Wednesday 2nd December, 2009last year, at the start of December
Reacting to the cold, sifting the good from the bad
Bradford City 0 Rochdale 3 At Valley Parade in League Two, 2009/2010
Defeats are always worse in the cold.
A miserable night and a miserable result for Bradford City going down 3-0 at home to a Rochdale side that – in a League Two context – redefined ebullience.
As the bitter winter drew into Valley Parade the Bantams were beaten by what was probably the best team to come to the stadium in the two and a half years since relegation.
All had started bright enough for Stuart McCall’s side when the early exchanges saw City pinging a cross over that James Hanson turned just wide of the post and the 433 formation that saw James O’Brien return to a midfield alongside Michael Flynn and Lee Bullock and Gareth Evans and new boy Simon Whaley flank Hanson up front seemed to pile pressure onto the side which had ambitions for the top of the division.
Ambitions they would realise by the end of the evening and with no little help from City – Steve Williams’s attempt to clear a ball and his inability to step up after he had given that ball away saw a ball ended up being fired under Simon Eastwood for Dale’s first goal scored by Chris Dagnall.
The visitors played like a team brimful of confidence and as drilled as any who have been to VP for years with every man pressing at City. The full backs added to the wide men to force City’s two wide strikers to come back and be employed as weak midfielders – almost wing backs at times – resulting in a poor first home start for Whaley and Evans’s worst game since he signed for City.
The two wide played stolen away James Hanson cut a lonely and easily policed figure up front while James O’Brien struggled to get a grip in the midfield – the problem with 19 year old players is that they are, by nature, inconstant and hindsight says that McCall would have been better with the more experianced head of Chris Brandon, not that I would have made that decision at 19:45.
Luke O’Brien and Simon Ramsden – who later switched inside to cover (one assumes) an injured Zesh Rehman leaving Jonathan Bateson on the flank – were exposed by Whaley and Evans’s inability to perform both jobs adequately and the ball inside Ramsden ten scattered minutes after the first goal was centred by 39 minute City loanee Chris O’Grady for Dagnall’s second.
The Bantams players got heads up after but the support on the whole rounded on the players with not one player saved a lashing of tongue (and often worse than lashing, but let us concentrate on the main thrust) and a suggestion of their inability. All teams who are not winning at half time are booed of these days, but is there not a distinction to be made between a team playing badly and another team playing well and – if that is a distinction – was it the case on this evening?
Rochdale played as well as any side who have come to Valley Parade in this league have done and showed signs of belief in each other that the Bantams aim towards. One could spend fifteen minutes at half time reviewing every City player to find a problem in his performance but ultimately the main problem the Bantams had tonight was that they were playing against a side that played brilliantly. Swapping out any of the City squad, switching formations, changing personnel: none of those things would have altered that.
Last season’s 3-0 reversal at Spotland saw Paul Arnison hung out to dry for not being able to cope with Will Atkinson who presented a myriad of problems for Simon Ramsden tonight. When does it stop being the fault of our right back that a cross has come over and start being the credit of their left winger? Did right backs up and down the First Division lose their jobs the week after Peter Beagrie ripped them to shreds in 1999?
The build up of understanding between Dale’s pairings – the two at the back, the midfield pair, wide payers, the forwards who caused problems all night with a running off the ball and movement that border on zealous – was honed and the strength of will in the squad was evident and there as an example – no, as something to aim for – to City and to all sides in League Two and beyond. Well drilled, confident teams will always do well, they should always do well.
Rochdale got a third – O’Grady scoring after some more defensive hi-jinx – but any bad luck the Bantams had in the odd run of the ball was made up by two or three great saves which earned him a man of the match award in a match that City could hardly get into. Scott Neilson arrived late and nudged a headed chance at goal but the result was a long time decided at that point.
Ultimately while supporters will no doubt go into a catatonia of debate over the reasons and machinations behind tonight’s result – and while everyone will have a different take on those elements – it will be Stuart McCall’s decision as to sift out what he considers to be issues which can be addressed and those which came around as the result of an excellent performance by the visitors.
I have said many times in the past that the key to dealing with results good and bad is to minimise and move on and that is McCall’s task now. To isolate the problems which can be addressed and to address them, then ignore the others and not let the fact that another team has played well force his thinking away from the idea that the side – the young side – is learning and improving. Tonight was a lesson, and a spanking, but it is something which is learnt from.
