Cowshed

11 hours ago, Daniro said:

The interviewer could also have responded,

 

" If you're such an expert, why have your teams conceded so many goals at corners?" 

 

or

 

"If you're such an expert, why do your teams always concede in injury time?"

I've been a fan of NP but being snarky when he really has yet to prove anything to anybody is not a good look.

 

And here they could be benefits beyond being terse. This is the team Mr Pearosn manages and coaches. He has have been in the job for a significant periods. That team is a reflection of his Management and ideas. Self reflection and explaining how improvement will be made, how his principles and standards will drive this improvement is Management. Its quite a normal form of Management where the Manager shares what his team will be good at.

Mr Pearson arrived with a reputation of being a organiser. Expectation would his team could defend corners .. Well recently its been shit. It appears difficult for fans to highlight what BCFC are consistently good at, or how they are going to improve.

Want fan buy in, support, improve yourself and that team Mr Pearson.  

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

Pearson is a dick sometimes isn’t he.  Incredibly arrogant response 

On another note, two very common things in football make me laugh.  Fans moaning about keepers punching and fans moaning about zonal marking from corners.  Nearly every keeper nowadays prefers to punch and I would say a majority of teams either exclusively or part, zonal mark from corners.  
 

There’s obviously a reason for it that the professional coaches are coaching. 

The interviewer could have responded with its not a totally different system/complete change because literally it is not. The alterations are significant but not total or a complete change in system. You pulled a player out of here to create more obvious numerical superiority here, but why is that?  

Information sharing with fans, getting fans to buy into and support playing approach (team identity?) is a good thing. Zonal marking - Defending masters Arsenal under Graham marked zonally at set pieces. A point there for Mr Pearson as Arsenal fans knew what their team was about.

30 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So what was the change.

Previously:

4 players along / inside the 6-yard box, 6 players blocking / marking.  Nobody left up-top. One of the 4 will do the short

Yesterday:

7 players zonal, crowding the likely target for delivery, Dasilva short (yeah, yeah, no puns), HNM marking / blocking. Wells left up top.

Second corner they go short so James assists Dasilva.

@Cowshed- care to give a coaches technical wording?

 

Thats a challenge I wont answer. Its a hybrid of differing things and not a general 4-4 etc. 

The different system is five instead of three players centrally occupying the space the team have been conceding (x3) recently from. 

1 hour ago, joe jordans teeth said:

As do Arsenal Manchester United and Norwich to name a few unsuccessful clubs 

Your question was regarding successful clubs. The majority of clubs, and indeed sportsmen are unsuccessful because in sport they have to be. The winners are the minority. 

In football the game obviously has three results. Psychology applies to losing teams. Sean Dyche employs psychologists at Burnley, a team whose success can be measured by their existence in the Premier league, and a team who in reality cannot win regularly. Burnley's mental challenges will not be the same as Man City’s and defeat will have to be kept in perspective and managed. 

15 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Who are these successful teams may I ask 

Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City .. And in the Championship the leaders Fulham.

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t disagree.  The decision becomes whether you stick rigidly to a 6 yard line for the “four” and ignore any opponents who stand between you and the keeper or not.

What would you for an inswinger in the pic above.  Martin 3 yards out, Atkinson and Klose 4 yards out.  Weimann for the short.  Kalas now a marker / blocker…about to be blocked off btw!!

The underlined player is there to effect the delivery of the ball. Inswingers. 

Citys zonal defenders are taking positions parralel to the above player. To defend an area where the ball is not be delivered to as the underlined effects the delivery. Its weird defending principle.

Positioning themselves zonally higher effects where the team is conceding goals. The players can still drop a metre for inswinging crosses.

It can be four and four, four and five (no short), four and six a hybrid of zonal blocking and man marking. Or the "four" can continue being all over the show and allowing the opponents to boss their house, their box like ... They should be insulted by being second. It is a mess. Bouncing balls in the box is kids football. The Manager, coaches and players might want to reflect on how poor that is.     

