Great Result, but….

[Mr Popodopolous]

To me, looking at it objectively good and bad today..

Obviously the win but beyond that.

Good

*A sensible team selection.

*A suitable starting shape.

*Getting something more out of Knight again ie his improved goal return has been a positive.

Not so good

*The change in shape..perhaps ceded the initiative somewhat.

*The sheer lack of ball and chances that this brought about.

Yes Manning deserves credit for the good, as he deserves analysis for the other side.

Edited February 10 by Mr Popodopolous

[lenred]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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.

Let’s be better than them though Dave.  Those who know what you mean know but it’s not going to wash with the anti Pearson crew!   I didn’t watch today, but I did watch us go toe to toe with Forest on Wednesday and be the better team and ultimately come away with **** all.  To go away to Boro and get a win is superb however it happened. So let’s enjoy it!  (I know you are btw)

[George Rs]

Don’t really understand this tbh, playing well doesn’t just mean creating chances or being in control? 
 

The personnel change was more of an issue for me rather than the tactical. Cornick had probably his best half of football for us today and only played 60 v Forest. 
 

From my eyes, it was a commited defensive performance more than a structured one. Personally I don’t have a problem with that, we got the result either way and we’re unlucky not to keep the clean sheet too. 
 

Manning recognised that the borough that came out second half weren’t going to play like they did in the first. So he preemptively made changes, is that not a good thing? 
 

Was a good performance, not a pretty one. If that’s what it takes for us to win games I have no problem with it. 

[JBFC II]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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.

Perhaps they did, can't fully remember many after unexpected wins like today.

My point there was that Manning gets stick when we lose, huge threads complaining about our performances (rightly so in many instances), having another thread complaining about aspects of our performance when we've won just seems unnecessarily harsh, it's the sort of thing I can't remember happening under Pearson. There's stuff to work on from today, of course there is, but it's hardly the sort of performance to be angry about imo

[Robbored]

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!

Neither am I appropriately qualified having listened the game on RB but it’s not rocket science to know that a team 0-2 at home will come out second 45, fired up and on the front foot. It’s no surprise that that City’s performances were different between the first and second halves.

The Boro goal was very fortunate and made the last few mins very tense.

An important 3 points for sure especially as the City players were running on empty towards the end.

 

[MarcusX]

2 hours 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.

Same on Wednesday, we made the subs and changed shape (in part due to personnel) and lost control for the last half hour of normal time.

Musf admit I haven’t seen today or read anything yet, except catching a bit of radio bristol and your opening post, but my initial excitement at the result seems like it doesn’t tell the full picture

but points are points!

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Neither am I appropriately qualified having listened the game on RB but it’s not rocket science to know that a team 0-2 at home will come out second 45, fired up and on the front foot. It’s no surprise that that City’s performances were different between the first and second halves.

The Boro goal was very fortunate and made the last few mins very tense.

An important 3 points for sure especially as the City players were running on empty towards the end.

 

The question I have tho is this, did Boro come out fired up? Or did us changing our shape and therefore our mentality cause them to come out fired up and on the front foot? 

[johnheadbcfc]

This forum

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

but points are points!

Indeed.  And just like when we might lose, there are positives to take, and I’ll post about them, there is nothing wrong to critique a win and some “less than good” parts.

[redsquirrel]

as a pearson lover,i will be the first to go and say 'well done Liam, from cov,leeds,boro and saints, i didnt see us getting a single point, to have 4 on the board and a great performance at forest in the bank deserves credit so  there it is. Well done.

 

[George Rs]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

The question I have tho is this, did Boro come out fired up? Or did us changing our shape and therefore our mentality cause them to come out fired up and on the front foot? 

They came out fired up. No matter what a team 0-2 at home to a team they think they should beat will come out second half determined to change their fortunes. 
 

 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, George Rs said:

They came out fired up. No matter what a team 0-2 at home to a team they think they should beat will come out second half determined to change their fortunes. 
 

 

And in fairness we should react to that.  But we didn’t.

[George Rs]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Indeed.  And just like when we might lose, there are positives to take, and I’ll post about them, there is nothing wrong to critique a win and some “less than good” parts.

Correct. Funnily enough something LM talks about quite a lot, never getting to high up or too low, taking both the positives and things to work on no matter the result. 
 

I just think I disagree about what makes a good defensive performance personally, but don’t have a problem critiquing a win. 

[The Fat Controller]

27 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!

When did not being in possession of the facts make anyone unqualified to post on OTIB. 

