Ratings from tonight

[old_eastender]

Bentley - 7 - Could not really be faulted for the goal, looked assured overall

Hunt - 5 - Unusually really poor distribution tonight, did make a couple of saving tackles.

Vyner -8 - Thought he was excellent against quality, athletic Bournemouth attackers.

Kallas - 8 - Hardly put a foot wrong and had header cleared off the line.

Moore - 7 - Struggled a little with the pace of Bournemouth's attackers, but did enough.

Rowe - 6 - Defended well, but didn't really come off for him attacking.

Pato - 6 - Much better performance than last 3 games, would have been a 7 except for series of poor balls in last 15 mins as he tired.

COD - 6 - Disciplined performance, a couple of runs without playing the last ball well enough.

Bakinson - 7 - Really good first half, got a little overrun and faded in 2nd half.

Semenyo - 6 - Carried a threat but lacking finesse to get into scoring positions, should perhaps have scored right at the start of the game.

Fammy - 6 - Typical Fammy, loads of effort but just not technically good enough, even his blocked effort came after a miskick.

 

Overall a better performance than I expected against a Bournemouth side likely to go back up.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bristolisredd]

Pato should’ve been a 3 and that’s being generous 

[Davefevs]

Bentley 6

Hunt 5

Vyner 7

Kalas 7

Moore 7

Rowe 6

O’Dowda 6

Bakinson 6

Paterson 5

Semenyo 6

Diedhiou 6

If I broke them down by each half, they’d be very different....but those are my overall scores based on a pretty decent first half and a very tired looking second half.

[Bassomylord]

Bently 6

Hunt 5

Vyner 7

Kalas 8

Moore 6

Bakinson 7

Odowda 7

Paterson 7

Semenyo 7

Deidhipu 7

[And Its Smith]

Vyner needs to do better with their goal.  Paterson very poor second half. Other than that thought everyone did pretty well.  If we score one of the many chances first half we probably win the match or at least get a point.  

 

[RedRock]

 

Bentley 7

Hunt 5

Vyner 8

Kalas 8

Moore 7

Rowe 6

Bakinson 7

Odowda 5

Paterson 5

Semenyo 6

Famara 6

 

Brunt 5

 

CoD and Pato were both 7’s first half... but then 4’s second half. Soooo frustrating. 

 

Slightly worryingly, that pattern of scores distributed across the team formation is very similar to the LJ team score patterns ie the same old problems remain in the same areas. A few of the personnel may have changed but the same old problems. 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

1 hour ago, Bristolisredd said:

Pato should’ve been a 3 and that’s being generous 

Yes I thought we would of got more off Pato tonight. Too many stray passes for me

[La Plage]

1 hour ago, Bristolisredd said:

Pato should’ve been a 3 and that’s being generous 

What was generous was us accepting him back from Derby, More Streaky than LJ!!

[daored]

@oldeastenderi fear we may see more performances like that from Hunt. Asking him to play RWB twice a week for the foreseeable future is a big ask and unfortunately will have an impact on his performances.

I’m not sure we have an alternative option now the Fulham lad in injured?

[RedRock]

10 hours ago, old_eastender said:

Bentley - 7 - Could not really be faulted for the goal, looked assured overall

Hunt - 5 - Unusually really poor distribution tonight, did make a couple of saving tackles.

Vyner -8 - Thought he was excellent against quality, athletic Bournemouth attackers.

Kallas - 8 - Hardly put a foot wrong and had header cleared off the line.

Moore - 7 - Struggled a little with the pace of Bournemouth's attackers, but did enough.

Rowe - 6 - Defended well, but didn't really come off for him attacking.

Pato - 6 - Much better performance than last 3 games, would have been a 7 except for series of poor balls in last 15 mins as he tired.

COD - 6 - Disciplined performance, a couple of runs without playing the last ball well enough.

Bakinson - 7 - Really good first half, got a little overrun and faded in 2nd half.

Semenyo - 6 - Carried a threat but lacking finesse to get into scoring positions, should perhaps have scored right at the start of the game.

Fammy - 6 - Typical Fammy, loads of effort but just not technically good enough, even his blocked effort came after a miskick.

 

Overall a better performance than I expected against a Bournemouth side likely to go back up.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow. Just compared our scores.

Apart from CoD and Pato, it looks like we watched the same match and share the same opinions. That’s a first for OTIB. 

[Steve Watts]

10 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

Vyner needs to do better with their goal.  Paterson very poor second half. Other than that thought everyone did pretty well.  If we score one of the many chances first half we probably win the match or at least get a point.  

 

He should have done better, true, but Hunt should never have let him get as far as Vyner in the first place.