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t take every word so literally.  It was a generalisation of our positioning.

Sorry they are too deep. Literally they are.

Here is another goal conceded. Couple of weeks ago. 

The zonal defending, I hesitate to call it that is not defending the zone around the edge of the six yard box. 

One metre, two metres up higher and these chances will not be conceded.  

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

A bit of a fallacy…Martin wins as many headers at the near post as Fam did.

Teams are no longer aiming for the near post inside the 6 yard box.  They are targeting 8-10 yards out where runners can get free.

They are avoiding our strength at the close to goal near post area.  We’ve been sussed!!!

We line our best headers of the ball along the 6 yard box, and until Xmas teams aimed for that area…we headed them away.  Now teams aim for areas are best headers aren’t in.

In the last few games we have had Kalas, now Cundy joining the blockers / markers , rather than zonal.  Cundy got blocked off twice last night.

Football is a simple game

Citys players are deeper than that. 

First goal.

Second goal.

If the players were zonal starting at the edge of the six  yard box Barnsley do not score either, or the ball certainly will not be allowed to bounce as it did x1. A bouncing ball in the box from  a corner is a sin, balls dont bounce x1 like that in u15 games. Manager, coaches , players hang your heads. Pathetic for pros, beyond poor.

9 hours ago, billywedlock said:

Pace is a mixed bag. A lot of the bigger players are often far quicker than you can imagine over 60/100 m  (Kalas springs to mind with our current squad, people say Flint is slow , but over an extended range he is probably surprisingly quick- all about getting them moving) . But they are often claimed slow in a match situation, as it is initial sprint pace we see most of. So maybe over a 10/25 metre range. 

Kyle Walker is probably the quickest I have seen live these last years for example. But true rocket ships, sub 11 second 100M I am not sure we see many like that. On the other hand, slow players, well we see a lot of them ! 

The recollection of Dave Smith , that was a funny period. He just played the ball forward and outsprinted the defender. Was funny to watch but in the modern game unlikely there are players that slow where you could do that. I am sure with modern tracking of players, there must be some data to expose the fastest over say 20/30 m ? That is one for @Davefevs. 

There are differing measurements for that. That is explosive energy. These players are not necessarily fast over twenty metres as they will not be able to reach actualisation (sprinting). Actualisation is reached  at around sixty metres and players cant dribble with a football and sprint.

Fastest with the ball have been Bale and Bellerin over fifty metres. Bales dribbling could take seven big strides between touches of the ball with minimal impact on his stride length.   

Flint isnt fast in all directions. He is slow as a sprinter. His foot patterns backwards and sideways are faster than peers. Players in differing positions practice the differing foot patterns.

40 minutes ago, Red Homer said:

Got everything he deserved? As a forum moderator, are you openly advocating that violence is meted out to fans of opposing teams, just because they happen to be sat a few seats away from you?

I went to watch Bristol vs Wasps last weekend. Wasps fan sat a couple of rows in front of me. He celebrated when they scored. Therefore, should I have piled over the three separating rows and landed a haymaker or two on him?

Your rugby parrallel is irrelevant.  Procedures in the stand at football matches apply to football matches. With respect the poster didn't pile over any seats. 

The poster is providing a view. He purchases his season ticket as do others for a stand that is home fans only. What occurred should be expected if BCFC allow away fans to purchase tickets with home supporters, provide inadequate stewarding and allow fights to occur.

33 minutes ago, phantom said:

Maybe the question should be asked why we've had so many away supporters being able to buy tickets in this block this season 

Sick and tired of having away fans around us, most Are respectful, but that idiot got everything he deserved for standing up and celebrating in a Birmingham shirt. 

Perhaps you should come up and sit around it and see how you would react? 

That is a health and safety issue. 

31 minutes ago, phantom said:

Speaking to stewards they said they were told to hold off while the incident was recorded. 

We already know that local magistrates will ban anyone throwing a punch so they stood off and let this guy take a hiding. 

It was a couple of minutes before anyone arrived on the scene, this incident went on much longer than this video shows 

Health and safety issue.

