I really don't some of the perspective here if I'm honest. So many posters (mainly on otib granted) mentioning how we should have strengthened in January and how we're regretting it now.... Why should we have strengthened in January? Would that have guaranteed success? It's so easy to say with hindsight but at the time we were in the form of our lives, with a happy settled squad and a load of players due to come back from injury imminently - why would you then add 3 more players, almost certainly at high cost, to that group? It makes no sense, and if it backfires, you then not only have a poorly performing team, but you're millions of pounds down and with a significantly higher wage bill. I'll say what I've said before. In 2008, we flew on momentum, we had to get promoted there and then, because deep down we all knew we weren't good enough to sustain it for a few seasons. This year that is not the case. We are where we are on merit, we have a very good side, with a big chunk of our squad being in the younger age brackets. They will only improve, and if/when we don't go up this year, I fully expect a proper play-off push next year. The Prem will be one hell of a novelty for the first year at least, and I so want us to get there. But as in many cases, the journey is possibly more exciting than the destination! Now that's a lot of words for a Tuesday morning... coffee time.
If the squad was strengthened in January with say a full back the XI would be more able to continue along its original path of quick interchanging passing and building from the back. A point I highlighted while the team was still bang in form. To improve look at its base and how the ball is moved through the thirds from the back. Instead what has happened is Mr Johnson has brought in players not to augment the above style but move away from it ... Passing has got longer, interplay through the first third has lessened, the Keeper consistently plays long .. Its a different team in the sense that the individuals are now required to move away from what will be to some of them is their game, to another because of what was and was not brought in - The intent and psychology of the team has been changed.
Absolutely, but as I said before, that relies on the January signings a) being the correct ones and b) subsequently fitting in properly. January purchases could just as easily have left us where we still are, and as you allude to (when saying we've moved away from our previous style), there's a good chance that even with the 'right' signings we wouldn't have seen an upturn in results. Essentially what I was getting at it's the style of play / coaching that has failed us, with a failure to buy in January much less so.
I think there is a more than an average chance that with signings to supplement the fluid style of football the results would have not have tailed off as badly as they have. Bristol City particularly away from home are employing methods that are archaic. Neil Warnock is very good at by gone, Bristol City at that game look rubbish and are. Not trying to be facetious, Lee Johnson earned plaudits for excelling then chose to turn away from that progression. Its hard to coach players to be what they are not. Its a Managerial failure.
That's all well and good, but the right players need to be out there in the first place and at the right money.....not as easy as just words.. RR loves your comment "Its a Managerial failure".....right up his street at the minute!!
The club should always have potential targets in the pipeline. The club have scouts. According to mark Ashton they have a data base of players and targets ... It is not easy as just words but players like O'Dowda and Patterson were a fit to the football .... They now have brought in players that did not fit the style of play.
Are the players required always available? If they are, are we presuming that; 1. The price is right/that we can afford them and 2. They actually want to come to us? That's not to say that they should settle for anyone but I think the intention was to maybe give us a different dimension (so we don't become predictable) and was also trying to give cover with the players we had out.....not sure how much was spent in January. You can have all the scouts in the world, but if the right players aren't available at the right price, that want to come to us....what can you do?........................going back to an old subject.....that to me is what the academy should be used for.....
It's a difficult balancing act , our strength is team work , all playing for each other, whilst we needed reinforcements we also had to be careful not to upset that team ethic and balance, add to that the points onefor so eloquently made re availability and affordability . Clifton made the point about bringing in different types of players , but I imagine this was done to enable us to have different options , a plan b of you like ?
Unlike another poster I do not think signings fall off trees ... Its ironic that signings to give the team another dimension could be found but the actual football the team was playing was not considered the priority. Lee Johnson said after then match v Norwich he was looking for no new players. The squad was struggling with injuries. He also felt players returning from injury would be like a new team. Simple complacency.
It probably did feel like a new team....just the wrong one to the style that made us successful....It could have worked but it didn't.. I think most on here thought having a big man up front would have helped, which it could have, just the mindset of our players started & continued looking to play the long ball. Adapting to using that system now and again seemed to much like hard work for our players imo. Finding intelligent players is way out of our price range I fear!!
Promotion push faltered because you did strengthen when you had injuries. Punching above our weight that will be an excuse for ever. What do people expect? Stick to the project. Lot of guff and back patting earlier in the season when it was going well. Showing of your modern ideas talking about signing players with the right dna. City have forwards so called to fit the project already and have brought in a bloke with teflon feet to push on who looks to be the worst signing since a Slovakian defender was bought to play up front!!!!
Fielding is instructed go long v rolling it out, goal kicks go into Flint, Magnusson chucks it in the mixer, the team has ceased to split as it did to create passing options, Mr Johnson has played two physical players up front wanting the players to hit them as a platform to launch attacks off ...There is an absurdity there to blame the players lack of intelligence.. It also shows a familiar reactionary Managerial style despite having a so called philosophy to follow. Yes it takes hard work to implement a totally different style of football to the original philosophy from the Manager/Coaches. In my opinion that can only be done by periodization, months of training, training the team will not have done. It is not a little tweak that can be backed up by episodic training. This has been major change.
To implement months of training to a squad full of players, many not used to style required that come in, especially some players on loan or recently signed is near enough impossible especially with the busy league and cup schedules and that's presuming you have the right players that are able to adapt......not all can. Again I stress, that to me is what the academy should be ALL about. The philosophy should be within the club for it to work. Southampton are now struggling because they have become a feeder club, not keeping any of their best players....You cannot continue disrupting your team and expect to have a continuity within..to me, not possible. LJ's problem IMO is he has a style that he wants to play, he has a certain amount of players that have/can adapt to that style, which we saw working. Injuries, tiredness, players out, new players in caused disruption. It does take time, it also takes quality & intelligent players to make it work properly....Pep, with all the money spent, with the players he required, has just started to see the rewards........to make it work, everything needs to be special, from manager, coaching, players and the time for it to gel together.. Not sure at BCFC we have that yet......but with time (especially if the academy is on board not having the billions of Man C) it's possible.
The academy has a written (to meet the EPPP) philosophy. It is coaching players to play that way. It is a long term backed by coaching in micro, meso and macro cycles each season. Its teams are playing nothing like the XI did at Cardiff. See the problem? LJ's problem us that he does not stick to the project, identity, dna, philosophy etc and attempts too much. At his worst its a theme. At its best he sticks to those values and principles..
You need the players to also adapt to the project, new ones take time. At the same time, he's trying (although failing) to get results with the players at his disposal.
that is one of the points made when this "era" of CITY'S history commenced with the appointment of Lee ..... develop and educate the academy players to becomw almost seemless with our style of play ... ... ... some of the most successful teams do have wide players capable of interreacting with attacking full backs we have a " rather partly broken" system that follows that idea .... Pisano was brought in because he was / is a good defender and can get up .. and occasionally nods in a goal....
It is a point I have made. At this point in time what style of play is this? Tomorrows tactics have an element of pin a tale on a Donkey. Lee Johnson's tactics are abandoning playing through the thirds. It would make more sense to go 4-3- 3 to offer support to the big punts upfield to a two with the touch of a trampoline, the ball might stick to three..
