Awful

[Nogbad the Bad]

11 hours ago, Cowshed said:

One moment from this season.Claudio Bravo penetrates Bristol City with a pass into De Bruyne seconds later Manchester City score ... It is an integral part of Man Citys football,

Clemence regularly played balls into feet. It was part of Liverpools tactic of taking the steam out of games, quietening the crowd particularly in Europe. Liverpool's Keepers sweeped and distributed. And of course they did go longer as well. What we see know is a progression due to rule changes in the back pass rule, 

How many balls did Djuric win Saturday? How many balls do City win centrally and long over the season? Not very many hardly surprising with Reid and Patterson up front. Going to the sides has been more successful if that is the right description. Long straight balls  are continually lost because its the easiest ball in football to defend and do not put much pressure on defenders who will be favourite. It is not a 50/50 ball.  

Fans seem to be writing off FF due to his poor passing but I don't see many visiting keepers who are particularly adept at this ... How do they play? What is the needs of these teams? Brentford to Millwall to Wolves play differently and so teams and challenges will alter.

It is one thing to judge a goalkeeper on, but along with dealing with crosses, whether he comes off his ... Yes. But the majority of a Keepers game is played with the feet. In a team that plays to feet that need is surely multiplied. Bristol City now and in future? 

To discount all a keepers' other attributes because his distribution ... I have not. I pointed out that there is risk and reward. Risk is that Bristol Citys tactical ability could be hindered by its Keeper. 

There's room for passing, throwing and kicking downfield - whichever opportunity presents itself best at any particular moment ... And nowhere have I said different. Bristol City have moved away from those options. Long play is hardly controlled and too frequently bordering on aimless when rolling it out or passing it would have kept the ball.

You have agreed with my point that Clemence often used the long kick option as well as more subtle distribution when it was felt to be to Liverpool's best advantage at any given moment.

I don't agree any high ball is easy to defend against when it is aimed at a man mountain like Djuric who has the advantage over most defenders due to his colossal height and great strength in the air. There is a very good chance of him winning any given challenge in the air and this is an almost unique strength we should play to. Wingers would help too...

I didn't say you had discounted Fielding because of his distribution but I read many posts on here from fans who have and  although you personally are not discounting him you certainly seem to see it as a notable weakness which he should either markedly improve on or be replaced.

Occasional long play might not be 'controlled' but the surprise element is the very reason it may upset the opposition. There is nothing intrinsically wonderful about 'possession' football particularly if most of it is in your own half and more often or not it leads to nothing advantageous, and only tedium for the onlooker.

I accept you have a great knowledge of this type of football, and even coach it, but to anyone else less convinced by it's merits it appears you espousing it's virtues leads to you also dismissing the occasional use of alternatives to shake the game up when short passing tippy tappy is getting nowhere or being totally negated.

Of course long play should not be at the expense of other styles but should be planned for and be a part of training and coaching as any other styles employed to overcome the opposition.

You are a huge advocate of possession football to the extent you believe every goalkeeper should become a master at it - this is bordering on the obsessive imo.. particularly when this current popularity for possession above all else may only be a temporary one like many trendy styles before it.

I hope your young charges enjoy their practice games - I would have found such regimented and unadventurous football very constrictive and boring at a young age. One joy of playing football was having the freedom to take the ball past your opponent at speed. We see this less and less with teams forever looking to hold on to the ball and halting their runs to pass the ball sideways or in triangles.

 All of this is in danger of making players into barely distinguishable automotons - the players we watch now are all very well drilled, good solid players, but none are particularly good.

They are playing under a structure where individual flair is being discouraged from an early age - the very flair that when it matured formerly made professional football so exciting to watch.

 

 

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

They don't...it is rarely used these days.

And when they did use Flint...it was planned. They gave themselves a better percentage chance of winning the ball by putting flint there to win the header.

However...the next ball then becomes 50/50 again...so what's the point?

Much better to play out from the back with possession if you can imo.

Agree in general terms Spud but surely it’s the ability to do several options

For example -If a team presses you high a traditional accurate keepers clearance down a forward channel (Particularly if you have someone who can get on the end of it) is potentially absolutely the best option

Where Ederson is so good is that he will identify any hole you leave and target it , and is good enough to hit it !

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

You have agreed with my point that Clemence often used the long kick option as well as more subtle distribution when it was felt to be to Liverpool's best advantage at any given moment.