The club should have risk assessments that make violence less likely (nothing can be 100%), not measures that allow it to happen.

Minutes. In a modern a stadium there are legal guidelines in place that identify how many stewards are necessary per block v spectators. It cannot take minutes for a  steward to arrive at an incident. That is a safety failing and a lack of provision of stewarding.

If this is what occurring BCFC are being negligient.

12 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Going back pre VAR, I think one of the problems was that with increasingly more at stake ( mainly money!) players and managers were not prepared to accept that referees would make mistakes and this caused the ever increasing pressure for the introduction of technology to “help” referees.

The introduction of goal line technology seemed to herald a new dawn, but this was over black and white decisions i.e. was it over the line or not ( with the exception of the Sheff U v Villa incident)

VAR, however, brought with it human judgement and that seems to be where all the problems lie. That glaring mistakes still happen when VAR has been involved, makes the situation worse, not better, than before. 

I suspect that while most of us can accept that referees will make mistakes because of the pace of the game, poor view of an incident and that players have become ever more adept at kidding refs, there should be absolutely no excuse for the VAR ref, who has the luxury of slio-mo repeats and from every conceivable angle. If ever there was an incident that reeks of being a clear and obvious error, it was the Man City handball and the fact that it was’t even referred back to the on field ref is the worse aspect of the incident, as there is a real danger of final decisions increasingly being made by the remote VAR ref.

There should be concern that refs will, if they have not already started to do, abdicate responsibility for contentious decisions, relying on VAR to “bail them out” and that VAR will become the focus for criticism, rather than the man in black ( or white/yellow/whatever colour they now wear!).

Football rules include the subjective. Error and disagreement has to be a consequence. Refs will not all agree with your verdict on the Man City handball. Clear and obvious would be below the elbow, and it wasn't. Above the elbow has elements of the subjective. 

8 minutes ago, Miah Dennehy said:

It was big problem when I was involved in kids football (10-20 years ago now) and it isn't getting any better. 

Kids football has lost a third of its referees in less than ten years. Ten years ago there were thirty thousand plus refs now its twenty two/three thousand and dropping.  

There was detail collated across national FA's on the abuse of refs. Top was England. Nowhere in Europe are grass roots refs more likely to be abused, intimidated and worse than England.  The % v the Netherlands was 40% higher.

10 minutes ago, Miah Dennehy said:

 As far as I can see the 'Respect' campaign is next to useless, parents and coaches questioning/intimidating teenage referees continues. 

Its worse than that at local grass rooots level. I cant go into specfics but things go beyond intimidating. Local here is everywhere, every regional FA sees widespread  poor behaviour at grass roots level.

14 minutes ago, Miah Dennehy said:

 At grass roots level, I think more people have to challenge the people challenging the ref (if that makes sense) 

I have reported a U12 Manager who was in his forties for abusing a fourteen year old ref. 

Challenge can be difficult.

There are parents at some clubs drinking on the pitchside at kids games. Pissing it up while kids games are on! 

I know one coach who challenged a parent and the police had to be called to protect the coach. The game was U10. 

18 minutes ago, Miah Dennehy said:

 As far as I can see the 'Respect' campaign is next to useless, parents and coaches questioning/intimidating teenage referees continues.

Players and managers need to look at their own behaviour at the professsional level.

The respect campaign has to include all. It has codes of conduct but they do not apply to all levels. No codes for the pro game. 

The disrespect shown to refs at the zenith of the game contributes to the behaviour at every level. Players and Managers and players need to look at their own behaviour, but the game and authority should be reflecting their behaviour and its impact back at them. Pundits should be reminded that their words actually can have impact elsewhere, kids mimic the behaviour of stars and look at pundits as authority .. The pundits who very very frequently preach on TV about the rules of the game they do always understand, and pundits who condone cheating. 

1 hour ago, Miah Dennehy said:

I think everyone in football - fans, players, managers the lot- need to start accepting that referees will make mistakes, everyone does, it's part of life. 

