Which City?

[wendyredredrobin]

Which City are we going to see against The Terriers tomorrow?  The City that just annihilated Blackburn or the Manningball City we have seen of late?

Huddersfield are only out of the relegation zone on goal difference so will be playing for their survival and I am not sure which team we will be putting out or what they will actually be playing for other than new contracts and places in the starting 11.

A repeat of the Blackburn game will suit me fine, but I would be surprised if Huddersfield were as bad as they were.

[Silvio Dante]

4 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Which City are we going to see against The Terriers tomorrow?  The City that just annihilated Blackburn or the Manningball City we have seen of late?

Huddersfield are only out of the relegation zone on goal difference so will be playing for their survival and I am not sure which team we will be putting out or what they will actually be playing for other than new contracts and places in the starting 11.

A repeat of the Blackburn game will suit me fine, but I would be surprised if Huddersfield were as bad as they were.

In terms of the side we’ll be putting out I’d be amazed if there was much variation from Wednesday. If you take the subs bench from then it’s really only Mehmeti, Wells or James you can see coming in. The only squad addition will be TGH potentially. Although there is little to play for Liam remains under enough scrutiny that I don’t think he’ll be experimenting too much.

As for Blackburn vs Manningball, let’s call it intent pre international break vs intent post break. It’d be madness bearing in mind results with the increased “intent” if we didn’t play that way (and that doesn’t mean annihilating Huddersfield, it does mean being more positive), and a reversion in approach would raise a lot of questions.

I’d guess unchanged side and hope for similar approach.

[1960maaan]

Ignoring the 

I think it could be a test. They are hardly likely to be playing open expansive football when they need points. I imagine they will be compact and pragmatic , just the sort of set up that gave us so much trouble a few games ago. 
If we don't get an early goal , it could be a long day and a tough game. 
The difference from those borefests is a teak in system . I like Sykes and Twine as a 2 behind Conway ( Wells) , Sykes adds some intensity and energy and Twine looked as sharp as he's been here. I thought rotation and movement was good the other night , passing and control really good , a polar opposite to Saturday . 

1 win in their last 8 with 3 draws , they have conceded 14 but that looks a little odd ,as 11 of those goals have come in 3 games. The others have been one goal either way.  We should have enough to nick a win, but I'd be very surprised to see us go goal mad again.

Dickie was listed as too early for the other night , I guess that means he could be back. Same with TGH . I think it would be a surprise to see changes , unless someone breaks down . No need to rush players back with nothing on these games , but if he's fit it would be interesting to see Dickie in a 3 and how it effects Vyner if he moves right , not always done well with those positional changes. 

[Davefevs]

32 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

The City that just annihilated Blackburn or the Manningball City we have seen of late?

Aren’t they the same thing, generally speaking?

Or do you mean pre and post-Easter?

I hope LM doesn’t revert to pre-Easter “style”.  I hope he continues with the current intent.  I think it gives us better chance (because we are inconsistent) of both results and a bit of excitement.

[Mattredrobin]

More of the same as Wednesday I reckon, get an early goal and we should be ok. If Huddersfield sneak one then we could be in for a tough afternoon.

[Kibs]

Playing devils advocate, how do we know the intent has changed? 

Maybe it’s the execution and understanding that’s changed?

Maybe it’s the way that the message has been delivered that has changed? 

Maybe it’s partly down to confidence and opposition performance too?

Maybe it’s the return from injury or upturn in form of a few players? 

Hoggs interview last week implied that the intent has always been the same. 

Edited April 12 by Kibs

[And Its Smith]

 I stopped at the word manningball 

 

 

[TV Tom]

In typical City style over many years it's usually good game, followed by an average game followed by a poor game in no particular order 

[Silvio Dante]

19 minutes ago, Kibs said:

Playing devils advocate, how do we know the intent has changed? 

Maybe it’s the execution and understanding that’s changed?

 

Maybe it’s the way that the message has been delivered that has changed? 
 

Maybe it’s partly down to confidence and opposition performance too?

Maybe it’s the return from injury or upturn in form of a few players? 

