Bristol Post Match 1-1

[Ilkeston_Fox]

Decent away performance, but quality at the end, one of the most epic celebrations ever.

We both had chances to score, Oakley, Berner and King having our best.

Fans were a bit shit but perked up last 30 minutes, good bit of banter between us and the Bristol fans at times.

Just got back.

The above pretty much sums the night up. The celebrations at the end were truly fantastic!! I was stood on the end row nearest the Brizzle fans and it was so nice to wipe the smile off their smug little faces with the last gasp equaliser They didn't quite know what to do - except throw coins and bottles....bless

[Tommeh]

Just got in and blow me away, what a night that was.

My stand out player was Wellens but nobody had an off day, as a team we were decent always a threat but to be fair never 100% comfortable at the back.

If it had finished 0-0 it certainly wouldn't have been a reflection, it was a decent game but the ending was just ridiculous. Was the old change from depression to sheer elation and carnage in 30 seconds, incredible stuff. Celebrations for our goal were right up there with the Leeds/Huddersfield/MK Dons ones of last season.

Our support on the whole was very poor, good numbers but vocally non existant in proabably the most atmospheric stand in the league. They were probably the best home support of the season.

I also felt the substitutions did us no favours, bringing Waghorn off severly dented our threat with Dyer, Adams, Gallagher and Yann all running around as attacking midfielders and nobody really pushing up top or going wide, it was all very messy. Credit Wellens and King who last 20 were stunning given out lack of shape.

Lloyd's leveller is all that matters at the moment though, could prove vital come the end.

Delighted, feels like a win.

[SpionKop2]

Just got in and blow me away, what a night that was.

My stand out players wa Wellens but nobody had an off day, as a team we were decent always a threat but to be fair never 100% comfortable at the back.

If it had finished 0-0 it certainly wouldn't have been a reflection, it was a decent game but the ending was just ridiculous. Was the old change from depression to sheer elation and carnage in 30 seconds, incredible stuff. Celebrations for our goal were right up there with the Leeds/Huddersfield/MK Dons ones of last season.

Our support on the whole was very poor, good numbers but vocally non existant in proabably the most atmospheric stand in the league. Theirs was probably the best home support of the season.

I also felt the substitutions did us no favours, bringing Waghorn off severly dented our threat with Dyer, Adams, Gallagher and Yann all running around as attacking midfielders with nobody really pushing up top or going wide, it was all very messy. Credit Wellens and King who last 20 were stunning given out lack of shape.

Lloyd's leveller is all that matters at the moment though, could prove vital come the end.

Delighted, feels like a win.

[SpionKop2]

Wouldnt have said Wellens was 'stand out', several times he lost possession when in a good position with lots of support. He fails to play the kind of 'killer' pass that Oakley does. Having said that , Oakley managed to find the post when the net was easier!

Goals STILL not on Sky Sports yet, sick of waiting now, we've just got the post-match interviews, why?

Bristol fans were singing 'Your not famous anymore' at us! Bizzarre and almost complementary!

[Ford Super Sunday]

I did quite enjoy the seemingly awkward and sheepish (though brief) silence from the Bristol City fans after they chanted 'Small town in Asia'

They seemed to realise what they had just chanted.

[marbelladave]

Morning.

A game that was probably there for the taking, but we did not seem to want it enough, not the individual players, they worked really hard, more our whole seup and rather cautious demeanor. Strange that once we went behind it took us less than a minute to score.

Though we were better than against Doncaster we set up pretty much the same way, our wide men were not far enough forward and King and Wellens spending much of their time in front of the back 4. Oakley, that lethal goalscoring central midfield player, was often the only player working to support Waghorn.

I know we are new to this 4-3-3 setup, but when we ignore the basics it is that much harder to get a win, even though we were the better side for most of the game. for example;

Our midfield was split, Oakley forward and King / Wellens back, this is a nonsense! The very essence of this system is that they all get forward and back together, they all have to support each other, just did not happen last night.

Gallagher and Dyer were too deep and slow to get forward, this gave the midfield limited passing options with Dyer in particular getting the ball much to deep. Perversely the less time Dyer has on the ball the more effective he is, get him the ball in and around the box and things happen quickly, the goal and the assist on saturday for example.

Waghorn leads the line with energy and is excellent a making space and creating chances, though I remain unconvinced that Gallagher is the man to make the most of them. Gallagher had 1 great and 2 decent half chances and made very little of them, the header was particularly limp. for me he looks more of a goal threat from the edge of the box.

Pearson's substitutions brought energy, but to little real effect. We got forward a lot late on and compared to earlier in the game committed players forward, but there was no plan or shape at this point, just a looseness that led to us getting caught on the break.

