| Crewe Alexandra 1 |
| Long 13 (pen) |
| Bradford City 0 |
By Adam Raj
New Year is the time for new year resolutions. For City, there would not be a more pressing resolution than to cease being a charity case for clubs on a poor run of form. Sadly, any hope that 2024 would finally be that year was ended in tame fashion as Crewe Alexandra were the latest side to be the profiteers of City’s routine inability at overcoming such obstacles.
As one turnstile steward joked, “we’ve got no chance with the way we’ve been playing recently.” Roll into town Bradford City.
Unfortunately, one habit that City couldn’t carry on from 2023 was their impressive unbeaten run which had seen them come within touching distance of the play offs. City ultimately left Cheshire with a lot more questions than they have answers.
Graham Alexander chose to keep an unchanged team from the side who managed to hold leaders Stockport County to a draw at the weekend. That meant there was still no place for either Sam Stubbs or Harry Chapman in the match day squad, but Clarke Oduor kept his place having been City’s liveliest player against Stockport.
The Bantams certainly started the better of the two sides, with some good openings being worked in wide areas, but continuous poor deliveries into the box killed attacks at crucial moments. Then, thirteen minutes in, Jon Tomkinson misjudged a ball over the top and allowed Chris Long to get on the end of it. The Alex number 7 cleverly ran across Tomkinson’s path, inviting contact and going down to win his side a penalty, which he dispatched himself.
City’s response was once again lively, but painfully devoid of any real quality. Alex Gilliead saw a shot comfortably saved and Tyler Smith saw a toe poked effort go just wide of the post but City failed to work home keeper Tom Booth. That’s not to say Harry Lewis at the other end was busy. In fact, he was a spectator for the rest of the game. Crewe, winless in seven, were given something to hold and hold they intended. For a home side, there was a distinct lack of attacking intent, even before they scored, let alone after it.
But in those situations, the onus is always on the opposition to make things happen, to recognise the opponent’s game plan and adapt if necessary. City didn’t do that. It was Plan A, a bit more of Plan A and then even more Plan A.
That’s not me saying City were bad in that first half. Far from it. They actually played pretty well for two thirds of the pitch. As someone who has not been overly enamoured with the kick and rush football employed over the last few games, I actually thought there was some promise in how City (at times) decided against the aimless punt forwards. They worked the ball into some really good areas of the pitch, without needing to boot it long at every opportunity.
Despite this approach play, chances were few and far between as the quality in final ball deliveries was non existent. Open play and set piece crosses into the box were over hit and way off target with Liam Ridehalgh and Richie Smallwood the main culprits.
But as a whole, the first half was okay and certainly something to build on. What we got in the second half however, was a mess.
The hosts ramped up their ****housery by a few notches and a willing conductor in referee Peter Wright was all the encouragement they needed. What it meant was that City’s Plan A couldn’t regain the momentum and territorial advantage that it produced in the first half. It needed a change.
That change came, but I think to everyone’s surprise, it came in the form of Matt Derbyshire. I don’t wish to single players out, but despite one or two moments in his year-long stint at Valley Parade, Derbyshire hasn’t shown anything to indicate he is still capable of playing at this level. And in this fixture, the same can be said. He had no impact whatsoever and the team actually lost a little bit from the departure of Smith.
Bobby Pointon and Vadaine Oliver were given fifteen minutes to try and make a difference but neither managed to produce anything. That double change saw City effectively line up with three number 9s, all of whom ended up playing on top of one another, with no real indication as to who was playing where. In theory, when you need a goal, it’s all well and good throwing a load of strikers on the pitch, but that won’t make any difference if the supply line is shut off. And that was City’s problem in a nutshell.
Their failure to score was not through a host of missed chances, but rather a lack of creativity from every angle on the pitch. The substitutions didn’t rectify this problem and only Pointon’s arrival was a change to enhance creativity levels. But the City youngster was curiously played out of position at LWB, despite having no senior experience in that position. This was despite still having Oduor on the pitch who has a number of EFL appearances at both LB and LWB for Barnsley and Hartlepool.
