City 3 Barnet 0 (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

great result and upto 7th on goal difference. Mreof the same in mid week please

barnet made it difficult in the first half, as will most teams coming to vp this season, but after a half time rollicking we came out and put them to the sword for 15 mins then we just chilled!!!. roll on tuesday and another solid performance. keep it up lads

Well,if it's not a vintage performance and we're banging in three goals, I'll take that. It's a sign that if even the better teams in the division can play badly and win, then it could be a promising season! CTID

Get in a pretty average performance and we win 3-0 sort out our away form and were going places although our first few away games couldnt have been much tougher so its looking pretty **** good.

Tuesday will be another tough test. Morecambe unbeaten away and haven't conceded a goal. I however remain confident after today's clinical 10 minutes

good day at the park,looked good at the back,and a very strong bench.

Barnet and their ultra-defensive negative first half performance were fully deserving of their loss. We've seen too many teams come here in recent years and get away with such tactics - fortunately the first goal disrupted them after they got away with it.

Fairly decent performance from City. Wingplay was not great but as mentioned, defence was solid and untroubled apart from the successive corners.

City seemed to struggle in the first half to break down what seemed a decent Barnet defence/midfield. However, AFTER the break it was all VERY DIFFERENTas if two new teams came out. City were clinical (until they wrapped up the three pts) and Barnet looked 'all over the place!!'

In truth, City will do better than this AND LOSE but..three home league wins ut of three is a good start in Lge 2. If only they could do better away, they might indeed look like potential promotion candidates. But, if you can wen you're not at you're very best it is a good sign.

Tuesday, should be a 'tricky test', so three pts here would be 'very good news,'

once again great result lets hope we can keep this up and good look saterday to, come on city

sorry i meant tuesday ,

rumor has it that Parkinson is leaving!

I think its a load of bull myself.

Great win despite the performance but that is the makings of a good side.

Oh how I was Gary Jones was 25/30 not 35, however if we can get 2-3 seasons out of him he will be a legend! (he already makes my best City team from last 25yrs)

Nathan Doyle also quality, think he still needs to just loose abut of weight (he can join me on my diet).

Hines far better than Reid IMO, Reid some how seems scared to take anyone on 1-on-1, but does managed to get three defenders around him which must help with space elsewhere.

Keep it coming, anyone who doubts PP needs their head looking at. OK he may not get tactics right for some away games, but this squad he has built is the best for years!

bradford321 wrote:
Great win despite the performance but that is the makings of a good side.

Oh how I was Gary Jones was 25/30 not 35, however if we can get 2-3 seasons out of him he will be a legend! (he already makes my best City team from last 25yrs)

Nathan Doyle also quality, think he still needs to just loose abut of weight (he can join me on my diet).

Hines far better than Reid IMO, Reid some how seems scared to take anyone on 1-on-1, but does managed to get three defenders around him which must help with space elsewhere.

Keep it coming, anyone who doubts PP needs their head looking at. OK he may not get tactics right for some away games, but this squad he has built is the best for years!

makes your best team? get a grip!
anyone who doubts pp needs head looking at?
does not get tactics right?
thats what makes a good manager!!!!
give me strength, read what you put before you comment!
good win even if they are rubbish.

Good result without looking great on the pitch. The team look ten times better than the rubbish of the previous two seasons. Some great recruitment from PP (Gary Jones and Alan Connell in particular) and for the first time in years we look on the up rather than on the slide. It's actually nice to be a City fan again! All the moaners must have problems with their internet providers because they are conspicuous by their absence today! CTID.

huggy b wrote:
Good result without looking great on the pitch. The team look ten times better than the rubbish of the previous two seasons. Some great recruitment from PP (Gary Jones and Alan Connell in particular) and for the first time in years we look on the up rather than on the slide. It's actually nice to be a City fan again! All the moaners must have problems with their internet providers because they are conspicuous by their absence today! CTID.

good post but,we need to get our away form sorted so we can pick up more points

Great result but a terrible first half performance. Barnet were not defensive it was city who were poor and imo Barnet were the better of the two teams in the first 45. PP sorted it and we proved in the second half we had the better players but still too many poor performances. On the up side we played poor and won by three so can't complain. Have to say though Barnet are doomed this year

macca1969 wrote:
Great result but a terrible first half performance. Barnet were not defensive it was city who were poor and imo Barnet were the better of the two teams in the first 45. PP sorted it and we proved in the second half we had the better players but still too many poor performances. On the up side we played poor and won by three so can't complain. Have to say though Barnet are doomed this year

Isnt it funny how we as fans see the match in different ways. I thought city played pretty well in the first half. Thats just my view on the game. We were passing the ball around and keeping hold of it for long periods of times. Its better football than we have had for a long time. Hopefully we will improve as the season unfolds. Apart from a very bad preformance at rotherham i am well pleased with our season to press. Keep it up please city.

"Barnet were not defensive"

At one point in the first half they were playing 5-4-1.
I wouldn't call our first half performance 'terrible' - didn't create much, but not anywhere near as bad as the first half at Rotherham....

Like macca above i thought we were terrible first half and not great in patches in the second.

Lets be honest on this showing they are going down. However we got three points having not played well. But i'd stay on the side of caution before reading anything into this result other than we can and will have to play better. Indeed its positive to think that we will improve on this showing and yet still have the three points.

First half we were awful. We were static bordering on lazy all over the pitch. very little movement. Its all well and good keeping shape but any decent side will easily work this out.
Someone higher up said we passed the ball well. Well we do see the game differently 'cos unlees you consider three passes across the back then a hoof long upfeild "passing well" then what were you seeing.

I'm an ardent supporter of 442 and keeping the game simple. But we have two deep sitting central midfielders and also keep our wingers deep. The reliance is totally on the wide players to break down the opposition but the service from both Reid and Hines was not there. Its to hit and miss and i heard many a supporter at halftime debating whether Reid can actually cross the ball. Indeed to Daley's past critics (someone whom i defended) isn't Reid just as infuriating? He seems to make the wrong choice the majority of the time. Hines offered very little on the other side thus we rely on set-pieces for creation.

I really cannot see us getting many goals from midfield sitting this deep. . We miss a player who can open up from midfield or someone that is prepared to get in the box or drive towards goal (from the middle that is). The most creative player on the pitch was their number 11 who untill he was clattered by Oliver passed the ball well and had the beating of our right back despite having no real pace.

I repeat that like Wimbledon before them these were a very poor side and a very nervous one. It was asking for us to get hold of the ball, keep and pass and move but we were very static and been deep it was easier to hit it long.

Its early to judge Connell but any striker worth his salt should have been able to get a shot off with that much time. Hanson again is winning headers but the follow up is not there.

The wide players service was not of a good standard.

The defence were also responsible for not using the ball well.

Overall a very poor first half of 'dumb' football. Improved the second but we were too predictable, too deep and not creative enough thus very reliant on set-pieces, corners.

We can and will need to improve on this. Hopefully in a few more games we will find a better balance. At the moment we are a disciplined unit, who despite having two wide players in the side still look set-up to contain in the first instance, even against such poor opposition.

But we are in a very good position already. we have played a couple of difficult away games but equally two very poor relegation fodder sides at home. Against better teams we will need to offer more creatively......

When you are not playing well, the most important thing is you don't concede, and we've defended well today.

