redrob

13 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

Doesn’t make him right just because he’s a ex pro . Hes sliding in to block the cross it’s hit his arm from about 2 yards away. In situations like this you have to ask yourself if you’d be pissed off it’s that’s given against us , because I would 

If a defender makes the same move on the goal line and the ball hits their hand from 2 yards away, is it not a penalty then? 

1 hour ago, ralphindevon said:

Maybe penalties don’t count as shots?

Pens clearly don't as they don't count as clear cut chances either.

At two nil up (and just before Sykes tried to dink it past the on rushing keeper from 20 yards) Sky had us down as having had no clear cut chances. 

Just after said Sykes attempt, Sky has us as having had one clear cut chance. 

So apparently one on one's inside the box (i.e. Conway's first goal) don't count as clear cut chances but shits from outside the box do

5 minutes ago, mozo said:

I always enjoy Leroy as a pundit. Seems a nice guy and knows his stuff

Leroy has always been a top bloke. Used to always come to school holiday football camps. Would also regularly see him down the local park with his boys and always had time for every kid who wanted to talk to him or get an autograph or even just have a kick abiut with him. 

Absolutely top fella! 

50 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

You could whack it on at 2x speed. It might make more sense.

Would make more sense if you whacked it on -2x speed

23 minutes ago, CiderHider said:

Conceded 3 goals.

And which of those 3 should he have saved in your view? 

1 hour ago, Fuber said:

Someone hire a plane with a banner. That'll get BBC attention.

On a serious note - I'd love it if Section 82 all wore NP masks.

A family member works for a certain private jet company based in Bristol. That would certainly capture attention if one of SLs own planes flew over the Gate towing a sign. 

You can pay for longer parking in Sainsbury's on Parkopedia or just park I think. Worth having a look as fairly cheap. 

20 hours ago, Natchfever said:

Why not,? Man Utd have worn blue.

Pretty sure City has actually borrowed Rovers kit, although 1909 was plain blue

Far bigger achievement  than 74 and happened 11 years before Rovers even became a league club.

I personally have no issue with it and agree it's a much greater achievement than beating Leeds in 74. But can just imagine the uproar from some of our fanbase to wearing blue. 

1 hour ago, DolmanGaz said:

nice kit, but wearing a commemorative kit for a league game, to celebrate a 5th round FA cup tie almost 50 years ago is beyond tinpot...

 

if we'd won the cup, fine.

Would you advocate wearing the same kit we wore when we played in the FA Cup final?

16 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

I don't know that Anis was the only player guilty of poor decisions in forward areas but the criticism of him is fair. Over the 90 minutes I would score him a 6.

Definitely not the only one. It's great he gets in those positions so often as he needs to for one to come off. 

I remember Akinbiyi being someone who many said if he scored even a third of the decent chances he had would have scored 30-40 a season. Anis could be the same in terms of assists 

5 minutes ago, johnheadbcfc said:

Sky sports really not liking the mighty saints being well beaten.

 

"that's not to take anything away from Bristol City... BUT Southampton have contributed to their own downfall tonight. Wouldn't you agree Jason?" 

And in comes Jason Euell with "No..... because Bristol City made them make those sloppy passes by pressing so well."

Top work JE! 

13 minutes ago, redkev said:

If Anis had of done the same on numerous occasions we could of been out of sight , some terrible decision making by him , the only slight flaw on an excellent performance from the whole side 

Dunno why anyone responded to this with a face palming emoji as this is bang on. Such poor decision making and so frustrating. Hope he can improve his decision making and learn to commit defenders or release the ball rather than slow it up to the point defenders are set up in a pair to block either path. 

There is a player in there though if only he can up the intelligence to become it. 

4 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

I watched it about ten times. How the **** did he miss 

Think the defender got a foot on it

3 minutes ago, Forest Red said:

Well done Bristol - a shit game that could have gone either way. Good luck for the season

 

Best of luck for the season ahead. 

1 minute ago, RedRaw said:

Not having a dig but has max ever saved a penalty?

Milwall away a few seasons ago comes to mind. 

