Jump to content
IGNORED

Match Report: Soaked, second best but ultimately successful


Olé

Recommended Posts

I’m going to defend @Olé - and yes I was there.

I thought Peterborough were better than many have given them credit for. I thought they moved the ball well, moved off the ball well, gave us plenty of problems when they were going forward as we struggled to track their runs and to close down space. Both sides had good spells of attacking football, but on the whole theirs seemed to be more prolonged than ours.

All that was mostly the first half though. The weather in the second half changed the game completely and certainly didn’t suit their style of play as well as it did ours. It stopped them making those neat little runs and short passing moves. It suited our style more, or maybe you could say we just coped with it better. 

Likewise, I didn’t think Williams or Martin were that good, certainly nowhere near 8s, first half. The game seemed to pass Williams by much of the time, and a couple of times he lost the ball on a way that would have driven some posters apoplectic if it had been Bakinson. But the worse the conditions got the more they seemed to relish a battle (which is what it became). I would probably rate Martin higher than a 5 just for the 10 minute spell when he played like a man possessed but otherwise wouldn’t argue with many of those scores. 

Overall, my view of the game wasn’t miles away from Ole’s across the whole 90 minutes. I wonder if some people are getting a bit carried away by the barnstorming finish in dreadful conditions. And like Ole I was quite certain that our first goal came from Atkinson!!!

Edited by italian dave
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BTRFTG said:

After Wednesday I couldn't be bothered yesterday but in Ole I trust. Usually calls most correct and there's no reason to doubt he didn't yesterday. I'd certainly trust his word over the majority of 'rose-tinteds' who focus on the poplulist minutiae but are unable to see the big picture.

Matters not if striker 'x' scored, fact is those presently at AG aren't good enough for what they purport to be, don't score as often as they should, they offer little. If you wrote a 4 rating against their names pre-match you'd be correct more times than not.

Some of the recent acquisitions and youngsters give us hope for the future, some whose form has been revitalised by proper management likewise, but we've still plenty of dross on the books from the previous regime that needs clearing out.

KP scored an extraordinary goal the other week and folks fawned like he was a world beater of the highest order rather than a week in, week out liability who should only be deployed for the final 10 minutes if 3-0 up at home. Ditto the Mock Mick who, at Norwich, scored one of the finest individual goals I've ever seen from a City player but who's contributed little other in a shockingly poor career with us.

Interesting that Ole's assessments tend to accord with Pearson's own analysis, particularly when we win when we probably didn't deserve to against the balance of play. Not for either Winning = City were brilliant. Like under the reign of Johnson Senior we've had quite a few 'stolen' victories this season and long may they keep coming, if that's what we have at our disposal.

Best away record? Probably. Outplayed teams in games we have won? Rarely. That's football.

Keep calling it Ole.

I very much hope Ole keeps writing them up despite our differing views on this one, as I enjoy reading them.

Being there, this was no QPR in my humble opinion. Yes, we did not dominate a game which could have gone both ways, but we always carried a threat and I was not shocked at all when we nicked it. I thought we created the better chances in the second half. We looked what we are..a team that is going to win some, lose some, and yesterday it went our way.

Its all about views, but it was a pretty open game and we played our part in that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cityexile said:

I very much hope Ole keeps writing them up despite our differing views on this one, as I enjoy reading them.

Being there, this was no QPR in my humble opinion. Yes, we did not dominate a game which could have gone both ways, but we always carried a threat and I was not shocked at all when we nicked it. I thought we created the better chances in the second half. We looked what we are..a team that is going to win some, lose some, and yesterday it went our way.

Its all about views, but it was a pretty open game and we played our part in that. 

Agree that it wasn’t daylight robbery a la QPR, and it was an open game. But didn’t you feel that Peterborough were the better side when it was a proper football match first half? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

After Wednesday I couldn't be bothered yesterday but in Ole I trust. Usually calls most correct and there's no reason to doubt he didn't yesterday. I'd certainly trust his word over the majority of 'rose-tinteds' who focus on the poplulist minutiae but are unable to see the big picture.

Matters not if striker 'x' scored, fact is those presently at AG aren't good enough for what they purport to be, don't score as often as they should, they offer little. If you wrote a 4 rating against their names pre-match you'd be correct more times than not.

Some of the recent acquisitions and youngsters give us hope for the future, some whose form has been revitalised by proper management likewise, but we've still plenty of dross on the books from the previous regime that needs clearing out.

