Dickie out for a few months - huge blow

[Shauntaylor85]

As above, confirmed by Manning. Such a crying shame. Hoping big Rob can get fit soon. 

[Simon bristol]

Bad news,,, what a signing hes been.

[Shauntaylor85]

Indeed. Gutted, he is a superb player for us. Here’s to a speedy recovery. We must avoid further hamstring and muscle strains. 

[!james]

Shame but signing McNally and hopefully Atkinson back soon softens the blow

[GrahamC]

2 minutes ago, !james said:

Shame but signing McNally and hopefully Atkinson back soon softens the blow

Think it was also the reason Naismith stayed after McNally signed.

[TammyAB]

Cursed club.

[Kodjias Wrist]

10 minutes ago, TammyAB said:

Cursed club.

We aren’t the only club that gets long term injuries to our best player. We were definitely ‘cursed’ a few season ago when we had 17 odd players out at one time was it? 

[TammyAB]

Just now, Kodjias Wrist said:

We aren’t the only club that gets long term injuries to our best player. We were definitely ‘cursed’ a few season ago when we had 17 odd players out at one time was it? 

We're cursed because I was waiting for a spanner in the works after a summer of optimism and good squad building. And I duly got it.

50 clubs have played in the Premier League since its inception in 1992. Bristol City are not one of them. Cursed club.

[Kodjias Wrist]

Just now, TammyAB said:

We're cursed because I was waiting for a spanner in the works after a summer of optimism and good squad building. And I duly got it.

50 clubs have played in the Premier League since its inception in 1992. Bristol City are not one of them. Cursed club.

It’s not cursed it’s been shit management at the very top! 

[Spike]

This is a massive blow but McNally and Atkinson returning gives cover, the issue is whether either of them can do what Dickie does and keep Vyner in check. Vyner is a great player in the right role, he's strongest in a back 2 but he needs a leader next to him, someone who takes command or he can be prone to trying too hard and making costly mistakes.
 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Such a shame. Him and Vyner, with Max behind have been the cornerstone.

How long is Atkinson out for anyway? Post International break or a bit longer.

[Roger Red Hat]

36 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

We must avoid further hamstring and muscle strains. 

Surely not...

[Major Isewater]

2 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

Surely not...

[Fuber]

Bit worrying that generally aside from ACLs (Atkinson) Rennies team managed to sort out hamstrings in general.

Only time we had any injury crisis it was impact injuries.

That's now Robert in preseason(?), Benarous niggle, now Dickie.

[The Bard]

50 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Think it was also the reason Naismith stayed after McNally signed.

Yep. Get the impression he will be benched after the international window and McInally will start. 

[David Brent]

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Such a shame. Him and Vyner, with Max behind have been the cornerstone.

How long is Atkinson out for anyway? Post International break or a bit longer.

I’m worried it’s going to take a while for Atkinson to get up to speed and get close to Vyner and Dickie levels. 

[Port Said Red]

52 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Such a shame. Him and Vyner, with Max behind have been the cornerstone.

How long is Atkinson out for anyway? Post International break or a bit longer.

He's fit, would have travelled today but LM didn't want him sat on the bus for 5 hours.

[Galley is our king]

27 minutes ago, Fuber said:

Bit worrying that generally aside from ACLs (Atkinson) Rennies team managed to sort out hamstrings in general.

Only time we had any injury crisis it was impact injuries.

That's now Robert in preseason(?), Benarous niggle, now Dickie.

Ah but don't forget the "experts" at the club did notice they were "unconditioned" and by stating that blamed Rennie.

It was a disgusting comment to make and completely WRONG.

Will an apology be forthcoming?

The weak hierarchy currently running our club wouldn't have the balls let alone show the professionalism required!!

[Numero Uno]

2 hours ago, Fuber said:

Bit worrying that generally aside from ACLs (Atkinson) Rennies team managed to sort out hamstrings in general.

Only time we had any injury crisis it was impact injuries.

That's now Robert in preseason(?), Benarous niggle, now Dickie.

Plus Sam Bell.

[Fuber]

4 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Plus Sam Bell.

Damn - completely forgot about him as well, so worse than I thought....
Starting to feel Rennie was right.

