Match Report: Exhausted City's First Half Boro Assault

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Not this again Dave……………… Let it go.

City won the game having been 2 up at half time. Second half the change of shape enabled City to defend that lead successfully.

I’d understand the critique City had lost the match having changed shape but the change obviously paid off.

Theres a good debate going between two or three posters.  I’m merely giving them the reel of what Max did yesterday.  No opinion from me.

So, genuinely, just **** off!

[Robbored]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Theres a good debate going between two or three posters.  I’m merely giving them the reel of what Max did yesterday.  No opinion from me.

So, genuinely, just **** off!

This is a forum Dave - we’re all entitled to comment. You’re quite aware that this is not an exclusive platform for “two or three” posters on any particular thread.

[transfer reader]

45 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

FWIW here’s Max’s saves and aerial takes yesterday.

doesn’t include shots off target, or shots blocked by defenders obviously.

I'd say most of those are 'bread and butter' type saves. A lot of them either close to his body or a comfortable height.

Does well coming out for the 3rd chance and reacts well to the long range one that takes a slight deflection, though maybe should have found a safer area to parry the ball into. However Max's reactions have never been in question. They're probably the strongest element of his game.

 

The first one I think is the chance that came from an awful kick of his, but that may be mixed up with a cross that was cleared away.

 

That and his rush of blood where he came storming 5-10 yards out the area needlessly is why I disagreed with the rating of 8 for him. I think a 7 is about right. He saves the shots he'd be expected to, wasn't overly tested in terms of really difficult to save shots, and was unfortunate with the one he did concede taking an almighty deflection off a forwards back.

 

I remain unconvinced by Max when he's claiming the ball from crosses, but that's likely a me issue because of his very slight frame and isn't a criticism I would use against him for yesterday's game.

35 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Not this again Dave……………… Let it go.

City won the game having been 2 up at half time. Second half the change of shape enabled City to defend that lead successfully.

I’d understand the critique City had lost the match having changed shape but the change obviously paid off.

What are you on about? Max was being discussed and so Dave provided a relevant clip.

Stop trying so hard to troll, especially as Dave is one of the more sensible posters for the most part.

[Davefevs]

20 minutes ago, Robbored said:

This is a forum Dave - we’re all entitled to comment. You’re quite aware that this is not an exclusive platform for “two or three” posters on any particular thread.

So why tell me to “let it go”, especially when I wasn’t even offering an opinion, as I’ve explained.  Nor was I one of the two or three posters I was referring to as having the debate. So that makes your post even more baseless.

FFS!

[W-S-M Seagull]

49 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Not this again Dave……………… Let it go.

City won the game having been 2 up at half time. Second half the change of shape enabled City to defend that lead successfully.

I’d understand the critique City had lost the match having changed shape but the change obviously paid off.

It so nearly didn't. That's why there is debate. Boro came close a few times and they had a goal ruled out which looked to be onside.

So I think it's debatable to say the change obviously paid off. 

[Davefevs]

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

It so nearly didn't. That's why there is debate. Boro came close a few times and they had a goal ruled out which looked to be onside.

So I think it's debatable to say the change obviously paid off. 

Just to clear-up the offside.  It was offside….close, but was offside.

This is the point the cameras decided the ball was passed, Greenwood’s foot on 18 yard line, all our players outside the box.

 

Then after the ball is passed:

and then, just a check Roberts wasn’t loitering inside the box, (now in-frame) he wasn’t:

 

it was tight, but correct decision…and Lino has done very well to pick-up the point if the pass.

[mozo]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Just to clear-up the offside.  It was offside….close, but was offside.

This is the point the cameras decided the ball was passed, Greenwood’s foot on 18 yard line, all our players outside the box.

 

Then after the ball is passed:

and then, just a check Roberts wasn’t loitering inside the box, (now in-frame) he wasn’t:

 

it was tight, but correct decision…and Lino has done very well to pick-up the point if the pass.

Who's the lino? They're good!

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, mozo said:

Who's the lino? They're good!

One of Fox or Gill.

[W-S-M Seagull]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Just to clear-up the offside.  It was offside….close, but was offside.

This is the point the cameras decided the ball was passed, Greenwood’s foot on 18 yard line, all our players outside the box.

 

Then after the ball is passed:

and then, just a check Roberts wasn’t loitering inside the box, (now in-frame) he wasn’t:

 

it was tight, but correct decision…and Lino has done very well to pick-up the point if the pass.

Thanks Dave. Certainly seems off. 

Having watched a lot of premier league games with VAR I do wonder if Dickies upper body is over hanging the line? But either way a tight call and I'm just glad that it's gone our way, especially after the dodgy VAR call at Forest. 

