the diamond standard

[Thracian]

But when a team are a couple of goals down it's inevitable they are going to press a lot more. It's not as simplistic as 'we sit back and invite them to attack'. We could go and keep attacking relentlessly, but this often backfires and results in allowing the opposition back into the game. We were soaking up everything they could throw at us, and providing a threat on the counter.

The reason we lost our advantage was simply down to two poor refereeing decisions. You can see that as making excuses if you like, but it's fact.

We played well today and were very unfortunate. Sven and his staff, in the main, got it right.

We were not "soaking" everything up. Unless you call Schmiechel parrying a breathtaking volley wide "soaking". That shdot came because no-one picked a man up on the edge of the box and it came as the ball was increasingly being delivered into our box because we failed to show the same determination to stiffle Forest's attacks at source and to keep the ball down at the Forest end.

Again, I actually remarked on it. I said how little we saw Forest in our half during the first 45 minutes when Kasper didn't have a save to make - and how little we saw of City in the second half when they were showing so little ambition. That's not just down to a change of Forest tactics or because Forest have suddenly developed greater ability than they had 45 minutes earlier. It's was down to how well our manager was doing his job in making his players believe in not letting Forest get a breath of air til the whole game was over.

Instead we had them by the throat and let go instead of throttling them. We didn't neutralise Miller and we didn't cut the supply of crosses. Had we done so the incidents in our penalty box wouldn't have materialised. As I've always said. The best way to defend is in the opposition penalty area.

And I've heard this talk of the risks involved in doing this but every week I see the worse risks in doing something else. We've won sod all for years thinking so cautiously. And we paid the price again today. Our loss of two points wasn't just down to the referee. It was down to conceding space too easily and too willingly. When we stop conceding anything for anyone at anytime we'll start winning things. It's called being ruthless.

[Salieri]

We were not "soaking" everything up. Unless you call Schmiechel parrying a breathtaking volley wide "soaking". That shdot came because no-one picked a man up on the edge of the box and it came as the ball was increasingly being delivered into our box because we failed to show the same determination to stiffle Forest's attacks at source and to keep the ball down at the Forest end.

Again, I actually remarked on it. I said how little we saw Forest in our half during the first 45 minutes when Kasper didn't have a save to make - and how little we saw of City in the second half when they were showing so little ambition. That's not just down to a change of Forest tactics or because Forest have suddenly developed greater ability than they had 45 minutes earlier. It's was down to how well our manager was doing his job in making his players believe in not letting Forest get a breath of air til the whole game was over.

Instead we had them by the throat and let go instead of throttling them. We didn't neutralise Miller and we didn't cut the supply of crosses. Had we done so the incidents in our penalty box wouldn't have materialised. As I've always said. The best way to defend is in the opposition penalty area.

And I've heard this talk of the risks involved in doing this but every week I see the worse risks in doing something else. We've won sod all for years thinking so cautiously. And we paid the price again today. Our loss of two points wasn't just down to the referee. It was down to conceding space too easily and too willingly. When we stop conceding anything for anyone at anytime we'll start winning things. It's called being ruthless.

Yes he did make a great save but other than that? Sod all really. (until after we were down to ten men). I think the introduction of Miller certainly made a difference to the game as Forest had an attacking threat they didn't possess in the first half, and we did struggle to contain them more so after his introduction.

I wish you could just acknowledge what was the turning point of the game, and realise that we are not Barcelona and cannot play to your idealistc standard for the whole 90 minutes.

[Guest Col city fan]

The system worked well for first half with our team looking the best balanced its been for ages.

But our second goal was the start of a gradual change of emphasis until, in the end, once again, we we voluntarily conceding space and finally just gave the ball away in our desperation.

Again, the managerial leadership was awful.

Forest were awful in the first half, their defence so vulnerable they were always vulnerable to any kind of sustained pressure.

Indeed it was their diabolical defensive mistakes gave us our two goal advantage.

After that we stopped doing the things which had helped

us score those goals and, seocnd half it got worse because we really stopped trying to score goals altogether. We just tried to contain the game.

Forest brought on the big, busling Miller who was soon making pushing and pulling our centre-backs out of their comfort zone and our tactical reaction to this change was abyssmal.

Instead of continuing to press forwards and to so quickly smother the Forest attacks at source that they had not a single shot on target first half, we started to concede the space and defend from the halfway line backwards.

