Team selection...

[spudski]

...what was LJ thinking?

Elliason and Palmer in the same starting line up.

Said to a mate, soon as I saw selection...'you watch, it'll be the most open game of football, end to end, anyone can win'...and so it came to be.

Most ridiculous game I've seen tactically in ages.

Then to cap it all...we go 1 up and then proceed to plod about with no energy or urgency. The tone set by Palmer and it spread throughout...all apart from Messengo who was working his socks off...covering where others were less urgent. No wonder he got an injury...through having to work twice as hard. Where was Brownhill today? Strolling.

Boro get a goal back...oh and guess what...our energy comes back. I'd be spitting feathers over that if I were LJ.

However...he picked that side. Look at our stats...awful completed passes rate...poor possession by comparison. Way fewer passes.

Thought LJ cocked up today with team selection.

[TBW]

Keeps Eliasson out, people moan.

Puts Eliasson in, people moan. 

What's the guy to do?...

[westred1]

Is that the same Eliasson who delivered several quality crosses and assisted the same Palmer who nodded home after impressing defensively and on the break?

[MelksRed]

Nobody won actually.....

The game was entertaining...despite the fact that we lost two points..

A point gained however

Lessons learnt by all......

Not a complete tactical disaster....but a good learning curve on which to build......

 

 

[Prinny]

Who would you have picked on the left instead?

We have to play a back 4 because we don't have the CBs,

We need to play 2 up because we don't want another Leeds game.

So with Elliason in his best position on the right, who do you pick for the left?

O'Dowda? Put Brownhill on the right Nick on the left and have Palmer Massengo as midfield? Semenyo/Diedhiou up front and Weimann out wide?

I think if he's picked any of those three options he'd get criticism because of the result. This is very much results based criticism.

The thing I'd have liked to have seen tactically was to freshen it up BEFORE they scored as we looked tired and slow and a goal felt like it was coming.

[Cowshed]

9 minutes ago, TBW said:

Keeps Eliasson out, people moan.

Puts Eliasson in, people moan. 

What's the guy to do?...

Lordy that is not the point the poster was making.

City were porous before the game kicked off. 

Its a obvious point to make. The game was all over the shop because of the shape the team did not have. 

 

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, westred1 said:

Is that the same Eliasson who delivered several quality crosses and assisted the same Palmer who nodded home after impressing defensively and on the break?

Yep...first half. Then both disappeared. Thought Palmer set the tone for our lethargy when 1_0 up. 

Both players bring offensive qualities...however Palmer was less effective second half, and Eliasson good on the ball, poor off it.

Messengo was having to do the work of two men defensively and imo Brownhill was anonymous.

Thought defence did well as did Afobe.

We'll score playing a team like that...but concede as well.

As the result showed.

[steviestevieneville]

17 minutes ago, spudski said:

...what was LJ thinking?

Elliason and Palmer in the same starting line up.

Said to a mate, soon as I saw selection...'you watch, it'll be the most open game of football, end to end, anyone can win'...and so it came to be.

Most ridiculous game I've seen tactically in ages.

Then to cap it all...we go 1 up and then proceed to plod about with no energy or urgency. The tone set by Palmer and it spread throughout...all apart from Messengo who was working his socks off...covering where others were less urgent. No wonder he got an injury...through having to work twice as hard. Where was Brownhill today? Strolling.

Boro get a goal back...oh and guess what...our energy comes back. I'd be spitting feathers over that if I were LJ.

However...he picked that side. Look at our stats...awful completed passes rate...poor possession by comparison. Way fewer passes.

Thought LJ cocked up today with team selection.

Said To my mate 5 minutes before they scored Palmer looked complacent and we were all over the place . O’dowda was warming up as well , shame he didn’t come on earlier. Love Palmer but he set the tone second half. 

Hopefully we learn from it and it turns out to be a decent point . 

[Alex_BCFC]

To be fair with so many injuries he had little choice in selection. We would never have been that wide open normally - made it actually a good watch at home for once.

 

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Matty_Taylor_is_god said:

Shock another otib thread complaining about LJ

I actually think LJ is the best coach we've ever had and have always said he's a very good coach for this Club.

