I enjoyed that, but…..

[ZumerZetSmithy]

13 hours ago, BCFCGav said:

Martin functioned well as an out ball and I’m pretty sure Conway and Wells were blowing. So happy enough with that. Agree regarding the right backs, think Tanner might’ve been the man as he likes getting stuck in and defending aggressively. But hard to be glum tonight, so no complaints from me!

Maybe Pearson was taking the ref into consideration  and felt the two right back  could of lost there head in the situation

[Super]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I guarantee you that the question will be asked at the training centre today. They may come to the same conclusion as you have, or they might just think a little tweak here or there could have meant we were even more controlled or perhaps had an extra shot, or scored a third goal, or just saved a little energy in the legs of the players. You can say that would all just be icing on an already delicious victory cake...but I for one bloody love icing.

I get your point a bit but when Sykes was sent off we would all have taken 2-0 and barely give them a chance in the game. 

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Super said:

I get your point a bit but when Sykes was sent off we would all have taken 2-0 and barely give them a chance in the game. 

I agree with you. I am sure that Pearson also agrees with you.

I also think it is right to check, just check, whether there's anything that perhaps could have been done to win 4-0, or give them no chance of a game. That's all it is from my perspective. OP might go further, but for me it's just about analysing what went well, what could have been done better, and what we might do next time we have to defend a lead with 10 men. I see it as a positive exercise rather than a negative one.

[Rob k]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I agree with you. I am sure that Pearson also agrees with you.

I also think it is right to check, just check, whether there's anything that perhaps could have been done to win 4-0, or give them no chance of a game. That's all it is from my perspective. OP might go further, but for me it's just about analysing what went well, what could have been done better, and what we might do next time we have to defend a lead with 10 men. I see it as a positive exercise rather than a negative one.

Agree - let’s be honest, it’s not as if they didn’t create openings when we were down to 10. Luckily they were useless 

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

 

Hey! I told you I’m coming round to your way of thinking on that one

I just needed to see a bit more. Which I’m now seeing.

[Steve Watts]

3 hours ago, RedM said:

@HarryTotally agree with your opening post. We saw out the game but could have been out of sight. If they had scored it would have been a nervy last few minutes. If they had scored and the equalised all that work and confidence building would have been wiped out and the forum a very different place.

 

And if my Auntie had been born with a wanger, she'd have been my uncle.  But she wasn't, so she's not.

I find it a really strange piece of conjecture about what might have happened when we know what did happen.  We may as well say Vyner had a good game yesterday but what would have happened if he'd made his customary costly mistake....but he didn't, so no-one is saying it. 

Discussion and debate is all well and good and what a forum is all about of course, but it does seem a little picky to do it after the substitutions had the desired effect against the opposition in front of us and we saw the game out without conceding despite being down to 10 men.

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Super said:

Not sure how we could have done better. 

Not surrender the territory and possession so easily which led to a poor opposition having virtually all of the ball and all of the territorial advantage for the last 20 minutes. 
I know this is an extreme example, but it’s an example nonetheless less and in the context of a dominant team vs a poorer opponent, take a look at Liverpool v Palace on Monday. They went down to 10 with over half an hour remaining, but didn’t change their game plan. They continued to do the good things that give them success and continued to dominate possession and territory. 
They made some personnel changes which solidified them at the back but didn’t compromise their attacking threat or game plan. A change in the full back to one who wasn’t quite so rambunctious, a change in CM to bring on a better defensive shield, and a change at CB to one who was more experienced. 
 

My whole point here is that whilst we ended up getting the result, there was no need to immediately surrender once down to 10. We could have made an immediate sub to take off one of the 2 strikers and bring on a specialist full back (of which we have 2 on the bench - that’s the main thrust here, why are they there if not to be utilised in this very circumstance). 
We could have made the change in CM to bring in Williams to give more defensive solidity. 
But neither of those changes would have compromised our game plan, and continue to exploit Luton’s weakness, which was the movement up front and passing from midfield, turning their defence to face their own goal. 
By offering up Martin minus the 2 ‘movers’ up top, we gave their defence absolutely nothing to think about for half an hour - surely it was obvious to everyone watching that their back 3 were shit-scared all game and then after Martin came on they were happy to go 1-1 with him, allowing 2 of the others to regularly foray further forward. We surrendered. And that’s my gripe. We didn’t have to. 
 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Harry

[steviestevieneville]

5 hours ago, Harry said:

You’re coming from the school of thought that says “you must defend for 28 minutes after you’re down to 10”. 
I’m coming from the school of thought that says “we’re dominating against a very fragile defence, keep them under pressure by doing the same thing that’s scared them all game”. 
By starting to play in to the feet/head of a target man just played into their hands and allowed them to win the ball back quickly and prevented us from establishing any possession or territory. 

