Best we've played in years

[Merrick's Marvels]

7 minutes ago, Puckle_red said:

Possession for possessions sake in my eyes. We don't play dangerous balls with attacking flair. We just work the ball wide, play it to the free man then cross it.

I would encourage you to watch again.

We played far more vertical passes at the earliest opportunity, looking to move forward as quickly as possible- compared to previous games. The pennyvisxstartingvto drop with the players, Manning's message starting to connect.

Yes there was sideways passing but it wasn't just metronomic sideways passing for the sake of it to my eyes, there was purpose. There were even times we feigned to go sideways, threw the opposition off, before going up into midfield. Dickie really is excellent.

Manning talked before the Watford game about his style being cat and mouse but qualified that by saying the players had to learn when to go sideways and when to break the lines vertically. He said they had to learn that it might take 1 sideways pass or half a dozen before going vertically.

Tonight was the first sign I've seen that the players have got the message.

From back into midfield and forward again was excellent tonight. Now we need some killer forwards.

[Engvall’s Splinter]

Controlled large parts of the game, especially first half. Limited in the final third though. Very pretty outside of that I agree.  

[StGeorge]

11 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Mehmeti was excellent first half, him & Pring caused them loads of problems & resulted in 2 yellow cards.

Not so good second half (he’s the epitome of inconsistent) but his recent performances have been really encouraging & certainly not pointless.

I  agree, but think it was their subs at half time that stifled Mehmeti

[SydneyCity]

32 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Not so good second half (he’s the epitome of inconsistent) but his recent performances have been really encouraging & certainly not pointless.

I’d sub him earlier. He’s an unpredictable player until he becomes predictable.

[REDOXO]

We played very well and matched them all over the pitch

Conway had his chance but that wasn’t to be. 
 

Their support was very quiet, a sure sign they were not confident! 
 
I keep reading about needing a striker however creating one really clear opportunity will need to change who ever we have in front of the goal 

 

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Robbored said:

Been saying that for ages - City need a powerful CF to bully defenders and hold the ball up. Someone like Diedhiou was.

I’m always intrigued by “who we replace Tommy with” debates.

If you’re describing a target man, then the big question for me is - can he also press as a part of the frontline line Tommy does?  If he can’t, then you’re ripping up all of that aspect of the without ball system Manning is putting into place.

If you’re describing a strong, powerful player who can do some of the work of a target man, but also run the press like Tommy, you’re describing Antoine Semenyo and they cost £9m!

Its a real dilemma.

A Diedhiou-type would be an awful choice for what Manning is looking for imho.

 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, cellist said:

Biggest compliment to is that Nuno made 2 subs at half time including bringing on Gibbs White. They came out a little more lively in the second half, but we still held our own.

Also a combo of both subbed players picked up yellow…so part tactical, part sensible.

2 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

We dominated possession against Premier League opposition.

Whereas we've spent years barely able to string 3 passes together, relying on counter attacks and being half decent at "pressing"

Tonight we looked like we could play football, proper football.

The attacking improvements are needed and will come. Probably needs new players for that though - so the summer.

Sorry to be a pedant, but we didn’t….we shared possession 50:50 (first half 55:45 / second half 45:55)

FWIW, I liked how we played tonight, but we never caused them many problems in the central areas of the pitch, and that is why we aren’t creating better chances.  I’m not gonna sit here and moan tonight, becayse I enjoyed it, but I’m cognisant that it’s possibly me wearing rose tinted glasses because it was PL opponents, rather than it was a top performance - if that makes sense.

[bearded_red]

I thought we played really well, certainly in my opinion the best performance under Manning, but come on, best performance ‘in years’ when we failed to have a shot on target?!

[ashton_fan]

Manning obviously thinks we need another forward but Tommy has shown recently if he's given chances he'll score a fair few, he's been involved in all our recent goals, could be Twine is the missing link, also Williams will be available for the replay, he was the star of the West Ham games. Defence was excellent tonight.

[FNQ]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m always intrigued by “who we replace Tommy with” debates.

If you’re describing a target man, then the big question for me is - can he also press as a part of the frontline line Tommy does?  If he can’t, then you’re ripping up all of that aspect of the without ball system Manning is putting into place.

If you’re describing a strong, powerful player who can do some of the work of a target man, but also run the press like Tommy, you’re describing Antoine Semenyo and they cost £9m!

Its a real dilemma.

A Diedhiou-type would be an awful choice for what Manning is looking for imho.

 

It really is a big dilemma.. Having watched £15m Chris Wood tonight and comparing work rate and potential threat to Tommy I honestly would not swap. Having said that I’m not sure at all what the eventual solution may be though.

