Colchester Reaction

[Nibor]

First I'm going to apologise for the length of this rant.

Second let me say that I've long been a Tinnion fan and thought that he should be given time, I like his passion and the way he cares about the club and I approved of his transfer decisions. I wanted him to stay as manager. After Colchester I'm sorry to say I think I'm changing my mind now.

I see no logical explanation for some of his decisions, I don't think he actually has any tactics - the team certainly don't understand them and now in my opinion the only reason to keep him is a lack of a decent replacement. Having listened to Tinnion's post match interview I can only conclude that he's either blind or will be standing as Screaming Lord Tinnion at the next general election. Talk about putting a brave face on it... Let's make this clear, there was absolutely nothing whatsoever positive about Saturday's game. Colchester were awful. They're a team who will do well to stay out of the bottom four and probably won't, they have no threat, little talent and are run on a shoestring. We were no better than them and despite having a few decent chances after they were taken down to 10 men they should already have been one nil up by then thanks to our "marking" such as it is.

Tinnion talks in his interview about "winning second balls". I don't know what this means. I do know that we will continually lose first, second, third and all the bloody balls if we hoof it over the midfield every time. I also know that we won't get it back unless our midfield actually pressure the opposition rather than turn tail and run back to their own half to be ready for the onslaught every time we lose it. He thinks that our failure to play anything remotely resembling football in the first half was down to Colchester playing well, being "bright". Sorry that's rubbish. It was down to our midfield not making themselves available for passes and our defence launching the ball into orbit every time we won possession. Either Tinnion's instructions before the game were "ignore the midfield lads, don't want to tire them out, just hoof it every time we get the ball so we lose it again" or the players weren't paying attention. Neither is acceptable and both are down to the manager.

Tinnion said in his programme notes about the MK Dons game that he felt that "overall the game demonstrated just what a force we can be at Ashton Gate". Surely this was a misprint... he must have meant farce? He wanted to "reproduce the attacking football we have produced recently without the sloppy defending". Sorry but bar 30 minutes against Port Vale our attacking football this season has been awful and one dimensional. What is he watching? We're awful in defence and lack ideas going forward, but Tins seems to think we're close to getting it right.

Even if Tinns were right and we just needed to shore up the defence I don't understand how his selections are meant to help. Louis Carey has been poor or worse in every game so far this season so how is playing him going to help the defence? Bradley Orr adds precisely zero to the team defensively or going forward. Skuse has done OK but a central midfield who are all under 21 are not going to run the game. Bridges played excellently in the hole last week when we looked semi decent going forward for 45 minutes so he's playing up front as some sort of makeshift targetman this week?

My views on the individual performances...

Phillips - 6 - Not bad but please release the ball early on the floor rather than holding onto it and booting it back to them.

Carey - 4 - Awful in the first half. Poor in the second. If I see him play that deep cross from the half way line to the opposite corner flag again I may tear out my hair. I think someone had a word with him about it at half time because he seemed to stop in the second half and then spent most of his time wondering what to do with the ball. Doesn't look decisive in defence either, was his man that hit the crossbar. Drop him.

Heywood - 6 - The usual, good in the air, not the quickest on the floor.

Keogh - 7 - Looks very good, calm, good positional sense, decent in the air and a few great passes. Needs to be less ambitious with passing sometimes.

Golbourne - 6 - Did OK when relieved of defensive responsibilities.

Murray - 6 - Ineffective now he can't outpace his full back and bottles out of tackles too much. Did manage to put in one good cross and get a close range shot in.

Orr - 4 - Offered absolutely nothing at all during the whole game. Only redeeming feature was he did well to get on the end of a couple of crosses, unfortunately missing easy chances twice. Didn't make many challenges, didn't collect the ball from the defence, poor control on a number of occasions and wayward passing. I'm sure he's a nice lad but footballer he is not.

Skuse - 6 - Quiet and off the pace for the most part, not going to dominate any midfield for a few years. Does look to have talent but just lacks influence and experience we need in the middle at the moment.

Brown - 7 - Energetic and a few decent tackles, managed to cross a few times as well. Laid on a great chance for Bridges after a defensive error. Tidy passing for the most part.

Bridges - 7 - It must be extremely frustrating for a striker who's played in the Champion's league to descend to this level. He's clearly about 5 minutes ahead of everyone else and we feed him scraps. Bad miss early on but overall played well when we managed to give him the ball.

Brooker - 6 - Good effort while he was on but bullied off the ball quite a bit (injury showing?), usual crap service to him and to be honest he gives the rest of the team an excuse to hoof it.

Gillespie - 6 - Got into a few decent positions and looked quite sharp and intelligent.

Smith - 4 - Mainly anonymous apart from a close volley. Play him in the centre or don't play him. Why was he brought on for Golbourne when he could have replaced Orr?

