Where are all the doubters now??

[elhombrecito]

Stop feeding the troll everybody, this is what he lives for. 

[Davefevs]

7 hours ago, JoeAman08 said:

As someone else said, you can look at the stats and perhaps make the case performances are the same. As someone who is at damn near every game, you can feel the change. The fullbacks higher up the pitch than the wingbacks ever were. The front 3 all pressing in unison. The intensity is much higher and generally everyone looks very comfortable in their roles. Every has a job, knows their job and executes it. 
 

You can feel the difference in the atmosphere. It isn’t a results thing. It started with Swansea in the cup. No we may not have possession or loads of shots. The intent and endeavour is now there and it wasn’t early in the season. There are no stats that can quantify it but I guarantee you ask 1000 city fans if it has been more enjoyable since Swansea in the cup, 1000 would say yes.

It isn’t results that get me going. It is intensity and intent. Today was scrappy at times but Norwich looked up for it. We made it scrappy by being aggressive. We didn’t let them get comfortable which has been a theme. Thats the difference I am on about and that came with a switch to 433. 

I think the change came about from Millwall and Coventry away, just like not losing at Wigan in game three gave belief to go on a run of 8 unbeaten playing a different formation and some of the best free-flowing flowing football I’ve seen in a good while.  That seems to have been easily forgotten.  Key players back from injury after the break (Jamo and Naismith missing in that dodgy run of results), the return to form of Semenyo (until his transfer), the emergence of Vyner and Atkinson, who’d previously needed to guiding hand and voice of Naismith or King.  Vyner’s leadership of Tanner and Pring at Swansea pre-break I think was his coming of age.  The Vyner up to that point was still making errors, and then pairing him with Atkinson was not a thought going through most City fans’ heads until Swansea (in the cup).  Funny that Swansea has made a big impact on Zak a few times after his performance there last season!

Re bit in bold…completely agree yesterday.

FWIW I said he should’ve never changed from a back 4 v QPR (a) at the start of last season, despite us snatching a 2-1 win in injury time.  But I see why he did, and why he persisted with it.  The WSM last season is as much a part of a back three system perversely, as was WCW (Wells, Conway, Weimann) this season.  

[Port Said Red]

1 minute ago, elhombrecito said:

Stop feeding the troll everybody, this is what he lives for. 

I know but it's difficult to resist when he praises the drinking culture that was here under Wilson but denigrates the culture of self improvement and winning mentality under Gary Johnson. His selectivity is jaw dropping. 

[spudski]

3 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

I’m surprised that some are saying the performances haven’t improved since the home FA cup game against Swansea.   The results have dramatically improved but quite clearly the performances have improved as well. Maybe not as dramatically as the results but there is a pretty clear improvement.  @Percy Pig @Davefevs you must surely see that defensively we are a fair bit stronger.  Fewer individual errors, better structure. Offensively we look more dangerous with width higher up the field.  More solid in midfield as well.  The better defensive platform in the last 5-6 games is a big step forward. I just can’t see how the performances have not improved at all. 

 

I agree with your observations. 

As has been spoken about on the thread already, there has obviously been mitigating circumstances that have led us to play certain ways, with players playing out of their strongest positions. 

We all agree, I'm sure, that NP has done a fantastic job. Remarkable considering circumstances. 

However...like all managers, none of them are perfect, I'm sure most look back with hindsight on occasion and wish they had done things differently...that's football...not all plans come to fruition.

What George Tanner said post match yesterday...implied performances improved with set up that the players felt more comfortable playing.

Being comfortable breeds confidence. And being confident and comfortable is a massive help. 

If you play in a system you are confident and comfortable in, then you play with freedom and less worry. Confident in your own ability, confident in your team mate not making errors. It makes a massive difference.

We haven't played much differently as has been pointed out. But we've cut out the individual errors and become defensively better. 

Playing with 4 at the back and 2 covering DCMS has been instrumental in our up turn in results imo. 

It stops oppositions exploiting our weaknesses. 

You can see the players are visably more confident playing in this set up. Not only does it help us defend better as a unit, but also allows us to play offensively with confidence, without worrying about losing the ball and be so open on the counter. 

