Silvio Dante

It’s been a shitty season for Paulton Rovers, but fair play, they’ve found a way to make it worse.

Define “could do it” Back end of last season Oxford had a lot of draws, and narrowly escaped relegation - LM pretty much finished where he found them. This season they started like a train but were outdoing their xG (see George Elek comments). There is a question if they had it cracked or were just in good form. MK Dons could do it - because they had been set up as a squad that way and had three of the best players in the division for that system. The overall answer though is quality of squad/team and suitability to system. MK Dons (season one) had a squad set up to play it and some of the divisions best players. Season two they had the former but not the latter, hence failed. Oxford season one didn’t have a squad set up to play it - heavy recruitment meant they did season two. If we’re defining Manningball as possession heavy and patient football then most sides want the ball - Leicester play that way, Southampton play that way, Swansea play that way (all to varying degrees). You need either better players than anyone else had at the level (see MK Dons) or a better coach in order to get up there. Our squad is set up to different strengths, and vitally, the quality of opposing players and coaches is better than at league one. Put our squad in league one and they could probably play “Manningball” with some success due to the inferior opposition. Try and do it with this squad at this level - it won’t work because we don’t have the best players at this level for that system, it doesn’t play to their strengths, and you’re up against better players. (See also Russell Martin relative position at Swansea and Southampton) btw good article @Davefevs

Paul McCartney. Like a flower.

Disagree. He’s not the best Estonian to play for us. Because he’s Moldovan.

To be fair, I have had the same thoughts but what’s gone on at Brum probably supports that you do make the permanent change as opposed to wait it out. Venus was a horror show and although it’s not the sole reason they may go down, putting Rowett in charge earlier I’d wager they wouldn’t be in as much trouble as they are. Issue there is you do that and he does well, who do you want as manager long term. Of course, had Nige taken a leave of absence wholly possible Euell and Phlegm could have done well but I do kind of get the logic of a clean break.

To be fair, so did I and I probably didn’t articulate my last post as well as I could have. What I meant was that as fans we can accept a decision being made to change manager even if we don’t agree with it. I had an issue in that I didn’t think we should have done it, but I have no issue in the hierarchy making a decision as to whether they feel someone is the right man - that’s literally their job. So it’s not the decision for me, although I did disagree with it. It’s the lying, bullshitting and cack handed way of handling it, in tandem with withholding funds in the summer because they didn’t have the balls to sack him then. We’ve effectively wasted a year because of these clowns - and although people may be pro or anti the Pearson decision, whether they may believe in or have doubts over Manning, I think the thing that unites 99% of this forum is that we feel the hierarchy is inept at best and willingly undermining the club at worst.

Yeah multiple factors could change between now and then. And ultimately even if they spunked £20m on the squad in the summer, I think threads like this show the damage is pretty much done. People didn’t have an issue with the sacking (although they may have disagreed with the decision, that will always happen), it’s more how it was done - and most pertinently, the communications thereafter. Contrition now is too little, too late and although we may get success in the future, the wound in the damage they did with the fanbase is just too deep to recover.

Gavin Marshall: We need to communicate better and more openly with fans Brian Tinnion: Hold my beer.

I think when we post mortum our season that will be (ahem) the “biggest bit” of Liams reign. I go back to the QPR game. There is nothing wrong with getting defence right first - but he came in somewhere where the defence wasn’t (barring injuries) really an issue and went ultra negative first. It was almost as if what was at the club before him didn’t matter and he had to follow a set pattern of how you build things. Fast forward through the season up until Easter and he dogmatically tried to impose a style on the team they weren’t suited to. I don’t think there’s any coincidence the better performances were more counter attacking as opposed to what we class as “Manningball” of heavy retention of possession, often for possessions sake. Post Easter, he’s changed tack in how we play. It’s more than a “tweak”, it’s a fundamental in terms of intent and suitability to the squad. And shockingly, it’s getting better results. I don’t care how he got to the conclusion - whether it was the risk of the sack, an epiphany or taking tactical advice from Tinnion. But I don’t think it’s an unfair conclusion that prior to this run, Liam had caused most of his own problems by how he was setting us up. Do I think we could have made the playoffs under either? Only if we replaced Scott properly which we didn’t try and do until January. Do I think Liam lessened our chances of an unlikely top six finish this season by the way he set us up, and managed the game “in match”? Absolutely.

“…and that was the crayoning snake with their August chart topper “Wilful Sabotage”

My god. No wonder he played better Saturday when the sun was out. The dazzle off those bastards must be hell for defenders.

The line on the deconditioning piece that “The chairman should have talked to the technical director” was very revealing. Basically it sounds from that like Tinnion knew the training plan and raised no objections. So, he’s either a snake and said something to Jon he didn’t say to Nige, or had no idea Jon was going to come out with that bullshit. Either way….

