Happy now

[BS3_RED]

14 hours ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

Surely you can see that this is the main gripe many people had with the decision? We were in touch with the top 6 when Pearson was sacked.

Ive never been angry with Manning, I really want him to do well. My issue was with the timing and the fact that Pearson could’ve been backed more in the Summer after the sale of Scott.

I can guarantee you that every City fan unhappy with the way Pearson was treated still wants Manning to succeed. No City fan wants City to lose.

Yes we were but we never imo looked like a team that could get top 6 even without the injuries. The table is a weird one this season with the top 4 miles ahead and then a lot of average teams fighting it out for the last spots.

 

 

[transfer reader]

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some leaping to criticise at all costs Manning is unusual too.

Yep, especially when it's over their personal hang ups on formations.

[BS3_RED]

7 minutes ago, City oz said:

If you have read the comments more in depth you will realise it's not just Manning but more around what he has had to inherit. OK good cup run that gets us all soft and loving feelings, but the performances are inconsistent in the league. If we string a good run together and by easter we are only 2 or3 points out of the top six, then those negative comments will disappear from the forum.

The poor guy has to work with what he has got on hand, and to be fair he is doing quite a good job. We all know that the transfer time in January did not bring great results. I do not know if you can blame this on Manning, but I suspect the board are responsible for this.

I suggest let's sit back and see what eventuates over the next 6 to 8 matches as if we can get 4 x wins out of these and the odd draw we will be in with a shout.

Agree

 

Look at the Leeds game last week. Leeds played us off the park yes but their squad is worth 4 or 5 times ours with players that are Prem quality and currently playing very well. The amount of flack that was aimed at Mannjng was a joke imo. Some of our fans have such a sense if entitlement and lack the ability to reason. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Yep, especially when it's over their personal hang ups on formations.

I praised Manning for the starting shape and a sensible team selection tbh.

Maybe formation less important than overall shape but a back 3 feels like swimming against the tide somewhat.

[transfer reader]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I praised Manning for the starting shape and a sensible team selection tbh.

Maybe formation less important than overall shape but a back 3 feels like swimming against the tide somewhat.

Did you think that during 2014-15?

[Red-Robbo]

20 minutes ago, BS3_RED said:

Look at the Leeds game last week. Leeds played us off the park yes but their squad is worth 4 or 5 times ours with players that are Prem quality and currently playing very well. The amount of flack that was aimed at Mannjng was a joke imo. Some of our fans have such a sense if entitlement and lack the ability to reason. 

It was the perfect storm: facing very good players and a team on a winning streak. You could just see how they oozed confidence. At the same time, a number of our players had their worst games in a City shirt.

Yesterday we faced a decent side but one whose form has been as variable as ours. This time we saw some of the best performances from some of our players. 

Manning has been known to make mistakes - a few unnecessary and baffling substitutions, for example - but so did Pearson. 

Generally speaking I think he's had a fairly beneficial presence at the club and has got a team that is fairly average in ability, playing competently, working hard and gelling well. That's what you ask from any manager. 

Once the game begins, it's the individual players who must take the praise or blame for their performance.  

[Mr Popodopolous]

44 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Did you think that during 2014-15?

Different level, different(ish) tactical era, different players.

I look too at the Championship in 2023-24 and though I haven't checked for this weekend, only 5 sides including us played a back 3/5.

Think it was us, Plymouth, Preston, Rotherham and maybe Millwall the other.

More widely, I think sides are often just more secure and cohesive in a back 4.

[Davefevs]

57 minutes ago, BS3_RED said:

Yes we were but we never imo looked like a team that could get top 6 even without the injuries. The table is a weird one this season with the top 4 miles ahead and then a lot of average teams fighting it out for the last spots.

 

 

I agree with that.  We are a team, without injuries who could be in the mix / compete with lots of others, but my view is that we were short of being good enough to be top 6.  That’s not to say “if the stars align”, but I don’t think it was realistic.  I want to see us top-half, pushing on / trending up and being “in the mix” for as long as the season as possible.  We are still hanging in there.

[fisherrich]

Bristol City (Sport) is a football club lacking that bit of business expertise/ambition to get us in to the Prem.
Too many accept mid table (including the Lansdownes) as “success”. Which is why we need fresh blood at the top/new owners with some knowledge of football.

Several opportunities have passed us by IMO.

Edited February 11 by fisherrich

[Jose]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I agree with that.  We are a team, without injuries who could be in the mix / compete with lots of others, but my view is that we were short of being good enough to be top 6.  That’s not to say “if the stars align”, but I don’t think it was realistic.  I want to see us top-half, pushing on / trending up and being “in the mix” for as long as the season as possible.  We are still hanging in there.

