Great Result, but….

[Davefevs]

A huge sense of disappointment, frustration and anger about the second half performance.

No problem with a half-time sub (assume Cornick a knock), but why the change in shape from the first half where we controlled so much of the 45 mins?

They played through us, around us, behind us.  We had no answer.  CB spacing went to pot as they slid in their forwards.

To end, well done though, three points, winless run over, a big boost after a tough set of fixtures.

And chilllllllllll.

[joe jordans teeth]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

A huge sense of disappointment, frustration and anger about the second half performance.

No problem with a half-time sub (assume Cornick a knock), but why the change in shape from the first half where we controlled so much of the 45 mins?

They played through us, around us, behind us.  We had no answer.  CB spacing went to pot as they slid in their forwards.

To end, well done though, three points, winless run over, a big boost after a tough set of fixtures.

And chilllllllllll.

Totally agree but it’s early days and he needs results so can’t blame him for that 

[Malago]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

A huge sense of disappointment, frustration and anger about the second half performance.

No problem with a half-time sub (assume Cornick a knock), but why the change in shape from the first half where we controlled so much of the 45 mins?

They played through us, around us, behind us.  We had no answer.  CB spacing went to pot as they slid in their forwards.

To end, well done though, three points, winless run over, a big boost after a tough set of fixtures.

And chilllllllllll.

Yes,  the way we played in the 2nd half you’d have thought we had played 120 mins against a Premier leagues team less than 3 days ago.

[BCFCGav]

We’ve dropped points in good performances. I’ll take today happily

[Port Said Red]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

A huge sense of disappointment, frustration and anger about the second half performance.

No problem with a half-time sub (assume Cornick a knock), but why the change in shape from the first half where we controlled so much of the 45 mins?

They played through us, around us, behind us.  We had no answer.  CB spacing went to pot as they slid in their forwards.

To end, well done though, three points, winless run over, a big boost after a tough set of fixtures.

And chilllllllllll.

What did they create, Max had one decent save to make? It was fine, we just needed to see the game out without expending too much energy and we did it. 

[UncleRed]

As I mentioned in the matchday thread. Some people think having a “good” performance is dominating the ball for 90 minutes and the opposition keeper making 10+ saves.

Not being 2-0 up away from home and defending the lead against a team who on paper, should be substantially higher than us in the league.

Theyve also had 6 days rest instead of 3, and did zero travelling since the Chelsea game.

If you thought Carrick wasn’t going to make sure they came back out after half time completely different then that’s just ignorant.

We were never going to carry on playing 433 and go end to end like we did the first half. Especially when you look at the schedule and travelling contrast between both teams.

Defending has been our reliable strength so far. I don’t think it’s stupid with the said parameters to rely on this and see if you could grind out the result.

Happy for the travelling fans.

[joe jordans teeth]

1 minute ago, UncleRed said:

 

As I mentioned in the matchday thread. Some people think having a “good” performance is dominating the ball for 90 minutes and the opposition keeper making 10+ saves.

Not being 2-0 up away from home and defending the lead against a team who on paper, should be substantially higher than us in the league.

Theyve also had 6 days rest instead of 3, and did zero travelling since the Chelsea game.

If you thought Carrick wasn’t going to make sure they came back out after half time completely different then that’s just ignorant.

We were never going to carry on playing 433 and go end to end like we did the first half. Especially when you look at the schedule and travelling contrast between both teams.

Defending has been our reliable strength so far. I don’t think it’s stupid with the said parameters to rely on this and see if you could grind out the result.

Happy for the travelling fans.

Bang on the money 

[David Brent]

Hopefully we learn a lot from today..but can still enjoy the three points. 

[lenred]

A superb win under any circumstances.  Absolutely fantastic.   Well in City.  

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, UncleRed said:

 

As I mentioned in the matchday thread. Some people think having a “good” performance is dominating the ball for 90 minutes and the opposition keeper making 10+ saves.

Not being 2-0 up away from home and defending the lead against a team who on paper, should be substantially higher than us in the league.

Theyve also had 6 days rest instead of 3, and did zero travelling since the Chelsea game.

If you thought Carrick wasn’t going to make sure they came back out after half time completely different then that’s just ignorant.

We were never going to carry on playing 433 and go end to end like we did the first half. Especially when you look at the schedule and travelling contrast between both teams.

Defending has been our reliable strength so far. I don’t think it’s stupid with the said parameters to rely on this and see if you could grind out the result.

Happy for the travelling fans.

Still we are often more compact and cohesive with a 4-3-3. Not just in terms of dominant and or flowing football either.