In short...we aren't playing much differently to how we have all season...but the change has made us more defensively secure, which has bred confidence and in turn cut out individual errors. 

Formations perse are too vague. As they frequently change throughout a game. 

However...looking at stats...when we've initially set up in league games with 4 in midfield, we've lost most games. 

Playing 352 or 4231 has been our most successful set up...only losing 1 game. Winning 5 and drawing 5.

When we've played 3412 we lost 7, won 4, drew 4.

442...lost both games.

343 lost.

433 won.

Fingers crossed we can now play to a system where everyone is comfortable, and have a better depth of squad available. 

Going 4231 seems to have helped and reverting to a 352 during games has some logic. 

[awbb]

As disappointing as the WBA performance was on Boxing Day, even following some turgid form, I never thought we were quite as hopeless and disjointed as several of the death-throw games under LJ, let alone much of the Holden car crash. When factoring in that we were also playing "the in form team in the division" as well, it didn't really cross my mind that we should have got rid of him on that day.

As people have said, what Nige has been required to do with us is simply more than anyone has ever achieved.

• Revolutionize the culture.
• Develop an identity.
• Slash the wage budget.
• Avoid relegation.

GJ had to change the culture and we were utter garbage in the 3rd tier while he did it, but at least he got to subsequently reap the rewards. We had to slash the wage budget under McInnes and O'Driscoll and they were responsible for getting us relegated (between them) while overseeing some of the most powderpuff performances I've ever had the misfortune to witness. Even if we go on a shocking run from Wednesday and get relegated this season (which I don't believe for a second we will) compared to that? It's not remotely comparable in my opinion. Lastly, LJ and Ashton talked a lot about identity particularly about "DNA" and, notwithstanding those amazing 6 months in 2017/18, it really was just hot air.

It's a legitimate debate, which this thread has been a good example of, to criticize Nige's stubbornness about personnel and systems, of which, in the main, there are fair counter arguments. My feeling is that we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, when, on the face of it, an odd decision is made and that there is a long game to his tenure that I would like to see play out. 

 

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

I’m surprised that some are saying the performances haven’t improved since the home FA cup game against Swansea.   The results have dramatically improved but quite clearly the performances have improved as well. Maybe not as dramatically as the results but there is a pretty clear improvement.  @Percy Pig @Davefevs you must surely see that defensively we are a fair bit stronger.  Fewer individual errors, better structure. Offensively we look more dangerous with width higher up the field.  More solid in midfield as well.  The better defensive platform in the last 5-6 games is a big step forward. I just can’t see how the performances have not improved at all. 

 

Even though I point to Millwall and Cov as the start of the turning point (is that a thing?), I actually think we defended really well at Rotherham first game back after the break.

I think @Percy Piggives a really good reply below.

There are undoubted advantages of the current system, we’ve seen in most of the games in the good run that there are flaws in it too.  Yesterday, if Norwich got through our forward block, then they could get the ball out to Onel Hernandez second half and expose Tanner.  Tanner did bloody brilliantly against him.

I think what has changed is what we look at in equating what is a good performance.  And I think that are some of the non-football stuff…togetherness, grit, the kind of stuff that get the crowd going, e.g. Pring’s recovery tackle on Pukki, Sykes’s lung busting run back to clear a danger.  The football stuff is still much the same, excitement on the counter and occasional nice patterns.

Defensively solid yesterday -  

Defensively solid last week at PNE - most definitely not.  Gutsy though? Not arf!

3 hours ago, TomF said:

WBA was the game where I started to doubt him. It was a truly awful game/performance and it felt like he’d lost the entire crowd that day.  Hopefully it’ll never hit those levels again. 

First half was very even.  Second half they played it so nicely whilst we huffed and puffed to create anything, and in fact we created situations rather than chances per se.  I honestly don’t see it as being as bad as other.  Nowhere near Brum (a).

2 hours ago, Percy Pig said:

Yes, I do. Just because I don't see the game in exactly the same way you do doesn't mean I don't attend or watch all our games. Pretty pathetic comment on your part tbh

Today wasn't great. We had two clear cut chances and none of the ball.