[Fontaineofallknowledge]

The hamstring probability centre strikes again-seriously frustrating 

[fly in the air]

does anyone know if Atkinson will be fit for the next game at blackburn

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, fly in the air said:

does anyone know if Atkinson will be fit for the next game at blackburn

Supposedly but I won't hold my breath.

8 minutes ago, Fontaineofallknowledge said:

The hamstring probability centre strikes again-seriously frustrating 

Yep good thing we got rid of Rennie. Tanner is doing so well..so right to disparage as well.

[Numero Uno]

13 minutes ago, Fuber said:

Damn - completely forgot about him as well, so worse than I thought....
Starting to feel Rennie was right.

It’s not just players doing a hamstring, ours seem to be three month jobs not a minor tear that heals in three weeks.

[Henry]

2 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

He's fit, would have travelled today but LM didn't want him sat on the bus for 5 hours.

If he can’t handle a coach journey then doesn’t bode well for playing championship football.

[Numero Uno]

2 minutes ago, Henry said:

If he can’t handle a coach journey then doesn’t bode well for playing championship football.

Tbf, we had McNally on the bench and he’s got two weeks of fitness work on the horizon. With our injury issues why would you have a bloke sat on a bus for five hours with the POTENTIAL that a muscle injury could stiffen up? Imagine reporting that with all the hindsight medical experts joyfully proclaiming it was obvious what would happen

[Henry]

Just now, Numero Uno said:

Tbf, we had McNally on the bench and he’s got two weeks of fitness work on the horizon. With our injury issues why would you have a bloke sat on a bus for five hours with the POTENTIAL that a muscle injury could stiffen up? Imagine reporting that with all the hindsight medical experts joyfully proclaiming it was obvious what would happen

What if Vyner and Naismith got injured in training yesterday? If he’s fit, then he should be able to travel to games without the fear he won’t cope. If he can’t, then he’s not fit.

[Numero Uno]

Just now, Henry said:

What if Vyner and Naismith got injured in training yesterday? If he’s fit, then he should be able to travel to games without the fear he won’t cope. If he can’t, then he’s not fit.

He’s now got two weeks to get fitter.

[Simon bristol]

1 hour ago, fly in the air said:

does anyone know if Atkinson will be fit for the next game at blackburn

I dont want to see him running after weimann for the 20th time in his first game back,, especially after seeing weimann today, we need to see if atkinson is the same when he plays again

[petehinton]

More muscle injuries currently vs what we had at our peak injury crisis last season….

One for Tinns & JL to expertly explain to Radio Bristol soon. 

Edited August 31 by petehinton

[Numero Uno]

16 hours ago, petehinton said:

More muscle injuries currently vs what we had at our peak injury crisis last season….

One for Tinns & JL to expertly explain to Radio Bristol soon. 

Serious muscle injuries is the problem. Three weeks is one thing but players getting three month injuries is an issue. Sam Bell had surgery on his hamstring and now he’s crocked again, that’s what needs explanation. It gets to the point where surely it’s beyond bad luck.

[W-S-M Seagull]

On 31/08/2024 at 18:58, Henry said:

What if Vyner and Naismith got injured in training yesterday? If he’s fit, then he should be able to travel to games without the fear he won’t cope. If he can’t, then he’s not fit.

I don't think Atkinson is 'fit' 

I think he's not injured, but is a long way from being considered fit and even further away from being match fit. 

[Erithacus]

Early doors I know, but I think this might win the Thread Title of the Season Award.

[bcfcredandwhite]

Without trivialising Dickies injury - of course I wish him a quick recovery - but we shipped 5 goals (6 including the cup defeat to Coventry) with him in the side. 
Shipping 3 to Derby can be blamed by some on his (Dickies) absence, but remember the above. 
Something is wrong with our defence and it’s not simply one injured player. 
Back to the thread and of course I hope Dickie gets fit as soon as possible. 

[forbespm]

Dickie didn't play in the cup game v coventry but I get what you mean.

Our defence has looked suspect.