I don't agree any high ball is easy to defend against when it is aimed at a man mountain like Djuric who has the advantage over most defenders due to his colossal height and great strength in the air. There is a very good chance of him winning any given challenge in the air and this is an almost unique strength we should play to. Wingers would help too...

I didn't say you had discounted Fielding because of his distribution but I read many posts on here from fans who have and  although you personally are not discounting him you certainly seem to see it as a notable weakness which he should either markedly improve on or be replaced.

Occasional long play might not be 'controlled' but the surprise element is the very reason it may upset the opposition. There is nothing intrinsically wonderful about 'possession' football particularly if most of it is in your own half and more often or not it leads to nothing advantageous, and only tedium for the onlooker.

I accept you have a great knowledge of this type of football, and even coach it, but to anyone else less convinced by it's merits it appears you espousing it's virtues leads to you also dismissing the occasional use of alternatives to shake the game up when short passing tippy tappy is getting nowhere or being totally negated.

Of course long play should not be at the expense of other styles but should be planned for and be a part of training and coaching as any other styles employed to overcome the opposition.

You are a huge advocate of possession football to the extent you believe every goalkeeper should become a master at it - this is bordering on the obsessive imo.. particularly when this current popularity for possession above all else may only be a temporary one like many trendy styles before it.

I hope your young charges enjoy their practice games - I would have found such regimented and unadventurous football very constrictive and boring at a young age. One joy of playing football was having the freedom to take the ball past your opponent at speed. We see this less and less with teams forever looking to hold on to the ball and halting their runs to pass the ball sideways or in triangles.

 All of this is in danger of making players into barely distinguishable automotons - the players we watch now are all very well drilled, good solid players, but none are particularly good.

They are playing under a structure where individual flair is being discouraged from an early age - the very flair that when it matured formerly made professional football so exciting to watch.

 

 

 

That is some leap and going off at a tangent but I will do my best.  

You have agreed with my point that Clemence often used the long kick option as well ... I never made any other point and have consistently posted about options, ideas and improvement. 

I don't agree any high ball is easy to defend against .. Statistically it is the most inefficient ball there is. 

I don't agree any high ball is easy to defend against when it is aimed at a man mountain like Djuric who has the advantage over most defenders ... Djuric is at a disadvantage which is why he wins a fraction of these balls. The chance is is poor.

I didn't say you had discounted Fielding because of his distribution but I read many posts on here from fans who have and  although you personally are not discounting him you certainly seem to see it as a notable weakness which he should either markedly improve on or be replaced ... Depending on what is Bristol City future game. I could apply the same idea to forwards. Do they fit the style.

I accept you have a great knowledge of this type of football, and even coach it, but to anyone else less convinced by it's merits it appears you espousing it's virtues leads to you also dismissing the occasional use of alternatives .. In the rather basic goal kick example I posted there is option to go long and increase probability of winning the all back ... It has lots of alternatives.  

You are a huge advocate of possession football to the extent you believe every goalkeeper should become a master at it - this is bordering on the obsessive imo.. particularly when this current popularity for possession above all else may only be a temporary one like many trendy styles before it ... Nowhere have I said that every Keeper should be, I have stated that teams have needs. Not sure about this idea of trendy styles I see synergy in Holland 74 to Liverpool and Forest to the current day. 

I hope your young charges enjoy their practice games - I would have found such regimented and unadventurous football very constrictive and boring at a young age. ... Smashing the ball up front, getting rid is unadventurous, constrictive and wholly negative in young charges. It also damaged the game and produced decades of kids who cannot play the game they love very well due to years of people roaring at them to stop doing that back there, dont stay on the ball instead of being encouraged to appreciate the football. I won't be offended by what you are implying.

We see this less and less with teams forever looking to hold on to the ball and halting their runs to pass the ball sideways or in triangles ... Which is simply a evolution in football as teams flood midfield and use defensive midfield players. The space which once was now isn't. Football will evolve again and are as teams move away from one up top. Moves to 4-3-3 are to keep possession and stretch the opposition at speed if the game so allows it. Henderson criticised for going sideways/anyways plays for a marvellous attacking beast. 

All of this is in danger of making players into barely distinguishable automotons .. No again. Britain's history is littered with automotons programmed to put it in the mixer, hit zones and pomos, do not go sideways, backwards, do not dribble out from the back, stay back there because you have to be the defender and on ... The FA's ideas to mirror what occurs in Europe will create less robotic players. More technical ability = More tactical flexibility = Less robotic.

