We Were Tired!

[RedM]

If they are tired then Cotterill might need to up their training programme, get them fitter, faster, more stamina and hungrier for the game.

And if they are so tired I hope they will get an early night with a cup of cocoa rather than being out on the town tonight.

[Cider red]

We must have been tired for most of the season then, because the lack of closing down has been apparent for all of it bar maybe 2 games. To be fair Williams on player says that tiredness isn't an excuse, sounds completely disappointed.

[Super]

We must have been tired for most of the season then, because the lack of closing down has been apparent for all of it bar maybe 2 games. To be fair Williams on player says that tiredness isn't an excuse, sounds completely disappointed.

Not surprised probably thought he had scored a winning goal.

[pongo88]

Why do people refer to the 'olden days'?

It has no relevance to the present. Are you saying that you never witnessed a game where players didn't give 120%?

Players today are far fitter and more athletic than yesteryear.

Fact of the matter is that we were second to everything today and showed a complete lack of effort at times.

The reason I mentioned the "olden days " is simple because it has every relevance to the present. It's all about culture. In the past players and managers could not get way with spouting total garbage about being tired or any other pathetic excuse. Today's culture seems regard the fans as idiots who will believe any rubbish.

The fact that "Players today are far fitter and more athletic than yesteryear" proves my point. With this extra level of fitness and improved diet there is absolutely no reason to be tired just because they've played a mid week match.

[Lrrr]

If they are tired then Cotterill might need to up their training programme, get them fitter, faster, more stamina and hungrier for the game.

And if they are so tired I hope they will get an early night with a cup of cocoa rather than being out on the town tonight.

 

At the start of the season didn't S.O'D say his pre season stuff wouldn't consist of lots of fitness work but focus more on technical stuff? Paying the price now for an undercooked pre season?

[cider_dog]

Tired my arse.

Pathetic excuse. I don't think today was too bad - in spells - and 4 points from those two games is probably 1 more than most of us hoped for.

But to trot out that nonsense....try working 10 hour days with a 2 hour commute 6 days a week lads then tell us how tired you are after a kickabout.

I have to agree.

 

Essentially the player work for usually no more than 180 minutes a week.

 

Training is more about recovery and tactics than hard physical efforts, unless it is pre season.

 

As a professional athlete a player needs to be mentally strong enough to overcome physical tiredness and fatigue.

 

It is mind over matter, nothing more complicated.

 

Heavy pitches, long trips away (Orient?) and no winter holiday camp?

 

Utter crap I'm afraid, its insulting to fans.

 

Training from 1000-1230 4 x a week, a massage after every session, maybe an 1 hour in the gym a couple of times a week, 10 hours sleep a night and 2 competitive football matches...oh and a 2 month holiday every year.

 

That's it.

 

In a nutshell.

 

Everything else is playstation, golf, shopping or banging the tart of the week.

 

Hard life for some.

[RedM]

At the start of the season didn't S.O'D say his pre season stuff wouldn't consist of lots of fitness work but focus more on technical stuff? Paying the price now for an undercooked pre season?

Could be a part of it, but the players we've brought in since preseason have hardly hit the ground running either. It seems any other team can buy in or loan in players and they gel straight away and make a difference. Somehow we tend to stutter no matter who is in charge.

I would understand if they said we were feeling tired if we had experienced a cruel loss against Orient, but if they aren't buzzing after a great result what is going to lift them?

[stephenkibby.]

well man city and Chelsea both played pretty near full sides tonite,with champions league Tuesday.

so do you think there poor little mites will be to tired in 3 days?

 

sounded like a poor excuse but saying that sheff utd are playing tomorrow so with a full days extra rest for our boys we should come flying out of the traps next Saturday.

 

anyway crawley with there smaller squad and the two maybe three games a week from now till the end of the season must surely be relegated.

so along with Stevenage,shrewsbury that's three down!!

 

if we can finish above crew,tranmere or carlise it would have been a great season!! ureeedddsss!!

[cityexile]

Sammy has not really had a break, and for all the comments thrown at him, if the rest (Pack excepted) had shown the same energy and commitment as him today, fancy we would be toasting an important win.