I must reserve special comment for the referee. I wasn't quite sure whether he was Ray Olivier or Lawrence Olivier. He certainly knew that he was in front of a camera and seemed to think that he should take part in the game rather than referee it. Finicky, pedantic, and some terrible decisions on fouls, the only thing this guy got right was the sending off.

All in all I had a thoroughly awful day at Ashton Gate, some irritating ##### keyed my car too.

Please Mr Tinnion, get it together and fast.

Nibor

[Guest scrumpy dare]

First I'm going to apologise for the length of this rant. 

Second let me say that I've long been a Tinnion fan and thought that he should be given time, I like his passion and the way he cares about the club and I approved of his transfer decisions.  I wanted him to stay as manager.  After Colchester I'm sorry to say I think I'm changing my mind now. 

I see no logical explanation for some of his decisions, I don't think he actually has any tactics - the team certainly don't understand them and now in my opinion the only reason to keep him is a lack of a decent replacement.  Having listened to Tinnion's post match interview I can only conclude that he's either blind or will be standing as Screaming Lord Tinnion at the next general election.  Talk about putting a brave face on it... Let's make this clear, there was absolutely nothing whatsoever positive about Saturday's game.  Colchester were awful.  They're a team who will do well to stay out of the bottom four and probably won't, they have no threat, little talent and are run on a shoestring.  We were no better than them and despite having a few decent chances after they were taken down to 10 men they should already have been one nil up by then thanks to our "marking" such as it is.

Tinnion talks in his interview about "winning second balls".  I don't know what this means.  I do know that we will continually lose first, second, third and all the bloody balls if we hoof it over the midfield every time.  I also know that we won't get it back unless our midfield actually pressure the opposition rather than turn tail and run back to their own half to be ready for the onslaught every time we lose it.  He thinks that our failure to play anything remotely resembling football in the first half was down to Colchester playing well, being "bright".  Sorry that's rubbish.  It was down to our midfield not making themselves available for passes and our defence launching the ball into orbit every time we won possession.  Either Tinnion's instructions before the game were "ignore the midfield lads, don't want to tire them out, just hoof it every time we get the ball so we lose it again" or the players weren't paying attention.  Neither is acceptable and both are down to the manager.

Tinnion said in his programme notes about the MK Dons game that he felt that "overall the game demonstrated just what a force we can be at Ashton Gate".  Surely this was a misprint...  he must have meant farce?  He wanted to "reproduce the attacking football we have produced recently without the sloppy defending".  Sorry but bar 30 minutes against Port Vale our attacking football this season has been awful and one dimensional.  What is he watching?  We're awful in defence and lack ideas going forward, but Tins seems to think we're close to getting it right. 

Even if Tinns were right and we just needed to shore up the defence I don't understand how his selections are meant to help.  Louis Carey has been poor or worse in every game so far this season so how is playing him going to help the defence?  Bradley Orr adds precisely zero to the team defensively or going forward.  Skuse has done OK but a central midfield who are all under 21 are not going to run the game.  Bridges played excellently in the hole last week when we looked semi decent going forward for 45 minutes so he's playing up front as some sort of makeshift targetman this week? 

My views on the individual performances...

Phillips - 6 - Not bad but please release the ball early on the floor rather than holding onto it and booting it back to them.

Carey - 4 - Awful in the first half.  Poor in the second.  If I see him play that deep cross from the half way line to the opposite corner flag again I may tear out my hair.  I think someone had a word with him about it at half time because he seemed to stop in the second half and then spent most of his time wondering what to do with the ball.  Doesn't look decisive in defence either, was his man that hit the crossbar.  Drop him.

Heywood - 6 - The usual, good in the air, not the quickest on the floor.

Keogh - 7 - Looks very good, calm, good positional sense, decent in the air and a few great passes.  Needs to be less ambitious with passing sometimes.

Golbourne - 6 - Did OK when relieved of defensive responsibilities.

Murray - 6 - Ineffective now he can't outpace his full back and bottles out of tackles too much.  Did manage to put in one good cross and get a close range shot in.

Orr - 4 - Offered absolutely nothing at all during the whole game.  Only redeeming feature was he did well to get on the end of a couple of crosses, unfortunately missing easy chances twice.  Didn't make many challenges, didn't collect the ball from the defence, poor control on a number of occasions and wayward passing.  I'm sure he's a nice lad but footballer he is not.

Skuse - 6 - Quiet and off the pace for the most part, not going to dominate any midfield for a few years.  Does look to have talent but just lacks influence and experience we need in the middle at the moment.

Brown - 7 - Energetic and a few decent tackles, managed to cross a few times as well.  Laid on a great chance for Bridges after a defensive error.  Tidy passing for the most part.

Bridges - 7 - It must be extremely frustrating for a striker who's played in the Champion's league to descend to this level.  He's clearly about 5 minutes ahead of everyone else and we feed him scraps.  Bad miss early on but overall played well when we managed to give him the ball.

