Great Result, but….

[Sheltons Army]

Just now, Kid in the Riot said:

Sorry Dave, but your post comes across as joyless.

We've just won at a top 10 side away from home and one with a bigger budget than us.

We could, probably should, have been 3 or 4 up at half time.

We aren't in a place where we're capable of playing at an intensity like we did in the first half in the second as well, particularly given the amount of minutes in players legs. 

That's presumably part of the reason the change was made. 

I agree we ceded some control of the game, at the same time I thought we defended very well - and we have that in our locker. 

I don't recall many Boro clear-cut chances,  they had their first goal correctly ruled out and then scored a fluke.

If you're angry about that then you must've missed a lot of very bad City performances over the years. Either that, or experienced a lot of anger!

I think that’s the most sensible explanation I have seen suggested KITR

Its what I thought Manning may say

I guess the question is ( In the overall in game management debate ) is whether that change aided us or hampered us in second half.

If you are correct in why the change , the circumstances of the Cup game etc may mean it’s a difficult one to judge in the overall debate 

( Just listening to the various and opposing views )

[UncleRed]

People on here post questioning the desire of the fans, and sometimes suggest they’re happier when they lose, and angrier when they win.

Can see why now

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, 2015 said:

Usually agree with Davefevs but I think today you have to bare in mind most of those players did just play a lot of 120 minutes 3 days ago. 

It was an all round good performance imo

Didn't they say that the only players on the pitch by the end that had played the whole 120 was Dickie and Vyner? 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Sorry Dave, but your post comes across as joyless.

We've just won at a top 10 side away from home and one with a bigger budget than us.

We could, probably should, have been 3 or 4 up at half time.

We aren't in a place where we're capable of playing at an intensity like we did in the first half in the second as well, particularly given the amount of minutes in players legs. 

That's presumably part of the reason the change was made. 

I agree we ceded some control of the game, at the same time I thought we defended very well - and we have that in our locker. 

I don't recall many Boro clear-cut chances,  they had their first goal correctly ruled out and then scored a fluke.

If you're angry about that then you must've missed a lot of very bad City performances over the years. Either that, or experienced a lot of anger!

I’m only on about the second half.  Because it was the polar opposite of the first half,

I’m dead happy tonight, we won, we broke our winless run….

….its worth reading my opening post again.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t think we did defend well.  Sunderland we defended well, today, second half we didn’t. Imho.  Sunderland never opened us up.  Boro did.

Out of interest, what was weaker about our eleven today?  We have a fairly similar ability squad in general.  Pring, TGH back in today for example.

No we didn't. They had a goal ruled out which looks like it should have stood and they scored. We then had to call upon Max. 

We had some luck. We held on but I'm not sure it's correct to say we defended well second half. 

[joe jordans teeth]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It is much the same players.

Anyway I can't be bothered for a long back and forth on history of managers. I'm happy we won finally, credit to Manning for the team selection in particular, 2nd half we'll all have our own views on, pros and cons etc.

Of course,had cornick and bell not missed sitters that win could of been huge,if it is down to boro being dogcrap or our manager saying have a go only time will tell 

[UncleRed]

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

Boro had 76% posession sexond half. 

If you've ever played football you'd know that constantly chasing a ball for the majority of the second half is incredibly tiring. No rest bite. 

Constantly chasing the ball? But you keep question why we sat in and defended for 45 minutes?

Make your mind up.

Chasing the ball would be if we did what you wanted them to do and counter press. Instead we sat deep and minimised movement and relied on concentration levels, which were superb from the starters and the bench.

[Red Army 75]

 

[phantom]

56 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

A huge sense of disappointment, frustration and anger about the second half performance.

No problem with a half-time sub (assume Cornick a knock), but why the change in shape from the first half where we controlled so much of the 45 mins?

They played through us, around us, behind us.  We had no answer.  CB spacing went to pot as they slid in their forwards.

To end, well done though, three points, winless run over, a big boost after a tough set of fixtures.

And chilllllllllll.