This could be a building block however.

Edited February 10 by Mr Popodopolous

[sglosbcfc]

Great result but...even better if Rovers lost as well 

[firstdivision]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

A huge sense of disappointment, frustration and anger about the second half performance.

No problem with a half-time sub (assume Cornick a knock), but why the change in shape from the first half where we controlled so much of the 45 mins?

They played through us, around us, behind us.  We had no answer.  CB spacing went to pot as they slid in their forwards.

To end, well done though, three points, winless run over, a big boost after a tough set of fixtures.

And chilllllllllll.

That’s a fair point if we’d had six days to prepare like Boro and not 120 minutes on Wednesday. But we looked shattered in the second half. Rob Dickie was knackered. 

[Out of his pie crust]

Thank **** we won

[Kid in the Riot]

Anger

[robin_unreliant]

Fast getting to the point where I throw something at the TV when LM reverts to three at the back. How much evidence does he need to see it doesn't suit these players? Gotta take on board what's staring us all in the face eventually I hope.

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Malago said:

Yes,  the way we played in the 2nd half you’d have thought we had played 120 mins against a Premier leagues team less than 3 days ago.

That’s not the point.  We were a cohesive unit 1st half, we were a mess 2nd.  The system change a huge part of that.  It’s not like we even just sat in and played on the counter, we didn’t even do that.

9 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

What did they create, Max had one decent save to make? It was fine, we just needed to see the game out without expending too much energy and we did it. 

Really?  It’s just about keeper saves, it’s the chances they created and missed. How about the 1v1 or the unorthodox punch off a defkection…which one you not counting, plus the desperate defending in our six yard box.

If we can praise the first half, we can critique what was almost a costly second half.

Chasing the ball knackers you!  We had 24% possession second half.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, robin_unreliant said:

Fast getting to the point where I throw something at the TV when LM reverts to three at the back. How much evidence does he need to see it doesn't suit these players? Gotta take on board what's staring us all in the face eventually I hope.

I was all but shouting at the radio when we switched it up in midweek.

It feels like the wrong shape at the wrong time in most circumstances atm.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Anger

Yes, because I don’t expect us to play that badly.

[W-S-M Seagull]

@Super I await your comments. 

[joe jordans teeth]

Would we gone for the throat when Pearson was in charge from the start,as someone who thought he was harshly treated I honestly don’t think he would of,then for people to criticise because after doing that and getting yourself in front and protecting is a bit strange 

[Port Said Red]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, because I don’t expect us to play that badly.

And win.

[M.D]

4 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Anger

Its not anger is it, we are all happy with the result but I question why the change at half time..

If Boro had scored mid second half we would have been in trouble and that would have been down to the half time change in tactics.

[Davefevs]

Just now, Port Said Red said:

And win.

What did I put at in my OP?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, joe jordans teeth said:

Would we gone for the throat when Pearson was in charge from the start,as someone who thought he was harshly treated I honestly don’t think he would of,then for people to criticise because after doing that and getting yourself in front and protecting is a bit strange 

We did at times, it varied under NP.

A succession of games in which we started fast..or a range.

Swansea, West Brom, Plymouth, Stoke.

Mixed results and the 2nd was a 0-0 but we came out with a strong tempo- Stoke game we kinda screwed ourselves.

[Sheltons Army]

Manning just coming on RB - will be interesting if he gets asked

Edited February 10 by Sheltons Army

[The turtle]

He's experimenting. We are at that point in the season.

Trying different things in each half v the same side.

Seeing truly what works and what doesn't. What players can do, what they can't. Who he has in his plans who he doesn't.

It's a super long pre season, ready to hit the ground running.

I don't think we'll see a back 3 in any game until we are 2 up, allowing us to work on it while ahead.

 

And yes, I'm joking

[W-S-M Seagull]

Manning "the plan worked well first half" 

So why did we change that plan then? 

[joe jordans teeth]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We did at times, it varied under NP.

A succession of games in which we started fast..or a range.

Swansea, West Brom, Plymouth, Stoke.

Mixed results and the 2nd was a 0-0 but we came out with a strong tempo- Stoke game we kinda screwed ourselves.

That was well into his reign though 

[Port Said Red]

Both Cam and Dickie picked up knocks in the first half, I would imagine he wanted to take the pressure off the defence. we dominated in attack in the first half and did the same defensively in the 2nd. 

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

Manning "the plan worked well first half" 

So why did we change that plan then? 

Has he said yet, or did you not bother waiting to hear before posting? Having to defend himself after a win now, for ***** sake. 

