Great Result, but….

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

You said it felt weird that we didn't come out and try to control possession. 

My question to you is do you think this team is capable of doing that in a second 45 away from home after god knows how many games in January and Feb? 

If you do, then what evidence have you seen to make you think that would've been a better approach, which would've invited less pressure? 

Yep, when we got the ball, try to keep it longer, even passing it around the back four.  Yes, harder due to fatigue.  But also harder when resorting to dropping into a back 5 (ultimately) on the edge of your box with no way out.

With good use of subs to inject energy I think we could’ve managed it better, yes.  I’m not criticising the subs or when they were made, just the approach.

The simple answer is - us having more than 24% possession would’ve meant Boro having less than 76%.

I’m not talking about huge margins here.

Ultimately we won the game.  I think our first half performance meant we deserved what we got.  I just wanted us to see it out better than we did.  I imagine Liam Manning thinks that too, his post-match interview seem to reflect a bit of disappointment with how it played out but overall delighted with the win.

 

[Cov 77]

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

I'm gonna throw this question back at you because it's only you and the other anti Nigel people that keep mentioning Nige. Very bizarre. 

I’m not anti Nige , gutted when he went , was personal not football but unlike many on here, frankly yourself right up there , not going to crucify Manning, regularly unfairly because he’s Nige’s replacement, the board etc maybe but want the best for LM as want the best for us , sick to ******* death of the constant negativity 

[Bar BS3]

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

Mate I've watched so many Bristol City games where we've been 2 nil down and we havent done as you say. 

I've watched even more football games in general where that hasn't happened. 

The changes we made invited the pressure. 

Obviously not every game pans out the same way.

If a team is 2-0 down they have nothing to loose.

If they have quality, they are bound to go for it & cause problems.

Sitting back to contain them (after a gruelling recent fixture list) is one option, we did it & we won.

If we'd have carried on attacking & been caught out then that would have been wrong.

Getting the result is what mattered & we showed how good we can be to get the game won in the first half. 

[stephenkibby.]

I know that you keep saying Dave that you like Manning and will give him time, but quite frankly that's not how it comes across.

Great win today, brilliant first half,dug in 2nd and got a proper result.

For most of us what's not to like?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, when we got the ball, try to keep it longer, even passing it around the back four.  Yes, harder due to fatigue.  But also harder when resorting to dropping into a back 5 (ultimately) on the edge of your box with no way out.

With good use of subs to inject energy I think we could’ve managed it better, yes.  I’m not criticising the subs or when they were made, just the approach.

The simple answer is - us having more than 24% possession would’ve meant Boro having less than 76%.

I’m not talking about huge margins here.

Ultimately we won the game.  I think our first half performance meant we deserved what we got.  I just wanted us to see it out better than we did.  I imagine Liam Manning thinks that too, his post-match interview seem to reflect a bit of disappointment with how it played out but overall delighted with the win.

 

We had some of that between 46-60.

Around 1/3 of the ball and though we allowed 5 Shots with 2 on Target, we had 2 and 1 of our own respectively.

Think was between 15-20% between 61-90, would have made Middlesbrough look like a top side in England and Europe on the ball.

Edited February 10 by Mr Popodopolous

[The Swan and Cemetery]

6 minutes ago, stephenkibby. said:

I know that you keep saying Dave that you like Manning and will give him time, but quite frankly that's not how it comes across.

Great win today, brilliant first half,dug in 2nd and got a proper result.

For most of us what's not to like?

 

Very happy to confirm I didn’t like that second half performance. Also happy to confirm loads of terrible performances under pretty much every manager I can remember, plus some good ones! Doesn’t mean it wasn’t a great result, but folk getting criticised for criticising that performance is odd, in my view. 

[steviestevieneville]

4 hours 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 maybe miss quoting you but haven’t you said in the past about not getting hung up on shape , formation . 
For what it’s worth I thought they pushed us back but we were also happy to drop off & invite them on & showed little intention of taking the game to them . We held all the cards to some extent but to counter that a third goal kills the game completely . 
My main gripe for about ten minutes second half was how Azaz found space so easily between the midfield & centre backs . Not just centrally but on both corners of the box . We seemed to deal with that better after williams came on & blocked those passing lanes better . I don’t think we could have carried on for the whole 90 as we did first half & they were bound to come at us. For all their possession max made three/four routine saves , away from home . 

[joe jordans teeth]

27 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Obviously not every game pans out the same way.

If a team is 2-0 down they have nothing to loose.

If they have quality, they are bound to go for it & cause problems.

