LondonBristolian

What I'd say here is none of us know the exact circumstances - which won't be the same in all cases. I'm not going to speculate on what the circumstances might have been but I can imagine there might be circumstances where someone is taken ill and can easily be treated unimpeded by a medical team in a way that enables the game to continue and circumstances where someone is taken ill and the medical team not feel they can safely and effectively treat that person to the highest possible standard due to the amount of space available, location of the person, impact on the crowd etc. Even if people have seen an incident at a football match before - and I feel deeply sorry for anyone who has as it must have been a very traumatic experience - the circumstances may not have been the exact same circumstances of this incident. Without being there, without knowing the exact circumstances and without being a medical professional making an assessment on the ground. I think it is utterly impossible to have an informed view that it was inappropriate or unnecessary to stop the game.

To be honest, I'd be respect this poll a lot more if it it was published on a day other than a matchday. I don't think the Lansdowns are doing a great job but I'm utterly sick of fans absolutely shitting the bed every time we lose a game. And I say that as someone with a bowel condition. We lost today. That's crap. But can we wait for 48 hours and take a deep breath before pontificating on the entire future of the club?

Often when people get in trouble for chanting about Hillsborough, the Munich Air Disaster or any other tragedy, their excuse is they got drunk and made a misjudgement in the heat of the moment. It's very, very difficult to pass getting a banner designed, printed and hung from a bridge as a misjudgement in the heat of the moment. I just don't get the mentality at all. There's obviously teams where I want them to lose football matches but I just can't imagine taking joy or amusement in any tragedy that happened to a rival club and I can't understand at all why anyone who does so feels the need to announce it publicly.

Would it not make sense to wait and see what's actually happening before criticising what's happening? At the moment, there's no evidence whatsoever that we are losing Weimann without a replacement lined up. If Weimann goes and no replacement comes in next week then by all means criticise that. But why on Earth do it before it has actually happened?

There's no doubt Elliott moving to right back massively affected us but I think your characterisation of the decision is a maliciously unfair one. First off, stating the obvious, if GJ was that obsessed with playing "his boy", he could have put him in from the start. Secondly, Elliott was our best midfielder but arguably the best right back option after Orr. He'd played right back in an FA Cup Final four years earlier so it wasn't exactly an unprecedented move for him. Thirdly, it's easy to criticise a sub in hindsight but we've no idea of knowing whether Vasko - who'd not been playing regularly - coming on would have won us the game or not. We could easily be sitting here saying "Vasko was a disaster - why didn't he move Elliott to move right back?" FWIW, I think moving Elliott to right back was the wrong decision and that Johnson and Carle was a poor midfield combination. I actually think two changes were needed once Orr was injured - Vasko on with Carey to centre-back and Johnson on for Trundle to give us an extra body in midfield to better screen the defence that was weakened by Orr's depature. But I think the change GJ made was one of three or four legitimate options, none of which were perfect. In the context of the options available, I think that claiming it was purely an act of nepotism feels like sour grapes and spite rather than a reasonable analysis.

I suppose one of my questions is whether we're going to "replace" him directly or not. You could take the view that we currently have 6 forwards competing for 3 places (as an over-simplification, Cornick and Sykes on the right, Mehmeti and Bell on the left and Wells & Conway in the middle) but no obvious attacking midfield option other than Jason Knight. It wouldn't shock me if, if we only signed one player to "replace" Weimann, it was actually an attacking midfielder - perhaps one who could play wide left or wide right too - rather than an outright forward.

Weimann's been a tireless worker and a fantastic ambassador for the club but, even in the last year under Pearson, it's been increasingly hard to see how he fits into the team. Assuming this comes off, it's fantastic that he's got a move that is both local to his family and to a very decent club. There's not many players who, after leaving the club, would be warmly welcomed back to Ashton Gate by virtually every supporter but I suspect he is one of them. I'm grateful for the memories and pleased he seems to have found a way to move on with his head held high.