We just took one of those chances. 

Millwall was exactly the same. 

Only we missed 3 glaring opportunities.

Preston was not vintage football either.

Neither was Swansea in the replay.

Games we could easily have lost and not really been in a position to moan about. 

The thing that's been constant is the effort and togetherness of the squad. The organisation has been good in every spell of the season where we've had a near fully fit squad to choose from. We went 8 games unbeaten earlier this season playing 352. 

Now, I see a slight change in our pattern of play in the final third, in 352 it was about the interplay between the two forwards, who pressed high and ran the channel between CB and full back (exactly the run and pass that led to our goal yesterday). In the 433 we are looking to square the ball from slightly wider for a tap in at the back post for the other wide man.

Across the rest of the pitch the plan is pretty much identical. We move the ball through the thirds when we can and the full backs offer the out ball when the opposition get their shape. The press is the same and we try to attack fairly fast. We did that before. 

I actually felt we played "better" football in the first run at the start of the season. The way Naismith played at sweeper was really impressive and brave and the overlapping centre backs driving into the midfield gave us central overloads and allowed us to dominate that part of the pitch. The Luton home game was honestly the most I've enjoyed a performance from us in years. 

Naismiths and then James' injuries hurt that as we lost the main brains of the outfit.

I don't want us to revert back to 352, I just completely disagree with the notion that we have been miles off it. We could have been 5-10 points better off if decisions had gone our way, if avoidable mistakes hadn't cost us etc. A mistake takes 1 seconds to occur, does that nullify the other 89 minutes and 59 seconds of the performance? 

This spell was always coming. It wasn't difficult to see we were close. Maybe 433 was the final bit of the jigsaw, maybe it's luck? Maybe it's something none of us have noticed. I don't know, nobody does. 

Ta.  Covers a lot of my thoughts.

[Red-Robbo]

I'm not jizzing myself over the fact we're 13th, however what is fantastic is that all the players are now playing to their proper ability - and in the case of the younger players, we're actually seeing improvements game-by-game. It's exciting and you can see confidence seep back into the players, and also in fans. When the squad didn't believe in themselves, was it any wonder that many supporters didn't?

Some of this came by happenstance. Injuries and departures allowed players to get used to each other, form comfortable defensive and offensive partnerships, play in positions that suited their game. A bit like when close season injuries forced LJ to play Reid up front and whoosh, he started that season like a goal-scoring rocket. 

Pearson also seems to have acquired a better perception of players strengths and weaknesses and a better handle on who the first XI should be. We could say, this took a lot longer than we expected, hence the dodgy start to this season and very undistinguished performance last term. In his defence, we could say he had to balance competitiveness with the need to get wages down, was never entirely sure who he'd have to work with after every window and couldn't afford players he'd really like in many positions. Given those strictures, he's done really well, bringing through young players who can hold their own in one of Europe's top leagues, against guys who are paid vastly more and have cost many millions. There can't be many Championship sides with more academy products playing. 

A few unfortunate injuries could still derail the happy place we're in now, but as it stands, the football is great and I can only see more wins. As a former defender, it warms my cockles seeing the back line get as many appreciative claps and cheers as the goal-scoring front men.  Pearson knows who he has for the rest of the season, and can set-up accordingly. 

Really excited to see our two new boys yesterday as well. Is it just me, or do others see in Mehmeti the fancy footwork of Massengo, but combined with some goal threat. Cornick worked hard as well, and you can see his famed heading ability helping out in defence as well as attack. 

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, spudski said:

Playing with 4 at the back and 2 covering DCMS has been instrumental in our up turn in results imo. 

It stops oppositions exploiting our weaknesses. 

 

Back pre-World Cup I questioned why Southgate plays a back 3.  And my gut feel was he hasn’t got two good enough to play there, so he plays an extra one to compensate.  You just end up with three who aren’t good enough!!!  But what it does is means you either lose a forward or a midfielder.  My challenge back was why not protect your weaknesses my playing the players that are good enough, e.g. a midfielder instead of a CB.