Brooker - 6 - Good effort while he was on but bullied off the ball quite a bit (injury showing?), usual crap service to him and to be honest he gives the rest of the team an excuse to hoof it.

Gillespie - 6 - Got into a few decent positions and looked quite sharp and intelligent.

Smith - 4 - Mainly anonymous apart from a close volley.  Play him in the centre or don't play him.  Why was he brought on for Golbourne when he could have replaced Orr?

I must reserve special comment for the referee.  I wasn't quite sure whether he was Ray Olivier or Lawrence Olivier.  He certainly knew that he was in front of a camera and seemed to think that he should take part in the game rather than referee it.  Finicky, pedantic, and some terrible decisions on fouls, the only thing this guy got right was the sending off.

All in all I had a thoroughly awful day at Ashton Gate, some irritating ##### keyed my car too.

Please Mr Tinnion, get it together and fast.

Nibor

←

I'm staying strong

[cheese]

Tinnion talks in his interview about "winning second balls". 

←

If you don't know what that means then you are in no position to comment any further. Anyone who has played football at all will tell you what winning the second ball means.

[Guest Frank]

Please Mr Tinnion, get it together and fast.

Nibor

←

What Tinnion needs to learn fast is that if you find something that works then stick with it. Things I think have worked so far are as follows and would form the basis of my team:

Keogh in defence looked strong and brave. However he's all right foot, so put him on the right side in place of Carey who has looked below par.

Heywood as per Keogh, so put him in the middle of a back 3.

Partridge. Ok hasn't exactly worked for us yet, but he did well enough for Wales on the left side of a 3 so put him in the position he played well in for his country.

That gives a back 3 of:

Keough----------Heywood------------Partridge

In midfield I'd stick with Scott for now as I still think he looks more likely to give an end product than Cotterill.

Scott Brown is the only player to get stuck in and show energy and commitment to get a tackle in so he has to play.

In the middle Luke hasn't been great but that may be more to do with defenders giving him a stiff neck by making him watch the ball go back and fore over his head all afternoon. Toss up between him and Grant Smith for the inside left position.

Scott Golbourne looks ok going forward but a bit shaky defensively, but I'd stick with him for now with Smith inside to give him someone who will play the position properly who he can overlap.

Bridges in the hole is the most effective positioning of a player I've seen so far. Why he didn't play there on Saturday is a mystery.

Up front Brooker is strong and works hard and he works best with an intelligent player alongside him. Which with Stewart injured has to be Gillespie.

That gives a team of:

--------------------Phillips---------------------

---Keogh--------Heywood------Partridge----

Murray-----Brown-------Smith----Golbourne

------------------Bridges-----------------------

-----------Brooker--------Gillespie------------

Bench - Burch, Carey, Wilkshire, Skuse, Cotterill

Just an opinion of a fan who doesn't see the players in training. But from seeing what has and hasn't worked on the pitch, that would be my team.

[wookey]

If you don't know what that means then you are in no position to comment any further.  Anyone who has played football at all will tell you what winning the second ball means.

←

I have never heard the expression 'winning the second ball' and guess that it has been copied from Rugby.

I can suggest a definition.

Winning the second ball is to win the ball back when you have hoofed it up the field and made it a 50/50.

Please could you confirm.

[brady bunch]

several points.

Carey has actually been playing well and should stick in the centre - it was Golbourne cutting across him that caused last weeks goal.

I am 38 amd played footy for 15 years at park level, managing for 3 seasons and do not really know what "winning the second ball" means in footy terms (I could have a guess, but would it not make more sense to win the first ball??)

I am a supporter of Tinman, but after the weekend and the season already begaining to look dead for us we must change fast.

[downendcity]

I have never heard the expression 'winning the second ball' and guess that it has been copied from Rugby.

I can suggest a definition.

Winning the second ball is to win the ball back when you have hoofed it up the field and made it a 50/50.

Please could you confirm.

←

My defenition is winning the second ball is what you have to do to get the ball back when you have failed to win the first ball i.e. when a ball comes lose after a 50:50 tackle or headed ball.

The only game Ive been able to get to this season was MKD, but in that game we lost the majority of 50:50 challenges ( they scored the first from one of them) and struggled all match to win the ball back quickly. By comparison, when we gained control we promptly lost it by having a long ball as virtually the only option. That's why we had so little possession in that game, and from what I can gather Saturday seems to have been a repet performance.

Without the ball, our midfield will not be in the game, and although I felt his attitide and fitness were more than questionable, you have to say that this is the area we miss Tommy D as he did win first and second balls a lot of the time to keep us in posession.

[Chivs]

several points.

Carey has actually been playing well and should stick in the centre - it was Golbourne cutting across him that caused last weeks goal.

I am 38 amd played footy for 15 years at park level, managing for 3 seasons and do not really know what "winning the second ball" means in footy terms (I could have a guess, but would it not make more sense to win the first ball??)

I am a supporter of Tinman, but after the weekend and the season already begaining to look dead for us we must change fast.