[Davefevs]

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

Thanks Dave. Certainly seems off. 

Having watched a lot of premier league games with VAR I do wonder if Dickies upper body is over hanging the line? But either way a tight call and I'm just glad that it's gone our way, especially after the dodgy VAR call at Forest. 

Looking at the position of Dickie’s feet and the metrics of a pitch, the distance from edge of box to edge of “D” is 4 yards / 12 feet.  My guess is that Dickie’s feet are 4-5 feet outside the box.  So I reckon he’d have to be…

…to be ahead of Greenwood.  That would’ve been a criminal (smooth criminal) decision to give it onside!

[sh1t_ref_again]

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

It so nearly didn't. That's why there is debate. Boro came close a few times and they had a goal ruled out which looked to be onside.

So I think it's debatable to say the change obviously paid off. 

It's not debatable the change paid off, fact we won, despite you trying to twist it that an onside goal was not aloud, therfore they drew really.

It is debatable what may have happened to the result had we not changed, we may have continued as we were or the very obvious tiredness of certain players may have become worse and cost us the game.

[Natchfever]

Manning knows his players now.

I have questioned his nous responding to opposition managers changes but maybe he played a blinder v Boro.

Credit where its due.

[W-S-M Seagull]

17 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

It's not debatable the change paid off, fact we won, despite you trying to twist it that an onside goal was not aloud, therfore they drew really.

It is debatable what may have happened to the result had we not changed, we may have continued as we were or the very obvious tiredness of certain players may have become worse and cost us the game.

Fair enough you have that opinion. 

I think the change made it more difficult for us. Let's not pretend it was a tactical masterclass when in the second half we were shite and the changes invited the pressure we were put under. 

As someone else on here mentioned, against Leeds we didn't make any in game changes and ended the game on a whimper. 

Yesterday we made in game changes and just about got across the line. 

If you like it or not there is a over arching concern about in game management. 

 

[sh1t_ref_again]

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

Fair enough you have that opinion. 

I think the change made it more difficult for us. Let's not pretend it was a tactical masterclass when in the second half we were shite and the changes invited the pressure we were put under. 

As someone else on here mentioned, against Leeds we didn't make any in game changes and ended the game on a whimper. 

Yesterday we made in game changes and just about got across the line. 

If you like it or not there is a over arching concern about in game management. 

 

Not sure who is pretending it was some sort of masterclass, but it did result in a win, 

Had we not just played 120 minutes against a prem side with significant travelling, the change would have been more questionable.

Dickie towards the end of the game was like running in treacle and could hardly move.

All decisions are easy with hindsight, but not so easy in game when you are up against what the opposition do and having to manage other factors like injury and tiredness 

[mozo]

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

Fair enough you have that opinion. 

I think the change made it more difficult for us. Let's not pretend it was a tactical masterclass when in the second half we were shite and the changes invited the pressure we were put under. 

As someone else on here mentioned, against Leeds we didn't make any in game changes and ended the game on a whimper. 

Yesterday we made in game changes and just about got across the line. 

If you like it or not there is a over arching concern about in game management. 

 

You could argue that the first half was a tactical masterclass. He probably deserves a thread dedicated to how right he got it in the first 45.

Edited February 11 by mozo

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, mozo said:

You could argue that the first half was a tactical masterclass. He probably deserves a thread dedicated to how right he got it in the first 45.

You could always start one?

[Leabrook]

Under Manning when we win we don’t win well enough it seems.  

[Robbored]

12 minutes ago, mozo said:

You could argue that the first half was a tactical masterclass. He probably deserves a thread dedicated to how right he got it in the first 45.

It could also be argued that the second 45 was also tactical masterclass. Keeping Boro at bay for the vast majority only conceding a fluke goal late on.

Manning post match comments are well worth a listen - I’m definitely warming to him.

[mozo]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You could always start one?

I'll start one about the first 45 against [ten men] Southampton 

[Cole Not Gas]

3 minutes ago, Leabrook said:

Under Manning when we win we don’t win well enough it seems.  

I think i know what you are saying; one or two very very frequent posters found it very easy to defend the previous manager (even when Pearson was guilty of awful performances and poor results) and as soon as we win away with an ace result, and have the lead 2-0 lead for over 90 mins, the very same poster complains like hell about Manning!; Weirdness makes many forums readable but some posters on here must enjoy their posts a hell of a lot more than those trying to get a fair set of opinions.

[mozo]

Just now, Robbored said:

It could also be argued that the second 45 was also tactical masterclass. Keeping Boro at bay for the vast majority only conceding a fluke goal late on.