I could draw similar parallels with our situation, but I wasn’t sure whether we had the personnel to remove a defender for a midfielder.  Even in the cup game at Swansea, Naismith moving into midfield was actually quite poor in that second half, bar a couple of nice passes.  He improved / got used to it quickly though.  Shame he’s out injured.

If we do stick with this, Recruitment will be easier in the summer.  

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Back pre-World Cup I questioned why Southgate plays a back 3.  And my gut feel was he hasn’t got two good enough to play there, so he plays an extra one to compensate.  You just end up with three who aren’t good enough!!!  But what it does is means you either lose a forward or a midfielder.  My challenge back was why not protect your weaknesses my playing the players that are good enough, e.g. a midfielder instead of a CB.

I could draw similar parallels with our situation, but I wasn’t sure whether we had the personnel to remove a defender for a midfielder.  Even in the cup game at Swansea, Naismith moving into midfield was actually quite poor in that second half, bar a couple of nice passes.  He improved / got used to it quickly though.  Shame he’s out injured.

If we do stick with this, Recruitment will be easier in the summer.  

 

I'd think any young, improving player would love to come and play for Nigel Pearson. Here's a guy who'll give you a chance and say 'if you're good enough, you're old enough'. The coaching here can be seen to improve youngsters and we have a thriving U23 side, providing competition.

He's sort of the anti-Tony Pulis in that respect.

 

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, awbb said:

My feeling is that we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, when, on the face of it, an odd decision is made and that there is a long game to his tenure that I would like to see play out. 

We only see the 90 minutes on the pitch.  We don’t even hear the tactical conversations that go on in the dugout / technical area.

Not trying to be facetious about the formation stuff, but we saw out injury time pretty well…because we got Kalas on and allowed Tanner to go out wider on Hernandez.  We haven’t very often had the option to do that.  The bench over last two games now has viable options to keep us strong.  That is a huge boon.

At other times this season, I’ve often thought that although the sub coming on can bring freshness / intensity, it’s often been at the expense of quality, ie the player coming on isn’t as good as the player going off.

[italian dave]

10 hours ago, REDOXO said:

It’s not ancient history though is it! We still have players on those eye watering wages and we have to sell players to mitigate that!
 

it’s current history. 

We’re pretty close now though, aren’t we? I don’t think anyone would argue we’re not getting value from Wells and (injuries aside) Kalas - and to the extent that we’re not, that’s entirely down to pre and post covid market changes. 

Look, we may not be 100% there, but the general consensus seems to be that we made huge strides this January. And I’m not suggesting that there’s no place for debate about the merits, consequences etc of previous management regimes. There’s a long thread elsewhere and you and I have shared discussion there.

I just find it tiresome now when so many threads get taken off tangent by this. 

And this thread is a good example: what’s started as a very good natured question about whether we’d turned the corner, what’s happened over the past 8 weeks or so, what difference that had made, whether that should give us hope that it will be sustained….all interesting stuff. And then one poster has the temerity to suggest that they’re not 100% convinced, and immediately we get the “yeah, but…..Lee Johnson/Mark Ashton” and lo and behold we’re into that whole debate again, and along comes the forum troll to pitch in with Gary  and with Danny Wilson. Just tedious. 

[steviestevieneville]

15 hours ago, JoeAman08 said:

So does every side. All those players have been available the majority of not only this season but last. He has had the tools to do this for the last 18 months. It has taken him 17 months to figure it out.

I am not buying the he dropped them and now they are better either. Pring, Atkinson and Tanner were all good last season too when given chances. Sykes playing a more natural forward position is now coming into form. 
 

Imo he has complicated things all season. It takes him half the season to settle on who his best XI is. All I am saying is I am not shouting off the roof he is the best manager we ever had because we had a good month. I do however hope he keeps it going. Happy to be “wrong” about NP but who knows what any manager could have done with 24 months and unlimited patience from the owner. 