Either that or we can VAR every decision to death and make football even more tedious that it is already in danger of becoming.

Another , slightly more radical idea, is to tell players to stop ******* cheating thereby making the poor old ref's job a whole lot easier.

Anyone who doesn't see a link between the continual micro analysing of every decision given and the abuse of teenage kids learning to be refs on a Sunday morning is ever so slightly deluded/******* stupid.

In our own Avon Youth League the regional FA has been withdrawing referees from kids games at U12 level. Entire leagues have been told they will have no refs on weekends because of the abuse and threats refs including children are receiving.

Refeering in this Country is in crisis nationally. 

There is a link to the constant criticism refs receive in the media to what occurs at grass roots level. The FA should be telling the whiny Lampards, coaches, players, the pundits that you are adding to a refereeing crisis and your behaviour is contributing to the abuse of children refereeing games. 

40 minutes ago, Offside said:

So when did this upper/lower arm rule start? It seems over-complicated in my opinion. To me, the Man City player controls the ball with his arm so it’s a penalty. I can see how Everton are outraged given that they are scrapping for points at the wrong end of the table. 

20 -21. 

What's new in 2020/21: Handball Laws (premierleague.com)

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Not sure whether your description is poorly worded / poorly interpreted, but you seem to imply there is an overlapping red and green area.  There’s not as far as the stuff I’ve read this morning.

I used conclusively. If its not conclusive  = No offence.  What could be improvement is that if its deemed the ball hits any part of the red area = Its a penalty.   

This was not deemed handball either.

11 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

What is the handball rule these days?

Darned if I know. 

Handball x EPL x VAR. Using Var there is an assessment of does the ball hit a red area = offence or green = non offence.

According to guidance a players arm does not start at his shoulder. The red area starts above the elbow and so does the green. The pictures on this thread show a ball striking the green/red area = Its not conclusively a penalty = No clear and obvious error = Its not a penalty.

18 minutes ago, Harry said:

100% this. 
In my world, I’d want the full backs to be tucked in. Bell is way too wide. If he tucks in and is stationed 10-15 yards from Kalas then the gap for Matson doesn’t exist. If the ball gets switched wide, then you deal with that once it occurs. The full back should never be that far wide when the ball is on the opposite side of the pitch. 
 

Consequently, if Bell is further infield, then Benarous would be free to play higher. With Scott operating the deeper role last night, I’d guess it was HNM and Benarous’s jobs to chase and harry in the central midfield areas. So ultimately, Bell further infield (thus dealing with Matson), Benarous higher (thus pressuring Hamer) with Scott able to hold centrally and screen. 
 

No criticism of Bell though. He’s a novice winger, not an experience full back. Perhaps the more experienced in the backline needed to be calling him in? 

The full back occupies a zone none of his team mates are in. They look like they intend to get compact but the defensive shape starts lopsided.  After the first pass its still lopsided and Coventry  have an extra player in a third of the pitch. After two passes its not apparent what the defensive lines (four and?) are and whether they are attempting to deny space, delay passes or dictate where the next pass goes via screening as a unit defending two zonal lanes. 

The underlined is a major ask if the teams shape doesnt slow the oppositions possession down.  

6 hours ago, cityexile said:

As someone who was (very poorly) a member of the goalies union, don’t disagree with anything you say, but just some comments on their goal.

They did this pretty much all game to be honest, but as the corner is taken, there is one of their players standing right in front of him, with no brief other than to block him coming out. You picture shows it very well. Bentley is trying to get out, but the player just blocks him as he comes. Its ‘clever’, and to be frank not that unusual a tactic. The two of them started on the goal line. It’s worth watching the highlights for the goal and purely focus on Bentley, to see how Boro played the tactic.

One response is to get a bit arsy. For a defender to go over and try and push him out the way a bit. Pushing and shoving ensues, the ref comes over has a word...but is much more likely to watch for it, and in the case of the goal may have been encouraged to give a foul. The Boro player is doing nothing more than constantly pushing Bentley back.