Posts and comments from people not appropriately qualified are absolutely the lifeblood of this place.

I demand to know your thoughts on today's game. 

[joe jordans teeth]

24 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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.

Bit childish that Dave if you are doing it for tit for tat,you are better than that 

[Robbored]

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

The question I have tho is this, did Boro come out fired up? Or did us changing our shape and therefore our mentality cause them to come out fired up and on the front foot? 

Of course they did - any team would and the change of shape was probably down to Manning anticipating what Boro would do - and it worked.

[sh1t_ref_again]

Well to read this its just as well we did not lose or draw as would have been a major melt down

I watched the game, its possible to say the shape change handed them some initiative, but equally we do not know what would have happened had we not changed, a part from  loads of threads saying why did we not change and look after our lead if we ended up with 1 or 0 points.

I think its very unlikely we could have kept up the pressing and closing down we did in the 1st half to create the control we had, especially as tiredness kicked in and Boro were also unlikely to be as bad after a rocket at half time.

It was a superb attacking and defensive performance and don't think criticism is deserved particularly after 120minutes against a prem team, where we were the better side

Only negative I had during the game was how lazy Conway was, he must have been close to being subbed as a sub 

[ashton_fan]

It could just be that LM remembered the reverse fixture where Boro changed their tactics after half time and we lost our two goal lead after five minutes and he was criticised for not reacting. He may well have told the team to keep things tight at the start until we saw what their approach would be, it was fairly predictable we wouldn't have it as easy. In the first half Cornick was obviously told he'd be off at half time so put maximum effort into the first 45 minutes and he was involved in most of our good moves during that period.

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And in fairness we should react to that.  But we didn’t.

That’s debatable Dave. City changed shape second half in anticipation of how Boro would come out second half.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, because I don’t expect us to play that badly.

It used to be said that the mark of a good team is that they can play badly and win…

I’d be more angry if we played well and lost.

[Curr Avon]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Fatigued or not, we played badly second half…that is the point of the thread.

Can we not critique the team and the Head Coach’s tactics?

 

 

Yes, and it's welcome. How can we improve without critiquing the bad points. Keep up the good work Dave.

[JP Hampton]

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

Manning "the plan worked well first half" 

So why did we change that plan then? 

 So the manager recognised what worked the first half. I think from viewing the game, it was an attacking game and domination of the first half. Wasn’t expecting any change unless we needed to in response to Middlesborough’s changes. 
 

 If Cornick was replaced due to injury? then fair enough if not any change, it really felt like “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it”.

 I guess you could take the first half as a glass half full, that we defended really well everything they came at us with, but as others have said attacking is always better than defending and we too often end games on a knife edge despite leading 2-0. 
 

 I think what people want to know and see is that we can play like we did in the first half and maintain it. We won’t always be able to defend like that against better teams. 

  Overall well played, they were clearly tired and I see something emerging but areas to work on for sure.  

 

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Bit childish that Dave if you are doing it for tit for tat,you are better than that 

Not being childish one little bit.  And most certainly not posting anything for tit for tat.

Today’s opinions from me are:

Tanner was ace

Wells and Knight pressed brilliantly.

Team were ace 1st half

Set-up 2nd have was poor and contributed to an uncomfortable end to a game.

Overall; great result.

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Of course they did - any team would and the change of shape was probably down to Manning anticipating what Boro would do - and it worked.

I'm not sure that's correct. 

You're saying it's a given that any team would come put fired up after half time and on the front foot? I've watched thousands of football games and I can certainly say that's not always the case. 

The question I put forward to you was which you didn't answer was, how much did Boro put on pressure and how much did we invite pressure? 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

It used to be said that the mark of a good team is that they can play badly and win…

I’d be more angry if we played well and lost.

Might be worth reading my OP and Title.

I’m only feeling what I posted about the second half.  There’s a broader context of tye whole game in my post just above this one!

[Bar BS3]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And in fairness we should react to that.  But we didn’t.

Isn't that exactly what we did do & what you are criticising..?

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Bar BS3 said:

Isn't that exactly what we did do & what you are criticising..?

No, not imho we didn’t.  We didn’t react at all to what became one way traffic.

[Robbored]

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

I'm not sure that's correct. 

You're saying it's a given that any team would come put fired up after half time and on the front foot? I've watched thousands of football games and I can certainly say that's not always the case. 

The question I put forward to you was which you didn't answer was, how much did Boro put on pressure and how much did we invite pressure? 

