Cowshed

On 15/03/2024 at 23:03, Hamdon Mart said:

Must admit I'm quite heavily involved with a club at risk of going down and we don't really have any idea as to how many are going down. I think it's hardly a big gamble to say Bishop Sutton and Cheddar will be the bottom two & if I were them, which I'm not, I'd be planning for next season at a step down. My side, Hengrove, are third bottom but have the other four teams in the bottom five to play still so our fate is in our hands.

One thing I have heard is that four sides may have applied to return from the Hellenic and three more have applied for promotion from below. If true, seven teams wanting to come in may be difficult to ignore, so maybe three will drop. Ironic really as in the ten years I have been a TWL secretary, don't remember many teams being relegated due to their lack of points. Chard (their sloping ground), Chippenham Park (their link to first team) & Ashton & Backwell (folded their first team) all went and a few moved laterally or downwards away from the TWL (Devizes, Bishop's Lydeard etc). 

I have gone through a 7 -16 coaching cycle, and numerous players I coached now have entered Western League, and couple higher as 16/17/18 year olds. 

I know one at Briz, one at Hengrove, two at Keynsham and now three who have recently joined Bishop Sutton. Bishop Sutton have had a horrific time, the team was absurdly poor at one point for the level it was playing, and over the last month with a new Manager they now are improving, with the sevens and eights they were conceding dramatically reducing. Bishop Sutton now are competitively losing e.g. 4-0 v top of the table Radstock with kids who will improve. The new manager has improved them, the kids have improved them, and hopefully they can with relegation  gain some momentum now for next season, with players stepping up from their U18's who are a decent squad.  

14 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Thanks, it's always interesting to get an alternative take. Which take I should choose I have no idea!

Given what you say it seems odd for the club to say we are going to play the same way at all levels. Then again clarity of thought and words is not a feature of the club right now.

There it is clarity. Communication. 

The same way throughout the club cannot be the same. The pedant in me notes you cant play the same way when academy teams at early ages play seven a side, nine, and at U13 this becomes eleven. Through those stages kids are training through a syllabus that creates skills, they (kids) cant deal with lots of tactics and input mentally, this promotes slower learning, so young players are going through stages, like terms focussing on topics, using learning activities that drip in technical aspects and tactical aspects slowly over months and years. Through small sided games and in non competitive football players play a variety of positions, its development. 

The U16 - U21 to XI are not doing the above. They are not playing the same formations and are not approaching games with the same intent.  

14 hours ago, chinapig said:

Some of you might be interested in today's Tifo Football podcast on developing young players:

https://theathletic.com/podcast/197-the-tifo-football-podcast/

Lots of informative stuff but I was struck by the section where they discuss the problems with training young players in only one tactical system in the light of our aim to have all our teams playing the same way.

Exposing kids to variables systems of play, is wildly thought to be not beneficial. Young players lack the cognitive understanding. Episodic training does not create deeper learning versus periodized training.  

Bristol City don't train young players only one way, and most clubs do not either. Young players go through age related phases and the training reflects the age related priorities. Tactics at early ages are very rudimentary (understanding), skill creation is the priority. Players at early ages will generally play in multiple positions at academies, and development centres through foundation and youth stages. 

Post youth stage is professional development. Clubs do not play one system, systems are playing systems, variables of playing systems, and these playing systems won't be one formation systems. Even Ajax and Barcelona don't use one system.  

27 minutes ago, Harry said:

Periodisation is a method of training where you break this down to 3 cycles, macro, meso and micro. 
It’s about designing training plans to achieve goals but breaking it down into constituent parts to account for heavy workloads and lighter workloads. 
 

Maybe some of you ought to register on the course to be able to get a grasp of this methodology.  

Its also a curiosity as Lee Johnson would have been going through training that was episodic at BCFC. There was no one model guiding his football at BCFC. Lee Johnsons football had morphing styles. Football of styles means less time is spent on periodisation, the training jumps from topic to topic - Episodic. This means that training is less integrated, not more, and learning is as not as internalised (deep). 

Yes, really. 

