will see more often.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

And a different Head Coach who will know how to keep all the supporters happy by playing entertaining, winning football in home matches!

To the inevitable Johnson lovers, I'll give you the Sheff U and WBA home games. The rest have been pretty awful, especially against sides in the bottom six.

You didn't enjoy Norwich at home? Swansea? QPR 2nd half, Wigan and Bolton were decent comebacks though we couldn't see out the job v Wigan so that'd clearly be 2 points dropped and not so great.

Blackburn at home, 4-1 v a decent side wasn't so bad, especially 2nd half.

Nottingham Forest home back in August, was a decent draw and fairly open game IIRC.

Now Stoke at home that was a loss but 2nd half we were very good. Dominated, woodwork and Butland denied us but we put some strong pressure on. Hull 2nd half we won and just about edged it v a decent side over the 90.

In Cup, though in defeat, 2nd half v Wolves deserved praise for performance.

Not been a vintage home season, nobody would argue it has been, but few more than 2 decent games or displays IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...