On paper, Barnsley beating Lincoln City 3-0 is not good.
A 3-0 defeat naturally sharpens the focus, especially with the Championship season now close enough to feel real. Even so, the scoreline at Barnsley was not the most important part of the evening. Pre-season results are quickly forgotten, and this did not feel like a match in which City were comprehensively outplayed.
The more relevant question was whether enough of last season’s defining characteristics were on show. The answer was mixed.
There were passages of genuinely good football. City moved the ball neatly through midfield, found space in wide areas and, at times, looked more threatening than they had against Doncaster earlier in the day. Varfolomeev struck the crossbar after a good move involving McGrandles, Elder and Towler, while several other promising attacks broke down through a poor final ball or a slightly rushed decision.
Between the two penalty areas, the performance was not especially poor. There was enough tidy possession to suggest the technical level of the squad remains sound. Elder had a decent game, McGrandles was involved in much of the better football and Street gave an excellent account of himself against a physical Barnsley defence.
Street was probably City’s best player. He ran intelligently, competed well and repeatedly provided a platform by receiving the ball with his back to goal. His touch was secure, his link play was effective and his movement caused Earl enough difficulty to contribute to the defender’s second-half dismissal.
The problem was that Street rarely looked like scoring. He did almost everything asked of him, but he was not supplied with the kind of opportunities a centre-forward needs. There were neat touches, good runs and several moments of useful hold-up play, but almost no genuine sight of goal.
That was less a criticism of Street than a reflection of the attacking unit around him. Elder and Reach operated either side, with Hackett behind in the number ten position. Elder is a left-back, Reach has spent much of his recent career playing deeper and Hackett is arguably more effective attacking from a wide area.
It was an improvised front four, constructed from the players available rather than one designed to begin the Championship season. Moylan looks like he is on his way, further forwards have not yet arrived, and the coaching staff are still trying to create a functioning attacking unit from a group short of natural options.
That provides obvious mitigation. The forward line should look very different before the transfer window closes, and perhaps even before the opening league game. City are expected to add more attacking players, with at least one high-level loan and permanent signings still likely.
By the time Swansea visit after the first international break, it would be no surprise if the front line contained few, if any, of the players who started at Oakwell. Street has certainly done enough to remain in the conversation. House continues to offer energy, pressing and value as a player capable of changing the tone of a game. Draper gives City a direct, physical option and could become increasingly useful against tiring defences.
Even so, significant attacking signings are likely to arrive as starters. Players recruited for substantial fees will not be coming merely to increase the numbers. They will be expected to improve the side immediately, leaving Street, House and Draper competing for roles around them.
That is why the lack of attacking fluency should not be treated as a permanent problem. The unit remains unfinished. The more immediate concern lies at the other end.
City did not win promotion because they dominated possession every week or because they passed opponents off the pitch. Plenty of League One sides were technically superior between the boxes and enjoyed more of the ball. The difference was that City defended their own penalty area exceptionally well and were ruthless when chances came at the other end.
Opponents had to work hard for clear openings. Crosses were attacked, second balls were collected and the space in front of the defence was protected. City forced teams into low-quality efforts and made routine attacking situations feel difficult.
At the opposite end, pressure often came in waves. A set piece produced one chance, the rebound led to another, a throw kept the attack alive and suddenly the opposition were facing four or five efforts in a short spell. Neither quality has appeared consistently during pre-season.
Grimsby scored four, Doncaster found weaknesses and Barnsley were able to punish City without needing to produce anything especially intricate. The goals have often felt avoidable, created by poor positioning, loose decisions or a failure to deal with situations that would previously have been handled.
That is more concerning than the lack of attacking edge because the defensive unit is much closer to completion.
There are still important absences. Coubiș is expected to play a major role and may become a regular starter once fully settled. Bradley was the organiser and leader of the back line last season, and his absence inevitably changes the feel of the defence. The side which played at Barnsley is unlikely to be the one which starts most Championship matches.
However, defensive characteristics should survive personnel changes. City have looked more open than they did last season, particularly after switching shape in the second half. Barnsley found space too easily, while the protection in front of the penalty area did not always feel secure.