Table | Division One | Toolstation Western Football League (thefa.com)

Bishop Sutton 33 games 0 wins 2 draws . 

11 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

You do realise they're children?

The poster used the word education. At u18 players are educated. Educated with the intent players play for the XI.  At the U18 stage you would expect to see synergy in the football from the U18 's to the XI.  

Pleasing result. A difficult watch. 

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@Cowshed you say we aren’t attempting to play like Man City, you may be right.  But are we trying to play the CFG way? Over the last weeks we’ve seen several posts, quoting articles like coaches voice that come out of a style akin to CFG’s method, which may or may not be a more standard coaching methodology.

Ian Gay had the temerity to suggest McKenna was surprised to see how Manning set-up on the FBC pod today.  Yet McKenna had referenced exactly that in his pre-match press-conference.  They might’ve struggled to break it down first half, but they didn’t come the end.

Back to Pep, I’d suggest we have a superior coach who understands cause and effect, and understands it real-time, in-match, and is able to adapt from a well-honed toolkit.

Manning appears to just have “manual” (yes, I know it’s not a manual) and if it’s not on pg242, he’s stuffed!

CFG has existed for ten years, There are 11/12/13 clubs in the group. Bolivar build up from the back, so do Man City so do New York and so do clubs who have been playing their variations of possession football longer than the CFG group existed. 

I recently posted the Liverpool decision making tree, those principles are used right across football. They apply to the teams in the CFG group. The principles were standard coaching methodology, but how those standards are applied widely differs. 

Bristol City may and do use similar principles to Liverpool, or Man City, or Brighton or any number of teams but the football clearly differs.  

Bristol City play very differently to Man City. The sub principles, that break down the approach to the football are very very different from the GK to the inverting FB's, rotating CB, the patterns, the lopsided formations .. That is unique.

27 minutes ago, Capman said:

True, I’m just not convinced that pace and intensity are as expensive skills in a footballing sense as the skill of playing possession football. How many defenders can you think of who have the skill to do it constantly and effectively? Particularly as, when the defenders get it wrong the opposition are through on goal. 
But I am the first to admit, I have never played football at a reasonable level and have no coaching badges so I could  turn out to be wrong. I’m just happy to get the views of others. So do you feel there is no cost issue with the approach to style of play? Or could it be that collecting the right squad may be more expensive for different styles? 

There is a cost issue with any approach to football.

Being able to run explosively and have a high recovery speed post explosive movement is a skill. Pressing a ball for intensely twenty seconds one player takes ten seconds to recover another takes two minutes. That is sometimes called defensive tactical intensity. Think Famara v Bobby Reid. High DTI is prized by some teams because they need intense runners. Add pace. These physical elements have costs.

Bristol City are not in the hes a great header of the ball, hes great one v one, hes positionally great, he is really strong, he is really quick, he can bring the ball out, he has range long, and all that market. Bristol City can prioritize elements of players abilities that most suit the football. Compromise can also be made where players don't have to be of a level across all their skills, Marlon Pack (yes midfield) distributed the ball efficiently, while many can run faster pushing a wheel barrow. That was synching aptitudes and that is what any progressing and successful team do. Improvement in key positions, better than average, good at key skills the team needs is not that elite market. 

1 hour ago, Capman said:

I have been wondering about this. Playing the Man City way requires players of the highest levels of technical skill. They are players who are going to cost considerably sums of money, something we have repeatedly failed to spend. Within a world of FFP and parachute payments I am remain unconvinced that as a strategy it is likely to be successful. How can City attract the players with the highest levels of technical ability to play the ‘beautiful’ game? 
Surely a high intensity, counterattack strategy which is about pace is much more likely to be practical for a club seeking to reach the premier league for the first time? 
It’s almost as if the previous manager understood football! 

Bristol City don't play like Man City and are not attempting to. 

In regards to your point about high intensity, pace and counter attack would this not also require players that are highly skilled? Intensity and pace are skills. 

20 hours ago, IAmNick said:

I think they've just evolved a bit?

