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

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

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.

Reading were a decent side but it was a game we needed to win. I know smith is not a creative player which is my point exactly. With smith on we were not creating enough so when he got injured that was the perfect opportunity to bring creativity onto the pitch in Palmer. If we are worried that having brownhill in smiths position makes us more open against a team near the bottom when the prize is potentially promotion then we don’t deserve it.

LJ got it wrong and it might well cost us. (In fairness he has got a lot right recently). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

Playing 1 up front at home for much of the season is the reason for the poor home performances and form. A half decent home record would have cemented us in a playoff position already.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

I don't agree with it but I suppose LJ thought he could retain the same patterns with a direct replacement Smith for Walsh.

He doesn't seem to trust Palmer to track back which is a shame as I thought we needed someone with a clever pass - whether Palmer or Pato today.

I think Walsh has more than a ‘clever pass’ in him....

https://t.co/UxOh7FkSZY

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith’s injury using up one of our substitutions made things more difficult, but I agree Palmer should have come on. We had precious little creativity yesterday and seemed to rely on crosses into the box, which apart from Brownhill’s goal Reading dealt with comfortably. Presumably Weimann was taken off because he was running out of steam, but with hindsight it might have been better to keep him on and bring Palmer on for Pack. Taylor was largely ineffective, mainly because we weren’t really creating anything - we needed some spark in midfield instead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aa_bcfc said:

Playing 1 up front at home for much of the season is the reason for the poor home performances and form. A half decent home record would have cemented us in a playoff position already.  

This one up front at home thing...

How many do Norwich play up front at home, typically?

Leeds were incredibly wasteful yesterday in a shock loss v Wigan- but in general pretty dominant at home. How many orthodox strikers do they play up front at some, typically?

Swansea score quite a few at home and win quite a few too- number of strikers typically?

Aston Villa?

Derby?

Last season, how many orthodox strikers did Wolves typically use at home on a game?

Fulham especially with Mitrovic? Well I don't even need to ask.

Having said that, I like the 3-5-2/3-4-2-1 hybrid in general. Maybe we should have used it sooner.

It's simplistic to blame '1 up front at home' though IMO. It can be a very fine line between a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 and 4-5-1...perhaps we have erred towards the latter a bit much at times during home games!

Would also suggest hitting the woodwork 12 times at home plays a part in perception of performance.

We've not been the luckiest side- arguably Rotherham 2 red cards and QPR last minute pen 2 exceptions to the rule.

Even the latter though was just recompense for the wrongly disallowed Pisano goal earlier in the game.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This one up front at home thing...

How many do Norwich play up front at home, typically?

Leeds were incredibly wasteful yesterday in a shock loss v Wigan- but in general pretty dominant at home. How many orthodox strikers do they play up front at some, typically?

Swansea score quite a few at home and win quite a few too- number of strikers typically?

Aston Villa?

Derby?

Last season, how many orthodox strikers did Wolves typically use at home on a game?

Fulham especially with Mitrovic? Well I don't even need to ask.

Having said that, I like the 3-5-2/3-4-2-1 hybrid in general. Maybe we should have used it sooner.

It's simplistic to blame '1 up front at home' though IMO. It can be a very fine line between a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 and 4-5-1...perhaps we have erred towards the latter a bit much at times during home games!

Would also suggest hitting the woodwork 12 times at home plays a part in perception of performance.

We've not been the luckiest side- arguably Rotherham 2 red cards and QPR last minute pen 2 exceptions to the rule.

Even the latter though was just recompense for the wrongly disallowed Pisano goal earlier in the game.

It definitely helps if the one up top has the clinical finishing of Pukki or Tammy

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mozo said:

It definitely helps if the one up top has the clinical finishing of Pukki or Tammy

That's one factor, yes.

Also of assistance would be if support was got up to and around the lone striker more quickly. That makes a big difference tactically- get the feeling we have been a bit cautious in this regard at home.

Regardless, blaming 'one up front at home'- I stand by my point- is a somewhat simplistic take. There are quite a few variables in our relatively poor return at home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's one factor, yes.

Also of assistance would be if support was got up to and around the lone striker more quickly. That makes a big difference tactically- get the feeling we have been a bit cautious in this regard at home.

Regardless, blaming 'one up front at home'- I stand by my point- is a somewhat simplistic take. There are quite a few variables in our relatively poor return at home.

Yes, there are a number of variables. However, the plain fact is just 8 home wins in 22 matches. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Arguably performances might merit more.

Not sure about that, we played particularly poorly against all the bottom teams and I still shudder at the PNE game, it’s typical of LJ’s tenure really where we have been really good against the top teams at home (bar dirty Leeds) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2019 at 15:52, 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.

Only made 10 starts all season and in his last home one he got a goal and an assist, maybe a bit harsh?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Curr Avon said:

However, the plain fact is just 8 home wins in 22 matches. 