Having David that and without professing to know too much about him I was quite intrigued when we were rumoured to have an interest in 22 year old Muniz from Fulham. A young Brazilian forward who is on the outer fringe of their first team and from the odd sub appearance that I’ve seen of him since our perceived’ interest looks to have good physique, pace and maybe could offer something different / South American flair? Whether we were ever really interested or not I don’t know, but he was loaned out to Boro last season and to me seems the type of player that would be a squad upgrade that we  could realistically target while still retaining TC as long as he wants to be here of course.

[Numero Uno]

7 hours ago, joe jordans teeth said:

No disrespect but can we shove “identity” down the same hole it came up from,I know it’s a cool thing to say but Jesus 

No disrespect? Cheeky ***. Are you the forum police or something?

[Robbored]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m always intrigued by “who we replace Tommy with” debates.

If you’re describing a target man, then the big question for me is - can he also press as a part of the frontline line Tommy does?  If he can’t, then you’re ripping up all of that aspect of the without ball system Manning is putting into place.

If you’re describing a strong, powerful player who can do some of the work of a target man, but also run the press like Tommy, you’re describing Antoine Semenyo and they cost £9m!

Its a real dilemma.

A Diedhiou-type would be an awful choice for what Manning is looking for imho.

 

A number of times in pretty much every match including last night City get into excellent crossing positions and usually there’s only Conway and possibly a midfielder who’s made a run which means that crossing options are limited - that’s largely why City don’t score many goals. 

Conway isn’t known for his heading ability and defenders cope pretty well unless he’s running at them or found space in a crowded box. its frustrating not to have a Chris Wood like striker.

Call a powerful CF a target man if you like but that’s not an accurate description of the type I think we need.

[The Humble Realist]

I would say in the cup games....since half time at west ham everything about our performances have been superb apart from in the final third. We are just toothless unfortunately.  I really hope with Twines arrival we will pick up a few more goals from set pieces at the very least. 

It is almost like we are more suited to playing prem teams than championship ones!

Edited January 27 by The Humble Realist

[Shauntaylor85]

10 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Well played, every man jack of you. Proud of the lot of you tonight, coaches included. Completely dominant, modern and progressive. Front foot football !

Best in years? We played better at Swansea away this year and scored two goals, created a host of chances! Forest have the worst away record in two years with just 14 goals, they were there for the taking and we didn’t create enough and had zero shots on target. Yes we competed well, our ball retention was good, but you can have good ball retention for 90 percent of the game each week and get relegated. Football is about scoring goals and we are toothless. It’s not entertaining and we need serious additions in the final third and a lot of trading to do to get to a side who can hurt teams and be clinical. Nigel laid excellent defensive foundations. 

[Randy Marsh II]

It definitely felt like we had control in the first half but as much as that feeling was down to us I said by the 15th minute that Forest just weren't up for it. First half felt a wasted opportunity. 

Second half they came out with a rocket up then but it seemed like we were also more dangerous. Felt an even game. 

At the moment our identity feels like good passing outside 30 yards from goal and then go wide every time and hope something happens from a cross. I don't think Bell or Mehmeti have the ability to be our match winners in those positions at all and I actually felt Pring for the last 5-10 mins of Mehmeti's spell gave up on him and felt like he'd just do it himself, and I didn't blame him. 

We need wingers signed imo. I also feel that Knight wasn't getting around Conway enough because each time the ball goes out wide he feels the responsibility to help the wingers more, which they need. 

This isn't a knock on McRorie btw who's really impressed me. I'd like to see him further back with a dangerous natural winger ahead of him, and it's not Bell.

[Shauntaylor85]

9 minutes ago, Randy Marsh II said:

It definitely felt like we had control in the first half but as much as that feeling was down to us I said by the 15th minute that Forest just weren't up for it. First half felt a wasted opportunity. 

Second half they came out with a rocket up then but it seemed like we were also more dangerous. Felt an even game. 

At the moment our identity feels like good passing outside 30 yards from goal and then go wide every time and hope something happens from a cross. I don't think Bell or Mehmeti have the ability to be our match winners in those positions at all and I actually felt Pring for the last 5-10 mins of Mehmeti's spell gave up on him and felt like he'd just do it himself, and I didn't blame him. 

We need wingers signed imo. I also feel that Knight wasn't getting around Conway enough because each time the ball goes out wide he feels the responsibility to help the wingers more, which they need. 

This isn't a knock on McRorie btw who's really impressed me. I'd like to see him further back with a dangerous natural winger ahead of him, and it's not Bell.

