Posts Tagged ‘Chris Burke’

If Carlsberg did hometown football debuts……………………..

Sunday, August 22nd, 2010

could they really come up with anything better than what nearly 24,000 Cardiff City fans were privileged to witness yesterday? The return of the home coming hero turned out to be all that it had been hyped up to be and more as Cardiff City didn’t freeze on their big day (to be fair, we do that less and less lately) and turned in a performance which bodes well for the upcoming months.

It didn’t look like it would end up like that though in the opening stages as Doncaster, relishing their role as potential party poopers, enjoyed a supremacy which had a bit to do with an understandable nervousness on City’s part, but more to do with the fact that we were seeing a scenario unfolding which had become familiar over the past two seasons and more. In his post match press conference, Dave Jones defied the assembled hacks to name the formation that his team had used. Well, until Michael Chopra went off, I thought it was all too easy to identify how we were set up – it was with a very rigid 4-4-2 which seemed to me to play right into the hands of a side that values possession of the ball as much as Doncaster do.

City have struggled against some sides using 4-5-1 when the opposition are good enough passers of the ball to be able to exploit the three v two advantage they enjoy in central midfield as they work their way forward playing the ball around our two banks of four. When you consider that the one description that most supporters would probably come up with when asked to describe how Doncaster play would be “a good passing team”, the opening half hour turned out to be  all pretty predictable as far as I was concerned – if you are going to set up like City did against a team like Doncaster, then you have to accept that you are not going to get a fifty per cent share of the ball.Although City had their goalscoring chances in the opening stages of the game, they tended to come about through individual moments of good play which didn’t change the general theme of Doncaster dominance in the middle of the park and I don’t think I was the only City fan who wondered if the substitution of Michael Chopra by Chris Burke was a tactical switch even though it was still so early in the game. As it turned out, the change which transformed the game seemed to have more to do with accident than design, but, even so, Dave Jones deserves credit for ignoring what seemed to be the more obvious option of moving Craig Bellamy up alongside Jay Bothroyd while using Burke and Peter Whittingham on the flanks.

Instead of that though, Whittingham came infield and in the last hour or so, Dave Jones’ point about it being hard to pin down what our system was became much more valid. Crucially though it became three against three in central midfield and from that point on, it seemed to me that the result was never in doubt – the margin of victory may have flattered us a bit, but there could be no doubt who the better side had been. By making it an even contest in central midfield, we were able to see more of what Seyo Olofinjana and Danny Drinkwater can offer us – in Olofinjana’s case that included an ability to use those long legs to keep possession of the ball when it just looks to be getting away from him, good use of the ball and an ability to sometimes get forward in open play, while Drinkwater again showed good ball winning skills, neat passing and a very impressive ability to make runs beyond the front men in the dying moments of the game.

It is a big compliment to City to say that by the end of the match, they had outDoncastered Doncaster if you get my meaning – they had taken on and got the better of their opponents in the area of the pitch where they are strongest and it seems to me that in doing that, the Cardiff City 2010/11 model possesses options that previously models did not. Dave Jones more or less acknowledged this after the game when he said he hadn’t had the players to switch things around tactically so much in the past.

Dave Jones’ point about it being hard to pin down how we were set up after that was proven by the performance of Chris Burke really. He certainly played down the left and played down the right yesterday, but any more of the way he played against Doncaster and the words of the Cardiff City version of Sloop John B will have to be changed to incorporate the addition of the words “he plays down the middle” somehow. In a team which featured many fine performances yesterday, Burke’s was, perhaps, the most impressive with his cross from the right which, as was remarked on City messageboards yesterday, enabled Jay Bothroyd to provide a perfect memorial for Brian Clark with a classic far post headed centre forward’s goal, which showed him in his “normal” role, to his goal which had him charging through the middle to outpace centre halves like a Chopra or Bellamy might hope to do, Burke reacted in the best possible manner to his unlucky omission from the starting eleven after a good performance at Derby.

Others worthy of a mention were Jay Bothroyd who, again, looked the complete target man at this level and Lee Naylor who did well when coming on after the worrying early loss of Kevin McNaughton with what looked like another hamstring problem. With Darcy Blake having cried off with an injury picked up in the pre game warm up, Naylor, who had only signed for us on Friday, was a very late call up to our substitute’s bench and then found himself coming on with the match less than twenty minutes old. Despite his lack of match practice, Naylor did well enough defensively and put in one superb cross which suggested that he has not lost the ability he had at Wolves to provide a quality service to the strikers while he was up in Scotland.

However, if you are talking about individuals, it has to all get around to Craig Bellamy in the end and, after a start which he admitted reflected the tension he was feeling, he settled down to become a major factor in our win with two assists (the second of which was a sixty yard pass to Burke while he was back defending by the corner flag) and a stunning free kick goal from more than thirty yards out which was pure Roy of the Rovers. Bellamy left the pitch to a rapturous reception with three minutes of normal time left and that gave Jason Koumas a chance of a bit more match action.