I'd say it was pretty obvious we had to sit back more defensively, we had a lead we could sit on, boro would clearly come at us and we would have to manage players knackered not just from recent minutes played but also from the distances travelled 

We weren't under any serious pressure in the sec half and it was only a fortunate deflection in added time that broke through 

Great to see performances improving and great game management 

[And Its Smith]

9 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Sorry Dave, but your post comes across as joyless.

We've just won at a top 10 side away from home and one with a bigger budget than us.

We could, probably should, have been 3 or 4 up at half time.

We aren't in a place where we're capable of playing at an intensity like we did in the first half in the second as well, particularly given the amount of minutes in players legs. 

That's presumably part of the reason the change was made. 

I agree we ceded some control of the game, at the same time I thought we defended very well - and we have that in our locker. 

I don't recall many Boro clear-cut chances,  they had their first goal correctly ruled out and then scored a fluke.

If you're angry about that then you must've missed a lot of very bad City performances over the years. Either that, or experienced a lot of anger!

Spot on. They created 2 good chances I would say and scored a lucky goal. The context of the game needs to be remembered. Wednesday would have been shattering 

[phantom]

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

Boro had 76% posession sexond half. 

If you've ever played football you'd know that constantly chasing a ball for the majority of the second half is incredibly tiring. No rest bite. 

Wouldn't agree we were chasing the ball, first half we were second half we dropped deeper, naturally giving boro more of the ball but they didn't hurt us with this possession and on many times over played things 

[UncleRed]

1 minute ago, phantom said:

I'd say it was pretty obvious we had to sit back more defensively, we had a lead we could sit on, boro would clearly come at us and we would have to manage players knackered not just from recent minutes played but also from the distances travelled 

We weren't under any serious pressure in the sec half and it was only a fortunate deflection in added time that broke through 

Great to see performances improving and great game management 

Would of thought it was pretty obvious.

[Jeez]

Felt like it was a wise move to sit in straight after the break as Boro would no doubt come for us. But to remain like that was suicidal,  we got away with it but looked like far more effort defending for 45 like that, fair play to the lads for digging in.

We needed the win, I can see the rationale but still thought it was a mental tactical change for the whole half.

[Port Said Red]

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

Boro had 76% posession sexond half. 

If you've ever played football you'd know that constantly chasing a ball for the majority of the second half is incredibly tiring. No rest bite. 

But we didn't chase the ball, we sat back in a shape that they struggled to breakdown. yes they did some pretty stuff around the edge of the box, but we had numbers in and around the 6 yard box that coped with 99% of what came in.

[phantom]

Just now, Jeez said:

Felt like it was a wise move to sit in straight after the break as Boro would no doubt come for us. But to remain like that was suicidal,  we got away with it but looked like far more effort defending for 45 like that, fair play to the lads for digging in.

We needed the win, I can see the rationale but still thought it was a mental tactical change for the whole half.

Wouldn't use the phrase "got away with it", it's how teams sit in, dig in and defend the lead you have 

[joe jordans teeth]

Just now, phantom said:

Wouldn't agree we were chasing the ball, first half we were second half we dropped deeper, naturally giving boro more of the ball but they didn't hurt us with this possession and on many times over played things 

Either Dave has been watching to much prem football or massively overrates our squad 

[Sir Geoff]

18 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

We didn't play badly, we defended well. We just showed a different aspect to our game

Did you read para 3 of OP ?

[Rudolf Hucker]

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Spot on. They created 2 good chances I would say and scored a lucky goal. The context of the game needs to be remembered. Wednesday would have been shattering 

I think that LM would also be looking to conserve energy for Tuesday’s match against the divisions form team. Three games in seven days. 

[Jeez]

1 minute ago, phantom said:

Wouldn't use the phrase "got away with it", it's how teams sit in, dig in and defend the lead you have 

Fair enough, but a team of Boro’s quality we were one slip away from conceding, saved by the offside call the limo must have had excellent vision as it looked like Greenwood was inside.

[Kid in the Riot]

7 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

I think that’s the most sensible explanation I have seen suggested KITR

Its what I thought Manning may say
I guess the question is ( In the overall in game management debate ) is whether that change aided us or hampered us in second half.

