FBC POD: review of Hull [A] - "Deja vu.... awful refereeing, late goal conceded

[GrahamC]

5 minutes ago, headhunter said:

Why the witch hunt over Ian FFS? I invite any of his critics to come on to our next live podcast which we'll record at 10.00 AM next Sunday as we review the Sunderland game.

Because he’s the king of “would have, should have, could have”.

He changes his opinion & retrospective team selection to suit the result & is also very selective with the “facts” he uses or he simply makes stuff up, like Danny Simpson’s £15k a week wages.

He has blocked me on Twitter after I pointed this type of thing out, so don’t get me started on “debating” with him.

[headhunter]

12 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

This is cause & effect though, isn’t it?

Hull were brought back into the game by a terrible decision/dive & so 1. we all have no idea what would have been the scenario going into injury time if that hadn’t happened.

As for the subs that just smacks of hindsight to me, I’ve lost count of the times 2. you have slagged off HNM for lacking focus & playing like a headless chicken yet he’s now apparently the saviour to see the game out. Likewise Wells, for all his qualities, he really isn’t someone I’d be bringing on to replace Martin.

3. I note we did make a 89th minute sub & Klose came on, not sure that was exactly a success?

1. Indeed the whole pattern of the game was different from that moment on. Hell, if it hadn't happened we might have won but the pendulum was swinging in the home side's favour as most [?] would agree.

2. Won't deny those comments re. HNM - it was all about fresh legs, particularly in the middle.

3. That was, I believe, to replace the inured Atkinson. 

When it was announced that Zak Vyner was starting the decision bought dogs abuse on here prior to kick off. People always pick up on a perceived level of negativity expressed on FBC but on this point we were, as a group, praising Zak's performance.

[Davefevs]

10 hours ago, Ally1971 said:

I went Saturday and thought City deserved something out of the game.  Felt for the 1st time in years City kept the ball well, to the extent that I was surprised possession was in Hull's favour according to BBC for first half.

I guess you sit and think, how come we got nothing, how come we didn't control for 90? 

I feel Pearson has to find James's replacement as he keeps it ticking over for a possession based team but not the intensity of a pressure based style. I'd rather see 'Dogs of War' in midfield like Joe Royles FA Cup winners, basic but honest.

However, there was not one player who I thought shouldn't be playing and it was great to see the unity but feel we are in between high press and possession style team. How do you rectify this I don't know and that's why I pay to watch, rather than get paid a 6 figure salary to manage the team.

I thought it was a game that ebbed and flowed in terms of who was on top.

I liked the early parts of the game where we controlled possession from the back, Naismith making passes into midfield, beating the press and allowing our players to face up Hull.

We were relatively solid defensively too, well structured.  We perhaps allowed them to play into our half more second half, when first half we pressed them higher and made them go long.  They did the same to us second half.  We needed to be a bit braver passing into midfield, everyone cone ten yards shorter and then spring them into the channels.  We did that once when I think it was Williams got a ball into him and swivelled to hit a first time pass into our right channel for Conway to latch onto.  Those types of plays can then result in Hull dropping off and giving us more space again.  Stuff like that.

57 minutes ago, headhunter said:

Dave, I never intended for FBC to carry out a forensic analysis of the teams performance - it has always been about just opinions regardless of how misjudged and ill informed they are.

We are knee jerk & I take the view that possibly this applies to most fans. To back that up, I took time out to listen to 3PIAPC yesterday and in their "how you feeling segment" one of the guys said they felt 5/10 at full time but by the time they'd got back to Bristol it was [generous!] 8/10. I also noted they did marks out of 10 for each player. This is a segment we used to run when you were a regular with us and which you felt was a somewhat fatuous form of analysis!!!

There is only one stat that matters in the cold light of day and that is points on the board. Whilst we were cheated by the ref the fact is we have lost 3 points from a winning position. FWIW I think our game management was poor in the closing stages. When 6 mins of time added on were shown we had scope to run the clock down with a double substitution : HNM & Wells on for Weimann [ran himself into the ground] and Martin [very tired].

Not a slight on you at all Dave, you do a great job in bringing opinion to the masses.  I just get frustrated by numbers being put out there with no rationale, no cause and effect, just “we lost because they had 14 shots and we had 10” type stuff…and stated as the reason for the result.  As we all know football is much more than that, we’ve seen teams have 80% possession and lose 1-0.  We saw a team a couple of years ago win 2-0 without a shot on target (one a keeper own goal to a shot that hit the post, the other a shot going wide that deflected in).

[GrahamC]

40 minutes ago, headhunter said:

1. Indeed the whole pattern of the game was different from that moment on. Hell, if it hadn't happened we might have won but the pendulum was swinging in the home side's favour as most [?] would agree.

