What Is A Good Start?

[Tom Fleuriot]

So, I set up a poll a couple of weeks ago about how O'Driscoll would be judged over the course of the season. The results were interesting, in that there was a broad split between different sets of fans - about half said they wanted us to get promoted or win more games, and that this should be the priority. Most of the other half said they wanted to see better football and the squad overhaul.

So I got thinking about the first five games (ignoring the League Cup match, because we always lose those). And I thought, at what point will fans feel things aren't looking so promising? I thought it would be interesting again to hear peoples' views on performance vs points, and what they see as the bare minimum in terms of each.

With Q3 (performance), it's a tricky one to answer. Obviously I'd like to see all of the above from City. The question only allows one option because a lot of people will say "yeah, we made more chances but the defence is crap", or "we had loads of possession but we didn't do anything with it", or "we had a tight defence but there was no fight from the players". So the question is: what is most likely to stop you feeling like it's going badly? If all else fails over the next five games, what will allow you to be positive after the match and say "at least we're doing THAT"? The other aspects may be ones that you think can come at a later stage.

Really interested in seeing what people think.

[Tom Fleuriot]

If anyone's interested, results of the other poll that I referred to above:

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/155848-expectations-for-the-season/

[CheddarReds]

points and a solid defence for me

[Sleepy1968]

If your answer to part 1 is performance then you don't really have a points total for success (so I put 6-8). Anyway points come as a consequence of performance....

[WTFiGO!?!]

Did put 6-8 points as a minimum because hell we could do with not having a completely shocking start following last season..

Put 'showing for team mates' but really it's a cross with that, 'bite' and 'better anticipation/understanding' cos we really, commonly, looked like a bunch of strangers who'd never played the game of football before, last season.

[Pickle Rick]

If we don't average a goal per game and fail to win in the first 3 league games, this forum will melt down.

They'll all come out en masse with the problems and solutions to our crisis.

I'd say as long as we're looking good at the back, we'll stay in touch of the play offs. Goals will come and win us games.

[Pickle Rick]

So, I set up a poll a couple of weeks ago about how O'Driscoll would be judged over the course of the season. The results were interesting, in that there was a broad split between different sets of fans - about half said they wanted us to get promoted or win more games, and that this should be the priority. Most of the other half said they wanted to see better football and the squad overhaul.

So I got thinking about the first five games (ignoring the League Cup match, because we always lose those). And I thought, at what point will fans feel things aren't looking so promising? I thought it would be interesting again to hear peoples' views on performance vs points, and what they see as the bare minimum in terms of each.

With Q3 (performance), it's a tricky one to answer. Obviously I'd like to see all of the above from City. The question only allows one option because a lot of people will say "yeah, we made more chances but the defence is crap", or "we had loads of possession but we didn't do anything with it", or "we had a tight defence but there was no fight from the players". So the question is: what is most likely to stop you feeling like it's going badly? If all else fails over the next five games, what will allow you to be positive after the match and say "at least we're doing THAT"? The other aspects may be ones that you think can come at a later stage.

Really interested in seeing what people think.

And I know it's you, Sean

[Tom Fleuriot]

And I know it's you, Sean

Damn! Busted...

I would suggest that this is interesting in terms of how much time O'Driscoll will have.

First, at this point in time (11.30), and after 76 fans that have voted, 60% have not bought into Sean O'Driscoll's message of focussing on performance rather than points. They're not even to do this for the first five games of the season.

Second, 55% expect a minimum of three wins OR us being unbeaten at least. This against games with:

• home against last season's league cup finalists (when we always lose on opening day),
• away at by far the division's richest club, and
• away against a team that is established in this division and always hovering around the play-offs,
• away against last season's league two champions (when automatically promoted clubs tend to have good early season momentum).

With people focussing on points at least to the same extent as performances, this means that W2 D2 L1 in the opening four games will be considered by a majority of the people replying as below the MINIMUM expected during that period.

Third, of performances, it seems to me that O'Driscoll has been emphasising in his interviews the robustness of the players - showing for each other, not letting their heads drop, being willing to try new things and them not not being afraid of them going wrong. I'm sure I've seen this message from him again and again. But only about 20% of people have said this is the most important, and almost 50% say either tighter defence or more attacking chances. Also, very few people have looked at aspects of a teram trying to gel, such as people showing for their team-mates and anticipation and understanding, despite there being a strong likelihood that over half of the team will not have played together competitively.

It suggests to me that a significant proportion of City fans (on OTIB at least) have not bought into O'Driscoll's approach at all, and are neither willing nor planning to judge him on the terms he has laid out. That's not to say those people are wrong. I can't decide myself (and I picked meaner defence in terms of performance, so I've not bought in fully yet).

