The OTIB derby - Sunderland vs Lincoln match day thread

[Selred]

4 hours ago, Robbored said:

Unfortunately for LJ he lives in the shadow of his father. He repeatedly tries to out do him and that’s a heavy cross to bear.

He owes everything to his father. Without him he wouldn’t have had a playing career or a career in football management. 

It’s an unfortunate psychological hinderance..

How did GJ get LJ a career in management? 

You don't play in a promotion winning league one team (42 games) or a play off final championship team (40 games) if you aren't half decent. 

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, Robbored said:

Unfortunately for LJ he lives in the shadow of his father. He repeatedly tries to out do him and that’s a heavy cross to bear.

He owes everything to his father. Without him he wouldn’t have had a playing career or a career in football management. 

It’s an unfortunate psychological hinderance..

para 1

para 2 / sentence 2

[Phileas Fogg]

11 minutes ago, Selred said:

How did GJ get LJ a career in management? 

You don't play in a promotion winning league one team (42 games) or a play off final championship team (40 games) if you aren't half decent. 

Agreed. I think there’s some selective memories about him as a player.

I remember that he was a solid and reliable centre mid, kept possession well, could be relied on and kept things ticking over. Could be quite a niggly player also. Not especially exciting but an important cog in the team. 

I think he suffered from being in squads with some very talented midfielders who over shone him.. Elliot, Noble, Williams, Russell etc. All were far more watchable and exciting. 

 

[BigTone]

13 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

Would be better if they spoke English

[grifty]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

I don't want to bang on about how I ended up feeling about LJ, IMO he should have gone 18 months earlier. It was Johnson that set our awful style and type of performance going in the first place. We never had a regular shape or style of play and he let us wander into one of the worst sides to watch in my lifetime. That simply continued under Holden. He tried to switch it but being an inexperienced  manager, with added Plague and unprecedented injury levels , the job was too much. Yes it was under Johnson I also saw some of the best football ever, but it's debatable whether he planned that . 

So anything bad that happened under LJ was his fault and bad

Anything good that happened under LJ was a fluke and he didn't mean it?

[Robbored]

17 minutes ago, Selred said:

How did GJ get LJ a career in management? 

You don't play in a promotion winning league one team (42 games) or a play off final championship team (40 games) if you aren't half decent. 

I imagine that LJ did his badges on the back of his playing career - which as I’ve already said was down entirely to his father.

Virtually everyone knows that LJ got into the team thru nepotism and in the place of better players. I asked  GJ about it and he replied that “he’s a good player”........that to me confirmed that he was blinded by family loyalty. Not one City fan I know ever rated LJ as a good player.

[Robbored]

15 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Agreed. I think there’s some selective memories about him as a player.

I remember that he was a solid and reliable centre mid, kept possession well, could be relied on and kept things ticking over. Could be quite a niggly player also. Not especially exciting but an important cog in the team. 

I think he suffered from being in squads with some very talented midfielders who over shone him.. Elliot, Noble, Williams, Russell etc. All were far more watchable and exciting. 

 

Your memory of LJ as a player is very different to mine and that of pretty much every other City that I know.

There were many games when had I not seen his name on the team sheet known that he was actually playing. He was anonymous  In many games.

[Phileas Fogg]

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Your memory of LJ as a player is very different to mine and that of pretty much every other City that I know.

There were many games when had I not seen his name on the team sheet known that he was actually playing. He was anonymous  In many games.

Good of you to speak for 'pretty much every other City fan'. What do you remember about him as a player then? What were his strengths and weaknesses? "anonymous in most games" doesn't say an awful lot. 

[robin_unreliant]

15 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

From a purely City point of view, I would hope, and imagine, that the club have learned from what happened with LJ and MA and will make sure nobody has too much power as is my suspicion while MA was here. The fact they were both very self appreciating can't have helped either.

We are Bristol City FC, not Lee Johnson or Mark Ashton FC.

Let's hope lessons have been learned eh.

Isn't that exactly what we are now doing with Nige? 

Not sure SL has learned a single lesson tbh. He just stumbles from one decision to another.

I do think Ashton and JL were meant to set the strategy and take that away from the coach, so we could change coach without a massive upheaval. However they were totally unqualified for that role and it failed spectacularly. 

So we seem to be back to the GJ model of one bloke in charge. 

What we really need is a board which includes a proper DoF with a vision for the way the club wants to go. When your board is one family, who don't want to be too hands-on anymore, you're basically stuffed. 

I hope Lansdown finds an investor who is interested in running the club and moving towards a more long term model. 

