Scott Twine

[GrahamC]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Got to say several players looked leggy tonight.

Me too.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you could have predicted the first 3 subs last night but after them we are giving Cornick 10 minutes & the rest are really only there to fill the bench.

Roberts might get a game at Forest with Pring suspended, but we are effectively running on 13 or 14 outfield players & that is bound to have an impact.

Could do with Sykes back & (obviously) Twine too.

[Son of Fred]

9 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Thank you for your pleasant reply. 

Manning said "Unfortunately, the day after the Watford game felt his quad a little bit. Nothing major.

Started to increase his work back this week with the aim of playing tonight and felt it a little bit so he's probably gonna be out for a couple of weeks.

We've had it scanned, there's nothing major, it's more just an irritation that we don't wanna take a risk on" 

So yea, we did appear to rush him back in my opinion. 

 

Am I reading this right????

Felt tightness post Watford, so the decision was to up his workload pre Coventry??? 

Either I need new glasses or I'm losing the plot

[Silvio Dante]

12 minutes ago, Son of Fred said:

Am I reading this right????

Felt tightness post Watford, so the decision was to up his workload pre Coventry??? 

Either I need new glasses or I'm losing the plot

Tbf I’m not sure there’s masses wrong there. He felt it post Watford, then seems to have been ok on a light schedule so they upped the workload (not to game level) pre Coventry to see if it had recovered enough for the game - he felt it on the mid level schedule so they reset

[Nogbad the Bad]

13 hours ago, Loosey Boy said:

Manning’s interview just now didn’t suggest that - hopefully be back in time for QPR game

With the news it's a relatively minor injury I'm going to be a bit more optimistic.

If the 'ruled out for 2 weeks' is from the injury picked up in the Watford game (admittedly, extremely unlikely) then he could even miraculously reappear on Friday.

If it's taken from the subsequent training twinge setback, 2 weeks out means he could well be back in contention for Middlesbrough on the 10th.

If it's taken from yesterday's confirmation of his injury, probably the most likely interpretation, 2 weeks still means he could well be back for Southampton on the 13th, which would be 3 and a half weeks since the original problem.

He won't be rushed back, that's for sure, but even so the QPR game would be a month on from the initial injury, and 3 weeks plus from the training setback, so from what we've been told that would be the very latest to expect him back rather than the earliest.

 

[Gert Mare]

And people were up in arms about a loan rather than spending millions on making it permanent. Injuries happen. Hope he recovers soon

[Slack Bladder]

Wasn't Sykes meant to be out for just a couple of weeks?

It's like being stood on the bus stop and it tells you your bus is 4 mins away. 20 mins later you're still waiting.

 

[Super]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Tbf I’m not sure there’s masses wrong there. He felt it post Watford, then seems to have been ok on a light schedule so they upped the workload (not to game level) pre Coventry to see if it had recovered enough for the game - he felt it on the mid level schedule so they reset

It's the standard agenda against Manning it's boring now.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Slack Bladder said:

Wasn't Sykes meant to be out for just a couple of weeks?

It's like being stood on the bus stop and it tells you your bus is 4 mins away. 20 mins later you're still waiting.

 

No, they said a few weeks at first.

I took that to mean a month or so.

Edited January 31 by Mr Popodopolous

[Slack Bladder]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

No, they said a few weeks at first.

I took that to mean a month or so.

Maybe because he's such a big loss to our attacking play, that it just feels he's been out for f@cking ages.

[Pip King]

8 minutes ago, Slack Bladder said:

Maybe because he's such a big loss to our attacking play, that it just feels he's been out for f@cking ages.

Agreed, I can't believe it hasn't been a month yet. Feels like forever 

[TDarwall]

1 minute ago, Pip King said:

Agreed, I can't believe it hasn't been a month yet. Feels like forever 

Because we lack goals, we miss someone like Sykes more than say Rob A (because we're currently well-stocked at Centre Back).

You wonder if Sykes could play the role that Knight is doing (similar energy, more attacking prowess) & allow Knight a more traditional midfield role.

[Tim Monaghan]

23 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

No, they said a few weeks at first.

I took that to mean a month or so.

To be fair, I always take return date, times it by 8, add on an extra week, and then I find I'm normally within 6 months of the actual return date. 

[Nogbad the Bad]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

No, they said a few weeks at first.

I took that to mean a month or so.

A few doesn't mean 4 or more normally, usually interpreted as not many or several, i.e. more than 2 but less than 4.

So I would take it from he said to be no more than 3 weeks, but it is a vague word and no knowing if LM put much thought into using it.

Anyway, Sykes has been out for 4 weeks and counting now, which imo is already longer than we were led to expect.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, Slack Bladder said:

Maybe because he's such a big loss to our attacking play, that it just feels he's been out for f@cking ages.

Agreed.

4 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

A few doesn't mean 4 or more normally, usually interpreted as not many or several, i.e. more than 2 but less than 4.

So I would take it from he said to be no more than 3 weeks, but it is a vague word and no knowing if LM put much thought into using it.

