Can I be the first to say... SC out!

[screech]

Thanks screech I appreciate the opportunity

Will The Lancashire press or Andre Gays own words suffice?

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/13631980.Burnley_a_better_place_than_Bristol_City_for_me__says_new_Clarets_striker_Andre_Gray/

I may be able to put this to bed in other ways if necessary, but hopefully that will be enough for everyone. 

To my original point the problem is not money its who wants to come and play for a footballing backwater. We are in a better position than many comparble clubs simply because of the new ground and super rich chairman, however I would be looking seriously to Europe right now....!

It doesn't say anywhere in there we offered more money which was what was being thrown about. I dont have a problem that he went there for ambition, but that's not the same as this thing that gets banded about that he went for less money, he didn't. We couldn't match his terms Burnley and Hull could, but only Burnley could match the fee as well.

So please try again, I don't mind being wrong if the evidence is there, I couldn't care less about point scoring, I care for the facts, and at this moment in time the facts of us paying more is a nonsense. Common sense should tell us we could never compete with Hull and Burnley on wages at this moment in time.

[Major Isewater]

A bit like Johnson then, in that respect. 

One of the things that worries me, is that when Cotts came here, he was working with a makeshift squad assembled by other men and one that was neither ideal for the job or instilled with any sort of confidence. 

He was able to not just lift confidence and morale, but in games where things were not going to plan, make prompt and timely changes, play to people's strengths and turn situations around. 

Someone who had never watched football in their life, could've seen how much trouble we were in during that second half on Saturday - and identified some of the causes. 

Yet Cotterill seeed impervious to this. Sort of an iron belief that his system would eventually deliver an ugly win

While I agree with everyone that we need to recruit,  the tools are in our box already to get out of the bottom three. If only we were using them wisely! 

Perhaps Cotts has had enough and is  hoping for the sack to put him out of his agony.

[GrahamC]

The only explanation for that second half performance is that he told the team to hold on for the win at all costs. The pressure would seem to be getting to him as usually we'd continue to play for the full 90 mins.

I spoke to a Burnley fan earlier this season who said SC went on a bad run in his final season and then completely shut up shop playing very negatively. It didn't work and eventually after a shocking run he was sacked. Hope this isn't history repeating and he sticks to his principles.

Not sure I agree he does have the tools to get us out of the bottom 3, which makes his job yet more difficult.

I think this is really interesting.

When he was at Pompey I remember them coming to the Gate under him and delivering a turgid Russell Osman-like performance in a terrible 0-0 draw, when he played a very rigid 4-4-2!

I also recall that Pompey had so few players at the time that they only had 4 subs (sound familiar?).

What has surprised me about his reaction to our run is that we haven't seen this already.

Maybe Saturday was the first sign of him trying to grit out results but without the personnel to do so?

I can't fathom why if that was the case we didn't at least try a change of formation in that instance.

[REDOXO]

It doesn't say anywhere in there we offered more money which was what was being thrown about. I dont have a problem that he went there for ambition, but that's not the same as this thing that gets banded about that he went for less money, he didn't. We couldn't match his terms Burnley and Hull could, but only Burnley could match the fee as well.

So please try again, I don't mind being wrong if the evidence is there, I couldn't care less about point scoring, I care for the facts, and at this moment in time the facts of us paying more is a nonsense. Common sense should tell us we could never compete with Hull and Burnley on wages at this moment in time.

I came here for footballing reasons etc etc is not enough....It was not about the money not enough etc etc! No disrespect to Bristol City but Burnley were a better prospect for my career not enough! All quotes....If he had said Bristol City are a bunch of tight w ankers would you have been able to come to terms with that and posted it continually?...I guess so! 

You actually want some one to show you two comparible contracts before you come to the conclusion you are being gently led to!...Not going to happen is it

We could not match his aspirations and ambitions, it tells you that loud and clear the money is not the big issue as it would only have been a few grand at that level subject to 40% tax.

Please try again...Please!.....My ability to magic a players contract from an opposition club and post it on here is limited....Look up cognitive dissonance!