If you are correct in why the change , the circumstances of the Cup game etc may mean it’s a difficult one to judge in the overall debate 
( Just listening to the various and opposing views )

I think we were just trying to defend a lead, which isn't exactly an unusual or controversial tactic. Especially for a squad that has played a lot of football, and is playing away from home at a decent team.

To defend a lead you need either more defenders on the pitch, more players in defensive positions, or both.

I assume that's what Manning had in mind, and ultimately it worked. 

[JAWS]

10 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Of course,had cornick and bell not missed sitters that win could of been huge,if it is down to boro being dogcrap or our manager saying have a go only time will tell 

Cornick missing a sitter? Really? 

[phantom]

1 minute ago, Sir Geoff said:

Did you read para 3 of OP ?

See below 

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

They played through us, around us, behind us.  We had no answer.  CB spacing went to pot as they slid in their forwards

The above is certainly not how I saw the game 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Out of interest, what was weaker about our eleven today?  We have a fairly similar ability squad in general.  Pring, TGH back in today for example.

I think those two are a good example of where we weren't weaker, but starting a tiered Bell Infront of Tanner, Wells/Knight up top over Conway/Wells I would assume is down to Knight recovering better.  Cornick over Anis who's been good recently, I would also assume is down to recovery.  McCrorie over Tanner for me in that shape.  There were lots of changes not surprising given that recovery for different individuals will have played a role.

[2015]

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

Didn't they say that the only players on the pitch by the end that had played the whole 120 was Dickie and Vyner? 

How many games have these players played in the last month though? Absolutely loads. We earned those 3 points today and deserved it.

[Sir Geoff]

1 minute ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

I think that LM would also be looking to conserve energy for Tuesday’s match against the divisions form team. Three games in seven days. 

Why risk the 3 points you have 'in the bag.' Surely better to make sure you win this one and let Tuesday take care of its self. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

Just now, 2015 said:

How many games have these players played in the last month though? Absolutely loads. We earned those 3 points today and deserved it.

Hate this excuse. Its the same for everyone else. 

[UncleRed]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

Hate this excuse. Its the same for everyone else. 

It’s not the same for everyone else though? We’ve played one more than some teams in our league and we had 3rd and 4th round replays.

Think. Please.

[Sheltons Army]

3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I think we were just trying to defend a lead, which isn't exactly an unusual or controversial tactic.

Not a general approach I favour KITR , and certainly if at all if and when you are forced to , not at half time , if what you’re doing is working keep doing it 

Especially for a squad that has played a lot of football, and is playing away from home at a decent team

But - maybe an argument in this case due to above .

To defend a lead you need either more defenders on the pitch, more players in defensive positions, or both.

I assume that's what Manning had in mind, and ultimately it worked. 

 

Edited February 10 by Sheltons Army

[Rudolf Hucker]

1 minute ago, Sir Geoff said:

Surely better to make sure you win this one

He did. We did. 

[phantom]

2 minutes ago, Jeez said:

Fair enough, but a team of Boro’s quality we were one slip away from conceding, saved by the offside call the limo must have had excellent vision as it looked like Greenwood was inside.

Interesting about the offside I've not seen anything to show it was a mistake by the linesman 

Ultimately it didn't count so it's irrelevant 

You could say we were a slip away from conceding but equally we were fine margins away from scoring more goals in the first half 

1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I assume that's what Manning had in mind, and ultimately it worked. 

There's still a strong feeling that some posters can't praise Manning. 

[joe jordans teeth]

2 minutes ago, JAWS said:

Cornick missing a sitter? Really? 

tbf apart from that he played well I thought 

[Port Said Red]

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

Hate this excuse. Its the same for everyone else. 

They won, they don't need an excuse. What is your ******* problem? 

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Port Said Red said:

They won, they don't need an excuse. What is your ******* problem? 

Firstly your tone and secondly us playing 3/5 at the back. Yours? 

Edited February 10 by W-S-M Seagull

[Sir Geoff]

1 minute ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

He did. We did. 

He didn't know that at half time, though

[Kibs]

I don’t like the system (3 or 5 at the back) but I think for Mannning, it was about getting the right players on the pitch. 