Still Miller (and therefore those supplying him) would have

got nowhere if we'd pushed our defensive back line higher up the pitch - way outside the penalty area - and thus neutralised his effect and the potential for trouble whenever a final ball was played into their penalty box.

Howard is another you have to do this with to best negate his threat and it would have been virtually risk free because

the bustler wasn't fast enough to get behind our defence for long and there were no fast Forest forwards to make runs from deep.

Gradually the ball was going into our box far more than was previously the case and, with the place getting

increasingly crowded, some of us sensed that trouble was coming.

Taking Nugent off didn't help our need to keep closing down quickly but using Gallagher as an alternative was idiotic. Gallagher is the worst pressurising player we've got - and despite the vital importance of his job tonight he looked only half-hearted in doing it.

Even the much more pacy Dyer would have been more effective but Jeffery Schlupp was the specialist striker on the bench and, yet again, we preferred to use someone as a makeweight in the job, with typically predictable

consequences.

It really was two points voluntarily thrown away through bad tactical reaction and individual indiscipline.

Put simply, Sven and his helpers failed to show the

awareness necessary to see out the job. By refusing to sustain our pressure against a poor side and by reacting badly to the need for a tactical adjustment, it enabled Forest to apply the pressure which led to the Schmiechel's costly indiscipline. As a result, two more points disappeared that we should have won, we are without our top goalkeeper for a game and we are now nine points off

the pace counting goal difference.

Our team has lost the chance to be celebrated for gaining our first maximum points at Forest for decades and worse, both our league position and our confidence have taken

another big knock. Professional? We seem professionally naive and, I say again, in desperate need of an attacking coach because we still didn't create many openings in the match..

You were there and I wasn't so I'll have to accept your more detailed opinion on the game.

I fully agree with you on Gallagher... I was posting at that point that I would have liked to have seen dyer introduced to run into the channels and just play out some time.

Gally blows too hot and cold and, IMO is a massively over-rated player

How it sounded on the radio, Thrac, was that it looked like we were gonna hold out until the penalty... Surely you must agree that this changed the outcome as did the silly sending off of kasper... Ie kasper was silly to get sent off.

Was it really that bad second half?

We were very near to getting a win at forest.. Surely even the pessimistic Thracian saw some improvement today?

[Thracian]

a) How it sounded on the radio, Thrac, was that it looked like we were gonna hold out until the penalty...

b) Surely you must agree that this changed the outcome as did the silly sending off of kasper... Ie kasper was silly to get sent off.

Was it really that bad second half?

c) We were very near to getting a win at forest.. Surely even the pessimistic Thracian saw some improvement today?

a) I've not said the penalty had no effect, I'm saying we stopped doing what was so successful during the first half and allowed them much easier access to our penalty area as the game went on - thus vastly increasing the risk of the sort of calamities we suffered ie the penalty and the sending off.

b) Kasper let his emotions cost us dearly and there is no defence as I believe he's acknowledged. Hopefully he will be a better professional for the experience but that does not hide or excuse the underlying cause of what happened..

c) Yes I saw a vast improvement. But Manchester United show us on a regular basis that being close to victory is not the same as achieving victory. The game last 90 minutes - or 95 with stoppages today - and that's how long we should try to keep our ascendency without being forced back unless there's nothing we can do about it.

I didn't like our time wasting either. It affects a team's focus and sense of purpose as well as risking putting the referees backs up. A detail maybe, but details matter. We shouldn't concede anything, either physically or mentally if we want success.

[davieG]

Yes he did make a great save but other than that? Sod all really. (until after we were down to ten men). I think the introduction of Miller certainly made a difference to the game as Forest had an attacking threat they didn't possess in the first half, and we did struggle to contain them more so after his introduction.

I wish you could just acknowledge what was the turning point of the game, and realise that we are not Barcelona and cannot play to your idealistc standard for the whole 90 minutes.

By the same token that Miller became a threat we removed ours by taking off Nugent and replacing him with Gallagher, that was just as much a turning point as anything else.

[Salieri]

By the same token that Miller became a threat we removed ours by taking off Nugent and replacing him with Gallagher, that was just as much a turning point as anything else.

True, but our hand was forced, in that Nugent was (supposedly) carrying a knock.

[Thracian]

I wish you could just acknowledge what was the turning point of the game, and realise that we are not Barcelona and cannot play to your idealistc standard for the whole 90 minutes.

