Match Report: "WE GAVE EVERYTHING". It's Reading. No we didn't.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, JonDolman said:

I personally would have started Paterson. Why not play a similar looking team to what looked so good second half against Stoke. If we are sticking to a short passing game, then why not play our best technical players. It is possible to play this way effectively, just look at Fulham last season. I agree Pack has been poor, but its no coincidence that he looked far better 2nd half against Stoke with an extra body in there helping him and Walsh out. That player is Brownhill.

Exactly- not so sure I agree about Paterson, but that extra protection you get in a 3 will help Pack. That in turn should help the team, as well as providing extra passing lanes for Kalas and Webster.

What's the point after all in having a possession based ethos, and having signed not one but two ball playing centre backs when we often have played the way especially of late, as described by @Olé ?

It's incoherent and makes little sense IMO!

@RedCheese

Actually, seems that when we generally have had LESS possession, we've done better this season- 60% possession each week? Don't make me laugh- that'd put us above Leeds in that respect this year and definitely we are not, we have not been! I assume you're using some poetic license to illustrate your point though?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

7 hours ago, Olé said:

Apologies for the slow despatch from that mecca of football in a car park just off the A33, but as I made the depressing Alan Partridge style walk down the edge of a non-descript dual carriageway in Berkshire and away from the Madejski Stadium, passed silently by streams of faceless fans in cars (uniquely in the English game Reading is like a trip to B&Q), in my anger I really contemplated avoiding comment altogether so as not to spoil the remainder of your Saturday or mine.

At least when you lose at Wigan or at Millwall your frustration and despair is more than matched and reflected by the excited chatter and sense of reward for home fans. At Reading you are confronted by indifference and indicator lights. And that makes it a lot harder to deal with defeat because you know you’ve just wasted 3 points and ruined the best day of your week for literally no ones visible benefit. And WASTE is exactly the word to describe City’s naive, regressive display.

But having made the decision to write-off the write-up (in fact even alcohol lost its appeal last night after this performance) I couldn't sleep as I contemplated two troubling takeaways: 1. There probably needs to be some record of this match as a cautionary tale so that no one allows it to happen again. 2. The official record is pushing a “WE GAVE EVERYTHING” narrative, a vacuous comment from Dean Holden after a game in which we huffed and puffed and blew ourselves over.

We did not give everything. To give everything is to apply yourself relentlessly in a manner required to achieve your goal. Some of our players ran around a lot but what they were doing to win a football match is anyones guess. Reading were a poor side but you could see exactly how they approached it - run at defenders and shoot. There are only two players in our side who’ll run any distance with the football. Webster is a centre back and Diedhiou has little idea what to do next.

City got the ball in midfield and players took it in turns to control and pass. Control and pass. Control and pass. It’s wonderful two-touch training ground stuff but this religious quest for the killer pass is not half as good at breaking the lines as simply running at people. Where Reading’s direct running allowed them to meet our back four and score three times, we generally played from behind two lines of four and eventually punted it at Eliasson and asked him to get it on Diedhiou’s head.

Of course the plan, I think, is to create overloads: passing brings more of the team into the game, and if you can get Hunt overlapping a more compact Brownhill on the right, and the technically skilful duo of Eliasson and De Silva combining on the left, you will have numbers to play through them at will. And we did so for both of our goals. But while Walsh is a revelation, it relies on a quality of passing we simply don’t have, most of it in deep areas, followed by a 50-50 punt over the top.

Someone said to me of Lee Johnson in the summer that we are naively trying to play Man City football with Bristol City players. At Reading I’m not certain what we were trying to play, but the vast majority of the time our style of passing produced far less clear opportunity to get our head up around the box with an opportunity to shoot, than Reading produced from just 3 or 4 direct runs out of midfield. Instead most of our effort resulted in a desperate attempt to get it on Famara’s head.

The tone was set almost immediately as City strung a few passes together inside their own half while Reading instead ran at us with their first opportunity. It drew the free-kick, and from the resultant set piece, the ball was half cleared out of the box, but the hosts second attempt to slip the ball into the box was met by an oddly nervous looking Kalas 12 yards out, and his scuffed clearance fell tamely for Meite on the edge of the box to rifle a low shot back past him and into the bottom corner.