They are playing under a structure where individual flair is being discouraged from an early age - the very flair that when it matured formerly made professional football so exciting to watch ... If you are aware (I am not attempting to be rude) of what the FA advise and coaches should be following for the foundation stages of football up to 11 its the opposite. Flair should be encouraged. Any who are interested enough to stick with my rambling if a kids teams are constantly banging the ball forward it can only discourage flair because those under the sailing ball will be denied the opportunity to develop, to express themselves, learn and sadly for decades that is the environment we put kids into. If that is the environment your kid is in think deeply ...

Bit deep some of that .. 

 

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Le Grande Homme said:

Yes it makes perfect sense and looks wonderful on paper and on the Lee Johnson coaching board, pity the reality for us is totally different.  

None of our players want it out from the back (Fielding or the CB's), or are at least looking to do something positive with it, so after a few ineffective sideways and backwards passes we inevitably  knock it long, if we do win the header the opposition win it back as no-one is taking a risk, or making the commitment to go beyond the man, looking for that knock on.  I'm excepting BR from that comment, he can't however, no matter how hard he tries, be everywhere, covering for everyone.

The answer to the "questions"  is therefore - send one man to attack the ball and they will knock it long, we (the opposition) pick up the pieces and we go again.  My frustration is i get exactly what you are saying it just seems to me that we don't execute it and invariably knock it long thereby wiping out your reasoning for why we adopt the tactic in the first place

It has variations. And long (attention Nogbad ..) from controlled possession via a defender can be more effective than going from Frankie Fielding. It can create an improvement.

The answer to the "questions"  is therefore - send one man to attack the ball and they will knock it long, we (the opposition) pick up the pieces and we go again ... And by positioning that player (or more) further up the pitch pushing full backs up City have six (possibly) players to contest/control the second ball near the half way line. 

Its variety that is missing in Citys goal  kicks and other play. Defenders do not have to be Johns Stones x John Terry its creating more options. It is not radical change just possible marginal % improvement.

 

 

[Trueredsupporter]

6 hours ago, spudski said:

They don't...it is rarely used these days.

And when they did use Flint...it was planned. They gave themselves a better percentage chance of winning the ball by putting flint there to win the header.

However...the next ball then becomes 50/50 again...so what's the point?

Much better to play out from the back with possession if you can imo.

Frankie is still putting some straight and long against Millwall and Birmingham. Versus  Millwall one went  box to box. the big diagonals are more the norm and missing City players nines times out of ten. add the goal kicks which I am not getting its adds up to a lot of long stuff.

its the why so often I do not get here??

[Gert Mare]

On 18/04/2018 at 13:04, Unan said:

I can kick more accurately than FF..

I think he just kicks it at the technical area to sort things out on the pitch so that he isn’t being bombarded. So actually his accuracy is frighteningly good!

[Davefevs]

7 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Agree in general terms Spud but surely it’s the ability to do several options

For example -If a team presses you high a traditional accurate keepers clearance down a forward channel (Particularly if you have someone who can get on the end of it) is potentially absolutely the best option

Where Ederson is so good is that he will identify any hole you leave and target it , and is good enough to hit it !

Ederson’s advantage is the clever movement of the players in front, e.g. Fernandinho is Silva making sure he has more than one option.

[Trueredsupporter]

47 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ederson’s advantage is 

He has a brilliant left foot!!! That's why he is at Man City.  

[Three Lions]

21 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

 Djuric who has the advantage over most defenders due to his colossal height and great strength in the air. There is a very good chance of him winning any given challenge in the air and this is an almost unique strength we should play to. I

Except he is not winning many is he? None of Citys players up top do. Might explain why he kicks to Flint and Bryan from the goal,kick.

[Donkeeebles]

I appreciate it's not cool to criticise Kelly, much like it wasn't Baker at tge beginning of the season but I thought he was given the complete run around by Adama (most people have this season)  I don't remember him stopping a cross first half.  

[Unan]

22 minutes ago, Donkeeebles said:

I appreciate it's not cool to criticise Kelly, much like it wasn't Baker at tge beginning of the season but I thought he was given the complete run around by Adama (most people have this season)  I don't remember him stopping a cross first half.  

Agreed, I guess it’s understandable though due to his inexperience. Not trying to spin this on LJ but I’m surprised he didn’t change something a bit earlier, it was clear Adama had him from the first minute.

