Seeing out games...

[spudski]

...what a fantastic performance yesterday. 

A real pleasure to watch. 

And without wanting to piss on the fire of a happy weekend...I thought it might be worth mentioning/debating/ people's thought... on how we could make our positive starts less nervy in second halves.

I'm sure everyone would agree, that we are offensively very good.

And our weakness is defending leads.

Which we haven't been good at for a while. Conceding late in games from winning positions.

Stats and eyes tell us that.

Knowing that...why would you make substitutions and change formation into a more defensive situation?

Is it ingrained that you have to try and defend and shore up a lead?

Is it in our case, that we don't have the personnel to do otherwise?

The stats show that we have conceded the most goals in the league from 70 mins onwards. 

We brought HNM and Williams on yesterday around 70 mins. Changed formation...2 up front...less pressing with intent. We allowed Blackburn to come at us. As we did in our last game...and made it difficult for ourselves. Their possession went up and they caused us more problems.

Could it not be conceivable, that our best chance of defending leads, is to keep to the same way of playing and make offensive type substitutions when fresh legs needed? As in like for like.

Just a thought...and no way wanting to sound negative.

Just looking at making it easier for ourselves...

https://www.soccerstats.com/table.asp?league=england2&tid=j

 

[BCFC1512]

I thought when Semenyo came on we’d let them come at us then get them on the break. For what ever reason it didn’t work and he didn’t really do much (not his fault) was just the way we played last 10-15 mins.

[old_eastender]

5 minutes ago, Taunton_BCFC said:

I thought when Semenyo came on we’d let them come at us then get them on the break. For what ever reason it didn’t work and he didn’t really do much (not his fault) was just the way we played last 10-15 mins.

In fairness when Semenyo came on, we stopped playing through midfield and just hit long hopeful balls in his direction. Whether that's an intentional change or subconscious bias I don't know, but all the good interchange, pass and movement disappeared except for the one chance Weimann unusually wasted in 91st minute. 

[Monkeh]

In fairness both the Blackburn goals were brilliant pieces of individual skills and we won so did see the game out

[sh1t_ref_again]

10 minutes ago, spudski said:

 

We brought HNM and Williams on yesterday around 70 mins. Changed formation...2 up front...less pressing with intent. We allowed Blackburn to come at us. As we did in our last game...and made it difficult for ourselves. Their possession went up and they caused us more problems.

 

 

Williams came on at 87 minutes and HNM at 91 minutes, Semenyo 63 mins.

I actually thought we left the changes too late, I was concerned that Matty & Alex were both on bookings and as the game went on it increases chances of another rash challenge and sending off. We have so much energy with the closing down, you cant maintain it for 90 minutes so we stop the pressing and give the other team more time, in particular when Tommy came off Semenyo did nowhere near the same work rate and closing down. With the high intensity game, you have to make full use of the subs, HNM is fantastic at breaking up play and would give the energy boast needed.

[spudski]

39 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Williams came on at 87 minutes and HNM at 91 minutes, Semenyo 63 mins.

I actually thought we left the changes too late, I was concerned that Matty & Alex were both on bookings and as the game went on it increases chances of another rash challenge and sending off. We have so much energy with the closing down, you cant maintain it for 90 minutes so we stop the pressing and give the other team more time, in particular when Tommy came off Semenyo did nowhere near the same work rate and closing down. With the high intensity game, you have to make full use of the subs, HNM is fantastic at breaking up play and would give the energy boast needed.

My mistake in grammar. What I meant was in general was after Semenyo came on we changed formation. Played with two up front...sat deeper. As you say...it was noticeably that Semenyo didn't press with intent and energy. 

I agree making full use of subs when playing with such intensity.

But why change what we do well...to what we do poorly?

Against better teams we'll get punished.

Something that can be improved in imo...and NP recognises it.

I just query why we resort to negative play when leading, especially in the last 20 mins of games where we've conceded 6 times.