That particular stat won’t be lost on LJ. He knows, just as we all know that home form could have been much better.

Im not sure how many home draws we’ve had, but 8 wins = 24 points plus the draws.........:dunno:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Robin1988 said:

Only made 10 starts all season and in his last home one he got a goal and an assist, maybe a bit harsh?

LJ really likes Taylor not just the effort he puts in during matches but his bubbly persona around the club. With a full season of Championship football experience under his belt he could get more starts next season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, harrys said:

Not sure about that, we played particularly poorly against all the bottom teams and I still shudder at the PNE game, it’s typical of LJ’s tenure really where we have been really good against the top teams at home (bar dirty Leeds) 

Hard to say.

Not saying we were wildly unlucky over the season, but we could have gained a few more points at home. The bottom third on the road have not often been thrashed over the course of the season.

This can help offer a bit of the context of the wider division, fairly easily at that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–19_EFL_Championship#Results

The nature of this League in some ways. Not saying we have got an acceptable number of points in these home games though!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2019 at 15:52, 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.

Yeah, Taylor was ******* useless against Wigan, I wish he hadn't got an assist and scored, the crap bastard.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours 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.

 

Sorry, everyone else that has posted, I haven’t read them all.

I agree a lot with this DC.

LJ has built a team that is based around Marlon Pack protecting two fine CBs (Kalas and Webster) and being the pivot of our attack.  In fairness it has done pretty well, but....

....a team based on this type of player (and the DM position) can be restrictive in many other areas, especially at home.

I may be wide of the mark, but I could imagine LJ going to bed at night and dreaming of being Marlon Pack and having Marlon’s passing range and no-look passes, and I think it clouds his judgement of the impact Marlon has on games....because it’s impact is deep, too deep.  Our defensive record is better this season, but I think that is more to do with Kalas, Webster and Mäenpää than  Pack in front of them.  Our away form has been much better this season, and MP has been a decent part of this, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not digging out Marlon, just think his importance to the team in LJ’s mind is overstated.

We will never accommodate a Kasey Palmer-type if LJ insists on basing a style around a deep-lying midfielder.  Would things have been different with Korey available?  Not so sure....think he’d already made his mind up that Marlon and Josh were his first choice.  Korey playing might have made him Re-think, possibly.

Whether we go 4 or 3 at the back, the instance is that the ball must circulate through Pack.  The exception is Webster going forward, but that is flawed, because it never creates an extra man in midfield like it should, because Pack just fills in at CB....and teams can keep their defensive shape without being tested.  Birmingham at home was the classic example.

LJ, being a midfielder, sways his focus on thinking the DM is the most important role on the pitch. 

As I said above we have still had a very decent season, and it’s churlish to be too critical, but the small margins LJ talks about might be in different areas of the pitch to what he thinks.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Yeah, Taylor was ******* useless against Wigan, I wish he hadn't got an assist and scored, the crap bastard.

Thought he did well to score and assist a goal. Don't think he has been the super sub he was a while ago. I think Semenyo's pace and power might cause defences different problems and is worth having on the bench.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Sorry, everyone else that has posted, I haven’t read them all.

I agree a lot with this DC.

LJ has built a team that is based around Marlon Pack protecting two fine CBs (Kalas and Webster) and being the pivot of our attack.  In fairness it has done pretty well, but....

....a team based on this type of player (and the DM position) can be restrictive in many other areas, especially at home.

I may be wide of the mark, but I could imagine LJ going to bed at night and dreaming of being Marlon Pack and having Marlon’s passing range and no-look passes, and I think it clouds his judgement of the impact Marlon has on games....because it’s impact is deep, too deep.  Our defensive record is better this season, but I think that is more to do with Kalas, Webster and Mäenpää than  Pack in front of them.  Our away form has been much better this season, and MP has been a decent part of this, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not digging out Marlon, just think his importance to the team in LJ’s mind is overstated.

We will never accommodate a Kasey Palmer-type if LJ insists on basing a style around a deep-lying midfielder.  Would things have been different with Korey available?  Not so sure....think he’d already made his mind up that Marlon and Josh were his first choice.  Korey playing might have made him Re-think, possibly.

Whether we go 4 or 3 at the back, the instance is that the ball must circulate through Pack.  The exception is Webster going forward, but that is flawed, because it never creates an extra man in midfield like it should, because Pack just fills in at CB....and teams can keep their defensive shape without being tested.  Birmingham at home was the classic example.

LJ, being a midfielder, sways his focus on thinking the DM is the most important role on the pitch. 

As I said above we have still had a very decent season, and it’s churlish to be too critical, but the small margins LJ talks about might be in different areas of the pitch to what he thinks.

One possible solution to that Pack being too deep might have been Hegeler as the first '1' in the 4-1-4-1.

This could have enabled Pack to get 5-10 yards up the pitch with more regularity, knowing he had an extra layer behind.