Common sense tells us we are not in the same league as Hull and Burnley with overall buying power, wages and attraction but also tells you in individual cases SL can attempt to buy what he wants as long as other barriers do not exist he will win!...he is a Billionaire after all!

Go ahead with the last word...I can only take you so far  

[Red-Robbo]

The only explanation for that second half performance is that he told the team to hold on for the win at all costs. The pressure would seem to be getting to him as usually we'd continue to play for the full 90 mins.

I spoke to a Burnley fan earlier this season who said SC went on a bad run in his final season and then completely shut up shop playing very negatively. It didn't work and eventually after a shocking run he was sacked. Hope this isn't history repeating and he sticks to his principles.

Not sure I agree he does have the tools to get us out of the bottom 3, which makes his job yet more difficult.

Why I say that Kid is if we had have played as usual for 90 minutes, we would've at minimum held our lead- and potentially scored one or two more. MK had neither a shot on goal or a corner in that first half.

We are nowhere near competing with the best in this league, but we are better on paper than MK; Rotherham ; Preston. We just have to play to our strengths and not commit tactical suicide like on Saturday. As the Boro game showed, we can also pull off the odd surprise. 

But as you say, Cotterill's actions on Saturday fill me with foreboding.

 

 

[screech]

I came here for footballing reasons etc etc is not enough....It was not about the money not enough etc etc! No disrespect to Bristol City but Burnley were a better prospect for my career not enough! All quotes....If he had said Bristol City are a bunch of tight w ankers would you have been able to come to terms with that and posted it continually?...I guess so! 

You actually want some one to show you two comparible contracts before you come to the conclusion you are being gently led to!...Not going to happen is it

We could not match his aspirations and ambitions, it tells you that loud and clear the money is not the big issue as it would only have been a few grand at that level subject to 40% tax.

Please try again...Please!.....My ability to magic a players contract from an opposition club and post it on here is limited....Look up cognitive dissonance!

Common sense tells us we are not in the same league as Hull and Burnley with overall buying power, wages and attraction but also tells you in individual cases SL can attempt to buy what he wants as long as other barriers do not exist he will win!...he is a Billionaire after all!

Go ahead with the last word...I can only take you so far  

Ok I'll have the last word if you insist. Just watch your blood pressure.

[spudski]

Trying to play defensive in the second half in a deep 352 was suicidal...in fact a pub manager decision.

We had an offensive player in Reid taking Smiths position, and little and Wilbs fading.

Why he didn't sub Wilbs and Little and play 451 instead...or just keep playing to our strengths....God only knows.

If he wanted to tighten.... Ayling-Flint-Barker-Williams

-------------------------------Burns Reid Pack Bryan Robinson------------------------

-----------------------------------------------Kodijia------------------------------------------

That to me would have been more solid in the second half, when tired legs and outlets were needed as Subs.....

But like people have said...if we can't beat MK Dons at home, with the players we have, and play to our strengths, then what hope do we have.

Massive mistake by SC for me for this match.

[Frenchay Red]

Trying to play defensive in the second half in a deep 352 was suicidal...in fact a pub manager decision.

We had an offensive player in Reid taking Smiths position, and little and Wilbs fading.

Why he didn't sub Wilbs and Little and play 451 instead...or just keep playing to our strengths....God only knows.

If he wanted to tighten.... Ayling-Flint-Barker-Williams

-------------------------------Burns Reid Pack Bryan Robinson------------------------

-----------------------------------------------Kodijia------------------------------------------

That to me would have been more solid in the second half, when tired legs and outlets were needed as Subs.....

But like people have said...if we can't beat MK Dons at home, with the players we have, and play to our strengths, then what hope do we have.

Massive mistake by SC for me for this match.

This is all well and good, and I am as feed up as everyone else about the 2nd half display. But you have to give MK some credit. Robinson really got them fired up after their very poor 1st half and they pegged us back, got hold of the game and allowed us hardly any possession. Problem was Pack is too slow, Reid was too lightweight and Freeman was too isolated to take back the midfield. Plus Wilbs was almost a passenger and so every time we got the ball we gave it back to them. I thought Robinson might do better but he didn't and Agard just runs around without looking up very much. Our options are very limited. Bringing on Burns for Little may have been the better decision. But hindsight is a wonderful thing!