Hoggs interview last week implied that the intent has always been the same. 

Fevs would be better placed than me here stats wise, but I think you’d have to look at the positions we’ve been winning/playing the ball in, the possession, the lower number of passes to get a shot in. All of those have shown a dial shift from the naked eye, and that can’t really be anything other than a change in intent.

I’m not sure Hogg would say that they’ve changed the plan specifically, but I don’t think you’ll see many who would suggest we havent played differently in the last three wins as opposed to the pre Easter period. It feels less “shackled”.

The one thing I would say is that one of the thematics LM has said is about being “brave”. I think we’re being braver - we’re being prepared to lose (the game and possession) in order to win (the game and possession). Thats a massive sea change from a few weeks ago.

[Kibs]

5 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Fevs would be better placed than me here stats wise, but I think you’d have to look at the positions we’ve been winning/playing the ball in, the possession, the lower number of passes to get a shot in. All of those have shown a dial shift from the naked eye, and that can’t really be anything other than a change in intent.

I’m not sure Hogg would say that they’ve changed the plan specifically, but I don’t think you’ll see many who would suggest we havent played differently in the last three wins as opposed to the pre Easter period. It feels less “shackled”.

The one thing I would say is that one of the thematics LM has said is about being “brave”. I think we’re being braver - we’re being prepared to lose (the game and possession) in order to win (the game and possession). Thats a massive sea change from a few weeks ago.

I agree with most of that, and I’m happier with how we’re playing, but I don’t necessarily think that it has to be down to intent or all down to intent anyway.

It could be intent, but there are several other factors at play too, and factors we’re not necessarily able to see or measure.

[Puckle_red]

 

2 hours ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Which City are we going to see against The Terriers tomorrow?  The City that just annihilated Blackburn or the Manningball City we have seen of late?

Huddersfield are only out of the relegation zone on goal difference so will be playing for their survival and I am not sure which team we will be putting out or what they will actually be playing for other than new contracts and places in the starting 11.

A repeat of the Blackburn game will suit me fine, but I would be surprised if Huddersfield were as bad as they were.

I still don't think we're playing really well. Leicester missed a hatful of chances and should've been out of sight. Plymouth we took our only chance, they didn't. Sunderland we were poor but not punished. Blackburn handed us 4 chances, which we took well.

I don't think the performances are much different, but we are getting a bit of luck, which has got us results.

Edited April 12 by Puckle_red
Grammar

[phantom]

41 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

 I stopped at the word manningball 

 

 

Same here, great to see the same style threads are still popping up so frequently

[mozo]

2 hours ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Which City are we going to see against The Terriers tomorrow?  The City that just annihilated Blackburn or the Manningball City we have seen of late?

Huddersfield are only out of the relegation zone on goal difference so will be playing for their survival and I am not sure which team we will be putting out or what they will actually be playing for other than new contracts and places in the starting 11.

A repeat of the Blackburn game will suit me fine, but I would be surprised if Huddersfield were as bad as they were.

I really don't know how to answer your question. Will Huddersfield pose a different threat? Probably. Will we adapt? I don't know.

[pillred]

16 minutes ago, Puckle_red said:

 

I still don't think we're playing really well. Leicester missed a hatful of chances and should've been out of sight. Plymouth we took our only chance, they didn't. Sunderland we were poor but not punished. Blackburn handed us 4 chances, which we took well.

I don't think the performances are much different, but we are getting a bit of luck, which has got us results.

I have to say that's a very negative spin on 4 good results, and I still don't agree that Leicester had a hatful of chances and should have been out of sight etc, don't forget we also had chances as well, we weren't lucky or outplayed in any way, and when 3 gas heads in the Duke grudgingly say we deserved the win take it from me we must have.

Edited April 12 by pillred

[Spoonbed]

They have had a days more rest and recuperation than us, so I guess there’s a good chance LM will need to freshen things up a bit?

[ExiledAjax]

I think our result depends more on which Huddersfield turn up than which City turn up.

We've still not really seen us defeat a "low block". If the Terriers drop one of those on us and stick an early reducer or two in on Twine then it'll be a long 90mins imo.

