I thought we were quite good...

[Bar BS3]

18 minutes ago, Thatch35 said:

 

Funny how people seem to have a different outlook on a performance..Fair play.

I thought City were poor. Without Tomlin city had absolutely nothing, he created the penalty himself with another great run.

Citys 2nd goal was pure luck..but hey they need some.

All in all Wednesday were unlucky not to take all three points. If it finished 2-1 to them, most people would think that was fair.

How many saves did the Wednesday keeper make - none was it?

City had no idea how to attack down each flank, unlike Wednesday who tore City apart down the left hand side. 

I think you are conveniently forgetting Hegeler rounding the keeper and a defender coming from nowhere to clear his certain goal off the line. Besides that, there were 2 other efforts from Tammy where he really should have done better. 

I don't think anyone is claiming this was the perfect performance, but it's stopped the rot, got a monkey off our back and put a long awaited, deserved point on the board and gives us something to build on and go again. 

[SedRA]

1 hour ago, Thatch35 said:

 

Funny how people seem to have a different outlook on a performance..Fair play.

I thought City were poor. Without Tomlin city had absolutely nothing, he created the penalty himself with another great run.

Citys 2nd goal was pure luck..but hey they need some.

All in all Wednesday were unlucky not to take all three points. If it finished 2-1 to them, most people would think that was fair.

How many saves did the Wednesday keeper make - none was it?

City had no idea how to attack down each flank, unlike Wednesday who tore City apart down the left hand side. 

It is funny how people see things. I almost saw it the reverse. 

We gifted them two goals and other than that they had one shot from outside the box that Giefer goofily parried. 

From our side we had the two goals plus the Hegeler shot cleared off the line, Tammy through one on one, another effort from a good position and Brownhill's effort against the post that didn't look offside to me. EDIT: Just remembered the 3 (I think) times we broke on them or were about to break through the last man when they committed professional fouls, we didn't have to do that once. I think all three players were booked for stopping goal scoring situations. 

Wednesday looked more assured in possession in patches, as you'd imagine with current confidence levels, but didn't really have any cutting edge. I thought we looked pretty comfortable in defence in the second half once the back four had settled. 

like others have said, not a perfect performance by any means - we definitely tired in the last 15 mins and they looked the more likely to create something - but a definite improvement on recent weeks. 

It's also worth noting that Tomlin is part of the City team. You can't imply the fact that he created the penalty is like some external force helping us that we can take no credit for. 

[Whitchurch1966]

Djuric won most of his flick on's but Tammy is standing too close and not reacting to the flick or is too far away to be able to react. I think we might find that Taylor is the sort of player that will make that run in anticipation if we see that combination. Only time will tell. Good performance overall, you could see the confidence go after the first goal but to their credit they turned it around. Onwards and upwards.

[pillred]

11 hours ago, DaveF said:

I thought we deserved to win tonight, gave away two extremely soft goals but I thought we were pretty comfortable apart from that... Hegeler was unlucky and Tammy could have had 1 or 2.

We'll beat Rotherham if we play like that.

Sorry for being positive...

agree, but two soft goals sound familiar?

[Unan]

11 hours ago, 29AR said:

I was rather unimpressed. 

Honestly:

-movement; absolutely woeful. Few, few players gave options to the man on the ball

- intensity; zero. There was no crunching tackle you'd expect of a team battling. The man on the ball still given ridiculous time to find a pass. 

- width; narrow af. It's quite incredible also that whilst we give the man on the ball no pressure we still don't mark the other outfield opposition tightly enough. Wingers regularly given 10 yards of space as we played so narrow. 

I think we were good for a draw, had some really good possession spells but we absolutely looked rabbits in the headlights out of possession , didn't make it difficult for them in the firnal third and didn't give ourselves options with movement in their half. 

That's my damning report anyway  I'm probably overplaying it because there were a lot of positives too; Hegeler bar a mistake, Tomlin, even Mark Little bar being clearly instructed to defend like we have 5cbs out of possession had a solid game. 

Overall, 6/10 I reckon  

 

This, more like a 4/10 for me. As a team I see little progress, maybe some of Tomlins quality masked this for others.

Still no fluidity, still all over the shop at the back and still can't break their defence down without a piece of individual brilliance.

[pillred]

11 hours ago, 29AR said:

I was rather unimpressed. 

Honestly:

-movement; absolutely woeful. Few, few players gave options to the man on the ball

- intensity; zero. There was no crunching tackle you'd expect of a team battling. The man on the ball still given ridiculous time to find a pass. 

- width; narrow af. It's quite incredible also that whilst we give the man on the ball no pressure we still don't mark the other outfield opposition tightly enough. Wingers regularly given 10 yards of space as we played so narrow. 

I think we were good for a draw, had some really good possession spells but we absolutely looked rabbits in the headlights out of possession , didn't make it difficult for them in the firnal third and didn't give ourselves options with movement in their half. 