Now lots of teams will instead try and draw the opposition to one side of the pitch and then quickly switch play leaving a "winger" with an isolated player in front of him.

There's not so much running down the line trying to beat the player head on I guess.

Probably a victim of greater understanding of the game/stats too. I think your 40% is very generous, and then add on the poor chance of scoring from crosses and it's not seen as productive in a very statistically focused game at the moment.

It'll come back though, hopefully - at some point the current popular style will go into decline.

Overload to isolate.

This may interest. Its from somewhere called Liverpool. If you can't penetrate and this includes wing play, keep possession and start again.

2 minutes ago, TomSutton said:

For U12 they are not allowed in training to head the ball more than 12x a week.

 

Its advisory. The advised number of headers is five in a session once a month. Don't tell the parents!!

5 minutes ago, TomSutton said:

the way Man City play are unique and you make a good point about Doku who’s best ability is his 1v1 dribbling. Although the quality Man City possess allows them to have wingers with different attributes. Foden coming inside and finishing, Grealish ability to gain fouls and retain the ball etc.

LM is far off copying that like you say due to them being Man City and us being who we are that level of tactical rotation is only possible in a team of world class players

Its a point that football may be evolving - Wingers. Guardiola is doing something unique. 

Aspects are possible in teams without world class players. Prioritise what is valued. 

13 minutes ago, TomSutton said:

All down the trends set by top managers at the elite level that trickle down.

the idea of wingers only is effective if you are crossing into the box which is a dying art currently as headers are being phased out of the game particularly at youth level where they are only allowed to head the ball 12x a week.

now you have a wing back which is viewed in a similar mould to wingers. These players are typically superb athletes who can run run and run they will cover ridiculous distances a game 10-13k. They are usually asked to take the opposition full back on which is what a winger does best but yet they have more defensive responsibilities than said wingers who like to stay high and wide.

This high and wide doesn’t work anymore as the game has become so tactical with much of the individuality taken out of the attack for a more methodical tactical build up of play. For example, when defending rather than the man-marking system teams now opt for a defensive block per se so they defend an area on the pitch. If one player does not defend their “area” as they are high and wide the other 9 outfield players will have to compensate for this and not be able to defend their individual area as well as the zone they are covering has increased.

that being said there are always trends in football so currently we are in the centre back bringing the ball out, inverted full back to create an extra body in midfield to overload the opposition rather than taking it to the outside of teams. 

Your heading guidance might be wrong there. 

Man City use a winger in Doku. Man City are playing high wide and deep. This could be history repeating but Man City formations in possession have become overtly lop sided and attacking. The majority of the team are in advance of the ball, Stones leave CB and pushes into midfield, the full backs, wing backs push up into advanced positions and invert. The team is regularly playing with two CB at the back, and sometimes one  as Ederson leaves his goal to become a CB in possession. 

Man Citys shape becomes 2-3-5 and on. If Ederson steps in they are using eleven outfield players with width depth and a overload in midfield.

For anybody who thinks Liam Manning is copying any of that, he is not. 

1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

Pep doesn't use them, therefore it's now obsolete to use them ever again

Doku.

20 hours ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

I know this is the least of our problems right now, but what is going on with our goal kicks?

 

Its the only dead ball where a team gets more than ten metres of space. 

Opportunity and more time to make decisions. Decisions that can be positive, negative and ...

20 hours ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

(Max plays it out of the pitch)?

 

There is a decision there. 

23 minutes ago, IdliketoRogerMoore said:

Stats happened, someone somewhere down the line pointed out the a left footer playing on the right cutting inside creates better chances cutting inside than a traditional winger going on the outside! Can’t remember the article I seen it in though! 

Bayern Munich happened and inverting Robben and Ribery - Right footer on the left attacks a right footed defender weaker defending foot creating space more easily for shots, and making the target bigger. Inversion also can create improved passing patterns as passing inside off the dominant foot becomes frequently easier. 

19 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

What has happened to wingers in the Prem and Championship.

