Hoping For Better Is Not The Answer... So What Is?

[sunningdalered]

I'm all for being patient and trying not to let our frustration transmit to the players, stability etc etc. I get all that. Personally, I would give SOD as much time as he needs to get it right - but then it's not my money at stake (which is what it all comes down to ultimately - never mind losing fans in the short/medium term, they will always return if the team is successful, even after years in the football wilderness, if that's what it takes).

 

I'm more interested in what people think needs to change if we are going to start imposing ourselves on this division. How does SOD balance the aim of bringing through a group of talented youngsters who play possession-based football, whilst at the same time amassing enough points to remove concerns about relegation?  

 

Some would argue, no doubt, that we just need to keep doing what we're doing, and it will come right in time. I'm struggling to see how this is going to happen. We bossed the PV game, but failed to put ourselves in a position where one individual mistake would cost us the win, and, by all accounts, failed to mount any serious challenge on the crewe goal in 90 mins yesterday. So, the odd bit of bad luck or one individual error is not the root cause of our current position. Something more will be required to change our fortunes - but what?

 

For me, I would like to see SOD make more use of Marlon Harewood. If we could get Marlon, Sam & JET (3 players who all have something different to offer) working together effectively then we could have games out of sight even if a defensive slip / bit of misfortune strikes. Not just for one game either - but maybe 4 or 5 on the bounce. Personally, I think we have sufficient options in defence and midfield to accommodate this.

 

 

 

 

[Major Isewater]

Preparing for the worst.

[Taylor10]

I'm all for being patient and trying not to let our frustration transmit to the players, stability etc etc. I get all that. Personally, I would give SOD as much time as he needs to get it right - but then it's not my money at stake (which is what it all comes down to ultimately - never mind losing fans in the short/medium term, they will always return if the team is successful, even after years in the football wilderness, if that's what it takes).

I'm more interested in what people think needs to change if we are going to start imposing ourselves on this division. How does SOD balance the aim of bringing through a group of talented youngsters who play possession-based football, whilst at the same time amassing enough points to remove concerns about relegation?

Some would argue, no doubt, that we just need to keep doing what we're doing, and it will come right in time. I'm struggling to see how this is going to happen. We bossed the PV game, but failed to put ourselves in a position where one individual mistake would cost us the win, and, by all accounts, failed to mount any serious challenge on the crewe goal in 90 mins yesterday. So, the odd bit of bad luck or one individual error is not the root cause of our current position. Something more will be required to change our fortunes - but what?

For me, I would like to see SOD make more use of Marlon Harewood. If we could get Marlon, Sam & JET (3 players who all have something different to offer) working together effectively then we could have games out of sight even if a defensive slip / bit of misfortune strikes. Not just for one game either - but maybe 4 or 5 on the bounce. Personally, I think we have sufficient options in defence and midfield to accommodate this.

For me as I see it....

We have no leader in the side. I genuinely think this is a problem. Baldock is simply not a captain. Now don't get me wrong I fully appreciate that being a captain isn't as big as it perhaps once was. Still, I think having a leader/organiser on the pitch during these tough times could be the difference with us holding on to the leads at places like Port Vale or grinding out a clean sheet and point at the Crewe's of this world. At this moment in time I fail to see how the players can be inspired by Baldock pulling out of tackles, missing chances and not leading by example. Not a pop at Sam, but it's how I see it.

Width. For me we don't play with anywhere near enough width at all. We don't stretch teams or create enough chances. I accept we can't be to open, lose shape or be exposed by playing fluent wingers but that still doesn't mean we can't play with some width for a change. I don't see what harm it would do. All the best City sides I have seen over the years have had natural width. Wagstaff will run all day but offers very little in an attacking sense. It's almost as if JET doesn't turn up we don't create.

Pace. With the exception of Wes Burns we don't have any real pace in the side. No outlet and can't turn teams around with a fast player running the channels, playing on the shoulder or getting by the full backs. We lack that extra bit in the final third. We don't really have a plan B if things don't work. We bring on Harewood and for what? To hoof it long? Doesn't wash with me. I personally would rather see Taylor up front than Harewood. Taylor can link play far better and holds it up well. Get some pace off him and we may look half decent. I just think throwing Harewood on is predictable and doesn't work and we need to find a different alternative to this almost pointless approach.

That's areas I think we can improve in. Every side we play seems to have the above points or something along similar lines they can use to be effective.

[BCAGFC]

If we are going to continue with 1 up front, then drop Baldock & get Taylor in......at least we will have a chance of winning a ball in the air and he could then give a better supply to JET.

 

I would like to see Wynter back in the side as he is composed and gets stuck in when played centrally but that means that either Pack or Reid would have to go....unless we go 352.

 

And when we have the ball run at the opposition....it works for everyone else.

[sunningdalered]

For me as I see it....

We have no leader in the side. I genuinely think this is a problem. Baldock is simply not a captain. Now don't get me wrong I fully appreciate that being a captain isn't as big as it perhaps once was. Still, I think having a leader/organiser on the pitch during these tough times could be the difference with us holding on to the leads at places like Port Vale or grinding out a clean sheet and point at the Crewe's of this world. At this moment in time I fail to see how the players can be inspired by Baldock pulling out of tackles, missing chances and not leading by example. Not a pop at Sam, but it's how I see it.

