" I’m totally baffled by change for change’s sake," Says

Cardiff City's changes for the sake of it aren't helping - it's left me totally baffled.


Tues 10 March 2015

By Sian Matheson

Sian Matheson says she can't understand why Russell Slade feels the need to alter a winning team so much

I understand squad rotation, but I’m totally baffled by change for change’s sake.

Cardiff put in a convincing show to beat Rotherham away 3-1 a week ago. Yet, against Charlton on Saturday, Russell Slade tinkered yet again.

To be fair, I, for one, was sceptical about Federico Macheda’s surprising recall, but who can argue with three points picked up on the road and three goals to boot?

Indeed, Macheda’s goal has to be up there for strike of the season, let alone month, in terms of individual brilliance.

Macheda has undoubtedly got natural talent, but he has been frustrating with his work ethic. Maybe a spell on the sidelines has done him good.

But why does Slade insist on breaking up a winning team? I’m all for players performing and giving the gaffer a selection headache, but surely a bit of consistency wouldn’t go amiss?

Yes, it’s easy to pick holes with hindsight, but, before the Rotherham result, when was the last time City actually scored three goals and won the game?

Actually it was November 1 when City triumphed over Leeds 3-1 and, ironically the last time Macheda and Kenwyne Jones started a league game together.



I’m one of top scorer Jones’ biggest supporters but, his knock-back for Macheda’s goal aside, the duo just did not work on Saturday.

And why on earth would they? They’ve barely played together since that Leeds victory four months ago.

In fact, in the last eight games, Slade has opted to partner Jones with his own signing Eoin Doyle up front.

And, for me, that partnership looked close to bearing fruit.

But against Rotherham, Slade took a chance on Macheda and Alex Revell starting, and, credit where it’s due, that paid off with a valuable victory.

Fast forward a few days later and suddenly, against Charlton, Macheda reverts to partnering Jones up front.

Two players that were brought to the club by Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, yet a partnership which has been largely out of favour.

And when Macheda was taken off, Slade brings on Revell, instead of Doyle, who is far more used to playing with big KJ. Slade stated he was keen to develop partnerships in the team yet he is mixing up alliances just as they are about to prove useful.

The Bluebirds’ gaffer’s tinkering is proving as frustrating, if not more so, as that of his predecessor Solskjaer.

How on earth can players develop an understanding when there’s so much chopping and changing going on?

It seems if a player does well he then gets dropped to the bench or disappears altogether out of the matchday squad.

Joe Ralls was impressive in midweek, maybe it was no coincidence the strikers had more service, yet he was dropped, albeit called into action to cover for the injured Aron Gunnarsson.

And, yet another change, why did Slade haul off City’s best player on Saturday?



For me, Conor McAleny showed some real spirit and desire, not to mention slick skills, yet he was taken off.

City have been severely lacking in pace recently, but the Everton loanee actually ups the tempo somewhat.

But, no, Slade hauls him off.

Yet, when a sub was actually needed for Peter Whittingham, who went off for stitches, City were left a man short for around five minutes, if not longer.

Whitts, who I thought had a good game after his one-match ban, surely should have been subbed? Unsurprisingly, this period where the Bluebirds were a man down was a turning point as City sat deep and gave Charlton belief they could get an equaliser which they duly did just after Whittingham returned to the action.

But then, I guess as Ralls was already on the pitch, there was no real midfield option available.

Why were Kadeem Harris or Tom Adeyemi not on the bench?

Despite the incredibly frustrating end result, I thought the Bluebirds actually played some decent football against Charlton. Although, to be honest, that’s not difficult to improve on of late. Certainly possession was kept far more and even some nice passes were put in.

But, and I know I keep saying this, City must bring in a leader for next season.

Yet again, heads dipped as soon as Charlton levelled and it was Macheda of all players who attempted to gee up his team-mates.

This was in contrast to former Bluebird Roger Johnson, who didn’t stop barking at his opposition team-mates.

Something else Cardiff need next season is a spark to get fans excited again.

And it is going to take more than a new club crest. After such a season of discontent, both on and off the pitch, a glimmer of ambition or a statement of intent is desperately needed.

Although, admittedly at present, this season I will be more than happy for City to mathematically reach safety from the drop zone.

Cardiff City's changes for the sake of it aren't helping - it's left me totally baffled.


Tues 10 March 2015

By Sian Matheson

Sian Matheson says she can't understand why Russell Slade feels the need to alter a winning team so much

I understand squad rotation, but I’m totally baffled by change for change’s sake.

Cardiff put in a convincing show to beat Rotherham away 3-1 a week ago. Yet, against Charlton on Saturday, Russell Slade tinkered yet again.

To be fair, I, for one, was sceptical about Federico Macheda’s surprising recall, but who can argue with three points picked up on the road and three goals to boot?

Indeed, Macheda’s goal has to be up there for strike of the season, let alone month, in terms of individual brilliance.