[Hampshire Red]

A good thread of ratings by people who clearly watched the same game. I would add to the view that ratings would be quite different for most of the players by 1st Half/2nd Half, most notably Pato, CoD, Semenyo and Bako. 

I would mark Deano the same:liked his set up and he won the tactical battle 1st Half but clueless in countering the significant changes Bomo made in 2nd Half. 

Can't expect him to be as good as his more experienced predecessor at in-game tactical changes. 6th is fine and a generous reflection on our start to the season. Every team is suffering from injuries but luckily MA has assembled a decent size squad for DH to pick and choose from in learning his trade, which he will over the next couple of seasons. 

[1960maaan]

Well , this thread is quite surprising, and shows how different people see different things. I don't think you can argue with many scores when they vary by 1/2, or people use starting point differently. But I'm surprised to see Paterson marked so low by some. I thought he controlled the ball well, picked up and broke lines and for the most part used it well. He did fade , but only after putting in a shift. He should have been subbed when, actually before he was out on his feet. Anyone I've spoken too will know I'm not his biggest fan, but I thought he was one of our better players last night.

The rest would vary by a point or two, Hunt would probably be lowest, and I would put Vyner , Kalas and Pato highest , but all spread over 3 numbers. So if you say average 6, then a low of 5 & high of 7.

Not sure how I would mark Holden, very disappointed he wasn't more proactive with subs. We desperately needed fresh legs, but instead he went defensive at a time where MF were tired and Bournemouth were pressing. I thought he played into their hands. 

[QuedgeRed]

Harsh on Fammy.

The ball stuck to him every time it was passed to him. He managed to find team mates too. 
Brilliant hold up

[bcfcnick]

Agreed that some posts are being too harsh on Paterson.   He did well first half and , in general, looks the most likely player in the squad to have the creativie spark to produce something we are lacking - assists  and goals.

Aside from the fatigue that hit the whole team after a great first half, Bournemouth dominated the second half with possession and Paterson will only shine when we have possession.  Also we need more players in the box -  it's partly because of the wing back system although Dean does manage it when we are a goal down by playing four strikers and we do look a threat then.

I could see Semenyo being better suited to the attacking midfield role Weimann has played this season and have two more established goal scorers up front.   He's never been a natural goal scorer but he can press , retain possession and break forward from deep with pace.  Goals may come as he develops but for now we need a more clinical striker to take the few chances we create.

[TonyTonyTony]

13 hours ago, Bristolisredd said:

Pato should’ve been a 3 and that’s being generous 

Comments like this amaze me. He was very good first half, but looked knackered second. He shouldnt have been on the pitch after 60 minutes.

Pato is consistently the player in our team with tricks in his armoury to unlock defences. To give him a 3/10 is extremely OTT

[REDOXO]

We could have been three up at ht. One cleared off the line one very good save and our forwards didnt score or even hit the target with a chance each. Patterson was key to most of that.

Second half they pressed us and we didnt really do that much when we had possession. Williams and Walsh must be available soon, until then we just gotta scrap out points with what we have, not starting with Wells if fit is an error...IMO!

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, JonDolman said:

If that O'Dowda performance was a bad one then I think he will never get credit by those that say that. Clear bias I think. Had that been a different player then they review what he did very differently.

bias works both ways, but that was not a poor performance last night in my eye.  He did some nice things, especially first half, like most of our players...but struggled second half, like most of our players (apart from the back 3 imho).

First half him, Pato and Semenyo superb and we were the much better side largely by how those 3 played in their pressing and linking up play.

we all use different superlatives to describe our views....for me, I don’t think there was one player on the pitch last night at any point who I’d describe as “superb”.  Mainly 6s and 7s across the game...with the odd player reaching an 8 then dropping back. The odd below par “5/10”.

Second half was more about battling. O'Dowda battled hard, did not stop running, won balls and won fouls too. Went on some breaks through the middle and played forward passes into the path of the player. You can't play it though to a player to go in on goal who is not even there to pass to, which some probably expect from him. But he could play passes that were there to make well.

he got tired quickly like Pato, Semenyo and Diedhiou did.  Not his fault, his first start....inevitable.  As for two runs he made forward one Semenyo blew by getting caught offside.  The other Semenyo got tackled.  My thoughts were - could he have gone further with the ball and committed a player.  It was a bit too cautious.  Unfortunately for all his running around he didn’t really close anyone down.  A function of him as well as teammates not doing what they’d done (done well) first half.

Palmer playing with Fam as the main striker, people rightly say how can he pass it through to Fam. O'Dowda plays and he has to thread through balls to Fam.

not an argument you’ll hear from me.  Unless Fam shapes up to receive a pass, then that’s different.  But I don’t think that was something to beat Callum with last night.

