Our style of play

When's the last time we caught someone on the break , the main issue we are so slow every team have time to re group and get behind the ball .
We need a midfielder or two that are more direct and catch sides out ,every time we attack there's 11 behind the ball because weve tippy tapped so much its playing in there hands

I fully support BBM, but I’ve got no time for the cult-like devotion. At 58, having watched City since 1982 (missing most of the dungeon years), the vast majority of my football viewing has been second-tier, and I know what this division demands. Right now, the football both excites and irritates the life out of me.

Modern football has gone far too "NFL" for my liking. Managers like Pep or Amorim treat the system as more important than the actual players, sulking when they don't have their exact pieces. BBM is an interesting hybrid: an old-school throwback who wants everything to go through him, but still essentially a rookie manager with clear blind spots.
The question 100 clubs ask about managers like him is whether he can adapt to second-tier realities, or if he’s ultimately a "Development Manager" who naively believes he can just coach flaws out of limited players.

Take our wide players, for instance. I told anyone who’d listen before the season that our wingers would barely trouble Championship defenders. In BBM’s setup, the entire blueprint relies on overloading central spaces to isolate our wingers 1v1 out wide, which puts maximum burden on them to produce. When those players lack explosive acceleration, final-third vision, or the work rate to cover transitions, the whole machine stalls. You end up with high possession, zero sharp end, and a backline left totally exposed to basic counter-attacks. Whether that lack of wide investment comes from boardroom penny-pinching or BBM’s own over-confidence in his coaching, it’s a glaring vulnerability.

Yet despite the frustration, last year proved BBM is no charlatan. Unlike the endless parade of short-term firemen and half-baked tacticians we’ve suffered through, he actually has a genuine tactical identity and proper player buy-in. Tearing things up every 18 months only leaves us with a Frankenstein squad built for three incompatible playing styles. Even if the absolute worst happened and we were relegated, we must keep BBM. Committing to a proper four-year cycle—giving a real manager the time to filter out squad limitations and build a lasting identity—is our only route out of perpetual purgatory.

I fully support BBM, but I’ve got no time for the cult-like devotion. At 58, having watched City since 1982 (missing most of the dungeon years), the vast majority of my football viewing has been second-tier, and I know what this division demands. Right now, the football both excites and irritates the life out of me.

Modern football has gone far too "NFL" for my liking. Managers like Pep or Amorim treat the system as more important than the actual players, sulking when they don't have their exact pieces. BBM is an interesting hybrid: an old-school throwback who wants everything to go through him, but still essentially a rookie manager with clear blind spots.
The question 100 clubs ask about managers like him is whether he can adapt to second-tier realities, or if he’s ultimately a "Development Manager" who naively believes he can just coach flaws out of limited players.

Take our wide players, for instance. I told anyone who’d listen before the season that our wingers would barely trouble Championship defenders. In BBM’s setup, the entire blueprint relies on overloading central spaces to isolate our wingers 1v1 out wide, which puts maximum burden on them to produce. When those players lack explosive acceleration, final-third vision, or the work rate to cover transitions, the whole machine stalls. You end up with high possession, zero sharp end, and a backline left totally exposed to basic counter-attacks. Whether that lack of wide investment comes from boardroom penny-pinching or BBM’s own over-confidence in his coaching, it’s a glaring vulnerability.

Yet despite the frustration, last year proved BBM is no charlatan. Unlike the endless parade of short-term firemen and half-baked tacticians we’ve suffered through, he actually has a genuine tactical identity and proper player buy-in. Tearing things up every 18 months only leaves us with a Frankenstein squad built for three incompatible playing styles. Even if the absolute worst happened and we were relegated, we must keep BBM. Committing to a proper four-year cycle—giving a real manager the time to filter out squad limitations and build a lasting identity—is our only route out of perpetual purgatory.

Excellent post mate.

I fully support BBM, but I’ve got no time for the cult-like devotion. At 58, having watched City since 1982 (missing most of the dungeon years), the vast majority of my football viewing has been second-tier, and I know what this division demands. Right now, the football both excites and irritates the life out of me.

