Benarous > Pring LWB

[Unan]

Can anyone explain the logic 

[Davefevs]

No….close thread

[Northern Red]

Stamina?

[Unan]

Just now, Northern Red said:

Stamina?

That’s the only thing I can think. It doesn’t explain why you wouldn’t play Pring for 60 and bring Benarous, or Dasilva, on layer though.

[glynriley]

1 minute ago, Marcus Aurelius said:

Can anyone explain the logic 

Knackered

[YGBjammy]

Utterly bizarre. I guess Scott has looked okay at RWB but even thats not ideal. Pring seemed an obvious choice, even if you only play him for 70mins then get DaSilva on for 20? 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

3 minutes ago, Marcus Aurelius said:

That’s the only thing I can think. It doesn’t explain why you wouldn’t play Pring for 60 and bring Benarous, or Dasilva, on layer though.

Yes. To start Prong would of secured the defense better and Benarous a good attacking substitution. But we are not training the players and do not see them every day 

[cidered abroad]

We are too narrow in all departments.

Return to a back four now and stop allowing opponents to open us at will via the wings.

The rest can be any formation you want. 4-2 / 5-1 / 3-3

[sglosbcfc]

Benarous was City's best player today, why would you leave him on the bench????

[maxjak]

10 minutes ago, sglosbcfc said:

Benarous was City's best player today, why would you leave him on the bench????

i don't think it's a question of him being on the bench........but playing him in his optimum position. He is wasted at wing back.

[GrahamC]

I think the logic was simple.

Pearson has said recently that we have struggled to score goals at home because we don’t create enough chances, so chose to play 2 young, creative players as wing backs.

This was brave & it didn’t come off, not hindsight personally I’d have started with Scott & Pring but I don’t pick the team.

What I would say is Benarous looks a completely different player to the one who looked totally overawed on his debut v Barnsley & whilst I would use him further up the pitch, he is definitely worth a place in the squad.

[xerox6060]

Ridiculous decision, play him where he's supposed to play and stop playing square pegs in round holes Nige 

[The Bard]

It didn't work and it was probably never going to work.   

However, there's nothing wrong with getting him and Scott in the team even if they aren't in their favoured positions.  

Seems to me that Pearson is making strategic, long term selections at the moment.  Giving inexperienced players chances to play as part of their footballing education.  In the long term this will seem like a wise thing to have done. On the day it seems odd to say the least. 

[Sir Geoff]

Disagree with with most of the above. Benarous as a straight replacement for COD was the obvious choice. Where else could he have played today without totally reshuffling the midfield and leaving one of Massengo, James, Scott out. Pring has been out of favour and Benarous deserved his chance. Thought he had a decent game after the first 20 minutes when he was a bit anonymous.

[Dredd]

2 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

Disagree with with most of the above. Benarous as a straight replacement for COD was the obvious choice. Where else could he have played today without totally reshuffling the midfield and leaving one of Massengo, James, Scott out. Pring has been out of favour and Benarous deserved his chance. Thought he had a decent game after the first 20 minutes when he was a bit anonymous.

Far from the obvious choice in my opinion. We literally have two LWBs and he’s chosen to play AB out of position there. 

[AshtonRobin21]

I would like to see Cod/Pring at LWB, Alex Scott at RWB, Benarous in the 'number 10' position, and a strike partnership of Weimann and Semenyo. 

Pring did well when he came on, seemed to have a positive effect on the game. And I also felt Benarous did well in the later stages of the game once playing centrally. 

[tin]

Pring refused to play, according to James Piercy. 
 

[swanker]

11 hours ago, sglosbcfc said:

Benarous was City's best player today, why would you leave him on the bench????

I was impressed with him especially in the second half. He’s going to be a good midfielder 

[1960maaan]

8 minutes ago, tin said:

Pring refused to play, according to James Piercy. 
 

Difference between "refusing to play" and "not ready to play".  If he had refused to play he would have been no where near the squad. 
Could be many reasons, disappointing that someone fit enough for the bench, doesn't feel he can start  game. Plenty on here have said he can't last 90, maybe he felt the same. 
IMO he should start, then you can change it at 60-75 minutes if needed. We concede to many chances, another player that can defend would be no bad thing.

[pongo88]

11 hours ago, sglosbcfc said:

Benarous was City's best player today, why would you leave him on the bench????

It’s interesting how different people have different opinions about a game or a player, but that’s football . I thought he was struggling and should have been taken off at half time. He wasn’t, and his positional sense after the break that led to the third goal was awful. He only looked good after he moved to midfield when Pring came on 
 

In answer to the logic of selecting Benarous at left wing back over Pring, or Dasilva for that matter, I think Pearson has a few players he wants to play in every match regardless. On Saturday it was “there’s a place at LWB, so I’ll put him there”. What I’d like is for Pearson to play round pegs in round holes and proper defenders in defensive positions. Play Tanner at right back / wing back and Pring left back / wing back. Both haven’t got the creativity of Scott and Benarous but at least they can defend 

[Shuffle]

25 minutes ago, tin said:

Pring refused to play, according to James Piercy. 
 

