Holmes_and_Watson

Excellent move to get it to Alcaraz, who had compsure to pass to our goal machine!

Lovely, Lovely goal!

Passing move broke down. but some nice movement. I thought Stu was going to shoot. Really good pass from Manning too.

We seem to be camped out a bit further up than usual. Passing it around well into their half.

Amazing dummy from Alcaraz to get us a corner!

Foul given,. but had time to do better with that header there.

Some early more direct passing out ot the right, to bring in KWP. Not long ball, but with no smallbone, we don;t have quite the same set up for linking play again.

COYR!

Brown

I wonder about the expiry dates on the yoghurts in Martin's fridge. 🙂

£8million rising to £10million, if his legs stay attached. So, £8 million. 🙂 May have an impact on any Adams interest? We won't want to lose anyone else up front.

Sadly, our unbeaten run has to come to an end. But not in this fixture! 2-1 to us, and their goal is a really annoying one, when we don't get back quickly enough.

Certainly. The interview ran itself. The interviewer gives Jones some room, as it's a tight space to be digging your managerial grave in. But some questions could have been added, like... "How big a challenge is balancing front footedness with aggression, to get out of relegation places?" "While playing against 10 is clearly harder, today Brentford's 11 also caused problems. How do you stop complacency being an issue against teams with higher numbers of players?" "You've said that you don't see your players out there. Do you agree with Le Tissier, that they've been abducted by aliens and replaced by reptilian clones?" "When you say you've accommodated certain things, do you mean the squad are living in your house? Is that to make them more aggressive, if not front footed?"

Ungrateful

That was what the back end of the interview did descend into. A number of reminders to the manager of how great the interviewer thought he was. I mentioned that sort of thing in my earlier post, and it's also annoying. What's the point if the manager will get a free pass? An interviewer should be able to ask questions that are a range between open ended to get the manager's thoughts/feelings through to specific points of the game. Nothing wrong with some critical assessment either. But poorly worded questions that didn't reflect the game or our form are lazy. Martin did manage to get some of his thoughts across. But not helped by Blackmore switching between defensive, fawning and referring Martin to what he, as interviewer really meant, so they finished as pals.

You're right. It would have to be one or the other, as you only get a couple of minutes. It would be tough to cover all City's goals that made the first half "abysmal" and cover the way we completely failed to get back into it, let alone win, in the "ponderous" second. 🙂

I'd have gone with the daring option of something that happened in the match, rather than implying something that didn't. 🙂

"saves" "shots" so old school. Surely superceded by tracking the attacker's xEGWCT* against Baz's xROLAHTSA** *Expected Goals when clean through. ** Expected racing out like a hare to stop attacker. ...oh look, my taxi.. 🙂

Thanks

Meh. Blackmore said something along the lines of Saints changing things around to stop City's chances. Martin took "chances" to indicate we were under pressure and had to change to stop them. He was just stating that City had one shot on target, and two chances all game. it's not as though he felt we were under pressure. Blackmore followed it up by saying that City should have scored with one of them. Martin's tone didn't change, but that won't have helped. Martin could have taken that defensive follow up, and challenged that too. Blackmore then made statement that after Saturday, how important it was to get back to winning ways. Not a question. Martin reminded him that we got a point on Saturday and we're unbeaten in 10. Having blundered his question on City having chances, Blackmore praised Baz as having such a good game. Martin reminded him that it was from few City chances, as per the first question, while still praising Baz. Blackmore then fawned for much of the rest of it. From his comments, Martin sees the same things we do, and is frustrated that we're not further ahead and had to rely on KWP quality strike. All the work put into improving it, he felt was being undermined by a couple of clumsy questions that needed a second to come up with, and little knowledge. Blackmore's lazy approach to it, expecting a clichéd back and forth, and then desperately trying to make his original points more agreeable to his interviewee was annoying. I don't listen to enough press conferences to know if it's common, but I've heard lazy questioners become very brittle when challenged back. Mainly as there's so little thought going into the questions, they have no follow up. Martin had praise for the team, and the changes they were asked to make. Singled out players for praise too. Frustrated from Saturday, when he felt he couldn't influence things. Frustrated about our final third, and getting out of sight. I'd be more bothered if he wasn't frustrated.

Underground

Good stops Quick reactions Sweeper/Keeper Good distribution Cucumber cool against incoming opponents A good night for Baz.

We spent most of the game trying to pass through City. But it was a direct KWP goal that made the difference, with a direct ball to Sule in the first half also causing problems. It's good to mix up the play. We tried incisive balls through the middle in both Halves. But, we're not quite clicking. Better options go begging, across the park first half, while good central runs not picked up in the second. Often, when we did try central passes in the second, they were of the riskier variety. Great if they come off, but unlikely to. As the team is built around unlocking those passes up the park, seeing them take those less likely to succeed is frustrating. A contrast/ reaction to playing too safe a ball in the first half. Although not having an end product, pushing City back when we tried them did make a difference, and we were the better team second half. Mixing it up and getting some momentum, if not a goal can make a lot of difference. Another frustration was seeing the team follow Martin's instruction to pick the sensible option at times to pass it back. Draw the opposition forward. But when we'd done that, we'd then play it slowly forward again, eliminating the advantage we'd just created, allowing them to drop back. Again, that resulted in those riskier through balls. We probably missed Smallbone as the person who can link it together more. But Downes and Charles did fine. Downes even raced back to stop a late City counter. They had a couple of those late on, while we also thumped it forward in the last minute, when we could have passed the clock down. That decision making not quite there. A win. Unbeaten in 10, so still top of that form guide. And lots for Martin and the coaching staff to take away and work with the players on. Because we can be a lot better, and the players are capable of it. That's going to be something to see, if it happens.

Needed something special to lift us after the first half. Now, let's see how we build on it.

Best chances of the half: All for City. Has coming out to clear one, make a save from another. City had a free header earlier on. For ourselves, not so much. A Stubshot with not much power at the keeper. Downes hitting over, a ball across the box with noone gambling on it, and a block from a AA shot early on. What had stood out was Saints bottling attacks. We tried to release Sulemana a couple of times, mainly when he was well defended. We had a decent through ball on one other occasion. But when the game stretches after we countered City's own counter, we didn't release Sule out wide, playing it safe instead.That was followed by tapping it around outside their box and seeing and choosing not to pass out to the right flank or up to the centre, when they were clearly the better ball. Safety first. Except, it just encouraged City. The visitors had the stronger half. While after a couple of through balls failed, and we'd ticked a pass it to Sule box without much conviction, we offered very little. City, like everyone else, looked to exploit the full back gaps we leave once or twice. The extra numbers we're supposed to have in the middle didn't create much, or get forward to support particularly quickly. Hoping for a better second half, if only as City might slip up, and we pinch one.