The dual benefit there is though starting with a back 4, in certain phases Hegeler could have dropped in alongside Kalas and Webster. Suddenly you have a back 3 as he has been deployed at CB before.

Even then could but only in limited circs have dropped to cover for Webster when he goes on his great runs. 

However the main benefits of Hegeler in that position would have been the first 2. Third would have been possible but only v certain opposition in certain phases IMO.

Would have had potential for increased options though. Flexibility and fluidity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One possible solution to that Pack being too deep might have been Hegeler as the first '1' in the 4-1-4-1.

This could have enabled Pack to get 5-10 yards up the pitch with more regularity, knowing he had an extra layer behind.

The dual benefit there is though starting with a back 4, in certain phases Hegeler could have dropped in alongside Kalas and Webster. Suddenly you have a back 3 as he has been deployed at CB before.

Even then could but only in limited circs have dropped to cover for Webster when he goes on his great runs. 

However the main benefits of Hegeler in that position would have been the first 2. Third would have been possible but only v certain opposition in certain phases IMO.

Would have had potential for increased options though. Flexibility and fluidity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know what you’re saying MrP, but I don’t think Pack has the mobility or speed of mobility to work in a 4141, where we would be a striker light.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Sorry, everyone else that has posted, I haven’t read them all.

I agree a lot with this DC.

LJ has built a team that is based around Marlon Pack protecting two fine CBs (Kalas and Webster) and being the pivot of our attack.  In fairness it has done pretty well, but....

....a team based on this type of player (and the DM position) can be restrictive in many other areas, especially at home.

I may be wide of the mark, but I could imagine LJ going to bed at night and dreaming of being Marlon Pack and having Marlon’s passing range and no-look passes, and I think it clouds his judgement of the impact Marlon has on games....because it’s impact is deep, too deep.  Our defensive record is better this season, but I think that is more to do with Kalas, Webster and Mäenpää than  Pack in front of them.  Our away form has been much better this season, and MP has been a decent part of this, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not digging out Marlon, just think his importance to the team in LJ’s mind is overstated.

We will never accommodate a Kasey Palmer-type if LJ insists on basing a style around a deep-lying midfielder.  Would things have been different with Korey available?  Not so sure....think he’d already made his mind up that Marlon and Josh were his first choice.  Korey playing might have made him Re-think, possibly.

Whether we go 4 or 3 at the back, the instance is that the ball must circulate through Pack.  The exception is Webster going forward, but that is flawed, because it never creates an extra man in midfield like it should, because Pack just fills in at CB....and teams can keep their defensive shape without being tested.  Birmingham at home was the classic example.

LJ, being a midfielder, sways his focus on thinking the DM is the most important role on the pitch. 

As I said above we have still had a very decent season, and it’s churlish to be too critical, but the small margins LJ talks about might be in different areas of the pitch to what he thinks.

I often wonder if LJ is especially fond of Walsh because of his passing style. If he is, it hasn't led to many appearances for the Scouser.

Edited by mozo
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/04/2019 at 08:18, 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. 

It's an interesting comment about midfield creativity.

Imo...we have plenty of chances to create a decent penetrating pass into the final third...but it's the lack of movement by certain offensive players, that means our midfield or defenders have to turn and play sideways to keep possession.

Standing on the shoulder of the last defender not moving doesn't allow a pass of quality and is high risk.

When we had Reid and Park up front they were constantly moving and creating space and opportunity.

Famara offers quality in other aspects of the game, but stifles our positive movement and creativity in the final third imo.

I'd actually like to see him sat a little deeper with the likes of Weimann, Taylor or Palmer higher than him.

---------------------------max-----------------------------

hunt ----------Kalas---------Webster----Dasilva

-------------------------Pack_-----------------------------

Brownhill -----------------------------------Elliason

_--------------------------Famara------------------------

-----------------Taylor----------------Pato--------------

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/04/2019 at 19:48, Davefevs said:

I know what you’re saying MrP, but I don’t think Pack has the mobility or speed of mobility to work in a 4141, where we would be a striker light.  

Sort of agree Dave, can depend on the striker too though.

Weimann as a lone striker- and this isn't knocking Diedhiou at all- but I wonder given the versatility of the former if that sort of shape with an in-form and fit Weimann as the lone striker- obviously getting adequate support- could have compensated for this a bit. See Pack's assists v Norwich and Bolton- something like Weimann, O'Dowda and Palmer maybe in a fluid, versatile front 3...but give them a bit more license than they had in the 4-1-4-1.

The speed and mobility thing yeah agree it'd be a concern, but I wouldn't have Pack charging about in that ideal configuration- just a few yards up as and when appropriate, maybe a bit more focus on medium to long range passing too. Probably need to give it more thought but it is one idea anyway- plus Palmer's directness could create that bit more space for Pack to play a few more of the medium to long range passes.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • 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...