[slartibartfast]

51 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

In fairness both the Blackburn goals were brilliant pieces of individual skills and we won so did see the game out

In fairness, AS was definitely fouled (on the touch line ) to set up their first.

[sh1t_ref_again]

19 minutes ago, spudski said:

My mistake in grammar. What I meant was in general was after Semenyo came on we changed formation. Played with two up front...sat deeper. As you say...it was noticeably that Semenyo didn't press with intent and energy. 

I agree making full use of subs when playing with such intensity.

But why change what we do well...to what we do poorly?

Against better teams we'll get punished.

Something that can be improved in imo...and NP recognises it.

I just query why we resort to negative play when leading, especially in the last 20 mins of games where we've conceded 6 times.

But it is the case we purposely start doing something different or we just cant maintain the level of energy and press and what we were doing for the full 90?, also when a team is loosing their approach, personnel and tactics changes as they have nothing to loose, so they can be more aggressive and take more risks pushing forward. If AW had scored and made it 4-1, with a chance you expect him to take with have put a different gloss on the result.

I do think when we have a lead going into the last 20, it makes more sense to get fresh legs on and in particular to strengthen the midfield and try to cut down the space for them to play

[spudski]

15 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

But it is the case we purposely start doing something different or we just cant maintain the level of energy and press and what we were doing for the full 90?, also when a team is loosing their approach, personnel and tactics changes as they have nothing to loose, so they can be more aggressive and take more risks pushing forward. If AW had scored and made it 4-1, with a chance you expect him to take with have put a different gloss on the result.

I do think when we have a lead going into the last 20, it makes more sense to get fresh legs on and in particular to strengthen the midfield and try to cut down the space for them to play

Yesterday was imo, a case of doing something different. For example Semenyo didn't play with the same high energy and intensity as we did in the first half. 

Whether under instruction or not...who knows. We did play with two instead of three up front when he came on...it was noticeable. 

We lost the outlets of through balls. 

As for your last paragraph...in theory yes... however this is why I thought it was worthy of discussion....as we don't do that particularly well.

NP is obviously aware of it...as he mentions how we make it hard for ourselves seeing out games 

Is it mental, tactical, individual, collective? All things worthy of taking note of.

This is why imo...it would be worth trying to keep on the front foot, and playing the same way...doing what we do best...not resorting to what we do worst. Which is conceding in the last minutes of games.

Teams know we have a habit of conceding late...so will look to take advantage. Why not change it up and continue giving them problems. Perhaps that way they will be less likely to commit forward.

Who knows...just a thought.

[robin_unreliant]

Whichever team is behind will inevitably 'go for it' in the llast quarter of the game. We would expect city to attack gung-ho if we were losing at that point.

I think we notice it more partly because we have been in front so often, not really a bad thing. 

 

[bcfcredandwhite]

Conceding late goals is absolutely our Achilles heel - and opposition managers will know this and drum into their players that Bristol City is there for the taking after 75 minutes. 
There is a lot of psychology involved in football. When a goal is scored it has a huge mental impact and changes the dynamic of the game. 
For most sides, going 2-0 down would be psychologically damaging but when playing against us it doesn’t necessarily mean the same because everyone knows we concede at least one goal at the end of games so they will keep positive. 
We absolutely MUST kill this ghost - we can’t expect to score 3 goals every game. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by bcfcredandwhite
Change wording

[Midred]

1 hour ago, slartibartfast said:

In fairness, AS was definitely fouled (on the touch line ) to set up their first.

I noticed one or two incidents that were ignored/waved away. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

less pressing with intent.

I’d say less structured, organised pressing, than less pressing with intent…but you might mean the same?

A feature of our “press” is that it’s definitely not a gegen-press (some mistake the location of the press with the intensity).  It’s either a high positioned press to stop the keeper playing out through his CBs (we did that ever so well at times v Huddersfield), or one where we retreat to 40-45m from their goal and tend to block.

I thought we got scrappy with our structure in the last 25 mins.