Macheda has undoubtedly got natural talent, but he has been frustrating with his work ethic. Maybe a spell on the sidelines has done him good.

But why does Slade insist on breaking up a winning team? I’m all for players performing and giving the gaffer a selection headache, but surely a bit of consistency wouldn’t go amiss?

Yes, it’s easy to pick holes with hindsight, but, before the Rotherham result, when was the last time City actually scored three goals and won the game?

Actually it was November 1 when City triumphed over Leeds 3-1 and, ironically the last time Macheda and Kenwyne Jones started a league game together.



I’m one of top scorer Jones’ biggest supporters but, his knock-back for Macheda’s goal aside, the duo just did not work on Saturday.

And why on earth would they? They’ve barely played together since that Leeds victory four months ago.

In fact, in the last eight games, Slade has opted to partner Jones with his own signing Eoin Doyle up front.

And, for me, that partnership looked close to bearing fruit.

But against Rotherham, Slade took a chance on Macheda and Alex Revell starting, and, credit where it’s due, that paid off with a valuable victory.

Fast forward a few days later and suddenly, against Charlton, Macheda reverts to partnering Jones up front.

Two players that were brought to the club by Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, yet a partnership which has been largely out of favour.

And when Macheda was taken off, Slade brings on Revell, instead of Doyle, who is far more used to playing with big KJ. Slade stated he was keen to develop partnerships in the team yet he is mixing up alliances just as they are about to prove useful.

The Bluebirds’ gaffer’s tinkering is proving as frustrating, if not more so, as that of his predecessor Solskjaer.

How on earth can players develop an understanding when there’s so much chopping and changing going on?

It seems if a player does well he then gets dropped to the bench or disappears altogether out of the matchday squad.

Joe Ralls was impressive in midweek, maybe it was no coincidence the strikers had more service, yet he was dropped, albeit called into action to cover for the injured Aron Gunnarsson.

And, yet another change, why did Slade haul off City’s best player on Saturday?



For me, Conor McAleny showed some real spirit and desire, not to mention slick skills, yet he was taken off.

City have been severely lacking in pace recently, but the Everton loanee actually ups the tempo somewhat.

But, no, Slade hauls him off.

Yet, when a sub was actually needed for Peter Whittingham, who went off for stitches, City were left a man short for around five minutes, if not longer.

Whitts, who I thought had a good game after his one-match ban, surely should have been subbed? Unsurprisingly, this period where the Bluebirds were a man down was a turning point as City sat deep and gave Charlton belief they could get an equaliser which they duly did just after Whittingham returned to the action.

But then, I guess as Ralls was already on the pitch, there was no real midfield option available.

Why were Kadeem Harris or Tom Adeyemi not on the bench?

Despite the incredibly frustrating end result, I thought the Bluebirds actually played some decent football against Charlton. Although, to be honest, that’s not difficult to improve on of late. Certainly possession was kept far more and even some nice passes were put in.

But, and I know I keep saying this, City must bring in a leader for next season.

Yet again, heads dipped as soon as Charlton levelled and it was Macheda of all players who attempted to gee up his team-mates.

This was in contrast to former Bluebird Roger Johnson, who didn’t stop barking at his opposition team-mates.

Something else Cardiff need next season is a spark to get fans excited again.

And it is going to take more than a new club crest. After such a season of discontent, both on and off the pitch, a glimmer of ambition or a statement of intent is desperately needed.

Although, admittedly at present, this season I will be more than happy for City to mathematically reach safety from the drop zone.

Never took much to baffle a Blonde

Cardiff City's changes for the sake of it aren't helping - it's left me totally baffled.


Tues 10 March 2015

By Sian Matheson

Sian Matheson says she can't understand why Russell Slade feels the need to alter a winning team so much

I understand squad rotation, but I’m totally baffled by change for change’s sake.

Cardiff put in a convincing show to beat Rotherham away 3-1 a week ago. Yet, against Charlton on Saturday, Russell Slade tinkered yet again.

To be fair, I, for one, was sceptical about Federico Macheda’s surprising recall, but who can argue with three points picked up on the road and three goals to boot?

Indeed, Macheda’s goal has to be up there for strike of the season, let alone month, in terms of individual brilliance.

Macheda has undoubtedly got natural talent, but he has been frustrating with his work ethic. Maybe a spell on the sidelines has done him good.

But why does Slade insist on breaking up a winning team? I’m all for players performing and giving the gaffer a selection headache, but surely a bit of consistency wouldn’t go amiss?

Yes, it’s easy to pick holes with hindsight, but, before the Rotherham result, when was the last time City actually scored three goals and won the game?

Actually it was November 1 when City triumphed over Leeds 3-1 and, ironically the last time Macheda and Kenwyne Jones started a league game together.



I’m one of top scorer Jones’ biggest supporters but, his knock-back for Macheda’s goal aside, the duo just did not work on Saturday.

