Bristol City v Watford FC, Tues 29th 2013. Match Thread.

A well balanced blog from Rookery Mike.

http://fromtherookeryend.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-morning-after-night-before.html

 

A good article, and a lot of sense

I don't have a problem with any of those players that played last night. I just felt it was a few too many changes, and from my not-so expert opinion, a couple of tactical mistakes.

I wouldn't have tried out Murray as RWB. Maybe rested Cassetti and played Doyley there, then maybe Saturday, bring back Cassetti and rest Doyley. I woudn't have played both Hogg and Eustace. Bring one back and rest maybe Chalobah last night, then rest Battocchio Saturday. Maybe rest Vydra last night and Deeney Saturday.

I'm all up for squad rotation - but I'm also in the mind-set of if it's not broken, don't fix it! We will no doubt have a poor run of games between now and the end of the season, so freshen it up then! We are not playing games twice a week, every week, so they will not burn out!

I think my frustration (certainly no anger in me) is that I don't get to many games, so just wanted to see the team that has won so convincingly in the last few games, espeically the Vydra/Deeney partnership - so purely selfish reasoning! Maybe it is all simply a balancing act, trying to keep as many happy players as possible so they don't demand a move!

 

Zola's team selection was not prompted by complacency, nor did we field a weakened team. O'Driscoll made his intentions clear before the game--no point in going gung-ho at Watford he said,they will just pick you off. Be very defensive (even though we are at home) hope to avoid defeat, and maybe get a lucky break. So for Zola to put out a team with our more creative forwards (rather than the counter-attack specialists) and Murray as wing-back was perhaps his best judgement on winning by craft, given their announced intentions. Maybe having both Hogg and Eustace in midfield was a change too far, but I can see that Chalobah might need a rest. There should have been enough talent in that team to win. But then Bristol DID get their lucky break--the first goal--the conditions were dreadful ( probably unlike what some of the team had experienced before) Bristol defended ever so well in the second half, and the second goal was a poor one to concede. So a disappointment, not a disaster, and no basis for criticism of manager or team.

Events in that committee room at the FL this week are far more important to the club than this one result.

 

I would suggest that most of the above comments reinforce the old adage that regardless of how talented individual players are, it takes time to combine them and create a well-balanced team where every individual knows instinctively what his colleagues will do in any given situation. Zola has created such a team (his Saturday team) because they have been playing together for much of the season and changes in personnel have been gradual. When you alter that team in such a drastic fashion then, again, regardless of the abilities of the players you bring in, the likelihood is that the cohesion of the team is lost and players end up looking as if they do not know what they are doing. Any tactics fly out of the window.

This happened for both the Charlton and Bristol City games and will happen again if so many changes are made.

After all, we see it time and time again in the FA or League Cups when managers change teams radically, these teams struggle to beat lower league opposition and then the justification is that "players brought in should be good enough to win". They probably would be good enough to win if that team had played together and settled in over a number of games and not been brought together for a one-off match!.....

 

Although, as I said in my earlier post, I don't thing bringing in to the team Hall, Hogg, Forestieri (half the changes) makes any effect to the points you make above as they have all been an integral part of the previous run. Even Geijo has had a few, short, spells in that 'balanced' team. So Eustace and Murray are the only two of those changes that have not been a part of the 'balanced' team.

If think we are looking at the wrong place if we are thinking the changes made were the reason we lost

 

By no means an aggressive question; why do you believe we lost last night, if it wasn't the personnel?

I personally think it was partly down to the tactics, but wasn't helped by the players brought in, ie, the changes! I do not mean the individual players and their talent - but just the way we were set up to accommodate them.

Also City's tactics did not help the way we play - sitting deep, where we could not find space. This just brings me back to some of the tactics - where maybe we needed a bit more creativity in midfield. As much as I like Hogg and Eustace, if you are playing a team who are intent on sitting back, you do not need 2 of this type of player.

Possibly a poor excuse, but it was a pretty horrible not, and possibly not really a surface to be playing football on the ground... the ball easily skids off the surface, and some of the control was ratehr poor.

It was an off-night... they will happen. I do agree the changes were not the reason we lost, but felt it contributed

 

Like I said Salisburykev, it is just my opinion, but I just think it is too easy to blame the changes and whatever failings on the night may get looked over as a result. At Leeds we made a load of changes and were well on top, and leading, even before their sending off and subsequent unfortunate injury.

I am sure there are many tactical and performance issues that GFZ and his team will look at with the players, rather than put it down to making 6 changes, 3 of which have been first team players throughout the season.

I just think that side that went out last night should have been good enough, and on another day will have been good enough, to win that match. Players may not have played to their best, there was a bit of luck on the first goal, we struggled with the conditions (although we shouldn't have) etc. I will hope there is a more detailed analysis rather than 'we lost continuity because we made 6 changes', especially as Hogg, Hall Forestieri have all been regulars anyway.

Of course, I have no problem with others having different opinions!!

 

Did i jinx it?

 

It is no coincidence that Murray and Eustace were the ones who struggled the most on Tuesday. Two players struggling can unbalance the whole team more so than the number of changes itself. In fact I'd say if we even had Cassetti playing instead of Murray we'd have probably won.

 

Murray took a knock early on on his ankle and struggled to shake it off imo.
I thought he played ok with one particular good move and crossfield ball but I did wonder if they played him there in a learning curve to give him a more balanced overall game in 1 to 2 years.

 

Had a real bad feeling about this game when I got up Tuesday morning... tripped up on the slippers next to the bed, scalded myself in the shower, put my underpants on the wrong way round, spilt my porridge all down my sweatshirt, missed the train to work - and then my day went downhill!
In not going to the match I'm reliant on the various reports but I would say that Rookery Mike has probably summed it all up nicely. Frustration is understandable especially if you've forked out a lot of hard earned cash to see a much changed ~ I wouldn't say necessarily weaker (V+D aside) but certainly less well practiced and drilled against a team fighting for survival under a new manager.
The other thing is, of course, that we have been utterly spoilt rotten this season with the quality of football we are playing and the results we've been getting. Expectations have been raised beyond reason. Let's bear that in mind and try to remember that we are more Tesco's Fruscati in worth even though we are playing Cristal champagne football. It is the second time that GFZ has either seriously underestimated the opposition or overestimated our strength in depth. Let's hope there is not a third and we could well find ourselves entertaining the big boys next season.

 

I expect we will have more frustrating matches this season. The rest of the division have now cottoned on to the fact that we are the best counter attacking team in the division. So most of them will now attack more cautiously - in effect some of our away games will seem more like home games with the opposition not being so adventurous. We all know that our home form has been the more difficult this season so GFZ needs to work the players on breaking down defensive sides - and be ready to do that away from home as well when the opposition do not create the gaps

 

Fingers crossed that Wolves can get something against Leicester tonight so there is not a big gap starting to open between us.

 

1-0 down after 23 minutes

 

Ended 2-1 to Leicester

 

thanks Maestro ...sadly it's over..and the buggers won lol

 

you are? why?