[Robbored]

6 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Good of you to speak for 'pretty much every other City fan'. What do you remember about him as a player then? What were his strengths and weaknesses? "anonymous in most games" doesn't say an awful lot. 

I didn’t see any strengths in his game. I can’t recall a telling pass or thru ball nor a crunching tackle  - the things all good midfielders do. He was also lightweight largely due to his stature and games often passed him by.

[Davefevs]

30 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I imagine that LJ did his badges on the back of his playing career - which as I’ve already said was down entirely to his father.

Virtually everyone knows that LJ got into the team thru nepotism and in the place of better players. I asked  GJ about it and he replied that “he’s a good player”........that to me confirmed that he was blinded by family loyalty. Not one City fan I know ever rated LJ as a good player.

Anyone can do their badges, you don’t need to be a pro.

My opinion is that at Championship level, LJ was an “okay” player from limited viewing on the telly.  He probably wouldn’t have played anywhere near as many games at that level under other managers, but he still would’ve had a decent pro career.  And in our play-off season, you could argue his injury v Watford was quite defining.  His dad probably built the system that suited Lee, big man alongside him, Noble in the hole, hard workers on the flanks etc.

Nor can you criticise LJ’s desire to learn.

 

[BTRFTG]

The polarity of opinion regards WeeLee is little more than a mass demonstration of cognitive dissonance. When he first arrived as manager folks mostly split into two camps. Those (like me) who questioned his appointment given his track record was nothing to put on display & clubs weren't exactly beating a path to his door & those optimistic, 'rose-tinteds' who bought into his City provenance, his youth, his Englishness. Thereafter WeeLee's performance & those of his teams did little other than to entrench folks into their respective positions.

Ultimately WeeLee delivered  a handful of very good performances, though as I've always argued from a realist's (not pessimist's) perspective, nowhere near enough of them given the resource at his disposal and quality of opposition faced. If one bought into the hype of drones, interactive screens, grass measuring devices & the rumour WeeLee was on speed-dial of every major coach in the country, it's hard to accept evidence to the contrary, the reality that it's little more than a veneer of puff. I grew up listening to Danny Kaye relating The Emperor's New Clothes & retire to the title of HMHBs last album, hence know the difference between ground and air &, most importantly, where to keep one's feet. 

There's also an interesting dichotomy in the recollection of performances under WeeLee. The rose-tinteds forever banging on about our amazing cup performances which although good didn't exactly deliver results. WeeLee's doubters more focussed on City's league performance which saw similar results without the performance. The season-on-season improvement argument when flying high in the table cut no mustard to those of us who realised it's the end of the season table that matters & falling away tamely, time & time again, became WeeLee's trademark.

The argument that WeeLee had no say in recruitment is damning whichever way you look at it. If he didn't have influence (which I do not accept for one moment,) what self-respecting manager/coach would tolerate having no say in the resource that ultimately ensured their position? If he did have influence ( I'd argue the repeated acquisition of like-for-like players in his own likeness, the acquisition of players he'd formally worked with & the acquisition of talent (sic) he failed to develop,) the volume of recruits, the size of the wage-bill plus the unsustainable operating losses he delivered is about as damning an indictment of failure as conceivable. If Watkins & Adelakun are headed to him, you do the math? Moreover, WeeLee most assuredly picked the squads and starting line-ups (can't pin those on Ashton) & Bletchley Park couldn't decipher the logic behind those, given they held no pattern. Add in his substitutions and in-match formation changes & the only possible explanation remained he'd inherited his old man's 'bag-o-balls'. WeeLee's preference to 'big-up' players & justify their selection on the basis of their training ground performances when matchday they looked nothing but duds, cuts to the truth of his being. It's not self-confidence, rather the opposite. A small man with small man complex not big enough to accept his own failings.

So it's straightforward psychology. Those who still see WeeLee as football's great saviour do not do so based on anything he's done or will ever do. They do so because to accept they were made to look foolish, duped, when investing their own emotional attachment in such an obvious loser, well, that's embarrassing.

 

 

[Robbored]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Anyone can do their badges, you don’t need to be a pro.

My opinion is that at Championship level, LJ was an “okay” player from limited viewing on the telly.  He probably wouldn’t have played anywhere near as many games at that level under other managers, but he still would’ve had a decent pro career.  And in our play-off season, you could argue his injury v Watford was quite defining.  His dad probably built the system that suited Lee, big man alongside him, Noble in the hole, hard workers on the flanks etc.

Nor can you criticise LJ’s desire to learn.

 

Absolutely not. 