A change of tactic to play Pointon and Oduor as wingers may have been an option to try and get more quality in wide areas but sadly that was not forthcoming. It meant City were too predictable and too easy to defend against.
City did have the ball in the net through Andy Cook, but he was correctly adjudged as being offside. Booth finally had two saves to make, but made a bit of a mess of both of them, nearly carrying one Cook header over the line. If only he’d have been tested earlier…
Taking the disappointment of defeat away for a second, this loss, and the nature of it, may have come at the perfect time for the Bantams. Any complacency or sudden belief that this summer’s recruitment was adequate has had a sudden wake up call. Or maybe not so sudden. The last three games have seen a general drop in performances and quality, with creativity being the main issue after successive blanks. Of course, City miss Jamie Walker and Alex Pattison, but it’s lazy to attribute City’s lack of creativity solely to the absence of two players.
Similarly, some individual performances have dropped which can be put down to the sheer amount of minutes they are playing. Smallwood and Gilliead for example have played nearly every minute since Alexander has arrived. The depth to rotate them is not there with only Kevin McDonald the natural replacement in that position.
City still lack pace throughout the side, in particular the forward line and certainly lack creativity from central midfield. With the window open for the next month, they have a chance to learn from this defeat and do something about it. The worst thing they could do is treat it as a bad day at the office. The issues on show against Crewe are fundamental issues that pre-date Alexander and are still to be rectified. Let’s hope they are before the month ends.
Categories: Match Reviews
widthofapost.com 
Two points from the last nine is unfortunately bottom of the table stuff but in a sense it might be a quite timely. If anybody at the club thought we were just going to power our way up the league into the top 7, they must think again. Alexander has done well to immediately hit upon a system that fits his players – whom incidentally he has improved in fitness. This has halved the points gap between ourselves and our objective in a month. But Hughes’s legacy is a bloated squad with unwanted players on long contracts and players we need to keep on contracts expiring in July. I could name six or seven players I think we could well do without in order to bring in a minimum of three we need. The danger of course is if you try too hard to shift players, the morale of the rest can be affected. No one likes to see a mate and colleague being given the push. Decent January signing are usually quite expensive because the players are already under contract. Nevertheless, the new manager must be given the opportunity to do some business in the market. As Adam says, we lack pace in the team. We must hope for the best – and much better luck in the lottery of the loan system.
Same old same old.
People never learn. If you listen to some of our fans just because we beat a couple of under 21 teams and a couple of the worst teams in the country we’re suddenly world beaters !!! We are not. Reality check for the usual naive suspects bill who seem to struggle with the reality of the club. We are 3 point above 18th in division 4. We’re a mess. All the things wrong with the club still exist. 7 years of decline and going nowhere fast.
Recruitment has been consistently poor and January is a big window or it’s another season fulfilling fixtures and going through the motions.
I know people don’t like to admit reality but we have a long way to go. Alexander has made a great start but our squad of full of dead wood with a real lack of quality. Our bench is very weak and Alexander doesn’t seem to trust many of them. Interesting month ahead whether people like it or not.
Agreed. Doesn’t trust enough of the squad so they’ll run out of steam. Which ultimately is the same thing the last few managers have done. They have found a trusted xi and stuck to it. Everyone including the club has blamed this on the managers having “no plan b” or “not making substitutes” what seems apparent is those outside the xi or unchanged matchday 18 are the only ones up to scratch and the rest of the squad isn’t good enough for league 2
I’m not trying to jump on any band wagons here. But it seems there is a pattern and the reality is this squad isn’t good enough for promotion. Mark hughes then maybe did a far better job than many (me included) have given him credit for….
Remember Steven Gent is head of recruitment and the book stops with him regarding the bloated squad of poor players. Hughes said on a podcast recently that he had little input on last summer’s recruitment when he was talking to Big Sam. Have a listen.