This might be nonsense but I thought it was to do with VAR and that the assistant is supposed to "flag" a concern with a goal for VAR review but not do it in a way where the referee might stop the flow of an onside move.

Probably not the popular choice but - if we get through - I'd like Newport or Eastleigh at home then, if we get through that, a winnable Championship or League One team in Round Five. And then, if we win that, Spurs in the quarter final.

The problem is you then end up in a situation where some people are sitting anywhere and then others get asked to move because they are in someone’s seat but can’t get to their own seat because someone else is in it. If everyone agreed that you could go anywhere OR everyone agreed that you had to go to your designated seat then either of those would work fine. Instead you get this weird mess where both those who don’t sit in their assigned seat and those who insist on sitting in their assigned seat make everyone else’s experience frustrating and confusing.

It is a real bugbear of mine that - with very few exceptions - you can’t choose a seat at away games. I have a fluctuating impairment - most games I can stand comfortably if everyone else is standing but not always. I try my best to be respectful and mindful to whoever is behind me but, if everyone else stands in front of you, you end up with no choice but to stand. I really wish all away games had the option of selecting your seat and think one of the best arguments for bringing back safe standing areas at games is that it would give people not able to stand confidence that they will be able to see the match.

Worth saying - whilst a slightly different scenario - I had a situation at QPR earlier in the season where I went to collect my ticket at Loftus Road (I always collect at the ground for away games as I don't live in Bristol) and it turned out they didn't have it and it hadn't been printed. It was just a case of going to the main ticket office, showing my confirmation email, and they printed the ticket there and then. It obviously added 5 or 10 mins on to getting into the ground but it wasn't a major hassle, nobody made me feel like they were interrogating me or doubting I was genuine and it was proactively sorted out. It's obviously worth arriving early and having your confirmation but it seems from that that clubs can and will reprint at the ground where needed.

Reading between the lines, I'm wondering if describing a player who is out for a few weeks as "nothing major" and a "minor tweak" tells us that the expectation/fear was that it was going to be significantly worse...

The reality is that 21 is far too young an age to confidently predict a player’s career trajectory. Both Conway and Bell undoubtedly have attributes that suggest they could flourish as a front two. Both also have weaknesses or areas where they need to learn. And - like pretty much all players of their age - both regularly drift out of games and struggle for consistency. My best guess is both will go on to have careers at Championship level or above. But that depends on a lot of factors. I find it ridiculous how some in this thread are writing off two 21 year olds but it’d be equally ridiculous to claim they are absolute certainties to make it a high level.

I can exclusively reveal that West Ham have taken revenge my rejecting my request to bring eight cans of scrumpy with me on Sunday.

Are you talking about the game where they had 16 shots against us, the game where they had 28 shots against us or the game where they had 26 shots against us?

I think the key in that article as to WHY we don’t “play Guardiola ball” is the intent. As the article explains, Guardiola’s teams don’t knock the ball around in defence but retain possession in dangerous areas to pull the defence out of positions and then, if they lose possession, quickly win it back to take advantage of a defence out of position. Nothing in what we do when we knock the ball around defence can be seen as being intended to pull the defence out of place. It is retaining possession due to an absence of options further up the pitch, which is in no way how or why Guardiola’s teams do it.

Excellent post.

That isn’t how Man City play though. And it isn’t how Guardiola’s teams have ever played, or at least played on a consistent basis. You seem to keep trying to tie an (admittedly dull) style of football to a manager who has never actually played that way.

The very simple answer is they don't. Our team does not in any way try to emulate Pep's style. The misconception is that passing the ball around defence is somehow Guardola-esque when it is simply how uncreative teams have ended up playing against defensive opposition since long before Pep's time.