KP scored an extraordinary goal the other week and folks fawned like he was a world beater of the highest order rather than a week in, week out liability who should only be deployed for the final 10 minutes if 3-0 up at home. Ditto the Mock Mick who, at Norwich, scored one of the finest individual goals I've ever seen from a City player but who's contributed little other in a shockingly poor career with us.

Interesting that Ole's assessments tend to accord with Pearson's own analysis, particularly when we win when we probably didn't deserve to against the balance of play. Not for either Winning = City were brilliant. Like under the reign of Johnson Senior we've had quite a few 'stolen' victories this season and long may they keep coming, if that's what we have at our disposal.

Best away record? Probably. Outplayed teams in games we have won? Rarely. That's football.

Keep calling it Ole.

I don’t think it’s a case of rise tinted glasses or even not ‘calling it for what it is’, I moan as bad as the rest of them ?

But even I can see areas of improvement from last year and whether you accept it or not we keep picking up results, with increased possession, attempts, shots, passes completed, than last year.

Its not great, I can see that, but neither is it desperate or appalling.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 054123 said:

I don’t think it’s a case of rise tinted glasses or even not ‘calling it for what it is’, I moan as bad as the rest of them ?

But even I can see areas of improvement from last year and whether you accept it or not we keep picking up results, with increased possession, attempts, shots, passes completed, than last year.

Its not great, I can see that, but neither is it desperate or appalling.

Who said it was, certainly not Ole?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I’m going to defend @Olé - and yes I was there.

I thought Peterborough were better than many have given them credit for. I thought they moved the ball well, moved off the ball well, gave us plenty of problems when they were going forward as we struggled to track their runs and to close down space. Both sides had good spells of attacking football, but on the whole theirs seemed to be more prolonged than ours.

All that was mostly the first half though. The weather in the second half changed the game completely and certainly didn’t suit their style of play as well as it did ours. It stopped them making those neat little runs and short passing moves. It suited our style more, or maybe you could say we just coped with it better. 

Likewise, I didn’t think Williams or Martin were that good, certainly nowhere near 8s, first half. The game seemed to pass Williams by much of the time, and a couple of times he lost the ball on a way that would have driven some posters apoplectic if it had been Bakinson. But the worse the conditions got the more they seemed to relish a battle (which is what it became). I would probably rate Martin higher than a 5 just for the 10 minute spell when he played like a man possessed but otherwise wouldn’t argue with many of those scores. 

Overall, my view of the game wasn’t miles away from Ole’s across the whole 90 minutes. I wonder if some people are getting a bit carried away by the barnstorming finish in dreadful conditions. And like Ole I was quite certain that our first goal came from Atkinson!!!

I don’t think anyone disagrees with Rob’s sentiments that overall we’re not brilliant.

I just think there’s a lot of ‘doubling down’ on the negatives.

Its like it’s desperately trying to convince us we’re not very good.

We know that, you don’t need to try.

Everyone accepts it’s going to be a tough, imperfect season. I’m more surprised by the improvements so far ?

Just now, BTRFTG said:

Who said it was, certainly not Ole?

 

It’s how it comes  across sometimes, just my opinion ?

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

Agree that it wasn’t daylight robbery a la QPR, and it was an open game. But didn’t you feel that Peterborough were the better side when it was a proper football match first half? 

It is really difficult to be impartial having been to the match, in truth. I think the change in weather most likely on balance did help us.

First half, I thought Peterborough were bright and looked full of movement. Having said all that, it took two really really good finishes for their goals, and don’t really recall them creating much in terms of real chances other than that…might be a poor or selective memory mind you. First 15 we seemed very passive but then I thought the rest of the first half was pretty even and a decent half of football. As I say, just a view.

Edited by cityexile
  • Like 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, E.G.Red said:

I think it’s the penalty they thought they were denied 

Never a penalty, contact game and Williams got his body in a good position.

49 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

After Wednesday I couldn't be bothered yesterday but in Ole I trust. Usually calls most correct and there's no reason to doubt he didn't yesterday. I'd certainly trust his word over the majority of 'rose-tinteds' who focus on the poplulist minutiae but are unable to see the big picture.

Matters not if striker 'x' scored, fact is those presently at AG aren't good enough for what they purport to be, don't score as often as they should, they offer little. If you wrote a 4 rating against their names pre-match you'd be correct more times than not.

Some of the recent acquisitions and youngsters give us hope for the future, some whose form has been revitalised by proper management likewise, but we've still plenty of dross on the books from the previous regime that needs clearing out.