Manning post match comments are well worth a listen - I’m definitely warming to him.

I'm warming to him too. I'm moving from 'benefit of the doubt' stage, to the 'I think it's all going to be okay' stage. 

[Leabrook]

27 minutes ago, Cole Not Gas said:

I think i know what you are saying; one or two very very frequent posters found it very easy to defend the previous manager (even when Pearson was guilty of awful performances and poor results) and as soon as we win away with an ace result, and have the lead 2-0 lead for over 90 mins, the very same poster complains like hell about Manning!; Weirdness makes many forums readable but some posters on here must enjoy their posts a hell of a lot more than those trying to get a fair set of opinions.

Spot on. And it’s the time spent on here as well which mystifies me. One poster in particular must post 50+ times every day!  Just relentlessly posting negatively day after day. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

39 minutes ago, Leabrook said:

Under Manning when we win we don’t win well enough it seems.  

Same under Pearson. 

I remember the fall out when we beat Coventry at Ashton Gate. 

Some people have VERY short memories it seems. 

Edited February 11 by W-S-M Seagull

[italian dave]

13 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Same under Pearson. 

I remember the fall out when we beat Coventry at Ashton Gate. 

Some people have VERY short memories it seems. 

And here’s your summary from that particular game. Which, to me, doesn’t seem to include too much by way of fallout, buts or indeed any sign of critique of our poor game management. Just the positives spin on a game we won. And in which, incidentally, we didn’t romp to a two goal lead, and didn’t play well at any stage. 

“Coventry got all the way to the play off final last season whilst putting in many performances which were similar to our performance yesterday. They just had the ability to grind out results whilst not playing particularly well. Something which up until now we've struggled with.

Yes we'd all love to watch free flowing attacking football every week. But sometimes you do just need to grind out results when you're not playing well etc or have a depleted team. 

In the early days of Nige being here, wed have took a hiding yesterday. The fact we won shows the mentality we now have in the squad.”

 

[phantom]

14 hours ago, Leabrook said:

Under Manning when we win we don’t win well enough it seems.  

Or when we do it was all down to Pearson, yet when we lose it is all down to Manning 

[mozo]

17 minutes ago, phantom said:

Or when we do it was all down to Pearson, yet when we lose it is all down to Manning 

There is a bit of that, but to be fair that's what OTIB has always been like and forever will. Twas always thus when Lee Johnson was in charge, for example.

[Davefevs]

23 minutes ago, phantom said:

Or when we do it was all down to Pearson, yet when we lose it is all down to Manning 

Rarely was that the case.  Because most on here saw Nige as a tactical dinosaur, so he was very unlikely to get credit for tactically outwitting his opponent in the other dugout.  He maybe got credit for getting results out of gutsy team performances, but I’m struggling to recall a “Pearson tactical masterclass” thread.  Far more common to see things like “Nige’s subs almost cost us the game”, when the context is the bench had bugger all on it to do much else! .

And on Saturday, even though I think Manning made an error in the second half set-up, I’ll happily concede that the plan could’ve been right, just poorly executed by the players.  So there’s give and take.

But the Nige / LM point-scoring is tiresome.  I never mentioned Nige in my thread, it was a thread about 45 minutes of Liam Manning.

[Colemanballs]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But the Nige / LM point-scoring is tiresome.  I never mentioned Nige in my thread, it was a thread about 45 minutes of Liam Manning.

100%. And bizarrely, it's the Manning must never be criticised brigade who keep doing it. Please stop.

For me, it's far too early to make a judgment on Manning. The first half was a big credit in the ledger, the second a small debit. Overall, then, for me, he's in credit from that game.

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

And on Saturday, even though I think Manning made an error in the second half set-up, I’ll happily concede that the plan could’ve been right, just poorly executed by the players.  So there’s give and  take

Nobody here seem to give any credit to Boro for their second half performance despite City changing shape to try and defend the lead - instead we see criticism of Citys second 45 performance. I’d argue that it was down to Boro improving their game which ultimately City dealt with.

A masterclass in how to defend a 2 goal lead?

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Nobody here seem to give any credit to Boro for their second half performance despite City changing shape to try and defend the lead - instead we see criticism of Citys second 45 performance. I’d argue that it was down to Boro improving their game which ultimately City dealt with.

A masterclass in how to defend a 2 goal lead?

That’s your opinion, you’re entitled to it.

I’m happy with my view too…I’d much rather watch how we defended a 1-0 lead against Sunderland than a 2-0 lead against Boro.

You thought it was a masterclass, I didn’t.

Each to their own.