Silvio Dante

As a forums a place for rampant speculation I was wondering similar. Hes now been benched 3/6 games under Manning - was our best player in the game immediately before the appointment, was MOM vs Boro and did fine in his other two starts. Is also an accomplished ball retainer and can create so you’d think Manning would think of him as his type of player. I wonder whether Manning has earmarked the funds for elsewhere. I would, however, be hard pressed to think we’d get a better profile signing age and experience wise than TGH. I’d be very disappointed if he wasn’t made permanent but the more he’s benched the less the chances of that - hopefully it’s just a case of Williams did better than LM anticipated and deserved to keep the shirt (but not sure TGH deserved to lose it by the same token!)

Thought this was going to be a thread about the (ahem) activities of Michael McIndoe and Andy Llewellyn…

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they’d be looking to get rid in January unless we lost the next six (and even then I’m not sure they would). I do think, however, that a low to middling next six games may make them consider if they want to open up the funding, or just go to seasons end to give them a larger sample size. Jon and Brian are not the sharpest tools, but I don’t think they’d just throw money (considering where we were) if there were signs it wasn’t working. The advantage of holding funding to season end is also threefold: - It proves if Liam can make progress with this group of players - It allows them to see ST sales - which they’ll see as a far more fan opinion metric than anything on a forum - It allows them to save some face - ie prove that the funding wasn’t there for any manager. I don’t see Liam losing his job in January - let me be clear on that! I do see a few scenarios as to how we play the window based on the games until then though.

The question becomes that if there isn’t improvement in the short term whether there is continued justification in hoping for medium term success, when that hasn’t been delivered to date in Liams career (Simply no data - he’s been in jobs 18 and 12 months respectively and in the 18 month one it got worse as opposed to better) Let’s give a scenario - in the 6 games left this year we take 5-7 points. We’re effectively then out of any promotion race - still highly unlikely to go down - and it’s a return of 10-12 points from 11 games at what most are comfortable is a fair review point. This place is polarised, but both sides of the argument agree Nige was withheld funds because the board didn’t consider he was the right man long term (and that’s a totally reasonable position to take). If Liam is sitting on less or around 1ppg with probable increased dissatisfaction at that point, do they consider it’s worth cracking the nest egg - I.e. is he then still considered the right man to spend it, or do they hold it for the next candidate? Of course, get c10 points (or even 18) from the next 6 and I’ve no doubt they crack it open in January to accelerate the process. But I don’t think it can be underestimated how important the next six games are in the context of how much latitude Manning is given to reshape the squad, and therefore be here for the lions share of that contract.

Just watched. I’m not sure there’s anything in that interview majorly either positive or negative - it’s a pretty standard post match interview (not helped by Dave Barton again and running through his tick list of questions as opposed to reacting to the answers). I refer you to my prior comment about overly psycho analysing bull…!

To give some balance here, Kal was on Robins TV Saturday and he sounded more than contractually obligated to be enthused with Manning, so I can also believe that Tommys in that boat. It’s clearly positive if the players like him and are buying into him. To be honest, I wouldn’t expect anything less as there aren’t any poor characters in the group. (I think I made this point pre Manning on a thread “How will the players react”). Two other things are undoubtedly equally true - that, as has been said, players will be positive (and sometimes overly) about a new boss as they want to play. But as there was some real psycho analysing bull about Tommys demeanour post Nige, I’d be reticent to swing the other way on an EP interview. Secondly, even if the players like LM it means diddly if we don’t get performances or results. I’d rather they hated him and we won! Bottom line is there was a post earlier saying that people were jumping on anything LM said and using it as an excuse to be negative. This is a prime example of going the other way and it’s starting a fight on an empty room. It’s an interesting (but largely expected) interview - no more, no less.

I’ve never been as sure of a relegation as I was under Holden that season, and it came to a head in the Huddersfield game. How we won that game still bemuses me as we were absolutely battered, and it was that game that made up my mind he had to go ironically as it was a win. But the die was cast a long time prior to that - just off the top of my head in addition to the factors you mention that start of season run was luck in the extreme. We were outplayed most games - from sneaking the 2-1 over Cov game one to an unbelievable performance from Bentley at Forest to a one minute performance at Cardiff that we miraculously won. We were getting wins we had no right to, and it was no shock when we regressed to the results the performances merited. Wonderful Human. But as those stats prove, shit liar and more importantly, a bloody abysmal manager.