Better 2nd half, but Morcambe will be far more difficult to break down, and a lot less charitable in their defending.

Thought the midfield 2 were excellent though, and credit to Atkinson for his Messi type skills on the touchline.

Sign of a good side is it playing below average and winning, that's what all successful teams do. Excellent result, sets BCFC up nicely for Morcambe which will be another team coming with a game plan with a packed midfield. If BCFC play well, we win, we look like a very good team in the making.

Being a little superstitious..the new BCFC song seems a lucky charm and seems to be catching on... as there seemed to be more folk singing it.

Sign of a good side is it playing below average and winning, that's what all successful teams do. Excellent result, sets BCFC up nicely for Morcambe which will be another team coming with a game plan with a packed midfield. If BCFC play well, we win, we look like a very good team in the making.

Being a little superstitious..the new BCFC song seems a lucky charm and seems to be catching on... as there seemed to be more folk singing it.

We need to forget that Morcambe are unbeaten away because we haven't not won at VP. Onward and Upwards.

My only complaint.

One plonker behind me shouting 'sort it out' there wasn't even 2 mins on the clock!!

3 secs later he was moaning we had not played 1 succesful pass.

I am so glad I havent sat near him in the last few years.

#numpty

bcfc1903 wrote:
Sign of a good side is it playing below average and winning, that's what all successful teams do. Excellent result, sets BCFC up nicely for Morcambe which will be another team coming with a game plan with a packed midfield. If BCFC play well, we win, we look like a very good team in the making.

Being a little superstitious..the new BCFC song seems a lucky charm and seems to be catching on... as there seemed to be more folk singing it.

is that a joke?
the guy who wrote that song is blind, maybe they should check he's not deaf!!
its awful!!!

Whats happened to Derm Tanner ?

dannbradfc wrote:
Like macca above i thought we were terrible first half and not great in patches in the second.

Lets be honest on this showing they are going down. However we got three points having not played well. But i'd stay on the side of caution before reading anything into this result other than we can and will have to play better. Indeed its positive to think that we will improve on this showing and yet still have the three points.

First half we were awful. We were static bordering on lazy all over the pitch. very little movement. Its all well and good keeping shape but any decent side will easily work this out.
Someone higher up said we passed the ball well. Well we do see the game differently 'cos unlees you consider three passes across the back then a hoof long upfeild "passing well" then what were you seeing.

I'm an ardent supporter of 442 and keeping the game simple. But we have two deep sitting central midfielders and also keep our wingers deep. The reliance is totally on the wide players to break down the opposition but the service from both Reid and Hines was not there. Its to hit and miss and i heard many a supporter at halftime debating whether Reid can actually cross the ball. Indeed to Daley's past critics (someone whom i defended) isn't Reid just as infuriating? He seems to make the wrong choice the majority of the time. Hines offered very little on the other side thus we rely on set-pieces for creation.

I really cannot see us getting many goals from midfield sitting this deep. . We miss a player who can open up from midfield or someone that is prepared to get in the box or drive towards goal (from the middle that is). The most creative player on the pitch was their number 11 who untill he was clattered by Oliver passed the ball well and had the beating of our right back despite having no real pace.

I repeat that like Wimbledon before them these were a very poor side and a very nervous one. It was asking for us to get hold of the ball, keep and pass and move but we were very static and been deep it was easier to hit it long.

Its early to judge Connell but any striker worth his salt should have been able to get a shot off with that much time. Hanson again is winning headers but the follow up is not there.

The wide players service was not of a good standard.

The defence were also responsible for not using the ball well.

Overall a very poor first half of 'dumb' football. Improved the second but we were too predictable, too deep and not creative enough thus very reliant on set-pieces, corners.

We can and will need to improve on this. Hopefully in a few more games we will find a better balance. At the moment we are a disciplined unit, who despite having two wide players in the side still look set-up to contain in the first instance, even against such poor opposition.

But we are in a very good position already. we have played a couple of difficult away games but equally two very poor relegation fodder sides at home. Against better teams we will need to offer more creatively......

Do you honestly expect a great entertaining display of football every time we play a game? We won 3-0 in case you didn't notice Dann. We have played much better and with better entertainment value than this already this season so maybe a better balanced post would have had you acknowledging that in your post Dann?.

I find reading your post quite sad In that you appear -to me at least- to be focusing on everything that can be used as a means to dilute the 'progress' we have made on previous seasons.

I have had discussions with you before Dann where I have said that, to me, winning is the most important thing for a professional Club -particularly ours when considering recent years of turmoil and the threat to the Clubs existence- and the entertainment, although nice to have, has to come far behind winning as a priority. Yesterdays game did contain a reasonable amount of entertainment anyway, but it appears even that is not enough. You want 'entertainment', a good team performance, the best wingers in the football league, the best attacking midfield goal-scorers in the league, and we should only be satisfied if we beat the best teams in this league 5-1 or 3-0 not the likes of Wimbledon or Barnet or it shouldn't be classed as a result worthy of praise. Everything is wrong isn't it Dann, from Hanson winning headers but the follow up not being there to 'dumb' football to not using the ball well to being very reliant on set-pieces and so on and so on!

I'll stop there Dann, I could go on, but I think you will always be the type of supporter who will go to the effort of posting criticisms regardless of us picking up 3 points and regardless of knowing that probably everyone else at the game realised we didn't put in a perfect display -not to mention PP!-, with nobody having an 'off-day' etc etc etc.

What would make you content Dann? -it's ok I'm not asking you to be happy.
If we didn't have to live in the real world and didn't have to play against Teams that were trying to STOP US beating them but just came on to the pitch and said: 'Dear Bradford City, how can we help to make your day successful and entertaining and all your players looking like they will challenge Lionel Messi for the world player of the year award?' then maybe you might find it within you to give the Team a 'bit of slack' now and again.

Over to you Dann.

A little unfair lonnie. I agree with much of what Dann says above, I think what has happened here is a disection of the game and all it's negatives without balancing that with the positives. With that in mind i'll start with those, then say why I agree with some of Dann's post.

We won, we scored 3, we didn't concede, we didn't really look like conceding. We have the best CM pairing in the division, I disgree they won't score or that they hold too deep. Doyle had tow decent efforts which on another day couldve sneaked in. Jones is all action for 90mins, which means his team mates have to follow his lead. Jonny Mac talks to his backline and comes for crosses when able. Meredith continues to grow into his position and looks like he will be a great signing.

Barnet were nervous in the first ten minutes, we should've capitalised but 'stood off' and allowed their nerves to settle and let them get a grip of the game forcing at least half a dozen corners. All they needed was one of those to fall right and we could've been in the do do. All that after PP stated he wanted a fast start to try unnerve Barnet from the off.

Both wide men saw plenty of ball but rarely beat a man to deliver a cross and Reid looks like he is becoming more and more stunted this way. When he does go at his man he usually beats him and that was evident when the ball dropped for him and he drilled the ball across for Connell's goal. It wasn't a 'knock and go' by Reid but he got control of the ball and delivered. He needs to do this more.

We had a good 15 minute spell after half time, due in part I would imagine to PP giving the hairdryer for a lack lustre first half. Not sure if we were then instructed to just retain the ball and reserve our energies for Tuesday, I'd like to think we were and just to prod and poke at Barnet to try get more but not to bust a gut to do so.