2. Won't deny those comments re. HNM - it was all about fresh legs, particularly in the middle.

3. That was, I believe, to replace the inured Atkinson. 

When it was announced that Zak Vyner was starting the decision bought dogs abuse on here prior to kick off. People always pick up on a perceived level of negativity expressed on FBC but on this point we were, as a group, praising Zak's performance.

That’s fair, though is “fresh legs” really an issue in injury time? I also remember HNM costing us a point at home to Coventry in the very last minute.

I think it is one of those circumstances where in truth there is no right or wrong answer.

I remember that horrendous win at home to Barnsley when I was amazed we didn’t make any late subs, but we held on.

Likewise I recall one of the games we conceded late, both Andy King & Nakhi Wells came on, 2 experienced pros but we contrived to concede when the ball was in their right back position with 30 seconds to go.

Was Atkinson injured? I thought it was a tactical switch?

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, GrahamC said:

Was Atkinson injured? I thought it was a tactical switch?

Yes, an accumulation of fouls on him…Nige mentioned he had a knock in post-match interview.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, headhunter said:

1. Indeed the whole pattern of the game was different from that moment on. Hell, if it hadn't happened we might have won but the pendulum was swinging in the home side's favour as most [?] would agree.

2. Won't deny those comments re. HNM - it was all about fresh legs, particularly in the middle.

3. That was, I believe, to replace the inured Atkinson. 

When it was announced that Zak Vyner was starting the decision bought dogs abuse on here prior to kick off. People always pick up on a perceived level of negativity expressed on FBC but on this point we were, as a group, praising Zak's performance.

I didn’t see the game live, only the highlights, and am surprised that Zac was praised, for my money he was clearly caught out of position for the move that led to the penalty.

As to Bristol boy, he is simply a glass half empty person, and should we get beat by Sunderland on Saturday I’ll probably join him.

[Shelton’s Love Gravy]

21 hours ago, Rob k said:

If it is i wont be listening - most negative City fan on the planet, the sort that will want City to lose so NP loses his job so he can say ‘told you so’ 

He has been very successful in business mind, and has also worked for many very rich men.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Shelton’s Love Gravy

[Mr Popodopolous]

Was thinking draw in cold light of day- we seemed to fall back and yeah 2nd half they did have more of the ball and more of the play although we had some dangerous chances.

We could have won sure- and maybe but for the penalty we would have but as I said elsewhere but differently, pressure and hard work out of possession is cumulative and fatigue- mental and physical- can creep in.

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for diving- been a problem for years hasn't it, my first major recollection of it being highlighted majorly (followed football closely since 1998) was 2002 World Cup- Rivaldo getting a Turkey defender sent off.

They've come up with varied ideas but never really put them into practice or done so consistently. Retrospective ban? Sepp first mentioned it as far back as 2006!

Time penalties- aka sin bin? Another of his plans! Early 2014...don't ever remember it.

Then in 2017 England, it had our own mini clamp-down, seem to recall that well known tumbler Bailey Wright getting banned for simulation- and not much besides!

Edited August 1, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Will Rollason]

7 hours ago, TomF said:

He had two accounts - Bristol Boy / Top Man on the old old forum but settled on the former on this one 

Oh yes... Bridal boy...i remember...

[Cityboy1954]

23 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Because he’s the king of “would have, should have, could have”.

He changes his opinion & retrospective team selection to suit the result & is also very selective with the “facts” he uses or he simply makes stuff up, like Danny Simpson’s £15k a week wages.

He has blocked me on Twitter after I pointed this type of thing out, so don’t get me started on “debating” with him.

Snap same with me blocked :laugh:

[brady bunch]

On 31/07/2022 at 17:52, Kykoliko said:

Yes. I love Martin but he is consistently blowing out of his arse after 60 minutes. 

He was not the only one to be fair, Weimann was dead on his feet at the end (and the scorer I think was meant to be his man to mark, but he was miles away). Matty James was blowing before the 60 mark and surprisingly so was Williams towards the end...

I watch all the pre season training videos the club puts out and listen to the coaching staff and every year I think to myself "wow, we are going to be super fit this year" then just like last years opener against Blackpool, it dawns on me, the oppo's are fitter and finish the game stronger.... Hull were out running us at the and of the game all overr the pitch. we did not even use all the subs....

Edited August 2, 2022 by brady bunch
typo - fair not far!

[brady bunch]

On 01/08/2022 at 10:16, headhunter said:

Dave, I never intended for FBC to carry out a forensic analysis of the teams performance - it has always been about just opinions regardless of how misjudged and ill informed they are.

 

And that is what most of us listen to FBC for, pure and simple fans talk, not neutral analysis that is out there already...

Win, lose or draw, its good to tune in and listen to people like me, giving "their" view of the game, it is not always the way I see it, but I love listening all the same and it has really added to my enjoyment of following the City.

Keep up the good work, its really valued by those who listen every week.

