Silvio Dante

And to be clear Phil, I totally respect that point of view (and again, if it was the majority I’d totally acquiesce to that). This isn’t now about me or anyone else stamping our feet. This is simply about the forum being set up without consultation and then a trial period having occurred, and the results of that trial being clearly in favour of re-merging with only c20% in favour of retention when the mods confirmed if it didn’t work the forum would be re-merged I’m kind of of the mind it’s been discussed to death and the mods now need, to either re-merge or simply state they don’t want to.

Thanks - all I’m really trying to do is establish now the trial has ended (and two months seems to be long enough), the forum view on whether it should stay. And the answer is one of two things: - The majority of the forum don’t want it to stay so it should be remerged in line with @Maesknoll Reds post (I’d reiterate that as no “success” criteria was laid down in the trial then the only thing that can be used to gauge success is the forum view) - The mods are of the mind it should stay, even though the majority don’t want it. And there is nothing wrong with that but it does draw a line in the sand as to who the forum is being run for and I’d imagine that will be a consideration when paying members come to renew Either way avoiding the question is really disrespectful - not just to me, but to the majority of the forum who have expressed a view. Phantoms “answer” wasn’t an answer in any way as it just said “many requested it” with no quantification particularly when we do have an opinion gauge now. Again, avoidance of doubt if only 20ish percent of people expressed a strong desire for it to go I’d happily go with that majority view.

I think you’re both crediting him with more intelligence than he has.

It doesn’t even make sense as a sentence even if he’d spelt “Technician” right. Absolute belter.

Together? I for one can’t wait to hear Nadine Coyle belt out a version of Thunder Road

14th December (but it says we lost 4-0?) https://www.11v11.com/teams/bristol-city/tab/opposingTeams/opposition/Bristol Rovers/

I get the larger teams such as Man City etc not prioritising the FA Cup - it’s the third biggest trophy they’re going for so that follows logic. However when you get down to teams like Palace (for example) not taking it as seriously as the league that’s just mental - it’s one of their best chances of a trophy. And on a similar basis, I know we’re not going to win it. But on the 20th December every year the Man U game is posted. There is an FPA reunion of the Liverpool team this month. Those things don’t happen for (for example) where we played excellently to beat Derby at home a few years ago 4-1, or the 5-0 win at Swansea in 1990. They happen because we remember the games, because they were memorable games and will be forever. And if we’d beaten Man City last season it’d have been added to the list. Top 6 prem can sack it off a bit if they like. Fans don’t remember 12th in the premier league. They remember trophies and I can’t understand why so many teams don’t see it as a real chance to win something. I even recall a few years ago Fulham resting players for a UEFA cup game because they were focussing on qualifying for Europe…!

Looks like news today:

I think this is where again it comes down to engagement. Although I’m not a fan of the sub forums (other than the transfer forum), more than anything else I believe the majority view should hold sway so if the majority wanted them I’d suck it up. Where things went wrong here is the total lack of engagement prior to the sub forum implementation. It was badly handled, but there was equally no harm in a trial period once it had been put in. We’re now two months in and I think all anyone is saying is let’s assess how the forum feel following that trial and then, in line with @Maesknoll Red said, re merge the forums if it doesn’t work. And in the absence of anything else to prove/disprove it doesn’t work, then the majority rule following the trial has to be the arbiter. That’s just good practice.

I think he’d talk me through the process of ordering a drink, asking the barman to nearly pass me my whisky and complete the transaction before said barman then passed the drink back to the barmaid, who would then decant the drink back into the bottle before pouring it again and restarting the process. As I bemoaned my lack of drink, Liam would tell me not to get too emotional and then give me a history of whisky before apologising for overloading me with information. I’d then walk out of the pub somewhat dazed and having felt I hadn’t achieved anything, despite an xDrink level of 12 shorts. However, despite my lack of drink I could point to some fantastic stats in support of possession of my money, as I ultimately see the buying of a drink as cat and mouse and that’s the most important thing. Or something like that.

Crucially as well, @Maesknoll Red confirmed what would happen to the forum if it didn’t work:

Indeed he was. And crucially his last paragraph in this thread confirms that people should have their say:

I don’t think that’s a bad idea. There is a part of me that feels uncomfortable with supporting the forum and then decisions being made against the majority of forum members wishes for unquantifiable reasons so if the stats were there on OTIB Supporters responses to this, and even if it was a Brexitty 52:48 that’d seem pretty sensible.

Not really answered it though did you? Nobody knows how “Many” requested it other than yourself and the mods, and crucially, none of you knew at the time how many didn’t want it. Because it wasn’t asked and when it was implemented, one mod (not you) stressed it was a trial period. By nature trials need to be evaluated. That’s all we’re doing here but we can’t do it without reference to facts. So, to make it simple as you are busy. All you need to do is answer yes or no to the two questions - that shouldn’t take up too much of your valuable. Was the “many” who requested it more than the number who didn’t want it as per this poll? And again, if it was 63% didn’t want it and 23% did, would you still have put it in? Again, the job the mods do is appreciated but the lack of any transparency here is a bit disappointing and you’re coming across as avoiding answering a fairly simple point.

Just one more question @phantom If, prior to setting up the sub forum 23% said they wanted it and 63% said they didn’t, what would you have done - ie set it up or not?

By the same token, nobody asked for or suggested a sub forum so this is actually the only gauge we have. The sub forum just appeared a couple of months ago and although you’re right to say not universally unpopular only 23% of people asking for it to stay is pretty conclusive. My strong view is that it was positioned as a trial period. It was asked what success criteria was and that couldn’t be answered. So the most sensible thing is that people were asked after the trial period what they felt - and I reiterate only 23% of people want it to stay! If the answer is that you just prefer it that way, that’s fine, I have no desire to be a mod. But to dress it up as “nobody asked for a poll” when far more people have responded to this in the negative then made the original request is quite frankly poor form. And, as has been said, the reason the threads get less views is because they’ve been moved. I’d wager that the Tom Ritchie thread (not moved after two hours) garnered far more attention because of where it was.