[spudski]

This is all well and good, and I am as feed up as everyone else about the 2nd half display. But you have to give MK some credit. Robinson really got them fired up after their very poor 1st half and they pegged us back, got hold of the game and allowed us hardly any possession. Problem was Pack is too slow, Reid was too lightweight and Freeman was too isolated to take back the midfield. Plus Wilbs was almost a passenger and so every time we got the ball we gave it back to them. I thought Robinson might do better but he didn't and Agard just runs around without looking up very much. Our options are very limited. Bringing on Burns for Little may have been the better decision. But hindsight is a wonderful thing!

No doubt you have to give Dons credit...but we allowed them to play on to us. You play defensive...it's far more energy sapping. Our players available, are far more offensively viable. If we had Smith available, I could have just about swallowed it, but Reid playing in front of a back three is suicidal....especially if asked to play deep.

This was a game that had to be won, against one of the weaker sides in the division.

We opted to play defensive at home, and let them dictate the play, with 65% possession.

If we can't go out and play 'our game, at home, against one of the weaker sides....then what message does that send out to the players, fans and opponents.

Trying to defend a 1-0 lead with a whole half to play was mental imho.

[Frenchay Red]

No doubt you have to give Dons credit...but we allowed them to play on to us. You play defensive...it's far more energy sapping. Our players available, are far more offensively viable. If we had Smith available, I could have just about swallowed it, but Reid playing in front of a back three is suicidal....especially if asked to play deep.

This was a game that had to be won, against one of the weaker sides in the division.

We opted to play defensive at home, and let them dictate the play, with 65% possession.

If we can't go out and play 'our game, at home, against one of the weaker sides....then what message does that send out to the players, fans and opponents.

Trying to defend a 1-0 lead with a whole half to play was mental imho.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure though that the instructions from the manager were to sit back and defend. I think after the break, a combination of a resurgent MK, a knackered Wilbs, a tiring Reid, a below par Freeman, an ineffective Bryan, and Pack being given a lot less time on the ball, took the initiative away from us. The fact that he brought on Williams for Bryan, plus Robinson and Agard doesn't suggest to me that he was thinking defensively. Or if he was, it was to defend from the front and not the edge of our box!

We've enjoyed the lion's share of possession in probably the majority of games this season and it hasn't done us much good. But on Saturday we didn't have the creative ability from a very lacklustre midfield in the second half to hit MK on the break. Something we did to teams quite a lot last season.

Let's hope we have a better outcome against Forest, at least Smith should be back by then and Little should have improved his fitness.

 

[Red-Robbo]

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure though that the instructions from the manager were to sit back and defend. I think after the break, a combination of a resurgent MK, a knackered Wilbs, a tiring Reid, a below par Freeman, an ineffective Bryan, and Pack being given a lot less time on the ball, took the initiative away from us. The fact that he brought on Williams for Bryan, plus Robinson and Agard doesn't suggest to me that he was thinking defensively. Or if he was, it was to defend from the front and not the edge of our box!

We've enjoyed the lion's share of possession in probably the majority of games this season and it hasn't done us much good. But on Saturday we didn't have the creative ability from a very lacklustre midfield in the second half to hit MK on the break. Something we did to teams quite a lot last season.

Let's hope we have a better outcome against Forest, at least Smith should be back by then and Little should have improved his fitness.

 

I agree with Spud,  FR. After the break, the wing backs were not pushing up by choice. They were sitting deep as part of a flat (in every sense!) back 5.

They wouldn't have done that by choice. They would have been instructed to do that. By someone with a strong Cheltenham accent...

[Frenchay Red]

I agree with Spud,  FR. After the break, the wing backs were not pushing up by choice. They were sitting deep as part of a flat (in every sense!) back 5.

They wouldn't have done that by choice. They would have been instructed to do that. By someone with a strong Cheltenham accent...

