Red Skin

Fair comment, but Pearson's last 24 was with players he brought to the club (or made the decision to keep) and had built relationships with many over the a year to 18 months at least. They been schooled in how he wanted to player for a long period. Any comparisons need to be heavily caveated and aren't very enlightening really. I don't really see the point of the thread. We can all see things aren't going well, and most of us realise the top 6 claims were nonsense so why keep banging on about it? They just didn't want Pearson any longer.

Can we finally just ignore the sh1te the ownership said about Pearson going? Manning hasn't been great, that's clear, but I think it would be a fairer compare Pearson first 24 games to Manning's first 24 games tbh. New managers trying to change what's gone on before with players that they didn't bring in.

If couldn't handle Pearson, they certainly won't find Warnock any easier.

Fair enough, that wasn't clear to me. Other posters were comparing Manning's spell with Pulis' and in my view they aren't in the same league. I'm not interested at success by any means, so I'll pass on Pulis.

I'm really not having all this revisionism nonsense in regard to comparisons to Pulis. Pulis brought in injured journeyman and under his contract he profited from the sale of players. He was ex-gas and struggles to hide his contempt for anything Bristol City. He was totally out for himself. His football didn't suit OUR players, but it suited the shite he brought in. We played much better after he was sacked and we dropped the his journeymen and played our youth. I was more than willing to give Manning a chance, and defended his right to have a chance at doing the job when I felt he was undeservedly taking flak for the decisions of those above him. Given the circumstances in which he came in, I don't think he has ever been given the benefit of the doubt in anything he has done or said. Manning is proving hard to like, but Pulis was hard not to hate. I still hate the bloke. I'm not swayed by his success either. There are lots of successful people in this world that are ******* horrible individuals and have no redeeming qualities. That said Manning isn't filling me with any confidence as time has gone on. The friends I go to the game with are more fed up than angry. None of us are the types that boo players off or call for managers to be sacked. I don't think he'll be sacked before next season, simply because I don't think the hierarchy are ready to admit their failings.

Where do you get that from? I think that's what we are witnessing, but I'd be astounded if that is the intention when he sends the team out. In what universe do you think a manager would set that out as a strategy? My only experience of Manning before he joined was when we played Oxford. They looked a really good attacking team in the first portion of that game. They crumbled and maybe there were signs back them of Manning not reacting in game, but they moved the ball quickly and were incisive in their attacking play and could have well ahead before we woke up.

What's this got to do with being Irish? Enlighten me.

Ok, I get it. I can see the theory makes sense, but it is all about the implementation and it's less straight forward that the old skool manager model. However, given that's what we are doing my point is that even under perfect structure and competent people in posts (which we don't) then it is still gonna be a very bumpy ride.

I appreciate I've boiled it down to a very simplistic view of the DoF model, but that is in essence the strength of that approach. You don't have a squad full of players the current manager doesn't want, and we cannot offload either. The players are the club's i.e. DoF's players (a worry!) not any particular coach's players. I'm different to most fans. I don't particularly care about being in the Premier League. I want to see good football with local players part of that.

Yes, and that's the risk they took when they embarked on this. Losing fans in the process. Our views don't seem to count, but maybe when the attendances fall and the money starts to dry up they will take a bit more notice.

True, but they weren't in the Championship when the changed the model. They'd reached the point where they were basically forced to rip things up and start again. My point is that it's going to be very hard to make such a fundamental change and improve from day one operating in a much more competitive division. It may not mean relegation, but at least stagnation and the inconsistency and mistakes we are seeing right now. That's not absolving anyone of culpability for their part in what's playing out for us now, just my view that even with the perfect owners and the right personnel it still would be a difficult task to change things so fundamentally and still see progression. You'd have to be delusional to think otherwise wouldn't you? Oh wait...