Reading had their tails up almost immediately and would push forward several more times, aided by early uncertainty from the likes of Kalas and De Silva. It wasn’t until nearly the midway point in the half that City found their range. Walsh brilliantly releasing Elasson down the left, and his wicked cross caused panic, and while Reading scrambled the ball clear, the clearance fell straight to Hunt in space, he dropped a shoulder to shoot, then slipped a brilliantly weighted ball into Pack to finish.

Now City would settle and take control of the game. Or so we thought. Hunt and Eliasson’s attempts to get in behind Reading on either flank looked best placed to cause problems and it was Hunt again who got clear down the right with teammates charging into the box. City would have several chances to apply the finish before the ball broke to counterpart Eliasson racing in beyond the far post, from where his low shot was beaten away. Play like this for the rest of the game and we’d win.

Next Walsh would again show his class in midfield to make room to feed Diedhiou, who in an uncharacteristic moment of decisiveness, quickly turned his marker 25 yards out and flashed a rasping, dipping shot just over the bar. But aside from set pieces - and City didn’t win many - too much was played deep in midfield, and when Reading raced upfield on another break before halftime, they took advantage of stand-offish defending to contrive an unlikely but well taken 25 yard second.

To City’s credit, the indignity of having gone behind for a second time to a clearly struggling side appeared to sting City into action - particularly at that crucial time before the half-time team talk - and led by Eliasson they would come storming back immediately, the winger creating all sorts of problems from the left. Given space to cross he gets balls into positions City players can attack, and he'd get two chances to do so, Brownhill eventually bundling home after head tennis in their box.

Even the most paranoid of City fans might have assumed City would put things right during the interval and emerge after the break to take control of a game they could and should have comfortably dealt with. But while the early exchanges in the second half proved promising - Eliasson a constant nuisance winning a succession of corners (and blazing wildly over with sight of goal), and all-action Walsh twice wide from range, City’s quality and invention was getting progressively worse.

By now City’s two-touch passing routine on the halfway line was wearing thin for all - including apparently even the massively out of form Pack, who alongside the brighter Walsh, was retreating to his old routine of needing to turn backwards and regroup before finding a pass. With Brownhill playing compact on the right (his energy largely wasted there), City were reduced solely to punting balls over the top for Eliasson, or directly onto Taylor or Famara’s head. It was so easy to deal with.

So instead Reading, anonymous in a poor second half, could not believe their luck when they went back to their playbook for a third time and raced upfield once more from City’s right - again faced up by standoffish defending - as Kalas hesitated to intercept the first pass, the second one back across goal was ignored by City midfielders again, the hosts yet again given space and sight of goal to gratefully accept the invitation to rifle home. It made City’s huff and puff seem rather shallow.

City threw on the more combative Weimann, followed by Kelly (to go 3 at the back) and Paterson (presumably Eliasson was exhausted as it’s still a miracle to me that Paterson has to get a go every week), but by now City’s hour long insistence on methodical passing had been reduced to what this football really all just leads to in its basest form: punting in at Diedhiou as our only goalscorer and hoping that he does something. For the one millionth time this is not his game - and it shows.

Everything was aimed at Famara’s head and while he has somehow managed to produce some wonderful headers - Hull, QPR last season - it was all so predictable that he was closely marked, and expected to convert increasingly tame, lightweight crosses into finishes past both marker and keeper. Unsurprisingly it didn’t happen. His preferred game is getting the ball outside the box and running at them. He'd get one chance to do so and like much of his day, he’d make little of the chance.

Nonetheless it was the direct aerial stuff into Diedhiou centrally that created City’s only two chances to draw level, his first header on falling to Brownhill at the far post to fire against the post from an acute angle, and then in an almost carbon copy another header down was into the path of the onrushing Weimann, who had easily our clearest sight of goal, but a first time shot was straight at the keeper and beaten away. In between, both Brownhill and Walsh would fire free kicks just over.

And that was it. Faced up by laboured and largely predictable second half football from City, in truth Reading didn’t have to do too much to hold onto an unlikely result, and bar one shameful bit of injury play acting on the right touchline to take the wind out of City’s sails after a sublime touch from De Silva won a dangerous throw in, the hosts to their credit didn’t need to engage in gamesmanship or time wasting to see out the result. City were easy to defend and even easier to attack.