I feel like I say the same thing every season but bar a couple of teams (3/4 this season)everyone else is very much of the same. That’s why I get frustrated seing us plod along in mid-table every season. Millwall beating Cov as we speak. That 5/6 place is wide open. Unfortunately we’ve moved onto looking at next season all ready. 

Edited February 11 by Jose

[stephenkibby.]

15 hours ago, ZiderEyed said:

Weird how cultish OTIB is about regularly having pops at posters across a period of time. More like a pub than a forum at times. 

I would say it's the total opposite of a Pub, if people behaved in a Pub like they do on here there would be total carnage !!!

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Jose said:

I feel like I say the same thing every season but bar a couple of teams (3/4 this season)everyone else is very much of the same. That’s why I get frustrated seing us plod along in mid-table every season. Millwall beating Cov as we speak. That 5/6 place is wide open. Unfortunately we’ve moved onto looking at next season all ready. 

We shouldn’t be.  There is a lot to play for.

[BigTone]

12 minutes ago, Jose said:

 Unfortunately we’ve moved onto looking at next season all ready. 

Agree, and IMO that does seem to be the trend every season.

Edited February 11 by BigTone

[Jose]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We shouldn’t be.  There is a lot to play for.

I agree although I think we did as soon as we made the change. And I think our business in January has confirmed that. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

In theory if we get a point v Southampton then beat QPR perhaps we can attack the final 13 with some freedom.

A point v Southampton who haven't lost since mid September would be more than useful.

Sykes and Twine hopefully back, Bell and Mehmeti proved a useful Plan B at Nottingham Forest.

Could we even see Atkinson and Naismith in and competing.

A combination of points and places makes it feel rather unlikely though.

[Graham76]

16 hours ago, BS3_RED said:

Oh and if you want to slag me off for daring to see things different, go ahead. I could not give a shit. 

If watching City really pisses you off that much, you can always go and watch the sags. You wont be missed. 

This sounds like something a jilted ex girlfriend would write

[transfer reader]

42 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Different level, different(ish) tactical era, different players.

I look too at the Championship in 2023-24 and though I haven't checked for this weekend, only 5 sides including us played a back 3/5.

Think it was us, Plymouth, Preston, Rotherham and maybe Millwall the other.

More widely, I think sides are often just more secure and cohesive in a back 4.

So Sheffield United when they went up using it a few years ago and then had a good season in the Prem first season up?

Sporting having success with it in recent seasons? 

Even sides like Arsenal often transition to a 3 while in possession.

And those are (blades aside) current ones. It's still just a you problem with it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

41 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

So Sheffield United when they went up using it a few years ago and then had a good season in the Prem first season up?

Sporting having success with it in recent seasons? 

Even sides like Arsenal often transition to a 3 while in possession.

And those are (blades aside) current ones. It's still just a you problem with it.

Wilder got his plaudits for the overlapping attacking CBs and rightly so. Albeit we were first. 

For us under Cotts at this level, it didn't quite work. Some of that was down to the summer activity and the knock-on effect for morale.

A me problem? I do have a slight bias towards a back 4 yes but my reservations with it structurally are two-fold..

1) Without suitable players who can also drop back as dull backs in other phases then it can risk an outlet being negated and worse pinned back  2 v 1. Tanner e.g. wouldn't do, Sykes would be wasted in the position, McCrorie and Pring perhaps.

2) Someone like Naismith can move  between the back 3 and a deeper midfield base enabling that in-game shift when fully fit. Beyond that? I'm struggling.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, transfer reader said:

Even sides like Arsenal often transition to a 3 while in possession.

Pretty much every team in the world transition into a 3 while in possession. 

One full back goes forward and its then a 3. 

However that is vastly different to setting up with 3 centre backs. 

None of the top teams in the world set up as a 3/5 at the back and there is a reason for that. 

[Superjack]

17 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

They are, and to be brutally honest that’s why I don’t think things are sustainable.

I genuinely dont think there is this big group hankering for Pearson back. The decision was made, it is what it is. To go over old ground, the issue is that what was appointed in Liam was a project as opposed to what they said it was.

And let’s be clear - that isn’t inherently Liams fault, but he has a degree of blame as he didn’t do the due diligence.

The anger stems from being lied to by Tinnion and Lansdown. The only way it abated is if we got an absolute golden bollocks manager who took us on a run which tore up the division. We didn’t - we got a project of a manager who has - as I said - a sketchy record. And the more signs that we have that we move to the failure side of that sketchy record, naturally things get more fraught as it calls the original decision into question.

I’m not sure anyone who has seen us under Liam can say that they have consistent confidence he can deliver what Tinnion and Lansdown said the next coach would. It’s a punt. And again, that’s not his fault. But he’s been sub par to date in my book, and I’ll call that out.

