Silvio Dante

I think that also plays into the Lansdowns thinking. If average players can play that way under McKenna, then surely they can under his mate? Means we can do it (a la Luton) on the cheap. What that doesn’t tell you is whether McKenna is simply a far better manager than Manning. Which is the possible X factor they’re missing - just aping what someone else has done is unlikely to lead to success

Without making this a Man U thread, Luke Shaw is their (and Englands) first choice left back. McTominay I think is Man Us top scorer and starts most weeks. Lindelof is also a regular starter. Martial is the only one there but he’s in or around the squad - and over a 5 year period, they could have moved players on but it’s likely they’d have been given new contracts which probably undemines your argument. Put it this way - this is the Man City side we faced next round. Only 4 players remain.

Has been for a while, probably low footfall. I can’t imagine loads of people visit on a non matchday and as staff will be working weekends it allows the club to give them the time off.

As I understand it McGuane is out of contract end of season but Oxford hold a years option.

I’d say 5 of a starting team remaining 5 years later is pretty high and likely unusual tbf.

I actually think the appointment of Manning is down more to Ipswich and seeing how they’re doing as opposed to how Luton did. Hear me out. For whatever reason, the Lansdowns like Ashton. They followed his philosophy and it got them their best day (the Man U game). They brought him back after he originally left and for them - if not the fans - there was regret that he went. So, he rocks up at Ipswich and after a period a young coach with minor playing experience is appointed (but a good reputation in academy football). It works. Spectacularly. Players form more than the sum of their parts and it’s good football - McKennaball. The Lansdowns start thinking if they’d only held their nerve, they could have had that. However, there’s a problem. They have a popular manager, without the players to play the same way. But they really want McKennaball, because in a lot of ways, it proves they were right. But they can’t get McKenna so who can they get? They identify a coach who is great friends with McKenna, who has links with Ipswich and makes the noises they like - Manning. It doesn’t matter to them that the squad isn’t set up to play the way that McKenna does, and that doing so will take some time - if Manning can even achieve it - but they want McKennaball. And now. So, they see their preferred candidate (for a likely transition end of season when the squad can be reshaped) doing well. And they panic. The city squad won’t go down - but Oxford might go up, and if so, they lose their man. And there is logic to that but they’re not brave enough to say it, as there is the hostility to Ashton whose actions made the appointment desirable to start with. So, you end up with the hamfisted logic for sacking. And that, IMO, is why you end up where we are.

Again, no it isn’t. Because the main expenses are wages. And someone who costs nothing (such as Kal) in transfer fee costs about 1/2m a year in wages. Reducing expenses means lower wages, Ipso facto harder to keep hold of players who can earn more elsewhere. Again, I get what you’re saying but it’s far too binary. You have to sell players to evolve the team. The problem comes when you don’t replace them.

I get what you’re getting at but these posts always miss logic. If we don’t sell some of the players mentioned then a) We end up in the shit financially b) Some of the other names who do well don’t get game time Case in point - people liked Flint and Webster. We don’t sign Webster without selling Flint, and when we do gather players you end up with the financial shitshow Nige sorted out. Now, if you want to have a conversation about not investing the latest monies attained from Bournemouth to further improve the team and the ownership seemingly willingly sabotaging our season, then thets a worthwhile conversation….

Yeah the Scott sale was huge. Not just losing him but the rowing back as articulated by Phil Alexander (there’s a man I’d like to hear more from) of the plan with/plan without. To answer the question (although I sniff an agenda) We keep Scott - flirting with playoffs, potential to make top 6. Expect around 8th We sell Scott and make the right additions (2-3 signings) - broadly similar We sell Scott and make no real signings - outside playoff chance mainly due to the togetherness of squad but heavily reliant on no injuries and a decent slice of luck. Expect around 12th. Essentially the legs were cut off the old manager. But that’s well trodden ground and I’m not sure what bringing it up does now.

And nor did I…

Stop being obtuse. He has a reputation for developing youth but per wiki (which may be wrong) has not brought through one player from an academy in his managerial career. That may be due to a paucity of talent but is at least an oddity.

Dont get me wrong I agree with you but that’s not the message from on high. Without going over old ground in depth, had we spent a smidgen of that £25m after we got it on a couple of players this season could look very different right now.

Totally. I was making the point that being an academy coach and playing academy players in the first team are different things. Liams said he’ll be looking to the academy first but he’s not done that in two years of management - it’s an oddity and one I didn’t think Wiki looked right on.