I’m not saying that at all. Your way of playing would of left us vulnerable to be hit on the counter attack. One goal would of let to two. My , or more importantly a vastly experienced managers way , was by playing 531 . Stopped them playing through us and we could try to get up the pitch as a unit. We actually created a couple of half chances that way . One in fact was a overload on the right which led to Martin being unmarked . Yet again the incompetent linesman flagged for offside when he was clearly onside . Your idea would simply cause us to lose possession as our isolated striker would of been out numbered. 

[Super]

29 minutes ago, Harry said:

Not surrender the territory and possession so easily which led to a poor opposition having virtually all of the ball and all of the territorial advantage for the last 20 minutes. 
I know this is an extreme example, but it’s an example nonetheless less and in the context of a dominant team vs a poorer opponent, take a look at Liverpool v Palace on Monday. They went down to 10 with over half an hour remaining, but didn’t change their game plan. They continued to do the good things that give them success and continued to dominate possession and territory. 
They made some personnel changes which solidified them at the back but didn’t compromise their attacking threat or game plan. A change in the full back to one who wasn’t quite so rambunctious, a change in CM to bring on a better defensive shield, and a change at CB to one who was more experienced. 
 

My whole point here is that whilst we ended up getting the result, there was no need to immediately surrender once down to 10. We could have made an immediate sub to take off one of the 2 strikers and bring on a specialist full back (of which we have 2 on the bench - that’s the main thrust here, why are they there if not to be utilised in this very circumstance). 
We could have made the change in CM to bring in Williams to give more defensive solidity. 
But neither of those changes would have compromised our game plan, and continue to exploit Luton’s weakness, which was the movement up front and passing from midfield, turning their defence to face their own goal. 
By offering up Martin minus the 2 ‘movers’ up top, we gave their defence absolutely nothing to think about for half an hour - surely it was obvious to everyone watching that their back 3 were shit-scared all game and then after Martin came on they were happy to go 1-1 with him, allowing 2 of the others to regularly foray further forward. We surrendered. And that’s my gripe. We didn’t have to. 
 

Liverpool were losing the game. Totally different scenario.

[downendcity]

6 hours ago, Harry said:

Yep. We won. And I’m happy about that. I’m just not convinced about how that actually happened and how that wouldn’t have worked against a competent opponent. 

Just a thought, but perhaps against a different opponent Pearson might have made different substitutions.

 

 

[RedM]

57 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

And if my Auntie had been born with a wanger, she'd have been my uncle.  But she wasn't, so she's not.

I find it a really strange piece of conjecture about what might have happened when we know what did happen.  We may as well say Vyner had a good game yesterday but what would have happened if he'd made his customary costly mistake....but he didn't, so no-one is saying it. 

Discussion and debate is all well and good and what a forum is all about of course, but it does seem a little picky to do it after the substitutions had the desired effect against the opposition in front of us and we saw the game out without conceding despite being down to 10 men.

I guess I've seen it go pearshaped once too often so this new City, where we can see out games, hasn't quite got be believing yet.

It seemed a gamble, and not the most obvious one, and yes it paid off but I find myself just wishing we hadn't found ourselves in that situation, which all stemed from the sending off.

I hope City will give me a chance to be convinced by this end of game positivity!

 

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Steve Watts said:

And if my Auntie had been born with a wanger, she'd have been my uncle.  But she wasn't, so she's not but  that's no barrier to her being so if she wants!

Updated for 21st century accuracy Steve.

[RedM]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I guarantee you that the question will be asked at the training centre today. They may come to the same conclusion as you have, or they might just think a little tweak here or there could have meant we were even more controlled or perhaps had an extra shot, or scored a third goal, or just saved a little energy in the legs of the players. You can say that would all just be icing on an already delicious victory cake...but I for one bloody love icing.

Exactly. Yes there are only ever 3 points up for grabs whether you win 10-0 or 1-0 but mentally if we had gone on to score a couple more, which we looked like doing, it would have been a huge boost.

Instead, although we never looked hugely in danger, we had to make sure we saw out the game and worked hard to do so. More stress than enjoyment I expect the last 30 minutes were for the players. 

A couple more goals would have taken us to a positive goal difference too, again a huge positive.

Yes as you say it's just icing, but why not aim to be the best cake when you had done so much preparation?

