Esmond Million's Bung

3 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

If you mean me I didn’t say we didn’t change the way that we played, just that we weren’t exactly playing badly prior, unlike today when we were second best for most of the first half 

I didn't mean you.

What I saw last week was we were slow and predictable in our build up, before running out of ideas and before going 2-0 down. Never looking like we would ever score.

This week I saw far more of high press/higher tempo build up before running out of ideas in the first half and looking more threatening, which apart from the ongoing running out of ideas bit was an improvement IMHO.

In the 2nd half today I saw more movement in and around the opponents box than the first half but the same running out of ideas and poor delivery as the first half and first hour of last week.

Ergo for me the problem is the same as it has been for me for more than 2 seasons (more like 3 seasons) we lack creativity around the opponents box to make our possession based game work, I don't think LJ sees it that way, so for me because I believe our squad is weaker than last then this season is going to be a very long slog.

Just now, BCFC Richard said:

We played 2 CB's at CB today despite having 3 out injured and you would like us to have signed a 6th? Pisano at LB is very likely to be a one-game occurrence because of how recently Dasilva came in. 

We could have brought in a short term loan, that would have made sense, in the same way that after selling Djuric and knowing the Diedhiou was banned for 6 games, we should have brought in cover.

We haven't in both cases it's a mistake, it's unprofessional and it will end up costing us.

44 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

So much better second half. Why do we have to wait until 2 down to play this way?

34 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Deserved something out of that second half in fairness. If we’d have played that way from the start we may have actually got something from the game. 

I said exactly the same last week and was told that we apparently never changed the way we played and we played exactly the same way.

3 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

Here's the problem - People will make comments like this. At CB we have Wright, Baker, Taylor, Hegeler, Webster, and Kelly why would we sign another? Kelly played today and was one of our best players. RB we have Pisano and Hunt as well as Wright who can deputise there and a youngster in Pring who played there a few times for Hereford. Other people moaning about LB well we have signed Dasilva to play there but he only 1st trained with us 24hours before the Plymouth game so obviously wasn't quite ready yet. 

Because Wright and Hegeler are both injured that's why.

Your solution is to shoe horn in players out of position and just wing it, I say the squad lacks depth and quality and that was exposed today and will be exposed throughout the season.

23 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

This is the most ridiculous matchday thread I can remember. We're playing one of the better teams in the league, we've been on top for long spells of the game and people are acting like we've been destroyed and completely outplayed. Its a game we could easily have got something out of on another day, we've created plenty and its not quite run for us.

Obviously, there are things to be concerned about particularly at the back where we have been sloppy at times and Hunt in particular needs better concentration on his first touch and passing. But GK looks good (particularly for a free), Kelly had a great game, Pack looks fantastic and Wieman is quality. 

Here are the problems, people were crowing over our summer signings, but 3 matches in and already we are playing with a patchwork defence, last season we lost two right backs and only signed one and this season we lose two centre backs and only sign one, how unprofessional can a club get? in short our bench looks short on quality and experience.

We undoubtedly play some great pretty football but just run out of ideas in and around the box, our final pass is poor and our crossing is poor, yes we had bad luck towards the end but we never once created a worthwhile clear cut chance. We also over complicate when in some very good forward positions.

Watkins was in and out but at least is a bit more of a physical presence than anyone else in that position, ODowda is struggling, Taylor sad to say is a waste of space, both starting full backs look full of mistakes, hopefully Da Silva will start on Tuesday night and of course then there is Paterson ok he did improve slightly in the 2nd half but one good shot on target is nowhere near enough from him and after Taylor replaced Smith, he was just awful with his extra defensive duties, he needs to be dropped.

There were some great performances Kelly and Pack in particular were excellent, Webster, Brownhill and Smith did not let us down and the keeper was OK and of course Wiemann kept going but lacked real support.

But as I said at half time all of the danger that Middlesborough caused us had their roots firmly set in our pretty football breaking down in the opponents half because of lack of quality and over complication.

I believe already our summer business is exposing lack of depth and quality and another rash ignoring of the need of another centre back.

Just now, Super said:

Wiemann works hard but he really isnt a striker. Hopefully when Fammy is back he will play off him.

I was going to say something like where does that leave Paterson?

Firstly let me say we have the best player on the pitch in Marlon Pack, he is just terrific and I suspect Pulis would love to sign him.

Secondly we really do play some very pretty football but time and again the same thing happens we totally run out of ideas/creativity in and around the opponents penalty area, all we have to show for our pretty football is 2 half chances both way off target and bog standard BCFC free kick also way off target. Our final pass and crossing is piss poor again.

Now onto our defending, both goals had their roots in an unnecessary breakdown in our pretty football in the opponents half and then confounded by piss weak defending, Hunt looks great going forward but a liability defensively, he had a weak hand in both of their goals and nearly gave another way with a sloppy pass.

In a word we look brittle.

Watkins and of course Paterson struggling to get into the game.

And note to commentator don't call us ******* Bristol again, we are Bristol City or City FFS.