However...today I thought he got it wrong both tactically and with initial team selection.

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, spudski said:

...what was LJ thinking?

Elliason and Palmer in the same starting line up.

Said to a mate, soon as I saw selection...'you watch, it'll be the most open game of football, end to end, anyone can win'...and so it came to be.

Most ridiculous game I've seen tactically in ages.

Then to cap it all...we go 1 up and then proceed to plod about with no energy or urgency. The tone set by Palmer and it spread throughout...all apart from Messengo who was working his socks off...covering where others were less urgent. No wonder he got an injury...through having to work twice as hard. Where was Brownhill today? Strolling.

Boro get a goal back...oh and guess what...our energy comes back. I'd be spitting feathers over that if I were LJ.

However...he picked that side. Look at our stats...awful completed passes rate...poor possession by comparison. Way fewer passes.

Thought LJ cocked up today with team selection.

Bit amazed by your opinion of today's game. First half we were outstanding going forward, but too open. 

Second half should have brought off Palmer even earlier than he did. I said about 10 mins before goal we have Palmer who's legs are gone on the left and Rowe who is so slow anyway, they will score from that side soon. And then they did.

There are tactical things I think LJ could have done better. But lack of effort? Strolling? Brownhill absolutely worked his socks off. In fact they all did. Every single player except maybe Semenyo who was obviously trying, but just didn't seem up to the pace and looked nervous. It was a fantastic game to watch. Boro are a very strong side. Happy with a point, surely.

 

[ChippenhamRed]

Playing devils advocate a little here - but why is setting up for an “open” game any less valid than setting up for a more “closed” game? Is it right that our first priority should be to not lose?

An open game means more chances at both ends - we’re more likely to score, but more likely to concede. Whereas a closed game means we’re less likely to score, but less likely to concede. Overall our chances of winning the match are about the same, no?

At least playing in an open manner likely means entertainment - which isn’t a bad thing.

[mozo]

5 minutes ago, spudski said:

I actually think LJ is the best coach we've ever had and have always said he's a very good coach for this Club.

However...today I thought he got it wrong both tactically and with initial team selection.

 

I think you've got to accept that LJ is massively hamstrung by a/injuries and b/integrating new players.

It was makeshift to begin with, then ultra makeshift when we sufcered 2 further injuries. 

We need Nagy and Kalas back for a start.

[cityexile]

Could it have been a case of ‘given the resources I have available to me, the best chance we have is to try to outscore them?’ We had 18 efforts on goal...they had 22. Was not dull. The only weakness they had was defending crosses, which led to both of our goals. If I was a Boro fan I would be happy with an awful lot of their play, but very disappointed by the goals conceded. Again, maybe LJ saw that weakness.

i was just saying to those watching with me that Boro were much better at managing the game when a goal up than we were and then seconds later, 2-2. Pretty sure it is not how LJ would have chosen to line up, but got a point. Only real down side is more of their players seemed to last the 90 better than some of ours.

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Bit amazed by your opinion of today's game. First half we were outstanding going forward, but too open. 

Second half should have brought off Palmer even earlier than he did. I said about 10 mins before goal we have Palmer who's legs are gone on the left and Rowe who is so slow anyway, they will score from that side soon. And then they did.

There are tactical things I think LJ could have done better. But lack of effort? Strolling? Brownhill absolutely worked his socks off. In fact they all did. Every single player except maybe Semenyo who was obviously trying, but just didn't seem up to the pace and looked nervous. It was a fantastic game to watch. Boro are a very strong side. Happy with a point, surely.

 

Exactly what I've implied mate.

Said it was way too open...and said it would be from reading selection, before a ball was kicked.

Eliasson and Palmer will create, but what's the point if they leave you so open in other parts of the game.

Playing one is fine...but both? That was always going to end how it did.

Because of that selection... Messengo was overworked and Brownhill kept cautious and imo not his usual self.

As  I also said... Palmer set the tone for less energy in the second half. So many of our team became less on the front foot after we scored. We sat back and Boro came...had more space and scored.