Quite. And what you’d have to say is that he either has insane self belief in himself to take this job or is totally delusional. Similar to the “due diligence” piece most of us appreciate that to get Manning to get City playing his way effectively (if it is even achieved) will take some time in reality. If you overlay that fact against the average time a manager at this level gets doesn’t give that time and the raised expectations from those dumbasses pronouncements it looks every inch a poisoned chalice. I don’t have sympathy as he chose to drink from it. But he certainly appears to have jumped at a club whose squad isn’t a natural fit for him when he could have moved for a better fit. Hopefully he just liked - and can achieve - the challenge

To be fair, if he raised concerns to Jon Lansdown I can’t think of anyone more qualified to comment on medical matters and as such I’m satisfied.

Good post, and I do think LM is a victim here of the board. I think what is going on though it is happening both ways - as an example it was stated last week that it was likely Manning would have done due diligence and that was jumped on by people who sit more on the positive side as criticism of him. Thats just a mad scenario where debate is stifled. Im not sure we’ll, for a long time, get away from what the board said in relation to LM. Hes not what was said they wanted - that doesn’t make him bad but it does make it more difficult for him as he’s effectively been asked to deliver against expectations that aren’t realistic. I’m sitting very much on the sceptical side of LM at the moment - I’m unconvinced he’s the right man for the job and that’s based on both what I’ve seen so far and track record to date on a lot of things. By the same token, I’m not going to jump on everything - I think he’s been right not to play Yeboah and also to separate the first team in training as I said on that thread earlier. I see a bit of a textbook coach who to date has been unadaptable and unconvincing in games - hopefully that changes soon. The problem is that when you point something out that could be construed as negative it again gets over stonewalled as opposed to debated -for example I called the poor second halves after Soton, was given facepalms and then LM himself acknowledged it! I think we need to get away from a place where any criticism of how we’re playing, or how LM is doing, is overly divisive and seen as wanting him to fail. It’s not - it’s debate. Against that I do think there has been too much negativity against LM and it’s the line between debate and abuse. The hope I have at the moment is as follows. One, and most importantly, we lose this bloody ownership. Secondly, as we all do - that he succeeds. But equally, I am unsure at the moment he’s the man to give the nest egg to and I don’t think there’s anything wrong in that position.

“We’ll explore all avenues to get the right person for the job” said technical director Ricky Martin I’m guessing from that they’re going to be looking upside - inside - out….

It’s probably just because they’re nicknamed “The Potters” he feels a natural fit. Same reason why this is the favourite for Joeys next job. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Cuntum

And as I think I said when Duff was sacked, I’d imagine he’s probably kicking himself that he didn’t wait for that opportunity. His best spell of management was taking over a Russell Martin squad (in August when pre season done) who were used to the style of football, or a variant thereof, that LM likes. He’d have had that at Swansea as most of the Martin team remain - and more pertinently, that fanbase would both welcome him as a “continuation” candidate and he wouldn’t have the boards batshit statements to have to live up to.

What I would say is that if he doesn’t use the academy (and I say that with the caveat that I understand the current approach, finances improving, dependent on ability etc) then it’s another cross against what was sold. We know it’s not front foot attacking football (whatever that is!), we know it’s not pushing on this squad to success as it’s not set up for LM (so he needs his own players/time to reshape) and then if it’s also not developing young players then it’s hard to say any part of the statements on his appointment are true. We seem to end up in that place one heck of a lot recently!

I think what you have to remember is Nige was an anomaly in the amount he played academy players, and this was undoubtedly driven in part by circumstance. We gave the most minutes to academy players in the top two leagues so even maintaining that (noting that ability coming through isn’t always consistent) would be difficult. Thats not to say Manning wouldn’t give a Scott a chance but he may not play a Kadji or an Omar Taylor-Clarke. And in a lot of ways that’s natural as finances improve - you can take less of a “punt” on academy players as you have money to get in proven. Dont get me wrong - the point that he’s not brought through Academy to date is concerning, and this measure makes it less likely that more will make the breakthrough in the short term. The key for me is how this develops and if we’re sat here start of next season with pathway still seemingly blocked then I think there are questions to be asked over Tinnions statements or Mannings intent.

