IAmNick

Also pretty confused by the King Power stadium making the list. I've only been once but from memory it was one of the dullest generic bowls going.

3 minutes ago, Robbored said:

The competition has to have the same regulations in every round. It wouldn’t be acceptable to introduce ‘no replays’ in round 3 when the big boys join in.

No it doesn't. 5th round onwards already has no replays.

30 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Even moreso for a head coach who has never blooded youth in his career. 

I get what you're going for, but I think we need to be a bit careful here - has he really never blooded youth in his career? Do you mean a team's own academy specifically, as that's a very different claim. What is "youth", what is "blooding" them?

A quick look, at MK Dons:

Brooklyn Ilunga: Gave him his debut from the academy at 17

Callum Tripp: Gave him his debut from the academy at 16

Signed and played:

Patrick O'Hora: 21

Matthew Dennis: 19

At Oxford:

Gatlin O'Donkor: Regular starter at 18 from the academy

Tyler Goodman: Played at 19 from the academy

Stephan Negru: Debut at 20

I'm not trying to go out of my way to defend Manning, but I'm just interested where this "He hates youth" thing comes from. His signings have been pretty young, he's playing some pretty young players... what do we mean specifically here?

The above is from a quick look so might be a bit wrong. It feels a bit like it's been said a few times recently though and is now accepted as truth.

14 minutes ago, Cole Not Gas said:

Its from what i've seen in the past 3 years at A.G Clearly a guy in the game for so many years will have more successes than someone new to his trade. But also many more failings. It's like saying Warnock was successful as a manager. Of course he had successes but he had a more than a dozen failings that can be easily forgotten. Someone new like Liam has only had one sign of success (Oxford) and is too you to have failed. My judgement is an opinion just the same as yours. We will have to wait and see

 

I think the issue with your logic is that failures also help improve your judgement of a player's ability both potential and present.

You don't get better at picking and developing players just by having "hits" - in fact the experience of what doesn't work is just as if not more valuable.

Just now, Ronnie pickering said:

Who are you trying to impress mate, Downsy? 

Phwoar can't wait to hear your material on him!

I mean I'm not sure why Downsy is going to care what I think about your jokes on OTIB, but come on - let's have it!

Just now, Davefevs said:

The one thing I disagree with is that if the keeper gets the physio (like yesterday) and opposing player does too, I don’t think the opposing player should wait 30 seconds either.

Yeah agreed, I forgot that happened as well.

I think the refs need to be braver sometimes - and LJ had the right idea where we put out that statement saying we'd no longer be kicking the ball out for the other team.

Either it's a head injury/something serious and the ref blows for it, or the game continues. If they kick it out, unless the physio is being called on we should just be able to restart. Is it an injury which needs the game to stop or not? If so, stop the clock and the player waits off the pitch properly once it's done.

Half the time the opposition coach is already waiting on the touchline with the drinks and energy bars ready for a 2 minute timeout, while a player gets a bit of a stretch for "cramp" and is back on 10s later like nothing happened.

10 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

I watch quite a bit of ice hockey and that’s clock on and off with no complaints about added time.

I’ve always thought that one way of stopping these constant stoppages for injuries/cramp in football is to follow rugby and for the physio to come on and play to continue.

I know that would be difficult if the injury was in the box but at the moment the majority of it is going on in other areas of the pitch.

I bet you wouldn’t see as many players going down requiring treatment if that was the case 

I thought the player having to stay off for 30s if the physio came one now was meant to be a deterrent.

It was annoying yesterday in ET when their player went down, physio on, messed about for a couple of mins, then they subbed him and the replacement came straight on - I get that it's harsh to punish a team for a legit sub, but that was taking the piss a bit I thought. Kind of sneaky way to get around the 30s thing and still waste time.

Just now, Ronnie pickering said:

Credit where credits due,it has to be tough for her to call that from the kitchen 

Brilliant joke, how on earth did you come up with that one? Just fantastic.

Woman = kitchen. Really, just inspired.

I think having Scott, Semenyo, and Conway as youngsters who happened to be ready at roughly the same time has raised expectations to a bit of an unfair level.

As well as Pring, Max, and Vyner having "breakthrough" seasons at a slightly older age but within the same period. It's given the impression we should almost expect one or two a year - that's not going to happen. 