Not critical of Boro at all, we try this now and again. However don’t allow the corner to come over with a forward so obviously blocking your goalie. Refs are arguably over protective of Goalies, one counter is to use that.

If the defenders step up a metre to defend their zones the blocking player on Bentley moves. He can take that position due to the depth of City. Whatever Citys zonal markers were not first in their zones. Set up like the above and it should be a the opposition cannot score from where they do. 

From behind the goal it looks worse. Zonal defenders got bossed in their zones by a player who totally lost his marker. Poor x 2.

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

And again, I’ll then say in terms of football what is when the turnstile money doesn’t cover things?

We have a “guaranteed” stream. Non match day stadium income. But Covid stopped it and caused a lot of our problems.

So, what is Mr Jordan’s guaranteed stream that he points to outside of our current strategy? 

In answer to your question Jordan didn't talk about an alternative strategy for BCFC. He spoke about the flaws in the BCFC model. 

Mr Jordan made reference to Bristol City constantly spending well past turn over on wages. City have done this for years. And buying low to sell high. Spending past turn over + a non guaranteed cash flow is a flawed sustainable model. That strategy was likely to fall off a cliff (SJ  words), its on the edge.   

5 minutes ago, Gazred said:

It's not true though is it?

We tried to invest in younger players that could do a job now but also improve and add £ value. That hasn't always worked out of course but it's not just in Europe (no mention of HNM there?), what about Webster and Brownhill. Made good profit on both and served us well, recruited from the EFL. We continue to develop good home grown players too, some of which have gone for large amounts and others who are also worth a tidy profit are currently holding down places in our team, did that get a mention?

As for covid....how the hell would anyone be planning for that? Any business model is going to expect a turnover as part of its model. It's not like we've taken a huge gamble on getting to the Prem, we've made large investments for sure but not in an all or nothing attempt. I feel we are a victim of circumstance more than anything else.

Turn over that Bristol City constantly spend past on wages prior to covid.  

18 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

So Simon Jordan thinks a strategy of buying low and selling high is a poor one. Thanks for that Simon, I’ll go for the “buy high, sell low” strategy that led Palace to administration.

And Simon also thinks we can’t blame Covid when the financials he’s referring to are 20/21 when Covid was in full flow, and we’re now out and adjusting - ie not blaming Covid currently. I’m not sure Simon understands accounts are published retrospectively.
 

There’s a reason I don’t listen to Talksport. I’ve probably just identified it. 

Mr Jordan stated you cannot underpin a business on things that may not happen e.g. buy low sell high. It is not a guaranteed cash flow. 

2 hours ago, VT05763 said:

No it isn't, I played in a back 3 for years at a level much lower than this.

Not in any shape or form "complex".

Having three v four players means there are more variables to cover and players need broader qualities to cover tasks. 

The team is conceding a few (??) and that could mean the team is finding the shape complex. A sympton of players being overburdened by complexity is poor decision making and disorganisation - Bristol City may be displaying those behaviours. 

18 hours ago, chinapig said:

Rarely that simple from Pep. You rarely see a conventional back 4 from him for a start.

For instance, sometimes he has both nominal full backs pushed into midfield. Other times Walker will be deeper and Cancelo is high up the pitch.

All sorts of variations going on, sometimes in the same game.

The players are following a pattern. There are very simple principles across the pitch. The team avoids having more than three players in a line across vertical and horizontal lines. The base formation to support their possession is 4-3-3. It creates more triangles and diamonds across the pitch to support the possession football. 

14 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I've seen the posts on here, and that "Refs" forum thing, and I have a question.

The defender is crossing Semenyo's line, he puts his leg in front of AS as he runs. Exactly as you would if you were trying to trip someone. AS is not waving his leg out like Vardy has done to force contact. It looks like he kicks the blokes leg because the defender has crossed his line.
Obviously it isn't nailed on, as there seems to be differing thoughts, but Pen all day for me. Maybe one day. 50p on us missing it when it comes.

 

What was your question?