Colemanballs

5 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Ms. Christodoulo seems to be a teacher who now runs a comparative marking company.

What are her credentials regarding football governance, football financial distribution, football refereeing, jurisprudence, dispute resolution, post-modernist theory, politics in general, or future trend prediction?

Not that she needs any of those to comment, but if we're to take her as a a serious thinker in this then she should surely have some sort of background in this?

Otherwise it's just a brain fart isn't it?

People seem to be taking this way too seriously. It's a lighthearted dig at the state of football with some non-biased political comment thrown in. 

I think you have been well and truly whooshed.

His hand is above his shoulder which, as far as I am aware, is never considered to be in a natural position.

On 01/04/2024 at 16:23, Three Lions said:

its not a trip your saying its the same and with respect fella thats not how you ref you apply the laws to each different separate incident. if you watch the clip of Phillips and Gordon there is no trip!! The only contact is? Phillips smashing Gordon. Clear 100% foul you cant kick a players leg away. 

 

The contact was initiated / caused by Gordon. Ergo, he is the one who should be penalised. If the laws provide otherwise, the laws lack any common sense.

1 hour ago, Ship and Castle said:

We are football fans, not interested in this sort of rubbish.. grow a pair and stop your petty rubbish 

Fair point.

On 31/03/2024 at 19:06, PortInTheMorning said:

Are you American? That is quoted from the American section of the dictionary.

Sorry, I was distracted by De Ronde van Vlaanderen on Sunday and was too hungover yesterday to respond.

I am not American and hadn't noticed that it was in the American section. How careless of me. Nevertheless, this is not a question of British English versus American English. The oldest meaning of "disinterested" is that which you ascribe to "uninterested" (See Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., 1989), “disinterested,”) and is still a perfectly valid meaning of the word, albeit frowned upon by the verbally discriminating. Given that there was no ambiguity (cf. "the barrister is disinterested in the proceedings.") I really don't see your issue with the original poster's usage, particularly on a football forum containing far more heinous grammatical faux pas.

7 minutes ago, PortInTheMorning said:

 

Cambridge Dictionary

 

having      no personal involvement or receiving no personal advantage, and therefore free to act fairly:

a disinterested observer/judgment

a piece of disinterested advice

Note:

• Disinterested is sometimes used to mean not interested, but many people consider this use to be incorrect. Compare uninterested.

Although language pedants would have you believe that 'many people' consider it to be incorrect, the reality is that most people don't give a fig. From the same page of the Cambridge dictionary...

(Definition of disinterested from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Ca

Incidentally, you will no doubt be aware that the two words have changed meaning over the years and that for a true traditionalist, they mean the opposite to that which you would have us believe.

20 minutes ago, PortInTheMorning said:

I think you mean uninterested....sir

 

I think you will find that 'disinterested' can have the meaning he intends.

28 minutes ago, Three Lions said:

There is no way Philips had any intent to endanger Gordon and i didnt say there was i was putting it around the other way as would there be any reasons here not to give a penalty like Gordon PIADM playing in a dangerous manner and its a no for me. On espn yesterday this one was on there and the ex pros totally disagree with you but the laws are if a player has no view of a player and he kicks him its still a foul and If a player indulges in gamesmanship and an opponent kicks him its still a foul . 

You may well be right. In fact, I am sure you are. But, if that is a penalty under the current laws of the game, the law is an ass.

8 hours ago, Spike said:

It's got nothing to do with the players intensity, they're playing just as hard in both games. The difference is when the opposition attacks us we're fighting to get the ball back and get on that fast counter so we look more aggressive and determined. 

When we play a team who sit back and counter us we have more possession but can't actually do much with it so the slow passing, retaining possession football comes out where we look boring and lifeless. You see bursts of our best football when the opposition disposess us and we get the ball back quickly because then the transition is more open for our attack. 

 

This is one of the most worrying things for me. Manning doesn't influence whether we are going to play well or not, the opposition do

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@Colemanballs I’m beginning to think that’s the only thing they have left in their argument, to keep dragging it back to Pearson.  I rarely see anything detailing the pros of Manning.  In fact, I reckon I give more pros of Manning than they do!

And they've succeeded in derailing yet another thread. 

Just now, Major Isewater said:

They buggers nip. 

They were doing that day. Horrid, it was.

1 minute ago, Major Isewater said:

I won’t have that, there was a day in 1976…

I was there that day. Along with a plague of ladybirds!

13 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

@Colemanballs - old Spreadsheet Boy has come to our rescue (thanks SB). Honestly I'm not going to pretend I accurately recall the precise degree to which each of these teams is or isn't similar to "Manning's preferred style" (hereafter "MPS"). But based on what I do remember I guess looking at that list you're going to conclude that the answer to your question is "very few".

My gut feel is "none", but I make no pretense of accurately recalling all their styles either. 

However, because I am of the opinion - and this may be tinpot - that actually targeting promotion is a flawed aim for our club I would actually tweak your question to something more like "How many non-parachute clubs have managed to finish between 3rd and 6th playing a style similar to that which Manning prefers." I think that's the aim when we sit down in July each season, as that then gives us a chance of promotion.

I think that is an entirely reasonable aspiration based on where we currently are as a club.

I suspect that if we saw that spreadsheet we might say that there is a bit of a chance.

I'm struggling to think of many apart from occasional iterations of Swansea. Then again, I am totally prepared to concede that the reason "Manning's preferred style" is under-represented in the list could be because fewer teams have attempted to play it. 