[Harry]

1 hour ago, steviestevieneville said:

I’m not saying that at all. Your way of playing would of left us vulnerable to be hit on the counter attack. One goal would of let to two. My , or more importantly a vastly experienced managers way , was by playing 531 . Stopped them playing through us and we could try to get up the pitch as a unit. We actually created a couple of half chances that way . One in fact was a overload on the right which led to Martin being unmarked . Yet again the incompetent linesman flagged for offside when he was clearly onside . Your idea would simply cause us to lose possession as our isolated striker would of been out numbered. 

I’m still saying 5-3-1 as well. Not sure where I’ve given an impression of anything different. I’ve said one of the right backs should have come on for one of the strikers. 
As for the Martin incident, I was in line with that and he was offside. 
Martin being present didn’t allow us to retain possession, it made us go long. Having a threat in behind (as we’d had all game and was scaring them), would have allowed us territory and at least the opportunity to make them play in their own half for periods, rather than being camped in our final third for the majority of the final 20. 

[spudski]

3 hours ago, Harry said:

Not surrender the territory and possession so easily which led to a poor opposition having virtually all of the ball and all of the territorial advantage for the last 20 minutes. 
I know this is an extreme example, but it’s an example nonetheless less and in the context of a dominant team vs a poorer opponent, take a look at Liverpool v Palace on Monday. They went down to 10 with over half an hour remaining, but didn’t change their game plan. They continued to do the good things that give them success and continued to dominate possession and territory. 
They made some personnel changes which solidified them at the back but didn’t compromise their attacking threat or game plan. A change in the full back to one who wasn’t quite so rambunctious, a change in CM to bring on a better defensive shield, and a change at CB to one who was more experienced. 
 

My whole point here is that whilst we ended up getting the result, there was no need to immediately surrender once down to 10. We could have made an immediate sub to take off one of the 2 strikers and bring on a specialist full back (of which we have 2 on the bench - that’s the main thrust here, why are they there if not to be utilised in this very circumstance). 
We could have made the change in CM to bring in Williams to give more defensive solidity. 
But neither of those changes would have compromised our game plan, and continue to exploit Luton’s weakness, which was the movement up front and passing from midfield, turning their defence to face their own goal. 
By offering up Martin minus the 2 ‘movers’ up top, we gave their defence absolutely nothing to think about for half an hour - surely it was obvious to everyone watching that their back 3 were shit-scared all game and then after Martin came on they were happy to go 1-1 with him, allowing 2 of the others to regularly foray further forward. We surrendered. And that’s my gripe. We didn’t have to. 
 

I totally agree with your sentiments Harry.

I'm not sure why so many folk think that once you are down to 10 men, you have to retreat, defend and let teams on to you.

I bastardised these following words as they sum up how I see it...

Pushing players back sounds ideal, but what you’re doing is allowing the opposition to have more possession with time to make good decisions – in effect, handing over control of the game. The more the opposition has the ball, the more chance they have of scoring.

Sitting deeper, with the majority of your players stationed in your own half. All this does is allow the opponent to control the tempo (and, possibly, the result).

Use the player roles to adjust to the situation instead of moving the entire team to be more defensive.

This makes it easier for players to keep concentration and familiarity in the final minutes of the game. Why underestimate the power of your side’s Tactical Familiarity? Imagine having played 70 minutes in your usual system before being asked to fulfil something completely different, it’s a big risk.

 Trying to keep a balance between attack, midfield and defence so that you don’t isolate individual areas.

Keep a solid foundation, make it difficult for the opposition to break you down while still leaving certain dangerous players further up-field. Conway, Wells and Weimann on the counter...instead of a ball holding Martin. This allows the team to counter after winning the ball while giving the opposition something to think about. Keeping a striker or wide player high up the pitch stops opposition full-backs bombing on in attack.

Drop two of the  strikers into an AM/Support role. When  defending they will act like a third central midfielder, but in attack, they becomes the hook, the link to the striker. This means the lone front man doesn’t become isolated in the latter stages of games, he can still offer a substantial threat going forward.

First and foremost, you don’t want to be playing long direct balls up to a lone striker, the chances of that ball being headed away are considerably higher than his chances of getting the ball down and scoring. Here are the key pointers 

Slow the game down - Reduce the tempo and start time wasting. 

Maintain balance between the roles. Ensure there is a mix of support and defending roles, so your players don’t sit too deep.

Look for set-pieces - Tell your team to Play for Set Pieces. This will ruin the rhythm of the opposition while giving you an opportunity to score and seal the gam. 

Minimise risks... Play shorter passes with a reduced tempo to try and keep the ball in safe areas further up the field. 

