They were very very good

[Fishponds_Red]

11 hours ago, Thatch35 said:

City finding the feet for mid/lower table

Booooooooooooooooo

[BRISTOL86]

7 hours ago, PFree said:

If that really was a marker, we really are quite bad and way off pushing for promotion. I just wonder if we made them look good as we sat off, pumped longs balls up and lacked any type of imagination in the final third?

We certainly did make them look good. They're good anyway, but from what I've seen of Brighton so far this season that was one of their off days, and they still won comfortably.

As a team, we were crap yesterday. No two ways about it. Tactics were wrong, several individuals has bad games and we played like a defeated side at 1-0 let alone 2-0. 

Poor day all round. It happens, but it's been obvious for a while that our position has been flattering us somewhat. 

[BRISTOL86]

8 hours ago, milo1111 said:

They were good but why the hell do they play baldock. he did f*all and isnt prolific for them considering he hsnt much of an all round game either. If they had another top striker alongside murray they would be even better.

I often wonder what people watch when they're at football

Look here if you need it spelled out why he's in their team. 

 

[reddogkev]

Sidwell's goal was incredible.  He made it look so simple, just to spot the gap behind the keeper and loft that ball into the perfect position of the goal, with absolute ease.

If he hadn't scored that absolute peach of a goal, I feel we would have took at least a draw.

[Robbored]

12 hours ago, JBFC II said:

Newcastle were better imo, we were awful gifted them two goals, they didn't do much else bar that

No they weren't. City were allowed to play some decent stuff against Newcastle unlike yesterday.

BHA hammered Norwich by 5 before they played City so are obviously in great form.

[JBFC II]

12 minutes ago, Robbored said:

No they weren't. City were allowed to play some decent stuff against Newcastle unlike yesterday.

BHA hammered Norwich by 5 before they played City so are obviously in great form.

Against Newcastle we played decent stuff on our own accord, yesterday we lacked any sort of creativity, Brighton were hardly a mega threat going forward and they had nothing to do at the back as we offered nothing

[BITW]

Let's not forget this is the same Brighton team who put 5 past Norwich last week (and dispatched us 4-0 last season.) We were poor but it was pretty much the perfect away performance from them. Get the goals early and do a job on us defensively.

 

Its no travesty to lose to Brighton, but what bothered me was the fact they had clearly done their homework and identified our right hand side as our weakness, exploiting this numerous times especially in the first half. We seemed to do nothing of the kind all game, just running into a brick wall for 90 mins.

 

Poor performance overall but I think Brighton will go up on that showing. Hopefully we find some form again soon.

[054123]

We really aren't consinstant enough to challenge them and in truth don't really have a good enough squad.  

I personally don't have a problem with where we are at present and accepted a mid table finish at the start of the season. 

As others have pointed out though, it is about seeing progression. There's no need to panic buy in January but we have to improve the squad for next season if we mean to move on.

Hopefully as Lee develops we will be sent to attract the quality of player we need.

[Drew Peacock]

9 hours ago, Robbored said:

 

The main point is that BHA gave us nothing and it takes a good team to do that, No errors, rock solid defence and well organised midfield.

.

Apart from a clear penalty which wasn't given.

[Jerseybean]

Many of us had this down as a bench-mark game recognising that B&HA are ahead of us in their progression. 

This game illustrated that we are very much an ongoing work-in-progress and still quite some way from being good enough to secure a play-off place.

Once they scored Brighton were comfortably in control, defendeded well and managed the game superbly.

City were simply not good enough, with poor performances both individually and collectively, we ran out of ideas and never looked like creating any scoring opportunities.

Although this is all disappointing we need to remember we are a work-in-progress which is heading in the right direction. All learning and experience needs to be used to improve things such as strengthening our options in a number of key positions and having tactics which offer a plan B and plan C.

Let's remember that we are in a much better place than last season, this was our heaviest defeat of the season, we have a young/new squad and manager, sustainable success takes time.

[1960maaan]

10 hours ago, Robbored said:

No we didn't.

First goal was down to their pressing and Sidwells technique and vision.

Second goal. A basic error from Little who allowed Murphy to cut in on his right foot when he should have shown him down the left. 

That said the shot took a deflection to take it into the inside of the post. A tad unlucky maybe,

The main point is that BHA gave us nothing and it takes a good team to do that, No errors, rock solid defence and well organised midfield.