Nice to have a thread that broadens out the scope of the discussion. If I understand @Harry correctly, then I think what you were saying here is that OUR implementation of the model is completely out of whack. Personally, I still believe that the model with the director of football defining a clubs footballing philosophy (and I'm being purposely vague) and having a say in recruitment of players and coaches to implement that philosophy is the correct one. Given that we cannot outspend other clubs, then you have to believe that having thriving academy aligned to that philosophy also makes sense. In terms of transition planning - players and coaches - it really is the only sensible option. What's becoming increasely apparent to me is that: 1. We do not have structure correct, or competent and experienced people in place to make it work. No surprises here really, but that's all I have to say on our particular setup as I don't have the detailed knowledge that clearly some of you have. 2. Even if we had the implementation of model correct, changing from playing style A to playing style B is always going to take time and be a slow process in terms of player recruitment - both buying and selling. Two and three year contracts to see out etc. 3. If you look toward the academy then you are talking about an even longer period to develop the players you need to fit the new style, albeit you can fast track this to a degree by buying in talent at a later stage in their development, ideally from clubs with a similar style to what to want to move to. 4. Then there is the question of what kind of manager/coach should oversee this transition? If it's the incumbent manager that is playing style A, they have the challenge of recruitment bringing in players for style B and they will feel unsupported and undermined. If we recruit a coach to implement style B, then that coach will not have the players in the short term to implement it. An almost impossible conundrum to solve and be successful in the short term for either coach. This isn't a quick fix. Brighton and Swansea had to reach almost rock bottom before they reset. Not so sure about Brentford's journey, but they haven't had an academy to factor in so that probably accelerated things for them, with Moneyball style recruitment. I thought the thread on how Bergkamp and the Dutch players were only considering League 1 and League 2 teams to overhaul was interesting. Given that Swansea and Brighton rebuilds happen from lower reaches too, it makes you wonder how sensible and doable it really is to try and totally deconstruct things and overhaul everything for a team in the Championship. Unless we get very lucky, it's gonna take time and be painful. Probably a couple of coaches, a DoF, and maybe even a relegation to achieve if we are serious about seeing it through. So, those posters who say they didn't sign up for another rebuild and/or keep banging on about top 6 squad etc had better find a more healthy way to adjust to the new reality than getting increasingly furious.

I think your overall comment are fair, so not picking on you especially here. With QPR compact, LM stated he felt they would get success going around but the players came up short. The subs seemed to be a change in personnel to execute the same plan. We did attempt some passes through the lines in the middle - Dickie always a standout for spotting a pass - but they were intercepted by QPR (I remember one from Williams in particular to set them up on a break). We did also try a few over the top in the second half, but either the passes to over hit or there just wasn't the space. It's not always easy to gauge from the SS how much space there is behind their defenders. So, if the starting players weren't executing the game plan, it seems reasonable to change the personnel to actually see if others could before abandoning the plan. I'm the last 3 games we've won 2 games out of 3 I didn't expect to win and lost 1 to a team I'd expect to beat. Also QPR may be down there, but in the last 6 games they are a respectable 10th in the form table. (That prob includes this game to be fair). The players underperformed massively yesterday, but let's have some balance. Try not to cream ourselves when we get a decent win, or kick the cat when we play poorly and lose, eh? Maybe we change OTIB to be OTT? (That's not at you @JP Hampton, you seem pretty measured in your response).

I recall those kinds of threads, but not the detailed game by game analysis of Pearson's style of play and tactics.

I have read Fever Pitch, but can't remember anything about it. Probably my dyslexia and the mistake with your Username! I get your point, but we were all flying abroad for Pearson games and watching those, but he didn't seem to get the same level of analysis. We were awful for the first 6 months under Pearson and it was only the points Holden got at the start of the season that kept us up. I really can't remember reading thread after thread criticising him. I'm with the OP. Still willing to give LM time. It was always gonna take time, some new players, and a proper preseason. I'm in no rush. I've largely enjoyed the games, despite the shortcomings.

Agree. Especially, the social media and living in echo chambers. I guess that why OTIB seems confrontational with some posters. (Never with yourself or Silvano). We had social media and Robins TV with Pearson and it didn't feel quite a full on though or focussed on Nige's management style or tactics. Sure he got some stick, but not same scrutiny. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but the usual reactionary responses were about which players were shit and scapegoated for latest poor performance rather than picking apart Pearson's failings. Maybe people were more understanding given the club were in a state? Which leads me back to the overriding feeling that LM's been given a hospital pass by the hierarchy (top six, front foot football, replacing a popular manager etc) so he is expected to have all the answers from day 1 by some.

That, and getting rid of a popular manager has handed LM a poison chalice unfortunately. I do feel that for a lot of posters - not all - that is colouring things. LM isn't perfect and has undoubtedly made mistakes. It's expected and quite correct that his selections and tactics are debated and challenged. But following City for 34+ years I cannot recall the same level of scrutiny that LM been subject to being given to any other manager. In the same way that we aren't able to afford the finished article in players, we aren't going to get the finished article in a manager either. And even if we could afford them, they wouldn't work within the more realistic financial constraints the club now want to operate. We are very lucky to get Pearson, which was probably as much to do with where he was in life as anything else.