KP scored an extraordinary goal the other week and folks fawned like he was a world beater of the highest order rather than a week in, week out liability who should only be deployed for the final 10 minutes if 3-0 up at home. Ditto the Mock Mick who, at Norwich, scored one of the finest individual goals I've ever seen from a City player but who's contributed little other in a shockingly poor career with us.

Interesting that Ole's assessments tend to accord with Pearson's own analysis, particularly when we win when we probably didn't deserve to against the balance of play. Not for either Winning = City were brilliant. Like under the reign of Johnson Senior we've had quite a few 'stolen' victories this season and long may they keep coming, if that's what we have at our disposal.

Best away record? Probably. Outplayed teams in games we have won? Rarely. That's football.

Keep calling it Ole.

Rob is a good observer of the whole of the game, not just focussing on City but why our opponents stop us too.  My thoughts are generally aligned to his.  His ratings are rarely a million miles from mine.  In a league where anyone can beat anyone, and we have a squad of mainly similar level players (and a few that aren’t), we are rarely gonna spank a team.  I watched on Robinstv and I thought we just about deserved the win, but tv and being there can give different views.  We created a really good set of chances yesterday, forced an opposition keeper into saves which was a big plus for me.

44 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I’m going to defend @Olé - and yes I was there.

I thought Peterborough were better than many have given them credit for. I thought they moved the ball well, moved off the ball well, gave us plenty of problems when they were going forward as we struggled to track their runs and to close down space. Both sides had good spells of attacking football, but on the whole theirs seemed to be more prolonged than ours.

All that was mostly the first half though. The weather in the second half changed the game completely and certainly didn’t suit their style of play as well as it did ours. It stopped them making those neat little runs and short passing moves. It suited our style more, or maybe you could say we just coped with it better. 

Likewise, I didn’t think Williams or Martin were that good, certainly nowhere near 8s, first half. The game seemed to pass Williams by much of the time, and a couple of times he lost the ball on a way that would have driven some posters apoplectic if it had been Bakinson. But the worse the conditions got the more they seemed to relish a battle (which is what it became). I would probably rate Martin higher than a 5 just for the 10 minute spell when he played like a man possessed but otherwise wouldn’t argue with many of those scores. 

Overall, my view of the game wasn’t miles away from Ole’s across the whole 90 minutes. I wonder if some people are getting a bit carried away by the barnstorming finish in dreadful conditions. And like Ole I was quite certain that our first goal came from Atkinson!!!

This isn’t a criticism ID, more an observation of OTIB generally….I agree with almost all that you write on here.

I think there has become a bit of view that opponents who pass it / play “better” (define better?) football than us deserve better results.  I’m not sure our fans have cottoned on to our new (and evolving) playing style, which attempts to be pretty direct, it’s about getting it forward.  Some of that dictated by our players, and Nige wanting his defenders to defend first and foremost. We are most definitely not a “split the centre-backs, play out from the back” team, quite a lot of our opponents are, hence a lot of the middling teams playing back 3’s.  The top teams can split centre backs playing a back 4 because they have better ball players at the back and superior midfielders.

Peterborough did pass it about nicely, they had good patterns, had good movement, but a lot of it was in-front of us, possibly due to Dembele and Szmodics.  They didn’t get behind us very often. After the first 15 minutes, when we sussed their movement, we spent a lot of the first half forcing them to turnover the ball playing into midfield.  Second half the weather made it a different game.

We aren’t an attractive watch from a “pure football” perspective, but I’m fine with that, but we have guts now, hard-work, physicality.  Having been crap from set-pieces for seasons, we are now a threat.  Getting the ball into the final third fairly quickly and getting a free-kick or corner is probably part of the plan.  We have scored 6 goals from set-pieces.  Last season we scored 5 in total (inc cup).  How often have we been the team conceding from them?

Theres a change going on….I know you know that….but I’m not sure many have noticed.  City’s “overall performance” is about more than “pretty passing”.  Expectations of how we are gonna play need to change alongside it.

38 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Agree that it wasn’t daylight robbery a la QPR, and it was an open game. But didn’t you feel that Peterborough were the better side when it was a proper football match first half? 

I thought we thoroughly deserved to go in at h-t ahead, not 2-2.  Szmodics’s header was a killer….we were well on top having come from behind.  We’d fashioned good chances, opportunities for chances.

  • Like 5
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cityexile said:

It is really difficult to be impartial having been to the match, in truth. I think the change in weather most likely on balance did help us.