They get the ball and if the fullback is within 10 yards they play inside or backwards. A good winger, if he is not tackled before getting the ball under control should be able to take on and beat his man 40% of the time when he only has 1 marker. Even if he gets a throw further up the pitch it's OK. 

A lot of the excitement used to come from these unpredictable tricksters.

It seems now that is totally coached out of them and unless they get the ball with 25 yards of space in front of them they play it safe.

The best way to disrupt a well organised defence is to beat 1 player and run at the defence.

One thing of beauty was to watch Alex Scott receive the ball under pressure and simple breeze past his marker. How many free kicks did we get and chances came about due to the chaos it caused. 

I just find our style of play so b***dy boring.

 

The use of wingers has been in decline for decades. The game evolving away from 4-4-2 v 4-4-2 made wing play less effective. Midfield has become more about numerical superiority, meaning wingers will be far less likely to face up 1v1 versus an isolated opponent when the opposition has 3/4 screening midfielders. Having a winger will frequently mean your team will be outnumbered centrally, the opposite of what many teams want. 

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Some people (one in particular) excuses everything by saying “so what’s your solution” but then fails to listen / read.

In a hugely simplified Q&A:

Q: how do you beat a team in a low block with little ambition and quality (Cardiff)

A: you disrupt them, you don’t let them impose their way of playing 

Okay, so how do you disrupt them?  Good question.  One for LM really, but seeing as him and his coaches onky concern themselves with getting to the final third, perhaps I might offer some options / theories.

1. Actually high press, don’t block.  You may get picked off but Cardiff aren’t as likely to hurt you as Southampton if they do manage to play through you.  Likelihood is they bomb it long at the first sight of a press.  And then you squeeze them in.  When you do press and force the error, take you chances.

2. Don’t build-up from the 6 yard box.  That allows them structure, they aren’t ever gonna press you.  Maybe play direct, allow the game to become one of transition and loose balls, and breaking from the loose balls.

Its of course theoretical, but even crash it for 5 minutes and see what it does.

A third approach. Build from the back positionally with the intent of creating numerical advantage, and overload the opponents/ unbalance the opponents and when they change shape, switch swiftly play and isolate players 1v1 on the opposite side of the pitch.

The third approach requires players to be fluent at their task, not get dusty from their lack of movement, and for moss not to develop on the ball because its moving so slowly.

Fourth, Driving to release, committing opponents to penetrate. See point above. 

3 hours ago, Harry said:

I believe you mate. I do. 
Which does mean that Tinnion is lying. Because he said it, at 4:38 in that video I shared. 
He said it. You categorically say it’s not true, based on your own experience and that of people you know that are part of the academy. And I do actually trust you. 
So my conclusion is that Tinnion has lied. 
He wasn’t talking about the future. He said it’s what we’ve got now. 

The team’s formation yesterday in possession was? Three, something, something, one. I think players were inverted but they were moving so slowly after the first twenty minutes it was not evident.

In the second half City went two, something, something, one. At points in the second half Max O’Leary left his goal and joined in with small sided games at the back.

That’s three shapes at the back. And there were more. Multiple shapes going forward.

Teams across the FC are not collectively playing like that. They were not last month, or last year.

Err Brian? 

5 minutes ago, Harry said:

So you’re telling me that Tinnion was lying in that interview then? Because he definitely said it. 
Am I to believe you or him? 
to honest, I think I’ll believe you Mr Cowshed. 
So that’s another thing Tinnion has lied about then. 

See my post earlier today on the ‘counterparts’ thread. 

I didn't say Brian Tinnion was lying.  He may be talking about the new future. BCFC have jumped from approach to approach. Bristol City have not been doing long terms. And this new future is another change to a change which won't be a long term either. 

There has not been a model guiding the football over the last few years. From the U9's through to U16's to the 21's to the XI teams were not playing the same way under Nigel Pearson. As was the case going back to Lee Johnson.

I will have a read of your earlier post.

59 minutes ago, Harry said:

On point 1, our technical director would disagree with you. 
He says so on this video at 4:38. 