But it does make me wonder whether, for all the talk of City fans being appreciative of good football, we're not all prepared to show the patience that Swansea and Wigan fans did, and expect results at the same time.

Fair analysis?

[WTFiGO!?!]

Think we can play brilliantly but if we lose five straight, people aren't gonna be satisfied.

I like a pragmatic approach and won't be moaning, but the mob mentality of a supporter base needs points on the board to ensure minimal unrest.

Certainly, the way the team is looking is all important but at the same time S'OD will do himself a favour by accepting fans want results, too.

ps/remember in 97/98 we had a slow start and went up second. Even 06/07 was a bit ropey to begin with.

I did go 6-8 minimum which I think is fair. Another point is, 5 games is too early to judge but just imagine what 15/15 would do in real terms for our chances!

[Tom Fleuriot]

Think we can play brilliantly but if we lose five straight, people aren't gonna be satisfied.

I like a pragmatic approach and won't be moaning, but the mob mentality of a supporter base needs points on the board to ensure minimal unrest.

Certainly, the way the team is looking is all important but at the same time S'OD will do himself a favour by accepting fans want results, too.

ps/remember in 97/98 we had a slow start and went up second. Even 06/07 was a bit ropey to begin with.

I did go 6-8 minimum which I think is fair. Another point is, 5 games is too early to judge but just imagine what 15/15 would do in real terms for our chances!

I agree with all of your points. See, for me it's all about the performances considering (a) how tough that start looks, and (b) the fact that five games isn't a good enough sample to test a new team. I'd settle for something like W1, D2, L2 as long as we look considerably more like a team than last season and don't get a thumping in either of the losses (or get a thumping but can say that for 50+ minutes we were the better side and were undone by freak occurences).

Part of the reason I went with five games in the poll was to see how short a period of time fans were willing to give the team. To my mind our start looks pretty demanding, and I'd like to see our fans be patient and supportive during this period (and the next five games). It does worry me that O'Driscoll has been banging on about the players being willing to try new things and not let their heads drop. I really hope that if players' passes aren't coming off in, say, the Wolves game, our fans don't get on the players' backs. Remember Crystal Palace / Sunderland / various other teams that have gone from bottom in October to promotion in the same season. It does happen, and I just hope that less than nine points doesn't lead to exasperation from the stands.

[Tom Fleuriot]

Football is about Winning. If a team is "playing well" but not scoring then, well they aint actually playing that well, if you catch my drift

Agree over 46 games. But not sure I think it's an appropriate measure over the first five of the season...

[steviestevieneville]

I think a solid defence will calm most peoples nerves because we will have a platform to build from.

Performance over points for me because if the performances are there then the points will come. And that's the reason i went with a points total of 6-8. The team will have quite a few youngsters in and youngsters make mistakes and they need to be given time.

[Nibor]

Fair analysis?

Not really, no.

Your poll is titled "What is a good start?" and your questions ask about "success".

There's a whole lot of distance between good/successful and bad/unacceptable.

I wouldn't call 5 points from the first 5 games successful or good - but I would still be patient.

[Tom Fleuriot]

Not really, no.

Your poll is titled "What is a good start?" and your questions ask about "success".

There's a whole lot of distance between good/successful and bad/unacceptable.

I wouldn't call 5 points from the first 5 games successful or good - but I would still be patient.

That's an excellent point. The question is horribly skewed. Hmm.

That would also explain the difference between points expectations here and people's stated aims for the season in the other poll.

Damn it. Knew I shouldn't have set it up in a hurry.

[Nibor]

That's an excellent point. The question is horribly skewed. Hmm.

That would also explain the difference between points expectations here and people's stated aims for the season in the other poll.

Damn it. Knew I shouldn't have set it up in a hurry.

I'm not trying to be over critical - it's better than other polls I've seen on here by a distance.

Perhaps you could do something like (given the same points bands), ask people if performances for the first 5 games were poor which points band would be successful, which would be acceptable, and which would be unacceptable. Then the same again for good performances. I expect something like that still has flaws as a methodology.

It's very hard to get questions set up so that they give you unbiased results, and harder still to analyse the results to draw meaningful conclusions.

Personally I think City fans will generally be a lot more patient if they see committed performances, and decent football. Patience is pretty limitless when things are seen to be improving even if results are poor.

When heads are down, players seem to bottle, the manager is on the defensive in terms of subs and press interviews, and results poor - well, patience runs out in half a dozen games.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

For the first 5 games it's points for me. The squad are too new to pull decent performances yet, so points it is.

[Tom Fleuriot]

I'm not trying to be over critical - it's better than other polls I've seen on here by a distance.

Perhaps you could do something like (given the same points bands), ask people if performances for the first 5 games were poor which points band would be successful, which would be acceptable, and which would be unacceptable. Then the same again for good performances. I expect something like that still has flaws as a methodology.

