A narrow defeat at a top four team, but slipshod Cardiff still disappoint.

Can Cardiff avoid the drop when, essentially, they have to score at least two to win?

https://mauveandyellowarmy.net

I've just watched the highlights. Some points:

I'm 100% in favour of playing out from the back when circumstances allow, but for a team like ours to be attempting to play out from a goal kick is just mind-numbingly stupid, especially in the second minute of the game. It's a ridiculous tactic for a side in a relegation battle. That goal is firmly the responsibility of the manager and his coaching staff.

City's equaliser would have been disallowed for a foul on the keeper 99 times out of 100. We were extremely lucky to get away with that one.

Great work by Colwill to present Salech with a golden opportunity to put City ahead during the second half, and he should have buried it. It was a brilliant save, but Salech should have given the keeper no chance from that sort of range.

The defending for Sunderland's winner was abysmal. Just terrible.

That's twice in a week someone has been given a tap in from a ball across goal. Goutas was yards behind his man, the guy just does not react to danger

Also, Riza's changes completely gave up any control we had in the game and starting all three players who can play through the middle and having no one on the bench who can play that role was just idiotic.

Given that we picked a relatively attacking line up yesterday, it’s bizarre that our initial strategy was to play the ball around in our weakest area of the pitch. Play the game in the areas where we are most likely to be effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I've just watched the highlights. Some points:

I'm 100% in favour of playing out from the back when circumstances allow, but for a team like ours to be attempting to play out from a goal kick is just mind-numbingly stupid, especially in the second minute of the game. It's a ridiculous tactic for a side in a relegation battle. That goal is firmly the responsibility of the manager and his coaching staff.

City's equaliser would have been disallowed for a foul on the keeper 99 times out of 100. We were extremely lucky to get away with that one.

Great work by Colwill to present Salech with a golden opportunity to put City ahead during the second half, and he should have buried it. It was a brilliant save, but Salech should have given the keeper no chance from that sort of range.

The defending for Sunderland's winner was abysmal. Just terrible.

---

As I ask in the piece, I wish someone would tell supporters what are the requirements, as seen by the manager and coaching staff, which would enable the short goal kicks policy to be deemed a success? The winning goal we scored against Derby was an example of good, effective passing football, as was the one we scored against the wurzels, but we didn’t score them by taking short goal kicks or do Riza and co believe they played some part in creating those goals? If they do, it would be good to hear how they arrive at such a conclusion. I cannot see how taking short goal kicks can lead to goals further down the line, but maybe I’m missing something. As it is, you can’t blame supporters for having doubts about a policy which can be high risk for the very best teams with, apparently, very little prospect of any reward.

Short goal kicks are probably more about retaining possession than scoring goals because when the ball is punted up field the attackers are likely to be outnumbered by opposition players. We are not good at either approach but at least the punt is less likely to result in a simple chance at goal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I've just watched the highlights. Some points:

I'm 100% in favour of playing out from the back when circumstances allow, but for a team like ours to be attempting to play out from a goal kick is just mind-numbingly stupid, especially in the second minute of the game. It's a ridiculous tactic for a side in a relegation battle. That goal is firmly the responsibility of the manager and his coaching staff.

City's equaliser would have been disallowed for a foul on the keeper 99 times out of 100. We were extremely lucky to get away with that one.

Great work by Colwill to present Salech with a golden opportunity to put City ahead during the second half, and he should have buried it. It was a brilliant save, but Salech should have given the keeper no chance from that sort of range.

The defending for Sunderland's winner was abysmal. Just terrible.

---

I think their keeper initiated any contact by coming for a ball he couldn’t possibly win, as witnessed by very little protest from their players.
It was a very good save from the Salech chance, not sure our striker could have done much more there - don’t think he could have gone towards the other post from that angle.

Agreed on their first goal, we now have a striker who can compete for long balls so it’s an option we should use more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I've just watched the highlights. Some points:

I'm 100% in favour of playing out from the back when circumstances allow, but for a team like ours to be attempting to play out from a goal kick is just mind-numbingly stupid, especially in the second minute of the game. It's a ridiculous tactic for a side in a relegation battle. That goal is firmly the responsibility of the manager and his coaching staff.

City's equaliser would have been disallowed for a foul on the keeper 99 times out of 100. We were extremely lucky to get away with that one.

Great work by Colwill to present Salech with a golden opportunity to put City ahead during the second half, and he should have buried it. It was a brilliant save, but Salech should have given the keeper no chance from that sort of range.

The defending for Sunderland's winner was abysmal. Just terrible.

