italian dave

I’m not aware I ever attributed the word ‘rosy’ to you. I didn’t realise I wasn’t allowed to use an adjective you’d not already used…sorry I’m glad you enjoyed Southampton and can at least give LM some credit for using a style that day that suited the players! Look: if you want to take the view that nothing Manning can do is right then that’s your prerogative. It’s your view and that’s fine with me. I’m just saying I don’t agree. But maybe more to the point what I’m saying is that just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean that I take the polar opposite view and think that everything he does is right. I don’t see the world in black and white like that. There are shades of grey for me.

I think you may be missing the context in quoting me here SA. I’m not for one minute suggesting that those are reasons for or excuses for those poor results. I was responding to posts that used West Ham’s injuries and some good fortune at Boro to argue that we didn’t deserve credit for those results. If anything, I’m probably in alignment with you - those shouldn’t hide the problems - but equally you can’t have it both ways and dismiss our successes for the same reason.

Rosy was a word used by another poster but as part of this discussion. It seemed like a good way of summing up some positives in one word. So, going back to the OP - you don't think Southampton was rosy? You didn't enjoy that win, or think we played well? And beating West Ham - you didn't think that was rosy?

Leeds was poor, but I think we were just punch drunk. It reminded me a bit of a game against Bournemouth a few years back when Bournemouth were in one of their Championship stints between the PL. And even their fans were saying that they played better that night against us than they'd done any time the previous season in the PL!! Leeds were just outstanding that night. And, yes, still not sure how it ended only 0-1! I could suggest we did well to keep it down to that - but I won't push my luck

I don't think it was down to Manning's coaching brilliance. I think it was down to a combination of factors. His coaching, his management of players, some resolute defending, West Ham's depleted squad, a bit of luck with a poor back pass, and any number more things that would probably fill the page. And that's true of pretty much every game we play - there's a combination of factors that determine the final outcome. My view is that some of those - the good, the rosy, the less good, the bad - are down to Manning. And that some of them - good, rosy, not so good, bad - are down to other factors. Your view seems to be that everything bad or not so good is down to Manning and that everything rosy is down to something or someone else. That's where we disagree.

Of course I'm doing it!! I'm doing it precisely to make that point!! Yes, every single thing you've said in this post you could say about the West Ham game. yet when it come to that game, the fact that we drew and then won is - according to you - all down to injuries and nothing to do with Manning.

Watford away - yes. I'm not sure there's anyone saying that everything is rosy, Pete. On this thread at least, simply challenging the proposition that everything bad is down to Manning and everything rosy is down to something or someone else.

Quite possibly not. Who knows? But I also think we'd have been much more likely to have won at least one of the last three if we'd had Twine and Sykes and Bell fit.

Of course I'm not. But you can come up with "what if"s about every single game if you want to. What if we'd been given that penalty shout yesterday, or not had the goal disallowed at the end. What if Wednesday had had the red card they should have early on, and if we'd been given the clear handball pen near the end. What if Twine hadn't got injured. What if Sykes had stayed fit. I could go on. Pretty much every single game that gets played will have reasons someone can point to why something might have been different. And if you want to you can pick every single one that's a reason to slate Manning, and ignore every single one doesn't fit that agenda.

That maybe so. But it's not the point I'm making. Which is that there are more than just two games where we've had a good result and/or performance. We're inconsistent. As we have been for several years now. We have crap games. We have good games. We have in between games. It's just this black and white everything Maning does is bad, every failure is his, any success is due to something else - TV, NP's legacy or whatever that I find nonsensical. Edit - and add David Moyes to the list of 'other reasons' from @Back of the Dolman

And Forest. And West Ham. And Coventry. And Watford. And Hull. And Boro at home. All blips?

I thought that was odd too. First half I could understand to a point: limited options with Bell out. But when Mehmeti came on I assumed they’d switch.

Also no coincidence those two achieved that almost entirely in the third tier? Im not disagreeing with you or Harry on the model, far from it, but it’s a lot easier, whoever is in charge of recruitment, when you’re the big fish in the pond and can go out and buy the proven best at that level.