Yet Dean Holden says we gave everything, because we dominated possession and had lots of chances. By that reckoning 80 minutes of passing around inside our own half and 10 minutes of hammering it at Diedhiou on the edge of the six yard box would make us world beaters. No we did not give everything, because to do so produces results. There was no quality in forward positions besides Eliasson and tactically our football was laboured and lacking in initiative. Reading showed plenty.

Having produced moments of real encouragement this season under Lee Johnson - Swansea away, Sheffield United at home - it’s hard not to reach the inescapable conclusion that he has one training-ground honed style of play that when all the parts are in tune works perfectly, but the slightest adjustment to the team (for example to rightly accommodate Walsh) and players out of form (Pack, Diedhiou) and the whole style of play and strategy to win games falls apart like a cheap suit. 

When Reading fans - among the most silent and humourless in the country - are provided THREE separate opportunities to pipe up with “how shit must you be, we’re winning at home”, we should be ashamed that our tactical approach is so fallible that it cannot out manoeuvre a struggling side unless all the players are on their game. You can’t help but wonder whether the net return from these players would be any worse (or better) with a Ron Manager type playing simple kick and rush football.

O’Leary 5 - Hard to say he is at fault for any of the goals, but I guess you’re looking for a flash of brilliance to stop something
Hunt 6 - Great going forward, less convincing defensively, tough for him given he was being asked to overlap Brownhill too
De Silva 5 - Poorest game yet, not in the game first half, some nice combinations towards the end when in 3-5-2 but not enough
Webster 6 - Turning into the anchor of our defence, looks very composed and more initiative to run with the ball than most
Kalas 4 - For me his worst game for us, looked nervous early on, did not attack the ball or the player as he has done before
Pack 4 - Ignore the goal, he’s bang out of form, has been for weeks, can’t play him and Walsh and Walsh is the better player
Walsh 6 - Classy and hard working going forward, confident passing (not just the Pack long diagonal) a bit exposed defensively
Brownhill 6 - Energy wasted on right, attacked the box, but less defensively - are we brave enough to play him and Walsh central?
Eliasson 6 - Most of our best stuff went through him, unsure why he is always withdrawn, attacking is one dimensional without him
Taylor 4 - Didn’t really get in the game which was played largely aerially by City, we don’t really play to any of our strikers strengths
Diedhiou 4 - Reaction to him is overdone, service was poor and he did his best in the air, but can’t escape he is not suited to style

Weimann 5 - Brought some directness to the forward line and chases down defenders, but in form he’d have buried his chance
Paterson 5 - One cross for Famara which produced Brownhill's chance, looks utterly lightweight though, no better than Eliasson
Kelly 5 - Wasn’t enough time to really have any impact with Reading defending, got clattered by Sammy Baldock for good measure

Agree with most as usual, the Diedhiou reaction is not overdone, is he a 5.3mil striker?, never in this world, he needs to wake up and throw his weight around, he's far too nice, a defenders dream a seemingly big bloke seemingly lacking heart and commitment.

We have played to his strengths twice in the 2nd half last week and at least twice in the 2nd half yesterday, balls were driven hard and low into the 6 yard box, firstly he took up crap positions and secondly never once attempted to connect, he really needs to man up. He could do worse than take some instruction from Alby Wilbraham.

[Boston Red]

Great write up, Ole.

Here's the summary. We are just not very good. 

[RedM]

18 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Agree with most as usual, the Diedhiou reaction is not overdone, is he a 5.3mil striker?, never in this world, he needs to wake up and throw his weight around, he's far too nice, a defenders dream a seemingly big bloke seemingly lacking heart and commitment.

We have played to his strengths twice in the 2nd half last week and at least twice in the 2nd half yesterday, balls were driven hard and low into the 6 yard box, firstly he took up crap positions and secondly never once attempted to connect, he really needs to man up. He could do worse than take some instruction from Alby Wilbraham.

