cidercity1987 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 With 4-3-3. 4-2-3-1 whatever Same old subs throughout the season no matter the manager. Wells for Conway. Conway for Wells. Bell for Mehmeti. Mehmeti for Bell etc etc. What about trying Wells AND Conway particularly when we are trying to break down defensive teams (ideally with Conway drifting off and linking the play). There is zero point playing Knight in an attacking midfield role instead when he cannot break down defensive teams. So frustrating when we have a defence very much good enough for the play offs. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 Your last sentence is right on the money! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 It's a fair point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nest Egg Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 (edited) I mostly agree although if I were to counter I would say that our attacking options are limited at best and going 3 at the back means having to do yet another significant change in terms of playing staff, tactical setup, etc which is very unlikely to happen given how much it woukd cost. Edited January 1 by The Nest Egg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidercity1987 Posted January 1 Author Report Share Posted January 1 1 minute ago, The Nest Egg said: I mostly agree although if I were to counter I would say that our attacking options are limited at best and going 3 at the back means having to do yet another significant change in terms of playing staff, tactical setup, etc which is very unlikely to happen given how much it woukd cost. It doesn't need to be three at the back although no harm when we are chasing a late winner. All I'm asking is for the sub to perhaps be , just once in a while, Wells for Knight, or Wells for one of the CMs. Stick Conway back a bit and Wells leading the line. For three years from the Holden era onwards him and Pearson used to chuck on as many strikers as possible when chasing which was too much as we lost control. This season it's been the complete opposite though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Musicworks Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 Pointless playing Conway without a second striker. Their CB’s had a free pass today. The euphoria of Watford has unsurprisingly soon evaporated and it’s all so ‘Bristol City’. Welcome to 2024 with that deja vu feeling. Williams, James and Weimann together and nothing whatsoever created. Surprise Surprise ! 11 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie andrews Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 19 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said: With 4-3-3. 4-2-3-1 whatever Same old subs throughout the season no matter the manager. Wells for Conway. Conway for Wells. Bell for Mehmeti. Mehmeti for Bell etc etc. What about trying Wells AND Conway particularly when we are trying to break down defensive teams (ideally with Conway drifting off and linking the play). There is zero point playing Knight in an attacking midfield role instead when he cannot break down defensive teams. So frustrating when we have a defence very much good enough for the play offs. Stop mentioning the ******* play offs..... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Wilson Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 Why can’t we just play 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidercity1987 Posted January 1 Author Report Share Posted January 1 Just now, archie andrews said: Stop mentioning the ******* play offs..... Rovers are mentioning the plays off 12 points away. We were a point or two off with a brilliant defence. This is a prime opportunity but if the fans are happy to drift around in midtable as per then I'll shut up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 16 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said: With 4-3-3. 4-2-3-1 whatever Same old subs throughout the season no matter the manager. Wells for Conway. Conway for Wells. Bell for Mehmeti. Mehmeti for Bell etc etc. What about trying Wells AND Conway particularly when we are trying to break down defensive teams (ideally with Conway drifting off and linking the play). There is zero point playing Knight in an attacking midfield role instead when he cannot break down defensive teams. So frustrating when we have a defence very much good enough for the play offs. Nigel's preference was for 4-3-1-2 and Wells and Conway was his best front 2. Liam seems to think Tommy is naturally a lone striker so that's what we get. I don't think it suits him or the team. In a recent interview Tommy said he had been told to stay in the middle and that he no longer has to make runs in behind. On the first point Nigel said the same so no change there. On the second if your only striker is not allowed to run in behind it will surely be harder to break down a well organised defence? Ollie Watkins is an outstanding lone striker who makes lots of runs in behind. Has Unai Emery got it wrong? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcofisher Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 13 minutes ago, The Nest Egg said: I mostly agree although if I were to counter I would say that our attacking options are limited at best and going 3 at the back means having to do yet another significant change in terms of playing staff, tactical setup, etc which is very unlikely to happen given how much it woukd cost. We pretty much do go 3 at the back in the build up, Tanner tucks in and Pring surges forward. Less noticeable today but McCorie mentioned it on comms in the Brum match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie andrews Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 5 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said: Rovers are mentioning the plays off 12 points away. We were a point or two off with a brilliant defence. This is a prime opportunity but if the fans are happy to drift around in midtable as per then I'll shut up We might have a good defence but that side will be closer to the league 1 play offs effing pathetic again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Balls Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 2 minutes ago, chinapig said: Nigel's preference was for 4-3-1-2 and Wells and Conway was his best front 2. Liam seems to think Tommy is naturally a lone striker so that's what we get. I don't think it suits him or the team. In a recent interview Tommy said he had been told to stay in the middle and that he no longer has to make runs in behind. On the