 

Can’t agree with this. We were saying yesterday it’s probably a trust issue why we played 3 at the back for so long . Not thinking we were strong enough to play 4 at the back . Look at Pring as well he did ok last season but didn’t have the stamina to last 90 minutes , he was blowing after a hour . Not a issue this season though so the medical/ conditioning staff have obviously worked on this. Tanner had a long injury that would of taken longer to come back from than you think. Him & cam are proper fullbacks as well not wingbacks , especially George . Therefore a back 3 that Pearson played due to his lack of trust in two centre backs didn’t suit him . 

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, Percy Pig said:

I'm honestly in awe of your ability to write so many words and say absolutely nothing. 

Percy - if you don’t understand what I’ve posted please don’t fret, no one is judging you.

 

[spudski]

7 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Can’t agree with this. We were saying yesterday it’s probably a trust issue why we played 3 at the back for so long . Not thinking we were strong enough to play 4 at the back . Look at Pring as well he did ok last season but didn’t have the stamina to last 90 minutes , he was blowing after a hour . Not a issue this season though so the medical/ conditioning staff have obviously worked on this. Tanner had a long injury that would of taken longer to come back from than you think. Him & cam are proper fullbacks as well not wingbacks , especially George . Therefore a back 3 that Pearson played due to his lack of trust in two centre backs didn’t suit him . 

Tanner and Pring are defensively sound in the RB and LB sense. 

However, they both have the ability to play offensively ( like a wing back). They are the best of both worlds.

Imo...they have provided just as much, if not more width and offensive play, than when we played with ' wing backs '. 

The CDMs allow this to happen. It doesn't leave us open to counter attack so much. 

 

[bcfcredandwhite]

I was a doubter but never reached the stage that I wanted Nige sacked. I just wanted improvement - which we are now seeing, so all’s well in the R&W camp. 
After a really dire streak before Christmas, I’m really enjoying this good streak……….

[steviestevieneville]

35 minutes ago, spudski said:

Tanner and Pring are defensively sound in the RB and LB sense. 

However, they both have the ability to play offensively ( like a wing back). They are the best of both worlds.

Imo...they have provided just as much, if not more width and offensive play, than when we played with ' wing backs '. 

The CDMs allow this to happen. It doesn't leave us open to counter attack so much. 

 

I agree to a extent but they’re both better orthodox full backs imo , especially Tanner 

[redsquirrel]

tanner reminds me of the neville that played there for man u

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 hours ago, 2015 said:

Absolutely spot on. Can only think of a few 'bad' performances this season. Reading A, Birmingham A, WBA H. Said it even in December, the side haven't been far away all season!

Thought 1st half v QPR and in general Millwall at home were in different ways rather poor too but generally agree with this- might add 1st half v WBA on Boxing Day very little in it.and certainly not a poor one IMO- 2nd half it got away from us badly, WBA were just better anyway.

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

We’re pretty close now though, aren’t we? I don’t think anyone would argue we’re not getting value from Wells and (injuries aside) Kalas - and to the extent that we’re not, that’s entirely down to pre and post covid market changes. 

Look, we may not be 100% there, but the general consensus seems to be that we made huge strides this January. And I’m not suggesting that there’s no place for debate about the merits, consequences etc of previous management regimes. There’s a long thread elsewhere and you and I have shared discussion there.

I just find it tiresome now when so many threads get taken off tangent by this. 

And this thread is a good example: what’s started as a very good natured question about whether we’d turned the corner, what’s happened over the past 8 weeks or so, what difference that had made, whether that should give us hope that it will be sustained….all interesting stuff. And then one poster has the temerity to suggest that they’re not 100% convinced, and immediately we get the “yeah, but…..Lee Johnson/Mark Ashton” and lo and behold we’re into that whole debate again, and along comes the forum troll to pitch in with Gary  and with Danny Wilson. Just tedious. 

Unfortunately it’s a fact of life that the club were a mess and that had to be dealt with. Threads being hijacked, clearly you think so, but I’m not sure it’s the case, either way it’s a measure of where we were and where we are!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Hindsight is wonderful etc but I was never really so concerned about the drop.

Because we were often competitive, playing well in fact- at home certainly. Tough but not necessarily flowing on the road. Generally when that happens results turn, the two start to match up.