That seems a structural failure to me (or perhaps it would be an ecumenical matter). Without knowing the inside story, it seems Gent and Hughes were both doing their thing as professionals, but there was a lack of communication between them in the decision-making. Whose fault is that? My hunch is that Sparks was annoyed at Hughes for his late-window formation flip flop, and Hughes was annoyed at Sparks for keeping him out the loop on transfers, and then the relationship broke down. But I’ve no idea really do I, that’s just my best guess. Interesting to hear Hughes give his own side though. Much more respectful and restrained than Derek Adams, that’s for sure.
Nothing to see here. Heavy pitch vs Stockport, busy festive period and injuries to key players took it’s toll on the players. Maybe he should have changed it up but sure the data was telling him otherwise.
I thought playing Pointon at LWB, and let’s be realistic where he was on the pitch he was playing LW was a pretty straightforward decision and he created a couple of opportunities too. Oduor has been better in the middle of the pitch than out wide, Pointon has been better out wide than in the middle.
Any team would miss Walker and Pattison especially 2 players in the same and such an important position but we shouldn’t underestimate the impact of Richards missing too. His end product could be better but his athleticism gets you up the pitch quickly. Ridehalgh doesn’t have that ability. Parkinson used Reid in a similar way.
Oduor has ability but goes missing too much. Patience needs to be shown with him, a player to develop. However, for all his future ability, it’s a huge downgrade on Walker. Walker makes us tick and that’s the main concern for the coming weeks with no Pattison and Chapman looking on his way out.
Agreed.
The players looked tired to me but you can’t fault their effort levels. The game had a draw written all over it and would have been but for an error at the back.
For me it highlighted the rather bipolar nature of City. We’ve scrapped off Hughes ball where possession is everything to a far more direct style. I felt in the second half in particular it cried out for some bravery in the middle, someone to put a foot on the ball, keep procession and move the opponents around the pitch. Dare I say we needed that control Hughes always aspired to but blended with a direct attacking intent – easier said than done after so many matches in a short period of time on heavy pitches.
Any league 2 team would miss Walker and Pattison who could have helped with that control. Its just a shame (to me) that Chapman appears to be overlooked.
But back to my first point. The players gave everything and whilst this, of course, should be a given we shouldn’t ignore the progress we’ve made under GA. There’s a long way to go, a transfer window to get through, and plenty of structural problems / issues to address but it is progress….
A very disappointing performance by our manager against a poor side. He could have utilised fresh legs over the Christmas period and mixed it up a bit. Instead he inevitably ended up with a team so tired that they couldn’t muster a decent cross between them (although Ridehalgh can hardly use this excuse). He failed to recognise the fatigue in the team and then he let the game go on for far too long before making changes. And really his subs bench is a bit baffling anyway. Is Derbyshire really a player that is going to make a big difference on a cold heavy pitch? The last time I remember him sprinting he pulled his hamstring!
Crewe were so poor just a bit of courage and confidence in the squad (before kickoff or early changes) changes could have made it possible to win. Osadebe for Ridehalgh, McDonald for Smallwood, Pointon for Oduor, Oliver for Cook. In my opinion GA failed to take control of the situation, instead going for the finger crossed option.
Oliver for Cook??
No manager is going to leave hospital talisman goalscorer out if fit
If Cook gets injured what choice would we then have?
Sometimes giving a tired player a rest means that they avoid injury and actually get better results when they come back fresh.
But I accept your point, most managers don’t look at the bigger picture. I remember Bowyer running Cook into the ground until he got injured.
Pat, Bowyer wasn’t the manager when we got Cook in. Bowyer left a year earlier.
Agree its important to keep an eye on player burnout, but it must be a tough decision for managers whether it’s best to get results with the best players now, and deal with the risk later than some players might break down
My take on Crewe is this… GA has come in and deemed half the squad not good enough for selection. Personally, I think the team is crying out for Chapman but he’s not even making the bench.
My guess would be, Chapman along with everyone else being overlooked are not meeting the gaffer’s high standards… not training hard enough… not putting in the required effort… not training like they intend to play (giving it all for a full 90 min practice session) … not following manager instructions etc.