I think the start of the turning point was way before that and believe we had ample time to react and put things right. As for my "idealistic standard", why should we change something that was working in favour of something far more risky? We should have kept on pressing them and trying to force more mistakes even as far back as the last 10 minutes of the first half. We actually tried to hold what we had and got caught for being so negative. We did it at Derby away last season - but far more dramatically - yet got away with it.

[davieG]

True, but our hand was forced, in that Nugent was (supposedly) carrying a knock.

...and there was nobody more appropriate to allow us to continue with the same formation on the bench other than Gallagher, what about Schlupp. People are also comment on how Konchesky faded perhaps that was down to Gallagher being in front of him.

I've nothing against Gallagher but he was totally the wrong player to replace Nugent.

[dave_the_fox]

Schlupp, since he can play left back and is quick and unafraid, would have put more pressure on the Forest defenders than Gallagher did. I guess Sven was scared to throw him into the deep end in a local derby.

Spot on pal

[Salieri]

...and there was nobody more appropriate to allow us to continue with the same formation on the bench other than Gallagher, what about Schlupp. People are also comment on how Konchesky faded perhaps that was down to Gallagher being in front of him.

I've nothing against Gallagher but he was totally the wrong player to replace Nugent.

I agree, and said in another thread that Schlupp would have been a better option than Gallagher to bring on.

[Raw Dykes]

I agree, and said in another thread that Schlupp would have been a better option than Gallagher to bring on.

Maybe, but I'm sure Sven was thinking Gallagher was the more versatile player. I'm sure he was considering going for 5 in midfield at some point, and that Gallagher would be more suited for that. Also, Gallagher's the more experienced forward, and is also the best set-piece taker we have. I think it's a lot to ask of an 18 year old to throw him into an away team in the closing stages of a local derby. Things like experience, versatility, dead ball situations, etc. are important things to consider when trying to hang on to a lead.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that Gallagher does very little in the defensive side of the game, but I'm really not sure Schlupp would have been the better option. I think maybe you can blame Sven, but only for not yet signing a forward better suited for defending than Gallagher.

[Salieri]

Maybe, but I'm sure Sven was thinking Gallagher was the more versatile player. I'm sure he was considering going for 5 in midfield at some point, and that Gallagher would be more suited for that. Also, Gallagher's the more experienced forward, and is also the best set-piece taker we have. I think it's a lot to ask of an 18 year old to throw him into an away team in the closing stages of a local derby. Things like experience, versatility, dead ball situations, etc. are important things to consider when trying to hang on to a lead.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that Gallagher does very little in the defensive side of the game, but I'm really not sure Schlupp would have been the better option. I think maybe you can blame Sven, but only for not yet signing a forward better suited for defending than Gallagher.

I was thinking less of the defensive side and more of an attacking option. Forest were starting to come at us and apply a bit of pressure, therefore if you're going to counter attack then you need to do it with pace, and Schlupp could have provided us with that.

[Raw Dykes]

I was thinking less of the defensive side and more of an attacking option. Forest were starting to come at us and apply a bit of pressure, therefore if you're going to counter attack then you need to do it with pace, and Schlupp could have provided us with that.

Yeah, I do see your point. I just think it was a more difficult decision than some people are making out, and I probably would have picked Gallagher over Schlupp because of his experience and set pieces. I think it's the age old problem - we do need one more good striker. Perhaps someone who offers something different to what we already have?

If you were manager, would you look for a big target man, or go for pace? Which do you think would have been more helpful in the dying stages of today's match?

[Jimmy]

I think it would work better with Gally at the tip of the diamond as he is one of our more creative players

[Salieri]

Yeah, I do see your point. I just think it was a more difficult decision than some people are making out, and I probably would have picked Gallagher over Schlupp because of his experience and set pieces. I think it's the age old problem - we do need one more good striker. Perhaps someone who offers something different to what we already have?

If you were manager, would you look for a big target man, or go for pace? Which do you think would have been more helpful in the dying stages of today's match?

Well if you're looking for a big target man then obviously Howard would have been the man had he have been on the bench! This 5 subs thing is really not helping us as we do have a very strong squad.

Good job we didn't sacrifice a keeper on the bench today at least. Or some would argue we may as well have.

