Birmingham emerged determined to extend their lead, and there were periods when we struggled to cope. Their second goal was particularly frustrating, not least because of the circumstances surrounding the throw. One of their players picked the ball up and went to give it to the thrower, triggering the referee’s countdown. Our players were still rushing back into position, and Birmingham were able to exploit that lack of organisation.
However, whatever the explanation, there is absolutely no excuse for five Lincoln players congregating around Klarer and allowing him to win the header. Chris and Tom should have those five players in front of them reviewing that moment. Were we caught out by the timing? Had we simply switched off? Whatever the reason, it’s tough to take, particularly given how effectively we defended precisely those situations last season.
Priske did what good Championship strikers do, reacting quickly and poking the ball home. I suspect Ladefoged would have done exactly the same at the other end, but the opportunity should never have existed.
It’s worth remembering we’d just made attacking substitutions, bringing Freddie Draper and Tom Bayliss on for Jefferies and Varfolomeev. I’ve seen criticism recently about our changes costing us, but we were losing and attempting to alter the contest. Surely we want our coaches to show that ambition?
Thankfully, Bayliss provided an almost immediate response. It was a lovely move, with Hackett and Ladefoged involved before the substitute finished neatly, and suddenly we were back in the game. At 2-0, I’d feared the worst. At 2-1, I genuinely fancied us.
House was straight into the net to retrieve the ball, and there was a belief among the players that something remained possible. Against a Birmingham side built with substantially greater resources, we were standing on the centre circle effectively saying, come on then, let’s have it.
I respect what Chris Davies has built. Birmingham have a settled manager, established players and the foundations of a long-term plan. They’re an oven-ready team, already cooked and assembled, while we’re still attempting to bridge the gap with clubs operating on an entirely different financial scale.
Of course, when you’re pushing forward against players of that quality, you’re going to leave spaces. It’s the contradiction at the centre of some criticism of our performances. If we’d remained cautious, sitting deep and protecting a one-goal deficit, people would have complained that we weren’t having a go. When we attack and get punished, those same voices complain that we’re too open.
The third goal wasn’t even a particularly elaborate counterattack; it came I think, due to the stretched nature of the game as we chased a goal. Birmingham sent a long ball forward, Konak couldn’t win the header, and Bradley afforded Cochrane far too much space. He collected possession, turned and produced an outstanding strike. There may have been a deflection, but it was a wonderful finish regardless. Ironically, it was precisely the sort of direct goal we scored regularly last season, which makes the criticism of our own long-ball approach rather amusing.
At 3-1, the contest was effectively finished, although I still felt another goal was possible at either end. Birmingham created enough opportunities to score four or five, with Demarai Gray missing an absolute sitter, but we also continued to threaten. It could easily have finished 4-2. I didn’t necessarily believe we’d score twice and rescue a draw, but I thought we had another goal in us, even if chasing it would probably have exposed us again.
There were individual performances that probably didn’t look as impressive as recent weeks, due to individual moments. Elerewe didn’t appear to have his best afternoon despite some important defensive interventions, but his numbers don’t differ much from recent weeks, so it’s perception. Konak and Varfolomeev were often seemingly overrun, but neither were awful. Birmingham won the midfield battle, with Tomoki Iwata particularly effective, and their wide players repeatedly caused problems.
We also lacked a little quality in the final moments. House and Rob Street both had opportunities that produced weak shots, and perhaps a Roberts or Millar would test the goalkeeper more convincingly. However, would Roberts or Millar have performed the same physical role as House? Ben was excellent, battling throughout, taking a kick in the face and returning to the contest almost immediately. He was close to being my man of the match, although I eventually gave it to Coubiș, whose power, forward running and general contribution impressed me again.
What frustrates me is the predictability of the criticism whenever Lincoln lose. We deliver crosses, play diagonals and put balls into the area against Burnley, and it’s effective, aggressive football. We do the same against Birmingham, lose, and suddenly we’re aimlessly pumping balls forward. Some supporters get too caught up in opposition fans criticising our style. Birmingham supporters were particularly vocal about it afterwards, which is rather ironic given how their third goal developed.
I respect opinions based on what people have actually watched. I have considerably less respect for opinions that appear predetermined by the result, because they’re as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.
Danny Cowley’s old mantra about never getting too high or too low feels particularly appropriate. We hammered Burnley, enjoyed the victory and collected three points. Then we faced Birmingham, a game I’d identified alongside QPR away as one where I’d happily have taken anything beforehand.
We were beaten by a better team, and we contributed significantly to our own defeat. We tried playing out when perhaps we shouldn’t, defended a long throw poorly and left Cochrane too much room to finish the contest. However, I still wonder about those moments involving referee Smith. What happens if Laird is dismissed? What if Coubiș gets a penalty, or Ladefoged avoids that early booking? Does the afternoon end differently?
Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps Birmingham’s quality still wins through, because they’re a very good Championship side. But decisions influence matches, and acknowledging that isn’t the same as blaming the referee for the defeat.
Ultimately, our Halloween horror show wasn’t simply the work of a single antagonist. We’d left the doors open, wandered into dangerous rooms and failed to check whether the threat had really gone away. Birmingham were good enough to punish every invitation.
There were positives, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise simply because we’ve lost. We competed, created opportunities and showed ambition against a side I fully expect to finish above us. What we didn’t do was protect ourselves well enough when it mattered. That’s what needs correcting, because the most frightening thing about Saturday wasn’t the referee, Birmingham’s expensive attacking talent or even the final score. It was how easily we made life difficult for ourselves.
Comments Welcome!