Cowshed
-
Posts
7164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Posts posted by Cowshed
-
-
2 hours ago, 2015 said:
That is a pretty embarassing thing to admit when discussing Championship level defenders.
How many teams in the championship, or at elite levels dont use hybrid systems? Those decisions are pragmatism.
-
12 hours ago, RedRock said:
Quantifying that …. possibly not, possibly so.
However, looking at the mess that was Reading’s goal from a corner, it’s blindingly obvious -to me at least - that Atkinson zonally marking open space with no opponent within 3 yards off him is beyond ridiculous. Particularly so, when 5 yards ahead of him there are a bunch of Reading players rising unchallenged for a cross.
The errors are collective. The errors and its multiple errors are the zonal markers are too deep and the lack of blocking and players goal side to effect runners. The scorer doesnt have to work that hard to score. If that zonal line (?) steps a metre the picture changes.
-
2 hours ago, RedRock said:
Never been a fan of zonal marking.
Always loved it, playing as an attacker, against a side who adopted that tactic. For me, automatically gives the attacker the advantage, particularly so when adopted by a ‘soft’ team.
Psychologically, man on man will always give you 10% more in terms of desire to win than a man on space battle. Numerous other factors..knowledge of where the opposition player(s) is/are …etc.
One of several issues that Pearson baffles me on…. like the gung-ho attacker substitutions…
You wont be able to quantify that.
2 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:You don’t defend purely on Zonal (Nor do we)
There are players designated to engage / block / disrupt opponents whilst The theory is your best headers of the ball are left free to attack the ball in certain zones
Because the former can be used to protect the ball winners. Man marking takes the best headers out of the game. Some teams can block off the ball winners or mark them, which some teams called pinning.
You dont defnd purely on marking man to man. It is relatively easy to combastv and create mismatches etc.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Colemanballs said:
See above
If Kalas doesn't intervene it's an easy catch. To say he should punch it with no opposition players are anywhere near is ludicrous.
The player didnt catch it. He is entering a line, a high line and the outcome? The whys he should punch.
Absolute nonsense. See 1960maan's photo posted a couple of posts below. Kalas and Martin were always going to get in each other's way. Scott might have too if he hadn't reacted to MOL's shout.
The shape was fine.There were enough players to deal with ball. They did not need more, If the Keeper stays the opposition do not score.
-
6 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:
I would say the fact he gets both hands in a position to catch the ball (until Kalas intervenes ) says to me he was in position. I was always told the Keeper calls it's his ball. There is no Millwall player challenging , I think it's reasonable t think he could walk out and catch it to his chest.
You do not catch a ball when entering a line. The keeper should punch it. Why because of the variables and the result underlines it.
10 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:Anyway, moving on.
What I mean about unmarked men.
First goal 3 players allowed to run and end up free, one getting a good free header.
Runners where not tracked and ball watching. The cross was superb.
14 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:4 City players marking thin air to the left (this angle) , the Goalscorer , unmarked to the right
Starts compact and in a line, and leaves because of the Keeper going.
The shape was fine v a straight ball until the keeper intervenes.
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:
What about the defender ignoring the clear shout, then jumping over a team mate who was also ignoring the shout. Doubtful Kalas gets a clean clearing header as Martin is also going for it.
As for interfering with the high line. O'Leary would be catching the ball just past the Penalty spot. A straight ball with no opposition players challenging . Exactly the sort of Ball I want my Keeper to claim.
That does sound a little condescending , but you may have been a keeper, or are an ex Pro , I don't know.
But I just know that the Keeper called clearly. He's come with intent to catch, there's no danger or expectation of a challenge , should be a straightforward catch. Until Kalas runs and jumps on top of Martin. Scott ducks out so he's heard the shout.As I've said, I'll defend him because I like keepers to claim those crosses, specially late on when trying to see games out or needing to get back up the other end. What I will say, I can't be 100% sure how early the shout was, though at the time it seemed early enough to have made it a simple catch.
Of course you're right, if he stays home they don't score, at least in the way they did. Kalas's header could have gone to the same bloke , in space and it's still a chance.
We are managing to shoot ourselves in the foot on a regular basis, and it's not just that each mistake leads to a goal, they affect confidence and we are struggling to find simple passes, deliver decent balls and players are no longer available for passes they would have been 5 games ago.
A question I would ask about this goal, as I did about the first. Why is there a spare unmarked man at the back/left hand post ?