At the same time though momentum can take us forward, I don't see us as top six. Not yet anyway- in the same way I wasn't especially worried about the drop, I'm not getting carried away about the chances of us crashing the top 6 either.

Always had faith in NP though, what a tough job he inherited, what a tough remit he has had.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[italian dave]

57 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Unfortunately it’s a fact of life that the club were a mess and that had to be dealt with. Threads being hijacked, clearly you think so, but I’m not sure it’s the case, either way it’s a measure of where we were and where we are!

Where we were: 12th in the Championship. Where we are: 13th in the Championship. 

And I’m only joking! I know there’s lots more to it than that etc etc and getting into that will hijack the thread even more!! 

 

[Sir Colby-Tit]

15 hours ago, Robbored said:

 

I’ve said it before but Nige really is a proper manager. 

Have you really? I haven't noticed.

[REDOXO]

7 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Where we were: 12th in the Championship. Where we are: 13th in the Championship. 

And I’m only joking! I know there’s lots more to it than that etc etc and getting into that will hijack the thread even more!! 
 

YUP!

 

 

[BasSavage88]

He took too long to adapt when everyone else could see it needed changing. We will get found out again as long as he adapts quicker this time he won't be turned on as much. 

[Northern Red]

17 minutes ago, BasSavage88 said:

He took too long to adapt when everyone else could see it needed changing. We will get found out again as long as he adapts quicker this time he won't be turned on as much. 

Bless.

[lenred]

28 minutes ago, BasSavage88 said:

He took too long to adapt when everyone else could see it needed changing. We will get found out again as long as he adapts quicker this time he won't be turned on as much. 

What could you and ‘everyone else’ see that Pearson couldn’t?

[ProfitInMyPocket]

If Vyner was having the iffy performances he used to have instead of the wonderful season he is having we would still be playing a back 3 or 5 to cover for it.

If Pring hadn't improved his fitness levels in games and not gassing out after 60 minutes we would still be playing a back 3 or 5 to cover for it.

If Tanner hadn't improved his levels of defending (he was getting beaten by a fair few wide players earlier in the season) we would still be playing a back 3 or 5 to cover for it.

If Atkinson hadn't improved his vocal side of his game we would still be playing a back 3 or 5 to cover for it.

These things above have freed up Sykes to play further forward, Scott can join in more with attacks further up, Naismith to play a different role but still giving support to the backline.

Things take time, it's not FIFA where you can move players around and it is still the same.

 

The players we had knew the 352 - a change to 433 when the players didn't have the confidence to have a bit more time and space in their positions would have led to countless more mistakes than we were making. Having Naismith in the backline was there as extra security. Now the boys have the minutes, sharpness and confidence to play.

You can say I'd have done this or made this change earlier or whatever but Conway and Wells in a 2 up top were a bloody good strike partnership and something I really enjoyed watching this season, there was no reason to change that at that time.

And now when we take leads, we go back to a back 3 or 5 with Kalas coming off the bench to see out games, our players know the system and it's giving us results.

 

[lenred]

9 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

That we could play 4-3-3 when Tanner was suspended/injured and Wilson was out too. 

Sykes at RB in a 4 would have been just fine don't you know. 

 

I’m genuinely amazed at the ’master technicians’ on here who now seem to think that their pretending to know about team set up and what was best for City somehow masks their desperation for Pearson to leave now that we’re improving.   I don’t recall hardly anyone talking about formations and how we should change and that was the reason he should go - I just remember certain posters bellowing on about how shit he was at man management, how much of a dinosaur he was and how he has no clue about modern day football. From recall most of the people discussing formations were supporters of Pearson and the job he was doing. Maybe I’m getting forgetful though in my middle age! 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by lenred

[CS Red]

Well one of the doubters is right here and yes I would of sacked him after the Boxing Day game. How wrong I would have been. Don't know how they have done it but it is now a pleasure to go and watch the games now. Well done to Pearson the players and the Lansdown's for not hitting the panic button.

Edited February 12, 2023 by CS Red

[Top Robin]

.....and the next contentious point will be, did the improvement happen by luck or judgement. 

I recon it's a bit of both, but whatever I am happy.