Minority Report 2019-20 v Bristol City

It has been very disappointing this week, reading the negativity and the cynicism that decorated almost every contribution to the BBS. Let me be frank. The Minority Report will not be cynical, it will not be negative and it will try to be hopeful until all hope is gone. If you are reading this expecting for more fuel to stoke your cynicism, please look elsewhere. Minority Report will be analytical. It will be logical. It will try to be accurate, although none of us can be accurate all the time. But it will never try to be hurtful, simply for the sake of it.


I went to Oakwell once again tonight, hopeful that we could get a win. In the end, we got a late fight back and a 2-2 draw, but once again I saw players giving their all for their Coach and for the fans. They may not have it right yet, but they have not given up. On my way to the ground, I had hoped that we would see 3-5-2, but I also hoped that Sibbick would be moved from the left side of the back 3 to the middle 5 (at the expense of McGeehan). I still think we have potentially a good player in Sibbick, but not on the left side of our defence. He is just not strong enough on his left side. It was a surprise to see Adam Murray revert to 4-3-3 but without a press of any description, and with Chaplin playing in the hole just in behind Woodrow and Wilks. Bristol City were in good old 4-4-2 formation, so in theory, we were light by a player in midfield. In practice this meant that the front 3 had to fill in at times when we were out-numbered in the middle of the park. I expected to find Cavare out-numbered at right full back too, but Diaby was on hand most of the time to help Cavare cope. The team had a strange unbalanced shape to it with Brown deep in coverage most of the time on the left assisting Sibbick, but with Cavare without coverage on the right and rarely threatened. My guess is that our formation was a reaction to the way that Bristol City had overloaded on their right in previous games, but I did find it unsettling.


My overall impression of that first half was that although City were quick, the quality of their play was not that high. Their best chance was to catch us on the break, but generally, Diaby and especially Halme coped quite easily. The subtle flicks and touches by Chaplin were constantly freeing his colleagues and that was the main reason we spent much of the half on top. Then City got a free kick on the right edge of our box. I have to say that Marley Watkins did not exactly cover himself in glory by throwing himself to the floor at the slightest of tugs by Diaby, and the ref should be ashamed of himself for booking a player according to what he thought might have happened, rather than what he actually saw, or thought had happened. But it has to be said that our defenders did not cover themselves in glory either. After the game, the Coach talked about changing the way that we play at set pieces. Ever since Stendel came to the club, our ball winners at dead ball defensive situations have been free, whilst the job of the rest of the team has been to block runners. So why, oh why was Williams allowed a free run at the cross. Clearly, the system went wrong because Williams did not even have a blocker. In fact, he so did not have a blocker that it was impossible to see who might have been allocated that job by the Coach. There was no-one near enough to him to even be a suspect. That was why he was head and shoulders above everyone at the far post. He had a free run at it. It looks like the work load for the next international week is already taken care of.


The second Bristol goal arrived in similar fashion in the second half, but this time it was clear that Weimann was Dougall’s man. We were two down and we had to find a way to change the game. Thomas had already come on for a disappointing Wilks. In the first half, Wilks troubled City and Bentley in the City goal made a superb save as we broke quickly on them and Wilks took a curling shot from the right with his left foot. He certainly seems to have talent, but sometimes his mind does not seem right. We seemed to get more from him when he was constantly picking up trivial yellow cards every week than we are now, and I wonder whether he is now exercising too much self-control, and is losing his motivation as a result. When Wilks departed before the second City goal, we reverted to 4-4-2 with Thomas on the left and Brown moved to the right. Next, Schmidt replaced a tiring Chaplin and Simoes replaced Brown. The fact that we hauled ourselves back into the game had nothing much to do with our substitutes though, and much more to do with the spirit of Mowatt. It was Mowatt who picked us up when we were down and almost out, but it could be argued that City brought their eventual fate upon themselves. They stopped passing, stopped keeping the ball and started panicking.


Halme once again scored from a corner, to make it 3 headed goals from dead ball situations in the match. With injury time almost ticked away, Woodrow scored our second from a goalmouth scramble. We had just about got what we deserved, although I do not think that overall, we had played as well as our last two home games. The 4-3-3 system seemed to confuse us, and it was not until we reverted to the familiarity of 4-4-2 that anything made sense. We really must sort out our dead ball defending, even if that means going back to man marking.


Rookie Watch


Brad Collins actually had very little to do. City only had 3 shots on target, so he only made 1 save. He had no chance with either goal.


Bambo Diaby seems to be being judged by referees according to how he looks, rather than what he does. Today he was asked to do 2 jobs (mark Watkins and cover Cavare) and I felt he was not his usual dominating self as a result.