Ask central midfielders to dribble less, make shorter passes and take fewer risks, therefore minimising the chances of losing the ball and making unnecessary mistakes.

Just some ideas away from sitting deep and allowing teams to control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLAY NO

[Mr Popodopolous]

We'd played so well, it was important to get over the line.

We did so with a minimum of fuss or drama- job done, especially with our record this season of throwing away leads and refs decisions helping to undo us- clean sheet should also be good for morale.

[steviestevieneville]

29 minutes ago, spudski said:

I totally agree with your sentiments Harry.

I'm not sure why so many folk think that once you are down to 10 men, you have to retreat, defend and let teams on to you.

I bastardised these following words as they sum up how I see it...

Pushing players back sounds ideal, but what you’re doing is allowing the opposition to have more possession with time to make good decisions – in effect, handing over control of the game. The more the opposition has the ball, the more chance they have of scoring.

Sitting deeper, with the majority of your players stationed in your own half. All this does is allow the opponent to control the tempo (and, possibly, the result).

Use the player roles to adjust to the situation instead of moving the entire team to be more defensive.

This makes it easier for players to keep concentration and familiarity in the final minutes of the game. Why underestimate the power of your side’s Tactical Familiarity? Imagine having played 70 minutes in your usual system before being asked to fulfil something completely different, it’s a big risk.

 Trying to keep a balance between attack, midfield and defence so that you don’t isolate individual areas.

Keep a solid foundation, make it difficult for the opposition to break you down while still leaving certain dangerous players further up-field. Conway, Wells and Weimann on the counter...instead of a ball holding Martin. This allows the team to counter after winning the ball while giving the opposition something to think about. Keeping a striker or wide player high up the pitch stops opposition full-backs bombing on in attack.

Drop two of the  strikers into an AM/Support role. When  defending they will act like a third central midfielder, but in attack, they becomes the hook, the link to the striker. This means the lone front man doesn’t become isolated in the latter stages of games, he can still offer a substantial threat going forward.

First and foremost, you don’t want to be playing long direct balls up to a lone striker, the chances of that ball being headed away are considerably higher than his chances of getting the ball down and scoring. Here are the key pointers 

Slow the game down - Reduce the tempo and start time wasting. 

Maintain balance between the roles. Ensure there is a mix of support and defending roles, so your players don’t sit too deep.

Look for set-pieces - Tell your team to Play for Set Pieces. This will ruin the rhythm of the opposition while giving you an opportunity to score and seal the gam. 

Minimise risks... Play shorter passes with a reduced tempo to try and keep the ball in safe areas further up the field. 

Ask central midfielders to dribble less, make shorter passes and take fewer risks, therefore minimising the chances of losing the ball and making unnecessary mistakes.

Just some ideas away from sitting deep and allowing teams to control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLAY NO

I don’t see why it has to be negative . There were plenty around me wanting to keep three up which was ridiculous . Going 531 I saw as being solid whilst also hopefully being able to get up the pitch . My difference of opinion with @Harry was how we got up the pitch 

[The chief]

Can understand the OP as I said to my mate at the time the Scott sub was a big gamble . He’d just (I think- memory is hazy) done the amazing tackle, run and through ball for Martin and it seemed like a gamble to remove our maestro and constant threat - Attack being a form of defence n all.
The subs gamble paid off.
Getting extra height in by bringing on Klose to protect our lead felt right at the time and I thought  martin held the ball up well and did a job. Loved that game tho. Really think that in wells/Conway (the w/c anyone?!! ) we have a template to attack certain games. Great to have  options mind init.  

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

I don’t see why it has to be negative . There were plenty around me wanting to keep three up which was ridiculous . Going 531 I saw as being solid whilst also hopefully being able to get up the pitch . My difference of opinion with @Harry was how we got up the pitch 

It wasn't so much the formation. It was the personel substituted and how we sat deeper.

No way would you leave three up front ..no one is implying that.

Hopefully that was all explained in my post

[The Bard]

Shortly after the red card we over pressed and Luton were able to play straight through us.  We were just carrying on doing what we had done.  This is when the numbers started to tell as well as the fact that certain players' energy levels were dropping.  By picking a young, very quick mobile team, he had ensured that any subs would make us taller, more experienced but less mobile.  