[Fordy62]

5 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The polarity of opinion regards WeeLee is little more than a mass demonstration of cognitive dissonance. When he first arrived as manager folks mostly split into two camps. Those (like me) who questioned his appointment given his track record was nothing to put on display & clubs weren't exactly beating a path to his door & those optimistic, 'rose-tinteds' who bought into his City provenance, his youth, his Englishness. Thereafter WeeLee's performance & those of his teams did little other than to entrench folks into their respective positions.

Ultimately WeeLee delivered  a handful of very good performances, though as I've always argued from a realist's (not pessimist's) perspective, nowhere near enough of them given the resource at his disposal and quality of opposition faced. If one bought into the hype of drones, interactive screens, grass measuring devices & the rumour WeeLee was on speed-dial of every major coach in the country, it's hard to accept evidence to the contrary, the reality that it's little more than a veneer of puff. I grew up listening to Danny Kaye relating The Emperor's New Clothes & retire to the title of HMHBs last album, hence know the difference between ground and air &, most importantly, where to keep one's feet. 

There's also an interesting dichotomy in the recollection of performances under WeeLee. The rose-tinteds forever banging on about our amazing cup performances which although good didn't exactly deliver results. WeeLee's doubters more focussed on City's league performance which saw similar results without the performance. The season-on-season improvement argument when flying high in the table cut no mustard to those of us who realised it's the end of the season table that matters & falling away tamely, time & time again, became WeeLee's trademark.

The argument that WeeLee had no say in recruitment is damning whichever way you look at it. If he didn't have influence (which I do not accept for one moment,) what self-respecting manager/coach would tolerate having no say in the resource that ultimately ensured their position? If he did have influence ( I'd argue the repeated acquisition of like-for-like players in his own likeness, the acquisition of players he'd formally worked with & the acquisition of talent (sic) he failed to develop,) the volume of recruits, the size of the wage-bill plus the unsustainable operating losses he delivered is about as damning an indictment of failure as conceivable. If Watkins & Adelakun are headed to him, you do the math? Moreover, WeeLee most assuredly picked the squads and starting line-ups (can't pin those on Ashton) & Bletchley Park couldn't decipher the logic behind those, given they held no pattern. Add in his substitutions and in-match formation changes & the only possible explanation remained he'd inherited his old man's 'bag-o-balls'. WeeLee's preference to 'big-up' players & justify their selection on the basis of their training ground performances when matchday they looked nothing but duds, cuts to the truth of his being. It's not self-confidence, rather the opposite. A small man with small man complex not big enough to accept his own failings.

So it's straightforward psychology. Those who still see WeeLee as football's great saviour do not do so based on anything he's done or will ever do. They do so because to accept they were made to look foolish, duped, when investing their own emotional attachment in such an obvious loser, well, that's embarrassing.

 

 

I enjoyed reading that, a lot of sense in there, but WeeLee? Come on, it almost undoes everything you’ve written!

[cidercity1987]

Johnson's problem is his height, his voice and his intelligence.

Some of the stuff on here, Readytogo and the video is pure bullying probably based on the above. Imagine if he was black and the previous post was blacklee instead of weelee.

He was a good player for us and a good manager, not outstanding but not poor

[Sleepy1968]

11 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Those who still see WeeLee as football's great saviour do not do so based on anything he's done or will ever do. They do so because to accept they were made to look foolish, duped, when investing their own emotional attachment in such an obvious loser, well, that's embarrassing.

 

 

 

I doubt if that was anyone, ever, at least not outside of Lee Johnson's mind. Even in his dreams I expect he probably thinks Pep is a better coach than him.

[1960maaan]

3 minutes ago, grifty said:

So anything bad that happened under LJ was his fault and bad

Anything good that happened under LJ was a fluke and he didn't mean it?

Not exactly what I said, but.
That brilliant spell wasn't planned for. Injuries meant Reid up top while Fam was out. LJ may have organised him as the trigger for the press, but it was chance that Pato & the MF started bomb past Reid, who could then spot the pass. It was LJ who brought Fam back in and that whole style of game was lost.
We played with pace and movement. The fact we have gone so far away from that reflects completely on the manager. Home wins under LJ were something like 11,11,8,8. That's 34% win rate over each of the last 2 years. 

Anyone else would have been sacked much , much earlier, just on performance. The other thing is enjoyment, hard to enjoy it when you lose, but that apart it wasn't good to watch for most of the last few years.

[Roger Red Hat]

Should make a few on here happy!

 

[TedsHeadIs Red]

28 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I enjoyed reading that, a lot of sense in there, but WeeLee? Come on, it almost undoes everything you’ve written!

Agreed. Good thoughts spoiled by the use of WeeLee. He may not have been liked by all but please can people keep some perspective. He’s not a child murderer ffs.