So. That’s a new keeper. £5m signing and Prem wages Scott Twine and 30+ prem games age 22 on parachute wages Adam Idah. It’s a nest egg. Not a chicken farm.

I commented on the “interview” thread earlier that I wikid Liams time at both Oxford and MK Dons this am and based on the squad lists held and where they came from he didn’t give any academy players a debut then run - just 1-2 appearances for a couple. I can’t believe that’s right based on reputation but if anyone has other info it’d be appreciated.

I know this guy has come up before but I find his work very interesting. He did a long post on Duff this morning which it’s hard to disagree with (first post) and that inspired me to look to see if he’d done anything on Manning - which he did, immediately after we appointed (second post). Approximately one month later, it’s absolutely fascinating to read.

I always love comments like this because it assumes two things: - That other clubs are falling over themselves to sign an injured player - That either the player is prepared to take a pay cut or we’re prepared to continue to fund a proportion of wages. Even if (I) was true the likely saving on (II) is so limited that we’re better off keeping the player (not specific to Kal, this came up loads with Joe Williams)

Just on this, I looked on Wiki this morning at Liams record at MK Dons and Oxford. Noting it’s not always the most reliable source, based on the squad lists I couldn’t see one player who he’d brought through the academy to play any more than 1-2 games-and there were only a couple of them. I can’t believe that’s the case but can anyone clarify as there’s a difference between working in an academy and using an academy.

I think the other factor not taken into account is that LJ/the Johnsons were particularly close to the Lansdowns. It’s always more difficult to sack a friend, which is why you should never appoint an echo chamber. Manning doesn’t have that closeness. I think a more pertinent example is Holden. Wonderful human, nice guy, shit manager so he went quickly. If Manning presides over runs like Holden did I’d say he’ll go the same way

It’s kind of a similar point to the thing I’ve been highlighting on game management where Manning seems to have not so far shown an ability to be adaptable in game. If you like, not realising it’s “cat and mouse”…. Hes undoubtedly got a style that relies on heavy possession and, for want of a better term, boring the opposition into mistakes. As @Dr Balls has pointed out, that is a prevalent style, and the higher you go up the leagues is less likely to work - defenders are more mentally attuned and switched on, managers see what you’re doing quicker and adapt accordingly. As I said, if everyone is doing it you’d better be the best at it, and if your squad isn’t set up to play it, then you don’t enforce it. Basics. Appointing a manager to impose a style that is in fashion currently when you don’t have the squad to implement it is a gamble at best, as it relies on that coach being the best. But, equally, if that coach is so wedded to one form of the game that he can’t adapt you’d just as well employ anyone that’s read the same textbook.

More about forum protocol mate. The mods have a difficult job enough policing this place and merging multiple threads that start on similar subjects. Had you just started this thread I agree it’s a worthwhile and slightly different angle, but to copy and paste a post from another thread because you didn’t think it was getting enough attention isn’t really the done thing etiquette wise (I’m sure we all make plenty of pertinent points on P6 of threads that don’t get as much attention as P1, but thems the breaks). Just a case of duplicate posting isn’t something that should be done as if everyone did it, this place would become a skipfire quickly but no skin off my nose.

One of the statements Liam made early was innocuous but has troubled me more over time in respect of the group “They’re very coachable”. By nature professional footballers have more ability than 99.99% of the population so that can’t mean coachable in terms of ability but is more likely to be coachable in “play this way”. And to me, at the start of a journey at least, that’s anti coaching. The best coaches work out what they have and how they play best with that group of players and adapt/move to their preferred approach over time. Not doing so ends up as a Duff at Swansea scenario. And if your preferred approach is the same as other teams you’d better be better at it then them - and we’re not. In any profession, going in as a boss and trying to immediately bend a workforce to your methods is seen as a no no. It’s a very basic error that I think he’s making here.

As I think I’ve said several times, likely because I’m not sure that’s a skill set he actually has - or has proven - to date

Point more so there though is even if he knows that (and I have no reason to suspect he doesn’t - or even if he thinks the players can play that way) he would have seen the statements made by the board and the expectation that gave. Again - it’s the boards shitshow but Liam took the job, took the money and is smart enough to know that in view of the statements a slow start would put him under immediate pressure. That he’s then started questioning the culture and his comments as detailed in the interview thread shows he’s not appearing to be coping with what was expected.

Tbf I’m playing devils advocate - I made the exact point on the “interview” thread that I had little sympathy with Manning for the exact reasons on your second paragraph. But it’s currently easy for him to spin a narrative if he wants, and that interview yesterday was definitely a man feeling more heat than he expected.