Lee Bowyer’s view on things!

[Northern Red]

1 hour ago, Up The City! said:

No mention of us playing with 10 men and them playing with 12 men?

Wibble.

[CiderJar]

 

[BRISTOL86]

2 hours ago, Super said:

Stats dont mean to much. They killed us on the counter in second half. Only themselves to blame.

On another day they could have conceded 2 or 3 more. The way it goes. 

At the end of the day if you have less of the ball, less attempts on goal and less attempts on target it’s hard to see how you can make a compelling case for being the better side and should have won the game. 

3 points probably flattered us but to suggest we deserved to lose on the balance of the game is bonkers. We’re it not for the howler from Bentley they wouldn’t have scored so again can’t see how he can make a case for ‘should have won’. 

[wendyredredrobin]

2 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

Charlton's 5 bookings.

3 for time wasting, one for dissent.

That alone says plenty.

Not counting the 4 or 5 bookings they should have had for "professional" fouls.

[JamesBCFC]

32 minutes ago, CiderJar said:

 

Trying to work out their 'fairness rating'

Our xG difference compared to Charlton was much more than the gap between Fulham and Luton's, but Fulham's win was more 'fair'

[Up The City!]

11 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Not counting the 4 or 5 bookings they should have had for "professional" fouls.

I have not seen much of Charlton but for some reason I perceived them as a decent footballing side but I was shocked by how dirty they were, every player could have at least got a booking. 

[EmissionImpossible]

Also I think had it not been for that last kick by Famara, he wouldn’t have been sent off. First half was awful but Charlton were the better team and if it had been 1-0 we couldn’t have argued. We should have gone 1 up before they scored and deserved the win in the end but not by much.

[JamesBCFC]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Agree Tipps.

LJ seems to be a studious and methodical coach and I can well imagine it suits his style much more to set his teams up to counter opposition strengths and threats, which is why we have done so well on the road over the last 18 months or so.

At Ashton Gate we rarely come out of the blocks strongly and all too often start cagily so that we give the opposition a football in the game. As with last night, it is often the case that it is only when are backs are to the wall that we look like the home team.

In WWII Eisenhower said " I'd rather have a lucky general than a smart general. They win battles"

Gary Player famously said "it's funny  that the more I practice , the luckier I get". 

Losing Kalas, Dasilva, Nagy and Afobe to long/longish term injuries doesn't strike me as particularly lucky, Despite this,  and while we might have ridden our luck on occasions,  we are within 3 points of top spot. Are we the only lucky team to be in this position?

 

 

I'm also not sure why many people take issue with that approach.

There was a German side who a few years ago (this decade) for almost every game set up to counter the opposition's strengths and weaknesses.

This was an unfancied team who then overachieved using this method.

 

Can't remember the details but will try and find it when I finish work.

[steveybadger]

3 hours ago, Robbored said:

A classic “game of two halves”

First 45 City were far too open in midfield and it’s a concern that LJ opted to play two wingers in CoD and Eliasson neither of whom contributed much to help out Brownhill and Massengo. It was blatantly obvious that LJ needed to change things at HT.

Second half much better with a tweak of formation and even when Bentley gifted them a goal I never thought City would lose the game. The guy next to me, Nick was downbeat and I said ‘PMA mate, PMA’ and when City equalised he cheered up!

As far as Bowyers comments go - pretty much what LJ would have said under the same circumstances. It’s a kind of ‘managers speak’

 

It was a good and ‘typical’ away performance; men behind the ball with quick counters. So I can see why he thinks they deserve more. But I still think we had more and better chances and in the last 30   Were far superior.

[Robbored]

3 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

Charlton's 5 bookings.

3 for time wasting, one for dissent.

That alone says plenty.

A reflection on Bowyer during his playing days.

He was a dirty bastard.

[downendcity]

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

A reflection on Bowyer during his playing days.

He was a dirty bastard.

He didn't confine it to just the opposition either.....

 

[Numero Uno]

1 hour ago, Fordy62 said:

Christ, do you know, I had completely forgotten about Jay Dasilva. 
 

testament to how good Rowe has been. 

Had a great game last night but with Massengo physically knackered atm do we need to stick Rowe at Centre Mid for a couple of games?

[mozo]

1 hour ago, Fordy62 said:

Christ, do you know, I had completely forgotten about Jay Dasilva. 
 

testament to how good Rowe has been. 

He's arguably the one we miss the most because we lose not only a top left back but also a handy midfield option.

1 hour ago, CiderJar said:

 

Finally XG approves of us!

[Numero Uno]

3 minutes ago, mozo said:

He's arguably the one we miss the most because we lose not only a top left back but also a handy midfield option.

Finally XG approves of us!

XG says we should win comfortably 3-1 and my eyes say a draw would have been fair. I’ll stick with my eyes I think and just be delighted we won rather than thinking it was our right!!