Going against the grain a little on this thread but I don't fully agree - either that it's the fault of playing Guardiola-ball or what we're talking about is Guardiola-ball at all. Where the Tiki Taka approach got its most criticism entertainment-wise was Spain in the 2010 World Cup. That gets associated with Barca due to Pep being the Barca manager and the number of Barca players but the way Spain played was very different to how Barcelona played under Guardiola or or how Bayern or Man City play under him now. That's really where this notion of passing for passing's sake comes from. (Spain scored 8 goals in 7 matches whereas the 2009-10 Barcelona team scored 98 in 38 - not far off three goals a game.) Really that Spain team - far more than anything Guardiola ever did - is why Tiki Taka is associated with low scoring. However I don't think what we play is Guardiola-style football or that that is the reason for the results. At our worst, we look much more like another team at the 2010 World Cup - England under Capello. Our players pass it around the defence not because of any tactical master plan but because the midfield and forwards don't move enough to provide passing options. "Guardiola ball" is all about clever tactical movement to create space and passing options. That's the absolute opposite of what we do at our worst. And our tactical weakness under Manning is the same one we had under Pearson in games such as Preston at home on the first day. We do not have players with the the creativity or ideas to break down teams that sit back and defend against us. Our players work hard and play doggedly against stronger opponents but cannot break down defensive teams. But where I disagree with the OP is where the horse is and where cart is. I don't think we struggle against defensive teams because we pass the ball around at the back. I think we end up passing the ball around the back because we struggle against defensive teams. With football tactics, I don't think there ever is one simple answer to what the "way" is. Different answer suit different teams. I think our players are certainly better with a possession game than they would be with a route one-game but I think a direct counter approach best suits the players we currently have. And, in fairness, we've played that at times under Manning as we have under Pearson. The problem is you can't counter-attack a team that isn't attacking you. And we don't know what to do when teams give us the ball and challenge us to attack them.

I honestly don’t think we’ll get an offer that makes financial sense. He has 18 months on his contract but we will get compensation either way. I don’t reckon a fee we were offered now would reflect his potential value in 6 months or a years’ time if he is in-form, and it might not even be more than the compensation we’d get if he stayed to the end of his contract but scored 15-20 goals next season. Manning needs to get Conway back on form but there is plenty of time before his contract expired and I see no reason to sell an out of form high potential player at a point when his form will likely lower the fee.

You could argue he’s not been confident of his fitness for much of the time he has been here. Also it could be that he feels more comfortable with Manning’s tactical approach or more trusted by the manager. There are all sort of reasons why he MIGHT be playing better. One of those COULD be that he is playing for a contract but to say it MUST be that is a long way wide of the mark and discounts a number of equally as plausible explanations.

No disrespect but I can’t help feeling you have either not read the thread or perhaps read it but not fully understood the point being made. The point being made with Cotts was that, after he left and once LJ was in charge, there was very little mention or acknowledgement of his role in our promotion season. However that was almost a decade ago. Managers have been and gone and a lot has happened, not least the outpouring of concern when Cotts was very ill two or three years ago. In this case, a media company rather than the club have invited Cotts back but, even if the club did - which would not be a surprise at all many years later - it still would not be relevant to the question of whether Cotts’ role was acknowledged during the reign of his successor. Just as the club might very well invite Pearson back as a guest in 5 or 10 years time and it wouldn’t change the lack of acknowledgment now.

This feels slightly premature to me after Scott's played 6 games, especially as Rico Lewis (over year younger than Scott) has featured semi-regularly for Man City, and Levi Colwill (6 months older) is playing consistent for Chelsea, as with Harvey Elliott (4 months older) for Liverpool. Plus, depending on definitions of young player, Saka is still only 22 and probably in contention for best player - young or not. I'd argue Scott needs to stay fit and keep us his levels for the rest of the season to get to that level. As it stands, he's also (I think) yet to make an England U-21 squad. He's made an impressive start and, if he keeps it up, he'll certainly be in that "best young English player in the division" discussion but he's yet to have an opportunity to show he can perform consistently in the Premier League over a sustained period.