First half, I thought Peterborough were bright and looked full of movement. Having said all that, it took two really really good finishes for their goals, and don’t really recall them creating much in terms of real chances other than that…might be a poor or selective memory mind you. First 15 we seemed very passive but then I thought the rest of the first half was pretty even and a decent half of football. As I say, just a view.

Your summary of first half is pretty much what I wrote above.  I think we are a bit blinded by passing teams, because we aren’t one.

  • Like 3
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have one of the best away record in the league over the last couple of years, but away from home you are rarely going to dominate the opposition. I understand that some people see these as "backs to the wall performances" but they rarely are. I just get fed up with constantly being asked to apologise for having a good goalkeeper, good defenders and scoring more goals than the opposition at the end of the game, the only stat that matters. 

  • Like 6
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

We have one of the best away record in the league over the last couple of years, but away from home you are rarely going to dominate the opposition. I understand that some people see these as "backs to the wall performances" but they rarely are. I just get fed up with constantly being asked to apologise for having a good goalkeeper, good defenders and scoring more goals than the opposition at the end of the game, the only stat that matters. 

Agree, I was at QPR and don’t subscribe to the daylight robbery comments.

Yes they were the better side but at no point during that game did I think we were going to get thumped, with an inform keeper doing his job they didn’t have players good enough to score more than once.

And throughout the game I thought we could nick a winner because we did have strikers good enough. That’s what happened.

Edited by ralphindevon
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that escalated quickly!

Describing the match and enjoying the match are two completely different things. My head nearly came off when Martin scored the winner, don't think for one minute I didn't enjoy the moment.

We're also creating more chances than the prior two seasons, and the team look more committed and is working far harder than some of the performances that passed players by during Covid.

But let's not re-write fixtures because of the results. We were battered by QPR and yesterday I thought Peterborough looked far better on the ball, pass and move, working clever combinations.

Our assistant manager even alluded to it in his post match interview. What was frustrating was that we repeatedly stood off them right to the very end - and could not produce the same quality.

We were quite direct for a slow side without pace or runners, and other than two times we got O'Dowda to the byline in the first half, we only posed any threat in the second half from free kicks. 

We didn't work anything from open play, yet Peterborough kept passing, retaining the ball and plugging away at us - not great given how easily we'd already let them create their first two goals.

After Wednesday's non-event at Millwall we were 5 minutes from having no answer for an ex-League One side. It took a moment of sheer bloody minded desire from Williams to create a winner. 

That was a brilliant release for us all - but not sure why I should suddenly re-write the City performance. Perhaps it looks different on Robins TV, but on quality of football we were second best.

It's a great thing we are playing badly and winning games. It's a good platform for us to work towards producing real levels of quality passing/possession that will get us through tougher games.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Olé said:

It's a great thing we are playing badly and winning games. It's a good platform for us to work towards producing real levels of quality passing/possession that will get us through tougher games.

This is part of the problem Rob.  When teams let us have the ball, we struggle to break them down.  It’s not necessarily teams parking the bus, because I think most teams fancy their chances against us (home or away)…I can’t remember the last team that I thought came to AG for a 0-0.  But a team with a good defensive shape, organised press, well-triggered press can force us into “passing it sideways and backwards”, and that becomes quite dull (understatement).  We might go CB to CB to FB to Winger, back to FB, into CM, back to CB, all without the other team feeling threatened.  The good teams do just that, but create a spare man and then they exploit it.  So we tend to go into the front pair more quickly, and try to play from there.  We did have some spells yesterday where we played off the direct ball, got possession in their third and played….it’s just we aren’t a team that capable of doing that through each third.  And I think as fans we’ve become a bit snobby that playing pretty football through the thirds is the only way.  Especially when a team like ex-Lg1 Peterborough appear to be able to do that.  But they are sat there with 8 points and we have 16.  It’s alright having footballing defenders, but if they can’t defend a corner / set-piece, you concede goals.  That was us last season at times.

What we did yesterday was what the likes of Preston, Millwall (pre-Rowatt), etc did to us under LJ early years.  We played the pretty football but they created the chances from nod downs, errors, loose passes and scored.

We we’re a bit better than that yesterday imho.

Our Avenue out from the back is Atkinson finding a hole, or Dasilva (ink yesterday) sucking his man in and going past him on the inside.  Kalas did that yesterday, a bonus.  What we are also seeing is Williams able to get on the ball in the final third and give confidence for Tanner to get forward.