There's a couple of supplementary questions as well imo (do I have to keep saying "in my opinion" or can it just be taken as read across every post?):

1. How many have finished top 6/been promoted playing "the other guy's style" (hereafter "OGS") we have played this season? Again, gut feel, but I'd say more but, yes,  more teams have probably played in that style.
2. Is it feasible/likely that we can move to any other style - including the general styles you see represented in Fev's table - within the timeframe we have (6 months as I said in my chat with @Silvio Dante earlier in the thread. In my opinion, the current squad has been built to play OGS and any effort to play any other style will require some re-building of the squad to a greater or lesser extent. I agree that it would likely be impractical to move from OGS to MPS within the timeframe but a move from OGS to a variation of the same might be possible. That would, however, require a head coach who was prepared to embrace such a style.

The answers to those questions (which I hypothesise are 1) not many, and 2) no) should influence the considerations one has when deciding which style we should invest in - which is the overriding question this thread is currently exploring.

Thanks. Great post. Responses above in bold.

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

I think here we have transgressed from what is possible under any "Tecknikal Director" to the realm of what is likely under the current incumbent. From the little I know of Tinnion I think I agree with you that he tends to ruthlessness only when pushed to do so by threat to his own position. I don't think such a threat will come from within the club this season and so I suspect we will stick with Manning through to the summer, at which point we are effectively with him until such time as a top end finish looks unlikely. With the CEO role extinguished Tinnion's only bosses on the football side of things are the shareholders, and they seem content at this moment. Fan pressure or grumbling or bed sheets will do the square root of **** all.

I agree with the bit in bold above because any fool can do that.

Not to tread over old ground but Pearson's departure was an acceleration of the inevitable. As such I don't see much relevance in any possible "sabotage". He was going. It was only a matter of time. Edit: In. My. Opinion.

As to your final part; yes, there's a quandary. I feel like I lean to what I voted for in your poll: stick, back, and assess early next season. Perhaps this makes me the fool that I refer to above.

However, I think that Manning's target style of football gives us a better chance of promotion than the alternative that we have discussed. This does mean major backing in the summer (not quite a rebuild, but a realignment certainly). We have discussed the merits of these options.

I reserve the right to reassess after the next few matches.

Genuine question, because I really don't follow other teams much at all, but what teams have been promoted from the Championship in the last 10 years playing that brand of football without the benefit of parachute payments?

Excellent thread this. 

2 minutes ago, petehinton said:

What an incredible win for football. Let that be a lesson, trust in your academy. 

I dislike that club and its supporters with a passion.

It's kind of bizarre. So many people are getting so het up at the merest mention of Pearson. The OP acknowledged that Pearson was not coming back and asked for suggestions of names who could do a similar job, but not a single person answered his question but rather jumped onto their immediate agendas.

3 hours ago, phantom said:

That is simply not true, as agreed and referenced already in this thread, posts are only moved for reference purposes to make them easier to find 48 HOURS after the last post - this usually means they are on the second page

How is that an issue?

There was debate, see the link above.

An agreement was reached at the time

Between whom?

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But the Nige / LM point-scoring is tiresome.  I never mentioned Nige in my thread, it was a thread about 45 minutes of Liam Manning.

100%. And bizarrely, it's the Manning must never be criticised brigade who keep doing it. Please stop.

For me, it's far too early to make a judgment on Manning. The first half was a big credit in the ledger, the second a small debit. Overall, then, for me, he's in credit from that game.

5 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

I feel like I have stepped into one this morning.

Yesterday afternoon, the consensus of opinion was that we were going to get a hammering by an in form Coventry side who had far too much for us, our only decent player was out injured, and people were still pining for the previous Manager on every thread.

I then sat and watched an excellent display by the remaining players where they made the previously rampant Coventry side look average and got a deserved point. If not for a poor fumble from our otherwise excellent goalkeeper, we would have got all three.

I was a bit surprised to come on here and find that we seemed to have lost 0-5 at home to Rotherham and that every other player was out of their depth, even the ones who had put in previously excellent displays against Premiership opposition. 

Added to that we seem to have been infiltrated by a couple of keyboard warriors straight out of a Danny Dyer film, which makes everything seem even more surreal.

 

 

This is no less ridiculous than the over-negative reactions. Excellent my Arsenal! It was decent in parts, less so in others.

On 03/01/2024 at 00:51, phantom said:

 

This thread was moved bec it was asked to be pinned so stayed at the top 

We then got comments from people saying they missed it as it was pinned among many others 

It was then suggested to move to the transfer forum. 

 

This has got somewhat lost amongst the rest of the debate about the ex players forum, but from the number of likes my request has received, I am not alone. Respectfully, I would say that the suggestion to move the loan thread was not a good one unless the intention was to kill it off. Please can it be moved back to the main forum. Thank you.

15 hours ago, handsofclay said:

Included in the 18 goals that made him our top scorer in the promotion season was a hat-trick at home to York City in a 4-1 win. What made it extra special was it was on Match of the Day that night and I recollect Jimmy Hill, I think, commenting about the fact it was the first hat-trick on MotD for several years. 

Goals in general were harder to come by in the 1970s when away teams tended to play for draws more in the days before 3 points for a win.

Awesome!

8 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Yep, get that. But ex players and Managers usually pop up for a reason ( Birthday , Anniversary ,scoring etc ) and I think there is more chance of catching those on a separate forum as there wouldn't be as much activity. Where they could drop off the main page quickly.

Just my preference of course.

You mean like the Tom Ritchie thread that's, as I write top of the main forum and which, were it to have been posted in the sub-forum as it should have been, would have received a fraction of the attention?

So, are the mods just ignoring this in the hope it'll go away?