That part of our game is so frustrating.

We win when we play with energy and are less open.

Today was a lesson in complacency.

[spudski]

7 minutes ago, cityexile said:

Could it have been a case of ‘given the resources I have available to me, the best chance we have is to try to outscore them?’ We had 18 efforts on goal...they had 22. Was not dull. The only weakness they had was defending crosses, which led to both of our goals. If I was a Boro fan I would be happy with an awful lot of their play, but very disappointed by the goals conceded. Again, maybe LJ saw that weakness.

i was just saying to those watching with me that Boro were much better at managing the game when a goal up than we were and then seconds later, 2-2. Pretty sure it is not how LJ would have chosen to line up, but got a point. Only real down side is more of their players seemed to last the 90 better than some of ours.

They had over 100 more passes than us, over 150 more touches, won twice the amount of Ariel duals. Plus a lot less possession. Way too open and not enough defensive attributes, positional awareness after going 1 up. 

[DT The Optimist]

I think perhaps we got out of jail a bit today and if I was a Boro fan I may have been disappointed  with only 1 point, thought they were in general far more threatening in final third than us and in Fletcher (No.11) and Assom'go (whatever he's called)  could clearly see why we 'sniffed ' around him pre season (if media reports true)

That said  we also created chances and contributed fully to a good game,  but we are certainly light at the back. Once we have Williams up to speed and the return of Kalas and Nagy think we will be a real force and will make an impact this season (let alone JD later in season). Seems crazy  to be pleased for a  break to get some wounded back  so early in season

[David Brent]

Ooh I’d have picked a different team. Love me..pathetic

[James54De]

5 minutes ago, spudski said:

They had over 100 more passes than us, over 150 more touches, won twice the amount of Ariel duals. Plus a lot less possession. Way too open and not enough defensive attributes, positional awareness after going 1 up. 

The reactions to your opening post portray what people think of your opinion. Perhaps you’re just wrong here? (Not for thé first time may I add) 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, spudski said:

Exactly what I've implied mate.

Said it was way too open...and said it would be from reading selection, before a ball was kicked.

Eliasson and Palmer will create, but what's the point if they leave you so open in other parts of the game.

Playing one is fine...but both? That was always going to end how it did.

Because of that selection... Messengo was overworked and Brownhill kept cautious and imo not his usual self.

As  I also said... Palmer set the tone for less energy in the second half. So many of our team became less on the front foot after we scored. We sat back and Boro came...had more space and scored.

That part of our game is so frustrating.

We win when we play with energy and are less open.

Today was a lesson in complacency.

Our players were not lazy, lethargic or complacent. You can see the fatigue running through the squad and that’s a physical thing, not a lack of focus or drive.

We need this break, with the injuries, tough start and shuffle job we have had to do. 

We have had an incredible start to the season and are earning plaudits. And against a very decent (I thought) Boro team we earn a solid point to tick over. It’s frankly quite ridiculous to nit pick over a selection where our manager’s hands were pretty much tied or to suggest we were complacent. 

[cityexile]

5 minutes ago, spudski said:

They had over 100 more passes than us, over 150 more touches, won twice the amount of Ariel duals. Plus a lot less possession. Way too open and not enough defensive attributes, positional awareness after going 1 up. 

Would not argue with any of that, I thought we were very average second half. I do think 11 points off six is a big flattering to us at the moment. Equally, given we are still getting to know each other, and have significant injuries, it is much better than I feared. Completely honestly based on today’s game alone as a neutral I would say Boro looked the better over the 90. We did however carry a threat and were not far away. Maybe surprised we stayed as open as we were at 1-0.

[downendcity]

10 pointsout of the last 12 with new players bedding in and 3 key players out injured. 

Will excuse LJ a selection issue - if that's what it was. 

[bexhill reds]

7 minutes ago, spudski said:

They had over 100 more passes than us, over 150 more touches, won twice the amount of Ariel duals. Plus a lot less possession. Way too open and not enough defensive attributes, positional awareness after going 1 up. 

Not quite sure what LJ could have done differently especially when losing Hunt and Massengo during the game.