←

I think you "win the second ball" when you "play it up the channels". Obvious really.

It's all academic though as the referee should stop the play if there's a second ball on the pitch.

[downendcity]

My defenition is winning the second ball is what you have to do to get the ball back when you have failed to win the first ball i.e. when a ball comes lose after a 50:50 tackle or headed ball.

The only game Ive been able to get to this season was MKD, but in that game we lost the majority of 50:50 challenges ( they scored the first from one of them) and struggled all match to win the ball back quickly. By comparison, when we gained control we promptly lost it by having a long ball as virtually the only option. That's why we had so little possession in that game, and from what I can gather Saturday seems to have been a repet performance.

Without the ball, our midfield will not be in the game, and although I felt his attitide and fitness were more than questionable, you have to say that this is the area we miss Tommy D as he did win first and second balls a lot of the time to keep us in posession.

←

I meant to add that if we were winning the first ball, there wouldn't be a "second ball" left to win anyway.

[Nibor]

If you don't know what that means then you are in no position to comment any further.  Anyone who has played football at all will tell you what winning the second ball means.

←

I've played football since I was in infant school for a variety of different clubs with lots of different coaches. I've watched football for 20 years. I've never heard the expression.

I can like some others guess what it means, it sounds like clearing up after mistakes basically.

Nibor

[gazareth]

"second ball" is when the ball is knocked down by defenders/strikers at one end and it runs loose. "Defending the second ball" is a common tactic used by teams who aren't good in the air - they let the opposition punt it to the big striker and concentrate on winning the knock downs.

We never win the second ball because our defence is too deep and our strikers too isolated. Watch the midfield pattern next time up - they're too far adrift from both strikers and defence meaning that they are 2nd to everything.

[Nibor]

What Tinnion needs to learn fast is that if you find something that works then stick with it. Things I think have worked so far are as follows and would form the basis of my team:

Keogh in defence looked strong and brave. However he's all right foot, so put him on the right side in place of Carey who has looked below par.

Heywood as per Keogh, so put him in the middle of a back 3.

Partridge. Ok hasn't exactly worked for us yet, but he did well enough for Wales on the left side of a 3 so put him in the position he played well in for his country.

That gives a back 3 of:

Keough----------Heywood------------Partridge

In midfield I'd stick with Scott for now as I still think he looks more likely to give an end product than Cotterill.

Scott Brown is the only player to get stuck in and show energy and commitment to get a tackle in so he has to play.

In the middle Luke hasn't been great but that may be more to do with defenders giving him a stiff neck by making him watch the ball go back and fore over his head all afternoon. Toss up between him and Grant Smith for the inside left position.

Scott Golbourne looks ok going forward but a bit shaky defensively, but I'd stick with him for now with Smith inside to give him someone who will play the position properly who he can overlap.

Bridges in the hole is the most effective positioning of a player I've seen so far. Why he didn't play there on Saturday is a mystery.

Up front Brooker is strong and works hard and he works best with an intelligent player alongside him. Which with Stewart injured has to be Gillespie.

That gives a team of:

--------------------Phillips---------------------

---Keogh--------Heywood------Partridge----

Murray-----Brown-------Smith----Golbourne

------------------Bridges-----------------------

-----------Brooker--------Gillespie------------

Bench - Burch, Carey, Wilkshire, Skuse, Cotterill

Just an opinion of a fan who doesn't see the players in training. But from seeing what has and hasn't worked on the pitch, that would be my team.

←

Agree with pretty much all of that and I think it's almost exactly the same as the team I posted before the Colchester game. I can't see many teams in this division being able to live with that side IF we keep the ball down.

Nibor

[Nibor]

"second ball" is when the ball is knocked down by defenders/strikers at one end and it runs loose. "Defending the second ball" is a common tactic used by teams who aren't good in the air - they let the opposition punt it to the big striker and concentrate on winning the knock downs.

We never win the second ball because our defence is too deep and our strikers too isolated. Watch the midfield pattern next time up - they're too far adrift from both strikers and defence meaning that they are 2nd to everything.

←

So in other words the long ball crap was intended but Tinnion thinks it went wrong because we didn't win the knock downs? That's even more frightening then.

Nibor

[gazareth]

I posted in the "midfield for Swansea" thread abuot why I think we ended up playing long ball. In a nutshell, the aforementioned "stretching" of the shape, with defence midfield and attack separated from each other and lacking fluidity, meant that when the defenders had the ball, they were finding it very tough to find a passing outlet in the midfield.

Skuse was basically sitting on top of them, making him a pointless pass, Brown was getting forward too early (meaning he would have had to have been picked out by a long ball), leaving Orr as the only viable option. The opposition closed the space behind Brown and made it difficult for short passes.

The problem was exacerbated by Murray pushing right up on the full-back alongside our strikers, meaning playing him into the game required a ball over the full back's head. Murray's best when he's running into space from deep, but he can't do that if he's playing in such an advanced position.