Fair enough, not something I particularly noticed as we seemed to be out of sorts all over the pitch. But if that was the case we needed a much stronger midfield to take the pressure off of the defence. Something we didn't have unfortunately.

[Son of Fred]

I tend to agree, if someone had performed like this working for my company (performance over the last 3 months) and put my business at risk he would be out the ******* door... No time for sentiment in business and this is business!!

you do,of course have a valid point of reality in the real world.football ain't the real world.fail and be rewarded,that's football...our big,big problem is above the manager,having said that SC could be doing less to shoot himself in the foot right now.

[spudski]

I agree with Spud,  FR. After the break, the wing backs were not pushing up by choice. They were sitting deep as part of a flat (in every sense!) back 5.

They wouldn't have done that by choice. They would have been instructed to do that. By someone with a strong Cheltenham accent...

I think it's even worse, when you have players like Reid coming out today and questioning the tactics....saying that we played too deep and that we invited them on to us.

If he thinks that, I would presume others do as well.

[Red-Robbo]

I think it's even worse, when you have players like Reid coming out today and questioning the tactics....saying that we played too deep and that we invited them on to us.

If he thinks that, I would presume others do as well.

Too right.

Bob knows he's not a Korey Smith type of midfielder. His defensive properties are sparse. He must've felt a right spare part hanging around next to Pack while Lewington continually marauded to his right, getting behind the central men.

[spudski]

Too right.

Bob knows he's not a Korey Smith type of midfielder. His defensive properties are sparse. He must've felt a right spare part hanging around next to Pack while Lewington continually marauded to his right, getting behind the central men.

I watched Reid play in this position for the Under 21's the other week RR....SC was also watching.

That game, we played really high....a pressing game. At no point did we play deep. So I find it really odd that SC chose to play so deep and invite Dons onto us. Especially as Reid is so offensively minded.

Obviously Reid felt this was a bad idea too.

[Nogbad the Bad]

 

 EDIT: In reply to Red - Robbo & Spudski

I'd assume Reid would be referring to the players allowing themselves to be pushed back and ending up playing too deep, and therefore inviting pressure, rather than being instructed to do so.

For a youngish, mostly fringe, player to apparently openly slam the managers' tactics as you infer above would be near suicidal to his progression you'd imagine and very out of kilter with his station, whether he privately believed them to be wrong or not.

I don't know whether Cotterill instructed the team to be so negative in the 2nd half or a series of factors - including City faltering and MK belatedly finding some cohesion - led to the massively disappointing 2nd half performance.

Posters have stated they saw SC constantly urging the team forward so it may well be Reid is simply voicing the disappointment of the players that they were unable to carry out his instructions.

If Cotterill deliberately orchestrated the diabolically negative 2nd half we all had to suffer then I would be as disappointed in him as anyone but either way it certainly wouldn't be Bobby Reid's place to publicly voice any dissatisfaction over the tactics employed, and for that reason I'm pretty sure you must be misinterpreting what he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Red-Robbo]

 

I'm assuming Cotts thought that we had been conceding too many because we had been "too open" and he wanted to tighten right up and hit MK with counter-attacks, in the way we are usually hit.

Trouble is with the two players covering the right side of the field dead on their feet, the wingbacks spectators, offensively minded Reid rather than defensively minded Smith in the heart of the formation, that didn't work.

What disappoints me about the manager is it seemed to take so long for the penny to drop on our bench, Noggers.

[spudski]

I'm assuming Cotts thought that we had been conceding too many because we had been "too open" and he wanted to tighten right up and hit MK with counter-attacks, in the way we are usually hit.

Trouble is with the two players covering the right side of the field dead on their feet, the wingbacks spectators, offensively minded Reid rather than defensively minded Smith in the heart of the formation, that didn't work.

What disappoints me about the manager is it seemed to take so long for the penny to drop on our bench, Noggers.

Cotts is absolutely delusional at the moment.

In the post match comments, regarding the equaliser, he says we were fresh enough on the side the goal came from, as he had changed things, and we should have done better.