Boro were always going to come out flying second half and they had to improve. Obviously we were always going to tire too, but we earned the right to defend the lead and ultimately, it worked.

Nothing short of a sensational effort IMO. Back home early hours Thursday, travelling up north again Friday so barely no recovery or preparation. 

I’ve got zero complaints!!! COYRs!

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Either Dave has been watching to much prem football or massively overrates our squad 

No, and no.

[Port Said Red]

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

Firstly your tone and secondly us playing 3/5 at the back. Yours? 

That you continue to be a ***...... 

[joe jordans teeth]

4 minutes ago, phantom said:

Interesting about the offside I've not seen anything to show it was a mistake by the linesman 

Ultimately it didn't count so it's irrelevant 

You could say we were a slip away from conceding but equally we were fine margins away from scoring more goals in the first half 

There's still a strong feeling that some posters can't praise Manning. 

Without repeating myself I was a big Pearson fan but some of the negativity should be aimed at the pillocks running the club,Manning is doing ok,if Pearson was still in charge would a thread like this even be started 

Edited February 10 by joe jordans teeth

[Andy082005]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

A huge sense of disappointment, frustration and anger about the second half performance.

No problem with a half-time sub (assume Cornick a knock), but why the change in shape from the first half where we controlled so much of the 45 mins?

They played through us, around us, behind us.  We had no answer.  CB spacing went to pot as they slid in their forwards.

To end, well done though, three points, winless run over, a big boost after a tough set of fixtures.

And chilllllllllll.

Some people just like to moan….

[Rudolf Hucker]

3 minutes ago, phantom said:

There's still a strong feeling that some posters can't praise Manning. 

Ain’t that the truth. 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, 2015 said:

We earned those 3 points today and deserved it.

Yep, I always say every point earned by Bristol City in the championship is a well earned point.

We did earn it today too.  We did more than enough first half, we made unnecessarily hard work of it is all I’m trying to say in my OP.

[Severn Beach Pigeon]

5 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

They won, they don't need an excuse. What is your ******* problem? 

How long of a list do you want?

[JAWS]

Tbh there is some logic to switching things around at half time when ahead to bluff the opposition manager as, in theory, he would be putting a plan in place to counter the way we were playing in the first half. However if we can see things aren't working then we should be looking to change mid game. I guess while we always had the luxury of a 2 goal cushion we had a buffer so as not to panic. If boro had scored earlier then maybe LM would've changed things again. Who knows!? But overall he's got us into a 2 goal lead at a tough place & after the exertions of the recent overload so fair play. The 3 or 5 did work OK against West ham, Watford and Forest but the 3 reverted to a 5 v Leeds & it seems it did so again today and when you play with a 3 & 5 there will always be a tendency to drop into a 5 & 3 as those wide players are invariably fullbacks by trade. Let's hope LM learns lessons by testing things & we certainly have the basis of a good squad just lacking that bit of quality up top.

[Port Said Red]

5 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

tbf apart from that he played well I thought 

I thought it was a top class save. I also thought Bell was a little unlucky in that the pass meant he got to the ball about a metre from the goalkeeper and he had no room to do much but try and hit it through him.

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

That you continue to be a ***...... 

Why you getting personal about footballing opinions? 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, JAWS said:

Tbh there is some logic to switching things around at half time when ahead to bluff the opposition manager as, in theory, he would be putting a plan in place to counter the way we were playing in the first half. However if we can see things aren't working then we should be looking to change mid game. I guess while we always had the luxury of a 2 goal cushion we had a buffer so as not to panic. If boro had scored earlier then maybe LM would've changed things again. Who knows!? But overall he's got us into a 2 goal lead at a tough place & after the exertions of the recent overload so fair play. The 3 or 5 did work OK against West ham, Watford and Forest but the 3 reverted to a 5 v Leeds & it seems it did so again today and when you play with a 3 & 5 there will always be a tendency to drop into a 5 & 3 as those wide players are invariably fullbacks by trade. Let's hope LM learns lessons by testing things & we certainly have the basis of a good squad just lacking that bit of quality up top.