I said to my son at half time we would win as we hadn't got out of first gear in the first half and was not surprised at the onslaught in that early part of the 2nd half.

Overall, I was entertained enough by the 3 points and the display, bearing in mind that in recent years this type of 'banker' usually ends up in a City capitulation. That in itself suggests progress to me, also the positvie GD and the league position. I do think once again that if you and Dann discussed this game over a pint in the half hour after the match his points would've been clearer and you'd have agreed with a couple of them. Sometimes a flat report with no facial or voice inflection can be taken in many ways. That said it is a heavy focus on the negs in a game we won easily and possibly a little churlish.

Fantastic three points! Virtually all the posters above want their cake with icing on it. ,wake up, in division two you very rarelly get entertaining football like you see on the tv. Many of the above postings are judging our performances as if they were pundits on match of the day, anaalysing premiership teams. We are not premiership. Give our team a break and let your hair down. 9 points from three home games, 9 goals what do you want, blood! The only disappointing part of yesterdays game is that Valley Parade was not bouncing with joy. Have we really fortgotton how to cellebrate? Is the level of celebration always going to be relative to the degree of enntertainment. I think that as we climb up the table the above posters will see that getting out of division two is all about points and entertainment is a luxury and when witnessed should be cheered from the rafters. Although I love the notion of winning five one, I hate hearing opposition fans singing, 'hive one and you still don't sing'. Just as some posters judge our own team by premier standards, there are some who judge the Claret and Amber song by the standards of their favourite professional rock bands, in my opinion that is also not fair. I heard some one say the song was rubbish, i don't agree. However I believe that our fast loyal support if it sang more could turn rubbish into top quality whether it be a player or a song.

I pretty much agree with all Dann has said. Hines showed an odd bit of class but didn't look interested. Reid didn't do enough and I even thought his cross for the goal was poor. he hit it too close to the keeper when he could have taken it in. someone said he had 2 men on him but he wouldn't if he used Meredith a bit more. on one occassion he opted to kick it over his over head rather than an easy pass. there was an ellement of luck in all 3 of our goals (i might be wrong about Hansons but i thought Oliver miss hit it). on the plus side, even though they passed it around well in the first half ( i liked their No 4) they didn't look like scoring. where as we had 2 chances. We also created a load in the second half which we should have converted. going back to the earlier debate about which striker should start, I thought PP (and prisoner) got it right. We probably won this one because we were bigger than they were!

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
A little unfair lonnie. I agree with much of what Dann says above, I think what has happened here is a disection of the game and all it's negatives without balancing that with the positives. With that in mind i'll start with those, then say why I agree with some of Dann's post.

We won, we scored 3, we didn't concede, we didn't really look like conceding. We have the best CM pairing in the division, I disgree they won't score or that they hold too deep. Doyle had tow decent efforts which on another day couldve sneaked in. Jones is all action for 90mins, which means his team mates have to follow his lead. Jonny Mac talks to his backline and comes for crosses when able. Meredith continues to grow into his position and looks like he will be a great signing.

Barnet were nervous in the first ten minutes, we should've capitalised but 'stood off' and allowed their nerves to settle and let them get a grip of the game forcing at least half a dozen corners. All they needed was one of those to fall right and we could've been in the do do. All that after PP stated he wanted a fast start to try unnerve Barnet from the off.

Both wide men saw plenty of ball but rarely beat a man to deliver a cross and Reid looks like he is becoming more and more stunted this way. When he does go at his man he usually beats him and that was evident when the ball dropped for him and he drilled the ball across for Connell's goal. It wasn't a 'knock and go' by Reid but he got control of the ball and delivered. He needs to do this more.

We had a good 15 minute spell after half time, due in part I would imagine to PP giving the hairdryer for a lack lustre first half. Not sure if we were then instructed to just retain the ball and reserve our energies for Tuesday, I'd like to think we were and just to prod and poke at Barnet to try get more but not to bust a gut to do so.

I said to my son at half time we would win as we hadn't got out of first gear in the first half and was not surprised at the onslaught in that early part of the 2nd half.

Overall, I was entertained enough by the 3 points and the display, bearing in mind that in recent years this type of 'banker' usually ends up in a City capitulation. That in itself suggests progress to me, also the positvie GD and the league position. I do think once again that if you and Dann discussed this game over a pint in the half hour after the match his points would've been clearer and you'd have agreed with a couple of them. Sometimes a flat report with no facial or voice inflection can be taken in many ways. That said it is a heavy focus on the negs in a game we won easily and possibly a little churlish.

Your post on yesterday's game is well presented AND well balanced PCBA.

My view -and your's, unless I am badly mistaken- is that Dann's post was not balanced. And that is why I opposed his post. Dann, in his latest post in particular, chooses to pick fault with practically everything about the way we secured 3 points. I am not opposed to people saying what ever they want to say but I will -at times- then choose to also pick faults with their opinion. Is this more, less or the same level of unfairness that they have -IMO- often been more than happy to deliver in a way that only serves to demolish rather than build. And IF I am appearing to be 'unfair' then I will have to accept your opinion of why I am being unfair if not your evidence -although you do then say: 'it is a heavy focus on the negs in a game we won easily and possibly a little churlish'. I don't know if dann will accept that he is being unfair to concentrate his post on all the things that were not faultless in a 3-0 win. Haven't we heard enough criticism of Players, Managers, Chairmen, the Club in general over the last 3 seasons -enough to sink a battle ship I would say. What is it about some of our supporters that they can't even enjoy the few and far between good times.

So, if I have been unfair to a poster who has taken an opportunity -no matter how minimal- to pick out all the negatives in a 3-0 win at a time when the TREND is showing we are more than a one game wonder and when some of us would like to actually be allowed to enjoy a bit of sunlight, ANOTHER victory, and a bit of genuine potential for a decent season for the first time for many, many months then I will just have to be regarded as being an unfair chap on this occasion.

I know I am not the only one who is not happy with the constant negatives being highlighted by other supporters at the expense of all the positives that are out there if only people would care to look for them.

I am certainly enjoying what progress we are making even when we have a less than perfect performance, maybe it's just me. Maybe I'll moan if it all collapses like a pack of cards. Until then: :))

lonniejockstrap wrote:

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
A little unfair lonnie. I agree with much of what Dann says above, I think what has happened here is a disection of the game and all it's negatives without balancing that with the positives. With that in mind i'll start with those, then say why I agree with some of Dann's post.

We won, we scored 3, we didn't concede, we didn't really look like conceding. We have the best CM pairing in the division, I disgree they won't score or that they hold too deep. Doyle had tow decent efforts which on another day couldve sneaked in. Jones is all action for 90mins, which means his team mates have to follow his lead. Jonny Mac talks to his backline and comes for crosses when able. Meredith continues to grow into his position and looks like he will be a great signing.

Barnet were nervous in the first ten minutes, we should've capitalised but 'stood off' and allowed their nerves to settle and let them get a grip of the game forcing at least half a dozen corners. All they needed was one of those to fall right and we could've been in the do do. All that after PP stated he wanted a fast start to try unnerve Barnet from the off.

Both wide men saw plenty of ball but rarely beat a man to deliver a cross and Reid looks like he is becoming more and more stunted this way. When he does go at his man he usually beats him and that was evident when the ball dropped for him and he drilled the ball across for Connell's goal. It wasn't a 'knock and go' by Reid but he got control of the ball and delivered. He needs to do this more.

