Silvio Dante

Just a couple of points: - Last week the Telegraph article with LM was published where the “9 full sessions” piece was said (and he also said it in his presser). I said at the time that off a bad result it could easily be seen as an excuse as opposed to a reason. The truth is that he has probably only had 9 sessions not focused on opponents - but guess what? So has every other manager in that time, and he went into MK Dons in a busier schedule and got immediate results because the squad was already set up by Russell Martin to how they wanted to play. He was a continuation candidate. The folly here is both the boards and Liams for trying to change loads mid season - I think it’s absolutely reasonable to both blame Tinnion/Lansdown for matters and to have doubts if Manning is the right man for the job. Thats where I am. I’m unconvinced by track record to date but more pertinently, I am exceptionally concerned by the lack of adaptability and game management he’s shown since he’s been here. I don’t think that’s unreasonable and it’s not saying bring Pearson back. What it is saying is maybe there were more suitable candidates without ripping it up and starting again?

Just to say here this scale is a bit batshit. In effect at the end of the season your difference between “Disappointing” and “Definite Progress” is one win. So a 46 game season is distilled to the result of one game. Thats nuts.

I don’t disagree with a lot of the post but will just highlight this as it’s absolute folly, in part because of the delusional comments made by Tinnion and Lansdown which gave unrealistic expectations, but also because of the nature of football. Yesterday, we faced a PNE side whose manager was in danger of the sack. Hes the second longest serving manager in the division at 2y 35 days. Our current head coach was appointed by Oxford after being sacked and leaving a club which ultimately got relegated. He jumped at the first opportunity of a better job, even though he probably indicated to Oxford he’d be buying into a project, need x years etc. He’s had less than 18 months at each job to date. In short, based on both performance expectations on a macro basis and on Liams (admittedly small sample) behaviour, he ain’t getting 2 years to have a squad to judge him on - because he’ll either be sacked or bugger off before then. And that brings me back to why identity and a coach who needed to develop as opposed to reshape the squad was so key and what it seems we got wrong.

I’d kind of put it as a defence of LM tbh. It’s an easy target to say “they changed, why didn’t we” but I think when the change is that unanticipated you cut slack. What then isnt defensible is the delay in reaction. As to why we do well first vs second then I’d say most managers are predicated to play the way they think is best for their teams. Under LJ a huge criticism was that we changed too much to counteract opponents. I do think (and this speaks to LM being a decent coach) that we generally do well first half when the plan is in, but then we fall down when opponents adapt away from their setup. Fans often criticise playing the opponent as opposed to to strengths so I think we benefit from that first half. And tbh it is 80-20 to adapt. As I’ve said elsewhere tonight the fullback (for example) can make a decision to show his winger inside as opposed to outside but material changes are totally the mangers remit. And that is the bit he is getting really wrong at present as your comment in respect of reaction confirms

I’m not sure I did criticise LM for not anticipating the change??? You highlighted one part of my paragraph but for some reason missed the part which said and to be fair I’m not sure many of us would My main issue with LM is not “reacting to the reaction” which is what your last paragraph indicates. You’re actually agreeing with me despite the misreading!

I think the thing you have to remember is that in the light of a good result anything classed as negative gets shouted down (and equally, in the case of a poor result anything good gets shouted down). No issue in that, it’s the way of a forum. What I think you’re missing is that people like @Davefevs, myself etc are more looking at the thematics. We lost to Preston today - that happens. But if it happens as part of a wide thematic theme of Liams game management, and if the overall strategy seems misaligned, then we’ll (and others) will call it. I wanted the Lansdowns gone and expressed concerns over Liam post Watford. I’m in that boat now. A win over West Ham won’t change it. A long term change will. If anyone is calling for the Lansdowns to go based on today it’s unreasonable. But as a thematic, it’s totally justified.

The short answer to both is clearly no. We’re swimming in the same pond as a lot of people who want to play the same way. It’s in vogue - and if you look at a lot of recent managerial appointments they follow that blueprint. Some we can outspend (Millwall). Some we can’t (Southampton). So the options are pretty simple, on the assumption we’re sticking with Liam and he’s sticking with his style (both safe assumptions) - it’s either spend an absolute bucketload or rely on his coaching skills to bring players through over the medium term. And again I’ll then flag he hasn’t a history of bringing players through in his head coach jobs to date (noted that he hasn’t been I jobs long enough to majorly influence) I can’t see either of those happening tbh for reasons I’ve stated on other threads.

It’s for me an interesting angle and I’m keen to move away from the “Nige good Liam bad” angle (but for avoidance of doubt I have significant doubts over Liam) Your point about “lineage” is vital here for me. If you take successful clubs - from Liverpool and the “boot room”, or even examples like Swansea, there is a consistency to the appointments. A nuclear option, or a volte farce, only happens when things go wrong. Every club has an identity and a plan - take Sheffield United. Through Warnock to Wilder it’s been about outworking the opposition - the overlapping fullbacks were a sideshow - they were and are always more physical and worked harder. So I ask myself what is our identity - to me it’s always going to be wedded to the Cooper/Jordan teams I grew up with, and I think City fans have an expectation of that expansive attacking football. But moving away from that isn’t an issue if it’s part of a sustained and continuous strategy. And the issue is it hasn’t been. In fact, as Liam Manning himself might note, the board (Tinnikn//Lansdown) have done the opposite of “trusting the process” and have right angled at every turn- which is why we are where we are now

…and was instrumental in the development of Declan Rice (note: DR has mentioned LM once that I can trace, in amongst numerous coaches on his goodbye statement to West Ham. However it seems to be a regular fixture on LMs profiles)

It’s a sad reflection of how badly managed we are at a board level that it’s now shit or bust. Tinnion and Lansdown have appointed a manager fundamentally unsuited to the squad he has. It smacks of a lack of due diligence and football knowledge (again, this isn’t saying LM should be sacked or is a bad coach). So they have boxed themselves in. They have to invest - and invest big - in order to make their latest project work. Yeah, doing so belies prior statements about no budget but what the hell, they need more than anything to succeed. So, because they appointed the wrong man for the squad they now need to either sack him (won’t and shouldn’t happen and would make their position untenable), or back him financially to a far bigger extent than a more considered appointment would have needed. And with no guarantee of even that succeeding, Basically, they’ve made an almighty mess of things. And they need to go as soon as possible.