Sitting back to contain them (after a gruelling recent fixture list) is one option, we did it & we won.

If we'd have carried on attacking & been caught out then that would have been wrong.

Getting the result is what mattered & we showed how good we can be to get the game won in the first half. 

That is common sense,to think Dave still wanted us to attack is either naive or plain stupid 

[Kid in the Riot]

27 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, when we got the ball, try to keep it longer, even passing it around the back four.  Yes, harder due to fatigue.  But also harder when resorting to dropping into a back 5 (ultimately) on the edge of your box with no way out.

With good use of subs to inject energy I think we could’ve managed it better, yes.  I’m not criticising the subs or when they were made, just the approach.

The simple answer is - us having more than 24% possession would’ve meant Boro having less than 76%.

I’m not talking about huge margins here.

Ultimately we won the game.  I think our first half performance meant we deserved what we got.  I just wanted us to see it out better than we did.  I imagine Liam Manning thinks that too, his post-match interview seem to reflect a bit of disappointment with how it played out but overall delighted with the win.

Right, so you aren't talking about controlling possession; just having a bit more of it. That makes more sense, though you'll be aware "passing it around the back four" carries a fair bit of risk too i.e. one misplaced pass and the opposition are in. 

Strikes me that with no league win this year until today, Manning took the pragmatic approach and decided the result was more important than the performance. Also bear in mind he has literally had next to no sessions on the training pitch since the new year due to the number of games we've had. He clearly doesn't think the players are quite there yet to be fully confident with a possession based game, tho we are seeing some promising early signs imo.  Fair enough.

We'll have to disagree on the performance of the defence, which I thought was v good (tho note on another thread you name three of our defenders as your performers of the day??), and also that Boro didn't really cut us open too often imo, and that it was a deserved win - I think it was fully deserved. 

[joe jordans teeth]

8 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Right, so you aren't talking about controlling possession; just having a bit more of it. That makes more sense, though you'll be aware "passing it around the back four" carries a fair bit of risk too i.e. one misplaced pass and the opposition are in. 

Strikes me that with no league win this year until today, Manning took the pragmatic approach and decided the result was more important than the performance. Also bear in mind he has literally had next to no sessions on the training pitch since the new year due to the number of games we've had. He clearly doesn't think the players are quite there yet to be fully confident with a possession based game, tho we are seeing some promising early signs imo.  Fair enough.

We'll have to disagree on the performance of the defence, which I thought was v good (tho note on another thread you name three of our defenders as your performers of the day??), and also that Boro didn't really cut us open too often imo, and that it was a deserved win - I think it was fully deserved. 

It’s a easy game football,get the game won by half time and then why risk it,the result is all that matters,we carved them open numerous times first half and then to think we would try to play the same way 2nd half is madness 

Edited February 10 by joe jordans teeth

[hollydog]

If people are moaning about the performance after beating Boro away I’m quite pleased. Shows the progress we are making. i remember being at Ayresome Park when a Bob Taylor header secured our  first win there in a lifetime! 

[Robbored]

46 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Just to say a couple of things;

- I do, but it doesn’t mean I know better than anyone who doesn’t 

- By this logic we should just shut the forum down as none of us are as qualified as the management.

Its a high bar, but you may have posted your most nonsensical point ever.

Otib is a forum Silvio, very similar to every other football forum. Fans have opinions about all things football. Tactics, formations, team shapes et el

I don’t profess to have a deep knowledge of the beautiful game despite having watched thousands of matches over many decades and it makes me smile when I hear or see ordinary fans like myself pointing out where the manager went wrong.

If a manager makes what seems to be wrong substitutions the question I ask myself is “what’s he’s thinking?. The same applied in todays match “why did Manning change shape?

To me it seemed obvious but not to everyone.

[Davefevs]

20 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

I maybe miss quoting you but haven’t you said in the past about not getting hung up on shape , formation . 
For what it’s worth I thought they pushed us back but we were also happy to drop off & invite them on & showed little intention of taking the game to them . We held all the cards to some extent but to counter that a third goal kills the game completely . 
My main gripe for about ten minutes second half was how Azaz found space so easily between the midfield & centre backs . Not just centrally but on both corners of the box . We seemed to deal with that better after williams came on & blocked those passing lanes better . I don’t think we could have carried on for the whole 90 as we did first half & they were bound to come at us. For all their possession max made three/four routine saves , away from home . 

Yep, SSN I have, but to qualify its that every formation has its pros and cons, and they can vary defending on with formation you're playing against..and personnel.  I thought going to the shape we did opened up channels and spaces for Boro.  And also made it difficult for us to retain possession.

