Bristol (A) | Vital Football

Bristol (A)

Made in Wigan

Vital Champions League
Just seen the news that Crackers is done for the season. Bit of a blow that one. Mcmanaman is also done and Roberts crocked too.

An injury to Massey or Pilkington and we really will be in the brown stuff. Looks like Naismith will be returning to the fold - time for this lad to prove me wrong.

Can't see us picking up anything tomorrow and it'll be another away defeat to add to this seasons ledger.
 
I wouldn`t fancy us there with a full strength side , good attacking side ..
Time will tell , i would be ex tactic with a point ..
 
At least something to distract us from Brexit. I'm going. Can anyone recommend good pubs near the ground?
 
I dont understand why Cook says McMannaman had a hernia problem that we've been putting off getting an opp on. He's not started a league game since the second game of the season and he rarely even gets off the bench so why delay it? If he's been carrying this issue for a number of weeks we could have had it done already and have him on his way back to replace Jacobs who is now out but now we are probably going to be missing both at the same time - that's really poor from us.

Cook also said he's going to change the team so i suspect a switch to a 5-4-1 with wing backs as the most likely change with Kipre in for Jacobs from last weeks team.

It's funny though he's freely telling us the formation will change and who is injured after he was so upset about being asked about it just a couple of weeks ago.

Bristols home record isn't that impressive at all and while they aren't the best team going forward but one of the leagues top defences so i'd guess it's likely to be a tight game with prob one goal settling it. I think after the big week Bristol had getting 2 very impressive away wins tomorrow against us looks like it could one of those potential 'After the Lord Mayors Show' fixtures for them where they are so high on confidence complacency could creep in as they expect to comfortably beat us. All season i've been hoping that law of averages would give us an away win but every time it looks like it's about to happen (Swansea, Reading for example) we manage to self distruct so i've given up thinking it will come but just hope against hope it finally does.

I've got a feeling Rotherham to beat Forest tomorrow as i think they will respond after the Derby thumping and Forest are not the most reliable team - hope i'm wrong but i fear we may end up only 1 point above them by end of play tomorrow if we don't break our away hoodoo.
 
I don't usually advocate it, but I'd set them up defensively against Bristol, 4 -5-1 to try to nullify their 3-5-2 and hope for a 0:0 or a (hardly dare to dream) 0:1 smash and grab.
If we stick with our usual 4-2-3-1 and try to go toe to toe with them I fear the midfield will get swamped and we'll end up with the 4 attacking players as little more than bystanders and with Morsy and James completely overrun.
 
I dont understand why Cook says McMannaman had a hernia problem that we've been putting off getting an opp on. He's not started a league game since the second game of the season and he rarely even gets off the bench so why delay it? .

Is it because McMannaman has often filled our regulation "home grown player" quota ? I'm not really certain what the rules are. I guess if Macca is not on the bench then Owen Evans will be and one of Jones / Walton will give way from the match day squad.
 
No predictions as I don't want to jinx things but the stat of the week is :

With Danny Fox on the pitch (420 mins) we have not conceded a goal from open play (pen v Ipswich the only one conceded).
 
Is it because McMannaman has often filled our regulation "home grown player" quota ? I'm not really certain what the rules are. I guess if Macca is not on the bench then Owen Evans will be and one of Jones / Walton will give way from the match day squad.

You are correct and it is a good point.

But if Macca was carrying an injury that needed an op so we didn't want to bring him on it was like playing with a sub less anwyay.
 
Tactical genius 1 away win all season and cook decides we need to alter
our formation brilliant !

there are many reasons why a football underperforms
1 are the players technically good enough ?
2 are the players fully committed ?
3 are the players coached correctly?
4 are the players mentally strong enough under pressure?
5 are the players concentration levels at 100% over 90 minutes ?
6 are the tactics correct for the opposition?.

I have also noticed especially the last home game (Brentford)
the transition from defence to attack was very good by the away side.
our play is largely fragmented with poor finishing.

The managers/coach's job is to motivate and instil confidence
Cook is stubborn in his 4-2-3-1 formation.
with poor movement our 6-4 formation we struggle to score
BC
 
Tactical genius 1 away win all season and cook decides we need to alter
our formation brilliant !

there are many reasons why a football underperforms
1 are the players technically good enough ?
2 are the players fully committed ?
3 are the players coached correctly?
4 are the players mentally strong enough under pressure?
5 are the players concentration levels at 100% over 90 minutes ?
6 are the tactics correct for the opposition?.

I have also noticed especially the last home game (Brentford)
the transition from defence to attack was very good by the away side.
our play is largely fragmented with poor finishing.

The managers/coach's job is to motivate and instil confidence
Cook is stubborn in his 4-2-3-1 formation.
with poor movement our 6-4 formation we struggle to score
BC
What about 7. We are just shit and have underperformed all season with some terrible signings in Cooks last three windows letting us down continuously.
8. The manager playing the opposite style of football he promised last summer.
9. Injuries.
10. Inconsistent starting elevens and styles of play.
However we will defend all the way through tomorrow with the occasional big boot up to Hapless Harry Clarke and steal a 1 nil win.
COYL
 
He changes stuff ...................... he gets called
He doesn't change stuff ........ he gets called

Twas ever thus.
 
He changes stuff ...................... he gets called
He doesn't change stuff ........ he gets called

Twas ever thus.
Moonay how often has he changed the 4-2-3-1 ?
cook is a reactive manager not a proactive one
he has not learned from his mistakes and will not progress at a championship
standard he will always be league 1/2 standard I thank him
for his efforts in league 1 where I enjoyed the away days.
but the experiment has failed he is not fit for purpose.
and has been found out like rosler/Caldwell/joyce as
lower league standard
BC
 
As it happens, I reckon he's changed it far more than you've noticed.

Regardless, that wasn't what I meant. I meant that if he changes summat, he gets called......... however, if he doesn't change owt, he still gets called.

You don't rate him. Fair enough.but if you're going to moan whatever he does, it kind of feels irrelevant.
 
We will 1-0 a deflection off Clarke's head. Well if we had a winger or wing back and attempted the occasional cross it's possible but most likely a big boot out of defence could hit Clarke and go in. Miracles happen.
 
We have played with wingers and wing backs all season...

I have no hope for the game tomorrow, if Cook is going to change formation then maybe try the same 3-5-2 formation/tactic used against Middlesbrough as that actually worked.
But it is probably going to be the same kick it down the channels"style" of football.
 
As it happens, I reckon he's changed it far more than you've noticed.

Regardless, that wasn't what I meant. I meant that if he changes summat, he gets called......... however, if he doesn't change owt, he still gets called.

You don't rate him. Fair enough.but if you're going to moan whatever he does, it kind of feels irrelevant.

Moonay I do rate cooke as a league 1/2 manager
no I am not moaning whatever he does
it is when we play 1-6-4 and not sounding like a Broken record
attack and defend as a team
my post cannot be that irrevelant as you responded to it!
BC