I think we play better with a back 3, but given that Williams has had no pre-season, it would have been a massive gamble to had played him from the start. Not sure what more our central midfield could have done in the game, they're having to play deep which then causes a massive gap between them and the front 2, and then we wonder why Boro have more possession. 

O'Dowda is not a wing back, neither is Elliason, and we had little else on the bench that could have dealt with the way that Boro played in the 2nd half.

Just have to accept that this was one of those games, thankfully the international break will allow a few to come back and Williams to work on his fitness.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, 29AR said:

Our players were not lazy, lethargic or complacent. You can see the fatigue running through the squad and that’s a physical thing, not a lack of focus or drive.

We need this break, with the injuries, tough start and shuffle job we have had to do. 

We have had an incredible start to the season and are earning plaudits. And against a very decent (I thought) Boro team we earn a solid point to tick over. It’s frankly quite ridiculous to nit pick over a selection where our manager’s hands were pretty much tied or to suggest we were complacent. 

They weren't complacent or lazy in first half. But were at start of second half. They soon found their energy and focus again when we had to chase the game.

That's the point I'm making...we shut off and allowed Boro back in the game. 

Players tired more, because they were working harder covering Eliasson and Palmer when defending.

Wasn't having a go at the team or LJ...just making an observation that today we screwed up a little imo.

Played less open and without Eliasson or Palmer in the same side I think we would have won that game.

Just my opinion.

[Cowshed]

23 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Playing devils advocate a little here - but why is setting up for an “open” game any less valid than setting up for a more “closed” game? Is it right that our first priority should be to not lose?

An open game means more chances at both ends - we’re more likely to score, but more likely to concede. Whereas a closed game means we’re less likely to score, but less likely to concede. Overall our chances of winning the match are about the same, no?

At least playing in an open manner likely means entertainment - which isn’t a bad thing.

Because City were open out of possession. That flies in the face of fundamental principles of play in open out in possession close down and compact out of it, or aggressively counter press etc to control space. 

[MarcusX]

14 minutes ago, David Brent said:

Ooh I’d have picked a different team. Love me..pathetic

We can all have our opinions of players based on what we see for 90 minutes once a week and some on here do have tactical / coaching background but that doesn’t replace the fact that LJ or any manager for that matter sees these lads day in day out several hours a day and probably has all their vital statistics and how they are feeling tracked and monitored. Add on top of that they have the opposition tracked and analysed and look for weaknesses etc leading to certain tactical decisions.

Football is played by humans not robots and no fan is ever going to be better placed to pick a team than the people behind the scenes... in my opinion of course.

[spudski]

9 minutes ago, cityexile said:

Would not argue with any of that, I thought we were very average second half. I do think 11 points off six is a big flattering to us at the moment. Equally, given we are still getting to know each other, and have significant injuries, it is much better than I feared. Completely honestly based on today’s game alone as a neutral I would say Boro looked the better over the 90. We did however carry a threat and were not far away. Maybe surprised we stayed as open as we were at 1-0.

And this is my way of thinking...we have so many injuries, so you need to protect the squad, not overwork them. Today picking Eliasson and Palmer, it meant others were going to have to work twice as hard both physically and mentally to cover those two lack of natural defensive awareness, positioning and effort.

It was therefore no surprise to see both Hunt and Messengo get injured... especially Messengo who was constantly having to cover Palmer.

 

[Frenchay Red]

Massengo

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Playing devils advocate a little here - but why is setting up for an “open” game any less valid than setting up for a more “closed” game? Is it right that our first priority should be to not lose?

An open game means more chances at both ends - we’re more likely to score, but more likely to concede. Whereas a closed game means we’re less likely to score, but less likely to concede. Overall our chances of winning the match are about the same, no?

At least playing in an open manner likely means entertainment - which isn’t a bad thing.

And if you're great going forward with pace, movement and trickery, that we have, and not really suited to shutting teams out, then yes attack, attack, attack as far as I'm concerned. I didn't see Hull game, but didn't we go for it a bit? It worked then.

[David Brent]

Nothing worse than an 50+ bloke complaining about team selection after a defeat..or a draw