The use of a 3-5-2 remains difficult to assess. With the right personnel, it may offer greater attacking threat and allow the two advanced midfielders to support the forwards. It can also leave too much responsibility on the deepest midfielder if those players move wide, press high or make forward runs.
That was part of the strength of last season’s midfield structure. City usually had two players protecting the central area, closing passing lanes and guarding the space immediately in front of the penalty box. That area was rarely left exposed. In recent friendlies, opponents have found it more accessible.
There is no need for a detailed tactical breakdown to notice the difference. City simply look easier to play through. Teams are reaching dangerous positions with less resistance, and once they get there, the penalty area does not always appear as secure as it did last season.
However, it is pre-season, and intensity is often a little less. Pre-season provides another layer of mitigation. City’s best football is based on intensity. The press is aggressive, challenges are committed and players attack second balls as though the match depends upon them. It is difficult to reproduce that in a friendly.
Players will naturally avoid unnecessary risks. Nobody wants to miss the start of a Championship season because of a reckless challenge in a summer fixture. There were moments at Oakwell when players appeared to hold back from contact they would normally attack in a competitive game. That is understandable, but it also strips something important from City’s identity.
A possession-heavy team can still display its main qualities in a friendly. It can move the ball, create angles and control the tempo without needing the match to reach full intensity. City’s strengths are more dependent on aggression, duels, territory and repeated pressure. Remove a small percentage of that intensity and the whole performance changes.
The same principle applies in attack. Last season’s shot numbers were often accumulated rather than created through a steady stream of clear chances. City would force one save, collect the loose ball, win a corner, attack the clearance and keep the pressure alive.
That sequence relied on energy and commitment around the second ball. In a friendly, defenders may be allowed a cleaner clearance because the pressure arrives half a second later. The original delivery may still reach the same area, but the attack ends immediately rather than building into a sustained spell.
That could explain some of what happened at Barnsley. City reached promising positions and delivered several balls into dangerous areas, but the pressure rarely developed. The first contact was often lost and Barnsley were able to escape. The framework was occasionally visible, but the final layer of intensity was missing.
The surroundings probably contributed. Oakwell felt strangely empty, and the match lacked the atmosphere normally associated with the final major test of pre-season. With the work at Sincil Bank preventing a traditional home friendly, City missed the opportunity to play in front of several thousand supporters and create the sense that the season was about to begin. Instead, the evening felt more like another training exercise.
Nobody within the club will be satisfied with a 3-0 defeat. The coaching staff will have seen the loose defending, the lack of cutting edge and the passages in which the side became stretched. They will also know that the squad remains incomplete and several likely starters were unavailable.
There are valid reasons why City do not yet look ready, but it is also reasonable to expect more evidence of the qualities which defined last season. The team should be compact without the ball, dominant in the area and relentless once pressure begins to build. Those traits have appeared in flashes rather than consistently. The question to ask is whether the fact we’re in pre-season is a major contributor to the lack of such evidence.
There is still time. Last summer also contained defeats, incomplete recruitment and uncertainty over key positions. City lost to Grimsby, conceded four against Bromley and still produced a remarkable campaign. Pre-season can mislead in both directions. A convincing win does not guarantee a successful season, just as a poor defeat does not prove that a team is unprepared. The difference this year is the reduced margin for error.
Championship forwards will punish the kind of defensive moments Barnsley exploited. Chances at the other end will be harder to create, and opponents will possess greater pace, quality and decision-making in both boxes. City cannot afford to lose the defensive authority and efficiency that formed the foundation of promotion.
The attack should improve once the new players arrive. The squad should gain speed, creativity and greater natural balance in the final third. The defensive structure needs to become recognisable again.
That is the main conclusion from Barnsley. The result itself does not matter, but the characteristics do. City remain a work in progress, and there is enough mitigation to prevent genuine alarm, but the final stage of pre-season must bring greater cohesion, sharper pressure and a return of the habits that made last season possible.
Comments Welcome!