 

If nothing else, always struck me as a model professional in his approach to the game.

[MarcusX]

In the "olden days " when players were paid peanuts, they played on poor pitches which were basically a mud bath with a leather ball that weighed as much as a medicine ball when wet. There was also no such thing as squad rotation so if you could walk you had to play. Any player who made such a feeble excuse that he was tired would have been told where to go. Get a grip Cotts and stop giving us rubbish comments

I imagine the game was a lot slower back then!!

This place is terrible for hypocrisy, on one thread were suggesting that Crawleys games in hand isn't a big advantage, and their fixture backlog will hurt them, then we come off the back of 6 games in 17 days and we aren't allowed to use tiredness as an excuse.

If we'd drew Tuesday and own today we'd be ecstatic!

[BRISTOL86]

I have to agree.

 

Essentially the player work for usually no more than 180 minutes a week.

 

Training is more about recovery and tactics than hard physical efforts, unless it is pre season.

 

As a professional athlete a player needs to be mentally strong enough to overcome physical tiredness and fatigue.

 

It is mind over matter, nothing more complicated.

 

Heavy pitches, long trips away (Orient?) and no winter holiday camp?

 

Utter crap I'm afraid, its insulting to fans.

 

Training from 1000-1230 4 x a week, a massage after every session, maybe an 1 hour in the gym a couple of times a week, 10 hours sleep a night and 2 competitive football matches...oh and a 2 month holiday every year.

 

That's it.

 

In a nutshell.

 

Everything else is playstation, golf, shopping or banging the tart of the week.

 

Hard life for some.

Spot on.

I don't feel particularly disappointed by today's result - I thought it was fair - but to hear our manager trot out that shit about tiredness? They haven't a clue about tiredness. Try working a real job for a living.

It was insulting - as it was when he went on RB after the Cov game talking about how well we played when we were utter dirge.

[Harry]

Tiredness is a bullcrap excuse to be fair.

Cotterill has changed the line up in every game since he's been here, and used the tiredness excuse for dropping people like Williams, Pack, JET, Reid at various times.  So today, for the first time, he plays the same line up, and now trots out the tiredness excuse for those that started.

 

For me, this again smacks of pure hypocrisy from the bloke.  If they were so tired why didn't you rest them, like you did when others were supposedly 'tired' in earlier games?

 

It's just a convenient excuse for the team (nay, certain players) not performing.

[pongo88]

I imagine the game was a lot slower back then!!

The game has definitely changed over the years but most City players from the 60s & 70s looked like Usain Bolt compared to Wade Elliot

[Robiness]

The only thing I found tiring was Barnett and jet !! Barnett is another Harewood without passion !!

[Nogbad the Bad]

Tiredness is a bullcrap excuse to be fair.

Cotterill has changed the line up in every game since he's been here, and used the tiredness excuse for dropping people like Williams, Pack, JET, Reid at various times.  So today, for the first time, he plays the same line up, and now trots out the tiredness excuse for those that started.

 

For me, this again smacks of pure hypocrisy from the bloke.  If they were so tired why didn't you rest them, like you did when others were supposedly 'tired' in earlier games?

 

It's just a convenient excuse for the team (nay, certain players) not performing.

 

Yes, but if he'd changed a winning team and there was a stuttering performance today then he'd have been absolutely hammered for making those changes. He obviously wants a settled team and kept faith with the team who did so well in midweek.

 

Truth is our bench today- bar Burns - was pretty weak. The injuries to Wagstaff and Marv. are big blows and leave SC short of real options until Kelly and Pearson become available.

 

By the way imo Williams would have been dropped for downright poor form and the same goes for Reid. A manager using the word 'tiredness' to explain a players' exclusion - 'he needs a rest' - is usually just a diplomatic way of saying, 'he's not playing well enough'.

[Harry]

Yes, but if he'd changed a winning team and there was a stuttering performance today then he'd have been absolutely hammered for making those changes. He obviously wants a settled team and kept faith with the team who did so well in midweek.

 

Truth is our bench today- bar Burns - was pretty weak. The injuries to Wagstaff and Marv. are big blows and leave SC short of real options until Kelly and Pearson become available.