Of course, maybe the players executed the plan poorly, ie plan was sound.  I’ll happily concede that.  I doubt Manning did it without reason.

18 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

That is common sense,to think Dave still wanted us to attack is either naive or plain stupid 

You’re just making stuff up now.  What is it with misquotes tonight?

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, Robbored said:

I don’t profess to have a deep knowledge of the beautiful game despite having watched thousands of matches over many decades 

No shit Sherlock. It doesn’t show.

[Tomo]

I didn't see the game but 70% v 30% possession sounds very NP like.

We are a mid table outfit. We will win some and lose some, whoever the manager is. 

Take the points. 

Fevs - you have never really focused on formations?. Having not watched the game, I can't comment. What was our 1st half possession %age....50 ish?

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Just to say a couple of things;

- I do, but it doesn’t mean I know better than anyone who doesn’t 

- By this logic we should just shut the forum down as none of us are as qualified as the management.

Its a high bar, but you may have posted your most nonsensical point ever.

Put him on ignore, mate.

Apart from when I have the misfortune to see posts when they’re quoted by others I find that it works a treat.

Seeing as they are either incredibly inane like this or pitiful repeated attempts to troll regarding events that were at least 15 years ago now, I feel I’m missing absolutely nothing by doing so.

[Tim Monaghan]

7 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Right, so you aren't talking about controlling possession; just having a bit more of it. That makes more sense, though you'll be aware "passing it around the back four" carries a fair bit of risk too i.e. one misplaced pass and the opposition are in. 

Strikes me that with no league win this year until today, Manning took the pragmatic approach and decided the result was more important than the performance. Also bear in mind he has literally had next to no sessions on the training pitch since the new year due to the number of games we've had. He clearly doesn't think the players are quite there yet to be fully confident with a possession based game, tho we are seeing some promising early signs imo.  Fair enough.

We'll have to disagree on the performance of the defence, which I thought was v good (tho note on another thread you name three of our defenders as your performers of the day??), and also that Boro didn't really cut us open too often imo, and that it was a deserved win - I think it was fully deserved. 

This. This is how we setup in the 2nd half

 

As you can see, we are using a 5-4-1 “low block”. So the complete opposite to what @W-S-M Seagull is saying about using more energy. A low block requires high discipline from each player, who must stay in their position and NOT CHASE THE BALL. The key to a low block is to keep the team compact, with small gaps between the players and the lines. If a player leaves their slot to press the ball, they will create a hole in the team's shape.

This is actually a really similar style to what Conte did at Tottenham. 
 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Tomo said:

I didn't see the game but 70% v 30% possession sounds very NP like.

We are a mid table outfit. We will win some and lose some, whoever the manager is. 

Take the points. 

Fevs - you have never really focused on formations?. Having not watched the game, I can't comment. What was our 1st half possession %age....50 ish?

36% (64% Boro) - game state plays a part….we blocked their 2 CBs from playing into midfield, so 2-0 up inside 17 mins means you don’t have to force the issue to win the ball.

City Shots 10 / 6 on target / 1.52 xg

Boro 5 / 1 / 0.31 xg

2nd half 24% (76% Boro)

City shots 2 / 1 / 0.24 xg

Boro 11 / 5 / 1.23 xg

Shape I’m into / formations not!

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Tim Monaghan said:

This. This is how we setup in the 2nd half

 

As you can see, we are using a 5-4-1 “low block”. So the complete opposite to what @W-S-M Seagull is saying about using more energy. A low block requires high discipline from each player, who must stay in their position and NOT CHASE THE BALL. The key to a low block is to keep the team compact, with small gaps between the players and the lines. If a player leaves their slot to press the ball, they will create a hole in the team's shape.

This is actually a really similar style to what Conte did at Tottenham. 
 

Out of interest what minute of the game was that?

At 55 mins, we were 343 / 523.

[W-S-M Seagull]

7 minutes ago, Tim Monaghan said:

This. This is how we setup in the 2nd half

 

As you can see, we are using a 5-4-1 “low block”. So the complete opposite to what @W-S-M Seagull is saying about using more energy. A low block requires high discipline from each player, who must stay in their position and NOT CHASE THE BALL. The key to a low block is to keep the team compact, with small gaps between the players and the lines. If a player leaves their slot to press the ball, they will create a hole in the team's shape.

This is actually a really similar style to what Conte did at Tottenham. 
 