That’s a chicken and egg question Seagull - who know………….

Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

 

[Cov 77]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not being childish one little bit.  And most certainly not posting anything for tit for tat.

Today’s opinions from me are:

Tanner was ace

Wells and Knight pressed brilliantly.

Team were ace 1st half

Set-up 2nd have was poor and contributed to an uncomfortable end to a game.

Overall; great result.

 

Okay points made then , time to leave it ? 

[JBFC II]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

No, not imho we didn’t.  We didn’t react at all to what became one way traffic.

We attempted to by bringing on McCrorie and moving to 3 at the back and congesting the middle. I don't think we had the options on the bench to properly react to it, we ended up going a bit deeper and losing the midfield battle as players tired.

Felt we dealt with their dominance well for the majority of the half really, it wasn't as if they were lining up shot after shot

[Davefevs]

Just now, JBFC II said:

We attempted to by bringing on McCrorie and moving to 3 at the back and congesting the middle. I don't think we had the options on the bench to properly react to it, we ended up going a bit deeper and losing the midfield battle as players tired.

Felt we dealt with their dominance well for the majority of the half really, it wasn't as if they were lining up shot after shot

We moved to the back 3 right at the start of the second 45, not when McCrorie came on, fwiw.

[Grey Fox]

It’s all very simple with modern football, win , and everything is rosy, loose and it’s the end of the Fermin world. We won, go and have a drink, it’s Saturday night

 

[JBFC II]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We moved to the back 3 right at the start of the second 45, not when McCrorie came on, fwiw.

Did we? From where I saw it, Mehmeti was a straight swap for Cornick and McCrorie came on for Bell at around 60 minutes which saw a change in shape.

Not always easy to see shape from the angle we were at though!

[joe jordans teeth]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not being childish one little bit.  And most certainly not posting anything for tit for tat.

Today’s opinions from me are:

Tanner was ace

Wells and Knight pressed brilliantly.

Team were ace 1st half

Set-up 2nd have was poor and contributed to an uncomfortable end to a game.

Overall; great result.

 

That’s stating the obvious though,did it need a thread 

Edited February 10 by joe jordans teeth

[Jeez]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

 

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

It’s weird isn’t it.

I’m encouraged by him, think with backing & a full pre-season we could actually be on for achieving something more.

[BigTone]

We won and that's the whole idea of the game. Long may it continue regardless

[Bar BS3]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, not imho we didn’t.  We didn’t react at all to what became one way traffic.

Well we did - we decided to contain & protect a 2-0 lead & we won the game. 

If we'd have kept trying to pile forward against an improved, quality side who were chasing the game, they'd probably have overturned the deficit.

 

[archie andrews]

1 hour ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

We did win, right?

Im not sure now after a few reds and reading through this RH....... 

[Graham76]

1 minute ago, joe jordans teeth said:

That’s stating the obvious though,did it need a thread 

I agree with Dave. Great win, but we went to pieces in the second half and a team like Southampton could have killed us off.  Its a worthwhile discussion

[joe jordans teeth]

Just now, BigTone said:

We won and that's the whole idea of the game. Long may it continue regardless

You have to win in a certain way cmon you must no that,setting up to to protect a 2-0 nil lead is unthinkable to some 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Well we did - we decided to contain & protect a 2-0 lead & we won the game. 

If we'd have kept trying to pile forward against an improved, quality side who were chasing the game, they'd probably have overturned the deficit.

 

Albeit if we had posed more of a threat on the break, contained to pose at 2-0 perhaps they wouldn't have pinned us back so much.

Did switching to a back 3 with wingbacks make it easier for them to isolate the wingbacks? It can definitely happen.

[BigTone]

5 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

You have to win in a certain way cmon you must no that,setting up to to protect a 2-0 nil lead is unthinkable to some 

We won but i understand your point. Who gives a carp. Winning is all that matters.

Edited February 10 by BigTone

[Sleepy1968]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

As long as we do t have to mentally picture him in a leotard.

[Redrascal2]

Great result!!!

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, Bar BS3 said:

Well we did - we decided to contain & protect a 2-0 lead & we won the game. 

If we'd have kept trying to pile forward against an improved, quality side who were chasing the game, they'd probably have overturned the deficit.

 

Spot on Bar BS3 - I’m surprised that others don’t all agree. It ain’t rocket science after all.