And why on earth would they? They’ve barely played together since that Leeds victory four months ago.

In fact, in the last eight games, Slade has opted to partner Jones with his own signing Eoin Doyle up front.

And, for me, that partnership looked close to bearing fruit.

But against Rotherham, Slade took a chance on Macheda and Alex Revell starting, and, credit where it’s due, that paid off with a valuable victory.

Fast forward a few days later and suddenly, against Charlton, Macheda reverts to partnering Jones up front.

Two players that were brought to the club by Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, yet a partnership which has been largely out of favour.

And when Macheda was taken off, Slade brings on Revell, instead of Doyle, who is far more used to playing with big KJ. Slade stated he was keen to develop partnerships in the team yet he is mixing up alliances just as they are about to prove useful.

The Bluebirds’ gaffer’s tinkering is proving as frustrating, if not more so, as that of his predecessor Solskjaer.

How on earth can players develop an understanding when there’s so much chopping and changing going on?

It seems if a player does well he then gets dropped to the bench or disappears altogether out of the matchday squad.

Joe Ralls was impressive in midweek, maybe it was no coincidence the strikers had more service, yet he was dropped, albeit called into action to cover for the injured Aron Gunnarsson.

And, yet another change, why did Slade haul off City’s best player on Saturday?



For me, Conor McAleny showed some real spirit and desire, not to mention slick skills, yet he was taken off.

City have been severely lacking in pace recently, but the Everton loanee actually ups the tempo somewhat.

But, no, Slade hauls him off.

Yet, when a sub was actually needed for Peter Whittingham, who went off for stitches, City were left a man short for around five minutes, if not longer.

Whitts, who I thought had a good game after his one-match ban, surely should have been subbed? Unsurprisingly, this period where the Bluebirds were a man down was a turning point as City sat deep and gave Charlton belief they could get an equaliser which they duly did just after Whittingham returned to the action.

But then, I guess as Ralls was already on the pitch, there was no real midfield option available.

Why were Kadeem Harris or Tom Adeyemi not on the bench?

Despite the incredibly frustrating end result, I thought the Bluebirds actually played some decent football against Charlton. Although, to be honest, that’s not difficult to improve on of late. Certainly possession was kept far more and even some nice passes were put in.

But, and I know I keep saying this, City must bring in a leader for next season.

Yet again, heads dipped as soon as Charlton levelled and it was Macheda of all players who attempted to gee up his team-mates.

This was in contrast to former Bluebird Roger Johnson, who didn’t stop barking at his opposition team-mates.

Something else Cardiff need next season is a spark to get fans excited again.

And it is going to take more than a new club crest. After such a season of discontent, both on and off the pitch, a glimmer of ambition or a statement of intent is desperately needed.

Although, admittedly at present, this season I will be more than happy for City to mathematically reach safety from the drop zone.

I really can't believe that statement about the forwards getting more service because Joe Ralls played. Where are the facts to back up such a load of emotive claptrap. Let's get one thing straight Joe Ralls only played because Peter Whittingham was suspended and there are a mountain of statistics which support Whitts coming straight back into the team.

If you want to a player to player comparison well Whitts is 5 times more likely to get on the ball, Joe Ralls is 3 times more likely to either lose possession because of a poor first touch or being dispossessed. Whitts is 15 times more likely to provide an accurate long pass, in fact Whitts has made 50% of the overall accurate long ball passes made by the team this season, 5 times more likely to provide and accurate short pass. Whitts is 3 times more likely to provide an assist. Whitts is 4 times more likely to have an accurate shot at goal.

In terms of breaking up play Whitts is twice as likely to intercept a pass, twice as likely to block a shot, twice as likely to block a cross and twice as likely to block a pass.

Whitts is absolutely pivotal to this team and unless he is unable to continue because of injury then he gets treatment and returns. Whitts is still one of our best players and is a better player when playing with players like McAleny as they were showing on Saturday before RS took McAleny off. Joe Ralls is a good young player who is doing little wrong and I'm sure he is going to be a decent player but right now, in my opinion, he is not ready to replace Peter Whittingham. Not by a long way.

Cardiff City's changes for the sake of it aren't helping - it's left me totally baffled.


Tues 10 March 2015

By Sian Matheson

Sian Matheson says she can't understand why Russell Slade feels the need to alter a winning team so much

I understand squad rotation, but I’m totally baffled by change for change’s sake.

Cardiff put in a convincing show to beat Rotherham away 3-1 a week ago. Yet, against Charlton on Saturday, Russell Slade tinkered yet again.

To be fair, I, for one, was sceptical about Federico Macheda’s surprising recall, but who can argue with three points picked up on the road and three goals to boot?

Indeed, Macheda’s goal has to be up there for strike of the season, let alone month, in terms of individual brilliance.

Macheda has undoubtedly got natural talent, but he has been frustrating with his work ethic. Maybe a spell on the sidelines has done him good.