So, people are angry. Because we appointed a project coach. And to be clear, if we were 20th when he was taken on it wouldn’t be an issue. But we weren’t. And that’s the problem. His “rebuild” wasn’t needed. It was just desired by Brian. And a rebuild won’t get us there next season. So it’s not sustainable and the anger won’t abate.

Until a couple of people go.

[transfer reader]

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

Pretty much every team in the world transition into a 3 while in possession. 

One full back goes forward and its then a 3. 

However that is vastly different to setting up with 3 centre backs. 

None of the top teams in the world set up as a 3/5 at the back and there is a reason for that. 

Really, did I imagine Conte using it at Juventus, Inter and Chelsea then?

Pep did it at Bayern and has done it on occasion with Man City, that awful national league side?

No successful clubs among any of those I listed there are there?

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wilder got his plaudits for the overlapping attacking CBs and rightly so. Albeit we were first. 

For us under Cotts at this level, it didn't quite work. Some of that was down to the summer activity and the knock-on effect for morale.

A me problem? I do have a slight bias towards a back 4 yes but my reservations with it structurally are two-fold..

1) Without suitable players who can also drop back as dull backs in other phases then it can risk an outlet being negated and worse pinned back  2 v 1. Tanner e.g. wouldn't do, Sykes would be wasted in the position, McCrorie and Pring perhaps.

2) Someone like Naismith can move  between the back 3 and a deeper midfield base enabling that in-game shift when fully fit. Beyond that? I'm struggling.

You bring it up as an issue every time it's even hinted a back 3 could be the case with a line up, so yes it is absolutely a you problem.

[IdliketoRogerMoore]

15 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Without resorting to personal abuse, @BS3_RED stated “if watching City pisses you off this much you can go and watch the gas, you won’t be missed” thereby stating that anyone against his/her post was a rovers fan. Life is a bit more nuanced than that! @IdliketoRogerMoore was clearly being sarcastic, but that nuance was lost.So far from me needing to “learn to read” or others being “idiots”, it might be appropriate, y’know, not to be a dick in the opening post?

Turns out I left the hob on, I’ve avoided a disaster I’ve turned it off now! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Really, did I imagine Conte using it at Juventus, Inter and Chelsea then?

Pep did it at Bayern and has done it on occasion with Man City, that awful national league side?

No successful clubs among any of those I listed there are there?

You bring it up as an issue every time it's even hinted a back 3 could be the case with a line up, so yes it is absolutely a you problem.

Conte used it to great effect. He also at Juventus had a stellar back 3- the BBC- with Buffon behind- and pre issues, pre aging Pirlo, Vidal, Marchisio and Pogba to select from. Outstanding.

He lacked a top striker or 2 and this proved an Achilles heel in Europe. He had decent strikers, or useful depth and support strikers but a notch or 2 down for sure. The left wingback probably also an issue..Lichtsteiner great, other side dunno.

Then for whatever reason when Tevez and Llorente and others were added they suddenly became wasteful and the granite like defence in early to mid stages of CL suddenly faltered.

Interestingly, Juventus though when they had a bit more pragmatism under Allegri first spell utilising a back 4 more, they went on with that base to reach a CL final in 2015. 2017 too but not wholly the same squad.

Conte achieved great things on one level at Chelsea, in the sense of a back 3 with Moses and Alonso at wingback. Issues arose in 2nd year, perhaps losing Costa a turning point.

Man City are more often than not but not always a back 4. Bayern likewise.

More evidence than not shows that we are more comfortable with a back 4 at this time. When Naismith and Atkinson are back and McCrorie is 100% well maybe the back 3 will look a more viable option.

Edited February 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Conte used it to great effect. He also at Juventus had a stellar back 3- the BBC- with Buffon behind- and pre issues, pre aging Pirlo, Vidal, Marchisio and Pogba to select from. Outstanding.

He lacked a top striker or 2 and this proved an Achilles heel in Europe. He had decent strikers, or useful depth and support strikers but a notch or 2 down for sure.

Then for whatever reason when Tevez and Llorente and others were added they suddenly became wasteful and the granite like defence in early to mid stages of CL suddenly faltered.

Interestingly, Juventus though when they had a bit more pragmatism under Allegri first spell utilising a back 4 more, they went on with that base to reach a CL final in 2015. 2017 too but not wholly the same squad.

Conte achieved great things on one level at Chelsea, in the sense of a back 3 with Moses and Alonso at wingback.

Man City are more often than not but bot always a back 4. Bayern likewise.

More evidence than not shows that we are more comfortable with a back 4 at this time. When Naismith and Atkinson are back and McCrorie is 100% well maybe the back 3 will look a more viable option.