 

By the way imo Williams would have been dropped for downright poor form and the same goes for Reid. A manager using the word 'tiredness' to explain a players' exclusion - 'he needs a rest' - is usually just a diplomatic way of saying, 'he's not playing well enough'.

Exactly.  And there's the hypocrisy in Cotterill's statements.  One week, he'll drop someone for being 'tired'. The next week, he'll choose the same team and then make an excuse that they're 'tired'.

SC's choice of line up seems ok for him one week, but he finds an excuse the next.

 

Personally, if I felt in the week leading up to the game that some players were tired, I'd have chosen 2 of my centre backs to play at centre back, played 2 proper fullbacks, put Bryan & Burns on from the start out wide to give us the impetus in a crunch home match.

 

SC had options today.  He chose not to use them as he thought an unchanged team would look good.  When it backfired, he looked for an excuse.

[Stephen Lewis]

The team put in the effort for Orient and got a win, they then thought Tranmere at home would be easier and failed to put in the same level of commitment.

We should think ourselves lucky they managed a point.

It's not like City haven't failed to perform against easier opponents before.

[garlicbread]

If they are tired then Cotterill might need to up their training programme, get them fitter, faster, more stamina and hungrier for the game.

And if they are so tired I hope they will get an early night with a cup of cocoa rather than being out on the town tonight.

Oh ffs...are you aware of sport science? A tired athlete is so because they are exhausted and their body is at the limit....extra training, how will that help?

[cityexile]

.......

sounded like a poor excuse but saying that sheff utd are playing tomorrow so with a full days extra rest for our boys we should come flying out of the traps next Saturday.

 

.....

 

If I am reading it right, Sheff Utd are actually playing Sunday AND Wednesday before us. They may as well concede it now against us!

[Nogbad the Bad]

Exactly.  And there's the hypocrisy in Cotterill's statements.  One week, he'll drop someone for being 'tired'. The next week, he'll choose the same team and then make an excuse that they're 'tired'.

SC's choice of line up seems ok for him one week, but he finds an excuse the next.

 

Personally, if I felt in the week leading up to the game that some players were tired, I'd have chosen 2 of my centre backs to play at centre back, played 2 proper fullbacks, put Bryan & Burns on from the start out wide to give us the impetus in a crunch home match.

 

SC had options today.  He chose not to use them as he thought an unchanged team would look good.  When it backfired, he looked for an excuse.

 

Managers don't generally say their players were crap. It's just not done.

 

Reid and Bryan have been poor recently. 'Tired', or just needing to be taken out of the firing line for a while to rediscover their form? It amounts to the same thing really.They certainly haven't showed enough to displace a player from a team who all played so well at Orient.

 

Wade Elliot played very well at Orient alongside Pack by all accounts, as did Osborne at full back. Moloney has been proved to be physically challenged in this division and we did need bulking up in defence. Flint had been one of our best players 4 games in a row and El Abd had finally had a good game. So who would you have dropped? And what if his replacement had played in a similarly 'tired' manner that led him to being dropped in the first place?

 

The only player I might agree could have started was Burns, but again why change a winning team when Burns can be brought on early in the match if the original team struggles or appears jaded?

 

It's not hypocrisy by Cotterill and I'm not sure he even used tiredness as an excuse as such, simply stating the fact of the matter. It doesn't actually follow he necessarily had better options at the start and should have used them.

 

I think 9 out of 10 City fans would have expected an unchanged team today and been flabbergasted if changes had been made. Remember how Del was crucified for tinkering?

 

 Cotterill was probably as surprised by their sluggishness as the rest of us.

[Harry]

Managers don't generally say their players were crap. It's just not done.

 

Reid and Bryan have been poor recently. 'Tired', or just needing to be taken out of the firing line for a while to rediscover their form? It amounts to the same thing really.They certainly haven't showed enough to displace a player from a team who all played so well at Orient.

 

Wade Elliot played very well at Orient alongside Pack by all accounts, as did Osborne at full back. Moloney has been proved to be physically challenged in this division and we did need bulking up in defence. Flint had been one of our best players 4 games in a row and El Abd had finally had a good game. So who would you have dropped? And what if his replacement had played in a similarly 'tired' manner that led him to being dropped in the first place?