On the bit about us: - Learnt afterwards that it was about results - Heard in an “interview” afterwards that players were in danger of being deconditioned and the chairman should have talked to the technical director - Didn’t know City would make “reasons” public - Allardyce opined that City may have broken confidentiality clause and Nige could just respond and reply - Nige “Yeah but you don’t need to do that” - Nige said he was concentrating on his health at present mentioning back and neurological problems but he was getting better. Said he was a football manager not a coach - but he could coach - and he’s not a head coach - “The fad appears to be at the moment get a young coach. Is football suffering with ageism” - Doesn’t sound as if he’s retiring “Sure they’ll be another opportunity and when it comes I want to enjoy the challenge” - “Success can be relative. It can be avoiding relegation and cutting a wage bill” - Keeps an eye out on us. Enjoys living down here, beautiful area, bought some woodland. Thinks he had a good connection with a lot of the people. Some really good people here, keeps in touch with people at training ground - Fanbase here are patient and knowledgeable - results weren’t always great but they could see past that. Complex job in reshaping the squad. It’s a good club in the sense of academy catchment area, academy tries to develop players. Circumstances in where had to reduce wage bill means fortunate that academy was producing - - Although didn’t end amicably the staff worked the best they could. Thinks Liam inherited “a very decent situation, let’s put it like that”

You kind of touch on another topic in your last line - and that is what the kids who are a few years younger do in 2-3 years time. Too young to go without an adult, too old to want to sit in the family area. By not selling new STs for the South Stand, the club have created a major problem going forward (possibly by intent) - that dad/mum with kids is forced to get a ST in a more expensive part of the ground when the move comes.

You can’t ignore Mebudes loan, there’s a 9 page thread on it With the recruitment I’m kind of spitballing to a degree. I do think there is potential things could be more “difficult” in (any) change of manager for a recruitment team as they’re ripping up plan A - or at best tweaking it - and mastery takes time. But OTOH, it is literally their job. I do take the point of players on radar pre Liam though - ironically the two I think he would have had significant input in are ST and DM and I don’t think they can be classed as “hits”. Bottom line for me is that if we come out of summer with Williams re-signed, Twine signed permanently & James gone in addition to the other known deals, then I don’t think we’ll have enough if it’s Tommy out and #9 + younger player in. Ideally I’d like to see us do better than Twine in that #10 and get a 9 to augment Tommy as opposed to replace.

You know I’m going to agree with you about Mehmeti!! Very good point, and to slightly link to another thread, although I think recruitment has been much improved in recent years the January “in the building” business for that month (Twine. Medube, Murphy) was poor for various reasons. A part of me wonders how much of that was due to having to recruit a different “profile” of player from under Pearson - we can talk all we like about club identity but Liam inherently wants - ideally - different players from Nige. I wonder how much teething problems in recruitment arose from that, and it’s hopeful to assume that’s resolved in the summer - the chance of a “miss” increases with change in manager as it’s setting different exams for the recruitment team.

I don’t think we’re miles off in our reading - I think in practical terms Bird is a James as opposed to King replacement (as the latter isn’t really playing). I’d see Bird as a like for like there on which basis. So not necessarily a squad improvement from where we are now - get what you’re saying about Knight but he’s already here. Twine/ the other 10 improves us “permanently” (debate whether that should be Twine elsewhere) So for me from what is in the building today the key question is the Tommy one. If we bring in a 9 in addition to him it’s a definite squad enhancement. If we get a 9 and a “one for the future” it isn’t. I’d find it hard to argue it’s three players up (plus Stokes etc) from what’s here. At most it looks like one. The key, as ever, will be what quality that new 10 and 9 are.

Don’t disagree overall but I think what’s generally being pitched is a bit of a “like for like” - two major “ins” just equalises the two major “outs”. I’d also agree that we shouldn’t go outside the structure - one of the things Nige was always big on was that players should earn broadly similar. Ways and means around that (Signing on fee structure, bonus) mind. So to go via your route I think it’s four players to account for the likely losses, and agree they can’t be ones for the future. The wildcard is Stokes who from reports might - just might - be akin to one of those major “ins”

You said you were in the Lansdown? People behind you a bit annoying, knew very little about football and chatted shit constantly? Wasn’t these guys was it?

The irony there is that I’d envisage we’d have to pay a minimum of £3m for Twine and at least £15k a week, and whoever is buying Conway would expect to pay a minimum of £3m and £15k a week. So, on those sums, it’s back to the squad being as it is broadly. (Don’t disagree with the general thrust of argument but two quality signings that markedly improve us will be a bit more than that IMO)

The broader question is that if it’s two signings whether that gives us enough to make a dent in the top six. If we assume we retain Williams but not James/King, and also assume we lose Conway, then we’re pretty much at a zero sum game (Bird for James, new 10 for Twine or Twine, new 9 for Conway). Yes, we then have SPH and Stokes as young players to augment the squad but there aren’t any others obviously coming through. As Bird for James can be argued as like for like, Twine for Twine is obviously like for like and the new 9 for Conway is going to be like for like broadly, then the question really is - are the current squad (as it’s not going to be markedly improved) good enough to give us what we want, and sub question, how does that play to the “his players” narrative (For avoidance of doubt if Liam gets success without “his players” but adjusting to the squad he has then it takes away a major concern).

If I had to lay odds on it I’d think that the only one who may be here next season is Twine, but I agree with your analysis of him in terms of value - the only thing I’d disagree on is in terms of pure scouting, if you’d seen someone seven times, then you’d be expected to make a call - no reason why that should change for someone we have on loan.

And Conway and Twine and Medube.

My take on Nige is that although he had an idea he was walking into a shitshow, he didn’t quite understand how bad it was. When he got here and found that out there was a degree of “WTF have I gotten into?”. I agree he then broadly relaxed into it and I think that was because he saw the trajectory was improving and he was happier with what he had. In short it was someone who enjoyed the job more the greater chance he had to shape it. Thats always been the contrast with Liam - again, done to death but he didn’t walk into a shitshow playing squad wise and he probably put himself under a bit of unnecessary pressure due to the reasons you outline. Hopefully he’s over that now.