So, the defence gets the ball, looks up and sees no options on and chooses to launch it. The instruction to do so might not be down to Tinnion, but the fact that the midfield lacks shape and positional sense surely is.

[ziderfarmer]

I posted in the "midfield for Swansea" thread abuot why I think we ended up playing long ball. In a nutshell, the aforementioned "stretching" of the shape, with defence midfield and attack separated from each other and lacking fluidity, meant that when the defenders had the ball, they were finding it very tough to find a passing outlet in the midfield.

Skuse was basically sitting on top of them, making him a pointless pass, Brown was getting forward too early (meaning he would have had to have been picked out by a long ball), leaving Orr as the only viable option. The opposition closed the space behind Brown and made it difficult for short passes.

The problem was exacerbated by Murray pushing right up on the full-back alongside our strikers, meaning playing him into the game required a ball over the full back's head. Murray's best when he's running into space from deep, but he can't do that if he's playing in such an advanced position.

So, the defence gets the ball, looks up and sees no options on and chooses to launch it. The instruction to do so might not be down to Tinnion, but the fact that the midfield lacks shape and positional sense surely is.

←

agreed last season and the season before when doc and tinnion were in the middle they could both drop back and collect the ball and pass it around, even though they didnt getalong they used each other to good effect, bottom line is we are missing both of them cos they both knew which one was going to go deep and where the other was. i no i am going back but i think the reason docs was not as effective last season was due to tinnion not being next to him so when he was out of sorts he had no one to look to for help.

that is what is happening this season the only one looking to do summit in the middle is brown (doc) hopefully he gets stuck in and can pass a ball, skuse said"i have moulded myself on the gaffer" in one of the programmes i read, well tinnion run his nuts off to close down defenders and win the ball back why don't you do that. skuse can pass and play. what i am getting at is cole and scott can be that partnership tommy and brian were when we did so well they just have learn and maybe watch old games of docs and tinnion together, have a bust up it might work!

[Braemarstan]

I've played football since I was in infant school for a variety of different clubs with lots of different coaches.  I've watched football for 20 years.  I've never heard the expression.

I can like some others guess what it means, it sounds like clearing up after mistakes basically.

Nibor

←

Some of you boys must have led a very sheltered life footballwise if you don't know what "second ball" means.

Cast your minds back to when Tins was looking to sign Matt Heywood. He said he was looking for a "First Ball" defender. All he meant then was that he was looking for somebody to deal the balls hit long by either by the opposition keeper or one of their defenders.

Occasionally this "First Ball" defender will have enough time and space to get the ball down and pass it on to a teammate. More often than not, however, dealing with such a ball means heading it forward into midfield. It is in midfield that somebody is expected to win the "Second Ball". The man heading it out of defence has done his job by clearing his lines, somebody in midfield then has to do his job by retaining possession.

The other side of the same coin is when City hit it long and the opposition "First Ball" defender heads it back into midfield.

It is glaringly obvious that, so far this season, City's midfield has been particularly poor at retaining or winning back the "Second Ball".

Until that part of the team's play is sorted the opposition will continue to dominate possession.

[ziderfarmer]

Some of you boys must have led a very sheltered life footballwise if you don't know what "second ball" means.

Cast your minds back to when Tins was looking to sign Matt Heywood. He said he was looking for a "First Ball" defender. All he meant then was that he was looking for somebody to deal the balls hit long by either by the opposition keeper or one of their defenders.

Occasionally this "First Ball" defender will have enough time and space to get the ball down and pass it on to a teammate. More often than not, however, dealing with such a ball means heading it forward into midfield. It is in midfield that somebody is expected to win the "Second Ball". The man heading it out of defence has done his job by clearing his lines, somebody in midfield then has to do his job by retaining possession.

The other side of the same coin is when City hit it long and the opposition "First Ball" defender heads it back into midfield.

It is glaringly obvious that, so far this season, City's midfield has been particularly poor at retaining or winning back the "Second Ball".

Until that part of the team's play is sorted the opposition will continue to dominate possession.

←

someones been reading there coaching manual that is spot on and for anyone not no what it ment well never mind. a rugby term? they use the phrase loose ball. next you will be asking what a ball winner is. i no you lot no what winning the second ballis its just common sense

[usarob]

Some of you boys must have led a very sheltered life footballwise if you don't know what "second ball" means.

Cast your minds back to when Tins was looking to sign Matt Heywood. He said he was looking for a "First Ball" defender. All he meant then was that he was looking for somebody to deal the balls hit long by either by the opposition keeper or one of their defenders.

Occasionally this "First Ball" defender will have enough time and space to get the ball down and pass it on to a teammate. More often than not, however, dealing with such a ball means heading it forward into midfield. It is in midfield that somebody is expected to win the "Second Ball". The man heading it out of defence has done his job by clearing his lines, somebody in midfield then has to do his job by retaining possession.