Aapo Halme had another very good game and scored his second goal. He was again very close to PotM


Toby Sibbick I think that we have a chance of ruining a very good prospect if we continue to play him on his weak left side.


Conor Chaplin had another very good day in a red shirt. Playing in the hole rather than on the shoulder seems to suit him better.


Mallik Wilks was good and bad in equal measures. I would be interested as to why he sometimes seems disinterested in games, because he certainly has the skills when he wants to call upon them.


Luke Thomas is another who has the skills, but who does not show them all the time. I also wonder at times whether he is brave enough.


Elliot Simoes was not on long enough to tell anything.



Player of the Match


I have 3 nominations. The first is Connor Chaplin, who was superb in that first half. Some of his flicks straight to feet seemed inspired. Aapo Halme was faultless in defence, and his header got us back in the game with a shout. Alex Mowatt continued to believe when most others had stopped. Minority Report PotM is Alex Mowatt.

 

They all graft 100% every week and have done all season. They’re a fantastic bunch of guys. They’ve just been let down by the policy.

 

Good post, I’m not sure I agree about the formation, looked the same as recently albeit with Chaplin having a bit more freedom than McGeehan in a 3-4-1-2 with us then going 4-4-2 when Thomas came on

 

4 - 2 - 4 or a 4-4-2 attacking

 

Luke Thomas not brave enough? He loves a tackle.

He did more than what Malik Wilks did in the time he was on the pitch

 

I watched on TV last night but fell asleep just after they scored and didn't wake up until we were just entering added time!

 

it was exactly that. 3412 then 442.

 

As usual a good read but will have to agree to disagree again re tactics.
We started with a 3412. We finished with a 442.
In disagreeing with me I'd like to hear from you just who our midfield 3 were in your 433?

 

And I would like to know who your back 3 were in 3-4-1-2.

Bristol City played 4-4-2 with Watkins and Weimann as their front 2. Those 2 were marked by Diaby and Halme. If we were playing 3-5-2 (or 3-4-1-2) as you would have it, this would have left Sibbick as the free player. However, Sibbick was never the free player because he and Cavare were picking up the City wide players. In my opinion, this is why we changed our shape. In our previous home game, Swansea played 4-3-3 with their front 3 split very wide. This allowed a back 3 to mark them and to free up Brown and Cavare to push forward most of the time into midfield. However, City posed a different problem and we changed our shape to match their 4-4-2.

In answer to your question our shape was as follows:

Cavare, Diaby, Halme, Sibbick

Dougall, Mowatt, Brown

Wilks, Chaplin, Woodrow

Chaplin played slightly deeper, and if you have strong feelings about it, by all means call it 4-3-1-2, but I prefer 4-3-3.

 

We played 3-5-2 or a variation of it as did Bristol in the first half. I won't put a definitive shape on the second half as it shifted a number of times in and out of possession. But it's difficult on this occasion to take much from your report which I usually enjoy because I can't get beyond your inability to know both sides played three at the back in the opening 45.

 

Please can you set your team out as I have done.

 

Got to agree. Although at times our back line was like a dogs back leg we definitely started with a 'fluid' 3-5-2 (in my opinion).

 

I hope it was a better Nap than the one in the 6 o clock at Newcastle

 

Regrettably so, DD. Mogul looked to like the track was too quick for him and the distance too short. I was right to oppose the favourite, who I felt had been over-hyped but I picked the wrong one to oppose him with! That's racing, as they say! La Bague Au Roi for me today (3.35 Wetherby) but whisper it quietly after last night's flop!

 

Collins in goal, back three of (from right to left) Diaby, Halme and Sibbick. Brown left wing back, Cavare right wing back. Dougall and Mowatt central midfield, Chaplin and Wilks taking turns to join Woodrow up front with the other dropping in behind. Fluid though. So a variation of 3-5-2, perhaps even 5-3-2. 3-4-2-1. 3-4-1-2.

But always three centre backs in that first half.

 

Who was Sibbick marking?

 

https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1381496/Live/England-Championship-2019-2020-Barnsley-Bristol-City

 

So are you now saying the formation was 3-1-4-2?

 

I thought we played 3-1-4-2, as that website has laid it out.

 

I've already told you what I believe the formation was in the first half. As I first posted, it was 3-5-2 or a variation of that. You will not concede that you have called the shape of both sides wrong. I've posted a link to a reputable statistics-based website that shows both sides playing three at the back. I've watched some Sky footage this morning, they had both sides as playing a 3-5-2.