What the hell is he talking about? The player turns inside Little, who's dead on his feet....turns like he has lead in his boots...try's to chase, but gives up....player shoots...job done. Not Littles fault...still not 100% fit and doing the hardest job on the pitch at wing back. He has no Sub to replace him properly...it's our lack of subs in such positions that's causing us problems like this imho.

[Nogbad the Bad]

I'm assuming Cotts thought that we had been conceding too many because we had been "too open" and he wanted to tighten right up and hit MK with counter-attacks, in the way we are usually hit.

Trouble is with the two players covering the right side of the field dead on their feet, the wingbacks spectators, offensively minded Reid rather than defensively minded Smith in the heart of the formation, that didn't work.

What disappoints me about the manager is it seemed to take so long for the penny to drop on our bench, Noggers.

I'd be hugely disappointed in the manager if City's excruciating 2nd half performance was played out  to his instruction.

I'm not convinced that was actually the case, but do you and Spudski really believe, as you both seem to have agreed above, that Bobby Reid's comments were being openly critical of his managers' tactics?

I can't believe he'd be so stupid as to be so outspoken, even if he privately felt that.

Such a naive outburst would be akin to publicly demanding to be dropped and sidelined from first team affairs.

My view is you and Spudski have completely misinterpreted Bobby's words; I hope that's the case anyway.

 

[spudski]

I'd be hugely disappointed in the manager if City's excruciating 2nd half performance was played out  to his instruction.

I'm not convinced that was actually the case, but do you and Spudski really believe, as you both seem to have agreed above, that Bobby Reid's comments were being openly critical of his managers' tactics?

I can't believe he'd be so stupid as to be so outspoken, even if he privately felt that.

Such a naive outburst would be akin to publicly demanding to be dropped and sidelined from first team affairs.

My view is you and Spudski have completely misinterpreted Bobby's words; I hope that's the case anyway.

 

You've only got to listen to Reid and Pack post match, to see that they agree we sat back and allowed Dons onto us.

After the game....They've obviously as a team with Cotts, spoken about it. And all agreed it wasn't the right decision. Even SC alludes to this.

You've only got to look at the subs made, and watch where they played, to see that SC had instructed them to play in those positions in a deeper fashion.

He wanted to contain Dons and catch them on the break. We sat deeper...looking to break up play....then deliver a quick break. That's why we kept giving possession away....we didn't have the right outlets. It was crammed in the middle...we kept losing possession because of it.

On this occasion SC got his tactics completely wrong imho. Noggers....

 

[Nogbad the Bad]

You've only got to listen to Reid and Pack post match, to see that they agree we sat back and allowed Dons onto us.

After the game....They've obviously as a team with Cotts, spoken about it. And all agreed it wasn't the right decision. Even SC alludes to this.

You've only got to look at the subs made, and watch where they played, to see that SC had instructed them to play in those positions in a deeper fashion.

He wanted to contain Dons and catch them on the break. We sat deeper...looking to break up play....then deliver a quick break. That's why we kept giving possession away....we didn't have the right outlets. It was crammed in the middle...we kept losing possession because of it.

On this occasion SC got his tactics completely wrong imho. Noggers....

 

Sorry, but that's nothing but pure conjecture on your part.

SC may well have got the tactics completely wrong. I'm not disputing the 2nd half performance could easily be interpreted that way, but nor am I convinced it was definitely the case.

Where does SC allude to the fact that sitting back was his decision and that he made the the wrong decisions tactically?

Anyway, whether the players and manager spoke and agreed about it or not (doubtful imo.) before the players went out for their post match interviews there's no way a comparative whipper snapper like BR would feel he'd been given licence to publicly slam the managers' tactics, and I'm absolutely certain in my own mind that was not his intention.

 

[spudski]

Sorry, but that's nothing but pure conjecture on your part.

SC may well have got the tactics completely wrong. I'm not disputing the 2nd half performance could easily be interpreted that way, but nor am I convinced it was definitely the case.