Edited April 12 by ExiledAjax

[Numero Uno]

1 hour ago, Kibs said:

Playing devils advocate, how do we know the intent has changed? 

Maybe it’s the execution and understanding that’s changed?

Maybe it’s the way that the message has been delivered that has changed? 

Maybe it’s partly down to confidence and opposition performance too?

Maybe it’s the return from injury or upturn in form of a few players? 

Hoggs interview last week implied that the intent has always been the same. 

There is one obvious change in intent that we showed in particular the other night. Instead of playing 175 passes sideways and backwards it is showing everyone like a flashing beacon that players are now "allowed" to play the ball over the top of/behind their back four if the opportunity presents itself. So now it might be eight passes and a more direct ball forward.

It could be that they've been "allowed" to do this all along and misinterpreted the brief or it might be the case that Liam and Chris have decided our current crop of players must have that option otherwise they play themselves into some sort of oblivion that winds fans up and puts their jobs at risk!! However, whatever the reasoning, that has been the obvious difference in the last few games imo.

We turned Blackburn's back four round so that they were facing their own goal and they couldn't handle it.

Edited April 12 by Numero Uno

[Tim Monaghan]

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

 I stopped at the word manningball 

 

 

Same 

[Robbored]

I doubt the terriers will be as defensively poor as Blackburn were even tho they’re dangerously close to the drop zone.

I’m expecting them to sit deep and try to counter so an early City goal will force them out and that could be fatal for them.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Kibs said:

I agree with most of that, and I’m happier with how we’re playing, but I don’t necessarily think that it has to be down to intent or all down to intent anyway.

It could be intent, but there are several other factors at play too, and factors we’re not necessarily able to see or measure.

I think some of us are using the term “intent” to simplify what we’ve seen (as per Silvio’s post).  Rather than having to type out stuff in detail every time about press, defensive line, ball-winning positions etc.

Of course, it could be that it’s “just clicked”.

But it could just be the way our opponents have panned out.

Or it could be they’ve made some tweaks.

Could be all 3.

But it’s definitely different from what was being served up pre-Easter.  And that’s the main thing!

 

…and if you’re interested.

 

[1960maaan]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Aren’t they the same thing, generally speaking?

Or do you mean pre and post-Easter?

I hope LM doesn’t revert to pre-Easter “style”.  I hope he continues with the current intent.  I think it gives us better chance (because we are inconsistent) of both results and a bit of excitement.

Agree, to get some consistency in results it surely helps having consistency in intent and plan. 
Those poor games came from using some sort of hybrid low block stand off ( hoping the other team nod off ?) . I know it depends on who we play, but trying to win the ball high, starting the press as a team , meant we played quicker and everyone was "at it" . When we stand off we slow down and get scrappy .

I won't quote your 2nd post Dave , but will add pace and tempo . We seem so much crisper in passing when playing a press, it seems to get everyone in the right mindset instead of sitting and waiting for things to happen.
 

57 minutes ago, phantom said:

Same here, great to see the same style threads are still popping up so frequently

I nearly ignored the thread but thought decided to ignore the bait . 

[DaveInSA]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think some of us are using the term “intent” to simplify what we’ve seen (as per Silvio’s post).  Rather than having to type out stuff in detail every time about press, defensive line, ball-winning positions etc.

Of course, it could be that it’s “just clicked”.

But it could just be the way our opponents have panned out.

Or it could be they’ve made some tweaks.

Could be all 3.

But it’s definitely different from what was being served up pre-Easter.  And that’s the main thing!

 

…and if you’re interested.

 

Now even I can understand and more importantly actually read those 3 charts Fevs.

A decrease in 1&2 leads to an increase in 3, which in turn equals an increase in the excitement.

Very good.

[Davefevs]

28 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Agree, to get some consistency in results it surely helps having consistency in intent and plan. 
Those poor games came from using some sort of hybrid low block stand off ( hoping the other team nod off ?) . I know it depends on who we play, but trying to win the ball high, starting the press as a team , meant we played quicker and everyone was "at it" . When we stand off we slow down and get scrappy .