Top response mate

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of the change in tactics at HT/post HT,I haven't listened so much to Forever Bristol City but Ian Gay's take and possibly mental gymnastics on it will be an interesting one to tune in for.

[IAmNick]

No issue with us defending a lead at all but I was surprised we barely even got to put our foot on the ball for a couple of five minute periods to regain our concentration/have a rest/take the sting out. It felt pretty full on defending to me.

There's defending a lead, and inviting a level of pressure which you can't sustain... I felt we were getting towards to latter at times. Really glad they held out but it didn't feel entirely controlled to me as those defensive performances sometimes can.

[2015]

5 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Without repeating myself I was a big Pearson fan but some of the negativity should be aimed at the pillocks running the club,Manning is doing ok,if Pearson was still in charge would a thread like this even be started 

I feel the same way. It aint Manning's fault he was given the job. If we won today and Pearson was in charge we'd all be happy (maybe except for Ian).

[Port Said Red]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

Why you getting personal about footballing opinions? 

Here we go, always playing the victim. 

You have an opinion that's obvious, what you don't have is any ability to waiver from that opinion when it's proved completely wrong. You are the absolute opposite of a anyone who should be on a forum, you are incapable of debate, only contradiction.

[joe jordans teeth]

2 minutes ago, 2015 said:

I feel the same way. It aint Manning's fault he was given the job. If we won today and Pearson was in charge we'd all be happy (maybe except for Ian).

Can tell you right now if big Nige was in charge it would of been the perfect performance but for some reason this wasn’t and needed calling out 

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Port Said Red said:

Here we go, always playing the victim. 

You have an opinion that's obvious, what you don't have is any ability to waiver from that opinion when it's proved completely wrong. You are the absolute opposite of a anyone who should be on a forum, you are incapable of debate, only contradiction.

Why are you so triggered about someone disliking us playing 3/5 at the back? 

You seem to have a real issue with differing opinions. 

If you didnt send things such as the below then youll not be called out on it.

"What is your ******* problem?"

"That you continue to be a ***...... "

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Port Said Red]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

Why are you so triggered about someone disliking us playing 3/5 at the back? 

You seem to have a real issue with differing opinions. 

If you didnt send things such as the below then youll not be called out on it.

"What is your ******* problem?"

"That you continue to be a ***...... "

Playing with a 3 or a 5 has worked for us before, why do you have such a problem with it? I don't have a problem with a different opinion if it comes from a sensible place, but I, the rest of this Forum and especially you, know that you are completely one eyed and every "opinion" you state stems from the fact you can't accept your man is no longer here.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Port Said Red said:

Playing with a 3 or a 5 has worked for us before, why do you have such a problem with it? I don't have a problem with a different opinion if it comes from a sensible place, but I, the rest of this Forum and especially you, know that you are completely one eyed and every "opinion" you state stems from the fact you can't accept your man is no longer here.

Have a nice evening mate. 

[Ivorguy]

8 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Can tell you right now if big Nige was in charge it would of been the perfect performance but for some reason this wasn’t and needed calling out 

The reason is obvious JL& BT over promised.  Thus some expect more than is likely to be delivered.

I remain a huge fan of Nige but now feel that Manning is doing the same as Nige, ie attempting to make silk purses out of sows’ ears.  If Manning keeps us up, as I anticipate he will, he will have achieved what Nige would have done. No more, no less.

There is unlikely to be improvement unless we stop selling our best players and invest in some quality ones.  We could have Klopp as manager and it wouldn’t make much of a difference to where we end up this season,

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Port Said Red]

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

Have a nice evening mate. 

I always do after a win, let's not forget that what it was.