We had a good 15 minute spell after half time, due in part I would imagine to PP giving the hairdryer for a lack lustre first half. Not sure if we were then instructed to just retain the ball and reserve our energies for Tuesday, I'd like to think we were and just to prod and poke at Barnet to try get more but not to bust a gut to do so.

I said to my son at half time we would win as we hadn't got out of first gear in the first half and was not surprised at the onslaught in that early part of the 2nd half.

Overall, I was entertained enough by the 3 points and the display, bearing in mind that in recent years this type of 'banker' usually ends up in a City capitulation. That in itself suggests progress to me, also the positvie GD and the league position. I do think once again that if you and Dann discussed this game over a pint in the half hour after the match his points would've been clearer and you'd have agreed with a couple of them. Sometimes a flat report with no facial or voice inflection can be taken in many ways. That said it is a heavy focus on the negs in a game we won easily and possibly a little churlish.

Your post on yesterday's game is well presented AND well balanced PCBA.

My view -and your's, unless I am badly mistaken- is that Dann's post was not balanced. And that is why I opposed his post. Dann, in his latest post in particular, chooses to pick fault with practically everything about the way we secured 3 points. I am not opposed to people saying what ever they want to say but I will -at times- then choose to also pick faults with their opinion. Is this more, less or the same level of unfairness that they have -IMO- often been more than happy to deliver in a way that only serves to demolish rather than build. And IF I am appearing to be 'unfair' then I will have to accept your opinion of why I am being unfair if not your evidence -although you do then say: 'it is a heavy focus on the negs in a game we won easily and possibly a little churlish'. I don't know if dann will accept that he is being unfair to concentrate his post on all the things that were not faultless in a 3-0 win. Haven't we heard enough criticism of Players, Managers, Chairmen, the Club in general over the last 3 seasons -enough to sink a battle ship I would say. What is it about some of our supporters that they can't even enjoy the few and far between good times.

So, if I have been unfair to a poster who has taken an opportunity -no matter how minimal- to pick out all the negatives in a 3-0 win at a time when the TREND is showing we are more than a one game wonder and when some of us would like to actually be allowed to enjoy a bit of sunlight, ANOTHER victory, and a bit of genuine potential for a decent season for the first time for many, many months then I will just have to be regarded as being an unfair chap on this occasion.

I know I am not the only one who is not happy with the constant negatives being highlighted by other supporters at the expense of all the positives that are out there if only people would care to look for them.

I am certainly enjoying what progress we are making even when we have a less than perfect performance, maybe it's just me. Maybe I'll moan if it all collapses like a pack of cards. Until then: :))

Apologies for the repetitive stuff, I should have checked and edited before posting. In a rush to get out for a run -that's my excuse anyway!

Maybe I didn't get my meaning of unfair across too well.

If immediately after the match yourself and Dann had a chance to discuss face to face, Dann would probably have said ' how nervy were they in the first ten minutes, and why did,kt we just get straight at em' and your response along the lines of 'we probably should as they were there for the taking' which would then have been an agreement on the negative, your next line would then have been along the lines of 'PP obviously had a go at em for just that at half time resulting in blah blah blah.'

You get my drift, I'm not pulling at either of you as I know Dann only has City at heart and know he'll be chuffed at our league position, the amount of goals we've scored and all this done with the feeling we have more gears to shift up yet, not just from yesterdays game but through this season.

We're definitely a team/club on the up and as much as it is to do with the players we've signed I'd say it is also due to the ones we haven't, ie loanees. This compact squad are entirely City players and as such should be backed 100000 % by us all.

Good result and just shows how far we have come. Last season and one before that we would of drawn or lost that one. Just need to do better away.
Wingers were not as good as normal but played ok. They had a good player called Holmes. Disappeared in the second half though and was not as good. Is it just me or did Nakki look miserable when the goals were going in? Maybe he realises he is not really the star man and Bradford can score goals without him.

PS, for give me for putting words in both your mouths, it was illustrative only.

Barnet were awful but we can only beat what is put out infront of us.
Not getting carried away but I'm extremely happy at our home form and hope to see it as 4 from 4 on tuesday.

There are some very intelligent and composed posts on here for once.

Great debate.

Those on Twitter will know Simon Parker has, rightly, been tweeting mocking the type of poster on here. He correctly points out that when we lose there are 128 comments and a win provokes only 30 odd. As he says, some people don't like winning do they?

He calls the comments "going below the line" or some type comment. Harsh but very true.

I use this as the basis for my tuppenth as it echoes a conversation post match, in pub, we had yesterday.

Understandably, after 10 years of decline, we have all become harsh and predictively bitter. Before anyone has a pop I was as bad as anyone.

In the last 2 years I hated how I hated how I felt about the club. I decided to either stop going or change my attitude. Factors such as the obvious, which was a games i was at, made me decide to be more optimistic. Realistically I was never going to stop going. I love the club. So I'm now more optimistic.

This has been helped by the fact we now have very good players at the club who are contracted to us and not A N Other club. I feel that they are part of a project. And I am wetland truly signed up for that. We can get promoted this year.

I don't discourage healthy debate.

For me Reid has had a shocking start, I don't like Wells attitude to the club- using us as a stepping stone, I personally don't think we've got a brilliant keeper.

Also, no one can deny PP struggles away. I recently posted his 12 month City record. W4 D5 L15.

This year we have a home aggregate score of 9-1. Our away aggregate is 1-8. That obviously needs addressing.

But, all being told we are in a very good place. The excellent Width of a Post points out that if we win every home game (which of course we won't) and only pick up a few draws (when of course we will get a few good wins) we will be well up there.

So all in all? Let's reverse our mind set and get behind this wonderful team.

PS. Never rated Hanson. This year he's been very good 20 plus this year for him without a doubt.

PPS. There's a great quote from an ex USA president which I can't be bothered to look up and recite exactly but which goes along the lines of " show me a man who can't learn and i will show you a fool". Its not a ad thing to learn and change your opinion.

Come on City.

Out of the games we have played away from home so far I would suggest many other teams will find themselves coming away from such venues with little chance of 3 points in total. Gillingham and Rotherham I exoect to have somewhat close to 15 home wins this year meaning not much is picked from there and I'm hoping that Valley Parade will see similar.
Whats gone last year is in the record books it has no bearing on this year.
Our away form will be average at best its our home form that will be the difference between mounting a promotion push.

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
PS, for give me for putting words in both your mouths, it was illustrative only.

No problem I understand where you are coming from.

I did have a conversation about the game when coming out of the ground and my comments were: 'That was one of the least entertaining games I have seen for a while -including the 4-0 defeat at Rotherham- but we won, we didn't concede, we scored 3 goals which improves our goal difference and will probably mean that today's win is almost equivalent to getting 4 points'.

Of course people are different in how they chose to perceive things, I just prefer to recognise even small amounts of progress, to recognise and take pride in even small accomplishments and when they are presented, we should share these positives with each other as supporters, and with the Players, Manager and Chairmen. The recognition of those even little achievements can spur those players and the Team on to better things by increasing their confidence.