I'd like to see more youngsters but I'm not sure who? JKL is the only one I could legitimately feel a bit disappointed not to see. I thought Yeboah was a fair way off the required standard personally. Bell is injured, and Benarous has a long recovery ahead of him. 

The real test will be in a year or two when that apparently excellent crop start to appear - or if one leaves for a rival without getting much of a look in here. That'd be extremely disappointing.

41 minutes ago, chinapig said:

@ExiledAjaxhit the nail on the head in the MDT. There is no Manning style, our approach to any game is determined by how the opposition set up.

Which is why we play with aggressive intent in one game then revert to pedestrian football in the next. He just will not consistently play in a way that suits the players we have.

He even out ranks LJ in the  over thinking stakes. Though he no doubt thinks it's sophisticated.

I partly agree, but I don't think he intentionally changes our approach that much between games. That's nonsensical imo. He's a smart guy (there, I said it).

I think he doesn't really seem to appreciate the impact that moving players into different positions has on our overall play - Knight from midfield into today's role for example. Yes, in an ideal world those players know all the positions and can play any of them, and you can move them around and they improvise and adapt and yadda yadda. Maybe that's where he wants to get to, or maybe that's where he thinks we are - but we're not. That's evident.

In reality players obviously have their own strengths and weaknesses which mean they raise or lower the overall dynamic when played in a certain position (or rather, with a certain role in the team to be more precise). I think that's where he's going wrong, rather than intentionally trying to have us play a markedly different approach.

I don't for a second think he said "Ok lads, I know it's been working but today instead lets slow it down, play it at a pedestrian pace, struggle to break into midfield, and get pinned back on each wing" today.

2 hours ago, Dr Balls said:

And please can we stop playing Jason Knight anywhere other than his best position in the centre of midfield. He’s become the Weimann of this team, far too good to be dropped but played out of position to accommodate other less good players.

This is a brilliant analogy/description of him at the moment imo, and exactly my thoughts.

9 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Exactly but a lot of refs are like that,the minute someone makes it a battle of sexes like the OP did then not only are you being disingenuous because it’s not about the actual decisions but her sex then you are disrespecting women in my eyes because they think they are incapable 

Yeah but he didn't even mention the fact she was a woman, so that's not really battle of the sexes is it. He just said she was outstanding in his opinion.

If you want to read that it's because she's a woman into it that's a you thing imo. Maybe they just have a different opinion.

4 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

I don’t disagree hence me saying earlier she wasn’t good or bad just average for most refs,they all make mistakes but for a thread calling a ref outstanding is let’s be honest ludicrous and not true for a start 

I thought she was solidly above average this season. Not the best, but she was noticeably better than we're used to.

Some refs are fussy, some are lenient - whatever. The important thing is being consistent so the players know where they stand, and she was. She was clearly in control of the game the whole time.

1 minute ago, AppyDAZE said:

You make a good point about getting personal, but if you get to see the penalty again, you can see why Huddersfield would be pissed off. 
He bloke looks very hard done by, and if it were the other way round, I’d be pretty cross.

Yeah agreed, I can see why they'd be pissed off.

I think if one where if it's in your favour your happy, if it's not your raging. Given their position I'm not surprised they're so angry, but the sexist abuse is pretty disgusting (as I'm sure we all agree).

11 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

So let’s get this right it’s alright to call male refs all the names under the sun on here when they give calls against us,the minute a woman ref gives us a shocking decision she’s the best thing since sliced bread 

Why would people feel the need to mention someone's race/sex/sexuality/whatever when doing it? It's literally irrelevant.

Although actually - it's not entirely, because I can guarantee you she had to work 10x harder than all the other refs we've had this season to get to where she is. Bringing the fact she's a woman into it is just reinforcing those barriers she's had to break.

Oh - and it's not alright to call male refs "all the names under the sun" when they make an honest mistake at work... which is what they're doing. But that's another discussion!

People can be angry without getting personal.

I thought she was really good. The ref on Weds was a level above, but I wasn't expecting her to match that. I thought a couple of the early yellows were a little soft, but she set the tone and importantly was consistent throughout so that made it a lot easier for the players.

The person hasn't even been to like 2/3 of the teams... it's like us getting excited about being 6th in September.

It can be great, it's average most of the time imo.

1 minute ago, Fuber said:

I take the general point.