I think he had problems with the rest of our midfield in coping with central and wide areas. He had to stay central to deal with their midfield but also had to shift across a lot. Well the ball travels faster than a player can. I think there were tactical positioning of the side problems there that we struggled with more than it being a midfielder not being good enough in covering areas.

you have to do it as a team.  If Callum covers right and Bakinson and Paterson don’t shuffle across, you bollock them for not doing it.  It’s a collective responsibility, sane with Fam and Antoine not doing their work.  It all knocks on.  No individual blame, no absolving from blame either....collective praise and blame.

Tired last 15 and looked poor along with every other player other than our back 3 and goalie.

I would not even have him in my fully fit 11. But my opinion on him has always been he's a good player at this level who many championship teams would take off of us with we were to let him go. I had a feeling this system would suit him, and last night showed it probably does.

my overarching view is that the “6 and two 8s” is best suited for Pato and Weimann....and that Callum needs to play his own version of the position he is given.  Same with any of the players, whether that be Williams, Walsh or whoever.

Callum did ok last night....he was somewhere between a 6 and a 7 for me, erring towards the 6.  It’s his first start, it was tough opposition.  Something to build on, if nothing else.

Comments above...

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, JonDolman said:

There were numerous superb performances in that first half I reckon.

as I said we all have different superlatives we use.

I thought it was the best half of football we have played this season.

certainly up there for me too.  I liked Coventry and Sheff Wed second haves too.  All round game...Stoke for me.

We created numerous chances, played good football, pressed well, players very good on and off the ball. Tactically we got the better of them which made all the difference. They really struggled with us.

as above.

I was thinking 8 for Callum, but probably put it down to a 7 in the end. Did so much right and very little wrong.

that’s fine, all about opinions.

I think when Callum runs with the ball through the middle, if he doesn't give it when a pass is on then he could possibly end up not having any chance to give it.

yep, quite possibly....I just like to see him commit his man....it was the “safe” option.  Not a criticism, an observation of an opportunity possibly missed.

Weimann very often gives the ball at the first opportunity too when he sees the pass is on. He's always been like that, but whoever plays there the instructions seem to be give it when the pass is on.

he does indeed....but he does tonnes of other good stuff that people miss though.

The positioning of the midfielders in the 2nd half seemed to be more of a tactical problem to me rather than players individually being poorer in their work. It seemed like they had to be in 2 places at the same time to cope with the Bournemouth players. Kelly was a big problem.

I don't think the players were shattered in the early parts of the 2nd half. More like the last 20 minutes. But the closing down of players was harder for everyone as Bournemouth had made some slight tactical changes at half time. I don't think that was down to O'Dowda, Paterson, Semenyo but more the shape against their shape, and of course instructions not being right to deal with them.

Could Wells coming on for Fam early, and maybe Martin for Semenyo a bit later have helped. If he'd been fit then maybe Weimann would have been the perfect player to come on in that situation alongside Wells to almost play like 2 wide strikers to help out defensively, meaning Pato and O'Dowda could keep the 3 closer in the centre of the pitch.

I think what you have to realise (not trying to be condescending either) is that in a 352, if your opponent starts getting down your sides (Kelly and Mepham) you aren’t shifting across the pitch as a team.  You can’t stay in your magnetic blob positions on the tactics board, you’ve got to move with the ball.  If Mepham has it in RCB position striving towards halfway line, it’s no point Pato (as the left sided CM) staying on the left edge of the centre circle....he’s got to shuffle across, bringing Bakinson and O’Dowda with him.  Adam Smith at LWB is an inconsequence at this point.  You also ask with Fam or Antoine has let him get that far too....and that is the point I’m making, we tired as a team because as a group of individuals we stopped doing the good things we did first half, in closing the passing options etc.

The effect of that is you start trying to close down inefficiently, wasting more effort, and it’s a vicious circle.  I spotted the intensity was gone out of our closing down in 55 minutes, with tiredness really showing on about 65.  We got a brief respite when Semenyo went down injured and we regrouped when play resumed for a few minutes.  I hoped we’d weathered the storm, unfortunately we hadn’t.  The chart I embed below shows that drop off (explained below too)

Wish they would show these games back like they have in previous seasons on the City website, as it would be good to watch it all back.

Comments above .

PPDA - Passes Allowed per defensive action (a measure of pressing)

The definition is, how many passes do you allow your opponent before you either tackle, intercept, foul or win a duel (ground or aerial).  It’s only measured in the attacking team’s final 60% of the pitch, so from roughly the centre circle in Bournemouth’s half to our goal-line....and typically the positions Kelly and Mepham were receiving the ball in, or advancing into.