[Donkeeebles]

1 hour ago, Unan said:

Agreed, I guess it’s understandable though due to his inexperience. Not trying to spin this on LJ but I’m surprised he didn’t change something a bit earlier, it was clear Adama had him from the first minute.

It's absolutely understandable and no disgrace as Adama has Been on fire this season, how he didn't make the championship team of the season I'll never know.  Lloyd is a wonderful talent but I simply cannot agree with comments on here about him playing well Sat. All about opinions I guess 

[The Bard]

On 18/04/2018 at 11:07, spudski said:

As Cowshed has already implied...you aren't going to 'sort him out' now. His technical ability should have been ingrained years ago.

You aren't going to change FF now.

He can't kick a ball like a professional football should be able to, his control is poor, and ability to make a decision quickly fails constantly.

FF is best when it comes to not having time to think...his reactions as a keeper are superb, but that's all imo.

Sounds like loads of wingers and strikers we've had.  Great instincts but no brain basically.

[Nogbad the Bad]

23 hours ago, Cowshed said:

That is some leap and going off at a tangent but I will do my best.  

You have agreed with my point that Clemence often used the long kick option as well ... I never made any other point and have consistently posted about options, ideas and improvement. 

I don't agree any high ball is easy to defend against .. Statistically it is the most inefficient ball there is. 

I don't agree any high ball is easy to defend against when it is aimed at a man mountain like Djuric who has the advantage over most defenders ... Djuric is at a disadvantage which is why he wins a fraction of these balls. The chance is is poor.

I didn't say you had discounted Fielding because of his distribution but I read many posts on here from fans who have and  although you personally are not discounting him you certainly seem to see it as a notable weakness which he should either markedly improve on or be replaced ... Depending on what is Bristol City future game. I could apply the same idea to forwards. Do they fit the style.

I accept you have a great knowledge of this type of football, and even coach it, but to anyone else less convinced by it's merits it appears you espousing it's virtues leads to you also dismissing the occasional use of alternatives .. In the rather basic goal kick example I posted there is option to go long and increase probability of winning the all back ... It has lots of alternatives.  

You are a huge advocate of possession football to the extent you believe every goalkeeper should become a master at it - this is bordering on the obsessive imo.. particularly when this current popularity for possession above all else may only be a temporary one like many trendy styles before it ... Nowhere have I said that every Keeper should be, I have stated that teams have needs. Not sure about this idea of trendy styles I see synergy in Holland 74 to Liverpool and Forest to the current day. 

I hope your young charges enjoy their practice games - I would have found such regimented and unadventurous football very constrictive and boring at a young age. ... Smashing the ball up front, getting rid is unadventurous, constrictive and wholly negative in young charges. It also damaged the game and produced decades of kids who cannot play the game they love very well due to years of people roaring at them to stop doing that back there, dont stay on the ball instead of being encouraged to appreciate the football. I won't be offended by what you are implying.

We see this less and less with teams forever looking to hold on to the ball and halting their runs to pass the ball sideways or in triangles ... Which is simply a evolution in football as teams flood midfield and use defensive midfield players. The space which once was now isn't. Football will evolve again and are as teams move away from one up top. Moves to 4-3-3 are to keep possession and stretch the opposition at speed if the game so allows it. Henderson criticised for going sideways/anyways plays for a marvellous attacking beast. 

All of this is in danger of making players into barely distinguishable automotons .. No again. Britain's history is littered with automotons programmed to put it in the mixer, hit zones and pomos, do not go sideways, backwards, do not dribble out from the back, stay back there because you have to be the defender and on ... The FA's ideas to mirror what occurs in Europe will create less robotic players. More technical ability = More tactical flexibility = Less robotic.

They are playing under a structure where individual flair is being discouraged from an early age - the very flair that when it matured formerly made professional football so exciting to watch ... If you are aware (I am not attempting to be rude) of what the FA advise and coaches should be following for the foundation stages of football up to 11 its the opposite. Flair should be encouraged. Any who are interested enough to stick with my rambling if a kids teams are constantly banging the ball forward it can only discourage flair because those under the sailing ball will be denied the opportunity to develop, to express themselves, learn and sadly for decades that is the environment we put kids into. If that is the environment your kid is in think deeply ...

Bit deep some of that .. 

 

I've never advocated kids, or professional players 'constantly banging the ball forward'.