But why does Slade insist on breaking up a winning team? I’m all for players performing and giving the gaffer a selection headache, but surely a bit of consistency wouldn’t go amiss?

Yes, it’s easy to pick holes with hindsight, but, before the Rotherham result, when was the last time City actually scored three goals and won the game?

Actually it was November 1 when City triumphed over Leeds 3-1 and, ironically the last time Macheda and Kenwyne Jones started a league game together.



I’m one of top scorer Jones’ biggest supporters but, his knock-back for Macheda’s goal aside, the duo just did not work on Saturday.

And why on earth would they? They’ve barely played together since that Leeds victory four months ago.

In fact, in the last eight games, Slade has opted to partner Jones with his own signing Eoin Doyle up front.

And, for me, that partnership looked close to bearing fruit.

But against Rotherham, Slade took a chance on Macheda and Alex Revell starting, and, credit where it’s due, that paid off with a valuable victory.

Fast forward a few days later and suddenly, against Charlton, Macheda reverts to partnering Jones up front.

Two players that were brought to the club by Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, yet a partnership which has been largely out of favour.

And when Macheda was taken off, Slade brings on Revell, instead of Doyle, who is far more used to playing with big KJ. Slade stated he was keen to develop partnerships in the team yet he is mixing up alliances just as they are about to prove useful.

The Bluebirds’ gaffer’s tinkering is proving as frustrating, if not more so, as that of his predecessor Solskjaer.

How on earth can players develop an understanding when there’s so much chopping and changing going on?

It seems if a player does well he then gets dropped to the bench or disappears altogether out of the matchday squad.

Joe Ralls was impressive in midweek, maybe it was no coincidence the strikers had more service, yet he was dropped, albeit called into action to cover for the injured Aron Gunnarsson.

And, yet another change, why did Slade haul off City’s best player on Saturday?



For me, Conor McAleny showed some real spirit and desire, not to mention slick skills, yet he was taken off.

City have been severely lacking in pace recently, but the Everton loanee actually ups the tempo somewhat.

But, no, Slade hauls him off.

Yet, when a sub was actually needed for Peter Whittingham, who went off for stitches, City were left a man short for around five minutes, if not longer.

Whitts, who I thought had a good game after his one-match ban, surely should have been subbed? Unsurprisingly, this period where the Bluebirds were a man down was a turning point as City sat deep and gave Charlton belief they could get an equaliser which they duly did just after Whittingham returned to the action.

But then, I guess as Ralls was already on the pitch, there was no real midfield option available.

Why were Kadeem Harris or Tom Adeyemi not on the bench?

Despite the incredibly frustrating end result, I thought the Bluebirds actually played some decent football against Charlton. Although, to be honest, that’s not difficult to improve on of late. Certainly possession was kept far more and even some nice passes were put in.

But, and I know I keep saying this, City must bring in a leader for next season.

Yet again, heads dipped as soon as Charlton levelled and it was Macheda of all players who attempted to gee up his team-mates.

This was in contrast to former Bluebird Roger Johnson, who didn’t stop barking at his opposition team-mates.

Something else Cardiff need next season is a spark to get fans excited again.

And it is going to take more than a new club crest. After such a season of discontent, both on and off the pitch, a glimmer of ambition or a statement of intent is desperately needed.

Although, admittedly at present, this season I will be more than happy for City to mathematically reach safety from the drop zone.

I really can't believe that statement about the forwards getting more service because Joe Ralls played. Where are the facts to back up such a load of emotive claptrap. Let's get one thing straight Joe Ralls only played because Peter Whittingham was suspended and there are a mountain of statistics which support Whitts coming straight back into the team.

If you want to a player to player comparison well Whitts is 5 times more likely to get on the ball, Joe Ralls is 3 times more likely to either lose possession because of a poor first touch or being dispossessed. Whitts is 15 times more likely to provide an accurate long pass, in fact Whitts has made 50% of the overall accurate long ball passes made by the team this season, 5 times more likely to provide and accurate short pass. Whitts is 3 times more likely to provide an assist. Whitts is 4 times more likely to have an accurate shot at goal.

In terms of breaking up play Whitts is twice as likely to intercept a pass, twice as likely to block a shot, twice as likely to block a cross and twice as likely to block a pass.

Whitts is absolutely pivotal to this team and unless he is unable to continue because of injury then he gets treatment and returns. Whitts is still one of our best players and is a better player when playing with players like McAleny as they were showing on Saturday before RS took McAleny off. Joe Ralls is a good young player who is doing little wrong and I'm sure he is going to be a decent player but right now, in my opinion, he is not ready to replace Peter Whittingham. Not by a long way.

well said

Great article and spot on! This is the nub of the fallout from Saturday's game. I cant say Im baffled by what Slade did, I expected it. The man hasnt the football nous nor management ability to understand where he went wrong. Its an absolutely cast iron unwritten law of football that you dont change a winning side for obvious reasons unless forced upon you.