Ah. As you will have gathered I'm generally supportive of LM (and any incumbent manager tbh) and if i am being generous I guess this was an attempt to get more finishers on the pitch. Now I've been corrected on how we actually did set up, I understand the frustration of posters on here with LM's dogma. Leeds were too quick over the pitch and in thought. They look a promotion team. And we were just poor in almost everything we did. I haven't seen us look so open and exposed as we did in that set up. We looked much more solid after the changes and we did seem to have more time on the ball and keep it. (More familiar 3-4-3 which they are more familiar with? Did Leeds press just tire and they drop off?). Maybe LM should have reacted sooner, so that's a fair criticism. It's apparent that the only solution for lack of creativity isn't in formations, but in the players on the pitch. We knew we'd suffer when Scott left unless he was replaced, regardless of who the manager was. Just hope Twine's injury isn't as bad as most fear, and Mebude can spark something.

I was there, but with Wells and Tommy starting perhaps my pre-match ritual influenced my perception iof what I witnessed on this occasion!

Manning tried 2 up front today which many have been calling. Understandable given our goal drought. (I wasn't at Coventry to see how successful this was in that game). In doing so we weakened the midfield and left gaps for a very good Leeds team to exploit. Our defenders did seem to dwell too long on the ball and were robbed by very quick and switched on Leeds players. Really frustrating, but in fairness there were probably less choices of players to play out to in midfield given the change in formation with 2 up front. (It looked like they haven't done enough work playing with 2 up front). It's a dilemma. Play one up front and create fewer chances but keep the game tighter and keep control, or play 2 up front and be overrun in midfield. Once Wells went off and we reverted to the game plan the players are now more familiar with I thought we looked more solid, and indeed created our best chance for Mehmeti. (Thought he was a really good outlet when he came on). The majority of the players have transitioned well to play position football - has there been some collective amnesia that has completely forgotten now we played against West Ham and Forest? We do need some new players that are quicker in thought and action and we have addressed that with some of the signings. Matt James has been great, but I felt it's this kind of game (and being a man down in midfield) that really showed his limitations. Usual reactionary nonsense on here. Tonight's formation didn't work against a very good Leeds side, but on the whole I still feel we are progressing.

In that case, it'd be eye strain, RSI, or AFS (analysis fatigue syndrome).

I do enjoy your contributions to debates, SD, but I'm glad I'm not the one buying you your birthday presents. You seem the sort of fella that even when you get the moon on a stick, you'd have some nagging concern about getting a splinter, potentially gangrene, and worse case scenario even losing an arm.

I am with you on seeing our young players come through. I haven't seen anything of Nelson but Yeboah is still very young and very raw. He was a hand grenade in Pearson's era, all energy and enthusiasm but I don't think he really has the discipline to play in a LM team just yet. The club do favour looking to academy first - it's cheaper after all - but you have to accept the coaching staff see these players everyday and make a much more informed assessment than we can, so I am happy to trust that this guy is better than what we have (and potentially have once they develop). I know nothing about this signing other than from comments on here, but it seems like a gamble worth taking. I am not overly concerned he has predominantly played as a winger. I think he'll be deployed as one of the front 3 so basically an inside forward. Plenty of wingers have successfully converted to strikers, and more commonly to wingbacks if that's where the coaching staff see him. He is young enough to be coached to play a different role, and to spend so long in the Man City academy he must have something about him in terms of talent and coachability.

Plays in the front three for me. Sykes, Conway, Twine.

I don't think this is happening, but it seems to be what they are trying. I think Mehmeti is getting it in the right position at times, but he isn't releasing it quickly enough. Knight gets it right at times too, but isn't really as suited to that role as maybe Sykes. (I actually think Bell is the sort of clever player that can execute this too). When Knight gets in the position to go it alone from inside right, he just doesn't have the finishing/composure to score (as we saw with his chance against West Ham where he dragged it wide). We definitely aren't seeing the one touch quick passing though. Dickie can spot the pass inside and execute. Vyner can see it but his execution isn't great. Looks to me that this is how we are attempting to attack, but the players in those 'inside forward' roles aren't the best at execution and the passes aren't coming. I agree, the opposition are screening too. It's fine margins to make it come off, but I think it will come. When it does, as you say, Conway will have a field day and he will get his rewards for all the work he is doing.