BTW Don't have a go a Berner, he was clearly not 100% and Bristol hit him with Haynes, Skuse and Sproule at various times, he got through pretty much on guts alone.

[Asha]

Just got back.

The above pretty much sums the night up. The celebrations at the end were truly fantastic!! I was stood on the end row nearest the Brizzle fans and it was so nice to wipe the smile off their smug little faces with the last gasp equaliser They didn't quite know what to do - except throw coins and bottles....bless

You must have been near me then. The look on the face of that rentboy in the grey is something I'll never forget. I was so happy.

[the_p_man]

Wouldnt have said Wellens was 'stand out', several times he lost possession when in a good position with lots of support. He fails to play the kind of 'killer' pass that Oakley does. Having said that , Oakley managed to find the post when the net was easier!

have you actually ever seen oakley play? not heard oakley and killer pass in the same sentence many times before. unless it's 'oakley never manages to find a fooking killer pass'

wellens will give the ball away a lot but he does it trying to make something happen. oakley manages to give the ball away due to his lack of ability.

[The Doctor]

have you actually ever seen oakley play? not heard oakley and killer pass in the same sentence many times before. unless it's 'oakley never manages to find a fooking killer pass'

wellens will give the ball away a lot but he does it trying to make something happen. oakley manages to give the ball away due to his lack of ability.

Or could it be due to the lack of movement other players make? Or perhaps the fact that he's coming to the end of the career?

[Cobbo]

Well I am shattered today. What a mental period of stoppage time! Very enjoyable being the team that equilised though.

We could have won it comfortably with the chances created in the first and second half but obviously did not take them. Played some cracking stuff too.

Bristol City fans seem a bit odd to me - seeing the 'you only shag each other' etc song to us - you're from Bristol folks, did you forget?

And what about 'who are the people? WE ARE THE PEOPLE! who are the scum? THEY ARE THE SCUM!' - Jesus cried a little hearing that truly awful chant. Shit.

[SpionKop2]

Eh up 'P Man'. Granted it made Oakley sound good with that description. The point i was trying to make is that Oakley will release the ball (see second goal v S****horpe), whereas Wellens all too often keeps it too long, loses it/gets robbed and puts us on the back foot. It's happened countless times.

[Ilkeston_Fox]

You must have been near me then. The look on the face of that rentboy in the grey is something I'll never forget. I was so happy.

I think you walked past me when you were with AmyB - I thought I recognised her.

Yeah the one with the semi-longish hair giving it the big'un all game....Didn't at the end though did he?

The rush to the barrier was spectacular, I was well and truly crushed yet someone still managed to get under/over it onto the mesh that devided us. Fair play to their stewards for not throwing him out, unlike the guy that dropped his jeans and mooned their fans haha 1 row infront of me.

[Thracian]

Morning.

A game that was probably there for the taking, but we did not seem to want it enough, not the individual players, they worked really hard, more our whole seup and rather cautious demeanor. Strange that once we went behind it took us less than a minute to score.

Though we were better than against Doncaster we set up pretty much the same way, our wide men were not far enough forward and King and Wellens spending much of their time in front of the back 4. Oakley, that lethal goalscoring central midfield player, was often the only player working to support Waghorn.

I know we are new to this 4-3-3 setup, but when we ignore the basics it is that much harder to get a win, even though we were the better side for most of the game. for example;

Our midfield was split, Oakley forward and King / Wellens back, this is a nonsense! The very essence of this system is that they all get forward and back together, they all have to support each other, just did not happen last night.

Gallagher and Dyer were too deep and slow to get forward, this gave the midfield limited passing options with Dyer in particular getting the ball much to deep. Perversely the less time Dyer has on the ball the more effective he is, get him the ball in and around the box and things happen quickly, the goal and the assist on saturday for example.

Waghorn leads the line with energy and is excellent a making space and creating chances, though I remain unconvinced that Gallagher is the man to make the most of them. Gallagher had 1 great and 2 decent half chances and made very little of them, the header was particularly limp. for me he looks more of a goal threat from the edge of the box.

Pearson's substitutions brought energy, but to little real effect. We got forward a lot late on and compared to earlier in the game committed players forward, but there was no plan or shape at this point, just a looseness that led to us getting caught on the break.

BTW Don't have a go a Berner, he was clearly not 100% and Bristol hit him with Haynes, Skuse and Sproule at various times, he got through pretty much on guts alone.

As usual some interesting analysis. Combined with other comments from time to time it still seems to me that Oakley remains something of the odd man out in the front two-thirds of our team - a man without a speciality that I can recognise.

