UncleRed

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Read your posts back and you'll see why I have thought that. 

No thanks, I remember my posts and never once called it a masterclass. Just said it was great concentration from all the players involved.

We all know why you thought that, and it has nothing to do with my posts.

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

Listen, we saw out the game and we won. That's fantastic. But for me the second half we were shite. We offered nothing going forward and including the goal that was given offside which in my opinion was the wrong call, we conceded two goals. That's not good defending. 

Your posts very much suggest you consider it a tactical masterclass. 

No I’ve not once considered it a masterclass, just again, what you want me to think of it as.

‘Listen’

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Boro had the ball in the net twice. They should have drawn. 

We were lucky to get the win. Its about time we had some luck!! 

But let's not pretend this was a tactical masterclass. The first have we were incredibly good, the second half we were shite. 

Yes we got the win today and that's fantastic but my posts are about my long term concern. On another day we draw or lose that due to those changes. Today we shall enjoy the win but its fair for people to have those concerns about the changes we made today. 

The defending certainly wasn’t shite in my opinion. Striker could of been offside on the goal, would need a clearer view than the picture on here.

Not one person on here is calling it a masterclass. Maybe that’s what you want to read and not what you’re actually reading.

2 minutes ago, bexhill reds said:

The decision was to get a team that’s played 120 mins of football on a Wed night and 2 centre halves that have more or less played every minute of football this season to basically recreate Rourke’s Drift for 45 mins by constantly defending. That to me does not suggest we’re making life difficult for the opposition. 

Well it sort of did, they only scored by a deflection and we won the game.

I never suggested he keep to 4-3-3 throughout the game, but why not give it 10 mins as a 3rd goal would have killed it.

Because it could have gone 2-1 and very much not killed the game. The game would of very much been alive.

All if’s buts and maybe’s, we got over the line and that is testament to the players, but not necessarily as a benefit of the change.

Not necessarily, but that means it could have partially been down to the change, we’ll never know unless we have something to compare it to where all variables are the same.

Still you won’t have it so best to leave it there. Enjoy your evening.

Still I see you won’t have it either, yeah I agree let’s leave it there. All the best fellow city fan.

Just now, Davefevs said:

I know you weren’t asking me, but had we thrown away a 2-0 lead I’d have analysed it in the same way as I did today.  What changed, what impact did it have + / -, was that our change, their change, etc, etc.  why wouldn’t you follow the same method to analyse the pros and cons of a game? 

Just like I’ve highlighted threads of the good things.

Except nothing would have changed, there would have been no impact. If you want to analyse a game the same way you analyse every other game, and do it equitably, you have to take in all the parameters leading into and about the game.

Which I think most folks have on here and you haven’t. Just my opinion.

1 minute ago, bexhill reds said:

I’m not sure it was futile, but there you go all about opinions I guess, probably best to leave it as you have your opinion and I have mine, at the end of the season it will just be seen as 3 points. 

I am concerned that Manning sometimes appears to try to super coach and out think the opposition and only make life more difficult, and it’s not the first time I’ve felt that during a game. FWIW I do think that he has improved the team’s play at times, but I would hope that he’ll look back at his choices in the 2nd half and question whether they were right and learn just like he sets that challenge for the players.

Nothing wrong with a proactive change if it takes the game to the opposition, but in this case the change was to sit deeper and ask a footballing side to play football. 

 

Trying to out think the opposition is what all managers do. And trying to make it difficult for the opposition? That’s called defensive strategy I believe, what all coaches do, even the very best.

Just a question, what if he kept the 433 formation and we dropped points. What would your reaction be then?

Nothing wrong with a proactive change, as long as it takes the game to the opposition? I’m afraid you massively overrate this squad. What about a change that sees out the game and results in 3 away points?

A footballing side was asked to play football, and failed.

17 minutes ago, bexhill reds said:

Ok, you clearly have a view that you are not prepared to question or indeed accept question.

Not at all, just your question was futile, as again. Read my post you replied to first then you’ll get my opinion.

I’m not talking about hindsight, but merely questioning the wisdom of making a change that did not immediately need to occur. As fans are we not allowed to question decisions made by both players and coaches?

I once remember Rio Ferdinand saying something along the lines of, pro action is better than reaction when possible.

We seem to be in a place where any suggestion of being critical about Manning is wrong and he should be defended at all costs. 

Not being critical of Manning, being critical of a managers decision that seen us get 3 points, with all the parameters that were faced.

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

Hate this excuse. Its the same for everyone else. 

It’s not the same for everyone else though? We’ve played one more than some teams in our league and we had 3rd and 4th round replays.

Think. Please.

2 minutes ago, bexhill reds said:

Perhaps you’re literally not being prepared to accept that Manning might have got it wrong…..

You asked why change something that was working, but if you read my post you wouldn’t need to ask that, so not really

I think sometimes he has a tendency to try to be too clever, today was one of those examples. By all means have the plan at the back of your mind especially as the players are experienced enough with that formation to be able to quickly adapt to the change if it needed to be made, so it’s not as if it takes 15 mins to change it, but why not see what Boro do in the first 10-15 mins of the half.

