Gabbs or Blakey - who do you agree with?

I listened to the latest Elis James Feast of Football and A bit of Swazz podcasts discussing Saturday's game yesterday and was struck by how much the opinions of ex City players Danny Gabbidon and Nathan Blake were at odds when it came to our second half performance. Both of them were agreed that we played well in the first half and deserved to be ahead, while they were also united when it came to how well the centrebacks and wing backs played through the whole ninety minutes, but that's where the agreement ended.

I listened to Blakey's opinion first - he was of the view that it was a complete performance from City with good passing and movement in the first half and then a changed attitude after the break whereby we just decided to sit back and let Swansea have the ball and territory, more or less inviting them to break us down while thinking that there was no way they could do so. According to Blakey we were never in trouble and put down a marker from which we are likely to make it into the top six at the end of the season.

By contrast, Gabbs (who predicted a 1-0 win for us beforehand) was of the view that it was very much a game of two halves for City as he described our ball retention in the second half as "woeful" and thought Swansea did enough to score after the break (interestingly, while I spent the second half thinking the jacks were going to score at any minute, Ekis James the jack was convinced that his team would never score!). Gabbs wasn't sure that City could make the Play Offs because they had to work so hard to get a win given they have so little of the ball in games and I must say I belong firmly in his camp on the matters of Saturday's match and how our season will finish.

However, did Blakey have a point when he said we were in control for nearly all of the match ? I agree with him that the win could have a very positive effect on our mind set in the remaining matches and we might see Lee Tomlin making a comeback in the coming weeks which will clearly help if he can reach anything like last season's standards - I've always thought that, man for man, we have a more talented squad than last season, but, with no three month break to recharge our batteries going into the final few matches, I fear we'll run out of steam if we are unable to pass the ball better.

I think the answer can sometimes be found by looking at it from the opposition point of view. If I had been a Swansea fan on Saturday I would have said we were terrible in the first half, mainly down to an excellent Cardiff display. In the second half, while we didn't look like breaking down a stubborn and packed Cardiff defence, we controlled the game, hit the post and Whittaker missed very good chances. The one he rolled wide was a terrible miss.

While Cardiff defended well, Swansea did have more than decent chances. Had one of them gone in, the whole debate would have been very different. Again, if I'd been a Jack on Saturday I'd have been furious at some of the missed chances. As a City fan, I was relieved at the final whistle.

Although I do think Blake has a point, I would also side with Gabbs.

Another point he made was about levels of fatigue in the run in. It takes a huge effort to play like we did in that 2nd half. How much will the players have in the tank, without picking up anymore injuries, to put the same level in all the way to the end of the season?

Maybe the fixtures are looing kind, not many teams keep the ball as well as the Jacks in the league. Brentford and Reading away aside, you'd like to think we could have more of the ball and take the game to the other teams.

Due to a combination of leaving it a bit too late to put a run together and the good form the top 6 this season (hardly dropping points each week) I think we might just miss out on the Play Offs. Hope I'm wrong though.

Quote:

---

We just decided to sit back and let Swansea have the ball and territory, more or less inviting them to break us down while thinking that there was no way they could do so.

It was very much a game of two halves for City as he described our ball retention in the second half as "woeful" and thought Swansea did enough to score after the break. Gabbs wasn't sure that City could make the Play Offs because they had to work so hard to get a win given they have so little of the ball in games

---

That's how I'd describe the second half. We had the height, we packed the defence and still Swansea created some good chances that meant they deserved an equalising goal.

If we wanted to be a play-off team we'd have tried harder to beat Stoke (out of form, struggling to score, first choice striker off early) by making greater use of the bench, and we could have used the bench more effectively against Swansea to improve ball retention by subbing off Moore and getting a player less fatigued on. MM won the big game but reduced our chances of making play-offs last week and increased chances of players getting injured needlessly.

I agree with gabs. We have developed a must not lose attitude rather than we need the 3 points to get into the play offs.

Not using experience players like hoilett and Williams as subs confused me. Should be using all 5 subs every game

Have to say I am with Gabbs on this. We got away with it against Swansea because of magnificent defending and poor finishing by Swansea. To be fair Swansea deserved a draw at least from the game. Don't think McCarthy uses the subs bench paticularly well and is definitely a must not lose manager. Think whether we finish in the playoffs depends entirely on Moore remaining fit and on form. I would say none of our other strikers are on form but basically we only have one other striker and McCarthy won't play him even as a subsistute.

Yea I don't see us in control. We defended resolutely, no doubt but some of it was last ditch, midfield and forwards just couldn't get into the game.

Think overall we deserved it but it's one of those where with better composure they probably score, Moore should also score though.

Well, one is an attacker and the other is a defender, so not surprised they have a different take on it.

Gabbs for me. We shocked them in the first half, we nullified them and were lucky enough to make it count. The second half was Rouke's Drift. Even though we battled defiantly, if they had equalized midway through the half, you couldn't have really complained if they'd had the further good fortune to take all three points at the end of the 90 minutes. But we did, they didn't and we didn't have to.

First half did feel composed and fairly in control. Moore puts away that chance or their keeper gets sent off and you’ve obviously got a different game on your hands. I don’t think 2-0 at half time would have flattered us at all.

2nd half I couldn’t tell if it was a game plan to completely back off and back ourselves with defending the lead, either way the jacks played their way back in and it was unsurprisingly back to the wall stuff as the game came to an end. What I found most frustrating was what felt like a complete disinterest in counterattacking, again, almost like it was an instruction.

I think you can be a Jack and think you deserved something out of the game but also that the team’s weaknesses were exposed (no height/physicality to defend set pieces; attacks forced out wide with no target man for crosses) and that you came upon against a defence that was on the top of its game and your attack wasn’t good enough on the day to break it down.