first point Nigel said the same so no change there. On the second if your only striker is not allowed to run in behind it will surely be harder to break down a well organised defence? Ollie Watkins is an outstanding lone striker who makes lots of runs in behind. Has Unai Emery got it wrong? Agree that trying to play Tommy as a target man up front is a complete waste of time and effort. He needs someone else up front with him, and he should be making those runs in behind. Keeping him central, battling it out with larger, more physical centre backs is just plain dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dredd Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 Conway just cannot play in that position. He doesn't drop deep, he doesn't run the channels, he isn't quick or skillful enough to beat a man on his own, and he isn't strong enough to hold the ball up and bring in others into play. As such he ends up relying on scraps or a hopeful punt over the top. He has to play in a two, he excels when he can play close intricate football around the box and his partnership with Wells is where he's played his best football. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original OTIB Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 32 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said: With 4-3-3. 4-2-3-1 whatever Same old subs throughout the season no matter the manager. Wells for Conway. Conway for Wells. Bell for Mehmeti. Mehmeti for Bell etc etc. What about trying Wells AND Conway particularly when we are trying to break down defensive teams (ideally with Conway drifting off and linking the play). There is zero point playing Knight in an attacking midfield role instead when he cannot break down defensive teams. So frustrating when we have a defence very much good enough for the play offs. Sykes would suit the attacking MF role far more, probably our best finisher as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 “The Bristol City board have told ITV News that one of the key reasons behind the club's decision to sack manager Nigel Pearson was that they want promotion to the Premier League.” Gavin Marshall “We all wanted Nigel to achieve our ambition to be promoted but, with our recent results, feel that now is the time to make a change to give the club the best possible chance of success.” Jon Lansdown. With one of the best squads we’ve had in years according to Jon. Not going great is it? 1 4 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 38 minutes ago, glynriley said: “The Bristol City board have told ITV News that one of the key reasons behind the club's decision to sack manager Nigel Pearson was that they want promotion to the Premier League.” Gavin Marshall “We all wanted Nigel to achieve our ambition to be promoted but, with our recent results, feel that now is the time to make a change to give the club the best possible chance of success.” Jon Lansdown. With one of the best squads we’ve had in years according to Jon. Not going great is it? You could have Guardiola as head coach and get nowhere with Lansdown Marshall and Tinnion poking their noses in and spouting shite to the media. Pearson didnt stand a chance of kicking on after steadying the ship either imo. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 12 minutes ago, Dredd said: Conway just cannot play in that position. He doesn't drop deep, he doesn't run the channels, he isn't quick or skillful enough to beat a man on his own, and he isn't strong enough to hold the ball up and bring in others into play. As such he ends up relying on scraps or a hopeful punt over the top. He has to play in a two, he excels when he can play close intricate football around the box and his partnership with Wells is where he's played his best football. Conway is playing to instructions, he was told to play/stay more central . IMO that takes a large part of his game away, when he played in a 2 with Wells they complimented each other , their movement was good and we looked a real threat. He is reasonably quick but not lightening , he doesn't have the strength to hold the ball up against a big strong defence but he will find space in the box to finish chances, we aren't making them ATM. I thought we set up very strangely today, and I felt a bit sorry for Tanner. He's not a natural attacking FB so will not try and go past 2 players on the wing , with Weimann playing as an 8 or even 10 there was no regular width in the first half and he was pretty much forced to go back. Unless Knight filled that gap. On the other side Mehmeti was wide all the time and offered an option for Pring . For a team that wants to try and dominate the ball that 2nd half was horrendous . Millwall far better , kept the ball better and actually created chances. It does feel like Manning is trying to be too clever, the new formation/tactic , rotating influential players , the last 2 games have really been a tough watch. Trying to pick some positives is hard, Williams was good again 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC31 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 1 hour ago, cidercity1987 said: With 4-3-3. 4-2-3-1 whatever Same old subs throughout the season no matter the manager. Wells for Conway. Conway for Wells. Bell for Mehmeti. Mehmeti for Bell etc etc. What about trying Wells AND Conway particularly when we are trying to break down defensive teams (ideally with Conway drifting off and linking the play). There is zero point playing Knight in an attacking midfield role instead when he cannot break down defensive teams. So frustrating when we have a defence very much good enough for the play offs. Totally agree for all knights good attributes playing those through penetrative passes isn't one of them personally I don't think we have a player like that at the club so hopefully knight drops deeper if we sign on in Jan and we actually sign a specialist lone striker as conway looks Totally lost atm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 1 hour ago, glynriley said: “The Bristol City board have told ITV News that one of the key reasons behind the club's decision to sack manager Nigel Pearson was that they want promotion to the Premier League.” Gavin Marshall “We all wanted Nigel to achieve our ambition to be promoted but, with our recent results, feel that now is the time to make a change to give the club the best possible chance of success.” Jon Lansdown. With one of the best squads we’ve had in years according to Jon. Not going great is it? I’m being facetious before the Ultra Defensive Crew jump on me but if a manager produces a performance like that with one of the “best squads we’ve had in years” shouldn’t he be sacked? Just to clarify before a couple ignore my rider and still manage to completely lose their shit, of course he shouldn’t but you have to question the complete and utter fools who made the stupid statements in the first place. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 3 hours ago, glynriley said: “The Bristol City board have told ITV News that one of the key reasons behind the club's decision to sack manager Nigel Pearson was that they want promotion to the Premier League.” Gavin Marshall “We all wanted Nigel to achieve our ambition to be promoted but, with our recent results, feel that now is the time to make a change to give the club the best possible chance of success.” Jon Lansdown. With one of the best squads we’ve had in years according to Jon. Not going great is it? "Top 6". "One of the best". Won't be needing new players in January then, will we 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 4 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said: "Top 6". "One of the best". Won't be needing new players in January then, will we Can’t afford any can we ? Wage bill maxed out 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1t_ref_again Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 4 hours ago, glynriley said: “The Bristol City board have told ITV News that one of the key reasons behind the club's decision to sack manager Nigel Pearson was that they want promotion to the Premier League.” Gavin Marshall “We all wanted Nigel to achieve our ambition to be promoted but, with our recent results, feel that now is the time to make a change to give the club the best possible chance of success.” Jon Lansdown. With one of the best squads we’ve had in years according to Jon. Not going great is it? Pathetic and you seem to rejoice in the not going great comment, with a few more bad results if you are lucky, you can post told you so. You did not rush to post after 3 wins 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 14 hours ago, sh1t_ref_again said: Pathetic and you seem to rejoice in the not going great comment, with a few more bad results if you are lucky, you can post told you so. You did not rush to post after 3 wins I read it as the op digging out senior management for spouting shit rather than having a pop at Manning although he will of course be ultimately accountable rather than the mugs above. Do you concur with the statements by Lansdown and Marshall above though ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 20 hours ago, Johnny Musicworks said: Pointless playing Conway without a second striker. Their CB’s had a free pass today. The euphoria of Watford has unsurprisingly soon evaporated and it’s all so ‘Bristol City’. Welcome to 2024 with that deja vu feeling. Williams, James and Weimann together and nothing whatsoever created. Surprise Surprise ! Spot on. Jake Cooper is about 9ft. Last time I saw someone like him was when I watched the old Addams Family show. Wallace is big as well and built like a boxer. There whole defence was - as it ever is with 'Wall - Land of the Giants stuff, big but slow. Our chances would come through speedy breaks and interplay around these immutable granite blocks of defenders. Once we took Mehmeti off and Sykes got injured, we played with no width and relied on hopeful punts up from our half to reach Conway then later wells or Bell. Child's work for that back line to collect those up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1t_ref_again Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 1 hour ago, Natchfever said: I read it as the op digging out senior management for spouting shit rather than having a pop at Manning although he will of course be ultimately accountable rather than the mugs above. Do you concur with the statements by Lansdown and Marshall above though ? My point was about seeming to be quite enjoying the loss to make some cheap point, no matter if its aimed against Lansdown Marshall or Manning No I don't agree with the comments, as like anyone with any common sense would see that is a smokescreen for the real reasons behind the sacking, of which no one on here will know 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said: Spot on. Jake Cooper is about 9ft. Last time I saw someone like him was when I watched the old Addams Family show. Wallace is big as well and built like a boxer. There whole defence was - as it ever is with 'Wall - Land of the Giants stuff, big but slow. Our chances would come through speedy breaks and interplay around these immutable granite blocks of defenders. Once we took Mehmeti off and Sykes got injured, we played with no width and relied on hopeful punts up from our half to reach Conway then later wells or Bell. Child's work for that back line to collect those up. Murray Wallace had the easiest game of his professional career yesterday, I'm sure he would be happy to admit that himself. It would have been interesting if Yeboah had been on the bench how Wallace would have fared against him. Whilst he's raw, we all know that, he seems to have a bit more physicality and edge than Sam Bell and more pace and I reckon he might have caused them some real issues down that side. To counter the "he's raw" argument he couldn't have possibly delivered with any less quality than Weimann, Sykes when he was on and Bell did yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 1 minute ago, Numero Uno said: Murray Wallace had the easiest game of his professional career yesterday, I'm sure he would be happy to admit that himself. It would have been interesting if Yeboah had been on the bench how Wallace would have fared against him. Whilst he's raw, we all know that, he seems to have a bit more physicality and edge than Sam Bell and more pace and I reckon he might have caused them some real issues down that side. To counter the "he's raw" argument he couldn't have possibly delivered with any less quality than Weimann, Sykes when he was on and Bell did yesterday. I think Wallace could probably blow Bell over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 1 hour ago, sh1t_ref_again said: My point was about seeming to be quite enjoying the loss to make some cheap point, no matter if its aimed against Lansdown Marshall or Manning No I don't agree with the comments, as like anyone with any common sense would see that is a smokescreen for the real reasons behind the sacking, of which no one on here will know Ok thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.