They are a good side managed by a top man in Chris Houghton - the former  classy Spurs full back. No surprise that they're so solid defensively.

I disagree , since we came back from the international break we've created little . Average teams have limited us , or rather we have been unable to create many chances in our last run of games. Yesterday I had the feeling they were paling a little within them selves as soon as they went a goal up. What was the stat someone posted, 42 games since they loast a game they led 1-0 ?  My concern yesterday, as it has been for a while , our movement is poor and our widemen seem scared to go outside the defender. It's a problem having left footed players playing on the right ( Patterson constantly cut in or turned back) , but there was little width the other side either. 

They pressed well, but we made it easy due to lack of movement, this leads to players dwelling on the ball and then hitting long balls (way too many yesterday) or getting caught in possession. Tammy looks isolated because our midfield doesn't get forward quickly enough, many of his goals have come (directly or indirectly) from crosses and our lack of width (amazing as we have 3 wingers and JB on the books) is very noticable. 

I thought we were poor yesterday, all over the pitch, the back 4 (actually 3, forget Little) did ok, but I wonder what would have happened if they needed more goals. Unfair to give Tammy any blame as he lacked any service and Tomlin showed some nice touches and supplied most of our little threat. The team needs a formation change, or serious rethink of tactics, we have good players but one poor performance is leading to another and where LJ has managed to change things for the better , either between games or during, we've lacked that lately. I hoped to see a different team come out 2nd half yesterday but not much changed. Yes they were a good side but it wasn't a one off, the last break destroyed some good momentum we had, with luck we'll see a similar change after the next one. 

PS: I did say yesterday, they are a good couple of years ahead of us in development , and 2 windows away from LJ's prediction of a team to challenge. The early good start got a lot of us a tad excited I think.

[Dr Balls]

Have to agree with all of the above. We have a lot of similar players for midfield or out wide but we rarely stretch teams or play with much pace. Individually some of them don't currently look up to the job & may get better with time but that's hope rather than expectation. We certainly faff about a lot rather than getting in crosses!

We now have a period of matches over the next couple of months where with the exception of Reading we will be playing other inconsistent teams in mid table (let's be honest that's actually what we are and we have been doing better than expected to this point). If we want to stay around the playoff places we need to find a formation & team that plays together regularly & has the following qualities:

1. Allows Tomlin to play wherever he wants & dictate going forward

2. A second forward to play with Tammy. Too often he is completely isolated up front & it's no surprise that our goals at home have generally come when he has Wilbs with him. If you don't believe me, check the stats.

3. We need to find the balance in midfield between holding defence & supporting the attack. We really need a combination of Korey & Bobby rolled into 1 player. As Korey gets more match fit maybe he can do that.

4. Tighten up the right side of defence. I would suggest Goulbourne was our best player yesterday but it's clear that Mstthews is not the same player as last season & Little as a right full back is an accident waiting to happen against better teams & players. Makes you question whether we really should have sold Ayling as he seems to be doing well in a Leeds team on the up.

Put all of that into a consistent team selection & I think he can see a return to better form. If not the risk is that we could slip a bit further down a very tight midtable where despite dreadful starts Prestin are only 1 point behind us & in better form, Villa 3 & Derby 4. On that basis something has to change & I suspect Little Lee knows it too. Or at least I hope he does!!

 

[Marlborough Red]

Playing one up front at home is not working. Sound like a broken record- zero shots on target again in the first half.  Still not scored at home in the first half this season Says it all really.

Couldn't understand why Reid didn't start ,We had no pace in the congested midfield, too slow in possession with sideways movement giving defenders time to regroup and get behind the ball .Completely failed to get crosses in from the wings  where Tammy is a real threat. Lost count of the number of long  high balls played to Tammy. None were won and there was nobody near him if he had won the header. Isolated once again .which LJ must recognise is a recurring theme at the Gate.We seemed to give up as soon as they scored and the atmosphere was so quiet all around the ground as the team failed to inspire any enthusiasm or even get close to a goal threat all second half.

IMHO LJ must start home games with 2 up front - Tammy and Engvall with Wilbs as back up for last 30 mins.

[marmite]

13 minutes ago, Marlborough Red said:

Playing one up front at home is not working. Sound like a broken record- zero shots on target again in the first half.  Still not scored at home in the first half this season Says it all really.