I could be proved wrong tomorrow but I expect PP to of course acknowledge that the 'quality' of the performance could have been better BUT we did the job and now we move on. I don't expect PP to turn what was a good win into what would sound more like a defeat by detailing all the things that didn't go quite to plan. The next game will different again.

LONNIE

"However we got three points having not played well"

" Indeed its positive to think that we will improve on this showing and yet still have the three points".

"We can and will need to improve on this. Hopefully in a few more games we will find a better balance".

" But we are in a very good position already. we have played a couple of difficult away games but equally two very poor relegation fodder sides at home. Against better teams we will need to offer more creatively"

those are quotes from my post above and at least Prisoner can see the context of what i'm analysing.

Its interesting that you chose to focus on the balance aspects of my post Lonnie and don't really comment on it content. Thus i don't know if you actually agree with any of the points/questions raised about the performance.

However it must be said that whilst i have and always will agree to points raised by yourself when they are deserving you rarely reciprocate this and surely there must be something you actually agree with in my posts occasionally?

For what its worth my post was merely highlighting what i feel needs to be improved upon for us to challenge the better teams in the division. Barnet and wimbledon were great wins making myself and everyone happy but realistically they are both fighting relegation already based on their performances.

We have yet again a top 7 budget. Lawn in particular has highlighted this quite rightly when analysing what we should be expecting. Crawley were made favourites and delivered based on the financial aspects. Simarlarly Rovrum have had the same expectation. I want progress and already i have seen some of what i and others have been crying out for happen over the summer. And i can see the progress of this. I also know that football isn't played on paper but feel that if we have a top 7 budget it would be reasonable to have at least a top 10 side.

Point is, whilst i am pleased that we are in a decent position and say this in my post, i feel that we can and need to improve in certain areas. Ormonroyd stated in our last away game how it was a decent salvaged point but it would have been 3 if we had been positive and gone for it. Thus it is often a necessity to progress to analyse what can be improved. I concede that the post may have looked overly critical after a three nil win, but most of the posters acknowledge that it wasn't a great performance.

To improve further still we need to see some interplay between full-backs and wide players. Parky's system appears functional but is very rigid and the only fluidity is the swapping of sides by the wide players. We rarely see the full backs over-lap. This is important if we are to play the central midfielders in the roles they currently are. Otherwise we are expecting a wide player to receive the ball near the half way line, beat a man then deliver a ball to one of 2 players.

This is just one point of a few that imo need addressing in order to improve further. Thats a positive stance Lonnie e.g. to seek improvement. It was 'dumb' football to play the way we did against what was clearly a nervous and not very good side. We have recent championship players in our team Lonnie as you know. Surely we should be imposing ourseleves on them and using our superior football skills? Instead we gave them a few set-piece opportunities by playing hoof ball down the pitch. This will not work against the better sides i feel. Thats just my opinion. But if we were to hope to challenge for an automatic spot for instance this tactic/style won't suffice. we have a decent squad everyone keeps saying. So why weren't we passing and keeping the ball? Why as Prisoner states don't we see a give and go occasionally? I repeat its early days and as it says in the post you criticise we can and will improve.

Indeed rather than merely dissect others posts it would be nice to hear some balanced analysis from yourself about the actual game, where we are doing well and ALSO where we can improve? Thus we maybe offered the opportunity to agree and.or disagree with your opinion.

I feel prisoner is right, or at least hope so, that were we to meet in person we could afford each other the opportunity to agree on certain points.....we both wanted smaller squads, we both wanted a longer term vision etc etc and somewhere i know we both want the club to do well too ;-).....






.

lonniejockstrap wrote:

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
PS, for give me for putting words in both your mouths, it was illustrative only.

No problem I understand where you are coming from.

I did have a conversation about the game when coming out of the ground and my comments were: 'That was one of the least entertaining games I have seen for a while -including the 4-0 defeat at Rotherham- but we won, we didn't concede, we scored 3 goals which improves our goal difference and will probably mean that today's win is almost equivalent to getting 4 points'.

Of course people are different in how they chose to perceive things, I just prefer to recognise even small amounts of progress, to recognise and take pride in even small accomplishments and when they are presented, we should share these positives with each other as supporters, and with the Players, Manager and Chairmen. The recognition of those even little achievements can spur those players and the Team on to better things by increasing their confidence.

I could be proved wrong tomorrow but I expect PP to of course acknowledge that the 'quality' of the performance could have been better BUT we did the job and now we move on. I don't expect PP to turn what was a good win into what would sound more like a defeat by detailing all the things that didn't go quite to plan. The next game will different again.

I was typing my other response as you were probably typing this.

I too understand the need for positivity and have a BA in psychology. But footballs different in many respects. I feel that we are no worse than any other football fans in the country and indeed alot better than most. Despite having the worst record out of any team since the millenium we still maintain decent crowds. I have defended players against unjustified criticism and we do have some very fickle supporters but so do most teams.

I enjoyed Saturdays result but not the performance. I'm not going to lie. There was a lad who watches Man u sat with us and he spent most of the time laughing but apart from that been irritating, i accept that we are a division 4 side, Barnet probably conference ;-). I do though feel that as a club we should at least be in the division above and year on year the budget put in is not been seen on the pitch. We all have to take some responsibility for this, some more some less, but when i post its because i feel we can acheive more and see that as a positive approach. To strive for better albeit constructively.....

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Maybe I didn't get my meaning of unfair across too well.

If immediately after the match yourself and Dann had a chance to discuss face to face, Dann would probably have said ' how nervy were they in the first ten minutes, and why did,kt we just get straight at em' and your response along the lines of 'we probably should as they were there for the taking' which would then have been an agreement on the negative, your next line would then have been along the lines of 'PP obviously had a go at em for just that at half time resulting in blah blah blah.'

You get my drift, I'm not pulling at either of you as I know Dann only has City at heart and know he'll be chuffed at our league position, the amount of goals we've scored and all this done with the feeling we have more gears to shift up yet, not just from yesterdays game but through this season.

We're definitely a team/club on the up and as much as it is to do with the players we've signed I'd say it is also due to the ones we haven't, ie loanees. This compact squad are entirely City players and as such should be backed 100000 % by us all.

Agreed Prisoner.

Yo saw the post for what it was. I've always posted how i felt but also feel i'm balanced. This was slanted one way because i feel strongly that we need to tweak a few things in order to see our full potential.

I don't want to see us stifle our good players by been overly cautious. Reid for example is a good player. he would be playing at an higher level were he able to be more consistent in his delivery and better in his decision making. However despite us having 2 wide players and thus less of a reliance on himself he seems to be reined-in somewhat.

Both wide players wait untill the pass reaches them rather than setting off into space and creating the option of the pass. Thus also receiving the ball higher up the pitch and with more space. Furthermore the full-backs simply don't over-lap. Thus the opposition fullback merely needs to do a good positional/marking job on reid and Hines. Interplay would mix it up.

I disagree on current tactics that we will see many goals from central midfield. When up against decent and well organised defences this can be what gets you the points. Both doyle and Jones are good players but are playing very similar positional wise. When Hanso wins an header we are very much relying on the other striker to be thereabouts. (I don't want to mention Syers). The onus is currently focused on the delivery been perfect from out wide or on set-pieces and corners.

Nothing wrong with that if its working and i can see how our current set-up is functional and disciplined, but is it also easily negated? and if so what then?