This has split opinion , so we will have to agree to disagree. I'll still want my keepers to come for balls, I have to then defend them if they do just that.
Check his feet. Double step before jumping means he cannot jump efficiently as he loses momentum, and that quells downward force to explode upwards.
The keeper is entering a high line. Its not a straightfoward catch. He never gets high enough to use a straightforward catching technique (W). In traffic punch. The keeper should be cleaning all out, and he cant because of his feet.
A question I would ask about this goal, as I did about the first. Why is there a spare unmarked man at the back/left hand post ? I'm not quite sure what your referring to.
-
2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:
I give you that he's coming a long way, but as I have wanted and complained we haven't had a Keeper to command his box, then I'm not going to criticise one that tries to do that. Well, not too much.
We all heard Max's shout , from then on it should be his ball, unless it's too late for a defender to pull out, which I'm not sure it is.
To have a keeper claim balls through his area is a massive benefit. If you're trying to see out a game, you get possession and kill time. Chasing a game, you get a chance to start an attack. Judging by a lot of the game, if the ball is just headed out, they get possession and continue the attack. Back to your question, no I don't want him contesting with his own players, but then that's why he calls. Kalas runs about 5 yards to challenge, Martin goes for it and only Scott seems to pull out. Maybe it's playing in front of keeper that rarely leave their line, who knows, but for me if a keeper calls early and clearly it's his ball.Like I said, I've wanted Bentley to be more decisive coming for crosses, he won't. O'Leary did so I'm not going to call him out for doing something I've wanted our keeper to do for some time.
If he did that consistently, I'm sure the rest would become used to him coming and make way. At the moment we seem to get away with very few mistakes.Do I want my keeper interferiing with a high line? No. Do I want my keeper controlliing the space behind a high line? Yes. Two differing things.
If the keeper stays at home the game is not lost.
I could break down the technique used, the position of hands, the steps, and the lack of intensity x spring in the jump.
The keeper failed. The game is lost. That in modern parlance is the outcome. Its a rubbish outcome.
-
38 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
Would in your view, being braver in possession, seeking to get more control (not necessarily solely dominating the ball) but you know control the midfield with a genuine central 3, that sort of thing assist wirh ability to deal with the physical or are they too very separate issues.
Brave is subjective.
Thats an intent. An approach, A principle of play. They are never wholly separate issues because the teams and individuals mindsets follows their confidence in their ability to carry out their tasks within the team intent and principles.
Principles are bold. They are what the team ARE.
The opening post highlighted a positive in City’s play. City do penetrate teams from low possession %. Possession is risked to play forwards quickly. That is bold and brave. So players are bold and brave at those tasks but not at others? The answer is frequently individual ability.
38 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:Mind you, tactical and technical issues go our of the window for their winner- that was very poor by any measure!
Tactical is a how high is that line? Are lines always that high? Why could be the technical. City have not been controlling deeper lines either. Its very poor, a Lordy wtf was that moment, but it was different and I would expect emphasis in training to focus on roles -You control, that, you don't come out here and thats is your role there etc. There is a point here about episodic and periodized training feeding confidence but it will still go back to players abilities.
-
14 hours ago, 1960maaan said:
For ages we have all wanted a keeper to dominate the box, Max tries and gets crucified for it.
Exactly what we have wanted, Keeper gives early clear loud shout and comes to catch. Not one Millwall player interested having heard the shout.
If he's allowed to catch, we have possession and we can start an attackBentley wouldn't have come, he just doesn't, Max is better in that respect .
The first goal, it's a reaction save I doubt he had chance to think about where to try and place the rebound. It was a good save, unfortunately it bounced straight to their player. He's done everything asked of him in the last 2 games, it's almost like we want to blame him for something .
We may or we might not.
When a defensive line is that high do you want your keeper to contest a ball with his own team mates. I would not.
-
7
-
-
16 hours ago, Curr Avon said:
In an open game, City can compete with the best in this division, combining attractive, passing football with plenty of goals.
So why do we melt away against physical opponents like Birmingham and Millwall, who seek to stifle, bully and play the percentages?
Why aren't we mentally strong enough to be braver in possession and make better decisions in defence?
Rather than blame Pearson, I'd prefer a rational discussion.
That is not necessarily a psychological problem.