---

We were a bit unlucky, Salech hitting the post again after a great save, but a decent performance. Got to agree with the goal and playing it out from the back, what were they thinking of two mins in away to a top team, when they were obviously playing a high press knowing our main defensive weakness! I hope to God they've learned from that.

If you only saw the highlights, you won't have a full picture of the game, there were a lot more crosses and we looked a handful upfront with that team, but susceptible to break aways against teams with pace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grangenders

Given that we picked a relatively attacking line up yesterday, it’s bizarre that our initial strategy was to play the ball around in our weakest area of the pitch. Play the game in the areas where we are most likely to be effective.

---

Spot on that was crazy.

Both goals were an utter shambles. I can’t decide which one was worse but they sum up our awful defence and mindless strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

As I ask in the piece, I wish someone would tell supporters what are the requirements, as seen by the manager and coaching staff, which would enable the short goal kicks policy to be deemed a success? The winning goal we scored against Derby was an example of good, effective passing football, as was the one we scored against the wurzels, but we didn’t score them by taking short goal kicks or do Riza and co believe they played some part in creating those goals? If they do, it would be good to hear how they arrive at such a conclusion. I cannot see how taking short goal kicks can lead to goals further down the line, but maybe I’m missing something. As it is, you can’t blame supporters for having doubts about a policy which can be high risk for the very best teams with, apparently, very little prospect of any reward.

---

The likelihood of the short goal kick in the first minute or so would probably be more of a reaction to how Sunderland line up early. I don't have the first idea, but maybe they play high early, so riza thought it might be a good idea to exploit it. But who knows.... It's a bad idea whatever the reason behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I've just watched the highlights. Some points:

I'm 100% in favour of playing out from the back when circumstances allow, but for a team like ours to be attempting to play out from a goal kick is just mind-numbingly stupid, especially in the second minute of the game. It's a ridiculous tactic for a side in a relegation battle. That goal is firmly the responsibility of the manager and his coaching staff.

City's equaliser would have been disallowed for a foul on the keeper 99 times out of 100. We were extremely lucky to get away with that one.

Great work by Colwill to present Salech with a golden opportunity to put City ahead during the second half, and he should have buried it. It was a brilliant save, but Salech should have given the keeper no chance from that sort of range.

The defending for Sunderland's winner was abysmal. Just terrible.

---

Agree about our goal, although if the keeper comes then he has to be more dominant, he was half committed, which is why i reckon the ref let the goal stand. Salech chance, it wasn't an easy one and it forced a fine save, maybe should have gone for that big lump of space to the right of the keeper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PontBlue

That's twice in a week someone has been given a tap in from a ball across goal. Goutas was yards behind his man, the guy just does not react to danger

---

Goutas very overrated by our fans imo, won't be sad to see him go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by City123

Goutas very overrated by our fans imo, won't be sad to see him go

---

He’s been offered a new contract by all accounts. At least it sounds that way from what Riza was saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

As I ask in the piece, I wish someone would tell supporters what are the requirements, as seen by the manager and coaching staff, which would enable the short goal kicks policy to be deemed a success? The winning goal we scored against Derby was an example of good, effective passing football, as was the one we scored against the wurzels, but we didn’t score them by taking short goal kicks or do Riza and co believe they played some part in creating those goals? If they do, it would be good to hear how they arrive at such a conclusion. I cannot see how taking short goal kicks can lead to goals further down the line, but maybe I’m missing something. As it is, you can’t blame supporters for having doubts about a policy which can be high risk for the very best teams with, apparently, very little prospect of any reward.

---

My limited understanding is that, by having possession at the back, you can draw teams out, then hit them with pace in behind. It creates space in the opposing half. We've had a big problem for years trying to break sides down when they get 10 men behind the ball. It's not all about being Man City and passing the ball a few inches and tapping into the net. Top sides will pass the ball about around their own box then find a killer long ball. Whether we have the players to do this is another thing, possibly not, but I can understand us trying it. Agreed that the 2nd minute might not be the time to be doing so, but it's not without potential merit. Of course, when it goes wrong, then you're in trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I've just watched the highlights. Some points:

I'm 100% in favour of playing out from the back when circumstances allow, but for a team like ours to be attempting to play out from a goal kick is just mind-numbingly stupid, especially in the second minute of the game. It's a ridiculous tactic for a side in a relegation battle. That goal is firmly the responsibility of the manager and his coaching staff.

City's equaliser would have been disallowed for a foul on the keeper 99 times out of 100. We were extremely lucky to get away with that one.

Great work by Colwill to present Salech with a golden opportunity to put City ahead during the second half, and he should have buried it. It was a brilliant save, but Salech should have given the keeper no chance from that sort of range.

The defending for Sunderland's winner was abysmal. Just terrible.

