Top of the Table - Yeovil Post Match

[davieG]

Other plusses included more originality with the free kicks and I thought Morrison was half decent at RB, certainly miles better than Hobbs.

[Tilley]

Oakley's corners are whack.

[Joe.]

We were playing 442 with Oakley playing on the right of midfield but I agree with you about King, moving Oakley out means he has taken on the responsibility of playmaker.

A similar situation has occurred with Tunchev without Kisnorbo he took control of the defence and was playing like a midfielder at times spreading the ball around.

I personally disagree. I thought Oakley, King and Berner were all playing narrow, and Dyer was playing in just behind Fryatt and Howard.

4-3-1-2 was what I pretty much made of it in general.

Oh, and Yeovil were absolute dogshite.

[davieG]

I personally disagree. I thought Oakley, King and Berner were all playing narrow, and Dyer was playing in just behind Fryatt and Howard.

4-3-1-2 was what I pretty much made of it in general.

Oh, and Yeovil were absolute dogshite.

Dyer and Mattock were swapping places down the left through out and although Oakley drifted inside somewhat he spent quite a while out wide - deffo 442 for me although more flexible than usual.

We'll have to disagree then.

[Sods]

Good game by us, King, Oakley and Dyer were spot on tonight. Also enjoyed Howard, Fryatt and Mattock.

What we needed, get the job done very comftably.

Why did everyone panic at the end!

[Tilley]

Why did everyone panic at the end!

Who knows.

Yeovil were wank.

[Joe.]

Dyer and Mattock were swapping places down the left through out and although Oakley drifted inside somewhat he spent quite a while out wide - deffo 442 for me although more flexible than usual.

We'll have to disagree then.

I think we're both right to be honest, Oakley was definitely out wide quiet often. Either way, whatever we did it worked very well tonight and it's nice to see that Pearson changed things to fit the personnel he had for the team.

[Sods]

I personally disagree. I thought Oakley, King and Berner were all playing narrow, and Dyer was playing in just behind Fryatt and Howard.

4-3-1-2 was what I pretty much made of it in general.

Oh, and Yeovil were absolute dogshite.

Thats the way I saw it as well, however when attacking the left it seemed Dyer went wide for it and Oakley played more narrow and a lot closer to the front two. I think it just goes to show how much Pearson has come on since being with us already. Not scared to have a gamble and actually noticing when to change things. It was all going a bit too similar and top marks for changing it.

[SamL]

I thought it was a very professional performance. We did what we had to do without being spectacular.

I expected Yeovil to cause us more problems than they did, but it didn't happen.

[Thracian]

Cultured and crap. That describes the first half and second half respectively.

I'm not generally into expletives but crap comes out of the arse as waste and waste is what we did to the second half.

It was a waste of the paying fans' money being there.

It was a waste of a talented team.

And it was a waste of an opportunity to improve our goals difference, which might be important in the end.

Look at the stats. If tonight's game had been a boxing match it would have been stopped after 45 minutes to save Yeovil further punishment.

I expected them to be better than Stevenage but at least Stevenage had 20 minutes to commend them. I facetiously wrote down 750-1 at half-time. That didn't represent odds on a Yeovil win but the number of touches City had compared to Yeovil.

To all intents it was a mismatch and I can only imagine half-time went something like this....

"Right lads, no risks second half. There may be 16,000 fans out there who've come to watch a football match but I don't give a shit about their problems. We've got our noses in front and that's what matters. Just shut up shop now, spoil the game and see the ball goes into any part of the ground you like except our penalty area.

"I warned everyone beforehand that it might not be pretty and I want to be sure you deliver the message."

Well done Lloyd Dyer for goal number 7 from a cracking move. And well done Andy King. Joe Mattock and Alexandre Tunchev for trying to play football til the end even if the rest of your team-mates had long stopped looking for the ball almost from the time we took the lead.

Edworthy's injury was just like a tap being turned off in terms of our passing. Metaphorically, there was no more. It wasn't all Hobbs' fault either cos he soon copped out of full-back work and left the business to Morrison who showed nothing if not clear evidence that he was just as bad as Hobbs there.

Credit should be given though for our second clean sheet in succession, some inventive free-kicks at long last and our going top of the League having still not played a genuinely good 90 minutes in any League match.

I truthfully cannot remember the three shots Yeovil were supposed to have had. In fact I cannot really remember them as being much threat at all so in terms of their spoiling ability I'd like to say City were marvellous. But I don't know for sure cos I've a sneaking suspicion that the FoxesTalk Under 21's defence might have coped with what passed for Yeovil's attack.

Half-time I was almost drooling. City were running the visitors to a standstill with their passes, each one serving as a short jab into Yeovil's battered face. How I wished we'd got our other speedy wingers on the bench to emphasise how tired they were second half.

But no. It was all pretty negative and why DJ was given a measly few minutes I've no idea. Scared we might get beaten or what?

No, our tactics second half showed no faith in our players' ability and the idiocy of trying to play out time in the left corner had to be believed. Did we not learn even after embarking on the same stupidity against Charlton last season which cost us the two points that eventually got us relegated?