I agree with you but don’t count on wingers. This is central midfield galore now, we will end up with a load of number 10’s I expect. Don’t think width is a Manning thing, like SOD.  Playing nice passes before you get to the 18 yard box is easy, it’s finding that space, through ball, explosive pace and technical ability to get in behind which we lack. Granted Twine was missed, certainly set pieces. Did TGH say Beckham was his idol? Or was he watching Lee Johnson take corners as he grew up? Because they were terrible. Our lack of set piece quality cost us. 

Edited January 27 by Shauntaylor85

[MarcusX]

40 minutes ago, Robbored said:

A number of times in pretty much every match including last night City get into excellent crossing positions and usually there’s only Conway and possibly a midfielder who’s made a run which means that crossing options are limited - that’s largely why City don’t score many goals. 

Conway isn’t known for his heading ability and defenders cope pretty well unless he’s running at them or found space in a crowded box. its frustrating not to have a Chris Wood like striker.

Call a powerful CF a target man if you like but that’s not an accurate description of the type I think we need.

The Chris Wood who did absolutely nothing last night?

Our lack of crossing wasn’t down to who was in the box, it was down to our inability to put in a decent ball IMO.

 

[Robbored]

Just now, MarcusX said:

The Chris Wood who did absolutely nothing last night?

Our lack of crossing wasn’t down to who was in the box, it was down to our inability to put in a decent ball IMO.

 

Wood was kept quiet mainly by City denying him service and coping well with his movement. I remember him having one headed opportunity in the second half which Max easily held. That part he did bugger all.

[wheretheheartis]

8 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

I would encourage you to watch again.

We played far more vertical passes at the earliest opportunity, looking to move forward as quickly as possible- compared to previous games. The pennyvisxstartingvto drop with the players, Manning's message starting to connect.

Yes there was sideways passing but it wasn't just metronomic sideways passing for the sake of it to my eyes, there was purpose. There were even times we feigned to go sideways, threw the opposition off, before going up into midfield. Dickie really is excellent.

Manning talked before the Watford game about his style being cat and mouse but qualified that by saying the players had to learn when to go sideways and when to break the lines vertically. He said they had to learn that it might take 1 sideways pass or half a dozen before going vertically.

Tonight was the first sign I've seen that the players have got the message.

From back into midfield and forward again was excellent tonight. Now we need some killer forwards.

I concur. What I like about our passing, is we pass the ball with speed and what I mean by that, is with conviction. When we play the ball it very rarely gets intercepted,  we've got two very good passers of the ball in Dickie and Zac, when they see it's on then bang it in. I especially like the way Dickie switch passes it, not quite the same as Marlon pack did it but similar. Really enjoy us playing like this. All we need now is a little more quality in the final 3rd and we'd be challenging. 

[real_bristol]

Agree with the title of this thread. LMs biggest challenge is getting that level of energy and intensity into the league games, followed by some consistency. 

[redrob]

The big takeaway for me was that we created some decent openings and SHOULD have scored at least two goals against a  bottom half Premier league side. 

 

We dominated them for large parts of the game and forced them to counter attack without really creating many opening themselves bar the Hudson-Odoi effort. 

[steviestevieneville]

9 hours ago, StGeorge said:

I  agree, but think it was their subs at half time that stifled Mehmeti

I honestly think that mehmeti isn’t intelligent enough as a player. He’ll do well against league one defenders but struggles against better players. Also if you notice some of our players (Pring) especially getting frustrated with him. I’ve said before . The higher you go , the big difference is decision making. He doesn’t see the picture quickly enough & dwells on the ball too much which indicates it. 
I don’t think you can coach that. I hope I’m wrong but it didn’t take long for manning to give him a run then replace him with twine . 

[steviestevieneville]

6 minutes ago, redrob said:

The big takeaway for me was that we created some decent openings and SHOULD have scored at least two goals against a  bottom half Premier league side. 

 

We dominated them for large parts of the game and forced them to counter attack without really creating many opening themselves bar the Hudson-Odoi effort. 

We didn’t have a shot on target so why SHOULD have we scored twice. We played very well up to a point but we don’t create enough chances. 

[Puckle_red]

9 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

I would encourage you to watch again.

We played far more vertical passes at the earliest opportunity, looking to move forward as quickly as possible- compared to previous games. The pennyvisxstartingvto drop with the players, Manning's message starting to connect.

Yes there was sideways passing but it wasn't just metronomic sideways passing for the sake of it to my eyes, there was purpose. There were even times we feigned to go sideways, threw the opposition off, before going up into midfield. Dickie really is excellent.

Manning talked before the Watford game about his style being cat and mouse but qualified that by saying the players had to learn when to go sideways and when to break the lines vertically. He said they had to learn that it might take 1 sideways pass or half a dozen before going vertically.