12 goals conceded last 5 league games

[grifty]

8 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

Without trivialising Dickies injury - of course I wish him a quick recovery - but we shipped 5 goals (6 including the cup defeat to Coventry) with him in the side. 
Shipping 3 to Derby can be blamed by some on his (Dickies) absence, but remember the above. 
Something is wrong with our defence and it’s not simply one injured player. 
Back to the thread and of course I hope Dickie gets fit as soon as possible. 

you can say 5 goals but you'd need to look at the goals to see if Dickie is at fault for any of them

Hull - penalty because Joe Williams lost his head.

Coventry cup - Naismith loses Simms. Dickie wasn't on the pitch so not sure why you've included this one

Millwall - goal 1 Pring with the worst attempt at a tackle I've seen and Vyner doesn't close him down

goal 2 - mysterious handball against Tanner

goal 3 - Knight jumps in front of Dickie for a poor headed clearance to set up the striker

You could probably say maybe he could have called for the last one and cleared himself.

 

I don't think 'something is wrong with our defence'. 2 penalties which shouldn't have happened (Joe Williams chills out and the ref doesn't make up a handball). 1 where we have a centre mid playing centre back and can't track his man and 2 where there has been a poor attempt at defending / clearing and the opposition has profited from it.

[FNQ]

8 minutes ago, grifty said:

I don't think 'something is wrong with our defence'.

Wow… we’ve conceded 3 at home to Millwall (the penalty which agreed was ridiculous could easily have been offset by the one which came of the inside of our post in the first half) and 3 against Derby which could have easily been 6 if it wasn’t again for the woodwork twice and a couple of good saves from Max. There is something to worry about surely? Especially as I had both Derby and Millwall pencilled in for a relegation scrap too, better buckle up when we come up against the better sides.

[Shauntaylor85]

9 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

Without trivialising Dickies injury - of course I wish him a quick recovery - but we shipped 5 goals (6 including the cup defeat to Coventry) with him in the side. 
Shipping 3 to Derby can be blamed by some on his (Dickies) absence, but remember the above. 
Something is wrong with our defence and it’s not simply one injured player. 
Back to the thread and of course I hope Dickie gets fit as soon as possible. 

Agree. It’s Manning’s bonkers tactics this season leaving us exposed, especially that left side.  

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, grifty said:

you can say 5 goals but you'd need to look at the goals to see if Dickie is at fault for any of them

Hull - penalty because Joe Williams lost his head.

Coventry cup - Naismith loses Simms. Dickie wasn't on the pitch so not sure why you've included this one

Millwall - goal 1 Pring with the worst attempt at a tackle I've seen and Vyner doesn't close him down

goal 2 - mysterious handball against Tanner

goal 3 - Knight jumps in front of Dickie for a poor headed clearance to set up the striker

You could probably say maybe he could have called for the last one and cleared himself.

 

I don't think 'something is wrong with our defence'. 2 penalties which shouldn't have happened (Joe Williams chills out and the ref doesn't make up a handball). 1 where we have a centre mid playing centre back and can't track his man and 2 where there has been a poor attempt at defending / clearing and the opposition has profited from it.

If you look at a small sample of goals only, you might not conclude that, but if you look at a bigger sample, ie chances created by our opposition, you’ll see fundamental structural issues, especially in transition defence, because Pring is being asked to play like a left winger in attacking phases.  We lose the ball and there’s a gurt big hole!

Thats not Pring’s fault.  That’s how he’s being asked to play.

That means Dickie or Naismith (or whoever might play LCB) 1) get dragged into wider areas where they are less comfortable and 2) don’t have a LB outside them to help them, leaving them exposed.

It is also made worse by Twine (or Mehmeti) playing inside.  It means even if Pring is back in position he rarely has anyone in-front of him to help him.

We need to stop focusing on trying to blame an individual player for goals (it is the OTIB way though) and look at why.  Look at chances that didn’t end up as goals that could’ve with better finishing, e.g. Simms tame effort having gone around O’Leary, Thomas-Assante’s angled shot past the far post, etc…all stem from poor structure down our left (their right).  And Tanner’s handball, where did the cross come from?  Esse breaking in behind Pring and crossing.

I’m no coach, but to me it seems rather indulgent to try to create the extra attacker without considering (or accepting the risk of) having one less defender.  And it’s not just the one-less defender, it’s the bloody awful structure of it.  A shit-sandwich!