It's very hard to get questions set up so that they give you unbiased results, and harder still to analyse the results to draw meaningful conclusions.

Personally I think City fans will generally be a lot more patient if they see committed performances, and decent football. Patience is pretty limitless when things are seen to be improving even if results are poor.

When heads are down, players seem to bottle, the manager is on the defensive in terms of subs and press interviews, and results poor - well, patience runs out in half a dozen games.

Don't see it as over-critical at all - you made an excellent point about the flaw in the questioning. I think that it's a question of committed performances as well, and players not seeming to bottle it. But I think now is a poor time to ask the question about performance aspects, as our defence has been so atrocious for about three years that nobody (myself included) can see past that.

Maybe a better approach would be to ask, after each match, (1) whether the fans were satisfied with the outcome, (2) what the best thing was about the performance and (3) what was most lacking from the performance. That may give a decent quantiative barometer over time as to how fans were feeling.

[Philly The Kid]

I don't think 5 games is anywhere long enough to judge. 10 at the very least, a lot can happen in the early weeks of a season and especially with what amounts to a new team it needs time to bed in. I think over 10 games if we remain unbeaten or have lost, say two, but gained more wins that would be a solid start.

As everyone knows, it's all about confidence, if we're losing games we will haemorrhage confidence whereas winning, and drawing (at the very least) will enhance confidence.

We may lose players in the opening weeks of the season (Albert?) through transfers or injury, and one thing is for certain, promotion won't be decided in the opening ten games. It only takes a run of say, 5 or 6 wins on the trot and away you go. Above all, we must be solid and difficult to beat, better to build on a solid foundation than go gung ho and lose 4-3, IMHO...

[Always Believesham]

A successful first 5 games would be a very good 5 games - it's not integral to a good season so I wouldn't mind if we won all 5 smash and grab 1-0.

SOD says we won't be the finished product in 3 August, so I don't think we can be a 'finished product' until the end of September, then i'll start worrying about 'total sexy tika-taka'.

If we dominate teams and loose to a smash and grab in each of the first 5 games, it wont be successful but there'll be reasons to be optimistic - equally, if we play badly and loose, we'll all know things should get better with time.

Difficult for me to put into words where I stand on this but I do think you can only call the first 5 games a success if you;

- keep clean sheets apart from the odd unfortunate incident/decision

- keep the ball for so much of the game the opposition get frustrated

- win games (at least 4)

I would be pleased with an average start to the season with good performances but I wouldn't call it a success

[WTFiGO!?!]

I agree with all of your points. See, for me it's all about the performances considering (a) how tough that start looks, and (b) the fact that five games isn't a good enough sample to test a new team. I'd settle for something like W1, D2, L2 as long as we look considerably more like a team than last season and don't get a thumping in either of the losses (or get a thumping but can say that for 50+ minutes we were the better side and were undone by freak occurences).

Part of the reason I went with five games in the poll was to see how short a period of time fans were willing to give the team. To my mind our start looks pretty demanding, and I'd like to see our fans be patient and supportive during this period (and the next five games). It does worry me that O'Driscoll has been banging on about the players being willing to try new things and not let their heads drop. I really hope that if players' passes aren't coming off in, say, the Wolves game, our fans don't get on the players' backs. Remember Crystal Palace / Sunderland / various other teams that have gone from bottom in October to promotion in the same season. It does happen, and I just hope that less than nine points doesn't lead to exasperation from the stands.

Must admit I didn't pay to much attention to the opponents but still think 6 shouldn't be beyond us. Main thing is, fan appeasel is important no matter the SO'Dmanifesto and it's unlikely that a vocal minority or more are going to see beyond results if they are poor. 3/15 and being sat second bottom going into September, for example, is inevitably going to lead to loud vocal criticism, a negative AG, not to mention a catch-up job on.

As spasmcasm also allured too, confidence is a delicate thing. A piss-poor start in terms of results, the boo-boys out in force, a new, young team still moulding and SO'D will have a right pickle on his hands.

Another point, whilst we can look to the patience of Wigan and Swansea, that is in hindsight. I don't know if the fans at the time were showing any patience. They were also progressively moving forward, from the bottom flight. We've just been relegated and are a bigger fish in a smaller pool. Palace/Sunderland, again, great in hindsight and does show what can be done after a slow start but many teams who start slow don't have a successful season.

So all qualitative stuff that can be picked apart and I've just stated a few opinions myself. As for the quantitative stuff, I'll leave that to you to manage and analyse!

[WraxallRed]

What I would like to see this season is like before in league 1 and first season in championship, when Ashton Gate was a fortress and teams worried about coming here.