[Antman]

13 minutes ago, JAWS said:

Tbh there is some logic to switching things around at half time when ahead to bluff the opposition manager as, in theory, he would be putting a plan in place to counter the way we were playing in the first half. However if we can see things aren't working then we should be looking to change mid game. I guess while we always had the luxury of a 2 goal cushion we had a buffer so as not to panic. If boro had scored earlier then maybe LM would've changed things again. Who knows!? But overall he's got us into a 2 goal lead at a tough place & after the exertions of the recent overload so fair play. The 3 or 5 did work OK against West ham, Watford and Forest but the 3 reverted to a 5 v Leeds & it seems it did so again today and when you play with a 3 & 5 there will always be a tendency to drop into a 5 & 3 as those wide players are invariably fullbacks by trade. Let's hope LM learns lessons by testing things & we certainly have the basis of a good squad just lacking that bit of quality up top.

agree.

I was hugely disappointed with Conways contribution when he came on. sure, he was getting the ball played to his feet, but he neither pressed not tackled back, rather drifted around not offering very much (did a lot of pointing though) compare to Wells who also rarely gets the ball played into feet, but is much much wiser at positioning himself to interfere with play, he tackles back and chases lost causes much more effectively.

Without any forward threat whatsoever, the ball was just coming straight back at us all half. one of the reasons we spent so much time defending. Mehmeti also offered little by way of intelligence in the situation too IMO, but at least tackled back.

I would have subbed Conway and thrown the new kid on personally.

he looked like he wasn't interested

Just now, Antman said:

agree.

I was hugely disappointed with Conways contribution when he came on. sure, he WASNT getting the ball played to his feet, but he neither pressed not tackled back, rather drifted around not offering very much (did a lot of pointing though) compare to Wells who also rarely gets the ball played into feet, but is much much wiser at positioning himself to interfere with play, he tackles back and chases lost causes much more effectively.

Without any forward threat whatsoever, the ball was just coming straight back at us all half. one of the reasons we spent so much time defending. Mehmeti also offered little by way of intelligence in the situation too IMO, but at least tackled back.

I would have subbed Conway and thrown the new kid on personally.

he looked like he wasn't interested

 

[CityCiderEd]

14 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I thought it was a top class save. I also thought Bell was a little unlucky in that the pass meant he got to the ball about a metre from the goalkeeper and he had no room to do much but try and hit it through him.

The keeper was already going down to his left before Bell shot. Seen it a few times now and it looked a lot easier to round the keeper and roll the ball in with his left foot. I also thought him and Harry caused them lots of problems. 

If we'd gone in at ht 4 up nobody would mention the change of tactics..... Let's just savour the win. 

[Antman]

where's the edit facility gone?

Just now, CityCiderEd said:

The keeper was already going down to his left before Bell shot. Seen it a few times now and it looked a lot easier to round the keeper and roll the ball in with his left foot. I also thought him and Harry caused them lots of problems. 

If we'd gone in at ht 4 up nobody would mention the change of tactics..... Let's just savour the win. 

to me, Bell just hesitated at the wrong moment, also think he could have knocked it around him.

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Can tell you right now if big Nige was in charge it would of been the perfect performance but for some reason this wasn’t and needed calling out 

This is the reason I mentioned Sunderland - UNDER MANNING.  That was a controlled defensive performance in that second half.  All Sunderland could do was create from a couple of set-pieces.  Imho that was chalk and cheese to today.

The manager is irrelevant.

As per someone else’s post, you earn the right if you play so well first half and go in two-nil up.  But it was far from convincing defending.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

The reason is obvious JL& BT over promised.  Thus some expect more than is likely to be delivered.

I remain a huge fan of Nige but now feel that Manning is doing the same as Nige, ie attempting to make silk purses out of sows’ ears.  If Manning keeps us up, as I anticipate he will, he will have achieved what Nige would have done. No more, no less.

There is unlikely to be improvement unless we stop selling our best players and invest in some quality ones.  We could have Klopp as manager and it wouldn’t make much of a difference to where we end up this season,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mostly agree albeit if we stick with a framework that suits us and at worst sell Conway- the final year of his contract..and we don't try too much upheaval ie James, Williams, King leaving in one summer Could be some then under Manning we could continue to progress and build.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

This is the reason I mentioned Sunderland - UNDER MANNING.  That was a controlled defensive performance in that second half.  All Sunderland could do was create from a couple of set-pieces.  Imho that was chalk and cheese to today.

The manager is irrelevant.

