R
removed at users request
Guest
4-1-2-3
Leif playing in front of Mepham on the right.
Birmingham City v AFC Bournemouth
- Thread starter billythekid
- Start date
Leif playing in front of Mepham on the right.
ChampagneCherry
First Team
So this tells me Parker thinks that Stan is preferred on left to Anthony and that Anthony can play wide right.
Doesn't explain why if Anthony can play right, during the phases we scored, that we didn't try a switch of Davis and Anthony for 10 minutes at any stage, to see if the left footed full back might be sufficiently better suited to left wing seeing the game similar to normal. Maybe the benefit from him outweighs the downside for Anthony.
Overall we won, but curious not to try the switch imo.
R
removed at users request
Guest
Eeeek. Poor Leif. Maybe it would have been better with Anthony that side... but then he and JZ are such a great combo on the left, so can see why SP wanted to keep them there. Another option would have been to have Leif in midfield and put Kilkenny on right but Kilkenny's passing has been so great from midfield.
R
removed at users request
Guest
Not sure I've understood your post correctly. Apologies if this therefore doesn't make sense
I would say Parker prefers Anthony over Stan on the left but if Stan plays too, he thinks Stan is more effective on the left than the right and that Anthony is maybe more versatile than Stan so more effective than him if he plays on the right.And yes, in this case, Parker could have switched Leif and Anthony. It may have been a case of Parker wanting to make sure we were at least dangerous from the left side. As Leif isn't a winger, he might have thought, it was better to keep the JZ and JA combo until Stan (a winger) was able to do a proper winger's job there.
ChampagneCherry
First Team
You understood me better than I did!Not sure I've understood your post correctly. Apologies if this therefore doesn't make sense
And yes, in this case, Parker could have switched Leif and Anthony. It may have been a case of Parker wanting to make sure we were at least dangerous from the left side. As Leif isn't a winger, he might have thought, it was better to keep the JZ and JA combo until Stan (a winger) was able to do a proper winger's job there.
I should have said preferred Stan on left when they were both on pitch, not implied overall - thanks for highlighting that.
I agree SP must rate JA so highly to not risk moving him from the start, but almost implies Stan would have done a worse job than Davis on the right so the only option was to disturb that left hand side to accommodate Stan. Alternatively it didn't matter where he played Leif out of position, so long as rest of team was unchanged. Just wish I had seen game to better understand SP's thinking and the pattern of play.
R
removed at users request
Guest
Yeah SP must have been worried about Stan's fitness to not start him I think. Perhaps the Leif position was slightly experimental as well, just to see if it could be a future option as he apparently did alright on the right when he came on during Saturday's game? May have also fancied trying Anthony on the right to try and test the defenders there a bit more and discourage breaks from that side. As you say though, only SP knows what his actual reasons were.
I wonder how many managers/ coaches ( including Eddie) would have taken nil nil last night considering the patched up team we had on the pitch .
Credit to Parker , he waited until he considered the time right and then made the substitutions which tipped the balance in our favour. Loving it so far.
Credit to Parker , he waited until he considered the time right and then made the substitutions which tipped the balance in our favour. Loving it so far.
Yep, he clearly new that Pearo and Stan were not truly fit but also knew that they were exactly what we needed to tip the game in our favour.
From the outside it really did look as though he was keeping his powder dry and just hoping that the lads could stay in the game long enough to give the game changers a chance to come on at the appropriate time.
Easy to surmise that after the event but if there was any intent behind it, then it really was a brilliant strategy ! Given the thinness of the bench it may also have been forced upon him but I will give Scotty the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Either way, we needed the lads who were out there to keep us in the game for 60 minutes and they did supremely well to achieve that.
dj_silver
Fans' Favourite
Anybody who watched the game care to comment on this vlog ............ Brummie Joe
cardiffcherry
First Team
Birmingham fans saying they were the better side last night. With the exception of Chong, the only players playing any football were in red and black. Yes they put us under a fair amount of pressure from long balls and long throws but I thought they were pretty dire to be honest.
I thought they were pretty poor, long ball, standard long throw in, Chong will frighten a few teams but he will soon get heavily marked. No way were they the better team. The train was full of very despondent Brummies on my way out from the game. Fully deserved win. Match stats give us 65% possession with Brum committing 17 fouls which suggests they had to foul us to stop us.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58168103
billythekid
UTC Legend
Fair comments on the first half they had shots and a couple on target, against our zero for both.
Second half it seems he missed our goal and not much comment on the second.
Officials, his comments were probably a bit biased, but to be fair most fans can be at times towards decisions given against their team.
Don’t really think he honestly thought they were going to get anything from the game, especially with our record there or those he spoke to didn’t really sound convincing, just more in hope.
northstandmark
UTC Legend
Chong looks great, and along with Woods they are the only 'footballers' that Brum side has. First half Chong was influential, but waned the longer the game went on. Otherwise Bowyer's team is a case of play for long throws, free kicks and corners, as if they're a lower league side in a cup game or something.
Being tight at the back (falling asleep for 2-0 aside) and dangerous from long throws etc is one way of playing football... and it might keep your head above water over the course of a season through 0-0s and 1-0s. But it's never going to win you anything, be very interesting to watch, or gain you much credit with ever being the better side in a given game.
We've been through god knows how many relegation battles and lower midtable seasons in our time, and I'm sure there will be many more to come over the years. We usually do it trying to play some football - Mel and SoD etc.
dj_silver
Fans' Favourite
What about the claim for handball for Dom's goal. Bowyer mentioned it also on his post match
adam0102
Fans' Favourite
It's funny, with a Brummie accent whinging is just exaggerated. We thought that the ref was being lenient to them, on one occasion Zemura was shoved in the back over the touchline and the ref played on, so both sides could complain about decisions here and there, but I would say the officiating was not 100% competent but was the same for both teams. The foul count on the BBC site seemed about right.
Had to laugh when he was talking to the two lads after the game and were talking about a team with our quality....how many will we beat them by when we get our six missing first-teamers back?? (although I'm not sure all of them will get back in the team)
billythekid
UTC Legend
Didn’t see it from the AFCB Live coverage.
adam0102
Fans' Favourite
When I saw it live I did wonder for a second, but as Neil D said it could have been his hip and not his hand. He was between ball and lino and the defender was between ball and ref, so couldn't blame the officials if they did miss one.
dj_silver
Fans' Favourite
No, neither did I. I couldn't see it on here either! Brum v Cherries
Watched it back many times from all sorts of angles and can't see it myself. Brum fans did shout handball as he went through but I think ball cam of his midriff. certainly no obvious movement of arm.