But the other thing is - you can’t always take what City do in isolation, there’s another team trying to disrupt what we do and impose their own solutions.

For me, a noticeable difference was the sub of Wharton for Edun.  Wharton on a yellow couldn’t get close to make a challenge for fear of a red and we passed around him, whereas Edun was more rat like!!  I think he barged over Semenyo for their opener and it should’ve been a free-kick, but hey-ho.

I do get your point though.

[spudski]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’d say less structured, organised pressing, than less pressing with intent…but you might mean the same?

A feature of our “press” is that it’s definitely not a gegen-press (some mistake the location of the press with the intensity).  It’s either a high positioned press to stop the keeper playing out through his CBs (we did that ever so well at times v Huddersfield), or one where we retreat to 40-45m from their goal and tend to block.

I thought we got scrappy with our structure in the last 25 mins.

But the other thing is - you can’t always take what City do in isolation, there’s another team trying to disrupt what we do and impose their own solutions.

For me, a noticeable difference was the sub of Wharton for Edun.  Wharton on a yellow couldn’t get close to make a challenge for fear of a red and we passed around him, whereas Edun was more rat like!!  I think he barged over Semenyo for their opener and it should’ve been a free-kick, but hey-ho.

I do get your point though.

I think it was less structured...but also less intensive in the second half.

We didn't really force the opposition into mistakes.

They had far more time to build and play passes that were not rushed.

Our structure, reactions to opposition substitutions, and our own substitutions in the second halves imo could be better.

I fully understand teams will come looking to score when behind... however...as noted by NP we are making it difficult for ourselves. Other teams go in front but don't concede in the last 20 like we do. It's been going on a while now.

The opposition know it...and we know it. Exorsising the ghost so to speak...in order to do so, something needs to change. If you keep doing the same things, it makes no sense. Change it up maybe?

 

[Super]

5 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

In fairness, AS was definitely fouled (on the touch line ) to set up their first.

Never a foul.

[Top Robin]

4 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

Conceding late goals is absolutely our Achilles heel - and opposition managers will know this and drum into their players that Bristol City is there for the taking after 75 minutes. 
There is a lot of psychology involved in football. When a goal is scored it has a huge mental impact and changes the dynamic of the game. 
For most sides, going 2-0 down would be psychologically damaging but when playing against us it doesn’t necessarily mean the same because everyone knows we concede at least one goal at the end of games so they will keep positive. 
We absolutely MUST kill this ghost - we can’t expect to score 3 goals every game. 

Correct.....it's the only thing which isn't quite right with us imo......if we could sort this, the sky's the limit!

[The Swan and Cemetery]

5 hours ago, robin_unreliant said:

Whichever team is behind will inevitably 'go for it' in the llast quarter of the game. We would expect city to attack gung-ho if we were losing at that point.

I think we notice it more partly because we have been in front so often, not really a bad thing. 

 

Yep. Before today’s games we were top, clear by 6 points with 20 in the first half table. Second half we’re 13th with 8, so worse, but not disastrous. So far this season we haven’t had this problem at home:

but still conceding late goals away:

 

As you indicate, if we’re ahead, away from home, it’s likely that our opponents, egged on by their supporters, will become ever more attacking late on. As their attacking subs come on, we could choose to stay as is with our formation, but maybe exposed to criticism if their overloaded attacking intent succeeds? 

Sensible that we keep working at all things that aren’t optimal, but somewhat less concerned when at least indirectly caused by the thing we’re very good at, aka scoring goals/taking the lead. 

Tables from soccer stats.com not my Excel. 

[LondonBristolian]

I do think part of it is psychological and - in that regard - I think it important that we held on yesterday as that will give us  a boost.

At the same time, the subs I was unconvinced by were Williams for Wells and Massengo for Scott. Nothing against either player that came on but I felt we may have sacrificed an attacking focal point and gave them momentum whereas keeping three attacking players would have meant they would have had to guard against the counter rather than committing players forward.