[JamesBCFC]

7 minutes ago, downendcity said:

He didn't confine it to just the opposition either.....

 

All because Dyer didn't pass him the ball.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/kieron-dyer-lifts-lid-fight-7968397

[Ron W]

3 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

Christ, do you know, I had completely forgotten about Jay Dasilva. 

When you put it like that I hope that’s not why LJ hasn’t been picking him

[fishy]

6 hours ago, richwwtk said:

Whilst the first half was fairly dull, I thought we pretty much controlled that.

The second half we fully deserved the win.

Not many in my part of the dolman seemed to agree with your first half analysis. I didn't think we looked in control at all.  They were faster to press in midfield, they were faster to come out from the back and pushed forward. We seemed really slow in comparison. Don't know if that was down to the formation, players or tactics. 

[richwwtk]

10 minutes ago, fishy said:

Not many in my part of the dolman seemed to agree with your first half analysis. I didn't think we looked in control at all.  They were faster to press in midfield, they were faster to come out from the back and pushed forward. We seemed really slow in comparison. Don't know if that was down to the formation, players or tactics. 

We certainly weren't quick in the first half, but I never felt we were in danger.

The highlights I have seen only seem to show two events from the first half, both chances for us, which probably sums it up fairly well for me.

[Riaz]

for 70 minutes, they were by far the better side. The subs changed the game.

And the red card galvanised us.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Riaz said:

for 70 minutes, they were by far the better side. The subs changed the game.

And the red card galvanised us.

Are you sure? Better tactically perhaps but we were building up some heavy pressure just before they scored. 

Subs were good yes, red card helped yes but I'm not sure about the bolded bit at all.

[Riaz]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Are you sure? Better tactically perhaps but we were building up some heavy pressure just before they scored. 

Subs were good yes, red card helped yes but I'm not sure about the bolded bit at all.

Yes for the few minutes before they scored we had started to play, before that tho, they were definitely the better side IMO.

Let me alter it to, the first 60 minutes they were the better side.

[BRISTOL86]

30 minutes ago, Riaz said:

for 70 minutes, they were by far the better side. The subs changed the game.

And the red card galvanised us.

Were they though? Neat pass and move football but no end product and only found the net because of Bentley’s cock up. 

Stats only tell so much but more of the ball, more successful passes, and more attempts on goal make it hard to argue a case for us being the worst side. 

Once we actually started to play like the home side they looked completely unable to cope with us, even 10 v 11

[PHILINFRANCE]

4 hours ago, downendcity said:

In WWII Eisenhower said " I'd rather have a lucky general than a smart general. They win battles"

Hmmm.

He may well have done, but a certain M. Bonaparte is often quoted as having said something very similar more than a century earlier:

'I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good.'

Actually , according to contemporaneous accounts, Napolean didn't even say this, but based his comment on an even earlier statement:

Don't ask a General if he is competent, but rather if he is lucky, but we are discussing Lee Bowyer..... 

[Riaz]

22 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Were they though? Neat pass and move football but no end product and only found the net because of Bentley’s cock up. 

Stats only tell so much but more of the ball, more successful passes, and more attempts on goal make it hard to argue a case for us being the worst side. 

Once we actually started to play like the home side they looked completely unable to cope with us, even 10 v 11

Neat pass and move with no end product was better than what we produced in the first 60!

[Kid in the Riot]

Charlton deserved to lose due to the fact that once Fam was sent off they bizarrely decided to sit back and stop playing instead of going for the win. 

[downendcity]

39 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Hmmm.

He may well have done, but a certain M. Bonaparte is often quoted as having said something very similar more than a century earlier:

'I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good.'

Actually , according to contemporaneous accounts, Napolean didn't even say this, but based his comment on an even earlier statement:

Don't ask a General if he is competent, but rather if he is lucky, but we are discussing Lee Bowyer..... 

Was going to quote Bony,  but as it is the more well know, thought I would go with Dwight D's quote as an alternative.

 

[marcofisher]

Bowyer is clearly trying to just to soften the blow for his players and keep confidence going for the next game at the weekend. I wouldn't overanalyse it or take it on face value. 

[downendcity]

14 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Bowyer is clearly trying to just to soften the blow for his players and keep confidence going for the next game at the weekend. I wouldn't overanalyse it or take it on face value. 

You realise this is OTIB Marco?

[marcofisher]

4 minutes ago, downendcity said:

You realise this is OTIB Marco?

You wouldn't see it on the Sag's forum, they've never seen that word in their lives! 

[PHILINFRANCE]

16 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Was going to quote Bony,  but as it is the more well know, thought I would go with Dwight D's quote as an alternative.

 

It is quite funny, actually, for, as I mentioned, the original and oft-quoted statement was never actually said (by Napoleon).