Width. For me we don't play with anywhere near enough width at all. We don't stretch teams or create enough chances. I accept we can't be to open, lose shape or be exposed by playing fluent wingers but that still doesn't mean we can't play with some width for a change. I don't see what harm it would do. All the best City sides I have seen over the years have had natural width. Wagstaff will run all day but offers very little in an attacking sense. It's almost as if JET doesn't turn up we don't create.

Pace. With the exception of Wes Burns we don't have any real pace in the side. No outlet and can't turn teams around with a fast player running the channels, playing on the shoulder or getting by the full backs. We lack that extra bit in the final third. We don't really have a plan B if things don't work. We bring on Harewood and for what? To hoof it long? Doesn't wash with me. I personally would rather see Taylor up front than Harewood. Taylor can link play far better and holds it up well. Get some pace off him and we may look half decent. I just think throwing Harewood on is predictable and doesn't work and we need to find a different alternative to this almost pointless approach.

That's areas I think we can improve in. Every side we play seems to have the above points or something along similar lines they can use to be effective.

Interesting.

 

Leader. Good point. Agree about Sam. Difficult to see a leader emerging from the current midfield crop in the short-term, so bringing someone in seems the only option. Can't imagine that would be cheap, particularly as the type of player who fits the bill is unlikely to be a youngster. SOD seems to favour individual responsibility-taking (making the right decision, trusting each other etc etc), so not sure that he attaches much importance to a talisman type - but expects '11 leaders' if that makes sense. I don't expect much progress on the leader front unfortunately. 

 

Width / Pace. I'm happy with the idea of playing fairly narrow, but agree that it will only work if can manage to get the full-backs involved more in an attacking sense (without constantly being exposed on the counter). Again, we don't appear to have a natural winger in the squad - other than one of youngsters (Burns, Ajala?) - so it's another recruitment job if SOD wants to go that way. IMO he needs to have the option of narrow attack (baldock, JET plus Harewood / Taylor) and somehow get more out of the midfield / fullbacks, AND a quicker / more incisive one (ie find a Baldock MkII quickly).  

 

The worst thing SOD can do IMO is stop taking bold decisions to improve things. Accepting that he has financial limitations imposed on him, he came in with a commitment to certain principles, and I expect him to stick to them.

[Taylor10]

Interesting.

Leader. Good point. Agree about Sam. Difficult to see a leader emerging from the current midfield crop in the short-term, so bringing someone in seems the only option. Can't imagine that would be cheap, particularly as the type of player who fits the bill is unlikely to be a youngster. SOD seems to favour individual responsibility-taking (making the right decision, trusting each other etc etc), so not sure that he attaches much importance to a talisman type - but expects '11 leaders' if that makes sense. I don't expect much progress on the leader front unfortunately.

Width / Pace. I'm happy with the idea of playing fairly narrow, but agree that it will only work if can manage to get the full-backs involved more in an attacking sense (without constantly being exposed on the counter). Again, we don't appear to have a natural winger in the squad - other than one of youngsters (Burns, Ajala?) - so it's another recruitment job if SOD wants to go that way. IMO he needs to have the option of narrow attack (baldock, JET plus Harewood / Taylor) and somehow get more out of the midfield / fullbacks, AND a quicker / more incisive one (ie find a Baldock MkII quickly).

The worst thing SOD can do IMO is stop taking bold decisions to improve things. Accepting that he has financial limitations imposed on him, he came in with a commitment to certain principles, and I expect him to stick to them.

Without doubt he has to stick to his principles. Hindsight is a beautiful thing but perhaps the leader type signing was the one we needed to invest in and break the under 24 rule for? That said you're right. There should be 11 leaders but at times like the present I think certain players will look up to a leader type figure. With you though, not guna happen as we can't invest.

Perhaps Baldock does need to be dropped for Taylor or Harewood? Maybe start him for the home games and bench for the away? SOD does need to stick by his beliefs and can't just rip it up and try something new.

Tough call, I personally just feel we need to be a little more flexible.

[Taylor10]

If we are going to continue with 1 up front, then drop Baldock & get Taylor in......at least we will have a chance of winning a ball in the air and he could then give a better supply to JET.

I would like to see Wynter back in the side as he is composed and gets stuck in when played centrally but that means that either Pack or Reid would have to go....unless we go 352.

And when we have the ball run at the opposition....it works for everyone else.

For some reason I really like the idea of 3-5-2. Worth a try but have we sufficient cover at CB? He doesn't rate Wilson and Carey is unfit. I guess it's do able but if anything happens to the other remaining centre halves it means changing the system.

[sunningdalered]

Without doubt he has to stick to his principles. Hindsight is a beautiful thing but perhaps the leader type signing was the one we needed to invest in and break the under 24 rule for? That said you're right. There should be 11 leaders but at times like the present I think certain players will look up to a leader type figure. With you though, not guna happen as we can't invest.