Tonight was the first sign I've seen that the players have got the message.

From back into midfield and forward again was excellent tonight. Now we need some killer forwards.

I appreciate the constructive reply.

Maybe watching it back would make me appreciate our play a bit more.

But my raw feelings on the night were 'this is dull' we never looked like scoring.

It's possible I just dont enjoy the style of play we are trying to implement. 

COYR

[redrob]

27 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

We didn’t have a shot on target so why SHOULD have we scored twice. We played very well up to a point but we don’t create enough chances. 

 "Should" is a modal verb used to show when something is likely or expected. For example:

- My dry cleaning SHOULD be ready this afternoon. 

- You SHOULD find this guidebook useful. 

- Tommy Conway and Cam Pring SHOULD have both converted the chances they narrowly put wide. 

 

That's how we SHOULD have scored at least twice and if there had been some better decision making in and around the box could have had more clear cut chances so SHOULD have created more (but didn't). 

 

Sometimes to understand context and have a true picture of what happened you have to watch what is happening rather than just look at statistics. 

As the saying goes "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuadive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments. So to say we SHOULD NOT have scored at least two tonight because we didn't have a shot in target is in my view a very weak argument when you compare it to the context of the statistics and the chances we did have. Shoukd Chris Waddle not have scored his penalty in the 1990 World Cup semi final because the stats show his shot was off target? 

 

Edited January 27 by redrob

[steviestevieneville]

7 minutes ago, redrob said:

 "Should" is a modal verb used to show when something is likely or expected. For example:

- My dry cleaning SHOULD be ready this afternoon. 

- You SHOULD find this guidebook useful. 

- Tommy Conway and Cam Pring SHOULD have both converted the chances they narrowly put wide. 

 

That's how we SHOULD have scored at least twice and if there had been some better decision making in and around the box could have had more clear cut chances so SHOULD have created more (but didn't). 

 

Sometimes to understand context and have a true picture of what happened you have to watch what is happening rather than just look at statistics. 

As the saying goes "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuadive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments. So to say we SHOULD NOT have scored at least two tonight because we didn't have a shot in target is in my view a very weak argument when you compare it to the context of the statistics and the chances we did have. Shoukd Chris Waddle not have scored his penalty in the 1990 World Cup semi final because the stats show his shot was off target? 

 

waffle. If we don’t create chances we won’t score goals . It’s pretty simple 

[Son of Fred]

2 hours ago, Randy Marsh II said:

First half felt a wasted opportunity. 

Second half they came out with a rocket up then but it seemed like we were also more dangerous. Felt an even game

Perfectly summed up - a good point that for all our pretty football in the first half (at half time i thought how well we were looking after the ball, but could play all night & not score) - we looked far more likely to score when Forest played a higher line & upped their game.

Hopefully this augers well for the replay!

Edited January 27 by Son of Fred

[Merrick's Marvels]

42 minutes ago, Puckle_red said:

It's possible I just dont enjoy the style of play we are trying to implement. 

COYR

Nor do I especially, if it's keep ball for keep ball's sake. I just thought there was a bit more intent about our play last night.

Perhaps it's an overreaction to years of watching us be 2nd best on our own pitch but we totally dominated a superior team last night, and one that was a bit more "up for it" than West Ham.

Obviously in the final third we need to do better but if we can play like that against Championshio teams I think we'll see more end product.

[petehinton]

FFS did we learn nothing from the post Watford away thread

Enjoyed last nights performance, felt like it was heading for a 0-0 from 55/60 mins or so.

I’ll start getting properly excited when we are seeing the same level in the league games (consistently); which I don’t think we will until next season, personally.
 

McCrorie has made a huge, huge difference, no wonder we were so keen on him for so long, and Atkinson will suit this side perfectly as well. I’d say that was Mehmeti’s best game in the red and white stripes too for me. Him & Knight were so much more narrow, making Tommy far less isolated and less on the periphery of the game than he has been over the last month or so as well. 
 

Next run of games should suit us well, Albeit against better teams, if the theory so far is that we are better & show greater attacking threat against the sides who don’t sit in. 
 

My eyes are on the summer though, going to be a fascinating window, if we can keep seeing what we saw last night and are going to stick with 3421. Having the 2 narrow 10s and not wingers is a pretty far cry from the ‘Bristol City way’ Tinnion so proudly bleated, so going to be interesting to see which attacking players from the academy can get anywhere near breaking through if this will be the new look. 

[TV Tom]

Thought we were excellent but won't go as far as the opening poster, the two prem' teams to come to AG didn't fancy it in my opinion, the bigger test to see how far we've come will be the next home games dirty Leeds and Saints