You see if we're to have three in central midfield and Oakley is neither a great attacker, defender nor passer then why not use Gallagher in that "attacking midfielder" role.

No I'm not trying to over-simplify it - I'm in complete agreement that all three should go forward and back together. But given such a role surely Gallagher would get into the attacking positions that suit him best - around the edge of the box - there would arguably be greater passing accuracy and cunning and I don't see that Gallagher would have any less defensive energy than Oakley even if he might be marginally less efficient than him at closing people down.

N'Guessan could then revert to his original wide right role with instructions to get in the box as often as possible in additional support of Waghorn and the more advanced Dyer, so giving us both passin fluidingity & options plus the most goals potential at the same time.

Indeed the system of using Wellens, King and Gallagher as the midfield three could develop to be especially formidable because all three have talent and vision.

Furthermore if we could get to a situation where we could field a trustworthy back three instead of four when we need to increase our attacking capacity then linking Kermorgant with Waghorn and having Dyer, King, Wellens, Gallagher, N'Guessan across the midfield would be some threat indeed.

I know that N'Guessan is not a natural right winger and that his defensive workrate and instincts left much to be desired earlier in the season but he's seemed lately to have developed a greater appetite for the sleeves-up side when we lose possession and if that can be further encouraged then that might prove our most lethal attacking combination.

Id still like to see Oakley tried at right-back where his extra mobility, close control and passing ability might help us turn a back four into a back three at will, whereas we really only have a defensive back four at the moment, apart from Morrison's occasional goals.

Eventually we will have to evolve sufficiently to have two fast, mobile, attack-capable full-backs.

[marbelladave]

As usual some interesting analysis. Combined with other comments from time to time it still seems to me that Oakley remains something of the odd man out in the front two-thirds of our team - a man without a speciality that I can recognise.

You see if we're to have three in central midfield and Oakley is neither a great attacker, defender nor passer then why not use Gallagher in that "attacking midfielder" role.

No I'm not trying to over-simplify it - I'm in complete agreement that all three should go forward and back together. But given such a role surely Gallagher would get into the attacking positions that suit him best - around the edge of the box - there would arguably be greater passing accuracy and cunning and I don't see that Gallagher would have any less defensive energy than Oakley even if he might be marginally less efficient than him at closing people down.

N'Guessan could then revert to his original wide right role with instructions to get in the box as often as possible in additional support of Waghorn and the more advanced Dyer, so giving us both passin fluidingity & options plus the most goals potential at the same time.

Indeed the system of using Wellens, King and Gallagher as the midfield three could develop to be especially formidable because all three have talent and vision.

Furthermore if we could get to a situation where we could field a trustworthy back three instead of four when we need to increase our attacking capacity then linking Kermorgant with Waghorn and having Dyer, King, Wellens, Gallagher, N'Guessan across the midfield would be some threat indeed.

I know that N'Guessan is not a natural right winger and that his defensive workrate and instincts left much to be desired earlier in the season but he's seemed lately to have developed a greater appetite for the sleeves-up side when we lose possession and if that can be further encouraged then that might prove our most lethal attacking combination.

Id still like to see Oakley tried at right-back where his extra mobility, close control and passing ability might help us turn a back four into a back three at will, whereas we really only have a defensive back four at the moment, apart from Morrison's occasional goals.

Eventually we will have to evolve sufficiently to have two fast, mobile, attack-capable full-backs.

I have pointed out the rather obvious use of Gallagher in a midfield 3 in other threads, instruct him to play box to box supporting his 2 colleagues, his natural attacking creativity will do the rest, specially around the edge of the box. His work defensively will probably not be great but as part of a 3 it will be more than enough. I know I'm labouring the point but getting the midfield trio to get forward and back together, so that they support each other is essential.

N'Guessan is no more a winger than Gallagher is, either he should lead the line or play a striking role from the left, which has worked well before. Whether Pearson will start N'guessan and Dyer in the same team is open to doubt, could be interesting though.

Again for me I feel Waghorn is more dangerous on the right where he can use his pace to attack the channel or drive in on his strong left foot, with him and N'Guessan deployed well forward I see no reason why Kormagant, in the absence of Fryatt, could not lead the line, even if he does so from slightly behind the 2 wide men.

I am no fan of three at the back, much preferring a 'proper' back 4, but as you say good mobile fullbacks would be a huge advantage, but at this stage we simply do not have any. In any case I am more perturbed by the flakyness of the Weale - Hobbs - Brown combination, none of them take control in our box and on saturday they each had opportunities to make a decisive clearance in the moments leading up to the SSN clip of the Bristol goal.