So, I don’t think we are playing badly per se (not saying we are great either), we aren’t pretty.  Other teams are.  QPR we’re a joy to watch as an opposing fan.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

as fans we’ve become a bit snobby that playing pretty football through the thirds is the only way.  Especially when a team like ex-Lg1 Peterborough appear to be able to do that.  But they are sat there with 8 points and we have 16.  It’s alright having footballing defenders, but if they can’t defend a corner / set-piece, you concede goals.  That was us last season at times.

What we did yesterday was what the likes of Preston, Millwall (pre-Rowatt), etc did to us under LJ early years.  We played the pretty football but they created the chances from nod downs, errors, loose passes and scored.

Fair cop, you've got me bang to rights Dave. I am a football snob. I like possession, I especially like consistently good passing and movement. The vast majority of successful sides exhibit an ability to control the football and the game. I do hope for that kind of football - not just because of the perception of quality, but even just because we're force fed a diet of Robins Uncut #1-29 videos showing us practicing well drilled one or two touch passing moves or even training drills specifically designed to reward possession. And then we go into the real thing and appear fairly limited in our ability to put it together.

Your points are all well made - Peterborough are much worse off than us, yes; and we used to lose to teams who perceptibly played much worse and more scrappy football than us, yes; but it's been so long since I remember feeling confident about City getting the ball down and passing it with quality that I am jealous when I see supposedly inferior teams finding it much easier to put together good fluid football.  We actually have footballing defenders - Kalas run yesterday was sensational. I think of a number of our players as good footballers. But as you say elsewhere - we're direct and we struggle with the ball.

I'm quite content winning ugly but it's pointless coming on here to write gushing praise about the performance itself unless the football warrants it. And I'll savour it even more when they do put it all together.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Olé said:

I am a football snob. I like possession, I especially like consistently good passing and movement.

Me too...I'm enjoying this season, getting better results than we often deserve, playing with commitment, feels like a management team doing the right things and in difficult circumstances putting things in place for the future. All good.

What drives me mad is our constant squandering of possession. It's almost the hallmark of our play when things are tight, as they were at the end of the match yesterday. We win the ball and then regularly fail to retain the ball for more than a couple of passes. It smacks of anxiety, and pressure, or conversely the desire to constantly find a worldie through ball....when what is needed is a calm head and a bit of nursing possession. 

Keep the match reports coming. Thanks for taking the time.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Olé said:

Fair cop, you've got me bang to rights Dave. I am a football snob. I like possession, I especially like consistently good passing and movement. The vast majority of successful sides exhibit an ability to control the football and the game. I do hope for that kind of football - not just because of the perception of quality, but even just because we're force fed a diet of Robins Uncut #1-29 videos showing us practicing well drilled one or two touch passing moves or even training drills specifically designed to reward possession. And then we go into the real thing and appear fairly limited in our ability to put it together.

Football is not known as the ‘beautiful game’ for no reason Ole

Most of us like watching possession football with good movement and crisp passing - nothing snobby about that. It’s almost a given in my opinion and exactly why I was so negative about GJ all those years ago - we rarely, if ever saw flowing football under his tutelage.

Two teams that played fantastic football spring to mind in the PL era - Arsenal under Wenger and Man City under Pep. Both were a joy to watch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View from the other side of the hill: my son and two grand sons were  in the London Road end yesterday cheering on Posh.

They came round for lunch today and i thought they had been to a different match. "City was rubbish yesterday", "There's no way you're gonna stay up playing like that" and that condescendingly, "That was a good result for you cuz not many teams come here and win".

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’re winning ugly at the moment.

The number of times I’ve heard ‘Bristol City are the worst team we’ve seen those season’ on opponents forums is embarrassing … so common, that it’s clearly not just reactions from some spotty adolescent pee’d off that his own team has not won.

There is progress. For the greater part of last season, if a single pass over 3 yards found another red shirt that was something to celebrate. This season we’re managing 2 or 3 successful passes and on many occasions, some forward passing too.

I think the defence - keeper, back 3-4-5 and defensive midfield - has the individual players of sufficient quality now to achieve a comfortable mid-table Championship position. We’re still some way off moulding these individuals as a unit and ironing out some player flaws - but I’m reasonably relaxed about this area of the team, assuming our coaches have the nouse to deal with these issues.

