Great Result, but….

[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.

[Sheltons Army]

Just now, Kid in the Riot said:

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!

I think that’s the most sensible explanation I have seen suggested KITR

Its what I thought Manning may say

I guess the question is ( In the overall in game management debate ) is whether that change aided us or hampered us in second half.

If you are correct in why the change , the circumstances of the Cup game etc may mean it’s a difficult one to judge in the overall debate 

( Just listening to the various and opposing views )

[UncleRed]

People on here post questioning the desire of the fans, and sometimes suggest they’re happier when they lose, and angrier when they win.

Can see why now

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, 2015 said:

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

Didn't they say that the only players on the pitch by the end that had played the whole 120 was Dickie and Vyner? 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

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!

I’m only on about the second half.  Because it was the polar opposite of the first half,

I’m dead happy tonight, we won, we broke our winless run….

….its worth reading my opening post again.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

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.

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.

No we didn't. They had a goal ruled out which looks like it should have stood and they scored. We then had to call upon Max. 

We had some luck. We held on but I'm not sure it's correct to say we defended well second half. 

[joe jordans teeth]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

Of course,had cornick and bell not missed sitters that win could of been huge,if it is down to boro being dogcrap or our manager saying have a go only time will tell 

[UncleRed]

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

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. 

Constantly chasing the ball? But you keep question why we sat in and defended for 45 minutes?

Make your mind up.

Chasing the ball would be if we did what you wanted them to do and counter press. Instead we sat deep and minimised movement and relied on concentration levels, which were superb from the starters and the bench.

[Red Army 75]

 

[phantom]

56 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'd say it was pretty obvious we had to sit back more defensively, we had a lead we could sit on, boro would clearly come at us and we would have to manage players knackered not just from recent minutes played but also from the distances travelled 

We weren't under any serious pressure in the sec half and it was only a fortunate deflection in added time that broke through 

Great to see performances improving and great game management 

[And Its Smith]

9 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

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!

Spot on. They created 2 good chances I would say and scored a lucky goal. The context of the game needs to be remembered. Wednesday would have been shattering 

[phantom]

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

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. 

Wouldn't agree we were chasing the ball, first half we were second half we dropped deeper, naturally giving boro more of the ball but they didn't hurt us with this possession and on many times over played things 

[UncleRed]

1 minute ago, phantom said:

I'd say it was pretty obvious we had to sit back more defensively, we had a lead we could sit on, boro would clearly come at us and we would have to manage players knackered not just from recent minutes played but also from the distances travelled 

We weren't under any serious pressure in the sec half and it was only a fortunate deflection in added time that broke through 

Great to see performances improving and great game management 

Would of thought it was pretty obvious.

[Jeez]

Felt like it was a wise move to sit in straight after the break as Boro would no doubt come for us. But to remain like that was suicidal,  we got away with it but looked like far more effort defending for 45 like that, fair play to the lads for digging in.

We needed the win, I can see the rationale but still thought it was a mental tactical change for the whole half.

[Port Said Red]

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

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. 

But we didn't chase the ball, we sat back in a shape that they struggled to breakdown. yes they did some pretty stuff around the edge of the box, but we had numbers in and around the 6 yard box that coped with 99% of what came in.

[phantom]

Just now, Jeez said:

Felt like it was a wise move to sit in straight after the break as Boro would no doubt come for us. But to remain like that was suicidal,  we got away with it but looked like far more effort defending for 45 like that, fair play to the lads for digging in.

We needed the win, I can see the rationale but still thought it was a mental tactical change for the whole half.

Wouldn't use the phrase "got away with it", it's how teams sit in, dig in and defend the lead you have 

[joe jordans teeth]

Just now, phantom said:

Wouldn't agree we were chasing the ball, first half we were second half we dropped deeper, naturally giving boro more of the ball but they didn't hurt us with this possession and on many times over played things 

Either Dave has been watching to much prem football or massively overrates our squad 

[Sir Geoff]

18 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

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

Did you read para 3 of OP ?

[Rudolf Hucker]

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Spot on. They created 2 good chances I would say and scored a lucky goal. The context of the game needs to be remembered. Wednesday would have been shattering 

I think that LM would also be looking to conserve energy for Tuesday’s match against the divisions form team. Three games in seven days. 

[Jeez]

1 minute ago, phantom said:

Wouldn't use the phrase "got away with it", it's how teams sit in, dig in and defend the lead you have 

Fair enough, but a team of Boro’s quality we were one slip away from conceding, saved by the offside call the limo must have had excellent vision as it looked like Greenwood was inside.

[Kid in the Riot]

7 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

I think that’s the most sensible explanation I have seen suggested KITR

Its what I thought Manning may say
I guess the question is ( In the overall in game management debate ) is whether that change aided us or hampered us in second half.

If you are correct in why the change , the circumstances of the Cup game etc may mean it’s a difficult one to judge in the overall debate 
( Just listening to the various and opposing views )

I think we were just trying to defend a lead, which isn't exactly an unusual or controversial tactic. Especially for a squad that has played a lot of football, and is playing away from home at a decent team.

To defend a lead you need either more defenders on the pitch, more players in defensive positions, or both.

I assume that's what Manning had in mind, and ultimately it worked.