The other side of the same coin is when City hit it long and the opposition "First Ball" defender heads it back into midfield.

It is glaringly obvious that, so far this season, City's midfield has been particularly poor at retaining or winning back the "Second Ball".

Until that part of the team's play is sorted the opposition will continue to dominate possession.

←

Perhaps you could hold coaching lessons so all the moaners can understand the game before they come on here making fools of themselves saying they do not understand the "second ball" heaven forbid if someone mentions "percentage football" and before you all ask dig out some old Wimbledon videos and you will come to understand what it is.

[BCAGFC]

First I'm going to apologise for the length of this rant. 

Second let me say that I've long been a Tinnion fan and thought that he should be given time, I like his passion and the way he cares about the club and I approved of his transfer decisions.  I wanted him to stay as manager.  After Colchester I'm sorry to say I think I'm changing my mind now. 

I see no logical explanation for some of his decisions, I don't think he actually has any tactics - the team certainly don't understand them and now in my opinion the only reason to keep him is a lack of a decent replacement.  Having listened to Tinnion's post match interview I can only conclude that he's either blind or will be standing as Screaming Lord Tinnion at the next general election.  Talk about putting a brave face on it... Let's make this clear, there was absolutely nothing whatsoever positive about Saturday's game.  Colchester were awful.  They're a team who will do well to stay out of the bottom four and probably won't, they have no threat, little talent and are run on a shoestring.  We were no better than them and despite having a few decent chances after they were taken down to 10 men they should already have been one nil up by then thanks to our "marking" such as it is.

Tinnion talks in his interview about "winning second balls".  I don't know what this means.  I do know that we will continually lose first, second, third and all the bloody balls if we hoof it over the midfield every time.  I also know that we won't get it back unless our midfield actually pressure the opposition rather than turn tail and run back to their own half to be ready for the onslaught every time we lose it.  He thinks that our failure to play anything remotely resembling football in the first half was down to Colchester playing well, being "bright".  Sorry that's rubbish.  It was down to our midfield not making themselves available for passes and our defence launching the ball into orbit every time we won possession.  Either Tinnion's instructions before the game were "ignore the midfield lads, don't want to tire them out, just hoof it every time we get the ball so we lose it again" or the players weren't paying attention.  Neither is acceptable and both are down to the manager.

Tinnion said in his programme notes about the MK Dons game that he felt that "overall the game demonstrated just what a force we can be at Ashton Gate".  Surely this was a misprint...  he must have meant farce?  He wanted to "reproduce the attacking football we have produced recently without the sloppy defending".  Sorry but bar 30 minutes against Port Vale our attacking football this season has been awful and one dimensional.  What is he watching?  We're awful in defence and lack ideas going forward, but Tins seems to think we're close to getting it right. 

Even if Tinns were right and we just needed to shore up the defence I don't understand how his selections are meant to help.  Louis Carey has been poor or worse in every game so far this season so how is playing him going to help the defence?  Bradley Orr adds precisely zero to the team defensively or going forward.  Skuse has done OK but a central midfield who are all under 21 are not going to run the game.  Bridges played excellently in the hole last week when we looked semi decent going forward for 45 minutes so he's playing up front as some sort of makeshift targetman this week? 

My views on the individual performances...

Phillips - 6 - Not bad but please release the ball early on the floor rather than holding onto it and booting it back to them.

Carey - 4 - Awful in the first half.  Poor in the second.  If I see him play that deep cross from the half way line to the opposite corner flag again I may tear out my hair.  I think someone had a word with him about it at half time because he seemed to stop in the second half and then spent most of his time wondering what to do with the ball.  Doesn't look decisive in defence either, was his man that hit the crossbar.  Drop him.

Heywood - 6 - The usual, good in the air, not the quickest on the floor.

Keogh - 7 - Looks very good, calm, good positional sense, decent in the air and a few great passes.  Needs to be less ambitious with passing sometimes.

Golbourne - 6 - Did OK when relieved of defensive responsibilities.

Murray - 6 - Ineffective now he can't outpace his full back and bottles out of tackles too much.  Did manage to put in one good cross and get a close range shot in.

Orr - 4 - Offered absolutely nothing at all during the whole game.  Only redeeming feature was he did well to get on the end of a couple of crosses, unfortunately missing easy chances twice.  Didn't make many challenges, didn't collect the ball from the defence, poor control on a number of occasions and wayward passing.  I'm sure he's a nice lad but footballer he is not.

Skuse - 6 - Quiet and off the pace for the most part, not going to dominate any midfield for a few years.  Does look to have talent but just lacks influence and experience we need in the middle at the moment.

Brown - 7 - Energetic and a few decent tackles, managed to cross a few times as well.  Laid on a great chance for Bridges after a defensive error.  Tidy passing for the most part.

Bridges - 7 - It must be extremely frustrating for a striker who's played in the Champion's league to descend to this level.  He's clearly about 5 minutes ahead of everyone else and we feed him scraps.  Bad miss early on but overall played well when we managed to give him the ball.