I think the acceptance piece now has to be that Liam was the wrong Man(ning). That isn’t saying he should be sacked at all, but it’s saying it was a batshit decision to appoint a coach who has a preferred style of play (and I think it’s totally fair to say now an inability and intransigence to adapt away from that as the squad or situation demands), into a squad which would need at least 2-3 transfer windows to be reshaped to that style with no real guarantee of success. My acceptance is that they got the appointment wrong on that measure. In addition to writing off the season by not supporting Pearson, because of the nature of play of his replacement and what is needed to deliver, they wrote off probably next season as well. And considering the average shelf life of a manager, and Liams predication to jump early if things are going well, I’d be surprised if he’s here at the start of 25/26 and we’ll be on another rebuild. He’s not necessarily a bad coach (I have my doubts over his managerial ability) - but for this scenario, for this squad, he was the wrong man and he’ll need either shedloads of investment or many years to get it right considering where he starts from.

Can I remind you that you posted this thread around a week ago: And within that thread you stated: However these days I won’t be too bothered if City lose on Sunday as for me the FA Cup has lost much of its prestige Put bluntly buttercup, you can’t make a comment of “let’s see how they are Tuesday” as an excuse for today and be happy with it considering the above. In the words of Mike Skinner “It’s hard enough to remember my opinions without having to remember my reasons for them”

I think it’s a point I’ve made before. I have no issue in players problem solving on pitch and I think the best teams do it. But it’s finite. George Tanner, for example, can realise his winger wants to come inside onto his right and in the small battle he has, make a decision to position himself to show his man onto the left. I’d expect that of any professional player. But when it comes to, like today, the opposition fundamentally changing tack it’s on the manager to react. If Vyner had suddenly said “we need to go 4-2-4” and reshaped the side its way outside of his responsibilities. I’ve seen it as an excuse made for Manning and it shouldn’t be. @Davefevs - just to give you your tag I should have!

You could also least tag me Fevs, I might not have seen this! Theres a lot I could say today but you’re right - it would follow the similar pattern about reacting in game. We were the better side for my money half one but I don’t think LM anticipated the change made by Lowe - and to be fair, I’m not sure many of us would but there was always a chance - manager in last chance saloon, booed off, what’s to lose? The trick is once that unexpected change was made not to be all rabbit in headlights and just assume “the process” would work - we were being asked different questions. There are two real points for me today. The first is the adaptability in game - that’s obvious. The second is that teams know how to play us. I’m fascinated to see what Watford do next week having been torn apart by us - for me Ishmael is a good enough coach to ask a different question to Boxing Day with what he knows now. Finally, I’ll leave it for now with the thought that a certain Brian Tinnion should remember the 1993/94 season. We were better than Liverpool for 2 2/3 games. Had less of the ball than them. In the league it was turgid stuff with a mid table record and less than a goal a game scored. The turgid football was found out and the next season was a disaster. Just saying.

You got a twenty dollar bill throw your hand up. Or not, as the case may be.

As has been said, a great servant to the club, never giving less than 100% and to come back from the ACL the way he did was phenomenal - the last of the WSM still standing. Nobody could begrudge him a move closer to the family home and still playing a part at this level. One of those tweets I remember is this one which shows how he helped Tommy and Alex through and what they thought of him: It’s rare that a move just feels right for all parties - he’s become more peripheral for us, WBA are shorter of cash but get a proven performer at this level and it works for Andi personally. If he doesn’t leave with everyone’s best wishes - he should.

I think the mystery of why Rooney went to Brum has been solved.

Lewis. Not the most earth shattering news!

@phantom

I’d agree with that - after the 24 hours rule, post and pin it there as it means people can find it on a rolling basis.

I lost a lot of respect for the Bath organisers when they pressed ahead right on top of Covid. Loads of entrants didn’t do it as uncomfortable and the sensible decision would have been to pull but they carried on regardless. It’s an ok race but not great - the two lap structure is a bit of a drag, I did, however, beat Mark Ashton and Lee Johnson when I did it so it holds some happy memories!

It may have been mentioned already, but my absolute biggest hatred is people who do those bedsheet banners with things like “happy birthday Kevin” and hang them over roadside bridges. Not the act of doing it - that’s fine, it’s a nice surprise for the birthday boy/girl. It’s when the pricks leave them up there for days or weeks afterwards. It’s like industrial littering and should be treated as fly tipping. There was one on a roundabout by me that had been screen printed and left for six months. And if I ever meet Mr Caolan Feast, I’ll bloody tell him where to go!

To be fair that’s the figure quoted across the media - go on bbc, itv, nme etc. Ashton Gates website says capacity 27k for sport and 32k for concerts so it may even be higher but the actual figure will depend on stage setup. If it’s 32k for normal gigs then 27k seems right with the two stage setup.

Jesus just seen what he’s charging to get in and see him and Mario (really hope it’s the Mario I’m thinking of) - you may be right as the BS3 prices seem positively reasonable!

I think the sign here will be how early the stadium release their first “x tickets sold already” tweet - normally those come quite quickly if the events are going to be popular and to induce FOMO. If we see a tweet with 5-10k tickets sold by Monday it’s on track - if we don’t then they may have misjudged it.