I realise many will disagree - and of course NP knows a billion times more than I or anyone posting on here does about football tactics - but I am not a fan of sitting on leads as I think it invites pressure and is often counter-productive. I think we would throw away leads less if we tried to keep the opposition on the back foot.

 

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I do think part of it is psychological and - in that regard - I think it important that we held on yesterday as that will give us  a boost.

At the same time, the subs I was unconvinced by were Williams for Wells and Massengo for Scott. Nothing against either player that came on but I felt we may have sacrificed an attacking focal point and gave them momentum whereas keeping three attacking players would have meant they would have had to guard against the counter rather than committing players forward.

I realise many will disagree - and of course NP knows a billion times more than I or anyone posting on here does about football tactics - but I am not a fan of sitting on leads as I think it invites pressure and is often counter-productive. I think we would throw away leads less if we tried to keep the opposition on the back foot.

 

I'm 100% in agreement with you.

That's how I see it too.

As you say...It's so counter productive, especially when you aren't good at it. 

Our second half performances don't reflect our first half performances.

I've noted it in games this season...regardless of who we are playing, or score. When we come out second half, we never start with the same intensity as we do first half.

First half we come out with intent...second halves with make similar moves but it's often symbolic and passive. 

Is it something said at half time?

Who knows...but it's something I've noticed.

Look at the league tables first half v second half.

Top first half...13th second half.

Sort our second halves out, and we may do well. 

https://www.soccerstats.com/halftime.asp?league=england2

 

[real_bristol]

Attack is the best form of defence.

[Lew-T]

9 hours ago, Taunton_BCFC said:

I thought when Semenyo came on we’d let them come at us then get them on the break. For what ever reason it didn’t work and he didn’t really do much (not his fault) was just the way we played last 10-15 mins.

Soon as he came on, we stopped playing and the back 3 started lumping balls for him to head or chase…. It didn’t work and became a little predictable in the end. 
 

Apart from that though we were faultless and ruthless.

[TDarwall]

I think we have stumbled on the ideal solution; get a 2 goal lead & we can then concede our customary late goal & no harm done.

[downendcity]

Until and unless we can find a way of being a tighter defensive unit in the last quarter of games then, as was the case yesterday, we need to be even more clinical in taking the chances we create in the early part of games.

It might seem churlish, given our goalscoring record this season, but it is not far fetched to say that we could have been 4 in front at half time and that sort of lead gives opposition teams too much of an uphill task - even against us!. As others have commented, our frailty must be well known by opposition managers and coaches, who know that if they can get to one behind at the end of games and can put us under pressure then they are in with a chance.Had Blackburn scored their second 5-10 minutes earlier, what would the odds have been that they would have gone on to equalise ? After such a great performance from us, imagine the phycological effect that would have had on the players!

 At least this season we have managed to get 2 goal leads, whereas one of the problems for most of the last 2/3 seasons was that at best we managed only a 1 goal lead and that was never enough, given our propensity to concede late on in games.

 

 

 

[IAmNick]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

I'm 100% in agreement with you.

That's how I see it too.

As you say...It's so counter productive, especially when you aren't good at it. 

Our second half performances don't reflect our first half performances.

I've noted it in games this season...regardless of who we are playing, or score. When we come out second half, we never start with the same intensity as we do first half.

First half we come out with intent...second halves with make similar moves but it's often symbolic and passive. 

Is it something said at half time?

Who knows...but it's something I've noticed.

Look at the league tables first half v second half.

Top first half...13th second half.

Sort our second halves out, and we may do well. 

https://www.soccerstats.com/halftime.asp?league=england2

 

Not sure I really agree with you about sorting our second half out - the sample size is way too small.

For example on that link:

West Brom are 21st 1st half, 1st 2nd.

Milwall are 23rd 1st, 4th 2nd.

Watford are 5th and 17th.

Huddersfield are 8th and 22nd.

