Cardiff City Forum



A forum for all things Cardiff City

It wasn't a lack of physicality

Thu Aug 07, 2025 10:03 pm

This point has been made by a few (maccydear for one) on here but thought it deserved it's own thread.

There seems to be a narrative that we struggled tonight because of the physicality, that's not true.

Two of the toughest challenges in the game came from Bagan (who should have been sent off) and Joel Colwill.

We just have to admit that Port Vale were better than us on the day.

I thought we were quite physical, but outplayed.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Thu Aug 07, 2025 10:27 pm

Completely agree

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Thu Aug 07, 2025 10:47 pm

I don't think we were physical enough. We are a soft team and we were out battled tonight. A performance that lacked any quality. Their keeper didn't make one save, shocking. Willock and Tanner need to be dropped. How Willock started baffled me.
Last edited by Barryblues on Thu Aug 07, 2025 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Thu Aug 07, 2025 10:49 pm

You can't score goals passing backwards and sideways.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 12:39 am

They seemed to win every header and pick up every loose ball. Some of the tackles Willock and R Colwill put in were half-hearted at best. Willock especially doesn’t even close down.. I really think he needs to go as his confidence seems completely shot especially in the final third.
Also any team watching tonight will be spending plenty of time practicing corners before playing us as we dealt with them terribly. Those defenders are going to be facing lots of big target men this year so they better get up for the battle.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 4:34 am

Out muscled, by a side sent to rough Salek up first five minutes. It worked aswell too many
off their game tonight, didn't fancy it.

We need experience to deal with sides like that. More tough challenges ahead,could have been 2-3,
and BBm will know that. Far too slow from the back moving the ball aswell.

:bluescarf:

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 5:03 am

It was both!!

Their corners were free hits as our players got brushed aside like boys.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 5:15 am

worcester_ccfc wrote:This point has been made by a few (maccydear for one) on here but thought it deserved it's own thread.

There seems to be a narrative that we struggled tonight because of the physicality, that's not true.

Two of the toughest challenges in the game came from Bagan (who should have been sent off) and Joel Colwill.

We just have to admit that Port Vale were better than us on the day.

I thought we were quite physical, but outplayed.


I completely disagree.

Physicality doesn’t mean bad tackles like Bagans.

They were on us, pressing hard and outmuscling us from the start. Stronger than us body wise.

After winning that battle especially in the first half they continued to outplay us in all departments and were obviously the better team.

Clear as day especially to anyone who’s played the game.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 5:25 am

It was a lack of energy, calmness on the ball and quality. Credit to Port Vale they turned it into a cup tie and we lost our nerve. It was the total lack of quality on the ball that upset me most. We panicked with our passes under pressure. Our crossing and long balls were shocking at times. BUT we hung in there and gained a point. I actually think this was a really valuable game for BBM to see what happens to us under pressure mentally, it also underlines that new signings are needed.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 5:33 am

EastleighBlue wrote:It was a lack of energy, calmness on the ball and quality. Credit to Port Vale they turned it into a cup tie and we lost our nerve. It was the total lack of quality on the ball that upset me most. We panicked with our passes under pressure. Our crossing and long balls were shocking at times. BUT we hung in there and gained a point. I actually think this was a really valuable game for BBM to see what happens to us under pressure mentally, it also underlines that new signings are needed.


In our first game we passed the ball quickly and precisely and we’re on the front foot from the start.

Last night we were pressed and physically intimidated. You’re right, they treated it more as a cup tie.

They hit us off the ball especially at corners. Men vs boys last night.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 6:44 am

We got bullied all over the park

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 7:33 am

keano wrote:We got bullied all over the park


Bullied implies like Wimbledon used to do.

That wasn’t that last night. They just outplayed us. Went round us. That right wing back was brilliant.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 7:52 am

worcester_ccfc wrote:This point has been made by a few (maccydear for one) on here but thought it deserved it's own thread.

There seems to be a narrative that we struggled tonight because of the physicality, that's not true.

Two of the toughest challenges in the game came from Bagan (who should have been sent off) and Joel Colwill.

We just have to admit that Port Vale were better than us on the day.

I thought we were quite physical, but outplayed.

Poor final ball is why we struggled, set pieces ,crosses and final 1/3rd was awful Salech ain't going to score with poor service

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:00 am

worcester_ccfc wrote:This point has been made by a few (maccydear for one) on here but thought it deserved it's own thread.