You know i'm just continually striving for improvement and even with the caliber of players of recent squads feel we could have done better. Its actually a positive outlook....;-)

Well I'm sorry dann, but I have read your original post again and still come to the conclusion that it overwhelmingly critical of a performance that resulting in a 3-0 win. A comfortable if not altogether entertaining win. How many saves did JMc have to make for example? Jones and Oliver were outstanding. The team refused to get frustrated at the delay in scoring against,yes, a poor side, the poorest side I have seen at VP for as long as I can remember. But the team kept it's discipline and if you find that too 'rigid' then that is fair enough. However, it worked against Barnet. It must have done because we we won 3-0. It may not work in other games who knows. How do we judge these things? maybe the only way is where you are in the league table at a particular time around May.

Do I agree with some of the points you make? of course I do, but I don't think us agreeing and patting each other on the back everytime time the other says something we agree with on this site would make very interesting debate.

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Well I'm sorry dann, but I have read your original post again and still come to the conclusion that it overwhelmingly critical of a performance that resulting in a 3-0 win. A comfortable if not altogether entertaining win. How many saves did JMc have to make for example? Jones and Oliver were outstanding. The team refused to get frustrated at the delay in scoring against,yes, a poor side, the poorest side I have seen at VP for as long as I can remember. But the team kept it's discipline and if you find that too 'rigid' then that is fair enough. However, it worked against Barnet. It must have done because we we won 3-0. It may not work in other games who knows. How do we judge these things? maybe the only way is where you are in the league table at a particular time around May.

Do I agree with some of the points you make? of course I do, but I don't think us agreeing and patting each other on the back everytime time the other says something we agree with on this site would make very interesting debate.

If its the league table on which you are judged which is what you intimate, where does that leave your contual and solid defence of Taylor? Whereby not only the stats and league position were woeful there was little sign that things were in place for the season after with his wingless-wonders....
;-)

dannbradfc wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Well I'm sorry dann, but I have read your original post again and still come to the conclusion that it overwhelmingly critical of a performance that resulting in a 3-0 win. A comfortable if not altogether entertaining win. How many saves did JMc have to make for example? Jones and Oliver were outstanding. The team refused to get frustrated at the delay in scoring against,yes, a poor side, the poorest side I have seen at VP for as long as I can remember. But the team kept it's discipline and if you find that too 'rigid' then that is fair enough. However, it worked against Barnet. It must have done because we we won 3-0. It may not work in other games who knows. How do we judge these things? maybe the only way is where you are in the league table at a particular time around May.

Do I agree with some of the points you make? of course I do, but I don't think us agreeing and patting each other on the back everytime time the other says something we agree with on this site would make very interesting debate.

If its the league table on which you are judged which is what you intimate, where does that leave your contual and solid defence of Taylor? Whereby not only the stats and league position were woeful there was little sign that things were in place for the season after with his wingless-wonders....

;-)

PPs

does this also allow/mean those who questioned,( criticised) things during these low positional seasons were correct to do so? It would imply ....yes....

dannbradfc wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Well I'm sorry dann, but I have read your original post again and still come to the conclusion that it overwhelmingly critical of a performance that resulting in a 3-0 win. A comfortable if not altogether entertaining win. How many saves did JMc have to make for example? Jones and Oliver were outstanding. The team refused to get frustrated at the delay in scoring against,yes, a poor side, the poorest side I have seen at VP for as long as I can remember. But the team kept it's discipline and if you find that too 'rigid' then that is fair enough. However, it worked against Barnet. It must have done because we we won 3-0. It may not work in other games who knows. How do we judge these things? maybe the only way is where you are in the league table at a particular time around May.

Do I agree with some of the points you make? of course I do, but I don't think us agreeing and patting each other on the back everytime time the other says something we agree with on this site would make very interesting debate.

If its the league table on which you are judged which is what you intimate, where does that leave your contual and solid defence of Taylor? Whereby not only the stats and league position were woeful there was little sign that things were in place for the season after with his wingless-wonders....

;-)

PPs

does this also allow/mean those who questioned,( criticised) things during these low positional seasons were correct to do so? It would imply ....yes....

dannbradfc wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Well I'm sorry dann, but I have read your original post again and still come to the conclusion that it overwhelmingly critical of a performance that resulting in a 3-0 win. A comfortable if not altogether entertaining win. How many saves did JMc have to make for example? Jones and Oliver were outstanding. The team refused to get frustrated at the delay in scoring against,yes, a poor side, the poorest side I have seen at VP for as long as I can remember. But the team kept it's discipline and if you find that too 'rigid' then that is fair enough. However, it worked against Barnet. It must have done because we we won 3-0. It may not work in other games who knows. How do we judge these things? maybe the only way is where you are in the league table at a particular time around May.

Do I agree with some of the points you make? of course I do, but I don't think us agreeing and patting each other on the back everytime time the other says something we agree with on this site would make very interesting debate.

If its the league table on which you are judged which is what you intimate, where does that leave your contual and solid defence of Taylor? Whereby not only the stats and league position were woeful there was little sign that things were in place for the season after with his wingless-wonders....

;-)

For the 150th time dann I want managers to be in place for more than 1 season. And, I have difficulty following you when you criticise Taylor for what you call 'wingless wonders' and then criticise the two wingers we have at the moment for not being able to cross a ball or beat a defender etc. Are wingers worth having or are they not? :)

dannbradfc wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Well I'm sorry dann, but I have read your original post again and still come to the conclusion that it overwhelmingly critical of a performance that resulting in a 3-0 win. A comfortable if not altogether entertaining win. How many saves did JMc have to make for example? Jones and Oliver were outstanding. The team refused to get frustrated at the delay in scoring against,yes, a poor side, the poorest side I have seen at VP for as long as I can remember. But the team kept it's discipline and if you find that too 'rigid' then that is fair enough. However, it worked against Barnet. It must have done because we we won 3-0. It may not work in other games who knows. How do we judge these things? maybe the only way is where you are in the league table at a particular time around May.

Do I agree with some of the points you make? of course I do, but I don't think us agreeing and patting each other on the back everytime time the other says something we agree with on this site would make very interesting debate.

If its the league table on which you are judged which is what you intimate, where does that leave your contual and solid defence of Taylor? Whereby not only the stats and league position were woeful there was little sign that things were in place for the season after with his wingless-wonders....


;-)

PPs

does this also allow/mean those who questioned,( criticised) things during these low positional seasons were correct to do so? It would imply ....yes....

I could fully understand why people were critical of what we had failed to achieve under PT. What I didn't agree with was the insults/abuse or the booing off of the team when we beat Stevenage!!! I think this almost brings us full circle dann.

lonniejockstrap wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Well I'm sorry dann, but I have read your original post again and still come to the conclusion that it overwhelmingly critical of a performance that resulting in a 3-0 win. A comfortable if not altogether entertaining win. How many saves did JMc have to make for example? Jones and Oliver were outstanding. The team refused to get frustrated at the delay in scoring against,yes, a poor side, the poorest side I have seen at VP for as long as I can remember. But the team kept it's discipline and if you find that too 'rigid' then that is fair enough. However, it worked against Barnet. It must have done because we we won 3-0. It may not work in other games who knows. How do we judge these things? maybe the only way is where you are in the league table at a particular time around May.

Do I agree with some of the points you make? of course I do, but I don't think us agreeing and patting each other on the back everytime time the other says something we agree with on this site would make very interesting debate.