For me it smacks of working on the training ground with mannequins and arrows painted on the pitch, and even against lower quality opponents in preseason who aren’t good enough to exploit it.  But if I can spot it as early as the Willem II game, I’m sure opposition analysts can too.

It also worries me that Manning needs the extra player in attack, ie can’t create attacking patterns without risking our solid defence.

I still go back to Russell Martin when he was at Swansea, bemoaning all his possession and control, yet getting done on the counter by a Dinosaur Manager.  Although they were much slower in their build-up (than City are this season), they eventually got the ball into position with players in great positions to create overloads against a structured defence.  But one loose pass, one heavy touch and they were being countered on…behind their advanced full-backs.

What worries me more is that Manning has spent all preseason drilling this, and is finding out it doesn’t work.  Hopefully it’s such some minor tweaks to sort it out.  But if it’s wholesale changes, e.g. back-3 system, etc, then it’s a black mark from me.

We’ll see.

 

Edited September 5 by Davefevs

[hinsleburg]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

If you look at a small sample of goals only, you might not conclude that, but if you look at a bigger sample, ie chances created by our opposition, you’ll see fundamental structural issues, especially in transition defence, because Pring is being asked to play like a left winger in attacking phases.  We lose the ball and there’s a gurt big hole!

Thats not Pring’s fault.  That’s how he’s being asked to play.

That means Dickie or Naismith (or whoever might play LCB) 1) get dragged into wider areas where they are less comfortable and 2) don’t have a LB outside them to help them, leaving them exposed.

It is also made worse by Twine (or Mehmeti) playing inside.  It means even if Pring is back in position he rarely has anyone in-front of him to help him.

We need to stop focusing on trying to blame an individual player for goals (it is the OTIB way though) and look at why.  Look at chances that didn’t end up as goals that could’ve with better finishing, e.g. Simms tame effort having gone around O’Leary, Thomas-Assante’s angled shot past the far post, etc…all stem from poor structure down our left (their right).  And Tanner’s handball, where did the cross come from?  Esse breaking in behind Pring and crossing.

I’m no coach, but to me it seems rather indulgent to try to create the extra attacker without considering (or accepting the risk of) having one less defender.  And it’s not just the one-less defender, it’s the bloody awful structure of it.  A shit-sandwich!

For me it smacks of working on the training ground with mannequins and arrows painted on the pitch, and even against lower quality opponents in preseason who aren’t good enough to exploit it.  But if I can spot it as early as the Willem II game, I’m sure opposition analysts can too.

It also worries me that Manning needs the extra player in attack, ie can’t create attacking patterns without risking our solid defence.

I still go back to Russell Martin when he was at Swansea, bemoaning all his possession and control, yet getting done on the counter by a Dinosaur Manager.  Although they were much slower in their build-up (than City are this season), they eventually got the ball into position with players in great positions to create overloads against a structured defence.  But one loose pass, one heavy touch and they were being countered on…behind their advanced full-backs.

What worries me more is that Manning has spent all preseason drilling this, and is finding out it doesn’t work.  Hopefully it’s such some minor tweaks to sort it out.  But if it’s wholesale changes, e.g. back-3 system, etc, then it’s a black mark from me.

We’ll see.

 

I've never been a fan of the 'lopsided back 4' and have always felt like it causes more problems than it solves.

With the attacking players we've now got, we should have enough attacking to play an orthodox 4 with full backs pushing on if space and one midfield sitter to cover. Alternatively, play a 3/5 with two orthodox wingbacks but this back 4 with an orthodox right back and a Left Wing back just isn't working. Part of me wonders if it's to mitigate Tanners attacking weakness but in doing so it's seemingly compromising the whole structure and in fairness to Tanner he's been a lot more positive going forward last 6 months.

It's not helping Pring at all either who's struggling at the moment, Twine is having to play inverted to create the space so we've got two 'number 10's' operating in the same area which is so easy to defend against. Hope against Blackburn we see Bird deeper with Knight, Twine as the 10 with two wingers either side. (Unsure who depending on fitness, probably Sykes and Mehmeti with Hirakawa off the bench.) 