I agree. He isn’t a youngster from the Academy we have to bed in, he’s 25 and experienced by comparison. He’s been at the club long enough to know what’s what and should be taking senior responsibility. His price tag wasn’t his doing, fair enough, but for that money he should have pedigree and because of this carries expectation from the fans, his manager and his team mates.

Like last season we played our best football without him, but can we really discard a £5.3m player? We won’t get half of that back for him if we manage to sell in January if we are honest. So we have to make what we got work. Yes he needs service, but he has to show for his team mates more too.

How many player can hold their hands up after the game and say they honestly had nothing left to give. I would think @Olératings are accurate, and if that’s the case it really isn’t good enough.

[cidered abroad]

6 hours ago, Aizoon said:

I used to say I wouldn't cross the road to see Reading play. I never did, although I must have visited Elm Park a couple of dozen times. I lived just round the corner, and literally didn't have to cross the road.

 

The Madjeski is the face of modern football and I HATE it. I would quite honestly rather go to the County Ground or the Memorial Swamp. We can only be grateful that we didn't build a new stadium five miles down the A38.

You might be able to go to both next season?

[Robin Wood]

15 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

You might be able to go to both next season?

Don't think Swindon will get promoted 

[Super]

Diedhiou was not the reason we lost that game. 

[ralphindevon]

I've seen better sides and many worse City sides but I can't remember a team with so many players that can look the real deal one game and then just disappear into a below average run of games the next.

Diedhiou, Taylor, Paterson, O'Dowda, Pack to name a few who have looked to have cemented long term places in the team with outstanding performances one minute and look league 1 players the next. 

[Olé]

1 hour ago, ralphindevon said:

I've seen better sides and many worse City sides but I can't remember a team with so many players that can look the real deal one game and then just disappear into a below average run of games the next.

And always how we start away at any struggling side. Why is that? Perhaps the biggest LJ mystery of the lot.

First half at Bolton (A), first half at QPR (A), first half at Rotherham (A), now Reading (A) right from the get go. 

Same last season away at Barnsley (in fact whenever we go to Barnsley under LJ we have gone behind first).

Struggled at Burton and Bolton, and but for a comeback gave struggling low morale Hull a two goal lead too.

It's another of LJ's achilles heels. Can mix it with big sides but can't motivate in games we're supposed to win.

Yesterday was infuriating but not the first time we'd seen this episode, though at Reading it feels worse of all.

@Red Exile nailed how depressing it was. I console myself LJ at least wouldn't dress it up like Holden has...

[Mr Popodopolous]

@Olé

QPR who are midtable and usually have a solid home record? That QPR? Our performance there wasn't ideal but we got a win there by any means necessary- think they've only conceded 4 goals at home in their other 7 games so can't grumble too much I feel- that said we were poor in possession on the night.

Rotherham who have 15 points at home and only 1 loss at home after 8 games- beat Swansea, drew with (arguably should've beaten) Stoke, beat Derby- that Rotherham?

I'm not happy with a number of our displays this year, but at the same time there are 2 sides on the pitch- way we often setup doesn't help however. Reading and Bolton I agree fully with you on BTW.

[Olé]

53 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm not happy with a number of our displays this year, but at the same time there are 2 sides on the pitch- way we often setup doesn't help however. Reading and Bolton I agree fully with you on BTW.

Agree with Rotherham that they were playing good stuff at home anyway, but we literally didn't turn up in the first half there. That's not being second best. That's not turning up. At QPR yes their record now is positive, but when we went there the home fans wanted the manager sacked and they just came off a beating at West Brom. Again for the opening 30 minutes we didn't turn up (albeit took control of the game after that). Add in the others mentioned and while you're quite right to remind me there are always two sides, the point is there AREN'T when we go to struggling sides, as for whatever reason under LJ we routinely don't turn up at kick off! 

[Merrick's Marvels]

11 hours ago, RedDave said:

People maybe starting to appreciate how good Reid is 

I think you make a very  good point.

[Davefevs]

@Olé poetic....again.  Wonderful summing up of a un-poetic performance.  Flashes of good play surrounded by ineptness.

That was not a team performance today, that was a group of eleven players rounded up and asked to play like they’d never played together before.  Identity?  There isn’t one.