If its the league table on which you are judged which is what you intimate, where does that leave your contual and solid defence of Taylor? Whereby not only the stats and league position were woeful there was little sign that things were in place for the season after with his wingless-wonders....


;-)

For the 150th time dann I want managers to be in place for more than 1 season. And, I have difficulty following you when you criticise Taylor for what you call 'wingless wonders' and then criticise the two wingers we have at the moment for not being able to cross a ball or beat a defender etc. Are wingers worth having or are they not? :)

You know i want wingers in the side. You must also admit that the service wasn't very good on Saturday. Reid is that knid of player e.g. unpredictable, very like Daley in many respects. I reserve judgement on Hines untill i've seen him play more games but purely based on saturday there was little service from him.

Both wide players are receiving the ball near the half way line, then expected to beat the full back and deliver a cross to one of two players. It would be better imo if they received the ball on the run, or perhaps have worked it with our full-back or central midfielders. Thus they would be in a better position to deliver. Reid can and often does beat his defender and i don't remember having siad he doesn't, its his decision making that can then be a problem though. Having seen both Hendrie and Beagrie perhaps i'm judging them to harsh....however they are professionals;-)....
.joking aside if think that at the moment, and its early days, Reid in particular is been either stifiled by the system or playing within himself.....

lonniejockstrap wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Well I'm sorry dann, but I have read your original post again and still come to the conclusion that it overwhelmingly critical of a performance that resulting in a 3-0 win. A comfortable if not altogether entertaining win. How many saves did JMc have to make for example? Jones and Oliver were outstanding. The team refused to get frustrated at the delay in scoring against,yes, a poor side, the poorest side I have seen at VP for as long as I can remember. But the team kept it's discipline and if you find that too 'rigid' then that is fair enough. However, it worked against Barnet. It must have done because we we won 3-0. It may not work in other games who knows. How do we judge these things? maybe the only way is where you are in the league table at a particular time around May.

Do I agree with some of the points you make? of course I do, but I don't think us agreeing and patting each other on the back everytime time the other says something we agree with on this site would make very interesting debate.

If its the league table on which you are judged which is what you intimate, where does that leave your contual and solid defence of Taylor? Whereby not only the stats and league position were woeful there was little sign that things were in place for the season after with his wingless-wonders....



;-)

PPs

does this also allow/mean those who questioned,( criticised) things during these low positional seasons were correct to do so? It would imply ....yes....

I could fully understand why people were critical of what we had failed to achieve under PT. What I didn't agree with was the insults/abuse or the booing off of the team when we beat Stevenage!!! I think this almost brings us full circle dann.

What about my tears that night? I was cold and bored to death. Nothing will ever help me recover from the ordeal of gaining those three points.

Dann, your appraisal of Reid is not far off, even down to the flat footed stance when waiting for receipt of the ball but having said that he is creating and has scored and does tend to draw more than his fair share of markers, like Daley did, this isn't a new thing with Reid though he does seem to prefer the ball played to him, then his touch then his decision, I too would prefer to see him receiving on the move as when he is in flow he can't be stopped fairly by anyone in this division.

I think we could dissect each and every player's performance every game and be of 10 differing opinions, let's embrace the win, the points, the goals and take our joy as and when we can as it has been in short supply for too many years now at VP.

lonniejockstrap wrote:

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
A little unfair lonnie. I agree with much of what Dann says above, I think what has happened here is a disection of the game and all it's negatives without balancing that with the positives. With that in mind i'll start with those, then say why I agree with some of Dann's post.

We won, we scored 3, we didn't concede, we didn't really look like conceding. We have the best CM pairing in the division, I disgree they won't score or that they hold too deep. Doyle had tow decent efforts which on another day couldve sneaked in. Jones is all action for 90mins, which means his team mates have to follow his lead. Jonny Mac talks to his backline and comes for crosses when able. Meredith continues to grow into his position and looks like he will be a great signing.

Barnet were nervous in the first ten minutes, we should've capitalised but 'stood off' and allowed their nerves to settle and let them get a grip of the game forcing at least half a dozen corners. All they needed was one of those to fall right and we could've been in the do do. All that after PP stated he wanted a fast start to try unnerve Barnet from the off.

Both wide men saw plenty of ball but rarely beat a man to deliver a cross and Reid looks like he is becoming more and more stunted this way. When he does go at his man he usually beats him and that was evident when the ball dropped for him and he drilled the ball across for Connell's goal. It wasn't a 'knock and go' by Reid but he got control of the ball and delivered. He needs to do this more.

We had a good 15 minute spell after half time, due in part I would imagine to PP giving the hairdryer for a lack lustre first half. Not sure if we were then instructed to just retain the ball and reserve our energies for Tuesday, I'd like to think we were and just to prod and poke at Barnet to try get more but not to bust a gut to do so.

I said to my son at half time we would win as we hadn't got out of first gear in the first half and was not surprised at the onslaught in that early part of the 2nd half.

Overall, I was entertained enough by the 3 points and the display, bearing in mind that in recent years this type of 'banker' usually ends up in a City capitulation. That in itself suggests progress to me, also the positvie GD and the league position. I do think once again that if you and Dann discussed this game over a pint in the half hour after the match his points would've been clearer and you'd have agreed with a couple of them. Sometimes a flat report with no facial or voice inflection can be taken in many ways. That said it is a heavy focus on the negs in a game we won easily and possibly a little churlish.

Your post on yesterday's game is well presented AND well balanced PCBA.

My view -and your's, unless I am badly mistaken- is that Dann's post was not balanced. And that is why I opposed his post. Dann, in his latest post in particular, chooses to pick fault with practically everything about the way we secured 3 points. I am not opposed to people saying what ever they want to say but I will -at times- then choose to also pick faults with their opinion. Is this more, less or the same level of unfairness that they have -IMO- often been more than happy to deliver in a way that only serves to demolish rather than build. And IF I am appearing to be 'unfair' then I will have to accept your opinion of why I am being unfair if not your evidence -although you do then say: 'it is a heavy focus on the negs in a game we won easily and possibly a little churlish'. I don't know if dann will accept that he is being unfair to concentrate his post on all the things that were not faultless in a 3-0 win. Haven't we heard enough criticism of Players, Managers, Chairmen, the Club in general over the last 3 seasons -enough to sink a battle ship I would say. What is it about some of our supporters that they can't even enjoy the few and far between good times.

So, if I have been unfair to a poster who has taken an opportunity -no matter how minimal- to pick out all the negatives in a 3-0 win at a time when the TREND is showing we are more than a one game wonder and when some of us would like to actually be allowed to enjoy a bit of sunlight, ANOTHER victory, and a bit of genuine potential for a decent season for the first time for many, many months then I will just have to be regarded as being an unfair chap on this occasion.

I know I am not the only one who is not happy with the constant negatives being highlighted by other supporters at the expense of all the positives that are out there if only people would care to look for them.

I am certainly enjoying what progress we are making even when we have a less than perfect performance, maybe it's just me. Maybe I'll moan if it all collapses like a pack of cards. Until then: :))

I personally think you were out of order Lonnie. If you think back, Dann has been one of our more positive posters. Admittedly he wasn't as such under Taylor or at times since his exit, but overall, he is generally a positive poster.

