Silvio Dante

As I said earlier, first half excellent. However. The concern over Liam is twofold for me - “process over outcomes” and the ability to react in a game. It was working first half but there are two teams in a game. The other team react to how you play, and you need to counter react - and do so well. That MK Dons tailspin troubles me, and it will continue to do so while we have the inability to react to other teams in a game. There is no sense in being wedded to a philosophy and process over outcomes when that process is combated and the outcome is wrong.

Manning out.

Well, for me, that’s comfortably the best half of football under Manning. The press is much higher and quicker, the passing is faster and on the whole, level and could be more if Tommy puts those chances away or if that Sykes chance goes in post an excellent build up. Very good, and more importantly, a clear progression from QPR and Boro

To be fair, I live in Yate and you’d take every opportunity to get away (joke)

Nope but crowd noise and no commentary

Not even close.

1990s Deep Heat. Without a shadow. Even if your leg was falling off, a rub of cream into the hamstrings and you were good to go.

Screen mirroring from IPad/Iphone HDMI input from laptop

I can be ITK here as my wife follows/stalks Mrs Weimann on Instagram. The family home is in Solihull but they have a place down here which they use on weekends/as needed.

Top work here by the evening post.

And that’s probably the potential problem with the style of play - on a bizarre basis a low risk strategy becomes a high risk strategy very quickly in terms of reaction. Sitting and waiting and passing in your own third (if the other team don’t have the ball they can’t score) is inherently low risk but also low reward - but if the reward eventually comes, people will (grudgingly) accept it. What it doesn’t do is give you “currency” for the occasions it doesn’t work. The reaction I’m “looking forward to” (for want of a better term) is how we play when we go 1-0, 2-0 down. I have no real doubt Manning will instruct the players to play the same way (process over outcomes) and I can’t see that going down well in the crowd. On a broader basis, the big question mark over Liam is that MK Dons spell when he couldn’t pull them out of a tailspin. Is process over outcomes enough when the outcomes are wrong? Interesting times ahead.

No offence taken. And for balance, I don’t think 450 appearances necessarily makes someone a great - similarly with Louis, he played the most games for the club but he’s not near the best player we’ve ever had. Typically, players stay at a club a long time because it’s their level. There may be family/personal reasons, but most footballers are ambitious, and unless you’re a Scholes/Giggs at top level, you’d naturally want to go up a level if you could. Again, doesn’t make him a bad player. Just a good one at the level he played at as opposed to a “great”. I don’t think there’s anything controversial in that and, as with LJ, the playing shouldn’t be seen as a reflection on his ability to do other jobs. I’d reiterate though that the real concern is precisely over the “football stuff”, and in terms of his managerial stint, he would have known that dressing room. He would have known the issues. It’s possible he was too early to cope with it but he failed - taking over a playoff side, and being supported financially the following year (the magnificent seven still give me nightmares). GJ actually had a bigger job to do because of Tinnions stint in charge. The concern with him is purely football. I’m not bothered about him observing training as some are, but I do think that at no other club would a failed manager be asked to take on a bigger remit at a higher level. And both him and Jon aren’t great communicators as has been said to get things across which probably doesn’t help explain the rationale here.

In all fairness, I don’t think anyone has questioned the job Tinnion has done with the academy (although I’d note that success also relies on a manager more than willing to blood players as Pearson did more than anyone could have expected). What people have - correctly - questioned is why a man who failed as a manager at the level below now seems to be the one we’re looking towards to steer all footballing levels of the club. That in any walk of life is alarming, particularly when that man can’t give consistent and coherent (not in spelling) responses. As for Tinnion the player vs Tinnion the manager, much as with Lee Johnson it’s reasonable to separate the two (and playing ability as we all hope with Manning isn’t necessarily reflective of coaching ability). I’ve said before that Tinnion wouldn’t touch the best team Id select in the time watching City, and it’s notable that no teams at a higher level came in for him when he played the majority of career at what is now league one. He was a good league one player who stayed with the club because we didn’t get to the next level consistently where we’d have needed to replace him. He wasn’t rubbish and anyone saying that needs to give their head a wobble. Managerial wise he can’t be classed as anything but a failure. He has done a good job at the academy, but that’s not where he’s manoeuvred himself to now. Thats the concern.

How very dare you.

I think, unfortunately for Matt, it’s kind of the culmination effect. It was Matt who Joe Sims threw to for a “fans” opinion after that embarrassing JL interview and that was predictably subservient to the Lansdown regime. Whether it was him or the sub, he’s someone who is not just toeing the party line, he’s got both feet on it. It’s a shame because Matt is clearly an intelligent guy and a big city fan. But for the club, he’s a useful idiot. He’s exactly who they want to give a “safe” fans view, and has the impression of a man who doesn’t want to rock the boat because he’s finally on the inners at a club he loves. What he doesn’t realise is that he doesn’t mean shit to them and will be excommunicated as soon as they find a different mouthpiece.