Anyway, Sykes has been out for 4 weeks and counting now, which imo is already longer than we were led to expect.

 

Matter of interpretation really- this was roughly in line with my expectations for Sykes.

Edited January 31 by Mr Popodopolous

[1960maaan]

So , where does Sykes fit in the grand scheme of things. 

Vs Watford

Rotation ( like Clemence & Shilton *) doesn't feel an option. I think he could play where Knight is above, but that adds another question. I'd be happy with that though , end up like below.

I'd still like to see 2 up top , but that's another conversation on another thread.

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

36 minutes ago, Super said:

It's the standard agenda against Manning it's boring now.

No. Me and you may have differing opinions on things and thats fine but we're both coming from the same place of wanting Bristol City to be successful.

The reason we get called "little Bristol City" in the footballing world is because it's perceived that we are happy to accept mediocrity here. 

I'm of the belief that you only achieve by having and demanding high performance/standards. 

Like it or not when Pearson departed, the club put out videos showing X amount of players back in training. Why they did that, who knows. 

Since Manning has come in and Pearson and Rennie have departed we have seen - 

Atkinson played in a u21s game and then a few days later in an 11 V 11 which he then picked up another injury which has set him back. 

Benarous picked up another injury. 

Wells was said to be close to returning and then completely disappeared. 

Naismith came back and got injured again. 

Sykes got injured and we don't know when he'll be back. He appears to be behind schedule. 

Twine picked up a small injury and started light work, they wanted him back for Coventry so upped his work which caused him to have a set back where a scan was then required. 

To add balance the McCrorie return was done sensibly. 

How can you look at all those things and think people's concerns about it is an agenda? It's quite clear something isn't quite right and it's right that some of us are questioning wtf is going on because all of those things are not just a coincidence. 

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

So , where does Sykes fit in the grand scheme of things. 

Vs Watford

Rotation ( like Clemence & Shilton *) doesn't feel an option. I think he could play where Knight is above, but that adds another question. I'd be happy with that though , end up like below.

I'd still like to see 2 up top , but that's another conversation on another thread.

 

Got to say it (and not for the first time), the switch to a back three and a mix of a box / front three, confounds any thoughts I had of continuing the solid recruitment plan that has evolved.  It appears muddled.  And muddied means bloat and bloat means cost.  Even the loan of Twine as a central 10 doesn’t fit as it stands.

[lenred]

5 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

No. Me and you may have differing opinions on things and thats fine but we're both coming from the same place of wanting Bristol City to be successful.

The reason we get called "little Bristol City" in the footballing world is because it's perceived that we are happy to accept mediocrity here. 

I'm of the belief that you only achieve by having and demanding high performance/standards. 

Like it or not when Pearson departed, the club put out videos showing X amount of players back in training. Why they did that, who knows. 

Since Manning has come in and Pearson and Rennie have departed we have seen - 

Atkinson played in a u21s game and then a few days later in an 11 V 11 which he then picked up another injury which has set him back. 

Benarous picked up another injury. 

Wells was said to be close to returning and then completely disappeared. 

Naismith came back and got injured again. 

Sykes got injured and we don't know when he'll be back. He appears to be behind schedule. 

Twine picked up a small injury and started light work, they wanted him back for Coventry so upped his work which caused him to have a set back where a scan was then required. 

To add balance the McCrorie return was done sensibly. 

How can you look at all those things and think people's concerns about it is an agenda? It's quite clear something isn't quite right and it's right that some of us are questioning wtf is going on because all of those things are not just a coincidence. 

And if all the above had happened under Pearson’s watch then god knows what the top medical experts Lansdown and Tinnion would’ve said. This is what grates.  The double ‘ing standards.   That’s not slagging Manning.   That’s slagging JL and BT for those who need clarification! 

[JakeOTIB]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned but my god did we miss Scott Twine and his set piece delivery last night and we’ve only had him for a game!

[Port Said Red]

4 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

No. Me and you may have differing opinions on things and thats fine but we're both coming from the same place of wanting Bristol City to be successful.

The reason we get called "little Bristol City" in the footballing world is because it's perceived that we are happy to accept mediocrity here. 

I'm of the belief that you only achieve by having and demanding high performance/standards. 

Like it or not when Pearson departed, the club put out videos showing X amount of players back in training. Why they did that, who knows. 

Since Manning has come in and Pearson and Rennie have departed we have seen - 

Atkinson played in a u21s game and then a few days later in an 11 V 11 which he then picked up another injury which has set him back. 

Benarous picked up another injury. 

Wells was said to be close to returning and then completely disappeared. 

Naismith came back and got injured again. 

Sykes got injured and we don't know when he'll be back. He appears to be behind schedule. 

Twine picked up a small injury and started light work, they wanted him back for Coventry so upped his work which caused him to have a set back where a scan was then required. 

To add balance the McCrorie return was done sensibly. 

How can you look at all those things and think people's concerns about it is an agenda? It's quite clear something isn't quite right and it's right that some of us are questioning wtf is going on because all of those things are not just a coincidence. 