Even if Peter Whittingham were a better and more influential player than Joe Ralls (which he most assuredly is not) that still wouldnt have justified his selection over Ralls who was MOM incidentally at Rotherham. As it is, Ralls offers so much more than Whittingham who has largely been a liability for the past few seasons. And its not as though Whittingham is getting any younger - or pacier as it happens! Whatever happened to developing the next generation of players and giving them a fair crack of the whip? I for one wouldnt blame Ralls if he left us, hes being treated very shabbily here by a clueless oaf and his uninspiring henchmen.

Im no Alex Ravell fan but the same principle applies to him. Coming off the back of a marvellous 3-1 win, he should have got the nod over Jones to start.

Frustrated and angry, yes! Baffled no! This was exactly what I expected of Slade and Im afraid were in for more of the same unless and until someone hauls him off stage !

Great article and spot on! This is the nub of the fallout from Saturday's game. I cant say Im baffled by what Slade did, I expected it. The man hasnt the football nous nor management ability to understand where he went wrong. Its an absolutely cast iron unwritten law of football that you dont change a winning side for obvious reasons unless forced upon you.

Even if Peter Whittingham were a better and more influential player than Joe Ralls (which he most assuredly is not) that still wouldnt have justified his selection over Ralls who was MOM incidentally at Rotherham. As it is, Ralls offers so much more than Whittingham who has largely been a liability for the past few seasons. And its not as though Whittingham is getting any younger - or pacier as it happens! Whatever happened to developing the next generation of players and giving them a fair crack of the whip? I for one wouldnt blame Ralls if he left us, hes being treated very shabbily here by a clueless oaf and his uninspiring henchmen.

Im no Alex Ravell fan but the same principle applies to him. Coming off the back of a marvellous 3-1 win, he should have got the nod over Jones to start.

Frustrated and angry, yes! Baffled no! This was exactly what I expected of Slade and Im afraid were in for more of the same unless and until someone hauls him off stage !

Excellent post Mr Slicker..I entirely agree..I have no idea what our starting 11 will be against Brentford..the real worrying thing is Slade probably doesn't either !!!!

After Tuesday's win,I was hoping Slade would have stayed with the same 11 to encourage those who had been part of that victory. When I saw the team on Saturday,, I couldn't understand why he put Jones up front with Macheda and the rest of the changes. What incentive does it give players who have won a game to be dropped for the old school straight away but Slade seems to think in a different way to most.

Great article and spot on! This is the nub of the fallout from Saturday's game. I cant say Im baffled by what Slade did, I expected it. The man hasnt the football nous nor management ability to understand where he went wrong. Its an absolutely cast iron unwritten law of football that you dont change a winning side for obvious reasons unless forced upon you.

Even if Peter Whittingham were a better and more influential player than Joe Ralls (which he most assuredly is not) that still wouldnt have justified his selection over Ralls who was MOM incidentally at Rotherham. As it is, Ralls offers so much more than Whittingham who has largely been a liability for the past few seasons. And its not as though Whittingham is getting any younger - or pacier as it happens! Whatever happened to developing the next generation of players and giving them a fair crack of the whip? I for one wouldnt blame Ralls if he left us, hes being treated very shabbily here by a clueless oaf and his uninspiring henchmen.

Im no Alex Ravell fan but the same principle applies to him. Coming off the back of a marvellous 3-1 win, he should have got the nod over Jones to start.

Frustrated and angry, yes! Baffled no! This was exactly what I expected of Slade and Im afraid were in for more of the same unless and until someone hauls him off stage !

It's all about opinions but just for the purpose of debate "What" specifically does Joe Ralls offer to the team to support your assertion that he "Offers so much more than Whitts".

He keeps the ball on the floor a lot more and moves around the pitch quicker for sure and gets stuck in better. Ok he might not hit the peak of skill or killer pass that Whitts can do, but over a game he can do more.

Revel and KJ do not work, there the same type of player. Both looking to flick on the ball or hold it up, agree its was a poor sub against Charlton.

Also thought Noone should of come off, McA was still looking a threat as the game went on and Noone less so.

Well I question if this girl has seen the Rotherham game or is she going on the emotions that it was a 3-1 victory.

There was a 10 minute spell in the first half where we scored 3 goals. We had a good 10 minute spell in the second half. After that basically Rotherham were on top of us.

Impressive she says...the score was the performance wasn't.

Well I question if this girl has seen the Rotherham game or is she going on the emotions that it was a 3-1 victory.

There was a 10 minute spell in the first half where we scored 3 goals. We had a good 10 minute spell in the second half. After that basically Rotherham were on top of us.

Impressive she says...the score was the performance wasn't.

Ian, She doesnt go to away games and is seen more at Anfield than at Cardiff games.