 

The only player I might agree could have started was Burns, but again why change a winning team when Burns can be brought on early in the match if the original team struggles or appears jaded?

 

It's not hypocrisy by Cotterill and I'm not sure he even used tiredness as an excuse as such, simply stating the fact of the matter. It doesn't actually follow he necessarily had better options at the start and should have used them.

 

I think 9 out of 10 City fans would have expected an unchanged team today and been flabbergasted if changes had been made. Remember how Del was crucified for tinkering?

 

 Cotterill was probably as surprised by their sluggishness as the rest of us.

But Pack had played well v Carlisle, only to be unceremoniously dropped the next week v Cov.

Williams had played well for the majority of games leading up to New Year, before being unceremoniously dropped to shoehorn El Abd in.

Maloney (granted not my all time fave right back!) actually had an ok game away to Oldham, before being unceremoniously dropped v Orient.

 

It seems ok for him to drop people who've played well in the previous match, seemingly citing a need for squad rotation during a busy phase, yet when HE decides to play an unchanged team 4 days after 2 tough away trips, all of sudden it's the tiredness setting in - i.e. he's taken ZERO responsibility for our failings today.

[Gene Hunt]

Managers don't generally say their players were crap. It's just not done.

Reid and Bryan have been poor recently. 'Tired', or just needing to be taken out of the firing line for a while to rediscover their form? It amounts to the same thing really.They certainly haven't showed enough to displace a player from a team who all played so well at Orient.

Wade Elliot played very well at Orient alongside Pack by all accounts, as did Osborne at full back. Moloney has been proved to be physically challenged in this division and we did need bulking up in defence. Flint had been one of our best players 4 games in a row and El Abd had finally had a good game. So who would you have dropped? And what if his replacement had played in a similarly 'tired' manner that led him to being dropped in the first place?

The only player I might agree could have started was Burns, but again why change a winning team when Burns can be brought on early in the match if the original team struggles or appears jaded?

It's not hypocrisy by Cotterill and I'm not sure he even used tiredness as an excuse as such, simply stating the fact of the matter. It doesn't actually follow he necessarily had better options at the start and should have used them.

I think 9 out of 10 City fans would have expected an unchanged team today and been flabbergasted if changes had been made. Remember how Del was crucified for tinkering?

Cotterill was probably as surprised by their sluggishness as the rest of us.

Don't understand the myth about unchanged sides being a good thing. You pick your best available eleven from your squad for each game. At home playing four centre backs, a left back on the wing and a pointless 35 year old when you have better options is indefensible.

[Nogbad the Bad]

Pretty sure Williams was actually coming back from injury when El Abd made his debut, so it allowed him another week of recovery. And of course had a couple of very dodgy games on his return.

 

I agree with Cotts. that we needed more strength in defence so I've no problem with Moloney being replaced with someone palpably tougher.

 

Pack can look good, but hasn't been consistently so imo - if leaving him out made him return a better player, then that to me appears to be the object of the lesson. I doubt he'll be dropped again on current form.

 

Cotterill had rotated but some players - i.e. Reid and Bryan hardly excelled themselves when chosen and in the end you go for a settled, unchanged team when you can and they've just played well at Orient.

 

Wagstaff and Marv. probably would have been picked today if fit, or certainly featured at some stage. They weren't available and there was nobody else in the squad in such form as to make changing a winning team either desirable or necessary.

 

We didn't play well today, the team looked jaded and the manager - probably- made the correct substitutioins to try and perk up the performance.

 

Tranmere were fresher than us after having no midweek game, and it showed.

 

It was their 3rd fixture in the 15 days of February, City's 5th. That's not an excuse, it's just matter of fact.

[City1970]

Talks a load of sh**e almost constantly. Awful to listen to and comes across as not having a clue.

That is why he is manager. The clueless board employ clueless managers. The players well must look at themselves.

[Harry]

Pretty sure Williams was actually coming back from injury when El Abd made his debut, so it allowed him another week of recovery. And of course had a couple of very dodgy games on his return.

 

I agree with Cotts. that we needed more strength in defence so I've no problem with Moloney being replaced with someone palpably tougher.