Re point 2, De Zerbi has a very different playing style to Potter. 
De Zerbi plays deep possession football, possession through central areas and then crosses from high in opposition territory. He is also consistent in his approach against all levels of opposition. Potter tried higher territorial possession, more wing play and he frequently altered his block dependent on opposition. 
Brighton have a clear recruitment strategy, but their managers are able to cultivate their own playing philosophy. 

In 2016 Lee Johnson stated similar and it was not present throughout the FC. What Brian Tinnion is referring to there is what may be the intent in the future, its not been the reality of the past eight years. 

Being pedantic the academy doesn't start at U8. Development teams play at that age. In City's foundation stages up to U11 teams are not playing one way. Bristol City have not had one style through U9 - 16, and U18 - U23 (now 21's) to the first team from Lee Johnsons time up to Nigel Pearson. 

From SGS to the HPC, and having a family member, and ex players in the academy since 2015 I have seen BCFC using varying approaches to the football. Football that has frequently differed significantly to the XI. 

If there was a playing model driving those years .. There wasn't.  

No, De Zerbis football differs. It is not totally different, or abandoning fundamentally what had occurred before. There is a clear continuance of principles over a long term.  

1 hour ago, Harry said:

For the last few years, Bristol City FC has been attempting to create its own ‘model’. Their idea of the optimum way to run a football club to provide it with the best chance of success. 
 

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 
I’m not sure that’s quite such a good idea but hey ho. 
But the most crucial element for me is that the model says that the first team will play a certain way and that we have a ‘Technical Director’ to oversee this and ensure it’s on track and everything is aligned. 
 

Personally, at this level of football, I don’t think that works. 
The scene is such that, any manager coming into the club should be of a certain ‘type’ and conform to a certain set of principles. 
The club have created a philosophy (call it an identity if you like) as to how they want to play football and any manager should align (there’s that word again) with that. 
 

The Technical Director runs the recruitment side of the business. 
He determines what players we sign and what manager and coaches we sign. He will try to conform to the club principles and appoint managers and coaches who will ‘fit’ and sign players who will ‘fit’. 
 

We see this sort of model at the top end of the game. Many of the biggest clubs run on a Director of Football type of model, where the manager has only limited say in the player recruitment and is basically just tasked with getting on with it, with the rather expensive tools he is provided. 
 

This doesn’t work at our level. We see this in all it’s gory (yes, not glory) with the Tinnion/Manning appointment. 
 

We have a club philosophy that desires to play in a certain way and players have been signed to attempt to slot into that style. 
We now have a manager who has been appointed who clearly likes to adopt a very different philosophy. 
I don’t blame Manning for this. We approached him. He didn’t apply for this job. He had a clear and evident CV, a body of work behind him, that was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that was at odds with our own club model. 
 

Furthermore, this new manager, whilst not having players who can play his way, doesn’t have very much say in how to fix this. 
His first transfer window and we make 4 permanent signings - 3 of which we wanted before the new manager got here. So the new manager arrives, doesn’t have players he wants and then the ‘club model’ signs 3 players that ‘the club model’ wanted. 
 

This is a huge issue for me. We are attempting to recreate models that have had success at places like Brighton, Brentford and even bloody Luton. But whilst those clubs had certain recruitment models, they didn’t dictate a ‘playing philosophy’ throughout the club. They just had very thorough and clever scouting and recruitment modelling. It didn’t dictate the playing style. Whenever there was a manager change the new boss still has his own free reign in terms of how he played and the recruitment model would then have to ‘align’ with the managers philosophy - not the other way round. 
 

When Dean Smith took over from Mark Warburton, he did things differently and they recruited accordingly. Likewise when Frank then took over from Smith, he had different philosophies on pressing, defensive positioning, midfield solidity etc. and the club then recruited accordingly. 
Luton played a certain way under Jones, but when Edwards arrived he harnessed what was already good but brought his own style to it and the club then recruited accordingly. 
 

What we have at Bristol City is a dictatorial model, whereby the Technical Director and Recruitment Team have defined a model and anyone that arrives at the club must buy-in to that model. There is no wavering. Yes, a new manager might have a bit of a say in some signings but generally they are targeted based on our defined modelling. 