The master tactician?  We all get excited at Pack dropping-in to receive the ball, the CBs splitting, receiving and progressing the ball into midfield.  How we purred, how it become our common football parlance, how progressive are we...it’s just what Man City do, don’t they?

What do I feel about this “tactic”?

1. i love to see Webster coming forward (Hansen-esque), but one of our better passers is now behind him....all he’s doing is running into the space a conventionally positioned midfielder would be in...where does he go?  Who does he pass to?
2. has this affected Pack, his form has got worse, especially since LJ told him he didn’t want him to stray from the “cage” (LJ’s words - West Brom).  Maybe Pack’s intelligent positioning (debate?) is being stifled, and also making him easier to mark, close Down?
3. If Webster is so good on the ball (he is a fine ball-playing CB imho), why does Pack need to drop in?  I never thought replacing Flint would mean needing to drop Pack in to start the attacks.

I’ve not done any coaching badges, but this tactic doesn’t work imho, certainly not for large proportions of games.  It just increases the distance from our back four (which now has Pack as its deepest player) to Diedhiou (or whoever is up-top).

Need to sort out how we want to play ASAP.  Pick the players and back them.

Ole - I find watching the Bristol Flyers on a Saturday night very therapeutic and I end Saturday on a high, posting positive stuff on Basketball Forums - they have their hoops-equivalent of posters on here...but mainly Leicester / Newcastle rivalry.  The Flyers are the epitome of “making progress”.

[BS4 on Tour...]

12 hours ago, pillred said:

think that was last season 17 points clear in the play off places at Christmas.

Eh? On Boxing Day 2017 we were second in the table with 47 points....the team in seventh place had 38 points....how were we ‘17 points clear in the play offs’ ?!

[Garland-sweden]

The ball has to be moved quicker and in to the box. A long ball is not bad If it its good, Cotts said. Its easy to defend against us, we are doing everything slowly. Its easy to be negatiive about our forwards but they seldom got good passes to work with. More speed and movement has to be. As Ole said, it looks as we are in training ground.

[Carey 6]

This is giving everything. 

When was the last time we showed such desire to get the ball back? 

 

 

[RedM]

5 minutes ago, Carey 6 said:

This is giving everything. 

When was the last time we showed such desire to get the ball back? 

 

 

We were talking about this yesterday too. I don’t like Leeds but got to admire the work ethic as a team here and got to hand it to them that they are where they deserve to be if they play like this.

 

[Red Exile]

11 minutes ago, RedM said:

We were talking about this yesterday too. I don’t like Leeds but got to admire the work ethic as a team here and got to hand it to them that they are where they deserve to be if they play like this.

 

Agreed. And their vastly experienced manager is, of course, renowned for this style of play and one of the world greats. Worth every penny he is being paid. If I was a billionaire seeking to build a football club and a sporting brand that's the kind off appointment I'd be looking to make.

[Kevin Brady]

21 hours ago, JonDolman said:

I personally would have started Paterson. Why not play a similar looking team to what looked so good second half against Stoke. If we are sticking to a short passing game, then why not play our best technical players. It is possible to play this way effectively, just look at Fulham last season. I agree Pack has been poor, but its no coincidence that he looked far better 2nd half against Stoke with an extra body in there helping him and Walsh out. That player is Brownhill.

JonDolman, it was a similar looking team to be fair, minus Pato, and that was the problem. I assume you have played football yourself, having looked at your other posts. You seem to read the game well

In the second half, Stoke set themselves up to protect their lead. They got numbers behind the ball and broke quite effectively. They nailed their game plan. We, on the other hand, were always going to look to be the side on the front foot. I thought Reading were quite happy watching us playing tippy tappy without end product.  For sure, we played some nice stuff but also flattered to deceive. To then start the same second half 11 Vs Reading ? this makes no sense to me

 

[Tin Soldier]

30 minutes ago, Red Exile said:

Agreed. And their vastly experienced manager is, of course, renowned for this style of play and one of the world greats. Worth every penny he is being paid. If I was a billionaire seeking to build a football club and a sporting brand that's the kind off appointment I'd be looking to make.

It is crass comments from staff like Dean Holden which really boils my piss.