[joe jordans teeth]

2 minutes ago, Graham76 said:

I agree with Dave. Great win, but we went to pieces in the second half and a team like Southampton could have killed us off.  Its a worthwhile discussion

That is down to players,if we continued to carry on having a go they could have picked us off,what do you want 

[Bar BS3]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Albeit if we had posed more of a threat on the break, contained to pose at 2-0 perhaps they wouldn't have pinned us back so much.

Did switching to a back 3 with wingbacks make it easier for them to isolate the wingbacks? It can definitely happen.

Possibly, but we wanted a win & got it.

Job done  

[The Swan and Cemetery]

Just now, joe jordans teeth said:

You have to win in a certain way cmon you must no that,setting up to to protect a 2-0 nil lead is unthinkable to some 

If giving up territory and possession was the best way to defend a lead… no one is suggesting going gung ho, but think we could have protected the lead in a way that left us less exposed. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Albeit if we had posed more of a threat on the break, contained to pose at 2-0 perhaps they wouldn't have pinned us back so much.

Did switching to a back 3 with wingbacks make it easier for them to isolate the wingbacks? It can definitely happen.

We had no threat going forward second half. 

Whilst it paid off today there will be many times where limiting our attacking threat wont! 

I don't understand why there is this common belief that its a given Boro were always going to come out and play better? 

 

[bcfc01]

2 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

As long as we do t have to mentally picture him in a leotard.

[kit]

I thought the second half was rubbish. It's ok to sit a little deeper but we just had nothing in the second half going forwards moreso as the half went on.

Conway isn't a striker who can play that isolated role well at all, the ball didn't stick and all he was good for was making sure that Middlesbrough had to keep some players back.

We had absolutely nothing on the counter, Middlesbrough were able to sit in our half with no fear that we were going to be able to hit them with a quick counter.

We were unable to retain the ball when we had it to relieve pressure.

The second half tactics seemed to rely on us being able to made last ditch challenges for 45 minutes. There were probably enough chances for Middlesbrough to get something from the second half whereas we were beyond toothless for the whole of it.

It wasn't disaterous, but it was not very good either. We just dont have the players to play the way we were set up in the second half.

It feels like most of the replies are binary in that we won so everything was ok, but I think if you play the way we did 2nd half with a 2-0 lead and you'll probably end up dropping points in as many as you will hold on to a lead.

[joe jordans teeth]

2 minutes ago, BigTone said:

We won. Who gives a carp. Its all that matters.

Exactly,the same people moaning about a 2 zip win would of bitten your hand off for it before hand

[Bar BS3]

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

We had no threat going forward second half. 

Whilst it paid off today there will be many times where limiting our attacking threat wont! 

I don't understand why there is this common belief that its a given Boro were always going to come out and play better? 

 

Any decent side will come out & play better in the second half if they go in 0-2 down at half time, especially at home. 

[BigTone]

4 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Exactly,the same people moaning about a 2 zip win would of bitten your hand off for it before hand

100%

[joe jordans teeth]

3 minutes ago, The Swan and Cemetery said:

If giving up territory and possession was the best way to defend a lead… no one is suggesting going gung ho, but think we could have protected the lead in a way that left us less exposed. 

The best way is how we done it because it bloody worked 

[reddogkev]

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We moved to the back 3 right at the start of the second 45, not when McCrorie came on, fwiw.

This is a cracking thread, Dave, I love the fact that your frustration about the second half change in formation has caused such debate!

I didn't see the game so have no idea, but what would you have done differently?

By the sounds of it, it makes this remarkable win even more incredible!

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We moved to the back 3 right at the start of the second 45, not when McCrorie came on, fwiw.

 

16 minutes ago, JBFC II said:

Did we? From where I saw it, Mehmeti was a straight swap for Cornick and McCrorie came on for Bell at around 60 minutes which saw a change in shape.

Not always easy to see shape from the angle we were at though!

This is an interesting and this was rudimentary stats but 60-90 hugely was worse than 45-60.

46-60 still posed some degree of threat.

61 to the end..

If the change took place on 60 rather than 45, it well and truly pushed us down and back.

Edited February 10 by Mr Popodopolous

[The Swan and Cemetery]

2 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

The best way is how we done it because it bloody worked 

Okay. Personally not convinced that performance must equal result (in any direction). 

[Bar BS3]

People were quick enough to complain about not having won (league) this year, despite arguably being better team in 4 games against Premier league opposition.

Leeds & Preston games were disappointing, of course - but bar those - I think we look so much better than we did earlier in the season (yes, under NP, for those who feel rhe need to make the comparrison)

Way to early to judge LM yet - but I'm definitely encouraged more than anything else, so far. 