He talks about the players learning, let’s hope he does as well, we could equally be talking tonight about a 2 goal lead squandered and 2 points lost.

Could also be talking about a 2 goal lead being squandered if didn’t change anything, I’ll repeat myself, decisions can’t be made with hindsight.

1 minute ago, phantom said:

I'd say it was pretty obvious we had to sit back more defensively, we had a lead we could sit on, boro would clearly come at us and we would have to manage players knackered not just from recent minutes played but also from the distances travelled 

We weren't under any serious pressure in the sec half and it was only a fortunate deflection in added time that broke through 

Great to see performances improving and great game management 

Would of thought it was pretty obvious.

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Boro had 76% posession sexond half. 

If you've ever played football you'd know that constantly chasing a ball for the majority of the second half is incredibly tiring. No rest bite. 

Constantly chasing the ball? But you keep question why we sat in and defended for 45 minutes?

Make your mind up.

Chasing the ball would be if we did what you wanted them to do and counter press. Instead we sat deep and minimised movement and relied on concentration levels, which were superb from the starters and the bench.

People on here post questioning the desire of the fans, and sometimes suggest they’re happier when they lose, and angrier when they win.

Can see why now

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Yea mate I have, have you? Doesn't seem like you have. 

Constantly defending for very long periods is both physically and mentally exhausting.

Playing football is tiring in general I think, but not having to sit on the half way line and do 40-50 yard doggies is substantially energy saving. Clearly doesn’t seem like you have.

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Fatigued or not, we played badly second half…that is the point of the thread.

Can we not critique the team and the Head Coach’s tactics?

 

 

Played badly how so? Not having a threat going forward? Obviously.

But the whole 11 played well in defending a two goal lead and making sure we got over the edge. Would of been a clean sheet if there wasn’t an unfortunate deflection.

More of that effort please lads.

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Sitting back probably uses more energy tbh. Both physically and mentally. 

You played football before? If so what type of football because that is baffling.

Having experience in doing so at any level you’d realise that.

Not like this is the first time in history a football team on Earth has sat back because they’re tired, and winning btw.

3 minutes ago, bexhill reds said:

Why change something that was working? Boro were a beaten team in the first half, start the 1st 10 mins of the 2nd half with the same intensity, crowd on backs etc? 

We just sat too deep and invited them to play and Boro have got too much quality for that.

Great result, but we were definitely on the ropes.

 

Literally replied to my post asking questions about my opinions in which the answers are in the post. 

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, imho it feels more ignorant for fans to give Carrick credit and not critique Manning in some measure???  No?

Give Carrick credit? I don’t see where I’ve given Carrick credit. He got out coached today in my opinion.

LM set up to hit them early whilst we had the energy in the legs, then sit back when the fatigue kicked in.

So you’d be right in saying no Dave.

Unfortunately decisions can’t be made with hindsight.

What if they kept a back 4 and boro came out the gates flying and scored early on, having momentum for 40 minutes and LM has to change tactics on the fly from the dugout.

Instead, anticipating a good coach in Michael Carrick isn’t gonna let a repeat of the first half happen. And changes tactics at half time where he has around 15 minutes to get messages across and make sure the players get everything on board and rely on our best side of this team, Defending.

I can’t believe some people will find any little thing to try and moan about, especially when you look at the schedule the players had and what actually just happened. WINNING away to boro fgs.

Sometimes I think half of you are on a wind up on here.

Mental.

2 minutes ago, phantom said:

It's funny how people view the game. 

Boro have possession a bit higher up the pitch but not putting our goal under any pressure 

I think we look comfortable 

Some people think having a “good” performance is dominating the ball for 90 minutes and the opposition keeper making 10+ saves.

Not being 2-0 up away from home and defending the lead against a team who on paper, should be substantially higher than us in the league.

Theyve also had 6 days rest instead of 3, and did zero travelling since the Chelsea game.

Loved the formation, TGH and Anis were superb in that midfield four. Going to have plenty of depth for that midfield box to keep things fresh. Plenty of interchangeable players. Can see why LM been waiting for Mccrorie to switch formations, looks like he’s gonna be a machine going forward and backwards. Brilliant from the whole 11.

2 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Because it’s not that deep.

But feel free to keep pondering what else I might have meant

Makes no sense.

We move on.

10 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Yes, but it was also based on the concept of Boards generally giving their new appointment a bit of financial backing after putting them in place.

If you’re digging for a slight on Liam from me, you’re looking in the wrong place.

Why say “also” then?

Not looking for a slight, just find it strange how someone has to refer to a new manager as the new guy and not his name. Especially on a fan forum for that club.

7 minutes ago, Ian M said:

With the business so far this window, it actually still lends itself to the “we are maxed on wages” line.

We have brought in a youngster from Ireland who won’t be costing the earth, turned TGH’s loan contract into a permanent and swapped Andi’s wages for Twine’s.

That still leaves the option of bringing one more in if they want to allocate some of that nest egg to the new guy as many of us had/have expected them to do as a gesture. Two if they want to make a real play for that 6th place spot.
 

By new guy, are you referring to Liam Manning?