Great article and spot on! This is the nub of the fallout from Saturday's game. I cant say Im baffled by what Slade did, I expected it. The man hasnt the football nous nor management ability to understand where he went wrong. Its an absolutely cast iron unwritten law of football that you dont change a winning side for obvious reasons unless forced upon you.

Even if Peter Whittingham were a better and more influential player than Joe Ralls (which he most assuredly is not) that still wouldnt have justified his selection over Ralls who was MOM incidentally at Rotherham. As it is, Ralls offers so much more than Whittingham who has largely been a liability for the past few seasons. And its not as though Whittingham is getting any younger - or pacier as it happens! Whatever happened to developing the next generation of players and giving them a fair crack of the whip? I for one wouldnt blame Ralls if he left us, hes being treated very shabbily here by a clueless oaf and his uninspiring henchmen.

Im no Alex Ravell fan but the same principle applies to him. Coming off the back of a marvellous 3-1 win, he should have got the nod over Jones to start.

Frustrated and angry, yes! Baffled no! This was exactly what I expected of Slade and Im afraid were in for more of the same unless and until someone hauls him off stage !

It's all about opinions but just for the purpose of debate "What" specifically does Joe Ralls offer to the team to support your assertion that he "Offers so much more than Whitts".

Well we will never agree on this, we are obviously poles apart on these two. But Ralls offers more pace, more vitality, more movement with the ball, better tackling, more tenacity and of course youth. I dont see his passing inferior to Whittingham's and, maybe apart from direct free kicks hes equally as good as set pieces. Apart from that I dont know, but I havent met Joe but Ive met Peter and, one thing I will say is that Joe would have to go a long way to be a nicer bloke than Peter.

Nevertheless I cant see us agreeing on these two players. But what I do hope you agree with is that a winning side should never be tampered with no matter what your persuasion and that Slade shot himself in the foot by doing so. If hed have stuck with the Rotherham team and any individual had let him down he would have won himself more credibility and authority by changing it as a response.

Great article and spot on! This is the nub of the fallout from Saturday's game. I cant say Im baffled by what Slade did, I expected it. The man hasnt the football nous nor management ability to understand where he went wrong. Its an absolutely cast iron unwritten law of football that you dont change a winning side for obvious reasons unless forced upon you.

Even if Peter Whittingham were a better and more influential player than Joe Ralls (which he most assuredly is not) that still wouldnt have justified his selection over Ralls who was MOM incidentally at Rotherham. As it is, Ralls offers so much more than Whittingham who has largely been a liability for the past few seasons. And its not as though Whittingham is getting any younger - or pacier as it happens! Whatever happened to developing the next generation of players and giving them a fair crack of the whip? I for one wouldnt blame Ralls if he left us, hes being treated very shabbily here by a clueless oaf and his uninspiring henchmen.

Im no Alex Ravell fan but the same principle applies to him. Coming off the back of a marvellous 3-1 win, he should have got the nod over Jones to start.

Frustrated and angry, yes! Baffled no! This was exactly what I expected of Slade and Im afraid were in for more of the same unless and until someone hauls him off stage !

It's all about opinions but just for the purpose of debate "What" specifically does Joe Ralls offer to the team to support your assertion that he "Offers so much more than Whitts".

Well we will never agree on this, we are obviously poles apart on these two. But Ralls offers more pace, more vitality, more movement with the ball, better tackling, more tenacity and of course youth. I dont see his passing inferior to Whittingham's and, maybe apart from direct free kicks hes equally as good as set pieces. Apart from that I dont know, but I havent met Joe but Ive met Peter and, one thing I will say is that Joe would have to go a long way to be a nicer bloke than Peter.

Nevertheless I cant see us agreeing on these two players. But what I do hope you agree with is that a winning side should never be tampered with no matter what your persuasion and that Slade shot himself in the foot by doing so. If hed have stuck with the Rotherham team and any individual had let him down he would have won himself more credibility and authority by changing it as a response.

I said last week after the victory at Rotherham that Joe Ralls, after his performance in that game, didn't deserve to be dropped to allow Whitts to return to the team. I say that not because of the "You don't change a winning team" more because Whitts let himself and the team down by getting sent off against Wolves. As a minimum he should have been forced to sit on the bench at the start of the game to to let him know he doesn't have a divine right to be in the team. But when it comes to leaving out one of your best players it's going to take a very brave manager to do it and RS didn't have the balls for it.

I agree Ralls has more pace and the way he plays shows his desire, energy and commitment but I think it would surprise you that Whitts actually wins nearly 30% more of the tackles he makes than Joe Ralls. In terms of passing accuracy Whitts, in terms of both long and short passing, is very much the best player at the club by some distance and although Ralls is not bad at passing he is still behind Manga, Gunnarson, Morrison, Connolly, Fabio and Maynard. Kennedy and McAleny are also more accurate.