The style of football you espouse may be technically fulfilling when it comes off, however professional football is there for entertainment purposes and the majority of players being confined for large periods to the middle 3rd of the pitch, however technical their short passes, busy intricate triangles and 'pressing' may be, basically isn't very interesting or exciting to watch unless there is regular goalmouth action at the end of it. Which all too often  there isn't.

There's no doubt at all that football today (apart from a few exceptional teams) is nothing like as entertaining as in the less technical days when I started watching.

For example I remember watching the 1979  Man.Utd v Arsenal F.A. Cup Final and watched it again recently. Players like Brady, Sunderland, Thomas, Coppell and McIlroy regularly running 30 -40 yards with the ball, crosses flying in, numerous headed goal attempts from the likes of Jordan, Grenhoff and Stapleton.

Not that technical, perhaps, but no let up in the action and excitement from start to finish.

So different to today's often stagnant fare. It seems to me the more technical 'advances' take place in football, the less of a spectacle it becomes.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

I've never advocated kids, or professional players 'constantly banging the ball forward'.

The style of football you espouse may be technically fulfilling when it comes off, however professional football is there for entertainment purposes and the majority of players being confined for large periods to the middle 3rd of the pitch, however technical their short passes, busy intricate triangles and 'pressing' may be, basically isn't very interesting or exciting to watch unless there is regular goalmouth action at the end of it. Which all too often  there isn't.

There's no doubt at all that football today (apart from a few exceptional teams) is nothing like as entertaining as in the less technical days when I started watching.

 For example I remember watching the 1979  Man.Utd v Arsenal F.A. Cup Final and watched it again recently. Players like Brady, Sunderland, Thomas, Coppell and McIlroy regularly running 30 -40 yards with the ball, crosses flying in, numerous headed goal attempts from the likes of Jordan, Grenhoff and Stapleton.

Not that technical, perhaps, but no let up in the action and excitement from start to finish.

So different to today's often stagnant fare. It seems to me the more technical 'advances' take place in football, the less of a spectacle it becomes.

Game has changed...

Those sorts of systems could be counteracted and cut open. Don't move forward, stand still, stand still eventually becomes moving backwards tbh.

However, that approach can be quite exciting no doubt- I thought that despite the technical flaws in for example, our win over Birmingham was quite good fun and brought the crowd into it a bit too.

Juve-Milan 2003 CL final...a technically excellent and really well tactically drilled  0-0, but a 0-0 nonetheless.

[Nogbad the Bad]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Game has changed...

Those sorts of systems could be counteracted and cut open. Don't move forward, stand still, stand still eventually becomes moving backwards tbh.

However, that approach can be quite exciting no doubt- I thought that despite the technical flaws in  for example, our win over Birmingham was quite good fun and brought the crowd into it a bit too.

Juve-Milan 2003 CL final...a technically excellent and really well tactically drilled  0-0, but a 0-0 nonetheless.

I know it's changed Mr.P. but not for the better in terms of spectacle imo.

At AG there are whole games where very little actually happens, nothing at all to get you out of your seat, and I watch the odd PL game and the fans mostly look bored.

The F.A. and the clubs seem to have forgotten their raison d'etre - to provide entertainment for the masses.

The Brum game was indeed good, plenty of excitement and goalmouth action at both ends. I and many others on here made a point of commenting about how much we'd enjoyed it, which probably goes to show how little we'd enjoyed some previous ones!

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

I know it's changed Mr.P. but not for the better in terms of spectacle imo.

At AG there are whole games where very little actually happens, nothing at all to get you out of your seat, and I watch the odd PL game and the fans mostly look bored.

The F.A. and the clubs seem to have forgotten their raison d'etre - to provide entertainment for the masses.

The Brum game was indeed good, plenty of excitement and goalmouth action at both ends. I and many others on here made a point of commenting about how much we'd enjoyed it, which probably goes to show how little we'd enjoyed some previous ones!

Yeah, a debate to be had in terms of spectacle and whether it's better. Teams at this level, let alone above are better drilled, coached and prepared than before IMO which plays a part. Like a game of chess in some ways.

FWIW, I think possession football, technically sound football with pressing can be good- but only if there's an attacking intent combined. At our level, I would suggest Wolves fans and Fulham fans last 21 games but perhaps even longer, have been quite entertained- Brentford seem quite fun to watch as well, albeit lack a finishing touch. We had a lot of enjoyable games up to and including Wolves at home too in the League also!