There seems to be a narrative that we struggled tonight because of the physicality, that's not true.

Two of the toughest challenges in the game came from Bagan (who should have been sent off) and Joel Colwill.

We just have to admit that Port Vale were better than us on the day.

I thought we were quite physical, but outplayed.



Barely even a booking for me. I don't think it was all down to physicality, I think it was desire. PV wanted to get to the ball first and they did on most occasions. It was an off-night but we came away with a point.

Win your home games and draw away and you'll get promoted for sure.

We got away with an undeserved point

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:02 am

Sorry but for me there was a HUGE lack of physicality, remember it's the SAME squad as last season that went missing in most games when it came to fighting for the shirt/club.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:09 am

cityone wrote:Sorry but for me there was a HUGE lack of physicality, remember it's the SAME squad as last season that went missing in most games when it came to fighting for the shirt/club.


Plenty of bodies on the line at the end to keep that point.

They fought. Were just shite.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 10:54 am

I would disagree when it comes to our forward line.
Their defence were far too strong and clever for Tanner, Willock and even Salech.
Too many soft lads in our team for lower league football.
We may get away with it at home, but not away!

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 12:03 pm

worcester_ccfc wrote:This point has been made by a few (maccydear for one) on here but thought it deserved it's own thread.

There seems to be a narrative that we struggled tonight because of the physicality, that's not true.

Two of the toughest challenges in the game came from Bagan (who should have been sent off) and Joel Colwill.

We just have to admit that Port Vale were better than us on the day.

I thought we were quite physical, but outplayed.

I totally disagree based on the way we set up wasn't right he changed things to late when fish came on the game changed abit why because fish was more physical than lawlor lawlor still learning he needs to beef up abit I thought when fish came on we dealt with the physical stuff much better we were out muscled in midfield wintle didn't see him the passing from back to front usually ended up backwards just like bulet and riza we defo need abit more experience at centre half abit of pace at wingers loads of times our wingers could cross everytine bad decisions on both we created the space to cross most of the time they end up passing backwards or the cross was over hit we got outplayed because there manager was more experienced than bbm reality check I will give him time I've seen somethings I like about him but at this moment I'm still not convinced basically seen this all before many times as I say time will tell

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 12:04 pm

desbluebird wrote:
worcester_ccfc wrote:This point has been made by a few (maccydear for one) on here but thought it deserved it's own thread.

There seems to be a narrative that we struggled tonight because of the physicality, that's not true.

Two of the toughest challenges in the game came from Bagan (who should have been sent off) and Joel Colwill.

We just have to admit that Port Vale were better than us on the day.

I thought we were quite physical, but outplayed.

I totally disagree based on the way we set up wasn't right he changed things to late when fish came on the game changed abit why because fish was more physical than lawlor lawlor still learning he needs to beef up abit I thought when fish came on we dealt with the physical stuff much better we were out muscled in midfield wintle didn't see him the passing from back to front usually ended up backwards just like bulet and riza we defo need abit more experience at centre half abit of pace at wingers loads of times our wingers could cross everytine bad decisions on both we created the space to cross most of the time they end up passing backwards or the cross was over hit we got outplayed because there manager was more experienced than bbm reality check I will give him time I've seen somethings I like about him but at this moment I'm still not convinced basically seen this all before many times as I say time will tell


My opinion is we were just outplayed.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 12:29 pm

We definitely came second in the physical challenge and lost nearly all second balls. This was the basis for what has been perceived as them outplaying us. They showed greater determination to be first to the ball but it was plain to see that we possessed players with higher levels of skill who for whatever reason failed to use that quality to good effect last night.

There are some glaring deficiencies in the team which need to be addressed if we are seriously going to contend for promotion. Our defence is awful and no amount of pretty football will cover that up. BBM is an intelligent coach and he will know this. Personally I would bring in two centre backs who will not be bullied and a left back to replace Bagan who in my opinion is simply not good enough. If you have a sound defence, it will give confidence to the more offensive players to do their stuff.

Re: It wasn't a lack of physicality

Fri Aug 08, 2025 1:12 pm

If you didn't know otherwise, you could quite easily have said that performance was straight out of the Bulut,Riza era. There was no sense of what our plan was, no attacking flair, no quality.

I hope it's not a sign of things to come as people will quickly point out his track record to make the case. Succeeded at Man City kids (hard not to, they sign all the best ones), relegated at Rochdale.

Hopefully just a blip.