We are massively lacking though in decent wide attacking players and forwards. There is always a danger that the absence of quality attacking forward players and play overloads the defence due both to lack of ‘up front’ ball retention and goals. I think we currently just have the attacking prowess to avoid that occurrence but the out balls ain’t easy for defence when the attackers are either awol, slow or sprinting around into blind alleys.

We will continue to play and win ugly until the attacking side of the game is addressed. We will also lose - frequently. 
 

I think we are going to have to get used to Ole’s critical match reports as we’re far from being anything that resembles a fluid, well-oiled machine. I did think he was a bit harsh on some of the individual scores on the Millwall game but sometimes judgements are coloured by the overall team performance/result.

In Nige I trust though, so I’m confident Ole will be back to his enthusiastic, jolly self in the Spring assuming we invest in a couple of decent attackers in the next window.

 

Edited by RedRock
  • Like 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JonDolman said:

We created some good chances yesterday and against Fulham who certainly leave themselves open to conceding chances in how they play.

But against Millwall we had one chance gifted to us by a terrible back header by Wallace that Weimann took too long to get his shot off and was blocked.

QPR game we had 2 good chances in the entire game that were the goals.

Preston game we didn't create one good chance in open play.

Luton game we scored from a set piece but not one good chance created in open play.

I think I made a similar point in a different thread yesterday. If you're right that we create more chances now than previous years then blimey it must have been worse than I even thought!

But I guess it comes down to what era over those years we are comparing it to. No doubt we generally compare this season to last, but last season we had many of our best players injured and have since strengthened whilst getting rid of all the deadwood. And we still haven't really created much since those early games.

It's definitely something they have to look into, as we do play quite a positive way that I would hope would mean more chances created.

I guess it might be as simple as Nige not getting that striker he wanted.

I would go further in the direction of positivity JD...

Millwall wasn't a vintage display and I think memories are tainted by the last half hour in which we found ourselves chasing the game - against the run of play! - with 3 players subbed off injured and 2 coming on with very little gametime recently. But in the first hour we were the better team, surged towards the final third quite often without any killer instinct (striker!), and ended the game having had 10 shots, 6 corners and Millwall benefitting from some gifts from the football gods (and Bakinson).

Ole is correct to resist 'rewriting' our games but I'd propose noticing the good play and the size of the challenge. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Olé said:

Fair cop, you've got me bang to rights Dave.

???

I am a football snob. I like possession, I especially like consistently good passing and movement. The vast majority of successful sides exhibit an ability to control the football and the game.

I think we all do.  We lack a bit of composure, and I think to some extent it’s why we are playing with two forwards - (i) for the press and (ii) more chance of a punt forward finding a target if there are two targets.  It’s pretty basic.  If Wells was playing those punts might be down the side for him to run onto and get us up the pitch.  

I do hope for that kind of football - not just because of the perception of quality, but even just because we're force fed a diet of Robins Uncut #1-29 videos showing us practicing well drilled one or two touch passing moves or even training drills specifically designed to reward possession. And then we go into the real thing and appear fairly limited in our ability to put it together.

That’s a fair shout.  I’m hoping for that too.  Think it will evolve.  We only really try and play in the opponents third and games are pretty frantic as a result, with little to no control.  Certain players influence that. It’s a good debate if nothing else, better than OTIBers slagging each other off!  Without boring people with stats, West Brom are bottom of the league for 10+ passes in a sequence….they have had 9 all season!  We have had 33 (19th) some way behind Swansea’s 168 in 1st place.

⬆️⬆️⬆️ 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

But I think there's quite a number of games where we have not created much at all in open play.

I’m no rugby officianado, nor am I being facetious but goals can be scored from anywhere.  Teams might rather give away a corner or free-kick to stop a move / chance being created.  Why the rugby quote?

Back in 2003 when we won the Rugby WC, France criticised us for beating them in the semi final without scoring a try.  They scored one.7E0F7E64-DFD6-4C94-9500-2C03ED637B63.thumb.jpeg.9669cf5241aa17188d551926d07b63c9.jpeg

As I said I’m no Rugby expert, but watching the game, we had several “almost” moments where France decided giving away a penalty (3 points) rather than a try (5 plus potential 2) was acceptable.  They did it 3 or 4 times in try-scoring situations, and those plays alone with Wilkinson’s kicking would’ve been enough for us to win the game.  But they bleated about us scoring no tries, rather than them being second best.