Modern football has gone far too "NFL" for my liking. Managers like Pep or Amorim treat the system as more important than the actual players, sulking when they don't have their exact pieces. BBM is an interesting hybrid: an old-school throwback who wants everything to go through him, but still essentially a rookie manager with clear blind spots.
The question 100 clubs ask about managers like him is whether he can adapt to second-tier realities, or if he’s ultimately a "Development Manager" who naively believes he can just coach flaws out of limited players.

Take our wide players, for instance. I told anyone who’d listen before the season that our wingers would barely trouble Championship defenders. In BBM’s setup, the entire blueprint relies on overloading central spaces to isolate our wingers 1v1 out wide, which puts maximum burden on them to produce. When those players lack explosive acceleration, final-third vision, or the work rate to cover transitions, the whole machine stalls. You end up with high possession, zero sharp end, and a backline left totally exposed to basic counter-attacks. Whether that lack of wide investment comes from boardroom penny-pinching or BBM’s own over-confidence in his coaching, it’s a glaring vulnerability.

Yet despite the frustration, last year proved BBM is no charlatan. Unlike the endless parade of short-term firemen and half-baked tacticians we’ve suffered through, he actually has a genuine tactical identity and proper player buy-in. Tearing things up every 18 months only leaves us with a Frankenstein squad built for three incompatible playing styles. Even if the absolute worst happened and we were relegated, we must keep BBM. Committing to a proper four-year cycle—giving a real manager the time to filter out squad limitations and build a lasting identity—is our only route out of perpetual purgatory.

Second this 100%. The system only works with high class wide players. The amount of cutback goals man city used to score was insane, stemming from pace and late arriving midfielders like KDB etc ( what he’s almost trying to emulate with Ashford). I don’t fault his tactics but we don’t have the full compliment of players for the system to flourish in this division and I think he knows this.

I fully support BBM, but I’ve got no time for the cult-like devotion. At 58, having watched City since 1982 (missing most of the dungeon years), the vast majority of my football viewing has been second-tier, and I know what this division demands. Right now, the football both excites and irritates the life out of me.

Modern football has gone far too "NFL" for my liking. Managers like Pep or Amorim treat the system as more important than the actual players, sulking when they don't have their exact pieces. BBM is an interesting hybrid: an old-school throwback who wants everything to go through him, but still essentially a rookie manager with clear blind spots.
The question 100 clubs ask about managers like him is whether he can adapt to second-tier realities, or if he’s ultimately a "Development Manager" who naively believes he can just coach flaws out of limited players.

Take our wide players, for instance. I told anyone who’d listen before the season that our wingers would barely trouble Championship defenders. In BBM’s setup, the entire blueprint relies on overloading central spaces to isolate our wingers 1v1 out wide, which puts maximum burden on them to produce. When those players lack explosive acceleration, final-third vision, or the work rate to cover transitions, the whole machine stalls. You end up with high possession, zero sharp end, and a backline left totally exposed to basic counter-attacks. Whether that lack of wide investment comes from boardroom penny-pinching or BBM’s own over-confidence in his coaching, it’s a glaring vulnerability.

Yet despite the frustration, last year proved BBM is no charlatan. Unlike the endless parade of short-term firemen and half-baked tacticians we’ve suffered through, he actually has a genuine tactical identity and proper player buy-in. Tearing things up every 18 months only leaves us with a Frankenstein squad built for three incompatible playing styles. Even if the absolute worst happened and we were relegated, we must keep BBM. Committing to a proper four-year cycle—giving a real manager the time to filter out squad limitations and build a lasting identity—is our only route out of perpetual purgatory.

Second this 100%. The system only works with high class wide players. The amount of cutback goals man city used to score was insane, stemming from pace and late arriving midfielders like KDB etc ( what he’s almost trying to emulate with Ashford). I don’t fault his tactics but we don’t have the full compliment of players for the system to flourish in this division and I think he knows this.

Great post llan bluebird!