6 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Pretty sure it's 4-3-3 or some variation of. Boro have three in the middle of midfield so we have to match that.

LJ has just said the plan is to get Watkins in behind Boro  defence using his pace.So him Paterson and Weimann the front three.

Kelly is 100%  playing CB

Today will be interesting the last time Kelly played CB, he was bullied all game.

You have 25 minutes to cheer up, take a look at what I just posted on this sub forum, JOKE thread - VIDEOS, TWEETS and PICTURES, I nearly shat myself.

1 minute ago, Alessandro said:

Agreed - seems crazy to be in the position of having 2 centre backs out already and having to play a makeshift CB in a RB that's not in great form.

Made crazier by last season and the failed shoe horning of several different options at right back, it is unprofessional, who will be next at CB my guess is Pack, maybe Smith or of course it might be a way of keeping Paterson on the team sheet.

1 minute ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Think we will actually be 4-4- 1-1

or in theory 4-5-1

Which will actually be

4-4-1 when we don’t have the ball

Your a naughty boy, trying to keep off of the moaners step?,I see what you did there, no names no pack drill (no pack drill is not a clue of course).

Just now, Alessandro said:

As @BobBobSuperBob suggested, could well be 4-4-2. That would be the more defensive option and makes sense to help out Pisano with both Baker and Wright out.

Thus it makes sense, just, to go with Pato instead of Eliasson in the number 10 role despite his below par performances and Watkins over Eliasson for his extra physicality. 

We'll find out shortly!

You may be correct, Paterson certainly owes us a performance that is for sure, however the wider issue for me is this last season all over again, lose 2 right backs and only sign one, this season lose 2 centre backs and only sign one, I would have thought that there should be a lesson in there somewhere.

Pity about Eliasson, he is defensively far better than Paterson, I would normally say that Paterson's goal last week saved his place, but LJ does have an incredibly soft spot for him so I suspect that it wouldn't matter.

Just now, Alessandro said:

4-3-3

?

If bullshit was music Wael would be the king of jazz.

22 hours ago, Alessandro said:

In your opinion.....in my opinion, you're talking overly negative nonsense. As i've said already, I think you're exaggerating the 'languid' and 'slow' pace at which we play it out the back and as i've said already, and others seem to too, I think it's too easy to forget the way opposition affect a game. As Ole wrote in his report, this game was ours but for a silly 3 minutes.

I still believe we stuck to our game plan and style of play, and simply upped the tempo. The style of play was the same. Happy to agree to disagree.

Not if we had continued in the same vein, because we had created nothing until the silly 3 minutes, the game was heading for a nil/nil bore fest.

The last sentence is half right, but missing one incredibly important fact the 'out of necessity' bit we were 2-0 down and going nowhere and our only hope was to up the tempo, had we not this conversation would be you defending a defeat.

29 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Firstly, you haven't already asked me to point out a chance, so you can't ask me again. As i've already said, we may have created very little in the first, but that was largely in part to the way in which Bolton sat back and chocked the final third. Should we have done better though, yes, as i've already said.

But a game is not played over 60 minutes, so that's irrelevant. What is, is that IMO after 60 minutes we still continued to play in very much the same style as the first 60 minutes. Out of the back, languid as you call it, with Marlon playing that QB role. That's how our first goal came ironically. Keeping possession, working the spaces and finding a killer pass from a good run. 

That's how we continued to play to the very end of the game, out of the back, perhaps with more urgency, but you can't play flat out for 90 minutes. We were looking for the runs and channels (which we did a lot in the first half) the difference for me was that the game stretched and opened up and those passes and runs into the channels started to come off. That made it look a different game all of a sudden.

Despite being 2-0 up, Bolton for me were naive and I believe we kept doing our thing, stuck to our game plan and we got the goals and very nearly the winner. 

Firstly I didn't ask you specifically, the word 'you' was not mentioned, the again was because I had asked another poster the same question. Next I will try to make that clearer.

Secondly let me clear one misrepresentation here, I have no problem with playing the ball out of the back, but playing it slow was not working in any way shape or form and was and will hardly ever work for us, if we continue to play that style we will lose more than we win.

The first highlighted portion is nonsense every bit of it, my point being for 1 hour we were totally non threatening, only after their 2nd goal did we suddenly change our style from languid to a higher intensity and that is where our first goal came from fast incisive not slow languid and it was borne out of nothing other than necessity.

The 2nd highlighted portion, the urgency came out of necessity and nothing whatsoever to do with any managerial genius or anything else, we would have played the same to the bitter end of a nil/nil draw had we not gone 2-0 nil down and needed to change something that was never going to work in the first place, so the comment about playing flat out for 90 minutes was a silly one.

As for the last sentence honestly if you truly believe that carry on because it was simply not true, we never stuck to our game plan, we changed to a more up tempo style, we had to change, we had no alternative but to change and we changed to style that suits us better especially against the Bolton's of this division.

Middlesborough home next Saturday, is that a "never expected anything out of that game" get out clause for LJ?