City are gonna fast get a reputation for being dangerous from set-plays, and teams are gonna feel giving away cynical fouls in their own third are gonna get punished and might stop doing them.  That might lead to more open play.  Opposite forces at play and all that.  Bit like Stoke in the Delap days, when teams stopped trying to give them throw-ins.  Nathan Jones recognised our threat, and was critical of his team for fouling (Pring?) on the break going nowhere.

We are joint 14th for open play goals (8) and joint 2nd for set piece goals (5)….for some reason an own goal doesn’t count in the set plays total.

Football is never quite as simple as it is said to be.

  • Like 2
  • Robin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Olé said:

Well that escalated quickly!

Describing the match and enjoying the match are two completely different things. My head nearly came off when Martin scored the winner, don't think for one minute I didn't enjoy the moment.

We're also creating more chances than the prior two seasons, and the team look more committed and is working far harder than some of the performances that passed players by during Covid.

But let's not re-write fixtures because of the results. We were battered by QPR and yesterday I thought Peterborough looked far better on the ball, pass and move, working clever combinations.

Our assistant manager even alluded to it in his post match interview. What was frustrating was that we repeatedly stood off them right to the very end - and could not produce the same quality.

We were quite direct for a slow side without pace or runners, and other than two times we got O'Dowda to the byline in the first half, we only posed any threat in the second half from free kicks. 

We didn't work anything from open play, yet Peterborough kept passing, retaining the ball and plugging away at us - not great given how easily we'd already let them create their first two goals.

After Wednesday's non-event at Millwall we were 5 minutes from having no answer for an ex-League One side. It took a moment of sheer bloody minded desire from Williams to create a winner. 

That was a brilliant release for us all - but not sure why I should suddenly re-write the City performance. Perhaps it looks different on Robins TV, but on quality of football we were second best.

It's a great thing we are playing badly and winning games. It's a good platform for us to work towards producing real levels of quality passing/possession that will get us through tougher games.

I still love your reports and appearances on OSIB??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is we are starting from the ground up with what Ashton left us.

You look at what you’ve and how best you can utilize it.

We’re nowhere near able to play fast flowing passing football.

We are trying to secure 50 points and begin to build a club again.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Football is not known as the ‘beautiful game’ for no reason Ole

Most of us like watching possession football with good movement and crisp passing - nothing snobby about that. It’s almost a given in my opinion and exactly why I was so negative about GJ all those years ago - we rarely, if ever saw flowing football under his tutelage.

Two teams that played fantastic football spring to mind in the PL era - Arsenal under Wenger and Man City under Pep. Both were a joy to watch.

Just about to mention those two words ‘beautiful game’ too, RR. I agree: ‘pretty’ is often used as a dismissive term in the footballing context, and I’m never sure why.

It need to be effective of course: passing it backwards and forward across the line in your own half is neither difficult, pretty nor effective. And that’s what we saw a lot of the past couple of years. But goals like the one we got at Fulham 3-4 years ago when we passed the ball into the net leaving the Fulham keeper and full back literally on their backsides, or the goal we got at Blackburn ( I think!) after a 30+ passing move - a joy to watch.

I don’t think we’ve reverted to no longer being a passing side: I just think we are now trying to pass it forward more quickly and that is always going to carry greater risks of a misplaced pass. We still lose it too quickly to often as @Red Exile has said above. And in fairness to Peterborough yesterday I thought they also tried to move it forward quickly too, and often did it better than we did - in the first half. In the second half there was little chance of anything being crisp, just soggy!  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Never a penalty, contact game and Williams got his body in a good position.

Rob is a good observer of the whole of the game, not just focussing on City but why our opponents stop us too.  My thoughts are generally aligned to his.  His ratings are rarely a million miles from mine.  In a league where anyone can beat anyone, and we have a squad of mainly similar level players (and a few that aren’t), we are rarely gonna spank a team.  I watched on Robinstv and I thought we just about deserved the win, but tv and being there can give different views.  We created a really good set of chances yesterday, forced an opposition keeper into saves which was a big plus for me.

This isn’t a criticism ID, more an observation of OTIB generally….I agree with almost all that you write on here.

I think there has become a bit of view that opponents who pass it / play “better” (define better?) football than us deserve better results.  I’m not sure our fans have cottoned on to our new (and evolving) playing style, which attempts to be pretty direct, it’s about getting it forward.  Some of that dictated by our players, and Nige wanting his defenders to defend first and foremost. We are most definitely not a “split the centre-backs, play out from the back” team, quite a lot of our opponents are, hence a lot of the middling teams playing back 3’s.  The top teams can split centre backs playing a back 4 because they have better ball players at the back and superior midfielders.