Brooker - 6 - Good effort while he was on but bullied off the ball quite a bit (injury showing?), usual crap service to him and to be honest he gives the rest of the team an excuse to hoof it.

Gillespie - 6 - Got into a few decent positions and looked quite sharp and intelligent.

Smith - 4 - Mainly anonymous apart from a close volley.  Play him in the centre or don't play him.  Why was he brought on for Golbourne when he could have replaced Orr?

I must reserve special comment for the referee.  I wasn't quite sure whether he was Ray Olivier or Lawrence Olivier.  He certainly knew that he was in front of a camera and seemed to think that he should take part in the game rather than referee it.  Finicky, pedantic, and some terrible decisions on fouls, the only thing this guy got right was the sending off.

All in all I had a thoroughly awful day at Ashton Gate, some irritating ##### keyed my car too.

Please Mr Tinnion, get it together and fast.

Nibor

←

Welcome to the MAJORITY Nibor.

BCAGFC

[Nibor]

Perhaps you could hold coaching lessons so all the moaners can understand the game before they come on here making fools of themselves saying they do not understand the "second ball" heaven forbid if someone mentions "percentage football" and before you all ask dig out some old Wimbledon videos and you will come to understand what it is.

←

I'd guessed what it meant I just hadn't heard the term before. I've listened to countless interviews with managers, played for dozens of coaches, watched endless hours of football and Tinnion is the only one I've heard use it. This is irrelevant anyway.

If our idea of tactics is to hoof it to the opposition centre backs so they can clear it and we can try and win the second ball then we'll be relegation fodder. It has been blatently obvious in every game so far this season that we only look dangerous when we get the ball down. I'll take Brian Clough's footballing ethos over Joe Kinnear's any day of the week.

Nibor

[Guest Frank]

I'd guessed what it meant I just hadn't heard the term before.  I've listened to countless interviews with managers, played for dozens of coaches, watched endless hours of football and Tinnion is the only one I've heard use it.  This is irrelevant anyway.

If our idea of tactics is to hoof it to the opposition centre backs so they can clear it and we can try and win the second ball then we'll be relegation fodder.  It has been blatently obvious in every game so far this season that we only look dangerous when we get the ball down.  I'll take Brian Clough's footballing ethos over Joe Kinnear's any day of the week.

Nibor

←

I think he was talking more about the fact that we didn't win the ball after Heywood and Keogh got their heads to Colchester's long balls forward. If our defence deals with the first ball but it goes straight to the opposition, we will come under even more pressure.

The idea is for the defence to win it and our midfield to pick up the loose ball. If they aren't doing that then it is hard to reorganise in time for the second ball that comes in and this is where problems can arise.

Of course the same is true at the other end. If we don't get hold of it after Brooker or Bridges knocks it down then the opposition has an easy job of reorganising and clearing their lines, but I didn't read it as meaning we were trying to play hoof ball necessarily.

[Nibor]

I think he was talking more about the fact that we didn't win the ball after Heywood and Keogh got their heads to Colchester's long balls forward. If our defence deals with the first ball but it goes straight to the opposition, we will come under even more pressure.

The idea is for the defence to win it and our midfield to pick up the loose ball. If they aren't doing that then it is hard to reorganise in time for the second ball that comes in and this is where problems can arise.

Of course the same is true at the other end. If we don't get hold of it after Brooker or Bridges knocks it down then the opposition has an easy job of reorganising and clearing their lines, but I didn't read it as meaning we were trying to play hoof ball necessarily.

←

It may not have been the intention but it was certainly what happened for the first 45 minutes - it only changed when Brooker came off and that was forced by injury. Tinnion seemed to think that Colchester forced us into it but I lost count of the number of times our defenders had an eon to decide what to do but still ended up hoofing it in the first half.

The midfield didn't make themselves available to pickup the shorter balls from defence but it's a bit chicken and egg, what's the point if they're just going to bypass you anyway?

Nibor

[Braemarstan]

I'd guessed what it meant I just hadn't heard the term before.  I've listened to countless interviews with managers, played for dozens of coaches, watched endless hours of football and Tinnion is the only one I've heard use it.  This is irrelevant anyway.

If our idea of tactics is to hoof it to the opposition centre backs so they can clear it and we can try and win the second ball then we'll be relegation fodder.  It has been blatently obvious in every game so far this season that we only look dangerous when we get the ball down.  I'll take Brian Clough's footballing ethos over Joe Kinnear's any day of the week.

Nibor

←

City having to resort to a long ball as a first resort is down directly to a lack of anybody in midfield taking responsibility for building attacks. Whenever a defender picks the ball up everybody in midfield turns and runs towards the opposition goal. Hardly the defenders' fault. Carey has been hammered for hitting aimless punts forward but what alternatives has he been given.