Hope that makes sense.  Over the 90 mins the average was that Bournemouth made 11.54 passes before we broke it up. Our Champ season average in 11.33 so overall pretty average / good.

If we look at the graph we see City gradually grow into the first half.  Get ourselves set, not taking many risks early on.  Start nabbing the ball better in the middle of the first half, but really strong press in the final 15 mins of the half.  I think most people can see the results of that in our performance in the first half.

But, boy, look how it drops off in the second half.

46-60 - 13.25 - the intensity is dropping

61-75 - 24.00 - we are stuffed

76-90 - 13.25 - still above our game a average but we build a bit of late pressure.

For me this highlights perfectly that a combination of Bournemouth playing better and us not being able to get close to them.

Bournemouth’s PPDA (how the press us) gradually increases throughout the game (Ave 6.33).

 

This is where stats can really help us understand cause and effect..

 

 

 

[Davefevs]

29 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

 

 

But isnt that more a tactical thing that should be sorted by our coaches? Like I am sure O'Dowda and Paterson generally go where they are told to. For example if they should be going to the ball more and maybe leaving a Bournemouth player or 2 free because of that, then surely that is something that can be quite quickly communicated, and I am sure they would then do that.

Jon, the game is fluid....you have to have football intelligence.  Going where you’re told to is the rigidity we saw under LJ.  The ball moves, opposition players move, you move, your teammates move.  As a championship level player you’re expected to be able to do most of that without thinking.

And a problem is having no one then in front of the defence which could be suicidal against a team like Bournemouth, running at our centre backs with the ball.

that shows a complete lack of understanding of how team shapes evolve over the various patterns of play in an attack and the defensive reaction to it.  If you can’t grasp that, then I now completely see why you reach some of the views you do.

Pretty much the whole team shuffles across....not just the midfield.  You condense space as a team / unit. You reposition based on what the opposition does and vice-versa.  Look at the picture I’ve copied below.  The ball is wide left (Bournemouth’s left), so pretty much everyone had moved across the pitch, some considerably some less so - the Cardiff left back is almost on the penalty spot.  It’s why these guys are pros....they do with and without ball shape in training all the time.  They know what to do....they don’t always do it, they don’t always get it right.  Boring game otherwise...but not everything needs coach intervention.

Going back to Weimann as an example, does he do differently to O'Dowda and Paterson in that situation? I remember we had big problems in the first half against Coventry that was completely sorted in the 2nd half. I can't imagine it was the players sorting out that problem. It wasn't really because Weimann and Paterson were not good enough to play in that midfield, they had both been poor, but more the set up against Coventry in the first 45 I think than it being them being poor in a correct set up.

And I think sometimes what looks like a midfield problem is not helped by the wing backs in this system. That's why I really rate Dasilva because he can beat a player or hold onto the ball in tight spaces. He can at least help turn it from a 532 to how we want it which is a 352. A big part of that second half was our inability to pass the ball.

Holden seemed to admit getting it wrong bringing on Brunt. He's a good passer of the ball, but I am not sure that was the problem. It was more lack of options to pass to in wide areas and up top.

It seems like when it becomes more a 5 at the back then it makes the midfields job very difficult to keep the ball and very difficult to press when we don't have it.

The tactical side of things gets very complicated. But I see the championship now as being very much a tactical battle between managers. It always was to some extent of course. We won the first half battle without scoring, and they won the 2nd half battle and had that bit of quality to score the goal. Tiredness too played a part of course as we put in one hell of a shift in that first half.

Interesting that Holden said they didn't cause us too many problems 2nd half. To be fair I understand what he means. We defended well and didn't give them too many chances. Had we done a lot better on the break, or just had more play in their half then we may have at least have created more than just the one headed Fam chance, that was not much of a chance.

It would then have not looked such a one sided half, and I can see what Holden means by seeing our ability on the ball was probably the biggest problem in that half.

See comments above relating to this image.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I don't think it's lack of football intelligence as I think the likes of O'Dowda and Pato were following instructions, so doing as they're told in their defensive work. And Holden didn't seem to think we even did that badly at all in stopping their threat and was more down to not being good enough on the ball in that 2nd half. They obviously scored in the end though.

Of course they all shuffle across. I'm not really sure what that image shows as I don't know what happens before that. Was it switched quickly or was it already over that side. 

We were shuffling across like any team would when the ball is on one side. O'Dowda and Paterson seemed to be wide right and wide right a fair bit as well as central. 

So why would you suggest in your previous post there would be nobody in front of the defence and therefore suicidal?

If the ball us switched quickly you have to shuffle quickly.