The Rochdale fans asked if they could play City every week – considering the one win each of the season then we might take them up on that – but in all likelihood should they maintain that level of performance it would have to be in a division above. The last time Rochdale were promoted The Beatles were number one (with Get Back, which, oh irony, they did) and Keith Hill’s side have managed to escape promotion twice over the last two years.
City on the other hand take stock, sift the good from the bad and move onto Darlington on Saturday. Seasons are made up of cold winter nights like this and how they are reacted too.
Very poor showing for City last night – again some mistakes in defence cost us.
Take nothing away from Rochdale though, they were the best team I have seen at VP for a long time and the front two’s movement and interplay was very impressive.
I wonder if Rehman was injured or it was a tactical move. Only McCall can tell us this.
The season now starts at Darlington, and a must win game really. Still only 4 points of the play off places though, so a win at Darlo sets us up nicely for Xmas with 4 massive games against teams above us. I think we put last night down to an off night for City and a very good night for Rochdale.
If we can manage 3 wins out of 4 in the league next up, that will be a good return.
If though is the biggest word in City’s dictionary.
Well this season will now go one way or the other – it can be too easy to say put this defeat aside and regroup for the trip to Darlo – sure we may go there and win like most other teams – what concerns me more is the pitiful 3 home wins from 10 played in league 2 at VP this season, and Rotherham / Shrewsbury next up.
Hats off to Rochdales management for puttting together an excellent squad despite losing important players – and all on relatively sparse crowds and minimal borrowings – whilst at VP we continue to stutter through another campaign,aided by excellent crowd numbers and a manager well supported by his 2 chairmen – Stuart offered no excuses last night other than to say we were played out of the game by Dale – he sounded shattered and emotional……….we’ve been here before i thought!
A very fair report emphasising the quality of the opposition. Rochdale really were great, pinging sequences about all the time.Alas our fans were pretty poor (apart from the TL Dallas). But elsewhere the negativity was beyond belief, summed up by the first post match caller on Radio Leeds: “The worst performance in the 15 years I have been going to Valley Parade…I’ve torn up my season ticket renewal form”. Can think of many worse performances (losing 3-0 at home to Accrington sticks in the mind) and not renewing the season ticket will guarantee worse than this. We were bad, but credit where credit’s due – Dale had done their homework on us, were hungry and skilful. Without Eastwood, it would have been 3-0. And by the way, their disallowed goal was never offside.
I noticed a few City players looking daggers at the linesman after the second goal with the suggestion being that O’Grady was offside when he received the ball before playing it across (he may, or may not, have been I could not tell) but the linesman did as instructed and gave the doubt to the striker unlike the Hereford game a month ago.
Similarly Lee Bullock was pulled up for a handball in midfield as signified by the Referee going against what he is instructed to do in the laws of the game and giving a signal with his body language (he pointed to his upper arm) to denote why he had blown his whistle in contrast to other supercilious officials we have seen in recent week who seemed to be of the belief that the supporters should be kept in the dark.
First up, Rochdale were (as I’m sure everyone agrees) the best side in this division, probably the best side since MK Dons a few years back.
City just weren’t at the races though, Bullock & Flynn were taught a lesson in midfield by there 2 lads who I was most impressed with. They stopped everything we did & turned it into something positive for Rochdale.
Michael – you’re quite right about Whaley & Evans, they didn’t get chance to do the job that they’re employed to do & I don’t think you can blame them for that. The 433 was undone simply by how quick to press Rochdale were.
One thing that really irritated me was that even after 5 minutes when the game hadn’t had chance to take shape, those famous City boo-boys were at it again getting on everyones back. I’m not sure if it’s because it was a cold night & they didn’t want to be there, maybe Valley Parade is the only place they can get away from their wives?! Either way it’s not helpful to anyone and I wish they just wouldn’t bother showing up with that attitude.