Surely it’s obvious to anyone that this just doesn’t work. The talk of ‘everything at this club is aligned, from the under 8’s to the first team’ is just a false platitude. It’s a strapline that they think is clever “hey look at us, we’ve got an identify and model, we’re unique”.

That might work well at Barcelona or Man City but it’s pointless in the championship. It’s not what will actually bring success on the pitch. 
 

To achieve success on the pitch at this level you need a manager who is allowed to run the first team in his own way. Who won’t be dictated to by inferiors who spout about an identity and an alignment throughout the club. 

It’s time for Manning to depart, in my opinion, but it’s also time for the club to drop the nonsense and stop acting like a billy big bollox. The club think that they have a clever way of doing things and that it’s the only way of separating themselves from the challenging division we are in. 
It’s not clever. It’s nonsense. Drop the bullcrap. 
 

The way to achieve success was evident to us a few years ago when a man called Steve Cotterill was appointed. I wasn’t his biggest fan when he got here, and I also think the time was right for him to go, but the period he was here, there is no denying that he’s been the only manager in recent years that’s done things his own way and said “balls” to the ownership and ‘model’. 
Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted. 
None of this “we’re all aligned from the u8’s to the tea lady”. 
Just an experienced manager with an experienced chief scout, putting together a squad that would play to the managers identity, not the clubs identity. 
 

It’s time to ditch the bullshit. 
Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, let him bring in the players that HE wants, not players that the ‘club’ have targeted for the last few windows. Let him put his own team together to play the way that HE wants. 
 

The current model stinks. There are people in positions of authority that have real negative impact on this club who are not fit for purpose. 
We need a board of directors who can appoint a respected manager, who in turn will be empowered to bring in his own trusted recruitment team or chief scout, sign his own players and have zero meddling from unqualified  nobodies. 
 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

Harry Bristol City don't have a philosophy that dictates teams from U8's through to the first team will play the same way.  

Brighton from 2019 with the appointment of Graham Potter to Zerbi in 2022 till now have very much had a dictated playing philosophy throughout their FC.

6 minutes ago, Top Robin said:

Yes it was poor, but even amongst the numerous negatives there are aways some positives, and they are:

 - We were not outplayed and looked fairly solid in midfield and defensively 

- We restricted them to a couple of chances (yes they scored from one)

- They scored against the run of play

- If we can improve things in the final third, we will be much better

- we have some decent players waiting to come back who should really improve things.

 

Mehmeti short period on the pitch was an improvement. Showed for the ball. Looked to break lines. Beat his man, put a good cross in. 

Didn't look like he belonged leagues lower. 

11 hours ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

I have only been on a 3G a couple of times, but my thoughts are that there is probably a very wide spread in terms of quality.

A newly laid 3G is a fantastic asset for young players as discussed, with matches one after another all week long and a decent realism to grass. At the other end of the scale an old astro pitch which was probably laid with hockey in mind might as well be tarmac.

There is a wide spread of quality but shouldn't be so wide for official games. Synthetic pitches should be accredited by the FA. A high quality 3G and 4G and the two frequently are the same will be accredited by the FA (normally) if the owners want the pitches used for official football, and this includes a cost the FA.

3G specific to football to hockey to rugby is different. Hockey G = fast. Football slower. Rugby = Softer. That is bases and height of the grass being different = 3G behaving differently. 

There isn't a proper industry standard of what the differences are so everything gets called 3G, or 4G. G should stand for generational developments, and doesn't. There are new pitches in Bristol calling themselves 3G which are not of the high standard of Keynshams Towns relentlessly used pitch.   

There are 5G pitches and expect to see these .. Inside Man Citys dome. 

1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said:

My 13 year old’s match tomorrow is off again because the pitch is waterlogged. He was due to play twice last weekend and both were lost to rain. He is also due to play on Sunday and that’s in the balance.

I’m sure plenty of others here will be in the same situation.