[Fordy62]

1 minute ago, TedsHeadIs Red said:

Agreed. Good thoughts spoiled by the use of WeeLee. He may not have been liked by all but please can people keep some perspective. He’s not a child murderer ffs.

Not so far as we know...  

[italian dave]

3 hours ago, Robbored said:

Not in the slightest am I praising GJ. The guy was and is a one trick pony and by using that trick managed several lower league promotions which is something LJ has never achieved.

So, in summary, you just have an irrational dislike of Johnsons, whoever they are.....

[Fordy62]

12 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

Should make a few on here happy!

 

I really think they’d be better off sacking him, but it’d perhaps be a little ridiculous if they did. 

[italian dave]

39 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I enjoyed reading that, a lot of sense in there, but WeeLee? Come on, it almost undoes everything you’ve written!

Agree....that and the two 'camps' being defined as "those like me" and "rose tinted". Kind of suggests that a degree of bias may follow!

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Agreed. I think there’s some selective memories about him as a player.

I remember that he was a solid and reliable centre mid, kept possession well, could be relied on and kept things ticking over. Could be quite a niggly player also. Not especially exciting but an important cog in the team. 

I think he suffered from being in squads with some very talented midfielders who over shone him.. Elliot, Noble, Williams, Russell etc. All were far more watchable and exciting. 

 

Agree PF. And, like Skuse, like Pack, suffered from playing that deep role that often goes unappreciated until its gone. And that showed in his management too - even with broadly the same back 4/5, we had a midfield that supported the defence far more effectively under LJ than since.

[BTRFTG]

42 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I enjoyed reading that, a lot of sense in there, but WeeLee? Come on, it almost undoes everything you’ve written!

As if to prove my point and been done to death a thousand times.

As a player he was known amongst my cohort as 'WeeLee' ( as in the diminutive Scots.)

As a manger during our rare decent periods he remained 'WeeLee'.

Interesting nobody raised complaint.

As manager and when showing his true colours his supporters, I propose to deflect their own embarrassment, created pseudo objection to the epithet. He's named Lee and is as short in stature as he is in managerial ability, hence why not 'Wee'? Would 'Little' be deemed appropriate?

How long before the most sensitive of his cultish followers object to folks calling him 'Johnson' given its euphemistic association? If I wanted to be insulting there are a raft of more appropriate terms I could deploy.

[Northern Red]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

As if to prove my point and been done to death a thousand times.

As a player he was known amongst my cohort as 'WeeLee' ( as in the diminutive Scots.)

As a manger during our rare decent periods he remained 'WeeLee'.

Interesting nobody raised complaint.

As manager and when showing his true colours his supporters, I propose to deflect their own embarrassment, created pseudo objection to the epithet. He's named Lee and is as short in stature as he is in managerial ability, hence why not 'Wee'? Would 'Little' be deemed appropriate?

How long before the most sensitive of his cultish followers object to folks calling him 'Johnson' given its euphemistic association? If I wanted to be insulting there are a raft of more appropriate terms I could deploy.

Or you could just grow up?

[BTRFTG]

43 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

I doubt if that was anyone, ever, at least not outside of Lee Johnson's mind. Even in his dreams I expect he probably thinks Pep is a better coach than him.

Sorry to confirm I sit adjacent a few in the Dolman. God knows what state they'll be in when next we return to matches?

Just now, Northern Red said:

Or you could just grow up?

You referencing my stature?

[Lrrr]

35 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

Should make a few on here happy!

 

Sacking him without giving him a summer window would be pathetic, as a club and their fans they need to realise they don’t have a god given right to walk the league. Their culture of sack, sack, sack won’t get them out the league without luck 

[Sleepy1968]

2 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Sacking him without giving him a summer window would be pathetic, as a club and their fans they need to realise they don’t have a god given right to walk the league. Their culture of sack, sack, sack won’t get them out the league without luck 

Live. Die. Repeat.

[TedsHeadIs Red]

14 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As if to prove my point and been done to death a thousand times.

As a player he was known amongst my cohort as 'WeeLee' ( as in the diminutive Scots.)

As a manger during our rare decent periods he remained 'WeeLee'.

Interesting nobody raised complaint.

As manager and when showing his true colours his supporters, I propose to deflect their own embarrassment, created pseudo objection to the epithet. He's named Lee and is as short in stature as he is in managerial ability, hence why not 'Wee'? Would 'Little' be deemed appropriate?

How long before the most sensitive of his cultish followers object to folks calling him 'Johnson' given its euphemistic association? If I wanted to be insulting there are a raft of more appropriate terms I could deploy.

So you agree that WeeLee is unnecessary and inappropriate