Eastwood seems to have avoided criticism for last night’s performance. I blame him for the first goal and Rochdale’s relentless 1st half pressure. Yes, Williams’ clearance was woeful. However, when a defender is facing goal, the keeper is duty-bound to help. It’s obvious that the back four have no faith in their keeper. I remember Gary Walsh been City’s amazing sweeper/goalkeeper (no mention of the Giggs incident please!). Eastwood is a great shot stopper and dependable at kicking. But surely we should not be deprived of a keeper with ALL the standard goalkeeping attributes just because we’re a League 2 club?
Rochdale were very impressive and deserved the victory. I have always admired their brilliant movement off the ball. Furthermore, I cannot see them finishing outside of the top 3 this season.
Hopefully, McCall can now provoke a reaction and City can secure the 3 points against a very poor Darlington side.
I will mention “The Sheringham incident” because following it Walsh – the best keeper I have ever seen at City – was jeered by his own supporters in a disgraceful way and the fact that that did not happen to Eastwood probably resulted in him making two or three outstanding saves. He should have shouted Williams out of the way and cleared the ball long but having made that mistake – and seeing the ball go under him for the goal – he got his head up and showed some character which is probably by he escaped criticism, and certainly why I would not criticise him.
Anyone wanting to learn lessons from Rochdale’s rise to the top of League Two might want to have a look where they were two seasons and nineteen matches into Keith Hill’s reign – Halfway down this division after a dodgy start.
Chris Dunphy kept faith in his manager and had been rewarded with what we saw last night so the question is, if we’re taking Rochdale as an example, what should Mark Lawn do?
So the guys misfired a little on a cold wet night, Rochdale were a good, well marshalled side and an example of where we want to be in the near future. I am pleased that last seasons team didn’t meet them in this incarnation or we really would be licking our wounds this morning, at least they tried to the end and kept playing for each other, long after the game was lost in any real sense.
As for the bloke behind me, let us hope that your decision against a season ticket for next season is final.
Keith Hill has taken Rochdale to the play offs in his last two seasons and will probably take them up automatically this season.In the same period McCall has received more than enougth faith from Mark Lawn and delivered mediocrity.How long would the BFB team give him? A 4th season?,another 2 year contract?
We have had just 2 managers in five and a half years and are currently still mid table in the 4th division, so stability does not seem to work either.
Well firstly Keith sorry to disappoint you but there is no secret BfB Towers were we join together and create a collective opinion so I’m not able to speak for Jason, Omar, Roland, Paul, Mark or any of the other 150 plus people who have used this site to have their views aired independently and deserve better than being rolled up into a collective whole and assumed to have the same views. Your words appear on BfB and you would not appreciate someone else doing it to you, so extend that courtesy to others.
So secondly I’m prepared to answer your question but in the interest of quid pro quo I trust that you will answer one for me. How long would I give Stuart McCall as Bradford City manager? The answer now is the same as it was after the Notts County game in which we lost badly, the Notts game we won on penalties for umpteen games unbeaten or indeed on the day he signed the contract to take the job. I would consider the manager we appointed then – McCall by name but the manager could have been anyone – to be a long term appointment which is viewed in terms of years and not games. A season after this one? Yes. Another two year contract? Yes. That is what long term principals are about – making a decision and sticking to it and if you are not able to do that then you don’t have long term principals, you have hobbies.
One certainly does not create stability by changing your manager on the basis that you are achieving what you term “mediocrity” and I would have thought that with your recollections of the past five and a half years you would recall that the “mediocrity” of Colin Todd was replaced by David Wetherall (who had full remit as manager and makes a third over that period) and relegation.
Which brings me to my question to you and why frankly I do not give a damn when people talk about sacking Stuart McCall. I am interested in the improvement of Bradford City and I believe that that is best served by taking a long term approach to appointment – academic studies back this up as an approach – and support that approach at the club. You have a different opinion – a valid opinion to raise – but one which is not presented as a solution to a problem but rather to create a different situation.
You would – I assume – have the manager sacked and then find a new one. The randomness of this process of ridding oneself of one thing for something unknown is perhaps the definition of instability. Never to I hear a solution any management problem presented under the banner “Sack Stuart McCall” and always do I sense the vague notion that there has been very little thought beyond that. It is sacking (and let us shy from that term because managers are not sacked, the are paid to not come to work) as a punitive action rather than a scheme to take our club forward. It is fumbled attempt at action for the sake of action and it lacks a planning which needs to be at the core of running any club.