Does that make our 1st and 13th seem so bad? That seems within expected margins to me given it's only been a handful of game so far.

I don't think we can keep the intensity up for 90m with the people we start with, so we have to make changes - especially when people like Scott are on a yellow. With our squad size we also don't have the luxury to make the perfect tactical or like for like change.

It's only natural, especially away from home, that the opposition will attack more as the games goes on if they're behind - Are you taking into account that not only are we changing shape, but if the opposition are losing as it passes 60/70m they will be making attacking substitutions... we can't just keep blindly playing the same way we have all game no matter what they do, that's incredibly naive.

I'd argue by and large what we're doing is working so far.

2 hours ago, real_bristol said:

Attack is the best form of defence.

Like when Pring (wasn't it?) last season went for goal right rather than the corner at the end of the game, lost the ball, and they scored? You have to play what's in front of you - and if you're winning as the clock runs down adapt accordingly.

I get the point people are making in general but I think it's a) looking at a small sample size of games, and b) ignoring what the opposition are trying to do. If they're piling on attacking subs or formation changes and we're not reacting that's a recipe for disaster.

In my opinion most opposition managers, when we're 3 - 1 up, would happily take a 50/50 shot at either side scoring... that's a much better chance for them to potentially get something from the match (3-2 or 4-1) than for us! And continuing what we've been doing all game blindly is going to play into that.

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by IAmNick

[mozo]

9 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

In fairness, AS was definitely fouled (on the touch line ) to set up their first.

I saw it differently. I thought he tried to play himself out of trouble when crowded by eventually 3 Blackburn players and just fell by being off balance. He had no where to go and had to just whack the ball somewhere.

I suppose it's good our players are confident enough to try to play their way out of tight spots but really if Vyner had done that we'd be fuming and blaming him no end imo. 

Semenyo weirdly was a sub we were all excited about but it just didn't work on this occasion. I'm not sure we can blame Nige though. Any gaffer would have brought him on.

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by mozo

[spudski]

36 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Not sure I really agree with you about sorting our second half out - the sample size is way too small.

For example on that link:

West Brom are 21st 1st half, 1st 2nd.

Milwall are 23rd 1st, 4th 2nd.

Watford are 5th and 17th.

Huddersfield are 8th and 22nd.

Does that make our 1st and 13th seem so bad? That seems within expected margins to me given it's only been a handful of game so far.

I don't think we can keep the intensity up for 90m with the people we start with, so we have to make changes - especially when people like Scott are on a yellow. With our squad size we also don't have the luxury to make the perfect tactical or like for like change.

It's only natural, especially away from home, that the opposition will attack more as the games goes on if they're behind - Are you taking into account that not only are we changing shape, but if the opposition are losing as it passes 60/70m they will be making attacking substitutions... we can't just keep blindly playing the same way we have all game no matter what they do, that's incredibly naive.

I'd argue by and large what we're doing is working so far.

Like when Pring (wasn't it?) last season went for goal right rather than the corner at the end of the game, lost the ball, and they scored? You have to play what's in front of you - and if you're winning as the clock runs down adapt accordingly.

I get the point people are making in general but I think it's a) looking at a small sample size of games, and b) ignoring what the opposition are trying to do. If they're piling on attacking subs or formation changes and we're not reacting that's a recipe for disaster.

In my opinion most opposition managers, when we're 3 - 1 up, would happily take a 50/50 shot at either side scoring... that's a much better chance for them to potentially get something from the match (3-2 or 4-1) than for us! And continuing what we've been doing all game blindly is going to play into that.

 

How can the sample size be too small if it's a continuation of last season's same problem?

It's not a new phenomenon. It's something we've done for a while.

NP is aware of it...it's not something I've noticed. He's continually said we keep making life difficult for ourselves when seeing out games.

I also haven't said...don't make changes in personel.

When the opposition make changes, you don't have to continually play into their hand, by doing what they want us to do. Which is sit back and defend.

They know it's our weakness...and they will know from stats that we counteract the way we do.