The team players may not have the ability to consistently deal with the physical. There ability feeds tactical flexibility to control the physical. If the former is not present that then has an impact on mindset.
Being braver in possession works in a similar manner. Mindset follows ability. Decision making follows ability.
-
2
-
-
On 21/09/2022 at 17:57, sticks 1969 said:
Every major tournament
your going to get shot
your going to get mugged
No hotels
bla bla bla bla
bullshit every time
Bristol City lads have been there before for a game v Brazil and? Drank in a gated complex for tourists. Drinking alcohol was restricted and it is exceptionally expensive.
Years later. Drinking alcohol is stiil restricted and it is exceptionally expensive.
It will be unlike any other tournament.
-
On 09/10/2022 at 13:49, RedRock said:
Bents is a competent Championship keeper in all respects aside from dealing with crosses into the box.
I don’t believe, tactically, we ask the keeper to stay on his line.
We have a specialist goalkeeping coach. Bents, physically, is tall and strong enough to deal with high balls. Cross-dealing techniques and decision-making should be capable of being drilled into a professional unless he has - for whatever reason - a mental block.
If that mental block can’t be addressed after all these years, regrettably, we need to move on, which is likely to happen anyhow at the end of the Season.
What do we do in the meantime though? Down to the goalkeeping coach to advise Pearson whether we a viable alternative? If so, may be approaching the time we roll the dice.
Citys keepers are consistently asked to stay. The keepers do not routinely ignore instruction.
City get compact and generally drop when defending balls in obvious areas of the pitch. This means there is less space between the keeper and defenders for the keeper to control, and more traffic to get through for the keeper. The outcome has to be the keeper doesnt come for crosses consistently, and should not unless its in their zone..
The keeper coach is highly unlikely to advise Mr Pearson. The keeper coach is there to work on the intent of the Manager - They do what they are told.
-
2 hours ago, Robbored said:
Depends how ‘most skilled’ is defined - If that’s defined as doing a few fancy tricks then none of them impressed me.
Scot Murray didn’t do fancy tricks but he got the entire AG on their feet. He’s my second favourite player in all the years I’ve been a City fan.
Skill is defined in coaching as something you can perform on demand. A few tricks and performing inconsistently is not being skillful.
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:
External feedback can draw your attention to failings which you can be blind to.
Being dismissive about such feedback will just entrench those failings. The laws of geometry cannot be redefined by the EFL, the FA or PGMOL.
Refs are constantly reviewed. Refs receive external feedback from clubs. It is a small part of evaluation and progression and otherwise. A referee does not progress or stay at the peak of the game by having failings.
External feedback frequently is not of high quality. Feedback (?) frequently is not evidence based or constructive.
In regards to laws of the game IFAB are responsible not the FA etc.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:
Well done to you if you've managed to get them to open up to you.
My first-hand experience is that the authorities seem closed to external scrutiny and feedback in relation to match officials and will defend the indefensible - even going so far as to defy the laws of geometry.
The FA run open forums for coaches, Managers and clubs. Primarily for rule changes. They are quite open.
Whats the point of external feedback? If referees fall below standards they are demoted.
-
11 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:
How have you measured this?
I do not the Premier league officials limited, the FA, and the intenational body IFAB do.
-
38 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:
Well the standard of apologies for shit refereeing is of a higher standard I guess.
For my money, the standard of refereeing is worse than I've ever seen it.....and I include the Lester Shapter, Vic Callow and Gurnam Singh era in that!
I didn't post an apology. The development process to become a referee is rigorous and referess now make less quantifiable mistakes than they did ten years ago.
Refereeing efficiency is measured and standards are high. Championship ref efficiency compares favourably to that of counterparts across Europe, so unless the standard of refereeing across Europe has dropped (it has not) standards are not shit as you put it.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, PFree said:
Can’t say I like the idea of it but is it time to introduce it?
Financially, there is so much at stake and I can’t help but feel the standard of officials in this league is worse than at any stage before?
We got what we deserved today, but that said with correct decisions it would have been a different game..
It isn't.
The standard of refs is of a higher standard due to the rigourous development process.
-
8 minutes ago, Robbored said:
Axons and myelination work in pretty much the same way in every healthy human. However they can be enhanced by applying modern day scientific methods that are accessible to the majority of professional footballers or any professional athlete - supreme fitness.