Edited February 10 by Port Said Red

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Port Said Red said:

Both Cam and Dickie picked up knocks in the first half, I would imagine he wanted to take the pressure off the defence. we dominated in attack in the first half and did the same defensively in the 2nd. 

Has he said yet, or did you not bother waiting to hear before posting?

Did you not notice the quotation marks? 

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, UncleRed said:

If you thought Carrick wasn’t going to make sure they came back out after half time completely different then that’s just ignorant.

 

No, imho it feels more ignorant for fans to give Carrick credit and not critique Manning in some measure???  No?

[Port Said Red]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

Did you not notice the quotation marks? 

What about them? HAS HE SAID WHY HE CHANGED THE PLAN IN THE SECOND HALF? 

[Northern Red]

Up The City!

[DT The Optimist]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, because I don’t expect us to play that badly.

LM  on radio Brizzle seems to put it down to the volume of games we had recently re the second half....  Hhhhhmmmm  At least we have two whole  clear days to recover 

[Sheltons Army]

I didn’t see the game so am following the subject of the change in formation and the second half with interest

But , in his interview he’s just given in RB he didn’t explain it , said how effective we were and how well we excecuted the plan in the first half, suggested Cornick was knackered hence the sub , didn’t explain why he went to a 5 but ‘you are always going to come under pressure’ , and thought it worked well in the second half 

So I’m still none the wiser why he actually changed  

[Davefevs]

Just now, Port Said Red said:

What about them? HAS HE SAID WHY HE CHANGED THE PLAN IN THE SECOND HALF? 

He made it right off the bat, not in response to Carrick - e.g. it’s not like v Preston, where Lowe made a host of changes and we were slow to cotton on.

[W-S-M Seagull]

7 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Manning just coming on RB - will be interesting if he gets asked

They never ask him. 

Having listened to his interview I am no clearer as to why Cornick got taken off or why we changed shape. 

[UncleRed]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, imho it feels more ignorant for fans to give Carrick credit and not critique Manning in some measure???  No?

Give Carrick credit? I don’t see where I’ve given Carrick credit. He got out coached today in my opinion.

LM set up to hit them early whilst we had the energy in the legs, then sit back when the fatigue kicked in.

So you’d be right in saying no Dave.

Edited February 10 by UncleRed

[Super]

3 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

What about them? HAS HE SAID WHY HE CHANGED THE PLAN IN THE SECOND HALF? 

Just ignore him.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, UncleRed said:

Give Carrick credit? I don’t see where I’ve given Carrick credit. He got out out coached today in my opinion.

LM set up to hit them early whilst we had the energy in the legs, then sit back when the fatigue kicked in.

So you’d be right in saying no Dave.

Sitting back probably uses more energy tbh. Both physically and mentally. 

[Loosey Boy]

Take that result all day long……another big test for us on Tuesday

Well done to Liam, the boys and those that travelled

[Davefevs]

Just now, UncleRed said:

Give Carrick credit? I don’t see where I’ve given Carrick credit. He got out out coached today in my opinion.

LM set up to hit them early whilst we had the energy in the legs, then sit back when the fatigue kicked in.

So you’d be right in saying no Dave.

Fatigued or not, we played badly second half…that is the point of the thread.

Can we not critique the team and the Head Coach’s tactics?

 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 minutes ago, Super said:

Just ignore him.

I'm just wondering why you've called me out on me having an issue with us changing shape, but you've not called anyone else out. 

Says a lot that. 

[Sheltons Army]

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

They never ask him. 

Having listened to his interview I am no clearer as to why Cornick got taken off or why we changed shape. 

It was all a bit woolly and as you say a poor interview 

I didn’t see the game , so difficult to comment , and difficult not having seen , other than others descriptions , exactly what transpired

But all I’d say - the overall subject of in game management / tactically is actually an important one (For any Head Coach / Manager - not just LM)

One of several key skill areas which will dictate how successful you are

 

 

Fwiw  And overall what I’ve seen , In game adaptability and tactical tweaks is a bit of a concern for me 

[Rossi the Robin]

Spot on first half got the rotation completely bang on

The second half was always going to be to that pattern, change of formation or not, so was completely expecting it

Would have helped to get that 3rd goal - miss could have cost us

And the Gas lost again, extra happy points 

[chinapig]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That’s not the point.  We were a cohesive unit 1st half, we were a mess 2nd.  The system change a huge part of that.  It’s not like we even just sat in and played on the counter, we didn’t even do that.

There was clearly a case for using our subs well given the likely player fatigue but that didn't require a switch to a back 3 and surrendering the initiative. Especially as the first half was probably the best we have played under Liam.