You keep lying about this, I have told you repeatedly that the previous fitness people wanted Rob back two weeks earlier than he actually played and that the other injury he picked up was a recurrence of an issue he has had throughout his career. 

The current team have been really good with him, he is fit now, but needs minutes somewhere to supplement that.

 

 

[Kid in the Riot]

48 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

So I would take it from he said to be no more than 3 weeks, but it is a vague word and no knowing if LM put much thought into using it.

Anyway, Sykes has been out for 4 weeks and counting now, which imo is already longer than we were led to expect.

Also, Manning could have meant Sykes was "out" for a few weeks in regard to full training. Then, it may take him another week or two to regain match fitness and be ready for selection for the first team.

Either way, seems harsh to interpret a vague phrase from Manning as Sykes definitely being out for no more than 3 weeks. 

Let's hope Sykes is back quickly anyway, as he's a big player for us.

[W-S-M Seagull]

16 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

You keep lying about this, I have told you repeatedly that the previous fitness people wanted Rob back two weeks earlier than he actually played and that the other injury he picked up was a recurrence of an issue he has had throughout his career. 

The current team have been really good with him, he is fit now, but needs minutes somewhere to supplement that.

 

 

I don't appreciate being called a liar when all I've done is posted the facts. 

To be clear I said "Rob played in a u21s game and then a few days later played in 11 v 11 where he suffered a set back"

Cheers. 

 

[Port Said Red]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

I don't appreciate being called a liar when all I've done is posted the facts. 

To be clear I said "Rob played in a u21s game and then a few days later played in 11 v 11 where he suffered a set back"

Cheers. 

 

Ok not a lie, let's be fair and call it "alternative facts" that seems to wok for some. Your clear implication is that Rob was being rushed back by the current fitness team which wouldn't have happened previously. You have repeated these alternative facts numerous times. They were, and remain, alternative facts which I have also repeatedly explained to you, but you continue to post the alternative facts that are in your head to suit your agenda. 

[petehinton]

41 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

So , where does Sykes fit in the grand scheme of things. 

Vs Watford

Rotation ( like Clemence & Shilton *) doesn't feel an option. I think he could play where Knight is above, but that adds another question. I'd be happy with that though , end up like below.

I'd still like to see 2 up top , but that's another conversation on another thread.

 

Fevs has covered my thoughts on this too, but just to add if we are to down this route, and it’s likely Williams, James and King will be gone in the summer so that’s 3x new midfielders to come in, along with TGH benched, it also screws with our u21 integration and blooding.
 

Our best prospects coming through are raw pace, out and out wide men/forwards. The best CMs will be bought over, and that’s without even considering the two cms that came in this window for the future. 
 

I’m not saying it’s a bad style or approach as well btw, just a very far cry from Tinns “we have a clear identity, front foot attacking 433”, as well as “academy first” from Liam. 
 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Totally agree on the back 3 v back 4.

It just seems less than coherent, chopping and changing albeit we seem more set on the back 3 now...but it feels an unnecessary change tbh..

One that could have cost us points.

Edited January 31 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

11 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Ok not a lie, let's be fair and call it "alternative facts" that seems to wok for some. Your clear implication is that Rob was being rushed back by the current fitness team which wouldn't have happened previously. You have repeated these alternative facts numerous times. They were, and remain, alternative facts which I have also repeatedly explained to you, but you continue to post the alternative facts that are in your head to suit your agenda. 

The facts are he played in the u21s on the Monday I believe and then a few days later played in an 11 v 11 in house friendly where he picked up a set back. That's what my rushed back comments have centred around. That he was played too soon in that 11 vs 11 after playing in the 21s a few days before. 

It's not alternative facts. It's THE facts. You may disagree on my opinion that he was rushed back and thats cool but in my opinion he was. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Totally agree on the back 3 v back 4.

It just seems less than coherent, chopping and changing albeit we seem more set on the back 3 now...but it feels an unnecessary change tbh..

My ideal side would be...granted fitness a big caveat but the base.

I just remember when we previously moved from the back 3 to the 433 and a lot was made by the club etc how the players now felt more free playing in thr 433 and it felt more natural to them. And now we're back to the 3.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

I just remember when we previously moved from the back 3 to the 433 and a lot was made by the club etc how the players now felt more free playing in thr 433 and it felt more natural to them. And now we're back to the 3.

Exactly.

NP also said it was in his view the most important change of the season back in May.

[TonyTonyTony]

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I just remember when we previously moved from the back 3 to the 433 and a lot was made by the club etc how the players now felt more free playing in thr 433 and it felt more natural to them. And now we're back to the 3.

Personally, i think its good we can play in different shapes. I dont see any issue with that - its horses (sometimes donkeys) for courses

[Mr Popodopolous]

25 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Personally, i think its good we can play in different shapes. I dont see any issue with that - its horses (sometimes donkeys) for courses

I'd say if Naismith was fit and regularly playing we have a player who can enable an easy transition.

Otherwise no..not so much.

Edited January 31 by Mr Popodopolous