Perhaps Baldock does need to be dropped for Taylor or Harewood? Maybe start him for the home games and bench for the away? SOD does need to stick by his beliefs and can't just rip it up and try something new.

Tough call, I personally just feel we need to be a little more flexible.

Something tells me that it is going to take an inspired addition to the squad - that has an immediate impact in an attacking sense - to make a decisive difference to our current plight. Step up once more Mr. Burt! 

[David Brent]

For some reason I really like the idea of 3-5-2. Worth a try but have we sufficient cover at CB? He doesn't rate Wilson and Carey is unfit. I guess it's do able but if anything happens to the other remaining centre halves it means changing the system.

Wouldn't mind 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 either. We've got enough CBs to play the system. If it means playing the likes of Brundle etc then so be it.

Needs something different. My biggest gripe at the moment is the cautious approach he takes, even at home. I'm not anti anybody but have a bit more faith in your players and be adventurous. We're losing anyway so can see no arguments.

[Taylor10]

Wouldn't mind 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 either. We've got enough CBs to play the system. If it means playing the likes of Brundle etc then so be it.

Needs something different. My biggest gripe at the moment is the cautious approach he takes, even at home. I'm not anti anybody but have a bit more faith in your players and be adventurous. We're losing anyway so can see no arguments.

True and it's pretty much the only way we could play JET and two strikers.

Peterborough do it to devastating effect and allow the front 3 the freedom to create.

[sunningdalered]

Wouldn't mind 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 either. We've got enough CBs to play the system. If it means playing the likes of Brundle etc then so be it.

Needs something different. My biggest gripe at the moment is the cautious approach he takes, even at home. I'm not anti anybody but have a bit more faith in your players and be adventurous. We're losing anyway so can see no arguments.

5-3-2 is an interesting one - and could give Shorey and Maloney licence to get forward! Agree about the cautiousness. As mentioned above, contrary to the view that our problems are primarily defensive, I think the emphasis needs to be on creating and converting chances, or we will always be vulnerable to the sucker punch. 

 

Has SOD got previous of playing either 3-5-2 or 5-3-2? Given that we are talking about things that SOD can/might actually do to proactively improve our fortunes, is this something that you think he would try? Maybe the '5th' body in the 5-3-2 is Wynter sitting deep?

[tiz]

I wish we could have kept Stead, think he is the missing man up front and also think he would have made a great captain. Anybody know how is doing

[Carey 6]

I wish we could have kept Stead, think he is the missing man up front and also think he would have made a great captain. Anybody know how is doing

I wish we could've kept Adomah & Davies!

But Steads played 9 and scored 0 unsure on how many sub appearances that is though!

[OldlandReddies]

The majority of fans have virtually given up on us actually winning a game so you can imagine how the players are feeling at the moment. The belief must be completely drained out of them, so much so that Tuesday SOD will try to 'freshen' things up in the hope of turning the tide. In from the start will come Taylor, Dunk, Wynter, Cunningham & Kilkenny. Meaning Bryan, Reid, JET & Pack taking a rest. Lets hope it does the trick.        

[JamesBCFC]

I would like so see Harewood, jet and baldock starting upfront for some home games, and see if that works, but I have a feeling that sod said in one of the podcasts that they tried this and it didn't work

[sunningdalered]

I wish we could've kept Adomah & Davies!

But Steads played 9 and scored 0 unsure on how many sub appearances that is though!

But we haven't kept them - so not really an option is it!

 

 

The majority of fans have virtually given up on us actually winning a game so you can imagine how the players are feeling at the moment. The belief must be completely drained out of them, so much so that Tuesday SOD will try to 'freshen' things up in the hope of turning the tide. In from the start will come Taylor, Dunk, Wynter, Cunningham & Kilkenny. Meaning Bryan, Reid, JET & Pack taking a rest. Lets hope it does the trick.        

Dunk is a virtual certainty given Flint's unavailability. Wouldn't be surprised to see Wynter come back in if he's fit enough - probably at the expense of Pack. Marv on the bench?

[sunningdalered]

I would like so see Harewood, jet and baldock starting upfront for some home games, and see if that works, but I have a feeling that sod said in one of the podcasts that they tried this and it didn't work

Agreed....and, Agreed (sadly!)

[David Brent]

5-3-2 is an interesting one - and could give Shorey and Maloney licence to get forward! Agree about the cautiousness. As mentioned above, contrary to the view that our problems are primarily defensive, I think the emphasis needs to be on creating and converting chances, or we will always be vulnerable to the sucker punch.

Has SOD got previous of playing either 3-5-2 or 5-3-2? Given that we are talking about things that SOD can/might actually do to proactively improve our fortunes, is this something that you think he would try? Maybe the '5th' body in the 5-3-2 is Wynter sitting deep?

I know it was a friendly but I think we did vs Rangers? Any width under SOD is usually provided by the full backs anyway. 5 at the back doesn't have to be defensive and I'd be tempted to go with something like this.

Parish

Moloney

Flint

Dunk

Williams

Shorey

Wynter

Pack

Reid

Jet

Baldock

I don't know.