Peterborough did pass it about nicely, they had good patterns, had good movement, but a lot of it was in-front of us, possibly due to Dembele and Szmodics.  They didn’t get behind us very often. After the first 15 minutes, when we sussed their movement, we spent a lot of the first half forcing them to turnover the ball playing into midfield.  Second half the weather made it a different game.

We aren’t an attractive watch from a “pure football” perspective, but I’m fine with that, but we have guts now, hard-work, physicality.  Having been crap from set-pieces for seasons, we are now a threat.  Getting the ball into the final third fairly quickly and getting a free-kick or corner is probably part of the plan.  We have scored 6 goals from set-pieces.  Last season we scored 5 in total (inc cup).  How often have we been the team conceding from them?

Theres a change going on….I know you know that….but I’m not sure many have noticed.  City’s “overall performance” is about more than “pretty passing”.  Expectations of how we are gonna play need to change alongside it.

I thought we thoroughly deserved to go in at h-t ahead, not 2-2.  Szmodics’s header was a killer….we were well on top having come from behind.  We’d fashioned good chances, opportunities for chances.

Not going to disagree with much there Dave. Although I felt 2-2 was about right at half time. Yes, we’d fashioned good chances, but hadn’t taken them. As we often said in the past when we snatched a 1-0 away win against the run of play, it’s all about putting the ball in the net. In Szmodic yesterday, Peterborough had the player who did that best of all; two great goals.

But that aside, not only do I agree, I’d go further: I think we’re a far better watch this season than we’re last, or the one before that. As I’ve said above, we’re still trying to pass the ball, just getting it forward quicker than we have done. And on occasions being prepared to run at opponents too. You have to do that to win the corners and free kicks that allow you the opportunity to score from set pieces!

We’ve got a way to go, of course. But I’m certainly not dismissive of our style now compared either to what it was, or to others. It’s about balance I guess. Fulham last week gave us a lesson in passing and in keeping possession - but it still felt we were as likely as they were to grab a winner in the last 10 minutes.

I just felt that Peterborough showed better and more effective movement than we did first half and pulled our defence into areas they didn’t want to be, creating the chances they took. It never felt to me like we were well on top to be honest - not until the rains came! 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JonDolman said:

Agree with what you say. But watching the games NIge is surely not content with how little threat we seem to have in open play in quite a number of games so far.

I expect whoever the striker is he wanted would have been to improve that part of our game.

Yeah, it’s not our strong suit at the moment, but I still see more goalmouth oohs and ahs than the last season or so.  We may see a slightly different style if Wells starts.

40 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Not going to disagree with much there Dave. Although I felt 2-2 was about right at half time. Yes, we’d fashioned good chances, but hadn’t taken them. As we often said in the past when we snatched a 1-0 away win against the run of play, it’s all about putting the ball in the net. In Szmodic yesterday, Peterborough had the player who did that best of all; two great goals.

But that aside, not only do I agree, I’d go further: I think we’re a far better watch this season than we’re last, or the one before that. As I’ve said above, we’re still trying to pass the ball, just getting it forward quicker than we have done. And on occasions being prepared to run at opponents too. You have to do that to win the corners and free kicks that allow you the opportunity to score from set pieces!

We’ve got a way to go, of course. But I’m certainly not dismissive of our style now compared either to what it was, or to others. It’s about balance I guess. Fulham last week gave us a lesson in passing and in keeping possession - but it still felt we were as likely as they were to grab a winner in the last 10 minutes.

I just felt that Peterborough showed better and more effective movement than we did first half and pulled our defence into areas they didn’t want to be, creating the chances they took. It never felt to me like we were well on top to be honest - not until the rains came! 

Hey, that’s fair enough.  I just felt their two worldies in the first half gave a bit of a false picture.  They played some nice stuff.  Nige and the coaches do need to look at how they stop getting overloaded.  I felt a couple of weeks ago that Pring played a bit too wide in general defensive play and therefore we were not able to shuffle across to our right quick enough.  Tough to tell on Robinstv if O’Dowda did similar.  I watch other midfield fours (albeit usually PL or international) shuffle across the pitch quicker than us.  Williams and Massengo together with James ought to help that.  QPR playing a 5212 / 3412 with Massengo in behind was always gonna leave us open.  I accept that, for the other benefits it gave us counter-attacking.  But in a basic 442 like yesterday it needs a bit of work.

But ultimately, I find myself being more entertained by this side than the past 2+ seasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...