It always puzzles me when coaches decide to sit on a lead for an entire half but Liam is obviously keen on a back 3 and I assume we will see a lot more of it. I'm not convinced it suits our players but time will tell.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Fatigued or not, we played badly second half…that is the point of the thread.

Can we not critique the team and the Head Coach’s tactics?

 

 

No. 

[UncleRed]

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

Sitting back probably uses more energy tbh. Both physically and mentally. 

You played football before? If so what type of football because that is baffling.

Having experience in doing so at any level you’d realise that.

Not like this is the first time in history a football team on Earth has sat back because they’re tired, and winning btw.

[bobbyhutchscurlymullet]

Someone urinate on your cornflakes this morning @Davefevs? 

I realise you study the game more than most of us. And I really do appreciate some of your insights that can be difficult to miss, can find some of them really interesting. But, I think that second half performance can be put down to something a lot more simpler than formations etc. The simple fact we played 120 minutes 2 and a half days ago, while they hadn't played for a week. Makes such more of a difference in today's game.

[And Its Smith]

We were under the cosh territory wise and Max had to make a few fine stops, not least the clean through, but over the 90 we thoroughly deserved the win. That’s the takeaway for me. If Manning doesn’t change shape and we draw there would be more anger. 

[Davefevs]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

No. 

It appears so.

I’m sure didn’t read the whole post I started.  Straight in to defend LM.

[UncleRed]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Fatigued or not, we played badly second half…that is the point of the thread.

Can we not critique the team and the Head Coach’s tactics?

 

 

Played badly how so? Not having a threat going forward? Obviously.

But the whole 11 played well in defending a two goal lead and making sure we got over the edge. Would of been a clean sheet if there wasn’t an unfortunate deflection.

More of that effort please lads.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, UncleRed said:

You played football before? If so what type of football because that is baffling.

Having experience in doing so at any level you’d realise that.

Not like this is the first time in history a football team on Earth has sat back because they’re tired, and winning btw.

Yea mate I have, have you? Doesn't seem like you have. 

Constantly defending for very long periods is both physically and mentally exhausting.

[Rudolf Hucker]

We did win, right?

[Edgy Red]

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

Manning "the plan worked well first half" 

So why did we change that plan then? 

Maybe, and this is just a hunch, Middlesboro are a decent side and Carrick gave his players a rocket at half time and they improved in the 2nd half?

I would guess that Manning was worried about players tiring after the tough schedule we have had recently and so changed shape to make us more solid. In hindsight, it didn't necessarily have the desired effect, but as per my first paragraph, Boro were always going to come out firing in the 2nd half, regardless of what formation we deployed.

Lets just enjoy the win

[Port Said Red]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Fatigued or not, we played badly second half…that is the point of the thread.

Can we not critique the team and the Head Coach’s tactics?

We didn't play badly, we defended well. We just showed a different aspect to our game

[Super]

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

I'm just wondering why you've called me out on me having an issue with us changing shape, but you've not called anyone else out. 

Says a lot that. 

Because every thread going you criticise Manning. I'd you don't like it ignore it?

[UncleRed]

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Yea mate I have, have you? Doesn't seem like you have. 

Constantly defending for very long periods is both physically and mentally exhausting.

Playing football is tiring in general I think, but not having to sit on the half way line and do 40-50 yard doggies is substantially energy saving. Clearly doesn’t seem like you have.

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

That was well into his reign though 

It is much the same players.

Anyway I can't be bothered for a long back and forth on history of managers. I'm happy we won finally, credit to Manning for the team selection in particular, 2nd half we'll all have our own views on, pros and cons etc.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

48 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

A huge sense of disappointment, frustration and anger about the second half performance.

No problem with a half-time sub (assume Cornick a knock), but why the change in shape from the first half where we controlled so much of the 45 mins?

They played through us, around us, behind us.  We had no answer.  CB spacing went to pot as they slid in their forwards.

To end, well done though, three points, winless run over, a big boost after a tough set of fixtures.

And chilllllllllll.

I get you, but I think you're missing the fact he's put out a weaker 11 today (forced) it certainly wouldn't have been my pick, it's worked out and he's though great, changed to the formation that was effective against Forrest and balls up the second half.

I think we had some seriously leggy players today, and they've done exceptionally well to get the win away from home, it's mental to think they, got back at 2am Thursday did recovery stretching and prep for this game Thursday afternoon most likely, then traveled up to Boro Friday and then got this result.

They all deserve a nice rest Monday with a nice sports massage.

