Holloway fuming after QPR fail to take advantage of ten-man Robins. Ian Holloway pulled no punches as he lambasted his QPR side following their 2-0 defeat to ten-man Bristol City at the weekend. please log in to view this image Despite going into the Ashton Gate encounter as second favourites, Rangers were given a major boost just after the half-hour mark when City defender Nathan Baker was dismissed following a reckless challenge on Josh Scowen. However, Holloway’s charges could not capitalise on their numerical advantage, and goals from Famara Diedhiou and Joe Bryan gave Lee Johnson’s promotion-chasing outfit the win. Defeat leaves QPR 16th in the Championship, and the manner of the loss left Holloway fuming. "That was bitterly disappointing,” said Holloway. “You have to give City credit. They got around us and they put us under pressure. But we had to move the ball better to try to tire them out. "Unfortunately, we either gave it away or kicked it out of play. They only got stronger after the sending off. "We got done by a set-play [for the first goal] - as we did this time last week against Middlesbrough. It was damaging and I'm not happy about it. "It was a magnificent performance from their ten men - but I was bitterly disappointed with us not moving the ball anything like my team normally do. That was absolutely horrendous, from my point of view. "Once the second goal went in, we looked totally beat. That's hard to accept and it's not good enough. "I'm fuming and I'll be having a big meeting about that." http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/sport/...QPR_fail_to_take_advantage_of_ten_man_Robins/
hopefully one of them will say " look Ian, we had a gift an extra man so why take off a defender for an attacker and give them a hole to work through?"
That’s easy to say with hindsight JGF but he went for the win - as we did vs Wolves. I think he is being a bit harsh on his own side tbh - they definitely went for it - look at Smith’s diving header - we were just simply too good.
In all honesty I think that point is correct, we were just simply too good, no complications, just a fact on the day.
I think he should have waited till at least 60 mins to have "gone for it" ....I know you can say hindsight, but at the time I thought it was a silly move.. and an opportunity for us to at least save a draw or even protect our lead! water under the bridge now 3 points and thankyou very much
Oddly I think with hindsight going down to 10 men actually helped , we've struggled to break down teams that sit in , which I think they would have done had we stayed with 11 men, when Baker got sent off QPR went for a win , unsurprisingly, still a great performance by us to win 2-0 with 10 men v 11.
I did wonder this. Against Norwich, it was largely a case of 'sterile domination', with only a few half-chances and the wonder save by Gunn from Brownhill, whereas they seemed happy to cede possession and punt balls forward, which created a handful of good chances. In the early stages against QPR, we were dominating possession again, but not really testing Smithies, whereas when a man down and they thought they could take control, we were able to hit them on the break, resulting in the 2nd goal. I like our style, but I hope we don't fall into the trap of 'possession for possessions sake', which seems to have affected Reading in particular this season. Having Fammy back as an option should help.
Will come down to progression and evolution. Having players that can speed it up slow it down, miss one out, play wall and bounce passes, look to penetrate, get beyond and overload opponents ... If a team do not have these technical abilities they will be limited. A flaw recently has been City's full backs being less than fluent in keeping the ball moving and taking touches where a touch will do, and being unable to interplay with midfield players or act as runners. Bryan gets beyond the midfield and overloads opponents from full back. The rest do not. Its an area to be addressed by developing players who can, or recruit.
'A flaw recently has been City's full backs being less than fluent in keeping the ball moving' Bailey Wright has been pressed into playing RB and tbf the poor sod is much more a CB. Haven't seen the Italian but from what I've heard won't he provide the interplay/running you mention ?
I think Joe does quite well! ..? Pisano, he was stated to be a bit of a live wire getting up the pitch .. imagine 2 attacking full backs 2 wingers, 2 strikers Bobby playing in behind as a third... Flint, Wright and Baker / AVAILABLE FOR DEFENCE Kent, Smith, Mags, Pack, Patty and Walsh / MIDFIELD REID DIONY FAM / ATTACK AND OF COURSE...Joe and Eros attacking full backs
As injured players come back to fitness we should have more options, we have been limited to how we can change things recently.
He is an adept defender from what I have seen Given time he may become more fluent in the patterns of play of his team mates. The example (BW) you have given I would politely suggest will probably not be able to as he is more of a central defender. The skill set there is different. I think Joe does quite well! ..? Which I highlight here and in other threads. He has a proficiency his peers generally do not match, thus build up from the first third minus Bryan can become laboured and clunky. A improvement would be fullbacks being more technical.
'The example (BW) you have given I would politely suggest will probably not be able to as he is more of a central defender'. Didn't I write - 'tbf the poor sod is much more a CB'. Or have I misunderstood you ?
I edited it attempting to be respectful and ended up saying the same with more words. In the role he is playing he is limited, but doing a decent job.
I think Bailey Wright will struggle to hold down a regular spot if Pisano shows good form at RB. I wouldn't drop/move Baker or Flint for him as from what I have seen (and that's a lot this season) on TV, both of those are miles better. Wright has also looked poor (but to be fair who hasn't) in all the games I have watched Australia play over the last 2 years.