[Super]

9 minutes ago, The chief said:

Can understand the OP as I said to my mate at the time the Scott sub was a big gamble . He’d just (I think- memory is hazy) done the amazing tackle, run and through ball for Martin and it seemed like a gamble to remove our maestro and constant threat - Attack being a form of defence n all.
The subs gamble paid off.
Getting extra height in by bringing on Klose to protect our lead felt right at the time and I thought  martin held the ball up well and did a job. Loved that game tho. Really think that in wells/Conway (the w/c anyone?!! ) we have a template to attack certain games. Great to have  options mind init.  

Scott gave the ball away a few times. Can see why he was subbed. Not that he had a bad game before I get slaughtered.

[The chief]

7 minutes ago, Super said:

Scott gave the ball away a few times. Can see why he was subbed. Not that he had a bad game before I get slaughtered.

Agree . Got caught a couple of times trying to be a bit cute. Reckon he’ll learn quickly from that as he’s clearly a smart footballer.
At times plays like a seasoned midfielder, tracking back, reading danger. Joy to watch. 

[stephenkibby.]

3 hours ago, Harry said:

I’m still saying 5-3-1 as well. Not sure where I’ve given an impression of anything different. I’ve said one of the right backs should have come on for one of the strikers. 
As for the Martin incident, I was in line with that and he was offside. 
Martin being present didn’t allow us to retain possession, it made us go long. Having a threat in behind (as we’d had all game and was scaring them), would have allowed us territory and at least the opportunity to make them play in their own half for periods, rather than being camped in our final third for the majority of the final 20. 

Getting the impression of late Harry not just from this topic that your not Pearson's biggest admirer?

[Redtucks]

"You pays your money and you takes your choice"

NP did that and got the win which was the main objective.

If we had not won, I may well have been critical.

With another game on Sunday, there may well have been benefits in protecting Conway, Scott and Wells (assuming they will be starters against Cardiff)

[Harry]

2 hours ago, stephenkibby. said:

Getting the impression of late Harry not just from this topic that your not Pearson's biggest admirer?

Ha ha. 
Why “of late” Only kidding. 
 

I’ve always been middle-of-the-road with Nige. He’s not past it but he’s also not the messiah. 
He’s done a number of things that I like but also a number of things I’ve disliked. 
Sometimes I feel he can do better, other times I think he’s done ok. 
I certainly have no agenda with him, but he does need to start proving his worth and begin improving results. It’s good that we’ve started playing well in patches but he needs to improve the results and get us to, at minimum, 16th this year. 
In fact, to be on course for that I’m requiring 27/28 points by the end of November (after 21 games). 
Anything less than that, and certainly anything under 23 points at that point and I think we’re in trouble and he’d be failing. 

[Davefevs]

@spudski I get where you’re coming from.

Last season, Coventry 1-0 down at h-t to Bristol City, playing their box 5221 had Maatsen sent off.

Came out second half playing 4221, they took one defender out.  Of course they were 1-0 down and had to chase the game, so a different scenario to City.

Many ways to skin a cat….different cats for different situations.

[Ian M]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@spudski I get where you’re coming from.

Last season, Coventry 1-0 down at h-t to Bristol City, playing their box 5221 had Maatsen sent off.

Came out second half playing 4221, they took one defender out.  Of course they were 1-0 down and had to chase the game, so a different scenario to City.

Many ways to skin a cat….different cats for different situations.

But to their advantage they were playing Bristol 'Fragile' City at our finest, the winner of course coming in stoppage time.

[spudski]

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@spudski I get where you’re coming from.

Last season, Coventry 1-0 down at h-t to Bristol City, playing their box 5221 had Maatsen sent off.

Came out second half playing 4221, they took one defender out.  Of course they were 1-0 down and had to chase the game, so a different scenario to City.

Many ways to skin a cat….different cats for different situations.

I agree Dave...I just hope if the scenario were to happen again, that we didn't automatically go into a defensive mentality and think the best way to defend a lead a man down, is by bringing defenders on and sitting back.

 

[mozo]

10 hours ago, Harry said:

Ha ha. 
Why “of late” Only kidding. 
 

I’ve always been middle-of-the-road with Nige. He’s not past it but he’s also not the messiah. 
He’s done a number of things that I like but also a number of things I’ve disliked. 
Sometimes I feel he can do better, other times I think he’s done ok. 
I certainly have no agenda with him, but he does need to start proving his worth and begin improving results. It’s good that we’ve started playing well in patches but he needs to improve the results and get us to, at minimum, 16th this year. 
In fact, to be on course for that I’m requiring 27/28 points by the end of November (after 21 games). 
Anything less than that, and certainly anything under 23 points at that point and I think we’re in trouble and he’d be failing. 

I'm sorry Harry we don't do 'middle ground' in 2022. Pick your side and hate the other side. That's how it works.