Hypothetical: Keith Bruce is chairman of Bradford City for a day – McCall is fired – what next? The club is now the same as it was but with an uncertain dressing room, no manager, a coaching staff that providing they have not been fired too have uncertain futures. We all agree that that is not an improvement. So Chairman Bruce does what? Holds interviews in which a series of CVs land on his desk and he invites various people in and what question does he ask? “How are you, Mr New Manager, going to take this club forward?”, “Give us a plan please because we throw the last one out half way through.”
Of course the best of these new managers knows that his future depends not on marshalling the resources he has on offer but on attempting to make good on the over-promises he made in interview to win the job – because the Chairman Bruce is never going to appoint the guy who says he is going to do anything other than win automatic promotion – and so he brings in players the club can ill afford and spends money borrowed against the suggestion of the promotion he has promised the chairman meaning that if he team does not perform and he is sacked then the next guy gets a club in much worse state (if at all, football finances are perilous) but that does not really matter to the guy who sounded good in interview because he is down the road impressing another chairman and writing off his performance at the now administration hit City as being hampered by financial problems not that he really cares because he is not a guy who played hundreds of games for the club, he is someone who stood out in interview and who has the aim of moving on.
That is no way to run anything successfully but it served to create a sense of action and made some people who have a massively inflated the sense of entitlement to think that the reasons things might not go as well as we want at Bradford City is nothing at all to do with other clubs doing well but with ours doing badly.
Everyone at Valley Parade in City colours last night wants the same thing for the club – improvement – but the sacking McCall strategy does not offer improvement it offers a randomness of throwing things in the air and seeing where they land. The majority of the time replacing a manager has no effect on a club in the longer term and as City fans – provided our eyes are connected to our brains – we have observed this in action over the past decade where manager after manager has left and the club’s course downwards has only been sped by these moves. To fail to learn from that decade of abundant examples would be derelict to the point of cognitive deficiency.
So, in a long winded way, this is my question to you: Remembering that the rapid turnover of managers and the system of sacking one and casting a net to bring in the next has not achieved the results you would wish what plan, what blueprint, what scheme do you have in your head that suggests an improvement for Bradford City can be made by sacking Stuart McCall and replacing him with what I assume is the guy who gives the best Powerpoint presentation in interview?
Unless you can answer that question with something tangible, something other than flip phrases, something that might rival demonstrable evidence that one path succeeds while the other fails then I am forced to carry on with the conclusion that the aims is a punitive action to the effect of salving a sense of entitlement rather than than a method of taking the club forward which would interest me.
Well said Mr. Wood, well said.
A very poor display, but some reactions are way over the top. Frankly I wouldnt have given anyone who played more than a 5 out of 10, and several were below that. But we must be realistic and remember that 6 of the 14 who took the field for us during the game are in their first league season, and Luke OB in his second. For these lads Rochdale probably represent the best side that they have faced. We are work in progress, play offs could be a realistic target and the season will not be decided on Saturday. One point re selection/substitutions – for me Clarkes ability in the air and strength on the ground were needed to disrupt O’Grady.
Michael, that is in my opinion the most eloquent and accurate response to a line trotted out on many message boards by people who appear to have an opinion that City have a right to be at the top of the league or in the Championship because the stadium befits it.
Responses to McCall’s claims that the play off are the target seem to be based on if that’s all we can aim for we might as well sack McCall/Wetherall/Jacobs and bring in a new man, an experienced number 2 (what has Jacobs done to offends many City fans btw), someone who knows this division, knows the players requried. Much of their knowledge appears to come from reading the Sun football pull out and watching Match of the Day. In my opinion.
The biggest laugh I’ve had in weeks was some posters on message boards, the T&A I think saying we should get in Darren Ferguson. We’ve more chance of getting his dad, the Posh fan sat at the next desk would say he spent big, didn’t always spend right and that the likes of MacLean and Mackail-Smith were spotted by the chairman and bought by the previous manager, Keith Alexander.
Although it was a magnificent performance from Dale last night, credit has to be given to the Bradford support…..To a man each one I spoke to and also those who spoke to other Dale fans were gracious in defeat and are a credit to your club…A very classy set of supporters, Good luck for the remainder of the season and if we are to go up let’s hope you go up with us……..Moonydale
“BfB and Rochdale sitting in a tree…”
Seriously though thanks for calling in Paul – good to have you here – and well done to all City fans who represented the club well.