I also watched the Leeds game yesterday and there work ethic is superb, whereas our lot when they lose the ball (which is too often) apart from a couple of players is just LAZY!

The current system just ain’t working when we play teams like Reading and my fear is that Johnson has no Plan B.

As questioned by many on here - Does Johnson have a specific game plan dependent on who we play?

[ZiderEyed]

2 hours ago, Carey 6 said:

This is giving everything. 

When was the last time we showed such desire to get the ball back? 

 

 

Bielsa effect.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Kevin Brady said:

JonDolman, it was a similar looking team to be fair, minus Pato, and that was the problem. I assume you have played football yourself, having looked at your other posts. You seem to read the game well

In the second half, Stoke set themselves up to protect their lead. They got numbers behind the ball and broke quite effectively. They nailed their game plan. We, on the other hand, were always going to look to be the side on the front foot. I thought Reading were quite happy watching us playing tippy tappy without end product.  For sure, we played some nice stuff but also flattered to deceive. To then start the same second half 11 Vs Reading ? this makes no sense to me

 

To be fair, we were desperately unlucky to lose to Stoke.

• Hit the woodwork twice.
• Header off the line
• One world class, plus 2 other excellent saves by Butland.

Even when you take into account their tactical conservatism 2nd half, first woodwork strike was just a minute or 2 before their winner- that goes in and we may well win the game.

Reading less so, but again woodwork and they (Reading) had 3 shots on target, they score 3 goals- and it's not the first time this has happened to us this season- Wigan away, 1 shot on target conceded resulted in 1 goal conceded! We were poor at Wigan, but could perhaps have got a point (mind you we probably should have lost at Rotherham so it cancels out in that respect)!

@GasDestroyer Generally he seems to go with his rigid plan, whatever that is meant to be- but Sheffield United at home he did devise something totally different!

@billywedlock You talk about the spend, but what's our wage bill? When last season's accounts come out, we will have a full picture but I'd suggest it was something in the range of top 10 to midtable. Of course it isn't everything, but promotion? Pfft! Not for a while can we think of this aspiration- you talk about the money but the infrastructure we have been putting into place lately has been merely catching up with other sides and we're still building it up.

@RedCheese You mentioned 60% possession this season? In a few games maybe. Overall? 51-52% our average so no idea where you got that from. Actually, something that is interesting- I've had a quick look at the stats and it seems the more possession we have had, the worse we've done this season in a lot of games- which is fairly counterintuitive!

[Mr Popodopolous]

.

[Redmycolour]

We gave everything, bullshit we didn't, he's talking like Johnson, hasn't got a clue, must be watching wrong game, we were awful, 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, RedM said:

We were talking about this yesterday too. I don’t like Leeds but got to admire the work ethic as a team here and got to hand it to them that they are where they deserve to be if they play like this.

 

This 

45 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

Bielsa effect.

This 

City players are in Cosy Club.

[Maesknoll Red]

50 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

City players are in Cosy Club.

How many times have we seen this point made over the last 10 or 15 years?   No idea, but it was more common a few years back, have things started slipping again?

[pillred]

12 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Eh? On Boxing Day 2017 we were second in the table with 47 points....the team in seventh place had 38 points....how were we ‘17 points clear in the play offs’ ?!

what's 8 points between friends, must have got a bit mixed up, probably something to do with how many ahead of Fulham who then got promoted, well that's my excuse ha-ha!

[Mr Popodopolous]

If people deep down, truly expected us to finish top 2- that was a bit misguided IMO.

Playoffs? Most certainly- not making 5th or 6th at worst a bit disappointment, but Fulham put together a frankly ridiculous unbeaten 23 game run (think it was a record for them)- at one point they were even coming from midtable to press Wolves- that sort of form was always going to leave many sides trailing in their wake.

[Ivorguy]

However you cut it, whether selection, tactics,  commitment the buck stops with LJ

[Harry]

6 hours ago, Carey 6 said:

This is giving everything. 

When was the last time we showed such desire to get the ball back? 

 

 

Wow. That is impressive. 

This has been a huge bug-bear of mine with many City players in recent times - the desire to sprint back. We’ve had loads of joggers trotters & amblers, you need sprinters.