If a team is coming at us offensively, then they leave themselves open to even more space behind. Why not continue to take advantage of that?

If we can score when they are defending...why not put a game out of sight when they are trying to equalise? When there is even more space. 

Of course you don't go gung ho...and you can still manage a game by being offensive.

You mention Pring...one example of a mistake. What about all the other goals we've conceded when sitting back?

No one is being naïve...if NP can see it, and wants to rectify it... he obviously wants to improve on it.

There's more than one way of defending a lead. And if you keep doing the same thing and conceding, you look to find a better way. That's common sense.

[TheReds]

9 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

For most sides, going 2-0 down would be psychologically damaging but when playing against us it doesn’t necessarily mean the same because everyone knows we concede at least one goal at the end of games so they will keep positive. 

When was the last time we were 2 in front and never won?

This season we have been 2 in front against Blackburn, Huddersfield, Cardiff, Luton, Coventry (cup) and won them all.

Last season Hull, Derby, Boro, Reading, Cardiff, all won. 

Against who were we really in danger of in any of those of throwing it away? Yes some teams may get one back, occasionally they will get two back or go on to win.

But I would expect more teams to come back against us if we are still pressing, more open, and also tiring out even more players in an already extremely busy season.

Sooner or later we will be 2 in front and go on to draw or lose a game, and their will be cries of how we throw away 2 goal leads regularly, when the facts are that we rarely do.

[mozo]

34 minutes ago, spudski said:

How can the sample size be too small if it's a continuation of last season's same problem?

It's not a new phenomenon. It's something we've done for a while.

NP is aware of it...it's not something I've noticed. He's continually said we keep making life difficult for ourselves when seeing out games.

I also haven't said...don't make changes in personel.

When the opposition make changes, you don't have to continually play into their hand, by doing what they want us to do. Which is sit back and defend.

They know it's our weakness...and they will know from stats that we counteract the way we do.

If a team is coming at us offensively, then they leave themselves open to even more space behind. Why not continue to take advantage of that?

If we can score when they are defending...why not put a game out of sight when they are trying to equalise? When there is even more space. 

Of course you don't go gung ho...and you can still manage a game by being offensive.

You mention Pring...one example of a mistake. What about all the other goals we've conceded when sitting back?

No one is being naïve...if NP can see it, and wants to rectify it... he obviously wants to improve on it.

There's more than one way of defending a lead. And if you keep doing the same thing and conceding, you look to find a better way. That's common sense.

Am I right in saying that Nige has suggested the issue (capitulation) is psychological more than anything else, which I presume to mean a collective weakness of determination. 

[spudski]

21 minutes ago, mozo said:

Am I right in saying that Nige has suggested the issue (capitulation) is psychological more than anything else, which I presume to mean a collective weakness of determination. 

He has in the past...maybe last season from memory.

Personally I don't see that now.

I just see a structure that allows teams onto us when defending leads in the second half.

Combine that with an opposition that think they will score...because stats say that...then that breeds confidence to go for it.

A tweak imo is needed.

 

[Sleepy1968]

37 minutes ago, TheReds said:

When was the last time we were 2 in front and never won?

This season we have been 2 in front against Blackburn, Huddersfield, Cardiff, Luton, Coventry (cup) and won them all.

Last season Hull, Derby, Boro, Reading, Cardiff, all won. 

Against who were we really in danger of in any of those of throwing it away? Yes some teams may get one back, occasionally they will get two back or go on to win.

But I would expect more teams to come back against us if we are still pressing, more open, and also tiring out even more players in an already extremely busy season.

Sooner or later we will be 2 in front and go on to draw or lose a game, and their will be cries of how we throw away 2 goal leads regularly, when the facts are that we rarely do.

I think l remember being 2-0 up at home to Wigan (who I think my have been league leaders) 25+ years ago, live on Sky (?), they scored 2 in the last 10 minutes to ruin my weekend. Not sure I'm over it even now.