You do not need supreme fitness to create neural pathways. The process requires repetition. The quality of the repetition enhances the process and this can mean a individual in football doesnt have to have beyond a moderate fitness level to create skill. Myelination is enhanced by intensity of training (football), its focus v physicality, and this then internalises the task.
Off tangent .. Myelination can be stimulated by visualisation.
-
42 minutes ago, Robbored said:
Homo Sapiens aren’t different
Exactly.
42 minutes ago, Robbored said:but professional footballers these days have the benefits of today’s technology. Most have state of the art training facilities, led by well trained managers and coaches who have access to all the imaginable scientific data and statistics - the game is vastly different to 60 years ago and not just the pitches either!
Thats an external factor, Humans have not changed.
42 minutes ago, Robbored said:Had Bobby Charlton had access to all of modern day methods he’d have been even more wonderful than he was.
He would still possess the characteristics of what made him exceptional. The keystone qualities have not altered. Our understanding of training methodology has.
Charlton exceptional talent would be accentuated with modern football training, as would be any other individual.
42 minutes ago, Robbored said:The same could apply to all the earlier generations of professional footballers.
Yes the characteristics of what made them professional footballers has not changed. Their qualities would still be vital to their progress.
42 minutes ago, Robbored said:Can you imagine if Bobby Moore, Alan Ball, Roger Hunt, Jimmy Greaves were playing these days?
It hardly bears thinking about.
The players would be improved further. These players created their great. The extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of what made them great remains in any era.
What we see is people dont think think about how players became great. Its not arbitrary dictated by an age. Great players have distinguishing factors that transend any era, growth mindset, fight response, how humans acquire and create their skills , how axons work, myelination occurs doesnt change.
-
Just now, The Dolman Pragmatist said:
I agree to an extent, but then that seems to assume that all good players had room for further improvement, and we simply don’t know that. It’s quite possible that a player who was good in a previous era would fail in this because it is a very different game - weight of ball, different type of boots, better surfaces, etc. etc.
Exactly!!
Charlton was not a good player. He was a great one.
You appear to be saying that a player at the zenith of the game could not make it now because humans are now different?
-
1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:
Well yes and no. If you put the Bobby Charlton who played in 1966 in present day football he wouldn’t stand a chance. He would have to be ten times fitter; to have a range of skills he didn’t have then; and to have a different mindset and lifestyle. So the question is: would he still be Bobby Charlton? You can only compare what you know, and sadly it’s probably true that footballers from the 1960s would struggle in today’s game. I’ve always felt that the standard of football in the heady Division 1 days of 1976-1980 probably equates to no higher than the average Championship standard today. I suspect that the Lee Johnson team of 2017 would have done very well in Division 1 in 1976. Today’s Man City team would annihilate the 1966 England team.
Central midfielders in Charlton time generally ran sub five miles, it’s now frequently beyond six, that is not x 10. Skill isn't overtly physical, it’s the result of deliberate practice and its neural, humans create muscle memory via training and repetition. To have the skill set Charlton possessed the player has to have a growth mindset to create his skill level. Skill is a nurtured talent that can be performed on demand.
To state a exceptional player then wouldn’t be now is a rather odd argument because the driver of why these players were exceptional is being removed.
If the player was advanced across aspects of technical, tactical, physical, psychological well they would still be advanced now. Todays human is not a new species.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Pezo said:
This feels like it's been a problem for about 35 years. Do other clubs fans have the same observation? What I mean is is it just something all clubs don't care about because of the low probability of scoring from a throw in so time is spent practicing and defending other things?
It’s a consideration of team intent.
The probability of losing possession in challenging areas impacts decisions. Throwing the ball up the line keeps the team in a defensive shape. There the primary focus is not retaining possession because players won’t be in relational distances to the ball to receive and retrain it, they will be in positions to defend the ball.
Possession based teams will behave differently because the focus from throw ins is possession, and the opportunity this provides v the impact (fear) of losing the ball.
Training. Throw ins are not necessarily a other thing. The relational distances of wanting to keep the ball are little different to goal kicks and free kicks. Angles, diamonds, triangles are superior to flat and vertical if you want to keep the ball consistently.,
-
1
-
-
The dryest wit in South Bristol. Top bloke. RIP.
Ashley Williams charged by FA with improper conduct at son’s under-12s match
in Football Chat
Posted
The Avon youth league has cancelled all U16 games across all divisions this Sunday due to poor behaviour including parents threatening players on the pitch.