What's annoying Tinnion about the "Second Ball" issue is that already this season it is mindbendingly obvious that Heywood is winning 90 odd% of all long balls played forward by the opposition and yet the City midfield aren't putting themselves about enough to retain possession.

[Nibor]

City having to resort to a long ball as a first resort is down directly to a lack of anybody in midfield taking responsibility for building attacks. Whenever a defender picks the ball up everybody in midfield turns and runs towards the opposition goal. Hardly the defenders' fault. Carey has been hammered for hitting aimless punts forward but what alternatives has he been given.

What's annoying Tinnion about the "Second Ball" issue is that already this season it is mindbendingly obvious that Heywood is winning 90 odd% of all long balls played forward by the opposition and yet the City midfield aren't putting themselves about enough to retain possession.

←

As I said above there were plenty of examples in the first half where defenders had lots of time to take different options and didn't.

I agree the midfield were lacking too though.

Nibor

[Guest Frank]

It may not have been the intention but it was certainly what happened for the first 45 minutes - it only changed when Brooker came off and that was forced by injury.  Tinnion seemed to think that Colchester forced us into it but I lost count of the number of times our defenders had an eon to decide what to do but still ended up hoofing it in the first half.

The midfield didn't make themselves available to pickup the shorter balls from defence but it's a bit chicken and egg, what's the point if they're just going to bypass you anyway?

Nibor

←

In the Colchester game I think it stemmed from the fact we had two defensive minded midfielders who didn't know how to play the role. Likewise Brown didn't know how to play in the hole so was sometimes deeper than Skuse and Orr.

The personnel was all wrong in midfield for the game and 0-0 was a pretty predictable result from the off. Orr can do a job, Skuse can do a job and Brown can do a job - but not all together in the formation they were told to play in, in my opinion.

We needed a player in the middle to say 'give me the freakin' ball' when the back 3 had it. Either we didn't have one of those (which I would say was the case) or the defenders chose to ignore them. Either way it didn't work as I was sure it wouldn't when I saw the team sheet.

How many minutes passed before Skuse got a touch of the ball? I don't remember him getting a kick for at least 20 minutes.

To play passing football you need footballers who can make time on the ball and pick a pass. We didn't have one of those on Saturday until Bridges took matters into his own hands and dropped deeper as he wasn't getting a kick.

What I'm saying is - play players who can pass the ball and they will. Play 3 battlers with good engines and they will run all day with little end product, which is what we witnessed against Colchester.

[Gazred]

I still think our midfield is to blame, well the lack of one. Why oh why are we continuing to hit long balls when we get nothing from them. We have had in the last few years and I'm sure we still do have, players who can pass it around on the ground and pick a man out.

I'm yet to see him play but I'm really hoping Russel will be the one to change our fortunes in the middle. At least then we may stop bypassing the midfield.

[gazareth]

In the Colchester game I think it stemmed from the fact we had two defensive minded midfielders who didn't know how to play the role. Likewise Brown didn't know how to play in the hole so was sometimes deeper than Skuse and Orr.

The personnel was all wrong in midfield for the game and 0-0 was a pretty predictable result from the off. Orr can do a job, Skuse can do a job and Brown can do a job - but not all together in the formation they were told to play in, in my opinion.

We needed a player in the middle to say 'give me the freakin' ball' when the back 3 had it. Either we didn't have one of those (which I would say was the case) or the defenders chose to ignore them. Either way it didn't work as I was sure it wouldn't when I saw the team sheet.

How many minutes passed before Skuse got a touch of the ball? I don't remember him getting a kick for at least 20 minutes.

To play passing football you need footballers who can make time on the ball and pick a pass. We didn't have one of those on Saturday until Bridges took matters into his own hands and dropped deeper as he wasn't getting a kick.

What I'm saying is - play players who can pass the ball and they will. Play 3 battlers with good engines and they will run all day with little end product, which is what we witnessed against Colchester.

←

Absolutely spot on. Skuse has been a passenger in most of the games this season, and while I'm sure he has great potential, he must be dropped now. For large parts of matches we have been effectively been playing with 10 men because he just lets the game drift on by.

[Guest Frank]

Absolutely spot on. Skuse has been a passenger in most of the games this season, and while I'm sure he has great potential, he must be dropped now. For large parts of matches we have been effectively been playing with 10 men because he just lets the game drift on by.

←

I have absolutely nothing against Skuse. He looks a good player and when he plays I'm 100% behind him. However he looked absolutely shattered in the last 20 minutes against MK Dons, to the point where he actually looked dazed. And I saw nothing against Colchester to show me he's not still knackered.

Tinnion should give the lad a rest and explain why to him. Part of using the young players is knowing when they need to put their feet up and recharge their batteries. That time is now for Skuse. Actually that time was last week, but now will have to do.

[zidereddy]

If you don't know what that means then you are in no position to comment any further.  Anyone who has played football at all will tell you what winning the second ball means.

←

bet tinnion don't know then