Couldn't understand why Reid didn't start ,We had no pace in the congested midfield, too slow in possession with sideways movement giving defenders time to regroup and get behind the ball .Completely failed to get crosses in from the wings  where Tammy is a real threat. Lost count of the number of long  high balls played to Tammy. None were won and there was nobody near him if he had won the header. Isolated once again .which LJ must recognise is a recurring theme at the Gate.We seemed to give up as soon as they scored and the atmosphere was so quiet all around the ground as the team failed to inspire any enthusiasm or even get close to a goal threat all second half.

IMHO LJ must start home games with 2 up front - Tammy and Engvall with Wilbs as back up for last 30 mins.

You do not need 2 up top if your midfield support the front man as well as Brighton did yesterday. Apart from Tomlin,  our midfielders never run at opposition defences to take the pressure off Tammy. How many times did we see OUR players reach the halfway line then stop and play it back because no one was making a run into space. They were better than us in every dept. yesterday and its a sign of where we need to get to if we want to challenge for promotion. Brighton are a very well organised team and on that form will go up automatically and deservedly so. For once I agree with Robbored.

[Alex_BCFC]

They were a decent side. Very organised and fast on the break. They hardly broke sweat to win either.

Bloke behind me moaned all game they were rubbish and we should press them...quite simply, if you press hard against a side like that, they will open you up very quickly.

[Bazooka Joe]

They were good, but we were pretty poor.

If we had played better, they would'nt have been as good as they were.

[Robbored]

55 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

They were good, but we were pretty poor.

Ask yourself why we were poor?  

Cardiff and QPR stifled City In midfield just as BHA did yesterday. Other teams are very aware that Tammy is a serious goal threat so to stop him you stop the supply.

Teams  have worked out the most effective way to play against us. LJ knows that and said in a recent interview that he's working on a different style of play.

To do that he needs to recruit well this coming window and he's absolutely right that he'll need several windows to get City where we all want to be.

[Major Isewater]

11 hours ago, Up The City! said:

I don't think we are as far off as you think. We were clearly in control before their freak goal and we looked the more likely side to score. However their goal gave them a huge confidence boost and knocked the stuffing right out of us. Predictably another goal soon followed. Take that freak goal away and I would have expected the game to be much more competitive. 

We did show some spirit in the 2nd half and I thought if we could just get the one we could have a game on our hands but Brighton shut up shop and made it very difficult for us to break them down.

Not to mention a stonewall penalty that was n't given for the assault on Wilbs .

[Up The City!]

22 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Not to mention a stonewall penalty that was n't given for the assault on Wilbs .

I think if that was given and converted we would have seen an exciting end to the game.

[WhistleHappy]

Everton 6th in the Premier were made to look like mugs against a brilliantly rampant Chelsea yesterday ,  does that mean Everton are a poor side?

Norwich 5th in Championship made to look silly when hammered 5 - 0 by a very very good Brighton team. Are Norwich crap?

City doing very well in the Championship made to look poor (and didn't play well on the day) lose by 2 goals to Brighton this years league equivalent of Chelsea... Not a good day for sure, but dont write LJ and the lads off just yet, realistically we are a 'work in progress' as everyone agrees, when we 'click' we too are very very good as has been witnessed in spells already.

We'll sort it out, a signing or two in January and we'll be on our way... to continuing the journey.  Patience not knee jerks is what creates consistency and will reap benefits .... Dont Panic now by slating individuals and undermining things ...

[eardun]

I'm surprised so many people seem to be disappointed we are not charging our way to promotion this season! I don't see that promotion was ever the expectation.

We need to consolidate in the Championship and gradually improve. We've done pretty well this season so far. We are 9th. We are much better than last season. The Championship is great; I'm enjoying it. We were beaten by the better side yesterday; it happens. We should have had a penalty though!

[Lanterne Rouge]

Last season we didn`t spend one single day outside the bottom half of the table. This season I don`t think we`ve been below half way once up to now. That to me is progress and I`m happy with it.

[GodEmperor Palpatine]

We're 9th, this time last season we were 20th

Its a considerable improvement, i'm happy with that.