We might be able to use the data from when the NASL did their “shot clock” tiebreak! Adding player ability into it is a metric that I think probably goes too far - as it’s also subjective. I think we’re broadly on the same page - it’s got value as a metric but not as the metric which people use it for. Story of every data point I’ve ever worked with…!

Fixed that for you

Penny for Dylan Kadjis thoughts. A year ago, in or around the first team squad. Two underwhelming loans later, playing with the kids again and getting pumped 5-1. Not anything I’m saying the club have done wrong, but it’s a heck of a fall.

It’s not really comparing apples with apples though is it? Taking the Tommy example, I’m more than happy to say percentage wise 16% of shots taken from that position are scored. But if you overlay it being 1 on 1 then it should be 50-60%. The xG overall ends up being roughly where it should because the overquantifying Sykes goal balances it out. The xG from the actual position though is nonsense. I get I’m probably asking the impossible as every chance is different based on pace on the ball, angle of receipt, defenders in the way etc. But, in effect, narrowing xG down to a chance quality just from where the shot is taken is a massive oversimplification, irrespective of the number of data points from that position. Enough that it’s not reliable and should be seen as a more “balance of play” metric as opposed to “quality of chances” which it’s frequently badged as. Incidentally Garnachos goal had an xG of 0.08. Meaning he had as much chance of scoring as Dickie did with his header!

Thanks all. I’m not unsold on the science but it’s definitely imperfect - taking the Maradona as the (extreme) example that wouldn’t be a chance when the player picks up but has a high xG. I’m more sold on seeing its value in the whether you’re creating chances which is the flaw here (probably not enough to make data unreliable overall). There are definitely a few oddities from Saturday - Sykes angle was very tight and I’m not convinced 1 in 2 chances would be scored from there. Similarly, I don’t see the TGH early chance as a 1 in 3 because of (as has been said) defenders positions and how he recieved the ball. Conversely I think we’d all say Tommy should score more than one in ten times when he was played in by them and that’s reflective of where he was on the pitch, not the one on one scenario. As an overall data collective and balance of game, I think it’s fine and broadly there. As an arbiter of individual chances though as those examples show just from one game, seems a bit flawed

So, TGHs shot on Saturday had a very low xG, I think about 0.03. My question is whether that xG is based on when he took the shot, or when he picked up the ball which was about 15 yards from release? Reason for asking is both genuine interest, and whether anyone knows the metric starts from when the players “chance” and therefore xG phase starts at a more (unlikely) place. To give another example , for Maradonas second against England 86 you’d expect the xG on release to be pretty high but practically zero from when he started the dribble. Where does the “count” begin and is it subjective if it’s not from initial possession, even if there isn’t a “chance” when the ball is picked up?

Decision making again for me. Two or three times the ball was with Anis and instead of going to the corner and eating up precious time he went towards goal or played a low percentage chance of success cross. That isn’t to say he wasn’t exciting and didn’t attack well generally when he came on - and it was levels above QPR - but he needs to learn to manage a game. There was one incident where Joe Williams did a fantastic win and played it to him in the corner in stoppage time. Hold the ball there, don’t play a quick low cross to the keeper that allows the break. If he plays like that minutes 1-85 no objections. But he needs to play the situation, not the instinct all the time.

I asked Mary. She didn’t seem to want to help.

L1/L2 mate. Ulimately it’s one division where he’s playing now. He’s impacting, what, one in three games at this level. He’s not nailed down what he really is (is he a winger? a striker? a number 10? a right back). He needs to nail down a position and then perform consistently there in the next 18 months to two years (and I reiterate he has potential to do so). But he isn’t a sure thing at this level from form to date.

Bells the one for me of the three you mention, and I do think there is some (natural) bias in wanting him to do well because of Mickey. I don’t put major stock in him being England U20 - plenty drop off from there not to make it at this level. When I watch Sam, and this may be instructions, he seems very naive positionally (and this may come with experience). Cams relative struggles this season have I think in part been due to lack of support from his wide man, often Sam. I’m not sure as yet what he is - I don’t think he’s a wide forward, but also he isn’t as yet strong enough to be in the centre. Theres something there but it’s raw, and I hold no major confidence it’ll develop into a career at a sustained basis at this level or above. If I had to put money on it, I’m still (just) on the side that he’ll be playing L1/L2 in 5 years but he has enough not to do so