I won't quote your 2nd post Dave , but will add pace and tempo . We seem so much crisper in passing when playing a press, it seems to get everyone in the right mindset instead of sitting and waiting for things to happen.
 

I nearly ignored the thread but thought decided to ignore the bait . 

25 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

Now even I can understand and more importantly actually read those 3 charts Fevs.

A decrease in 1&2 leads to an increase in 3, which in turn equals an increase in the excitement.

Very good.

A really simplistic interpretation is that if you win the ball back higher up, you have a chance of attacking against a non-set defence.  If you do that quickly, you give the defence less chance to get set.  If you let your opposition play it around in their structure, if you eventually win the ball back in your own third, you’re likely to encounter a team already in a decent shape, and 2/3rd of the pitch to try and overcome!

Why did sitting deep against Southampton then?  Imho, because they overcommit players, especially their fullbacks, so when you do win it back, there is a lot of room to counterattack…which of course we did.  Russell Martin proved the same at Swansea, when we were able to counter them too.

[Alessandro]

2 hours ago, Kibs said:

Playing devils advocate, how do we know the intent has changed? 

Maybe it’s the execution and understanding that’s changed?

Maybe it’s the way that the message has been delivered that has changed? 

Maybe it’s partly down to confidence and opposition performance too?

Maybe it’s the return from injury or upturn in form of a few players? 

Hoggs interview last week implied that the intent has always been the same. 

Perhaps a few of these things but for me, simplistically, I feel what’s changed is the message, not the delivery of the message. 

[Kibs]

1 minute ago, Alessandro said:

Perhaps a few of these things but for me, simplistically, I feel what’s changed is the message, not the delivery of the message. 

Its likely to be a big factor, and I hope that’s what has changed, because if it is, it’s more likely to remain that way. 

I do feel confidence plays a massive part though, perhaps even on the coaches part? 

You’re much more likely to retreat if you’re low on confidence or nervous than step up and press. You’re much more likely to pass safely, or pass sideways too. 

[WessexPest]

Huddersfield will give us a game, I reckon, but the team feels like it’s getting a bit of momentum. 

2-0 City.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Kibs said:

I do feel confidence plays a massive part though, perhaps even on the coaches part? 

You’re much more likely to retreat if you’re low on confidence or nervous than step up and press. You’re much more likely to pass safely, or pass sideways too. 

I think the challenge (from me) to that is where did the confidence from Southampton disappear to, and why so quickly?

[Kibs]

Just now, Davefevs said:

I think the challenge (from me) to that is where did the confidence from Southampton disappear to, and why so quickly?

No idea Dave, but it was so typical. All bad runs start somewhere. We had sub-par performance against a QPR team who were (and still are) improving. 

I think as many have pointed out, we still struggle against teams who play a certain way, especially at home. Thats not necessarily new, and I think that’s one of the biggest challenges for LM. 
 

[Numero Uno]

2 minutes ago, Kibs said:

I think as many have pointed out, we still struggle against teams who play a certain way, especially at home. Thats not necessarily new, and I think that’s one of the biggest challenges for LM. 
 

It's a challenge that will see a lot of heat evaporate away from him if he can overcome it..........

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Kibs said:

No idea Dave, but it was so typical. All bad runs start somewhere. We had sub-par performance against a QPR team who were (and still are) improving. 

I think as many have pointed out, we still struggle against teams who play a certain way, especially at home. Thats not necessarily new, and I think that’s one of the biggest challenges for LM. 
 

FWIW I’ve long said that I don’t think many teams come to AG and park the bus per se, I think a lot of teams see AG as a real opportunity to pick up a result.  There is of course the challenge of breaking down an organised defence, and for me (generally) that comes from playing too slow.  Perversely under Nigel (don’t blame me for mentioning his name) at times we tried to counter too quickly (yes that’s a criticism of him by me!), before we’d truly gained good possesion, and we would sloppily give the ball straight back.  Usually with Weimann having bombed on and out of position.

With all these things there’s some middle ground to be found, not too slow, not too quick.