LJ said it would 2 or 3 windows to become a serious contender

[EnclosureSurge]

22 hours ago, JBFC II said:

Newcastle were better imo, we were awful gifted them two goals, they didn't do much else bar that

Totally agree. Brighton looked pretty average to me. Qualifying them as the 'best at AG this season by far' is both a) pretty premature and b) not much of a milestone given they shyte dished up by Wigan, Villa, Leeds, Derby, Forest etc.

Whilst they probably are the second best team in the div at the mo, Brighton just looked organised, nothing more. No real pace, very little skill (they have no-one who can touch what Tomlin does) and, dare I say it, a little dull, frankly.

Excellently organised (which you'd expect with a team who've been together a while and made the play-offs last year), they took one shot (which went in) versus our taking no shots; they had that speculative effort which went in, too; apart from that the sides looked equal to me. they were slightly more willing to go directly at goal rather than work their way across the pitch and around the box, as we frustratingly do, but, as I say, for me personally, it was merely their organisation which set them apart from us.

I certainly wouldn't describe them as 'very, very good'.

[EnclosureSurge]

7 hours ago, marmite said:

You do not need 2 up top if your midfield support the front man as well as Brighton did yesterday. Apart from Tomlin,  our midfielders never run at opposition defences to take the pressure off Tammy. How many times did we see OUR players reach the halfway line then stop and play it back because no one was making a run into space. They were better than us in every dept. yesterday and its a sign of where we need to get to if we want to challenge for promotion. Brighton are a very well organised team and on that form will go up automatically and deservedly so. For once I agree with Robbored.

But didn't they play 2 up front?

[Lanterne Rouge]

I think the proof in how good a side they are is that they lost arguably their most creative player at short notice in Knockeart (their Tomlin if you like although different types of player) and still beat us comfortably without breaking sweat.

 

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

36 minutes ago, EnclosureSurge said:

Totally agree. Brighton looked pretty average to me. Qualifying them as the 'best at AG this season by far' is both a) pretty premature and b) not much of a milestone given they shyte dished up by Wigan, Villa, Leeds, Derby, Forest etc.

Whilst they probably are the second best team in the div at the mo, Brighton just looked organised, nothing more. No real pace, very little skill (they have no-one who can touch what Tomlin does) and, dare I say it, a little dull, frankly.

Excellently organised (which you'd expect with a team who've been together a while and made the play-offs last year), they took one shot (which went in) versus our taking no shots; they had that speculative effort which went in, too; apart from that the sides looked equal to me. they were slightly more willing to go directly at goal rather than work their way across the pitch and around the box, as we frustratingly do, but, as I say, for me personally, it was merely their organisation which set them apart from us.

I certainly wouldn't describe them as 'very, very good'.

The organisation and knowing how to manage a game when you are 1 nil up is what helps make a good team IMO! And City have done this how many times this season.

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

27 minutes ago, EnclosureSurge said:

But didn't they play 2 up front?

Course they did, Murray and Baldock.

[EnclosureSurge]

4 minutes ago, EstoniaTallinnRed said:

Course they did, Murray and Baldock.

Yes. Can't tell, Estonia, if you're thinking I was asking (I wasn't, I can still count up to 3!). I was trying to point out that marmite was saying you don't need to play 2 up front to support up front as Brighton did. But that's a contradiction, because B&HA did play 2 up front. You can't make an argument for not having to play 2 up front by saying, look, look at this team who, er, played 2 up front.

I think we're all agreeing here, though. We lost to another team.

[shelts]

35 minutes ago, EnclosureSurge said:

Totally agree. Brighton looked pretty average to me. Qualifying them as the 'best at AG this season by far' is both a) pretty premature and b) not much of a milestone given they shyte dished up by Wigan, Villa, Leeds, Derby, Forest etc.

Whilst they probably are the second best team in the div at the mo, Brighton just looked organised, nothing more. No real pace, very little skill (they have no-one who can touch what Tomlin does) and, dare I say it, a little dull, frankly.

Excellently organised (which you'd expect with a team who've been together a while and made the play-offs last year), they took one shot (which went in) versus our taking no shots; they had that speculative effort which went in, too; apart from that the sides looked equal to me. they were slightly more willing to go directly at goal rather than work their way across the pitch and around the box, as we frustratingly do, but, as I say, for me personally, it was merely their organisation which set them apart from us.

I certainly wouldn't describe them as 'very, very good'.

Interesting post. They don't need a Tomlin they have the ginger Iniesta . I enjoyed watching them. Good following for a game on Sky