---

I disagree totally with the comment about our goal. Keeper made a total mess of it, was out of control and never going to get there and he was lucky that he made some contact with Salech so he had a bit of an excuse. I can imagine a very weak ref giving it as a foul, but totally the right decision to allow it. Shame we didn't put him under pressure a bit more after that.

Totally agree with the rest of it though... playing out from the back is presumably something Riza saw in a coaching seminar and thinks everyone should be doing it, but as others have noted away against a better team, especially with the way he set the rest of our team up is utterly stupid. I thought his team selection/meddling and tactics for the first 30 mins yesterday really underlined his lack of experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

My limited understanding is that, by having possession at the back, you can draw teams out, then hit them with pace in behind. It creates space in the opposing half. We've had a big problem for years trying to break sides down when they get 10 men behind the ball. It's not all about being Man City and passing the ball a few inches and tapping into the net. Top sides will pass the ball about around their own box then find a killer long ball. Whether we have the players to do this is another thing, possibly not, but I can understand us trying it. Agreed that the 2nd minute might not be the time to be doing so, but it's not without potential merit. Of course, when it goes wrong, then you're in trouble.

---

We clearly don't have the players though, which is a big part of the problem. Horvath is a disaster waiting to happen every time he has the ball at his feet, the back four for the most part can't pass and the two defensive midfielders we picked have no pace or athleticism to beat a press or cover if we do get ourselves into trouble. On top of that out of the 4 attacking players he's gone with only one of which has any real pace to play the style you are suggesting.

Like you suggested in the other thread, I want to see a possession based style as well but it's got to be sensible and with a side built around playing that style, and we just aren't good enough at this level to do it right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Bluebird

I disagree totally with the comment about our goal. Keeper made a total mess of it, was out of control and never going to get there and he was lucky that he made some contact with Salech so he had a bit of an excuse. I can imagine a very weak ref giving it as a foul, but totally the right decision to allow it. Shame we didn't put him under pressure a bit more after that.

---

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but you're wrong on this one. Salech jumped in with his arm up as high as the keeper's and made contact with the goalie. Indeed, from the angle behind City's goals it looks as if he punched the ball out of the keeper's hands (he didn't). It was poor goalkeeping, but as I said, that gets given as a foul 99 times out a 100 in the Championship in this day and age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-grHBh2o_OM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesp

I think their keeper initiated any contact by coming for a ball he couldn’t possibly win, as witnessed by very little protest from their players.

---

I thought of you when I was watching the highlights this morning. I said to myself: "That guy who complains about the ref on every single match thread would be writing to his MP if this one had been at the other end."

:hehe: :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by City123

Goutas very overrated by our fans imo, won't be sad to see him go

---

Please don't include me amongst them !

The phrase 'too good to go down' is quoted by fans of struggling clubs everywhere this time of year usually in the belief their team has more quality available than the more, say, pragmatic sides around them. Certainly in the last couple of months I've had the distinct impression the management of our club firmly believe relegation is something for the likes of Plymouth, Luton etc. to be concerned with. Ramsey's going to hang around to help take City to the PL, we have shaken off the tag of dour, dull football, and virtually every new player that has come here since August has given the manager more attacking options from midfield forward. Yet I feel less confident in us staying up that when we had the likes of Vaulks and Pack in midfield and Flint and Nelson at the back. Those 4 couldn't pass the ball to another blue shirt if they tried, but our midfield was tough, and our back four kept battling and organising for 90 minutes. I've said it for months, with either of Goutas or/and Daland on the pitch we're going to lose, and for what it's worth my view is that if he sticks with Goutas - who along with Daland - is guaranteed to make a mistake or not organise a set piece - we will go down. Awful to say but if ever I wished a player to pick up an injury it's Goutas, because Riza won't have the balls to drop him..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

The phrase 'too good to go down' is quoted by fans of struggling clubs everywhere this time of year usually in the belief their team has more quality available than the more, say, pragmatic sides around them. Certainly in the last couple of months I've had the distinct impression the management of our club firmly believe relegation is something for the likes of Plymouth, Luton etc. to be concerned with. Ramsey's going to hang around to help take City to the PL, we have shaken off the tag of dour, dull football, and virtually every new player that has come here since August has given the manager more attacking options from midfield forward. Yet I feel less confident in us staying up that when we had the likes of Vaulks and Pack in midfield and Flint and Nelson at the back. Those 4 couldn't pass the ball to another blue shirt if they tried, but our midfield was tough, and our back four kept battling and organising for 90 minutes. I've said it for months, with either of Goutas or/and Daland on the pitch we're going to lose, and for what it's worth my view is that if he sticks with Goutas - who along with Daland - is guaranteed to make a mistake or not organise a set piece - we will go down. Awful to say but if ever I wished a player to pick up an injury it's Goutas, because Riza won't have the balls to drop him..