Whitts has completed nearly 400 more passes than any other City player, the next highest is Gunnarson, but therein lies the biggest problem with our team, the inability to keep the ball. Whilst Whitts is holding his own with the best players in the League as a team we are pretty dreadful. I don't think it was surprising to see Whitts passing the ball so well on Saturday because in McAleny he had a player who can keep the ball, unlike Noone who losses possession nearly 33% of the time he gets the ball.

Our team is lagging badly behind other teams in the division in terms of keeping the ball and it probably wouldn't surprise you to know that overall teams like Bournemouth (7 players), Derby (6 players), Norwich, Fulham, Brentford, Middlesbrough and Charlton have 5 players who have passed the ball more than Gunnarson. This leaves Whitts very much carrying the heavy burden of responsibility keepinf possession and it's just to much for one person.

Whitts is a good player and like any good player he plays better with better players, McAleny and Kennedy I think proves that point. But as long as we have players like Noone, Jones and the now departed Le Fondre giving the ball away as often as they do it piles pressure on our midfield, Whitts, Gunnarson and Ralls when he plays will not be seen at thier best until that situation is addressed.

In my opinion the issues with the team are bigger than comparing one player against another and replacing Whitts with Ralls or vice versa won't solve them

Great article and spot on! This is the nub of the fallout from Saturday's game. I cant say Im baffled by what Slade did, I expected it. The man hasnt the football nous nor management ability to understand where he went wrong. Its an absolutely cast iron unwritten law of football that you dont change a winning side for obvious reasons unless forced upon you.

Even if Peter Whittingham were a better and more influential player than Joe Ralls (which he most assuredly is not) that still wouldnt have justified his selection over Ralls who was MOM incidentally at Rotherham. As it is, Ralls offers so much more than Whittingham who has largely been a liability for the past few seasons. And its not as though Whittingham is getting any younger - or pacier as it happens! Whatever happened to developing the next generation of players and giving them a fair crack of the whip? I for one wouldnt blame Ralls if he left us, hes being treated very shabbily here by a clueless oaf and his uninspiring henchmen.

Im no Alex Ravell fan but the same principle applies to him. Coming off the back of a marvellous 3-1 win, he should have got the nod over Jones to start.

Frustrated and angry, yes! Baffled no! This was exactly what I expected of Slade and Im afraid were in for more of the same unless and until someone hauls him off stage !

It's all about opinions but just for the purpose of debate "What" specifically does Joe Ralls offer to the team to support your assertion that he "Offers so much more than Whitts".

Well we will never agree on this, we are obviously poles apart on these two. But Ralls offers more pace, more vitality, more movement with the ball, better tackling, more tenacity and of course youth. I dont see his passing inferior to Whittingham's and, maybe apart from direct free kicks hes equally as good as set pieces. Apart from that I dont know, but I havent met Joe but Ive met Peter and, one thing I will say is that Joe would have to go a long way to be a nicer bloke than Peter.

Nevertheless I cant see us agreeing on these two players. But what I do hope you agree with is that a winning side should never be tampered with no matter what your persuasion and that Slade shot himself in the foot by doing so. If hed have stuck with the Rotherham team and any individual had let him down he would have won himself more credibility and authority by changing it as a response.

I said last week after the victory at Rotherham that Joe Ralls, after his performance in that game, didn't deserve to be dropped to allow Whitts to return to the team. I say that not because of the "You don't change a winning team" more because Whitts let himself and the team down by getting sent off against Wolves. As a minimum he should have been forced to sit on the bench at the start of the game to to let him know he doesn't have a divine right to be in the team. But when it comes to leaving out one of your best players it's going to take a very brave manager to do it and RS didn't have the balls for it.

I agree Ralls has more pace and the way he plays shows his desire, energy and commitment but I think it would surprise you that Whitts actually wins nearly 30% more of the tackles he makes than Joe Ralls. In terms of passing accuracy Whitts, in terms of both long and short passing, is very much the best player at the club by some distance and although Ralls is not bad at passing he is still behind Manga, Gunnarson, Morrison, Connolly, Fabio and Maynard. Kennedy and McAleny are also more accurate.

Whitts has completed nearly 400 more passes than any other City player, the next highest is Gunnarson, but therein lies the biggest problem with our team, the inability to keep the ball. Whilst Whitts is holding his own with the best players in the League as a team we are pretty dreadful. I don't think it was surprising to see Whitts passing the ball so well on Saturday because in McAleny he had a player who can keep the ball, unlike Noone who losses possession nearly 33% of the time he gets the ball.

Our team is lagging badly behind other teams in the division in terms of keeping the ball and it probably wouldn't surprise you to know that overall teams like Bournemouth (7 players), Derby (6 players), Norwich, Fulham, Brentford, Middlesbrough and Charlton have 5 players who have passed the ball more than Gunnarson. This leaves Whitts very much carrying the heavy burden of responsibility keepinf possession and it's just to much for one person.