Where does SC allude to the fact that sitting back was his decision and that he made the the wrong decisions tactically?

Anyway, whether the players and manager spoke and agreed about it or not (doubtful imo.) before the players went out for their post match interviews there's no way a comparative whipper snapper like BR would feel he'd been given licence to publicly slam the managers' tactics, and I'm absolutely certain in my own mind that was not his intention.

 

It's not conjecture at all fella....that's what they do after a game. Have a quick debrief about where it went right or wrong....then they speak about it more at next training.

Watch the youtube interviews...Reid says they have been in the dressing room and spoke....'it was their own doing as they camped in too long'.....Pack...'we brought on the pressure onto ourselves'.....then SC goes on about what the players stopped doing....which would have been down to his substitutions and where they played. Did you not watch where they positioned themselves compared to first half? That would have been under Instruction.

SC then goes on to say we had fresh legs to stop where the goal came from....that's bullshit...Little was knackered....we had nothing that side. apart from Agard who was caught higher up on the flanks.

Sorry mate....but if you can't see that like every reasonable person on here has....then with respect,  I suggest you watch how our teams are set up in future and don't just follow the ball.

The players were set up deeper....much more so than first half. To a point where it was almost 550 at times.

Watch where their goal came from....we had seven in or around the box., and only Kodijia near the half way line....everyone else was really deep.The chance before...seven in the box and Freeman and Kodijia just in front of it.

[TheCulturalBomb]

Change it to a 4-1-2-1-2.

 

Start playing Reid and Agard. 

Flint and Baker as a partnership, Williams at LB push Bryan to LM. 

 

[Nogbad the Bad]

It's not conjecture at all fella....that's what they do after a game. Have a quick debrief about where it went right or wrong....then they speak about it more at next training.

Watch the youtube interviews...Reid says they have been in the dressing room and spoke....'it was their own doing as they camped in too long'.....Pack...'we brought on the pressure onto ourselves'.....then SC goes on about what the players stopped doing....which would have been down to his substitutions and where they played. Did you not watch where they positioned themselves compared to first half? That would have been under Instruction.

SC then goes on to say we had fresh legs to stop where the goal came from....that's bullshit...Little was knackered....we had nothing that side. apart from Agard who was caught higher up on the flanks.

Sorry mate....but if you can't see that like every reasonable person on here has....then with respect,  I suggest you watch how our teams are set up in future and don't just follow the ball.

 

I'm not denying a meeting or a debrief - everything you said after that in the previous post was indeed conjecture.

'They sat too deep, brought pressure on themselves' - agreed, plain for all to see.

That this was down to managerial instruction - not necessarily, that is your interpretation, and not stated by either Pack or Reid.

'Every reasonable person on here can see this'? No, I've seen no evidence of that apart from you and Red-Robbo agreeing this must be the case by your interpretations of Bobby's words..

What you're saying is Bobby Reid is going out for a post match interview and publicly criticising the manager and laying the blame for that 2nd half nightmare performance squarely at his door.

He simply would not do that - whatever had been said privately - and 'any reasonable person', imo, would take his words as disappointment on behalf of the players themselves that they had allowed themselves to be pushed back and dominated.

This would be backed up by numerous fans stating on this forum that they saw SC constantly urging the team forward.

You're really doing young Bobby no favours at all by persisting with this.

[spudski]

I'm not denying a meeting or a debrief - everything you said after that in the previous post was indeed conjecture.

'They sat too deep, brought pressure on themselves' - agreed, plain for all to see.

That this was down to managerial instruction - not necessarily, that is your interpretation, and not stated by either Pack or Reid.

'Every reasonable person on here can see this'? No, I've seen no evidence of that apart from you and Red-Robbo agreeing this must be the case by your interpretations of Bobby's words..

What you're saying is Bobby Reid is going out for a post match interview and publicly criticising the manager and laying the blame for that 2nd half nightmare performance squarely at his door.

He simply would not do that - whatever had been said privately - and 'any reasonable person', imo, would take his words as disappointment on behalf of the players themselves that they had allowed themselves to be pushed back and dominated.