---

Just bonkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I've just watched the highlights. Some points:

I'm 100% in favour of playing out from the back when circumstances allow, but for a team like ours to be attempting to play out from a goal kick is just mind-numbingly stupid, especially in the second minute of the game. It's a ridiculous tactic for a side in a relegation battle. That goal is firmly the responsibility of the manager and his coaching staff.

City's equaliser would have been disallowed for a foul on the keeper 99 times out of 100. We were extremely lucky to get away with that one.

Great work by Colwill to present Salech with a golden opportunity to put City ahead during the second half, and he should have buried it. It was a brilliant save, but Salech should have given the keeper no chance from that sort of range.

The defending for Sunderland's winner was abysmal. Just terrible.

---

Very balanced analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

The phrase 'too good to go down' is quoted by fans of struggling clubs everywhere this time of year usually in the belief their team has more quality available than the more, say, pragmatic sides around them. Certainly in the last couple of months I've had the distinct impression the management of our club firmly believe relegation is something for the likes of Plymouth, Luton etc. to be concerned with. Ramsey's going to hang around to help take City to the PL, we have shaken off the tag of dour, dull football, and virtually every new player that has come here since August has given the manager more attacking options from midfield forward. Yet I feel less confident in us staying up that when we had the likes of Vaulks and Pack in midfield and Flint and Nelson at the back. Those 4 couldn't pass the ball to another blue shirt if they tried, but our midfield was tough, and our back four kept battling and organising for 90 minutes. I've said it for months, with either of Goutas or/and Daland on the pitch we're going to lose, and for what it's worth my view is that if he sticks with Goutas - who along with Daland - is guaranteed to make a mistake or not organise a set piece - we will go down. Awful to say but if ever I wished a player to pick up an injury it's Goutas, because Riza won't have the balls to drop him..

---

Three points: We have won games with Goutas and Daland. Wishing injury on a player? WTF? And making assumptions based on what you think someone else is thinking is never a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garth Blue

Very balanced analysis.

---

Thanks. Your endorsement is much appreciated.

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garth Blue

Very balanced analysis.

---

:hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

We were a bit unlucky, Salech hitting the post again after a great save, but a decent performance. Got to agree with the goal and playing it out from the back, what were they thinking of two mins in away to a top team, when they were obviously playing a high press knowing our main defensive weakness! I hope to God they've learned from that.

If you only saw the highlights, you won't have a full picture of the game, there were a lot more crosses and we looked a handful upfront with that team, but susceptible to break aways against teams with pace.

---

Proper balanced analysis :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

We have won games with Goutas and Daland.

---

Thought I'd take a look at how we've done with different CB combinations.
3 of our 8 league wins this season came with Goutas and Daland at centre back. 4 were Goutas and Chambers and the other was Ng and Fish.

Of matches we've drawn:
Goutas Daland 6
Goutas Chambers 3
Goutas Chambers Daland 1
Goutas Bagan 1
Ng Goutas Bagan 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland

Thought I'd take a look at how we've done with different CB combinations.
3 of our 8 league wins this season came with Goutas and Daland at centre back. 4 were Goutas and Chambers and the other was Ng and Fish.

Of matches we've drawn:
Goutas Daland 6
Goutas Chambers 3
Goutas Chambers Daland 1
Goutas Bagan 1
Ng Goutas Bagan 1

---

Percentage wise I wonder?

NG and Fish probably statistically best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

Percentage wise I wonder?

NG and Fish probably statistically best.

---

only if you have a very simplistic look at the statistics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

only if you have a very simplistic look at the statistics

---

Yes, but we can't defend well with Daland and Goutis, is it just one or are both of them the problem, or is it in front of them, or the whole team?

It's frustrating we are in March and don't really know our best defence and keeper combinations.

Could it be two of Bagan, Fish, NG in the centre, the problem is we weaken the fullbacks if NG and Bagan are playing inside, although Bagan less so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

Yes, but we can't defend well with Daland and Goutis, is it just one or are both of them the problem, or is it in front of them, or the whole team?

It's frustrating we are in March and don't really know our best defence and keeper combinations.

Could it be two of Bagan, Fish, NG in the centre, the problem is we weaken the fullbacks if NG and Bagan are playing inside, although Bagan less so.

---

This what teams do when they’re struggling, move players around, hoping something will work. Bagan and NG are full backs and should only play full back. Goutas plays alongside either Fish or Daland. We need to find a pairing that works, not change every game.

Luton will be a physical challenge tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

Just bonkers.

---

Why's that then - please enlighten moi..