It’s got me thinking. British football is awash with money thanks to the Premier League - but far too much youth football is lost every winter to bad weather and pitches that can’t cope. When they do happen, invariably a poor quality pitch affects the standard of the game. Games on 3G almost always produce a better match.

Surely there needs to be a more urgent push to greatly increase the number of 3G all-weather pitches across the country?! It just seems obvious - and there is no lack of money.

It’s incredibly frustrating to see kids who love the game missing out on so much football - and the exercise, team building and socialising that goes with it - because of our notoriously bad weather. I dare say climate change is making it worse, too. We complain about kids being on screens all day, but it strikes me that we could be doing an awful lot more to stop that happening.

I agree with your point about facilities, but 3G is not almost always a superior surface. The ball moves faster and bounces higher versus grass, and playing repeatedly on 3G puts more strain on limbs, the surface is harder and this increases impact.

Ideally football should be trained and played on varying surfaces. 

1 hour ago, Mad Cyril said:

Anyone with the energy to boo Fam on Saturday clearly isn't putting in enough effort

Energy and effort in a sentence about Famara. His time at BCFC was distinguished by a lack of both.   

On 27/02/2024 at 11:46, MelksRed said:

Thanks (genuinely) for your response.

How is it that that the same group of players can play out of their skins against Southampton / West Ham but not against teams at the bottom of the league? Is it arrogance, an unwillingness to dig deep and grind something out or some thing else?

Could it be frustration that aspects of their life are controlled generating a negative mindset?

I don't think they intend to lose or underperform - merely looking to stoke the fires of conversation. 

Is it resilience? Is it just inconsistencies- if so how could we iron these out?

There are lots of reasons. Footballers will not maintain peak mental and physical performance every game, every week, every month. Performance over a season ebbs and flows. You and I in our employment would not withstand the intensity of ninety minutes of football for eight hours. Physically our bodies and minds do not have the capacity to.

The best player from around your SN12 parts, a player I was acquainted with showing my age was Fitzroy Simpson. Fitzroy at a young age was remarkable. He was small in stature, but remarkable versus peers in technical ability, and exceptional in his drive and focus (mind set). That mindset of being driven, wanting to be the best drove relentlessly Fitzroy through youth football, and when Fitzroy became a pro that mentality monster mindset was no longer remarkable and exceptional, it was normal. 

Pros generally are all very very driven individuals, they possess mind sets the rest of us do not have, they dug deeper to get where they there. Footballers are resilient, they made sacrifices to get there the rest of us didn't.

Throughout football there are levels obviously, and at each level the demands and expectations rise. The higher the level the higher players stay closer to their peak performance. At the top levels the players are not just mentality monsters, their the outliers of driven mind set staying at and closer to their peak performance longer.

Even Fergusons, and Klopps etc players have days when their not at it, the best have less of them.  

Bristol City players are not top level. The players will experience more ebbs. All clubs are acutely aware of psychological drivers. Bristol City have employed Bill Beswick in the past, a renowned sports psychologist to support players. Individually BCFC will work individually and holistically on mindset with players. City will pore over aspects of the physical, technical, tactical and psychological aspects of the game attempting to send out players physically and mentally in the best shape they can be, and frequently City won't because across elements there players are carrying knocks (effects mindset), players are carry doubt about themselves and their tasks on the pitch, players are jaded, players struggle under pressure, and on go a whole spectrum of variables that effect players mentality, players that are human. 

I will finish with this Could it be frustration that aspects of their life are controlled generating a negative mindset? It an interesting question. Players have to sacrifice aspects of their life like autonomy. Football clubs take control of their lives. If individuals do not think these sacrifices are fair, and do not accept losing autonomy the consequences should be expected to be negative. The outcomes generally are reversed because footballers accept the sacrifices, and the quest to be the best they can. Taking away noise in a footballers life, normal life to the rest of us and putting nutrition, rest, recovery, aspects of life in the hands of the clubs professionals is designed to improve and maintain the individual physically, and also mentally so they remain more task (the football) focussed and far more likely to maintain positive growth/challenge states.