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, hinsleburg said:

Twine is having to play inverted to create the space so we've got two 'number 10's' operating in the same area which is so easy to defend against.

Yep, it creates space for Pring, but congests it infield.  Pring has nobody to make give-and-goes with, he’s isolated.

[Sir Geoff]

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If you look at a small sample of goals only, you might not conclude that, but if you look at a bigger sample, ie chances created by our opposition, you’ll see fundamental structural issues, especially in transition defence, because Pring is being asked to play like a left winger in attacking phases.  We lose the ball and there’s a gurt big hole!

Thats not Pring’s fault.  That’s how he’s being asked to play.

That means Dickie or Naismith (or whoever might play LCB) 1) get dragged into wider areas where they are less comfortable and 2) don’t have a LB outside them to help them, leaving them exposed.

It is also made worse by Twine (or Mehmeti) playing inside.  It means even if Pring is back in position he rarely has anyone in-front of him to help him.

We need to stop focusing on trying to blame an individual player for goals (it is the OTIB way though) and look at why.  Look at chances that didn’t end up as goals that could’ve with better finishing, e.g. Simms tame effort having gone around O’Leary, Thomas-Assante’s angled shot past the far post, etc…all stem from poor structure down our left (their right).  And Tanner’s handball, where did the cross come from?  Esse breaking in behind Pring and crossing.

I’m no coach, but to me it seems rather indulgent to try to create the extra attacker without considering (or accepting the risk of) having one less defender.  And it’s not just the one-less defender, it’s the bloody awful structure of it.  A shit-sandwich!

For me it smacks of working on the training ground with mannequins and arrows painted on the pitch, and even against lower quality opponents in preseason who aren’t good enough to exploit it.  But if I can spot it as early as the Willem II game, I’m sure opposition analysts can too.

It also worries me that Manning needs the extra player in attack, ie can’t create attacking patterns without risking our solid defence.

I still go back to Russell Martin when he was at Swansea, bemoaning all his possession and control, yet getting done on the counter by a Dinosaur Manager.  Although they were much slower in their build-up (than City are this season), they eventually got the ball into position with players in great positions to create overloads against a structured defence.  But one loose pass, one heavy touch and they were being countered on…behind their advanced full-backs.

What worries me more is that Manning has spent all preseason drilling this, and is finding out it doesn’t work.  Hopefully it’s such some minor tweaks to sort it out.  But if it’s wholesale changes, e.g. back-3 system, etc, then it’s a black mark from me.

We’ll see.

 

This for me is the result of a poorly conceived / structured transfer window. Early summer Tinnion stated we would not be signing more than 3 players and a 9 and 10 were the priority. To my mind that was a perfectly sound call. We already had a solid defence (with cover for injuries JKL, Roberts, Naismith for instance). We clearly needed an upgraded 10 to create chances that had been lacking during the season (Knight was never the answer). A different 9 was also a good idea, whether that be the fast pacy big man mooted or a head on a stick. Once it became clear Tommy was definitely leaving an argument could be made for adding a 2nd striker to the list of requirements (despite having Wells, who had a great pre season, SPH, and Cornick in the building). Bird was already in the building and an obvious midfield upgrade (yes I'm a fan of MJ) with Murphy and Stokes in the squad there was no need to meddle further with midfield signings. We then seemed to go off piste with numerous scattergun signings (Earthy, Maguane, Mcnally)

To summarise. we had a solid defence and we should have organically improved the front players, which in turn would improve the chances created and taken whilst keeping things tight at the back.

[bcfcredandwhite]

4 hours ago, grifty said:

you can say 5 goals but you'd need to look at the goals to see if Dickie is at fault for any of them

Hull - penalty because Joe Williams lost his head.

Coventry cup - Naismith loses Simms. Dickie wasn't on the pitch so not sure why you've included this one

Millwall - goal 1 Pring with the worst attempt at a tackle I've seen and Vyner doesn't close him down

goal 2 - mysterious handball against Tanner

goal 3 - Knight jumps in front of Dickie for a poor headed clearance to set up the striker

You could probably say maybe he could have called for the last one and cleared himself.