If that’s the case (which obviously we’re not privy to), then I’m fully behind him because he’s setting expectations high, and demanding more from the players than what most managers do. Anyone who can’t be bothered doing that, won’t be selected or play for the club… end of!
Performances have been better and the team has looked a lot more dangerous in recent weeks, and after the first festive game at Donny, that positive trend looked set to continue. The problem is, we lose Walker, our most influential attacking player under GA to injury AND his equally influential replacement Patterson who suffers a setback at the same time.
And since we’re only selecting 12-13 players from our squad of 50, inevitably (as most of the starting 11 played all 4 fixtures over Xmas) – the team carried less of a threat and looked absolutely shattered at Crewe.
But, I don’t think it’s the end of the world as some interpretations seem to offer…
I don’t think it should bring out the doom mongers either…
I definitely don’t think it’s time to start beating GA with a stick and questioning his methods which have mostly been positive and drawn praise until now…
And I think It’s a little early to be declaring the season over, especially at the start of a transfer window and on the back of performances that have been vastly improved for the most part.
I like what he’s doing, GA (and Lucketti) were super-pro’s in their day, they know when a player is giving absolutely everything and when he’s not.
If it’s the case (and I’m not saying it is) that he’s weeding out anyone who isn’t prepared to give 110% EVERY SINGLE DAY so that good performances and consistency become a habit, not the exception or whenever there’s a juicy game coming up at the weekend… then I’m right behind him as that’s precisely what made PP successful at VP.
It sounds simple, but the difference in skill at our level is so subtle that success usually comes down to who wants it more and which team is fitter to maintain the intensity in games.
We’ve seen a big improvement in desire, motivation, and effort in recent weeks. The lads have taken huge strides towards becoming a fully committed team that looks to take initiative in games by attacking and subduing the opposition. They work hard to maintain pressure and win back the ball so, I’ve got plenty of confidence we’re heading in the right direction despite a disappointing return over the festive period (well, last 3 games).
The fact is, we also dominated the Crewe match in the same way we’ve been on top of most teams lately, but unfortunately, a lack of composure and creativity in the final third really cost us.
The injury of Lewis Richards has somewhat been overlooked and understated, but if you ask me (someone with a strong belief that good wing backs are vital to attacking play) … then you can probably understand why I reckon he’s as big a miss as Walker is to our team right now.
I’m not surprised in Richards’ absence (and Liam Ridehalgh’s inclusion), that we’ve looked less potent, created fewer key chances, and scored ZERO goals in the two matches since.
Richards clearly injects pace and skill into our attack with fearless running similar to a winger (stretching defences and creating openings) … but he’ll sometimes come inside to open up play and keep his marker guessing… his pass selection is often positive and forward into space to keep momentum going… intelligent runs off-the-ball pulling defenders out of position to open up space… and he often joins midfield when play is at the other side to give us a numerical advantage, which is particularly useful when we’re pressing and he has to cover for others… but he’s quick enough to get back into position should danger arrive.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Richards is perfect… he definitely has a lot of improving to do, and he’s by no means the finished article as he makes his fair share of mistakes (like most young players do at this level) … but he offers a lot more to our team in an attacking sense than LR which has contributed to our reduced threat during his absence.
LR found himself with plenty of time in the penalty area to make a simple cross that Cook would have buried had he found him, yet inexplicably LR blasted the ball a million miles away from the danger zone to ironic jeers from the home crowd (who were mightily relieved their out-of-form team didn’t end up conceding a goal which seemed the most probable outcome).
That chance epitomises everything about his short-comings… it highlighted what City lack when he plays, and it exposes an ongoing weakness that’s the same this year as it was last… which is simply, BH & LR don’t have enough creativity or quality between them to generate decent chances for the team.
We saw over and over last year when they played on opposite flanks that our attempts dry up and our creativity is diminished.
Whether it’s creating chances with deliveries or making runs (either with or without the ball), WB’s play a crucial role in this formation as we’ve got no wingers… so if neither WB offer a threat, then our attacking play is as sharp as a silicone knife.