[themotivator]

so this nugent for gally swap has highlighted a brand new problem we need to deal with now... we need a new striker.

[Jimmy]

so this nugent for gally swap has highlighted a brand new problem we need to deal with now... we need a new striker.

we had 1 on the been, some chap called Schlupp

[Raw Dykes]

Well if you're looking for a big target man then obviously Howard would have been the man had he have been on the bench! This 5 subs thing is really not helping us as we do have a very strong squad.

Good job we didn't sacrifice a keeper on the bench today at least. Or some would argue we may as well have.

You're right about the 5 subs rule - ridiculous. What's the point? Who's in favour of it? I can think of plenty of reasons to keep it at 7 subs, and not one single reason to go back to 5.

Howard would have been an option, but I think he might be on his way out, even though he was inexplicably given a new contract not so long ago, as was Oakley.

They'd certainly have a point. I said before the match that it would be Sod's law we would need to sub the keeper as soon as we played a match without one on the bench - turns out it was even sooner than that. Maybe Sven should give young Smith a go at Bury?

[Jimmy]

You're right about the 5 subs rule - ridiculous. What's the point? Who's in favour of it? I can think of plenty of reasons to keep it at 7 subs, and not one single reason to go back to 5.

Howard would have been an option, but I think he might be on his way out, even though he was inexplicably given a new contract not so long ago, as was Oakley.

They'd certainly have a point. I said before the match that it would be Sod's law we would need to sub the keeper as soon as we played a match without one on the bench - turns out it was even sooner than that. Maybe Sven should give young Smith a go at Bury?

League 1 & 2 chairman voted for it as it saves them money

[Raw Dykes]

League 1 & 2 chairman voted for it as it saves them money

Couldn't they just stick a couple of kids on the bench? Or have a different rule for the Championship? I don't see why not. They should be encouraging clubs to bring young talent from their under 18s into the first team.

[Jimmy]

Couldn't they just stick a couple of kids on the bench? Or have a different rule for the Championship? I don't see why not. They should be encouraging clubs to bring young talent from their under 18s into the first team.

I don't see why they couldn't just name only 5 subs but that's what they voted for, as the Chamiponship is part of the Football LEague and not a separate enterty (like the prem is) it HAS to have the same rules

[Raw Dykes]

I don't see why they couldn't just name only 5 subs but that's what they voted for, as the Chamiponship is part of the Football LEague and not a separate enterty (like the prem is) it HAS to have the same rules

Seems a bit unfair to me. I know the Football League rules the 3 divisions, but I can't see why they can't have slightly different rules for each. Let's say all League 2 teams wanted just 3 subs, all League 1 clubs wanted 5, and all Championship clubs wanted 7. Why not let them all have what they want? That way everyone's happy. To me, it looks like laziness on the Football League's part.

[davieG]

Maybe, but I'm sure Sven was thinking Gallagher was the more versatile player. I'm sure he was considering going for 5 in midfield at some point, and that Gallagher would be more suited for that. Also, Gallagher's the more experienced forward, and is also the best set-piece taker we have. I think it's a lot to ask of an 18 year old to throw him into an away team in the closing stages of a local derby. Things like experience, versatility, dead ball situations, etc. are important things to consider when trying to hang on to a lead.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that Gallagher does very little in the defensive side of the game, but I'm really not sure Schlupp would have been the better option. I think maybe you can blame Sven, but only for not yet signing a forward better suited for defending than Gallagher.

So why have Schlupp on the bench for that type of game when it's clear we traditionally fail against Forest and we're on a poor run, that simply is no excuse for not using him, if Sven really thought he was not up to the occasion he had other option like Howard or Waghorn to have as subs

[Babylon]

So, there are 10 other players of ours on the pitch, and 11 of theirs who can also influence the game. Not forgetting the referee who had more of a say than anyone. There are also players making individual errors (Kasper/Weale), but once again the doom brigade want it all to be Svens fault.

Was it the wrong substitution, yes it was. I called it in the match thread the second he came on and said what would happen. But we had been losing our grip since Miller came on, his introduction influenced the match much more than Gallaghers.

You cannot say whether the goals they scored would have been if someone else had been on the pitch instead. Did it help having him, no it didn't... but to pin point his introduction as the sole reason we drew is about as laughable as the referees decision making.

[Fez of Mahrez]

The worst managerial decision in the game was McClaren not playing Miller from the start.