 

I don't think 'something is wrong with our defence'. 2 penalties which shouldn't have happened (Joe Williams chills out and the ref doesn't make up a handball). 1 where we have a centre mid playing centre back and can't track his man and 2 where there has been a poor attempt at defending / clearing and the opposition has profited from it.

Fair point re: Coventry. 
Regarding your other points; I didn’t say Dickie was to blame for the 5 goals. 
What I WAS trying to say is that his presence didn’t prevent them happening. 

[Sir Geoff]

46 minutes ago, hinsleburg said:

I've never been a fan of the 'lopsided back 4' and have always felt like it causes more problems than it solves.

With the attacking players we've now got, we should have enough attacking to play an orthodox 4 with full backs pushing on if space and one midfield sitter to cover. Alternatively, play a 3/5 with two orthodox wingbacks but this back 4 with an orthodox right back and a Left Wing back just isn't working. Part of me wonders if it's to mitigate Tanners attacking weakness but in doing so it's seemingly compromising the whole structure and in fairness to Tanner he's been a lot more positive going forward last 6 months.

It's not helping Pring at all either who's struggling at the moment, Twine is having to play inverted to create the space so we've got two 'number 10's' operating in the same area which is so easy to defend against. Hope against Blackburn we see Bird deeper with Knight, Twine as the 10 with two wingers either side. (Unsure who depending on fitness, probably Sykes and Mehmeti with Hirakawa off the bench.) 

Agree with most of what you are saying. I just feel we should play with a more traditional back 4. Tell Pring to sit in and not bomb forward so much. Yes if you have Mehmeti ahead of him he will have no option but to track back. We don't need to play with any wing backs if Yu and Mehmeti are our wide attacking players. Get back to basics and do them well.

                                     MOL

          Tanner   Vyner  Mcnally   Pring

                     Knight Bird Williams  (2 from 3)

                                   Twine

                      Yu                          Mehmetti

                               Armstrong / Fally   (1 from 2)

[Tony Tootle]

Dickie has regressed since Manning came in IMO. Pearson got both him and Vyner playing as well as they could. Definitely a confidence player that needs to be reassured. 

[2015]

2 minutes ago, Tony Tootle said:

Dickie has regressed since Manning came in IMO. Pearson got both him and Vyner playing as well as they could. Definitely a confidence player that needs to be reassured. 

So he was only at his best from August - October 2023 and has regressed since? Despite being our player of the season in 2023/24. 

Maybe Vyner, but not Dickie.

[FNQ]

55 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If you look at a small sample of goals only, you might not conclude that, but if you look at a bigger sample, ie chances created by our opposition, you’ll see fundamental structural issues, especially in transition defence, because Pring is being asked to play like a left winger in attacking phases.  We lose the ball and there’s a gurt big hole!

Thats not Pring’s fault.  That’s how he’s being asked to play.

That means Dickie or Naismith (or whoever might play LCB) 1) get dragged into wider areas where they are less comfortable and 2) don’t have a LB outside them to help them, leaving them exposed.

It is also made worse by Twine (or Mehmeti) playing inside.  It means even if Pring is back in position he rarely has anyone in-front of him to help him.

We need to stop focusing on trying to blame an individual player for goals (it is the OTIB way though) and look at why.  Look at chances that didn’t end up as goals that could’ve with better finishing, e.g. Simms tame effort having gone around O’Leary, Thomas-Assante’s angled shot past the far post, etc…all stem from poor structure down our left (their right).  And Tanner’s handball, where did the cross come from?  Esse breaking in behind Pring and crossing.

I’m no coach, but to me it seems rather indulgent to try to create the extra attacker without considering (or accepting the risk of) having one less defender.  And it’s not just the one-less defender, it’s the bloody awful structure of it.  A shit-sandwich!

For me it smacks of working on the training ground with mannequins and arrows painted on the pitch, and even against lower quality opponents in preseason who aren’t good enough to exploit it.  But if I can spot it as early as the Willem II game, I’m sure opposition analysts can too.

It also worries me that Manning needs the extra player in attack, ie can’t create attacking patterns without risking our solid defence.

I still go back to Russell Martin when he was at Swansea, bemoaning all his possession and control, yet getting done on the counter by a Dinosaur Manager.  Although they were much slower in their build-up (than City are this season), they eventually got the ball into position with players in great positions to create overloads against a structured defence.  But one loose pass, one heavy touch and they were being countered on…behind their advanced full-backs.