2 minutes ago, Robin101 said:

Literally was out my seat celebrating due to the commentary!

I started my "going mental run down towards the backdoor and out into the garden" celebration...... Then fell on my knees in the backroom!

Baaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllssssssssssss

34 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

Yes, but obviously not the part the ball went in!

No he was where the ball was going before it was turned in by (insert somebody's body part). 

10 hours ago, Ivorguy said:

I don’t think Manning is necessarily the brightest spark when it comes to choosing his words.

None of that matters if he achieves, but on that the jury is out.

Sorry but wish it was Nige benefitting by the loosening of purse strings.

On the contrary I think he's very intelligent....... I think it's more a case of trying to simplify a complex topic for those who are not familiar with the scientific theory (in this case performance psychology). 

9 hours ago, Porto Red said:

First time I've heard "arousal" in a football context since LJ 

Basic sport psychology terminology but..... I know what you mean

On 31/01/2024 at 06:11, Major Isewater said:

Liam Manning talks about keeping emotions in check , not getting too high or too low during a game whilst I don’t want to see a team of hotheads I do however want ‘ emotion ‘ in my players. 
Emotion is what gives an athlete that extra yard or the desire to stop an opponent at all costs.

Emotion is what fires up a crowd and binds them to the human beings representing their club. 
 

Emotion feeds dreams and visions. 
 

Have we lost something in football as coaches and administrators sap the joy out of the game. We used to go to games to let off steam. We shared the highs and lows, the beer breath , woodbines and a good sing song. Now we are customers who must sit down, mind your language and conform to the modern image of the sport. 
I fear that Mr Manning has reduced our squad with his coaching as our lads are not world beaters but good honest players who bought into the spirit generated by the previous manager. He needs to be freer and more spontaneous to release the creativity in the team. IMHO. 
 

When LM talks about "not getting to high and not getting too low" he is talking (in plain English terms) about trying maintain an optimal level of arousal. 

So he's not saying players should be emotionless as thisnresukts in 'under-arousal' and a widening of attention or attending to thingd that are outside the field of focus. Manning (being a very intelligent coach) clearly understands this. Equally he means players should not be 'over-aroused' as this is equally dangerous to performance levels and can result in a narrowing of attention or attending to the wrong things. 

Not sure we've consistently found the magic sweet spot yet under LM mind but there have been signs of it. 

One of the things I think we really miss, especially playing Manning-ball, is having a striker who drops back into the hole and in doing so giving defenders a difficult decision to either let them go or follow them. In choosing to follow them this creates gaps in behind that the other striker has the chance to exploit. 

Personality if like to see try this more often (Tuesday night being the only time I think we've done it this season?). 

Appreciate that this means sacrificing someone somewhere else but I think this is preferable to a tucked in or roaming Mehmeti who teams are quickly working out can't shoot from distance and can't get behind players to be effective either as a winger or inside left forward. 

5 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

waffle. If we don’t create chances we won’t score goals . It’s pretty simple 

We didn't create chances? We're you watching a different game to me?

We clearly did create chances as I've identified two above. 

27 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

We didn’t have a shot on target so why SHOULD have we scored twice. We played very well up to a point but we don’t create enough chances. 

 "Should" is a modal verb used to show when something is likely or expected. For example:

That's how we SHOULD have scored at least twice and if there had been some better decision making in and around the box could have had more clear cut chances so SHOULD have created more (but didn't). 

Sometimes to understand context and have a true picture of what happened you have to watch what is happening rather than just look at statistics. 

As the saying goes "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuadive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments. So to say we SHOULD NOT have scored at least two tonight because we didn't have a shot in target is in my view a very weak argument when you compare it to the context of the statistics and the chances we did have. Shoukd Chris Waddle not have scored his penalty in the 1990 World Cup semi final because the stats show his shot was off target? 

The big takeaway for me was that we created some decent openings and SHOULD have scored at least two goals against a  bottom half Premier league side. 

We dominated them for large parts of the game and forced them to counter attack without really creating many opening themselves bar the Hudson-Odoi effort.