[Nogbad the Bad]

54 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah, a debate to be had in terms of spectacle and whether it's better. Teams at this level, let alone above are better drilled, coached and prepared than before IMO which plays a part. Like a game of chess in some ways.

FWIW, I think possession football, technically sound football with pressing can be good- but only if there's an attacking intent combined. At our level, I would suggest Wolves fans and Fulham fans last 21 games but perhaps even longer, have been quite entertained- Brentford seem quite fun to watch as well, albeit lack a finishing touch. We had a lot of enjoyable games up to and including Wolves at home too in the League also!

Agreed, but all too often it is lacking and there are long periods of stagnation. Fans don't get so involved because there's not much to stir them.

Going back to the Man .Utd/Arsenal game, worth listening to the enthusiasm of commentator Brian Moore. In his late 40's by then but still displaying the unadulterated passion for football of a 10 year old.

There was a 'co commentator' that day, possibly Clough from memory, but even he ( a motormouth, but one who always talked sense) was very much in the background and only made the odd comment about the action.

These days, RB being a prime example (though live televised PL and CL games too) the commentator and co-commentators seem to constantly chat to each other, and irritatingly often nothing to do with what's happening on the pitch. 

Inexcusable you'd think, but not so surprising when there's often literally nothing happening of interest on the pitch for the commentator to tell us about for minutes on end!

[Cowshed]

7 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

I've never advocated kids, or professional players 'constantly banging the ball forward'.

The style of football you espouse may be technically fulfilling when it comes off, however professional football is there for entertainment purposes and the majority of players being confined for large periods to the middle 3rd of the pitch, however technical their short passes, busy intricate triangles and 'pressing' may be, basically isn't very interesting or exciting to watch unless there is regular goalmouth action at the end of it. Which all too often  there isn't.

There's no doubt at all that football today (apart from a few exceptional teams) is nothing like as entertaining as in the less technical days when I started watching.

For example I remember watching the 1979  Man.Utd v Arsenal F.A. Cup Final and watched it again recently. Players like Brady, Sunderland, Thomas, Coppell and McIlroy regularly running 30 -40 yards with the ball, crosses flying in, numerous headed goal attempts from the likes of Jordan, Grenhoff and Stapleton.

Not that technical, perhaps, but no let up in the action and excitement from start to finish.

So different to today's often stagnant fare. It seems to me the more technical 'advances' take place in football, the less of a spectacle it becomes.

I've never advocated kids, or professional players 'constantly banging the ball forward' ... With great respect have not understood the point made in reply to your rather terse post.. 

The style of football you espouse may be technically fulfilling when it comes off, however professional football is there for entertainment purposes ... The football I like to see is skilled. Professional football is a competitive game with massive rewards attached to it. Those rewards affect tactics and outlook.  

There's no doubt at all that football today (apart from a few exceptional teams) is nothing like as entertaining as in the less technical days when I started watching ... And football evolves. Man City under Mr Guardiola are far more entertaining than George Grahams Arsenal. 

For example I remember watching the 1979  Man.Utd v Arsenal F.A. Cup Final and watched it again recently. Players like Brady, Sunderland, Thomas, Coppell and McIlroy regularly running 30 -40 yards with the ball, crosses flying in, numerous headed goal attempts from the likes of Jordan, Grenhoff and Stapleton. Not that technical, perhaps, but no let up in the action and excitement from start to finish.

Skilled players displaying their technical abilities.

So different to today's often stagnant fare. It seems to me the more technical 'advances' take place in football, the less of a spectacle it becomes.

That it is tactical, not technical.

Your disenchantment and ire (that is what it come across like) maybe should be directed at what makes people create the football you dislike. This may be the professional competitive game and those lucrative rewards itself. The football you appear to desire big players up front, wingers crosses, players freely taking on opponents 1v1 barely exists anymore because it is ineffectual, tactically in the main redundant, even Bayern Munich with two greats to choose on the flanks invert their widemen. 

Technique is ability. Today's players are more technical than they have ever been. Technique only becomes skill when its performed . Technical football is skilled football. Technique allows players to do more not less. It is not technical football (the Brazilians are technically brilliant) you think is stagnant it is something else - Modern tactics.

And back to my earlier point. Bristol City having players that are more adept technically creates greater tactical flexibility to overcome the tactics you clearly do not enjoy watching.