[Crimson Crayola]

Good pod and a mostly enjoyable listen, but what's with the Sarina Wiegman "£67 blazer" remark? Of all the superlatives you could use to describe her and her achievements you make a comment about what she wears? It's attitudes like this (however unintentional or even benevolent) that aren't exactly helping in propelling the women's game forwards. I am however glad you at least discussed the Women's Euros.

[Sheltons Army]

13 minutes ago, Just8 said:

Good pod and a mostly enjoyable listen, but what's with the Sarina Wiegman "£67 blazer" remark? Of all the superlatives you could use to describe her and her achievements you make a comment about what she wears? It's attitudes like this (however unintentional or even benevolent) that aren't exactly helping in propelling the women's game forwards. I am however glad you at least discussed the Women's Euros.

Before you look to be offended.....

............ohhhhh too late
 

Dear oh dear.....

 

I think the guys were implying , besides being very good , she’s down to earth , and not interested in ‘image’, donning a Armani tailored blazer or such like

 

so...... ‘attitudes like’ what ?

[Crimson Crayola]

10 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Before you look to be offended.....

............ohhhhh too late
 

Dear oh dear.....

 

I think the guys were implying , besides being very good , she’s down to earth , and not interested in ‘image’, donning a Armani tailored blazer or such like

 

so...... ‘attitudes like’ what ?

I'm not offended. And I don't think anything was intended by what was an off-the-cuff remark made in the space of a few seconds, but unless you can honestly say the same or a similar comment would be made about Nige's choice of fashion in the same space or time, then you have to admit there's an issue.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Just8

[BCFC300]

Love the array of podcasts that our fan base have created, always enjoyable to listen to contrasting views and opinions after every match day. 
 

The only things that let the FBC podcast down continually is the quality of the sound and continuous talking over of each other at times. Makes for difficult listening and seems to be a consistent issue especially over the last 12 months.

Other than that can’t thank your panel and guests enough for continuing to provide an entertaining podcast and space to escape at times

 

 

[Engvall’s Splinter]

45 minutes ago, Just8 said:

I'm not offended. And I don't think anything was intended by what was an off-the-cuff remark made in the space of a few seconds, but unless you can honestly say the same or a similar comment would be made about Nige's choice of fashion in the same space or time, then you have to admit there's an issue.

Bit over the top. Thought it was a reference to Southgate and his waistcoats to be honest. 
 

Nothing to see here I’m sure. 

[Crimson Crayola]

22 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Bit over the top. Thought it was a reference to Southgate and his waistcoats to be honest. 
 

Nothing to see here I’m sure. 

Point taken, and the last thing I'd want to come across is as OTT on the issue, because it helps no-one.... The Southgate reference is a stretch, mind.

[maxjak]

Yes of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. (Sounds like a song title?)........However there IS a problem in midfield IMHO, and, also, Pearson did not make maximum advantage of using the bench?   But i am certain Pearson is well aware of these issues, and to be sure, we were very unfortunate to lose the game.

Despite our monetary troubles. I believe Pearson will address these problematic aspects, and somehow bolster the midfield, as Williams and James cannot possibly play 3 times a week, even with King playing ocassionally?   James and Williams did tire on Saturday, and in an ideal scenario, fresh legs should have been used in the midfield in the last 15/20 minutes of the game, if possible?   I have faith in Pearson, and i can see a few changes in and out, over the next few weeks.  It's early days, and I remain optimistic.............because most of the time Pearson is doing his very  best in a difficult  financial environment.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by maxjak

[Nogbad the Bad]

On 01/08/2022 at 10:20, headhunter said:

Why the witch hunt over Ian FFS? I invite any of his critics to come on to our next live podcast which we'll record at 10.00 AM next Sunday as we review the Sunderland game.

He was certainly assertive when he was on here and could put people's backs up, and seems he can be a bit touchy on Twitter.

Like the other regulars he's a fanatical and opinionated City fan who could talk BCFC all day long - great credentials for being on the podcast, but that doesn't mean his views or personality will suit every listener.

Put any 3 or 4 fans on a City podcast for an hour and I wouldn't expect to agree with all of them, or everything they say, nor would I want to.

Seems to me there's a good mix of regular contributors, including Ian, and you can't do any more than invite critics to come on and give their own views, and indeed, challenge Ian or yourself while they're at it.

I'd like to see some of them take up your offer, but maybe they, like many of us, realise they might not come across that well talking live on City for an hour so perhaps we should appreciate there are those more suited willing to give up their time to provide fellow City fans with a free podcast, even if we may sometimes strongly disagree with them.

They also need to be thick skinned enough to put up with the type of flak - sometimes personal - we see on these threads, which I daresay would put many off.

So good on them I say and keep up the good work. I'm sure it's appreciated by many - but do try and sort out the sound issues if possible!