Even that’s not really working though! The weird thing is that we never seem to ‘plummet’: we just gravitate to 14th! Even after three straight defeats: it looked odds on we’d be there again when Middlesbrough picked up at least a point at Stoke - and they lost so we’re still 13th!!

And, in league terms, got us to the position of being an established second tier club - for the first time in decades.

Personally, I’d put Lee Johnson above Danny Wilson in my list of successful appointments. Just my opinion: yours is clearly different - @AshtonGreat has already noted the emotive language but I’d suggest your use of his stats is even more indicative of a degree of bias! Why quote his win ratio at other clubs, when he managed us?!! His win ratio with us, at “2nd Division” level was 39%. Gary (who’s on your list) achieved 40% - and had the benefit of a couple of seasons in the third division as part of that.

@westonred, I’d completely echo what @GrahamC said above, but at the same time, don’t make that decision in anger after three defeats and cut off your nose to spite your face. I had a cancer scare years ago, and for me going to the football, going to watch City, was massively important. It gave me some normality, something to hang onto, and just an outlet once or twice a week to forget everything else. I honestly can’t remember whether we were doing well or badly at the time. It didn’t really matter. Just don’t let that get to you. It’s about more than the 90 minutes on the pitch anyway. And even that just enjoy as a game of football, supporting your team. We all know that being a football fan is mostly about disappointment, and that that’s what makes the occasional successes so special. But whatever you decide, all the best.

Actually, I’ve been very critical of the catering this season I’ve no problem with criticism. I’ve been critical of the way the departure of NP was handled. I’ve been critical of decisions that both NP and LM have made. But I’m always supportive of whoever is in charge of the team because I believe they want what’s best for the club, I want them to succeed, and I always hope (sometimes against hope) that they’ll turn the corner and find that success. And that was the case as much for NP as for anyone else. You won’t find any posts from me that were unduly critical of him, or that called for him to be sacked. I still believe that he did a fantastic job of rescuing us from a financial mess without us ever really looking relegation candidates. I’m as disappointed as anyone with the last three games. It gives me the same doubts as others about our direction. But what I don’t agree with is the vitriolic pile on that happened in the hour or two after the game today. And what I’ve always struggled with is the knee jerk ‘sack xxx’ without any positive suggestion for what we do to make things better. It’s always easy to shout ‘get rid of xxx’, change xx, but without a plan that will demonstrably improve things it’s just pure negativity. And help no-one, least of all the person currently charged with taking the club forward.

Sounds to me like you actually want us to lose?

As always, people will pick what they want from a set of stats to prove what they want to prove! To be honest, the ‘points from bottom 3’ has a lot more to do with how adrift Rotherham, QPR and Wednesday all were after 14 games. At that time there was a gap of 4 points between 3rd and 4th from bottom. Right now, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th from bottom all have the same points Not much sign of progress, certainly. But not desperately worse either.

NP games: 18 points in 14 games (1.28 per game). 15th, 8 pts clear of bottom 3 LM games: 23 points in 20 games (1.15 per game). 15th, 5 points clear of bottom 3 Inconsistency, signs of promise followed by disappointment, seems to be the over-riding characteristic of both! Curtis Fleming, on the other hand…….

Without wishing to get into the pos and cons, I’m sure there’s much in what the OP says that can be challenged. But I think your first criticism seems a little unfair and one sided, on a day when the number of threads taking the opposite view, and all saying the same thing, indeed many of them having practically identical titles, fill at least a page of the forum!

Yes please. Not because I’m doubting you. Just because I’ve heard so many versions of this, all from people convinced theirs is the genuine one, that it would be good to have some evidence of at least one!

And, there was an unanticipated, urgent, short term imperative that took priority during NP’s time. For 2.5 years that was more important than the philosophy. ?

So, wins against WBA, Ipswich and Leicester, interspersed with defeat to Blackburn, Plymouth and Huddersfield coming up…..With a draw at Sunderland for good measure?!!!