[BigTone]

6 minutes ago, reddogkev said:

This is a cracking thread, Dave, I love the fact that your frustration about the second half change in formation has caused such debate!

I didn't see the game so have no idea, but what would you have done differently?

By the sounds of it, it makes this remarkable win even more incredible!

Not at all. We won by scoring more than them. That is the purpose of the game.

[joe jordans teeth]

1 minute ago, The Swan and Cemetery said:

Okay. Personally not convinced that performance must equal result (in any direction). 

That’s fine,end of the day we could of been home and hosed by half time,if going defensive second half to protect then I’m fine with that,be boring if we all agreed 

[JBFC II]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

This is an interesting and this was rudimentary stats but 60-90 hugely was worse than 45-60.

45-60 still posed some degree of threat.

61 to the end..

If the change took place on 60 rather than 45, it well and truly pushed us down and back.

That's fair, but I think that was as much to do with Boro really, we were under the cosh for the whole 2nd half, tried to change it to counteract that but failed to.

The way I'm seeing it is how we played in the 2nd half isn't how Manning will want us to play in the long run, it was a reaction to being 2 up and tiring rapidly after playing 120 minutes mid week. If we started the match in that vein, I'd be concerned, but we didn't, far from it. Nothing to be disappointed or angry about with it imo

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

That’s stating the obvious though,did it need a thread 

Why not?  It’s common to start threads after a game, things get lost in the MDT.

 

8 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

You have to win in a certain way cmon you must no that, setting up to to protect a 2-0 nil lead is unthinkable to some 

I have no issue with trying to protect a lead, but you can do that in different ways. But for a manager who talks so much about controlling possession it feels weird that wasn’t his solution to take the sting out of an opponent?  If we’d bored them to death second half, I’d be thinking very different tonight.  It was more the manner of what happened.

[W-S-M Seagull]

8 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Any decent side will come out & play better in the second half if they go in 0-2 down at half time, especially at home. 

Mate I've watched so many Bristol City games where we've been 2 nil down and we havent done as you say. 

I've watched even more football games in general where that hasn't happened. 

The changes we made invited the pressure. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Why not?  It’s common to start threads after a game, things get lost in the MDT.

 

I have no issue with trying to protect a lead, but you can do that in different ways. But for a manager who talks so much about controlling possession it feels weird that wasn’t his solution to take the sting out of an opponent?  If we’d bored them to death second half, I’d be thinking very different tonight.  It was more the manner of what happened.

Yea for a head coach who says "if they've not got the ball they can't score" it's very strange that we let them have the ball. 

He's constantly going on about principles but then his principles are ever changing. 

[joe jordans teeth]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Why not?  It’s common to start threads after a game, things get lost in the MDT.

 

I have no issue with trying to protect a lead, but you can do that in different ways. But for a manager who talks so much about controlling possession it feels weird that wasn’t his solution to take the sting out of an opponent?  If we’d bored them to death second half, I’d be thinking very different tonight.  It was more the manner of what happened.

Dave mate you don’t like him much do you,do you think a manager can be judged in a year at our place let alone a few months 

[bcfc01]

5 minutes ago, BigTone said:

Not at all. We won by scoring more than them. That is the purpose of the game.

Indeed.

We won by comprehensively outplaying them in the first half and scoring two goals.

They outplayed us in the second half and scored one goal.

Therein lies the story of the game 

Hic 

 

[95red]

3 hours 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.

Exactly  right 2nd we were  awful glad we didn't concede earlier no chance we would have held on.Manning still got loads  of convincing in my eyes, & yes of course  I want him too.

[JBFC II]

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

Mate I've watched so many Bristol City games where we've been 2 nil down and we havent done as you say. 

I've watched even more football games in general where that hasn't happened. 

The changes we made invited the pressure. 

I feel the fact we played 120 minutes midweek invited the pressure.

We didn't press anywhere near as well as the 2nd half went on, we looked knackered and off our feet. The changes pushed us deeper, but at that point we were trying to conserve the win, going for anything more would have been ridiculous, they'd have walked through us

[Kid in the Riot]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But for a manager who talks so much about controlling possession it feels weird that wasn’t his solution to take the sting out of an opponent?  If we’d bored them to death second half, I’d be thinking very different tonight.  It was more the manner of what happened.

You think we could've come out and simply dominated possession? 

Come on....