That's my damning report anyway  I'm probably overplaying it because there were a lot of positives too; Hegeler bar a mistake, Tomlin, even Mark Little bar being clearly instructed to defend like we have 5cbs out of possession had a solid game. 

Overall, 6/10 I reckon  

 

sounds like you were actually at the game spot on!

[Alessandro]

55 minutes ago, Thatch35 said:

 

Funny how people seem to have a different outlook on a performance..Fair play.

I thought City were poor. Without Tomlin city had absolutely nothing, he created the penalty himself with another great run.

Citys 2nd goal was pure luck..but hey they need some.

All in all Wednesday were unlucky not to take all three points. If it finished 2-1 to them, most people would think that was fair.

How many saves did the Wednesday keeper make - none was it?

City had no idea how to attack down each flank, unlike Wednesday who tore City apart down the left hand side. 

I think this is a very extreme view. 

Much to be happy about last night.

You say we got torn to shreads down the flanks, well we let their wingers have possession and they looked dangerous, but they only punished (scored) once from wide.

We took a different approach to defending which was staying tight and narrow as a unit and that meant standing off sometimes, it's tough to watch because we want to see pressing. That was the Wednesday approach. 2 or 3 men on every city man.

Anyway, you say their keeper had no saves to make, apart from their two goals, I can only think of one shot that they had forcing Giefer to save, and this picture backs that up.

Different styles of play, different technical levels, but we went toe to toe and got a good result. 

 

[SedRA]

2 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

I think this is a very extreme view. 

Much to be happy about last night.

You say we got torn to shreads down the flanks, well we let their wingers have possession and they looked dangerous, but they only punished (scored) once from wide.

We took a different approach to defending which was staying tight and narrow as a unit and that meant standing off sometimes, it's tough to watch because we want to see pressing. That was the Wednesday approach. 2 or 3 men on every city man.

Anyway, you say their keeper had no saves to make, apart from their two goals, I can only think of one shot that they had forcing Giefer to save, and this picture backs that up.

Different styles of play, different technical levels, but we went toe to toe and got a good result. 

 

Plus what's missed on there is the 3 (I think) times we broke on them or were about to break through the last man when they committed professional fouls, we didn't have to do that once. I think all three players were booked for stopping goal scoring situations. 

[Full nelson]

1 hour ago, Thatch35 said:

 

Funny how people seem to have a different outlook on a performance..Fair play.

I thought City were poor. Without Tomlin city had absolutely nothing, he created the penalty himself with another great run.

Citys 2nd goal was pure luck..but hey they need some.

All in all Wednesday were unlucky not to take all three points. If it finished 2-1 to them, most people would think that was fair.

How many saves did the Wednesday keeper make - none was it?

City had no idea how to attack down each flank, unlike Wednesday who tore City apart down the left hand side. 

Agree! But there's no point attacking down the flanks if you have no one to put a decent cross in? Wednesday knew Little would be a weak link and fair play they played on his weakness and it worked first half. 

[Sir Leigh of Somerset]

I really had to smile reading so much mis-placed optimism on this thread.

Going in to the second half of last season, we started winning games, we had a fair bit of momentum and this took us to safety.

This season, despite having churned the old squad and brought in so many new players in order to take 'the project' forward, posters are taking comfort because we have 'stopped the rot' and 'turned the corner' when all we have done is draw last night with a team we hammered 4 - 1 last year and because we are very likely to beat Rotherham this coming Saturday.

Just my opinion (tin hat firmly on);

The draw last night was certainly an improved result (how could it be worse?) but we didn't play that well and I see few signs of progress over the second half of last season.

A hoped-for but no way guaranteed victory over Rotherham this Saturday would be relatively meaningless because everybody beats them.

We haven't been able to beat any of the teams immediately above us recently (Cardiff, Forest, Wolves etc).

Any momentum we think we might have gained with a victory over Rotherham will be seriously tested with the games to follow during February.

The damage has been done, and allowed to be done, by The Board (ok, SL) not acting decisively and swiftly in terms of replacing LJ when, sadly, it became clear that his managerial/leadership ability and experience has been found wanting at Championship level.

Our season will almost certainly 'go to the wire' now no matter who is in charge.

It's all too depressing really when I think of what might have been................. but we are where we are so COYR!

    

[Alessandro]

Just now, RedSA said:

Plus what's missed on there is the 3 (I think) times we broke on them or were about to break through the last man when they committed professional fouls, we didn't have to do that once. I think all three players were booked for stopping goal scoring situations. 

I'm reading a lot of people saying we had no fluidity or movement, well that's not the only way to win a football match. We don't have the technical ability of some of the top teams.

This is backed up by the fact that for all Wednesday's 'danger' we had the better scoring chances to win the game. Tammy had a couple more chances to hit the target and Jens was unlucky with the super block off the line.

[Wrongagain]

Djuric  seems to be pretty good will only get better - shit why does spell checker keep changing his name to a well known prophylactic- hope he has plenty in reserve