However would point out that Hyam playing suicide ball for the first, and MacFadzean pretending to be a basketball player, were not 'forced' by us - that was their own unforced errors.

2nd and 3rd - 100%, good pressuring.

By the 5th they'd already capitulated.

Do you think there's a chance though that as the 1st and 2nd goals came from near identical balls that was planned? Conway on the first, Sykes on the second. Same ball, same defender, mistake from him both times.

You have to be playing the ball and have a player there ready to capitalise on it - and I'm not sure we would have done around Christmas time. So yeah, Conway didn't literally force him into playing that shit backpass, but he was in the right place to take advantage of it.

Agreed about MacFadzean.

1 minute ago, Harvey86 said:

We’re definitely mixing it up a lot more- I saw a few times Sykes and Conway showing some frustration (in a good way) that their runs weren’t picked out with a quick ball over the top. Light years better than the turgid football of not too many games ago. 
 

Not fully a Manning convert, yet, but one of my biggest concerns was how rigidly we stuck to a single style of football. If he’s worked out that the current side can thrive with a bit of direct play thrown in too, then fair play.  

Yep, agreed - the first two goals came from the chipped ball up the wing/into the channels we saw a lot earlier in the season (and imo were doing too often in fact), which we then basically stopped entirely. We're mixing it up a bit more and all the better for it.

Surprised you didn't just add this to your last premature thread instead before an absolutely atrocious run of results

Just give it a rest you sad attention seeker 

Blackburn were absolutely terrible... but how many times have we said that over the last few years and come away with nothing, let alone a 5 - 0 win? You still have to beat them, and we absolutely put them to the sword. Yes, they made mistakes - but we forced the mistakes. Earlier in Manning's rein we wouldn't have been looking to force them, and wouldn't have been in a position to capitalise on them either. He's changed that, and for the better.

Well done City. Great performance, just what we needed, and set up in just the right way to take advantage of Blackburn's frailties so credit to Manning and the coaching staff. The fact Blackburn were so poor shouldn't take away from that imo.

I'm enjoying the football more lately. More direct, getting the ball up the pitch quickly, pressing more at the front, forcing mistakes, and a bit of grit in the middle from Williams and Knight. If he can take the best bits of what Pearson was doing, and add his own flavour to it that'll do me.

I'm not a Manning convert yet, but we're edging in the right direction. Hopefully we'll have got even closer by the end of the season.

23 minutes ago, redkev said:

When I’m injured I’m a quality player too , 

I agree when fit he is a decent player and we are a better side with him in it ,  FIT & WHEN are the main words though 

I liked Naismith a lot, but I think it's time to just move on from him at this point and not consider him available for us again in general. 

The only partnership he's formed recently is on RobinsTV and unfortunately I can't see that changing much now.

Why's the centre circle / middle strip of the box a different colour? Just as it gets more wear so has newer/harder wearing grass there or something?

1 hour ago, Harry said:

the Vintage Birdcage in Charfield

I was working at Renishaw for a few months recently and went past this twice a day. It looked nice but was never open or I'd have thought about stopping for a coffee or something!

Just now, Davefevs said:

There is a real snobbery against more direct / bits n pieces football.  But if you can’t compete by matching a passing style, why would you, you’d try to find another way, wouldn’t you?

Yeah I agree. I can remember a few years ago lots of negative comments about how Cardiff played... And tbh it was crap. But if you looked at their forum or spoke to their fans they loved it. Direct balls up the pitch ("long balls", whatever), aggressive players, and goals. Give me some of that!

I think the metric I care about most is how fast the ball moves up the pitch. If that's many quick short passes, incisive through balls on the counter, or long balls I don't really care. It's exciting.

2 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

What makes you happiest when you are walking away from a match at Ashton Gate?  Having played poorly but scraped a victory; or having played well and lost.  I know which I prefer.

It's actually a difficult question to answer imo.  It's very different on an individual basis compared to over a season.

I can take a few crap 1-0s each season, and even celebrate them. I mean the really dire, boring possession without intent, fluke goal from nothing type.

But if I'm having to watch that every week then no thanks. I won't be walking away happy unless we're absolutely smashing it in the league as a result. Even then I'm not sure.

"Poor" football that gets results? Like Gary maybe, Warnock, or whatever - sign me up. That's exciting even if it's perhaps not for the purists. I couldn't care less there.

It's 85% result for me but there is a limit.