All you have to do is look slightly north and slightly east. Todd and Jackson going doesnt seem to have helped matters at their respective clubs and they have gone and got in quite a few new players. I can see an improvement in this team. It will suffer setbacks. I do have a question. Considering we have no money to spend who do people feasibly expect to get in as manager? I have also read someone suggetsing we make a move for Loach. Do some people not realise what division we play in, the financial constraints and the actual standard? If not they best start realising soon as they will only end up very disappointed!!
A few points:
1. Keeping a manager for 30 months rather than 18 does not count as stability. Stability is keeping a manager until he delivers success.
2. “Two managers in just five and half years” is not an indicator of stability.
3. The attitude that would see Stuart McCall sacked now would have seen Keith Hill sacked twelve months ago.
4. The attitude that would see Stuart McCall sacked now would have seen Alex Ferguson sacked in 1989. (I know he’s Sir Alex but wouldn’t be if he had been sacked in ‘89.)
5. I am not a member of the “BFB Team” as Keith suggests. My opinions are entirely my own.
I seem to have upset you again Michael. For information I would give any manager the length of his contract to prove himself. After McCalls 2 years I would not have renewed it as he did nothing to justify an extended 2 years. I find it remarkable that you would support him indefinately regardless of any success.However due to the fact that it will cost a fortune to get rid now,I would let the season run it’s course and see where we finish.I suspect it will be mid-table and He will walk anyway.By the way what happened to the contributer who wrote a damning article about McCall after the Notts county thrashing on your site? The one you refused to let anyone comment on.
Yes Keith you do upset me when you spread supposition and untruths about the work I and the other writers do. I think it is unfair and disrespectful to them and I think that you should have more respect for fellow City fans.
To answer the last point David White is – as with all the other contributors – allowed to write for the site as and when he pleases. David was – he told me – pleased to have that article on BfB (It followed the Notts County 5-0 defeat and suggested that while keeping a manager was the correct thing to do, McCall was not the correct manager to keep) and I’m very keen to hear more of David’s thoughts. His three articles in the last four years suggest that he is not a regular contributor but David – if you are ready – get in touch and write something new.
The article of David’s formed a part of a pair of articles one for, one against presented without comments on this website switched on. BfB has been creating this sort of paired article for the best part of the last decade with it being a staple of the site in the mid-part of the decade. It was adopted at that point for practicalities – neither Jason or I was available to approve what one would have anticipated would be a multitude of comments – but an even hand was given to both sides of that debate.
To suggest that I “refused to allow anyone to comment on it” is tediously untrue. It was not available for comments on this website (and would not have been even if the comments switch had been turned to on, not all comments are published, there is an editing process detailed in the guidelines on every comment page and as our friends at Rochdale illuminated I am legally liable for the comments published on this site) but I am told that it was debated on the OMB and the issues discussed are debated at length on other parts of this website frequently – indeed this article does it. Before I added comments to BfB – a good 85% of the lifetime of the site – debate was continued about the articles on other sites and that pair of articles were no different.
You want to portray me and this site as trying to silence criticism of Stuart McCall but publishing an article criticising him and even the twisted view you are harbouring must be able to notice the ridiculous contradiction in that. Not only that but today you have been allowed the same platform to make similar comments in a debate. Only a blithering idiot would characterise that as some attempt to silence comment.
Onto the other points I did ask you to answer a question and you have not been able to do that nor indeed have you read the comments I made – or perhaps you read them and did not understand them which seems to be the case – but all you present is the idea of removing something from the club and nothing about improving the club. I find it remarkable that anyone can unquestioningly follow the (indefinite?) policy of replacing managers on a near 18 month cycle despite the frequency which it fails although I note that if Chairman Bruce has given Paul Jewell until the end of his first half season contract he would have seen the mid-table finish and sent him packing.
Very simply, and without daft comments about upsetting people or Mystic Meg predictions: What assurance is there that replacing this manager be a more successful endeavour than replacing the previous six managers?