It depends if it’s short or long term. Short term, as I said, I absolutely see the logic in it but longer term it’s more difficult to So, as with not hanging LM for not playing Yeboah I’m also not going to criticise him for a move I can see the short term logic of such as this one

This is both sensible and disturbing at the same time. There is no doubt Manning has a “set” way that involves “processs”, “behaviours” etc etc and the players will need to have that “trained” into them. Smaller the group, more you can focus on training those behaviours and patterns in etc. However, what it also does is make it a closed shop. That pathway becomes less visible, and more importantly for the here and now it gives you less options for the team. Pring (for example) playing badly? No matter, he’s in the squad because the academy players don’t know the exact thing they’re supposed to do at the exact moment. It also potentially explains LMs reticence to bring through academy at prior clubs - if you’re working with that set group and overloading them with information it’s enough work. It makes sense in the here and now of an immediate appointment and need to train the approach into players. But I’d be disappointed if it was the long term approach, and it’d (again) be contrary to the noises made at appointment

What I’d say, in a run like you predict after the Hull game we’d be LLDDLD (starting from Saints). That kind of a run would require exceptional mental toughness from the players at the start of a new way of playing to have the belief they were on the right lines - because the new way of playing had yielded 3 points in 6 games. That in itself would make the Watford game hugely difficult as it becomes must win, and if the players begin to doubt, that becomes less likely. For my money mentally the players need a win (and of equal importance a 90 minute performance) before then.

I agree with this, but I think the point most are making that under Pearson (or continuation candidate), we probably needed a hammer and a new Phillips screwdriver. Under Manning, it’s more like needing that geezer in the Ryobi adverts garage full of tools, because the tools we’ve got aren’t the ones this particular carpenter requires. To mix the metaphor a bit, in the words of Geoffrey Howe, the batsmen have gone to the wicket and found their bats broken by the captain.

Yeah good point and not disputing it. The issue that brings is an interesting one - a lot of those younger coaches have a similar ethos - possession heavy, waiting for mistakes. The problem is that if everyone is playing the same way either the coach has to be “the best” or the players have to be “the best” for it to work. It’s also not a style that fosters excitement (in the short term at least). Tactically, the “batch” of coaches are interesting so I see why people like them. But I’m not sure what gives individual coaches the edge when they all seem to have gone to the same school.

I think it is a concern with Manning that he has a reputation of being someone who gives youth a chance but (and to answer @W-S-M Seagull’s question) hasn’t really brought players through from academies at prior clubs. That could be argued to be a lack of quality at Dons and Oxford, but per Tinnions public pronouncements, we have a production line going here. Either way, either Tinnions bigging up of the academy is unfounded (and ironically the youth success was down to Pearson) or Manning isn’t someone who will bring youth through. If the youth don’t come through then at least one of the perceived attributes isn’t in place. As for Yeboah - in my view very raw and not hugely at this level yet, so gradual build for experience the best tactic. Wouldn’t hang Manning for not playing him but I’m equally not convinced Mehmeti or Bell are any better.

By this logic we could sign Mbappe, he could then be unavailable for a period due to an unforeseen matter (let’s say a car accident) and you’d be bemoaning the recruitment team. I don’t agree with your view on Cornick and Roberts (you always need squad players/ones who you sign to develop) but to use McCrorie as an example to bemoan our recruitment is batshit. At the very worse case you have to discount him from analysis!

I posted a few days ago that I think the appointment of Manning was in a lot of ways a reaction to what’s happening at Ipswich, both in terms of it being the latest thing that brings success (see Luton) and that there would be a part of the Lansdowns who look at Mark Ashton in harness with a head coach and think “hey, we were right after all” As Fevs said in that thread, the trouble is that’s viewing the outcome and not the process. It seems McKenna is just exceptionally good and following the same approach may not give the same result.

Yes.