Collectively I'd have awarded something like 11 x 7 or more for our first half performances and second half the only marks I'd have given were black ones. For a performance that insulted football and the footballers in our team. As a manager I'd have been ashamed.

[Fox You Forest]

It was a training session for the most part attack v defence.

I only saw a 4-4-2 i have no idea where your getting 4-3-1-2 from.

Ref had a good game for a change only for the lino to have a mare.

Tunch played a long ball.

Mattock or King for MoM.

[JoeyB]

Dyer and Mattock were swapping places down the left through out and although Oakley drifted inside somewhat he spent quite a while out wide - deffo 442 for me although more flexible than usual.

We'll have to disagree then.

Yeah we lined up as a 4-4-2

but Oakly and Dyer had a Free Role i think to drift in and out when they want.

it wasn't a rigid 4-4-2 but we set out like that.

Oakly looks much better out there tho' and our free kicks were pretty swish

[Sods]

Don't think you went to the same game as me Thracian.

[RowlattsFox]

Looks like we would've found a position for Wesolowski had he kept himself fit, I'm not saying Berner has performed badly by the way. How does the right side work in the slight change of formation? I can imagine that the return of Gilberts pace will be important to the right flank with it being so narrow.

[lildave3]

Don't think you went to the same game as me Thracian.

Alexandre Yunchev

[Sods]

Looks like we would've found a position for Wesolowski had he kept himself fit, I'm not saying Berner has performed badly by the way. How does the right side work in the slight change of formation? I can imagine that the return of Gilberts pace will be important to the right flank with it being so narrow.

Yeah exactly, the formation is made for the full backs to join the attacks so we can have more numbers going forward. Its a great method for playing teams that are going to sit back.

[Daggers]

Yeovil weren't the worst side I've seen at the Walkers - they were one of the worst sides I've ever seen...and consequently our inability to finish them off was nothing short of shocking. The way we bumbled into each other in and around their area was as comical as Mattock's magical Bambi-on-ice-like collapse.

There was some wonderful interplay at times but it came to nothing - and why the hell didn't Pearson try other attacking options earlier?

As someone who rates Howard, he was shocking in the second half and only got worse as time went on. His layoffs were safe three footers going backwards or balls to no one. We'd not have missed him had he been chopped for Dickov. The six-man blockade Yeovil kept mounting in the box needed invention and skill to break down - not the Howard hammer.

For all the plusses I am left bemused by Pearsons tactics and substitutions. Why the shit did we rigidly stick to 442 when they played 541 throughout the night?

We should have put this game to bed in the first half - and we came very close to being bitten in the arse because we didn't close it out. Tonight simply left me with more questions than answers...but here's to being top of the league (however brief it may transpire to be).

[Fez of Mahrez]

I thought it was a good laugh. They made us look like Brazil in the first half and then their left-back was a corking watch in the second. What a player.

[Milky]

Some of this criticism seems a bit over the top

[Tilley]

My final thought of the day,

We should have spanked Yeovil tonight.

Goodnight,

Dom.

[Sods]

Some of this criticism seems a bit over the top

Totally agree.

So much of an improvement to the Rotherham game for me.

[Benjani]

We're top of the league.

As long as we keep grinding out results and getting the points for promotion then who cares?

This league is not there to play pretty football in. Like Mandaric said. It doesn't matter if it took 25 managers in a season. We want and need promotion and it doesn't matter how we get it.

[Daggers]

We're top of the league.

As long as we keep grinding out results and getting the points for promotion then who cares?

This league is not there to play pretty football in. Like Mandaric said. It doesn't matter if it took 25 managers in a season. We want and need promotion and it doesn't matter how we get it.

Who cares? Me for one.

Swansea played great football last season - and I want to see that from City this season.

If you're happy to accept crap football in the name of wins then fair enough, I prefer a bit of entertainment.

[Benjani]

I suppose but if you want entertainment then you could have paid a measley tenner tonight to watch Arsenal kids beat a full strength Wigan team playing amazing football.

Yes, I would like to see us play good football and entertain the crowd in the future. But at the moment I continue to watch L C F C because i love them and want to see them do well. This season is all about getting it done with and getting promotion. If we attack and attack all game then i can guarantee we will end up conceding goals and dropping points.

[Thracian]

We're top of the league.

As long as we keep grinding out results and getting the points for promotion then who cares?

This league is not there to play pretty football in. Like Mandaric said. It doesn't matter if it took 25 managers in a season. We want and need promotion and it doesn't matter how we get it.

Don't give me shit about this League not being suited to football. We played stacks of football first half and when we scored we just went functional.

Yeovil were absolutely dire. They came here to be dogged and to conduct an exercise in damage limitation. And a 1-0 that could have been four or five nil if we'd shown some ambition right might yet be the difference between promotion or otherwise.

Today was the perfect chance to send out a message to the rest of the League and we didn't take it. Had Yeovil scored a flukey goal near the end this forum would have been raging.