In relation to his comments, do you not agree that we only won because we played a team that are seriously in danger of relegation even at this early stage? Barnet were very poor and, although we comfortably won, it was our worst performance of the season and I include the drubbing at Rotherham in that.

Dann hasn't posted anything that most, including Parkins, Parker, Hendrie and the commentators on the Pulse have said.

Reid and Hines were poor, Doyle looked off the pace and the back-four, Oliver, in particular, were wasteful with their distribution.

On the positive, Jones was excellent again and our defence never looked like being breached.

That said, if we play like that first half on Tuesday night, Morecambe will beat us.

Birky Neil wrote:
Good result and just shows how far we have come. Last season and one before that we would of drawn or lost that one. Just need to do better away.
Wingers were not as good as normal but played ok. They had a good player called Holmes. Disappeared in the second half though and was not as good. Is it just me or did Nakki look miserable when the goals were going in? Maybe he realises he is not really the star man and Bradford can score goals without him.

Yes it is just you. Why are you trying to discredit Wells? The only 'negative' I saw of Wells was when he made a great run and we failed to feed him the ball. He made his feelings quite clear what he thought to the pass, or attempted pass.

Get off his back and support him.....!

Waynus1971 wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
A little unfair lonnie. I agree with much of what Dann says above, I think what has happened here is a disection of the game and all it's negatives without balancing that with the positives. With that in mind i'll start with those, then say why I agree with some of Dann's post.

We won, we scored 3, we didn't concede, we didn't really look like conceding. We have the best CM pairing in the division, I disgree they won't score or that they hold too deep. Doyle had tow decent efforts which on another day couldve sneaked in. Jones is all action for 90mins, which means his team mates have to follow his lead. Jonny Mac talks to his backline and comes for crosses when able. Meredith continues to grow into his position and looks like he will be a great signing.

Barnet were nervous in the first ten minutes, we should've capitalised but 'stood off' and allowed their nerves to settle and let them get a grip of the game forcing at least half a dozen corners. All they needed was one of those to fall right and we could've been in the do do. All that after PP stated he wanted a fast start to try unnerve Barnet from the off.

Both wide men saw plenty of ball but rarely beat a man to deliver a cross and Reid looks like he is becoming more and more stunted this way. When he does go at his man he usually beats him and that was evident when the ball dropped for him and he drilled the ball across for Connell's goal. It wasn't a 'knock and go' by Reid but he got control of the ball and delivered. He needs to do this more.

We had a good 15 minute spell after half time, due in part I would imagine to PP giving the hairdryer for a lack lustre first half. Not sure if we were then instructed to just retain the ball and reserve our energies for Tuesday, I'd like to think we were and just to prod and poke at Barnet to try get more but not to bust a gut to do so.

I said to my son at half time we would win as we hadn't got out of first gear in the first half and was not surprised at the onslaught in that early part of the 2nd half.

Overall, I was entertained enough by the 3 points and the display, bearing in mind that in recent years this type of 'banker' usually ends up in a City capitulation. That in itself suggests progress to me, also the positvie GD and the league position. I do think once again that if you and Dann discussed this game over a pint in the half hour after the match his points would've been clearer and you'd have agreed with a couple of them. Sometimes a flat report with no facial or voice inflection can be taken in many ways. That said it is a heavy focus on the negs in a game we won easily and possibly a little churlish.

Your post on yesterday's game is well presented AND well balanced PCBA.

My view -and your's, unless I am badly mistaken- is that Dann's post was not balanced. And that is why I opposed his post. Dann, in his latest post in particular, chooses to pick fault with practically everything about the way we secured 3 points. I am not opposed to people saying what ever they want to say but I will -at times- then choose to also pick faults with their opinion. Is this more, less or the same level of unfairness that they have -IMO- often been more than happy to deliver in a way that only serves to demolish rather than build. And IF I am appearing to be 'unfair' then I will have to accept your opinion of why I am being unfair if not your evidence -although you do then say: 'it is a heavy focus on the negs in a game we won easily and possibly a little churlish'. I don't know if dann will accept that he is being unfair to concentrate his post on all the things that were not faultless in a 3-0 win. Haven't we heard enough criticism of Players, Managers, Chairmen, the Club in general over the last 3 seasons -enough to sink a battle ship I would say. What is it about some of our supporters that they can't even enjoy the few and far between good times.

So, if I have been unfair to a poster who has taken an opportunity -no matter how minimal- to pick out all the negatives in a 3-0 win at a time when the TREND is showing we are more than a one game wonder and when some of us would like to actually be allowed to enjoy a bit of sunlight, ANOTHER victory, and a bit of genuine potential for a decent season for the first time for many, many months then I will just have to be regarded as being an unfair chap on this occasion.

I know I am not the only one who is not happy with the constant negatives being highlighted by other supporters at the expense of all the positives that are out there if only people would care to look for them.

I am certainly enjoying what progress we are making even when we have a less than perfect performance, maybe it's just me. Maybe I'll moan if it all collapses like a pack of cards. Until then: :))

I personally think you were out of order Lonnie. If you think back, Dann has been one of our more positive posters. Admittedly he wasn't as such under Taylor or at times since his exit, but overall, he is generally a positive poster.

In relation to his comments, do you not agree that we only won because we played a team that are seriously in danger of relegation even at this early stage? Barnet were very poor and, although we comfortably won, it was our worst performance of the season and I include the drubbing at Rotherham in that.

Dann hasn't posted anything that most, including Parkins, Parker, Hendrie and the commentators on the Pulse have said.

Reid and Hines were poor, Doyle looked off the pace and the back-four, Oliver, in particular, were wasteful with their distribution.

On the positive, Jones was excellent again and our defence never looked like being breached.

That said, if we play like that first half on Tuesday night, Morecambe will beat us.

I'll be honest waynus i didn't expect that, but as you know i've had some ding-dongs with yourself but alwyas point out where i agree with you and not argue for argues sake. Indeed i've always stated how i can respect both your knowledge of players etc and even when i think your wrong your argument. Fact is its same with lonnie but i do find it slightly ironic that he pick me up for not been balanced when his posts are often balanced one way and thats generally an all out attack ;-).....

You put your neck on the block and say how you feel. you also comment on the game. I often don't agree with this by the way so don't think we've become bessie mates all of a sudden ;-)....

We were poor at times, and no one player got a hold of the game for me. My comments were based on this one game and not every game thus far. However overall we have looked a team (rorum aside ) that is set-up more caution than adventure. We are very rigid and there won't be many surprises for opposition managers. If we are going to have both central midfielders very close together and stuck to the half way line as they are alot of the time then the wingers should be allowed to 'cut-loose' a little more than they are with making a run without the ball and interplay, give and goes etc a positive 'risk' in the knowledge that the central two can cover.

We also were very guilty of merely launching the ball. Those who said that Barnet were set-up to be difficult, i'd say that they weren't good enough and also managed numerous corners in the first half. Ultimately booting it long will not usually break-down a side anyway unless your wimbledon. it was as i'd argued 'dumb' football. Surely we are supposed to be the better side thus lets beat them at football.

I too feel that Doyle is still short of fitness yet. He appears a little weighty, although this maybe the hoops ;-).....he's very good for this level though and thats why my post included the fact that we will/should get better but this Fact was dismissed by lonnie but thats his perogative.....