This would be backed up by numerous fans stating on this forum that they saw SC constantly urging the team forward.

You're really doing young Bobby no favours at all by persisting with this.

No....that's how you've chosen to interpret it.

The team played to Instruction...that's what Professional football teams do.

What Reid and Pack said....is a reflection of those tactics employed in the second half.

Why you can't see it was how we were set up second half, is beyond me.

Dons were able to pile on the pressure because of how we set up. Read what Billywedlock posted above...it's spot on.

All the reasons SC gave for us not doing things, is because of how he changed things.

[BRISTOL86]

Change it to a 4-1-2-1-2.

 

Start playing Reid and Agard. 

Flint and Baker as a partnership, Williams at LB push Bryan to LM. 

 

Someone's been playing too much FIFA! 

[Nogbad the Bad]

No....that's how you've chosen to interpret it.

The team played to Instruction...that's what Professional football teams do.

What Reid and Pack said....is a reflection of those tactics employed in the second half.

Why you can't see it was how we were set up second half, is beyond me.

Dons were able to pile on the pressure because of how we set up. Read what Billywedlock posted above...it's spot on.

All the reasons SC gave for us not doing things, is because of how he changed things.

What you said can't be interpreted any other way - you stated BR was publicly criticising the managers' tactics.

Are you back tracking on this now?

Well, we'll soon see if your interpretation was correct because, if so, he'll be no where near the squad next match.

And that would be the same outcome for any player, under any manager, at any club.

Undermining the manager will never be tolerated, anywhere.

Not a problem though because I'm in no doubt you've got this 100% wrong, and Bobby will in the squad against Forest.

 

 

 

[eardun]

It seemed to me that it was desperation to get a win and the players' tension and nervousness associated with that that affected the performance. I didn't see that it was SC's tactics to sit back in the second half; on the contrary, on the touch line he seemed to be instructing the players to push up and forward more than they were.

I agree with Nogbad. I saw it as I said above.

[BobBobSuperBob]

Not SCs biggest defender at mo but as I saw heard it -

 

SC spoke post match that MK , with nothing to lose 'threw their full backs in ' forcing us back , causing us to sit deep

In fairness to him this was true and in no point did he indicate that was what he wanted or was happy about.

Think you will find this is why he split Wilbs and Kodjia up top (Many on here were moaning that they were splitting instead of staying centrally to allow Freeman an easy outlet)

SC didn't state this but I anticipate it was in an attempt to deter MK Dons throwing their full backs forward , which IMO is understandable and at least a reaction to try and prevent the MK momentum.

Impersonally would have gone a different way introducing Agard or Burns up top at that point with fresh legs and pace.

For me the secret at that stage was to go back on the front foot and try and kill the game off

I think due to this seasons and results the players got nervous as all teams do at times and got deeper and deeper contrary to SCs wishes or want.

I f I have criticism of SC it was his inability to sort this problem ultimately or is it merely down to the depth and quality of the squad at the moment plus a massive loss of confidence - a bit of al three I'd suggest.

Id also the suggest our obvious lack of pace at the back was and is a major factor / problem as I can't believe that Flint , Baker,Williams or even Ayling are over happy with too much space behind them with the pace about in Champ forward lines.

(Pace would have been No 1 requisite for any centre half I signed on loan)

The lack of pace has cost us when we squeeze and leads to us sitting deeper and deeper as witnessed Saturday.

This will be an ongoing problem as the season continues and is why I'd suggest we are performing away as well if not better than at AG as we can naturally sit deeper away from home.

A turn of confidence will help but only a new loan recruitment or work on the training ground , will make a significant change to this problem

As you know Spud , Like you , Im not convinced about SC as a overall package BT I think you may have him wrong on this one

i believe that he didn't want us to retreat and sit deep but ultimately, with the players he couldn't solve the problem which is probably the failing as opposed to planning it that way.

I think Saturday was a perfect demonstration of our lack of experience / 'nous' out on the pitch and is not helping SC , but as you have said many times Spud - his failure to recruit a experienced midfield general is , and will cost us