As per someone else’s post, you earn the right if you play so well first half and go in two-nil up.  But it was far from convincing defending.

Yes good example.

I was never as concerned as some post Sunderland. We did absorb a fair bit of pressure but at the same time didn't feel like Sunderland would score.

An element of that was perhaps due to their lack of a top class striker too- put Stewart, Simms/Geldhardt and Diallo in and it could play out quite differently but thought we had that under control that day.

Edited February 10 by Mr Popodopolous

[JBFC II]

Just on my way back from the Riverside, very surprised to see this thread.

Ultimately we were superb in the first half, should have been out of sight come half time.

Second half we sat deeper, let them have the ball and we focused on getting bodies in the way, which we did excellently. You have to expect them to come out fighting, Carrick would have put a rocket up their arses at half time. However, we were far from awful. 

Our shape was good, more than happy for them to have the ball outside the box and try to get crosses in, as long as we deal with things, which we did. Max made a couple of good saves, but they didn't really have any clear cut chances bar the goal.

It was an impressive away performance, we always looked a threat on the break, took our goals well and defended compactly against a very good side.

I do feel like this thread wouldn't have happened under Pearson, Manning rightly gets stick after performances like Leeds at home, but he should also rightly get praise after performances like today 

Edited February 10 by JBFC II

[Silvio Dante]

Having not seen the game, and as someone who has expressed doubts over Liam’s in game management, I’m just posting here to say I’m not hiding - I just don’t think I’m appropriately qualified to comment today so will leave the debate to the rest of you!

[The Original OTIB]

17 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Can tell you right now if big Nige was in charge it would of been the perfect performance but for some reason this wasn’t and needed calling out 

Think we have to factor in that Manning really was desperate for a win, not that he would say that of course. No doubt thought that subs would cement control or at least add energy. Did not entirely prove to be so however. Not one to over analyse, one to applaud.

[redkev]

10 minutes ago, Antman said:

agree.

I was hugely disappointed with Conways contribution when he came on. sure, he was getting the ball played to his feet, but he neither pressed not tackled back, rather drifted around not offering very much (did a lot of pointing though) compare to Wells who also rarely gets the ball played into feet, but is much much wiser at positioning himself to interfere with play, he tackles back and chases lost causes much more effectively.

Without any forward threat whatsoever, the ball was just coming straight back at us all half. one of the reasons we spent so much time defending. Mehmeti also offered little by way of intelligence in the situation too IMO, but at least tackled back.

I would have subbed Conway and thrown the new kid on personally.

he looked like he wasn't interested

 

I do like Tommy but I do get the feeling sometimes he thinks he’s better than he is , very early in his career and needs to put the hard yards in ( deffo quality player in there though ) just think with scotty moving it’s turned his head a little 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, JBFC II said:

I do feel like this thread wouldn't have happened under Pearson, Manning rightly gets stuck after performances like Leeds at home, but he should also rightly get praise after performances like today 

They happened under him too.  Unfortunately some of those posters who had it in for Nige wouldn’t have created any positive posts re other aspects of the game like I did.

[Rudolf Hucker]

31 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

He didn't know that at half time, though

… and neither did you or I. Had LM made no change and as a result, we’d drawn or lost, you’d have been the first to complain (actually probably the second, after the WSM fella). He made changes, we won.

We should all be happy tonight - unless, of course, it doesn’t suit our agenda to be happy with LM?

[NewquayRed]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

A huge sense of disappointment, frustration and anger about the second half performance.

No problem with a half-time sub (assume Cornick a knock), but why the change in shape from the first half where we controlled so much of the 45 mins?

They played through us, around us, behind us.  We had no answer.  CB spacing went to pot as they slid in their forwards.

To end, well done though, three points, winless run over, a big boost after a tough set of fixtures.

And chilllllllllll.

Game of two halves, first was seemingly just enough better than the first, 3pts boom 

[bcfc01]

7 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Having not seen the game, and as someone who has expressed doubts over Liam’s in game management, I’m just posting here to say I’m not hiding - I just don’t think I’m appropriately qualified to comment today so will leave the debate to the rest of you!

Thanks for that