Edited February 10 by Lorenzos Only Goal

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Edgy Red said:

Maybe, and this is just a hunch, Middlesboro are a decent side and Carrick gave his players a rocket at half time and they improved in the 2nd half?

I would guess that Manning was worried about players tiring after the tough schedule we have had recently and so changed shape to make us more solid. In hindsight, it didn't necessarily have the desired effect, but as per my first paragraph, Boro were always going to come out firing in the 2nd half, regardless of what formation we deployed.

Lets just enjoy the win

Agree in part, but yeah could we have made the change but kept us at 4-3-3.

Bell and Mehmeti to run on the break, still in a 4-3-3ish.

[RedorDead BCFC]

3 minutes ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

We did win, right?

And taken all six points on offer against them this season. 

[Sheltons Army]

For those that saw it can I ask , out of interest 

 

Did we start to come under pressure , or lose our ‘dominance’ , in the period before h/t 

[Kid in the Riot]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, because I don’t expect us to play that badly.

Sorry Dave, but your post comes across as joyless.

We've just won at a top 10 side away from home and one with a bigger budget than us.

We could, probably should, have been 3 or 4 up at half time.

We aren't in a place where we're capable of playing at an intensity like we did in the first half in the second as well, particularly given the amount of minutes in players legs. 

That's presumably part of the reason the change was made. 

I agree we ceded some control of the game, at the same time I thought we defended very well - and we have that in our locker. 

I don't recall many Boro clear-cut chances,  they had their first goal correctly ruled out and then scored a fluke.

If you're angry about that then you must've missed a lot of very bad City performances over the years. Either that, or experienced a lot of anger!

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, bobbyhutchscurlymullet said:

Someone urinate on your cornflakes this morning @Davefevs? 

I realise you study the game more than most of us. And I really do appreciate some of your insights that can be difficult to miss, can find some of them really interesting. But, I think that second half performance can be put down to something a lot more simpler than formations etc. The simple fact we played 120 minutes 2 and a half days ago, while they hadn't played for a week. Makes such more of a difference in today's game.

No, not at all, read what I put at h-t on the MDT…and what I actually posted on my OP.  I’m delighted to win, end the winless run and move up the table.

And yes, I’m sure fatigue played a part too.  I’m not putting it down to system alone.  But a system change that allowed their CBs to play out, through and around us meant we spent the best part of 45 mins chasing the ball was a big factor.  We got opened up.

First half Knight and Wells were superb in stopping Fry and VDB passing into midfield.  By swapping to go Wells alone (then Tommy alone) meant we couldn’t put any pressure on the ball.  They walked into our half and then into our third.

LM made no mention of reasons in his post match interview.  Just said run of fixtures.

 

++++++

chasing the ball with no hope of getting it and retaining it is mentally tiring.  I’m sure that’s one of the philosophies as to why LM wants to play possession controlled football.

 

[joe jordans teeth]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, imho it feels more ignorant for fans to give Carrick credit and not critique Manning in some measure???  No?

Always be critical in certain times and also praise,during the game people were going over the top at saves max made that were bread and butter let’s be honest so I do agree but we haven’t got the squad to play 95 minutes so we have to make sure the points are coming our way 

[Super]

People usually avoid the forum when we lose.....

[2015]

Usually agree with Davefevs but I think today you have to bare in mind most of those players did just play a lot of 120 minutes 3 days ago. 

It was an all round good performance imo

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 minutes ago, UncleRed said:

Playing football is tiring in general I think, but not having to sit on the half way line and do 40-50 yard doggies is substantially energy saving. Clearly doesn’t seem like you have.

Boro had 76% posession sexond half. 

If you've ever played football you'd know that constantly chasing a ball for the majority of the second half is incredibly tiring. No rest bite. 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

We didn't play badly, we defended well. We just showed a different aspect to our game

I don’t think we did defend well.  Sunderland we defended well, today, second half we didn’t. Imho.  Sunderland never opened us up.  Boro did.

3 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I get you, but I think you're missing the fact he's put out a weaker 11 today (forced) it certainly wouldn't have been my pick, it's worked out and he's though great, changed to the formation that was effective against Forrest and balls up the second half.

I think we had some seriously leggy players today, and they've done exceptionally well to get the win away from home, it's mental to think they, got back at 2am Thursday did recovery stretching and prep for this game Thursday afternoon most likely, then traveled up to Boro Friday and then got this result.

They all deserve a nice rest Monday with a nice sports massage.

Out of interest, what was weaker about our eleven today?  We have a fairly similar ability squad in general.  Pring, TGH back in today for example.