You say it doesn't use more energy but then you say it requires players to be highly disciplined which of course means a high level of focus which uses an incredible amount of mental energy. 

Trying to stay in that constant flow state for a prolonged period of constant pressure and wave after wave of attack is mentally taxing. We didn't even get the ball forward to enable our defence to have a breather. 

If you've not got the ball, you're chasing the ball. 

Edited February 10 by W-S-M Seagull

[Tim Monaghan]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Out of interest what minute of the game was that?

At 55 mins, we were 343 / 523.

60th (ish) I believe. I think we actually fell back into our shape after this pattern of play where we’ve been ill disciplined.

[Tim Monaghan]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

You say it doesn't use more energy but then you say it requires players to be highly disciplined which of course means a high level of focus which uses an incredible amount of mental energy. 

If you've not got the ball, you're chasing the ball. 

But you aren’t chasing the ball, thats literally the point.

[Mr Popodopolous]

It still can expend a lot of energy, mental energy to play so little without the ball.

1/3 to 40% of Possession in defending with and without the ball can be acceptable, 1/4 in a half and between 15-20% away to a side who maybe a bit better but not much is alarmingly low.

If more conservative, there is an element of resting in possession and or springing some breaks. 1/3 to 40% can facilitate this.

[cidered abroad]

53 minutes ago, hollydog said:

If people are moaning about the performance after beating Boro away I’m quite pleased. Shows the progress we are making. i remember being at Ayresome Park when a Bob Taylor header secured our  first win there in a lifetime! 

That was our first win at Boro in about 80 years, not that we played them very often with us on the second and third division with them in First Division most of the time.

Only listened to radio commentary and we were very good in first half. But from commentary and Owers comments we appear to have defended too deeply in second half. That can be sorted for the future but to get all three points was very important for us to stay in midfield table and not sink where Birmingham and Blackburn have. A win is a win and very grateful even if not a pleasant second half.

Edited February 10 by cidered abroad

[joe jordans teeth]

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, SSN I have, but to qualify its that every formation has its pros and cons, and they can vary defending on with formation you're playing against..and personnel.  I thought going to the shape we did opened up channels and spaces for Boro.  And also made it difficult for us to retain possession.

Of course, maybe the players executed the plan poorly, ie plan was sound.  I’ll happily concede that.  I doubt Manning did it without reason.

You’re just making stuff up now.  What is it with misquotes tonight?

What did you want to set the team up second half then Dave ,hard to break down or keep attacking because the former worked

[joe jordans teeth]

It’s easy to look at statistics but when you are in the job then you have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture 

[Sleepy1968]

56 minutes ago, hollydog said:

If people are moaning about the performance after beating Boro away I’m quite pleased. Shows the progress we are making. i remember being at Ayresome Park when a Bob Taylor header secured our  first win there in a lifetime! 

I was there too.
It was our last win at AP, and given there were, what, 200 max, City fans there, I guess there are a dwindling number of city fans left who saw that historic win.

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Cov 77 said:

Can you ever get over Nige ? 

It's Valentine's Day next week!

[cityexile]

29 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

What did you want to set the team up second half then Dave ,hard to break down or keep attacking because the former worked

We were 2-0 up. Given that I can certainly see the logic in saying now let’s keep it tight and be hard to break down, I assume that is what LM was aiming at.

I think the point being made is actually we did not particularly do either of those things in the second half. For whatever reason we gave away far too many chances to say that.

Now, none of us know what would have happened without the change in shape. Maybe with tired legs we would have been no better. The result is everything, we take it and move on. It would seem however a fair point of debate as to whether the shape helped or hindered. Otherwise there is no debate other than ‘win, we were good, lose, we were poor’.

[mozo]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

We moved to the back 3 right at the start of the second 45, not when McCrorie came on, fwiw.

I still think McCrorie is part of the reason that Manning has brought the back 3 idea back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we win three on the trot with a back 4, but then after those disappointing Birmingham and Millwall games where we couldn't create chances, he turned to the back 3? This also coincided with McCrorie coming back into the squad. Pring and McCrorie are very capable of the wing back role and its got to be tempting to play them further up. You also get to keep Tanner, who is very good at defending, in a defensive role. Just as Nige tried the back 3 based on available personnel, I think Manning is too. Continuing this theme, my suspicion is that Sykes coming in will see us stick with a 433 and see Tanner somewhat harshly miss out, but we will see.

I've never been a fan of a back 3, but I'm pretty agnostic about whether it is a factor in our success/failure. Players should be able to adapt and manage either situation.

Edited February 10 by mozo