Whitts is a good player and like any good player he plays better with better players, McAleny and Kennedy I think proves that point. But as long as we have players like Noone, Jones and the now departed Le Fondre giving the ball away as often as they do it piles pressure on our midfield, Whitts, Gunnarson and Ralls when he plays will not be seen at thier best until that situation is addressed.

In my opinion the issues with the team are bigger than comparing one player against another and replacing Whitts with Ralls or vice versa won't solve them

I disagree with your appraisal of Whittingham but I certainly agree there are more issues with the team. However, fropping Whittingham, who has been ever present all season in an underperforming midfield, for Ralls would, in my opinion, be a step in the right direction and with an eye on next season. Otherwise itll be "same old, same old" next year. Yes there sre other problems in the team to sort out but he had a golden opportunity to put this one right snd he flunked it!

Im glad you agree thst Slade didnt have the balls to leave out Whittingham but, the point is, regardless of his opinion of Whittingham, which I dont agree with, its downright awful man management to leave out a player who was MOM in a wiinning team just a few days earlier! What message does it send out? " Joe, dorry you'll always be the understudy here as long as I'm in charge" Or of vourse he could always get the odd game out of position at full back! Absolutely dreadful! What have we done to deserve this cretin? And he certainly wasnt being "brave" in his decision; he was playing safe because of his lack of ability.

Just one other point. Youre absolutely correct theres other issues to address. I wouldnt have played the Rotherham side before that game. I would have had a midfield four of Ralls, Gunnarsson, Adeyemi and either Kennedy or McAleny and I would have played Doyle up front. But the point is, no matter what my beliefs, I would have been totally wrong to have changed that winn7ng side. Thst would have been errant folly. But either way, uou can see there wouldnt be room for PW in any of my sides.

Well I question if this girl has seen the Rotherham game or is she going on the emotions that it was a 3-1 victory.

There was a 10 minute spell in the first half where we scored 3 goals. We had a good 10 minute spell in the second half. After that basically Rotherham were on top of us.

Impressive she says...the score was the performance wasn't.

Ian, She doesnt go to away games and is seen more at Anfield than at Cardiff games.

If anyone wondered how Sian Matheson became a blogger for the echo, perhaps being a Sports production journalist with the same newspaper answers that question ....

Well I question if this girl has seen the Rotherham game or is she going on the emotions that it was a 3-1 victory.

There was a 10 minute spell in the first half where we scored 3 goals. We had a good 10 minute spell in the second half. After that basically Rotherham were on top of us.

Impressive she says...the score was the performance wasn't.

Ian, She doesnt go to away games and is seen more at Anfield than at Cardiff games.

Are you trying to say she is a Bimbo in Red

Split arse

One win and by all a counts except for 15 mins we wasnt playing great? Not what i would call winning side just had good spell ! No manager would not put in a better player if he thought it was interest of team, a winning team is one that wins more than just 1game its more like 3 or more!

Well I question if this girl has seen the Rotherham game or is she going on the emotions that it was a 3-1 victory.

There was a 10 minute spell in the first half where we scored 3 goals. We had a good 10 minute spell in the second half. After that basically Rotherham were on top of us.

Impressive she says...the score was the performance wasn't.

Ian, She doesnt go to away games and is seen more at Anfield than at Cardiff games.

Are you trying to say she is a Bimbo in Red

Hmm Yes Oops

It's truly amazing how a little bit of publicity (some would say notoriety ) can go to someone's head and Sian now appears to see herself as some kind of sage on all things Cardiff City FC

TBF, Media Wales haven't helped the cause by encouraging her; nor has her 'back door' membership of the out of touch 'Trust'

Who knows, maybe a permanent move to the Directors Box is an indication of ambition??

One win and by all a counts except for 15 mins we wasnt playing great? Not what i would call winning side just had good spell ! No manager would not put in a better player if he thought it was interest of team, a winseason aeam is one that wins more than just 1game its more more!

One win??? My God, you say that like we've had do many this year! And it wasnt a scrappy 1-0, we were leading by 3 clear goals at one point! This 15 minutes is nonsense, I watched it, we were good throughout the game. Not the best Ive seen all season but pretty well up there. A lot better than we were Saturday. I totally disagree with you. No manager worth his salt would tinker with a winning side, its just madness. There was absolutely no need to change it. What on earth foes that do for squad morale and fostering competition for places? This guy is an abdolute dimwit and Im pretty sure deep down you can see that yourself!

Cardiff City's changes for the sake of it aren't helping - it's left me totally baffled.


Tues 10 March 2015

By Sian Matheson

But, and I know I keep saying this, City must bring in a leader for next season.

Yet again, heads dipped as soon as Charlton levelled and it was Macheda of all players who attempted to gee up his team-mates.

This was in contrast to former Bluebird Roger Johnson, who didn’t stop barking at his opposition team-mates.