Mention of Koumas’ very brief cameo brings me on to what yesterday’s performance means in terms of what we can expect from the team for the rest of this season. Well, going back a year this weekend, City came up with a brilliant performance in beating Bristol City 3-0 – to my mind, how we played that day compares well with anything I have seen from a Cardiff City team over the past forty odd years, but, watching it, you got the feeling that this was as good as it could get for that team. While, that display against the Wurzels was a more complete one, I left the ground yesterday telling myself to stop those thoughts that were circulating in my brain that I had just watched an automatic promotion team in action because all that does is ramp up the expectation levels that bit further. Having slept on it though, I’m afraid the feeling is still there and the main reason for that is that it seems clear to me that there is quite a bit more to come from this team yet.

  • Share/Bookmark

Never mind the quality.

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

Football supporters are a strange breed, they are never satisfied and they often concentrate on the negatives even when their team has won and played well. We could beat the jacks 5-0 next week and yet I bet there would be threads on the messageboards criticising some player or another’s performance. On the other hand, if their side battles to a win while riding their luck at times, the response is often “we won, but we were crap”.

I’m as guilty as anyone when it comes to this sort of thing – City played as well as I have seen them do for ages for half an hour against Sheffield United last Wednesday, yet I came out of the game more annoyed than I was after the feeble home defeat by Barnsley for example because I believed we had blown a great chance on the night (I still do actually). The anger I felt yesterday during the game was of a different type as a set of players that have proved themselves to be talented footballers over a long period struggled with basics such as controlling the ball with their first touch and playing simple five yard passes – watching that yesterday, it was so easy to come out with the “we won, but we were crap” line. However, perhaps that verdict is seen to be unfair when you dig a little deeper and take into account who we were playing and where the game was being played?

Although they might get the occasional manager who tries to turn them into a footballing side which passes to feet and keeps the ball on the deck (Paul Hart sides tend to play like that, but he, evidently, believes that Palace’s best hope of staying up rests with them playing a long ball game), Palace are one of a few sides (e.g. Sheffield United and Watford) who I always associate with a physical, long ball philosophy and, in their case, I wonder if the Selhurst Park pitch  has something to do with that? The pitch at Palace’s ground has consistently been one of the worst around over the past twenty years – I used to put it down to the fact that they ground shared with those masters of the kick and run philosophy Wimbledon, but, they have long departed Selhurst Park and the pitch is still always bobbly and bare from the turn of year onwards.

As City have found on their own pitch over the past two seasons it is very hard to get the ball down and play on surfaces like that and it was to their great credit that they were able to pass it so well at times on Wednesday, but we have played in a much more direct manner in the latter stages of this season and last than we used to late on when the Ninian Park pitch was so good. Therefore, it was perfectly predictable what sort of game we would see yesterday as City travelled to face an increasingly desperate Palace side which looks destined the drop following the deduction of ten points for going into Administration and so should we really be so critical of our performance? After all, we won in conditions which did not best suit most of our team against opponents whose game plan probably worked as well as they could have hoped for.

We were always going to face what Dave Jones called an aerial bombardment yesterday and who among our outfield players had the sort of height and build which would make them an ideal candidate to cope with the ball being repeatedly crossed and thrown into our penalty area? There was Gabor Gyepes and, well that’s about it actually! With our opponents doing a good job of blocking off David Marshall and without even the help offered by Jay Bothroyd when we have to defend high balls, the City side yesterday should really have succumbed to the aerial assault given the height advantage their opponents enjoyed. When you also consider the state of the pitch and that Palace’s gameplan included giving us as little time on the ball as possible in the middle of the park, it was little surprise that our ball players like McPhail and Whittingham, who have played a big part in the recent upturn in results, were never major factors in this game.

As I mentioned, we had a side that was ill equipped physically to withstand Palace and come away with all three points, but we managed to do it. Okay, a couple of major decisions went our way, but it was hardly the case of daylight robbery that Paul Hart tried to claim it was. In my view we won because people who we wouldn’t usually rely on so heavily to defend dead ball situations like Quinn, Rae, Blake, Etuhu and even  Whittingham coped better than expected, because Darcy Blake (who was outstanding on the day) gives us that bit of pace at centreback that we don’t normally have (would any of Gyepes, Hudson or Gerrard have caught Andrew when he broke clear in the second half?) and because our attacking players represented far more of a threat in open play than Palace’s did.

Although it was another disappointingly muted performance by Michael Chopra, the way he set up Kelvin Etuhu for his first half chance showed a level of ability that Palace just didn’t have as Stern John showed the lack of confidence you would associate with a striker who has only scored once in his last thirty odd appearances. As for Etuhu, I thought it was a promising performance bearing in mind that he had been out injured for nearly three months – although I am not convinced about him as a target man, he does offer something different and I would like to see how he would fare playing off Bothryod.

However, rather like against Watford, it was Chris Burke becoming a major factor in  the match in it’s last half hour which took the game away from Palace and his fine goal emphasised yet again what a bargain we got when he arrived on a free from Rangers in January of last year. Given the prevailing conditions, it shouldn’t really have been Burke’s day, but I believe that, if we do make it into the Play Offs, the main reason for doing so will because our pool of attacking players is better than most others we have faced this season. Even with Chopra and McCormack not at their best, we have five attackers who are all capable of winning a game on their own and, even when we are turning in “crap” performances like yesterdays, there is always the chance that one of them will do something special to get us the points.

  • Share/Bookmark