When Richards is fit and Walker’s in the team, we can carry BH, so his wayward deliveries and misplaced passes aren’t that big of a problem as we have other options. But with those two out injured and LR in, then our creativity suffers.
Fatigue played a significant part as you could see they were all tired, El capitain struggled with his set pieces throughout the match…
The officials didn’t help our cause either – for some reason they let everything go in the first half including two glaring shirt-pulls (from the neck) that downed RS on one occasion, and it’s possible the ref ignored the other immediately before the penalty…
Though I don’t remember it clearly now, so I could be mistaken, but the point is there was no such thing as a foul in the FH as the ref allowed play to continue, however in the SH, he’s giving Crewe absolutely everything when it was difficult to even spot an offence, like when GA got booked… we had a strong attack which was partially cleared, RS won the ball cleanly (and fairly) but the Crewe player fell down so the ref blew and did their defending for them.
I don’t think Cooky helped his cause much with the officials either, because he got upset with the linesman for disallowing his goal, which did look offside TBF, but then later he was fouled near the touchline which the referee gave, but not the lino, so Cook remonstrated with the assistant as if to suggest incompetence… then unsurprisingly after that, every ball forward was offside by default, and I got the impression it was the linesman giving Cook the middle finger.
My overall assessment of the match and the Xmas games in general, is that first and foremost we’re looking a better team who often dominate opponents from first to last minute now, which is music to my ears given the lame performances of recent years.
We lacked end product on the night at Crewe, much of that came down to fatigue, missing key players, squad depth (of players GA deems good enough), and a lack of creativity.
Though all of those problems are short term and should be relatively easy to fix.
I think with Young back that makes us more potent… although Smith has scored goals since partnering with Cook, he’s largely invisible and ineffective for long periods of the game. Where we know Young is very skillful and can score from anywhere which gives us a different edge.
Xmas was a blow, we should have come away with at least 8 points, though realistically 10 were there for the taking…. so to pick up only 5 was a set back and disappointment to watch.
However, I still feel we’ve got a good enough team (and now manager) to make the play offs, and if we do, I’m pretty certain GA will make sure we do a lot better than last time out.
I agree that it looks like GA is only picking the players that bust a gut in training (although I can’t see Cook doing it). And I agree that it’s desirable in the long term to have a squad that will do this. But surely he can build this ethos over a few transfer windows? That way he will have a full squad to select from NOW. If he is only selecting the same players and only then if they bust a gut in training it’s no wonder fatigue played such a large part in the loss. Bit of common sense required when players are tired.
If he thinks they’re that bad and selecting them could potentially result in a first half Notts County performance, then he might see that as putting his job on the line.
Does he rest one or two and replace with players he doesn’t trust and likely to play out of position?
To be fair, I heard Platt claiming today the players weren’t tired at Crewe, while apart from the penalty, they’ve been zero threat to us. 99/100 we don’t lose that game so it’s a difficult one to call as we dominated it without creating… and one of the culprits was RS who never put a set piece on target – would you replace him?
There’s another thing to consider too. If GA has gone in and laid down the law/challenge that unless your HR monitor shows you’ve done X miles, and trained at Y intensity, then you won’t play because that’s the minimum expected of you…
Then making exceptions to that would be disrespectful to every player who has worked his socks off to get into his plans over the past few weeks, but his word and authority would also be questioned if he wasn’t consistent with his own standards.
Obviously, I don’t know if that’s the case, but I certainly think there’ll be more to it than simply naming someone who’s currently out of favour.
Personally, I’d select Chapman to play the no. 10 role and Odour is a better option at LWB instead of LR, but if Chapman hasn’t taken to running from start to finish, then his ability is completely irrelevant. Obviously I’m using Chapman as an example (not stating facts), but if that was the case then selecting him would set a bad precedent.
So, I get what you’re saying and if it’s as simple as adding a name to the teamsheet, then I might agree with you, but something tells me it’s a lot more complicated than that.
“Carrying” Brad Halliday? Are you for real?
Brad Halliday is carrying the rest of the team.