3 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Although I see where you are coming from, I think you're overly harsh again, but it's all opinions. I do agree that we should play with more urgency and thrust in the final third more often. But we controlled the ball and looked good in possession for 70% of the game today, playing against an anti-football team who, AT HOME, put 11 men behind the ball and hoped to catch us on the break or score from a set piece.

Whatever you say about LJ and this team, they look to play football and have a go. At least it's not what many teams do in this division, like Bolton, set up to survive. I can't imagine what you and many others would say if LJ set us up, at home, to only sit 11 behind the ball and look to catch people on the break. 

Look, you get **** all for playing pretty football, for an hour we controlled possession that was it, but we created absolutely nothing, that is a fact, it took the sting of conceding 2 goals to inject any urgency into our play whatsoever.

We do not have the midfield to play that languid style, because they all run out of ideas in and around the opponents box and because of the length of time to get there even shit teams will have numbers making even more confusing for our midfield, LJ should have by now solved that riddle, we do however have the midfield to play at a higher tempo, especially if either Smith, Brownhill or Pack are on the bench ready to come on, look at the difference in the last 30 minutes when played with urgency, we caught them light at the back and actually created chances, again I ask please point me to a chance in the first 60 minutes?

52 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

The fact that you basically said we were awful which we weren’t. Bar one really poor spell we were completely dominant in both halves and never looked under threat. We weren’t clinical enough given the amount of the ball we had, I agree, but we’re also without our main striker so that’s not altogether surprising, is it? 

Of course there are always going to be things to be improved on, and we’re not always going to get what we deserve out of games. But I saw many more positives than negatives. Some people love to fixate only on the negatives and that’s their prerogative. 

I agree that Paterson was poor. 

I'm sorry but that is just not true, we were comfortable but unthreatening against and incredibly poor team, it was like watching a porno where the actors forgot to take their viagra and only remembered when 2 of the actresses fell asleep.

Clinical has nothing to do with it today, I don't even know why you have introduced that red herring, it was for the first hour all about being slow, unambitious bordering on the negative and with a piss poor final ball, there was nothing whatsoever for any of the strikers to be clinical about during that hour, that only changed when we were 2-0 down, even you cannot remember a worthwhile chance during that period so clinical is just a nonsense.

Well you always see more positives than negatives, I saw more positives last week and the only positive for me from this game was the sudden realisation that we were being humiliated by a piss poor side and the injection of pace and urgency upon that realisation, that's it, we got out of this game exactly what we deserved because of our unambitious performance during the first 60 minutes, our problem is simple LJ is trying to get us play like Man City but unfortunately for the first 60 minutes the players believed that they had already reached that ambition.

If we are going to continue to play this languid slow unambitious style of football then we will lose more than we will win, because we do not create anywhere near enough playing that way, the lesson today is play with pace, ambition and movement but not to lose our heads in midfield.

I also have to add your 16 shots is in reality 9, 5 on target and 4 off, yes it's quoted as 16 but I suspect that the missing 7 hit the first defender.

1 minute ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Watched

And cannot recall a worthwhile chance before we went 2-0 down, you must agree that as soon as we went 2-0  down and started to inject some pace and playing with passion instead of the boring, negative, languid getting nowhere things improve WTF wait until we are 2-0 down?, Paterson (the goal apart) was poor yet again, Bolton were shit, our final ball, crossing, free kicks, corners and long balls were poor all day and the facts about LJ are irrefutable.

What was harsh?

Just now, BRISTOL86 said:

16 attempts on goal Es. I don’t know what the average in this league is but I’d wager it’s considerabky above it. 

Making them count is another matter of course but that wasn’t my point. We never looked remotely troubled at 0-0.

Maybe it was complacency. 

But it’s still frustrating to see people fail to take any kind of positive when there were lots there today for those willing to see them. 

Did you watch the game or listen to a commentary?

1 minute ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Understand some of the sentiment but a little harsh. 16 attempts on goal and they didn’t all come at 0-2. 

We don’t look lacking creatively for me, we look lacking in someone who can finish them off (enter Diedhiou). 

All in all not going to grumble about a 2-2 after going 2 down. It’s a good result whatever way it’s spun and we’re still unbeaten. 

Remind me of a good chance before we were 2-0 down?

Please do not spin this as anything other than what it is another poor performance against an incredibly poor side, it took 2 goals against us before we upped our game from a painfully slow, obvious and stuttering performance to actually put some real effort in and moving at pace.

We only started to create after we conceded 2 goals, the languid, slow almost negative style does not suit us, we are clearly better moving at pace.

Paterson scoring means he will now be undroppable for the next 20 or so games, the free kick near the end is more of an indication of his form.

As far as LJ is concerned if he says in his post match interview that Bolton are good side he is ******* liar and 21 points from the last 24 league games no wins in our last 6 is his recent record and he needs to improve.

We created sweet FA until we conceded 2, our final ball, crossing, corners, free kicks and even long balls were woeful all afternoon, we lack creativity in midfield.

******* gutless pussies.

******* embarrassing.

******* sort it out LJ FFS.

Absolute gutless disgrace.