I was as bemused as everyone to see Pring not starting and now all is revealed. I’m sorry but if you are fit enough for bench then you can start. No idea what reasoning for Prings decision is but surprised he was on the bench as we need people to be ready to fight for the cause.  At face value Pring doesn’t come out if this well

[ralphindevon]

5 minutes ago, Shuffle said:

I was as bemused as everyone to see Pring not starting and now all is revealed. I’m sorry but if you are fit enough for bench then you can start. No idea what reasoning for Prings decision is but surprised he was on the bench as we need people to be ready to fight for the cause.  At face value Pring doesn’t come out if this well

I’m beginning to wonder does Pearson come out of it very well. 
im not in the Pearson out group and I do think we’ve improved but there’s a few niggling things going on.

The Simpson signing he can take all the blame.

Dasilva is an odd one, we’ve all seen what he can do, why isn’t he doing it now?

Palmer we were never going to get 40 games a season out of him and should never have been signed, not Pearson’s fault. But to never even manage to get some game time out of such a good player seems odd. He’s a match winner on his day, even as a sub.

 

[tin]

22 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Difference between "refusing to play" and "not ready to play".  If he had refused to play he would have been no where near the squad. 
Could be many reasons, disappointing that someone fit enough for the bench, doesn't feel he can start  game. Plenty on here have said he can't last 90, maybe he felt the same. 
IMO he should start, then you can change it at 60-75 minutes if needed. We concede to many chances, another player that can defend would be no bad thing.

He’s a professional footballer who’s been named in the starting XI 24 hours before kick-off only to say he doesn’t feel ready to start. That’s refusing to start IMO. Otherwise, I agree with you — tell him he’s starting and he’ll get an hour. It’s not his place to say whether he starts or not IMO. He was available and selected.

[Lrrr]

If you don’t know the whole scenario around it there’s not much you can say on it really, for all we as public know Pring could have had a bit of a knock and wanting to manage it. City could have Covid cases so that the bench we saw was all of City’s available players, too much going on atm to be sure on anything without inside knowledge. 

[Shuffle]

13 minutes ago, ralphindevon said:

I’m beginning to wonder does Pearson come out of it very well. 
im not in the Pearson out group and I do think we’ve improved but there’s a few niggling things going on.

The Simpson signing he can take all the blame.

Dasilva is an odd one, we’ve all seen what he can do, why isn’t he doing it now?

Palmer we were never going to get 40 games a season out of him and should never have been signed, not Pearson’s fault. But to never even manage to get some game time out of such a good player seems odd. He’s a match winner on his day, even as a sub.

 

Think the decision to leave JD as 4th choice confirms he’s done under Pearson.  I’m so disappointed in Pearson as expected so much more in terms of points & performances & when you have a small squad you have to find a way to get best out of everyone which he hasn’t 

[Rossi the Robin]

12 hours ago, The Bard said:

It didn't work and it was probably never going to work.   

However, there's nothing wrong with getting him and Scott in the team even if they aren't in their favoured positions.  

Seems to me that Pearson is making strategic, long term selections at the moment.  Giving inexperienced players chances to play as part of their footballing education.  In the long term this will seem like a wise thing to have done. On the day it seems odd to say the least. 

This was pretty much what I was trying to post last night but couldn’t put into written words - Longer term strategy 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Rossi the Robin

[1960maaan]

47 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

If you don’t know the whole scenario around it there’s not much you can say on it really, for all we as public know Pring could have had a bit of a knock and wanting to manage it. City could have Covid cases so that the bench we saw was all of City’s available players, too much going on atm to be sure on anything without inside knowledge. 

If it was any other manager I might tend to agree, but Pearson has been pretty open about knocks & injuries. He's also been proactive at protecting players carrying knocks. In the past they have announced COVID cases. 
I do agree we may not know all the details, more from Pring side . But If you are fit for the bench, there can't be too much wrong as you may be Calle on very early in a game. Just seeing that he played over 40 minutes shows there wasn't too much wrong.
What I'm surprised about is that, as we were going with a genuine WB, why not carry on with that and play DaSilva ?

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Shuffle said:

I was as bemused as everyone to see Pring not starting and now all is revealed. I’m sorry but if you are fit enough for bench then you can start. No idea what reasoning for Prings decision is but surprised he was on the bench as we need people to be ready to fight for the cause.  At face value Pring doesn’t come out if this well

Lots of colds and chills going around at the minute. Perhaps he just thought he didn't have 90 minutes in him because he was a bit under the weather?  Or maybe just a bit of muscle tightness from training. 

He did fine when he came in. Had the pace to get back when required that Atkinson lacked. 

I think it's fair enough that players warn the manager when they feel they aren't 100% fit. 

[Davefevs]

5 hours ago, tin said:

Pring refused to play, according to James Piercy. 
 

Wow.

Whatever the reason it shows what we are having to contend with.

[Harry]

There’s another theory that hasn’t been raised here as yet. And one which I’ve done a bit of a fact find on this morning and grabbed some info from a few contacts. 
 

Pearson has form for making early substitutions if a player is off their game. Particularly some of the younger players. 
Pring wasn’t feeling 100% and didn’t think he’d be able to perform to his full potential. 
Many young players at the club are in fear of performing badly and being hauled off before half time. 
 

Perhaps Pearson’s ‘hard line’ that he’s evidenced previously has actually backfired here somewhat, with players not wanting to play if they feel they aren’t fit enough, for fear of being scapegoated if they play poorly as a result.