It’d probably be good to get an answer either way. I think the poll has been up long enough to gauge opinion so confirming if it is/isn’t being merged and why seems pretty reasonable.

Spot on, particularly the bolded bit. One of the things I think I’ve mentioned on here before is that football is fundamentally risk vs reward. The way we play currently is that we play a number of 90-10 risk passes in our favour - that’s unlikely to lead to progression but equally neither is the 10-90 hoof up the pitch you mention. For me, we don’t play enough 60-40 (or even 70-30) balls. Take a bit of the risk to get the likely reward. It’s probably what LM refers to when he talks of being braver, but as has been said, that bravery comes from the tone of the manager primarily. And if you’re coaching to a 80-20 risk ratio at worst, you’re not going to be brave a lot of the time.

I’m not sure it’s even Andre Previn. It’s the wrong words and possibly to the wrong players for those words. But yeah, I don’t think he helps himself externally in how he communicates even though it isn’t really anything earth shattering.

There was one bit with Anis yesterday in the middle of the first half when we broke and had the ball about 10 yards inside our own half, think Knight in possession and we had a 3 on 3 emerging. What it needed was a ball into the space behind the right side and Anis was in pole to run onto it had we done that. However, he checked and the ball ended up having to be played to him square because he didn’t make the right run/have the right awareness and wanted the ball at feet. That broke down the attack and opportunity lost as it took all the pace out. Its a little thing in game but is symptomatic of needing to do a certain thing every time.

The comparison to Pep is lazy and has come about in the main because Manning has come from the CFG. He has articulated a lot of “coach speak” by way of behaviours, process etc - a lot of which people wouldn’t disagree with if he articulated them a little less robotically. A good case in point is where he talks about being “emotional” - from a coaching sense, I recognise this - we’ve all heard the shout “still 0-0 lads” - and that’s really all it means. Play the game the same way. The issue is that by using the word emotional Manning gives the impression he’s emotionless and indicates emotion is a bad thing - when football is a hugely emotive game. (In essence he’s a pretty poor communicator publicly) This means that people see “process” and “emotion” as things they’re not. They are, however, things that Pep would stress (but in a different way) just as Alan Dicks would have just as Neil Warnock would have - it’s the same stuff articulated differently. So, when Manning talks about “process” he means the way we play. And the only similarity to Man City is the philosophy that if we have the ball the other team can’t score. However, Pep doesn’t play across the back four for no reason - there is purpose, intent and pace. Those things are all missing. It’s not Pep ball people hate. It’s a side playing a very very poor facsimile of that in one aspect where the articulation adds to the frustration. And the articulation then indicates the coach is coaching a certain way because of the “CFG” book. But it’s not the way Pep plays!

It’s likely. At the time of the Stoke game we were managed by the triumvirate headed up by Tony Fawthrop, who was made permanent but didn’t ever manage a game as full time boss as Wilson took over (compensation to Fawthrop). Preceding TF was Pulis who went to Pompey (no compensation to Pulis) who took over from Benny (time on contract left - compensation due) who took over from Ward (although he shouldn’t have as he threw his toys, compensation due) So in the period from about October 98- July 00 we had 5 managers (including Wilson), three of which we were paying compensation to. And as I’ve now mentioned several ex managers, I await the thread being moved accordingly.

I think these two points probably summarise the situation quite nicely. We have started well in a lot of games (Blackburn notable exception) and then typically got worse. I’d also totally acknowledge that neither LJ (“gung ho”) or NP were perfect at in game management, but as @Davefevs says, it does become all the more important as you go up the leagues. Better managers. Better coaches. Better players. Quicker counters. I don’t think the answer is to hound Manning or to boo the players by any stretch @Red Skin - I do however think it’s worth questioning if we’re on the right path as the progressive worsening in game is a constant. I said after Saints on here I wasn’t worried by it - I probably more am now as it seems to be regular. And you’re right in saying that it may get better when LM gets his own players, but as Dave rightly says, we’re still likely to have a flawed playing squad - so the in game management angle does become a continued problem that Liam (and it is chiefly Liam) will need to solve. The annoyance for me is that against Watford and Hull we did play differently so he has it in him. But in the last two games (Brum a bit more by their design) he’s reverted back to his preferred style and made us less effective as a result. One of the things that was said of LM at MK Dons is that he didn’t know how to change things (NB this isn’t me saying he was sacked there so has no chance here) and that’s why he ultimately went. We’re seeing that in microsm here, and he needs to get on top of that quickly.

I’m not sure Bell will ever be physical enough to play up top in a two. He’s just so slight and easily muscled. I’m unconvinced he’s got a future at this level long term fullstop (but let’s not open up that debate again) Conway has more about him centrally and has proven he can play in a two. I think he’s better as the second man (Phillips to Quinn if you will) and that again, considering Sam’s lack of presence, means that playing the two together actually negates Conway as a player and makes the partnership less likely. For it to have any chance of working, the side would have to be set up to play at pace and get in behind early - so definitely not in this side! Think Riley/Neville where although different times it was a far more attacking setup I think Tinnion went early for a couple of reasons. Firstly as he always bigs up anything academy - nothing wrong with that per se though. Secondly because they probably did work as a partnership. But that was at 17 against other 17 year olds - even at academy, total world of difference to pro game. So short answer - is he right? No. Can they play as a two? No. Did he go early? Yes.

He’s taking it well at least;