 

Pack can look good, but hasn't been consistently so imo - if leaving him out made him return a better player, then that to me appears to be the object of the lesson. I doubt he'll be dropped again on current form.

 

Cotterill had rotated but some players - i.e. Reid and Bryan hardly excelled themselves when chosen and in the end you go for a settled, unchanged team when you can and they've just played well at Orient.

 

Wagstaff and Marv. probably would have been picked today if fit, or certainly featured at some stage. They weren't available and there was nobody else in the squad in such form as to make changing a winning team either desirable or necessary.

 

We didn't play well today, the team looked jaded and the manager - probably- made the correct substitutioins to try and perk up the performance.

 

Tranmere were fresher than us after having no midweek game, and it showed.

 

It was their 3rd fixture in the 15 days of February, City's 5th. That's not an excuse, it's just matter of fact.

Ok, how about Barnett & Wade Elliot then?

 

Since they were signed, Cotterill has been audibly very careful regarding their selection and their fitness.  "Tyrone's not played a lot of games lately", "Wade needs to find his legs" are two recent quotes.

So, if both have been struggling to play 45 minutes week to week, why, having both played a full 90 on Tuesday, are they deemed by the manager to be fit enough to start again 4 days later?

 

Also, if the players are so delicate and need nurturing over this busy period, why, having gone 3-1 up on Tuesday, did he not choose to rest some legs, only bringing Gillet on in the 90th minute?

[italian dave]

SOD or SC: chalk and cheese. Yes, SoD sniffed and droned, but he talked a lot of sense, wasn't afraid to tell it the way it is: and I suspect that included telling SL the same thing. SC much more upbeat but, in my view, talks b***ks most of the time. Analyse what he's said and it amounts to nothing.

And they both make mistakes: SOD may have talked about a 1-0 defeat when we lost, but I'm sure I heard SC twice say that we'd had a good result at brentford mid week!!

[Nogbad the Bad]

Don't understand the myth about unchanged sides being a good thing. You pick your best available eleven from your squad for each game. At home playing four centre backs, a left back on the wing and a pointless 35 year old when you have better options is indefensible.

 An unchanged side after the best win of the season is a no brainer unless there's a very good reason to change it. There wasn't, and the best available 11 were chosen, and there would rightly have been uproar if he made changes and we'd lost.

 

Wiliams and Osborne are not solely centre backs - it might be their preferred position but both arrived at City saying they could play full back. It's surprising you didn't know that.

 

Williams is far from the finished article in either position but is doing fine at full back after some poor displays in the middle. It might well end up his preferred and permanent position. We should perhaps see it as a plus point that the manager is experimenting like this when O'Driscoll was so set in his negative and unsuccessful ways.

 

With Bryan being in such poor form Cunningham has done perfectly well wide left, and Wade Elliott, by all accounts, formed a very effective partnership with Pack in the victory at Orient, so his age shouldn't really come in to it.

 

Far from being indefensible, there really isn't a reasonable argument to be made for changing the team today.

[Nogbad the Bad]

Ok, how about Barnett & Wade Elliot then?

 

Since they were signed, Cotterill has been audibly very careful regarding their selection and their fitness.  "Tyrone's not played a lot of games lately", "Wade needs to find his legs" are two recent quotes.

So, if both have been struggling to play 45 minutes week to week, why, having both played a full 90 on Tuesday, are they deemed by the manager to be fit enough to start again 4 days later?

 

Also, if the players are so delicate and need nurturing over this busy period, why, having gone 3-1 up on Tuesday, did he not choose to rest some legs, only bringing Gillet on in the 90th minute?

 

I presume he thought they both played well, and seemed fit, on Tuesday, so they had 'found their legs', after arriving at AG not fully match fit.

 

I imagine he monitored them both in training during the week as well to confirm this.

 

So, not wanting to change the team after an outstanding performance, he started them both today.

 

Seems perfectly straightforward to me.

[Kingswood Robin]

I thought we played like a load of Lili von Shtupps today.

 

"so tired of playing the game"

[HoldenBall]

Sean Dyche said it's probably not the greatest idea to tell the public that the players are tired..