The way you reply to people Michael especially if they do not agree with you seems more in the way of a rant rather than a question.You question my intelligence by saying I probably do not understand your question to me.However you keep saying “I have a question for you” and then rant. I suspect David White will never write for you again after you lost credibility by closing his article off.You don’t do that with Jason McKeown.
As I explained in the earlier post ,if I was Chairman I would give a manager a 2 year deal and at the end of the 2 years look at the situation.If progress was being made the deal would be extended.I would not sack mid season,however I would not have renewed McCalls deal last summer. If keeping the same manager indefinately regardless of results is the key to success then clearly Leeds got it wrong sacking McCallister last season and Huuddersfield should surely have kept Stan Ternant on for a good few years and not appoint Lee Clark.
I did not intend to insult the BFB writers but it does appear that you have taken it that way. However the site does appear to have changed from a must read and great source of rumour and gossip that you had in the earlier part of the decade to a bash the fans site.
You say rant – Graeme says “the most eloquent and accurate response to a line trotted out on many message boards” – but it is fair to say that you infuriate me because even in the disagreements with Luton fans, with Rochdale fans, with Spurs fans seldom have I ever encountered someone who fails to answer the most simple questions which must be core to his belief if his belief is to have any credence.
Yes, you would review a manager’s contract two years after appointing him – although I do not see how that is different to what currently happens – but that is not an answer to my question. My question is how to you make sure that replacing this manager be a more successful endeavour than replacing the previous six managers?
Interesting points about Gary McAllister who Leeds sacked after the game at Histon despite his having won 50% of his games and reaching the play-offs. Grayson took over the team and – what do you know – reached the play-offs. Hardly the proof that changing the manager is a successful process. Likewise Huddersfield’s change of manager came alongside a massive investment in players which – and I’ll help you out here – could be an answer to your question. The Huddersfield chairman made sure his next appointment was more successful than the last by giving him a huge increase in resources. To suggest that the difference between Town this season and last is Lee Clark and not Stan Ternant is disingenuous.
I’d also like to point out that I’ve never used the word “indefinitely” in this context and tell you not to attribute it to me. I would not get rid of a manager on the basis of a 3-0 defeat against a team at the top of the division.
You obviously know David White better than I do if you know his mindset. Tell him I say Hi next time you are hob-nobbing with him and that the door is always open for him if he wants to write something new. Comments are at times turned on and off on various articles including my own regardless of who the author or the subject matter is (although they now have a different format which was designed since David and my articles) but – as you say – you will not know that not being a regular reader I assume having stated that the site is not a “must read” although – and I would hate for you to take this as a rant – but far more people read the articles on website now than they did in the period up to 2005 and more people return to the website on a daily basis than they did in those years so while the site has changed it certainly is no less of a “must read” for an increased number of people. Perhaps that answers to the credibility of the website although it would be arrogant of me to say that the site does, or does not have it. I create it, all readers form the opinions and either come to the site or do not on the basis of that.
Addressing a wider audience – and for those who are interested – there was a change in the site away from news and rumours and towards opinion and articles. In the early part of the decade City news online was thin on the ground but as the years progressed the likes of BBC, The T&A, The club site and many other news portals ramped up the coverage they provided to a level where much of the time spent on BfB was repeating news that the readers have found elsewhere perhaps with a comment or two. This simply was not worth my time and so the site was wound up for a bit and returned on the basis that it would focus on opinion articles for those who wrote articles.
Doing that provides a breadth to the coverage of our club online but the site is not for everyone and obviously not taking a neutral stance is always going to upset some people who disagree but there is an open door policy to articles and a tiny percentage have been spiked over the last ten years. Some of those articles have criticised supporters – although some would suggest that if you are the sort of person who boos young players you are not a supporter or the club by any definition – but saying BfB is a “bash the fans” site is as contradictory as it is inane. Everyone who writes for the site is a Bradford City fan and no one is tied to an editorial policy. If one fan has an opinion that the others need to be taken to task over – for example – booing Joe Colbeck then they have the platform to say so.
At least that is what BfB provides – and it provides it for you to make your point – so I wait with baited breath for an answer to the question.
Have a good Christmas Michael and we will have to agree to disagree on Stuart McCall. Not sure many Town fans wish Stan was still in charge but you never know.
You have a good Christmas too.
Make sure when Santa asks you what you want you can answer his question cause you certainly are not able to answer mine.