What worries me more is that Manning has spent all preseason drilling this, and is finding out it doesn’t work.  Hopefully it’s such some minor tweaks to sort it out.  But if it’s wholesale changes, e.g. back-3 system, etc, then it’s a black mark from me.

We’ll see.

 

Dave, given that the ‘plan’ seems to be to run Pring into the ground each week, why do you think Liam wouldn’t be bringing Roberts on after 60 minutes at the same time that he routinely gives Armstrong.a break? It all makes little sense to me.

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

This for me is the result of a poorly conceived / structured transfer window. Early summer Tinnion stated we would not be signing more than 3 players and a 9 and 10 were the priority. To my mind that was a perfectly sound call. We already had a solid defence (with cover for injuries JKL, Roberts, Naismith for instance). We clearly needed an upgraded 10 to create chances that had been lacking during the season (Knight was never the answer). A different 9 was also a good idea, whether that be the fast pacy big man mooted or a head on a stick. Once it became clear Tommy was definitely leaving an argument could be made for adding a 2nd striker to the list of requirements (despite having Wells, who had a great pre season, SPH, and Cornick in the building). Bird was already in the building and an obvious midfield upgrade (yes I'm a fan of MJ) with Murphy and Stokes in the squad there was no need to meddle further with midfield signings. We then seemed to go off piste with numerous scattergun signings (Earthy, Maguane, Mcnally)

To summarise. we had a solid defence and we should have organically improved the front players, which in turn would improve the chances created and taken whilst keeping things tight at the back.

I do think the recruitment has gone a bit off-piste, but I don’t think that’s the reason for what we are seeing on the pitch…that’s tactical for me.

With the quality of signing our budget allows us to make, I said all summer that I thought Manning’s biggest challenge would be getting City more creative without risking our solid defence.

1 minute ago, FNQ said:

Dave, given that the ‘plan’ seems to be to run Pring into the ground each week, why do you think Liam wouldn’t be bringing Roberts on after 60 minutes at the same time that he routinely gives Armstrong.a break? It all makes little sense to me.

Good point, no idea!

[Tony Tootle]

4 minutes ago, 2015 said:

So he was only at his best from August - October 2023 and has regressed since? Despite being our player of the season in 2023/24. 

Maybe Vyner, but not Dickie.

Maybe my memory isn't that good so thanks for pointing that out. I still think he is in danger of dropping off like he did for QPR after being very good after joining from Oxford.

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I do think the recruitment has gone a bit off-piste, but I don’t think that’s the reason for what we are seeing on the pitch…that’s tactical for me.

With the quality of signing our budget allows us to make, I said all summer that I thought Manning’s biggest challenge would be getting City more creative without risking our solid defence.

Good point, no idea!

I do wonder if the tactical has become a bit skewed due to all the signings and trying to get them on the pitch at the same time (2 × no.10's eg), rather than a coherent plan from the start of the window re tactics and  signings needed to fit that plan.

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

I do wonder if the tactical has become a bit skewed due to all the signings and trying to get them on the pitch at the same time (2 × no.10's eg), rather than a coherent plan from the start of the window re tactics and  signings needed to fit that plan.

That bit I do agree with.  Shouldn’t be trying to accommodate players, should be about competition for places and managing that.

[bcfcredandwhite]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

That bit I do agree with.  Shouldn’t be trying to accommodate players, should be about competition for places and managing that.

Absolutely - but also tactics. 
Without wishing to hijack the thread about Dickie - but to illustrate my point - I wouldn’t play Mehmeti UNLESS the opposition parks the bus - then I’d give him a free role to get into the box and draw a foul. He may be brilliant in training but his skills are ‘niche’. 
He WOULD be on my subs list for that specific eventuality. If it didn’t emerge then he wouldn’t be used (apart from forced by injury)
Dickie would be on the team sheet whatever the opposition tactics are. 

[Superjack]

On the plus side...

 

 

...this is one of the funniest thread titles ever.

 

Edit: Apologies. Didn't see the post from @Erithacus

Edited September 5 by Superjack