What was out minutes played and goals conceded against Premier League sides with a back 5?

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

What was out minutes played and goals conceded against Premier League sides with a back 5?

It is a bit of a fallacy. For a start they had more ball than us in phases, West Ham more so.

We started with a back 4 at Nottingham Forest..I forget how we started at West Ham.

Back 3 can be more counter attacking but this went to shit yesterday. 2nd half, especially 60 mins to 90 it was a total siege.

We played with a back 4 at West Ham in opening game. 1 conceded.

Back 3 in 2 home games, 0 however in the 2nd we had zero shots on target.

The really early goal v West Ham helped. It allowed us to counter a bit or counter press.

It's a tiny sample size and Nottingham Forest rotated somewhat.

At least you're putting a positive case for a back 3 but I can't see one overall, especially with McCrorie still a month in after months out, no Naismith or Atkinson.

Edited February 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It is a bit of a fallacy. For a start they had more ball than us in phases, West Ham more so.

We started with a back 4 at Nottingham Forest..I forget how we started at West Ham.

Back 3 can be more counter attacking but this went to shit yesterday. 2nd half, especially 60 mins to 90 it was a total siege.

We played with a back 4 at West Ham in opening game. 1 conceded.

Back 3 in 2 home games, 0 however in the 2nd we had zero shots on target.

The really early goal v West Ham helped. It allowed us to counter a bit or counter press.

It's a tiny sample size and Nottingham Forest rotated somewhat.

At least you're putting a positive case for a back 3 but I can't see one overall, especially with McCrorie still a month in after months out, no Naismith or Atkinson.

I'm not arguing for or against any formation.

My entire point is that personal preferences and likes/dislikes towards formations has absolutely zero bearing on whether they will or won't be effective.

Formations are at times largely performative. They'll give an indication of out of possession shape, but often times a team lining up with a back 4 will have a midfielder drop in to the back line when they're really under pressure.

So that's a back 5, no? 

No. 

Likewise the reverse can be done with a back 3/5. It just takes one CB to step up a bit and the WBs to drop. Vyner can do that as he has some CDM experience. Alternatively Dickie has been looking comfortable bringing the ball out and could be the one who steps up.

But it wouldn't make the formation a back 4 unless he shifted to primarily playing in that space with and without the ball.

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

32 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Really, did I imagine Conte using it at Juventus, Inter and Chelsea then?

Pep did it at Bayern and has done it on occasion with Man City, that awful national league side?

No successful clubs among any of those I listed there are there?

You bring it up as an issue every time it's even hinted a back 3 could be the case with a line up, so yes it is absolutely a you problem.

I'm talking about football today. You're talking about the past. 

An example I'll give is that Contes 5 at the back failed miserably at Spurs. 

Football changes and evolves quickly. 

No top teams are playing a 3/5 at the back. 

[transfer reader]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

I'm talking about football today. You're talking about the past. 

An example I'll give is that Contes 5 at the back failed miserably at Spurs. 

Football changes and evolves quickly. 

No top teams are playing a 3/5 at the back. 

Weird, the Champions League winners used it against us last season...

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

I'm not arguing for or against any formation.

My entire point is that personal preferences and likes/dislikes towards formations has absolutely zero bearing on whether they will or won't be effective.

Formations are at times largely performative. They'll give an indication of out of possession shape, but often times a team lining up with a back 4 will have a midfielder drop in to the back line when they're really under pressure.

So that's a back 5, no? 

No. 

Likewise the reverse can be done with a back 3/5. It just takes one CB to step up a bit and the WBs to drop. Vyner can do that as he has some CDM experience. Alternatively Dickie has been looking comfortable bringing the ball out and could be the one who steps up.

But it wouldn't make the formation a back 4 unless he shifted to primarily playing in that space with and without the ball.

 

I get with certain players.

E.g. Naismith can shuffle between a back 3, and the deepest of a midfield 3.

Probably nobody else in our squad is suited in quite that way.

Likewise McCrorie and Pring yes in the fullness of time, wingback to full back and vice versa..Tanner no, Sykes wasted there, Roberts in the fullness of time who knows now who knows.

Too big a gap between ball playing CB and midfielder in many cases IMO. Top top players aside.

Not saying Naismith is a top top player but he probably has the characteristics to do so.

Edited February 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

39 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Weird, the Champions League winners used it against us last season...

Did they? Or was it very fluid? 

I'd say it was a back 4 of Ake at left back, Dias and Akanji at CB and Lewis at Rb with Lewis pushing into midfield on the attack in the John Stones role. Because that's how Man City played the majority of last season. 

Man City did not win the treble playing with a 3 at the back. 

Edited February 11 by W-S-M Seagull