Silvio Dante

I said my piece on this on the below thread and haven’t got a huge amount to add. I think Liam is probably a football anorak and does huge amount of work to get us set up well but seems to have an issue in turning things around when other coaches adapt- it’s not a half time thing for me but a game management thing:

And I think that’s the thing here. We know that Liams trying to impose a new style, and we also know the board were lying, but he didn’t inherit a mess. He inherited a group of well motivated players in striking distance of the playoffs. That he should be afforded 3-4 windows to get “his” team in is nonsense, it was supposed to be evolution not revolution. If it’s the latter, by default he was the wrong appointment. There is sympathy for Liam and what he’s walked into - but ultimately he chose to take the job and should have done his homework. That sympathy will be lessened each time by both perceived negative football, but more pertinently by statements about the culture such as yesterday which undermine what we were told he was here to do - which was to push on. If he wanted a “work in progress”, he didn’t read the job description. He needs to improve performances or results and on a small sample size he’s doing neither as yet.

We might find out next year (Avoidance of doubt I don’t think we’re going down!)

Just to pick up on this one, because for me it gets to the heart of the issues we’re having. It has been under any analysis worse in the second half than first over the embryonic Manning regime, and I don’t think it’s because he’s drugging their tea at half time - I think it’s for a couple of reasons: - I do think Manning has a plan for each game based on the “process”. We can play better in the first half of games in part because there is a pretty small sample of how we’ve played under Manning and that leads to natural caution from the opposition - effectively they’re sussing us out for that period. It’s possibly, nay likely, as a bigger sample size is seen by opponents they adapt to us earlier in game and our “second halves” become first halves. On the counter, we will become more comfortable and may be able to enforce. (I know you know this but this is the essence of new manager bounce under real terms - it’s part psychological but part opponents don’t know what to expect and element of surprise) - The point you make about Saints, and others, is very pertinent though. There are two teams, two managers in every game. Liam sets us up pretty well to start with but in every game post break the opposition manager has seen it, sussed it, and countered it. What Liams then shown an inability to do is counter that counter - in effect “in game management” - that pretty much plays to your last point. My main concern with him is, and remains, the ability to change things when his plan isn’t working. I don’t think that’s an unfair concern from evidence to date both here and in prior jobs (I saw a comment on the EP site that we got on top of Oxford as that game progressed and they couldn’t change so quality of teams notwithstanding it does seem to be a pattern with his teams, particularly when you add the Dons tailspin). It might be a function of the coach he is - he’s a “textbook” as opposed to intuitive. The problem is when everyone else has read the book, you’d better be better!

Yeah that bit is patently nonsense. A young player would have seen the facts of Pearsons reign as being the club that gave academy prospects the most minutes and progressed Semenyo and Scott to premier league moves and would not unreasonably conclude that it was good place to develop. They may meet Liam Manning and like him and want to be coached by him but the prior factors under Pearson (which may remain under Manning) would be a far bigger pull factor.

Just read the evening post write up and this line stood out for me: ”Matty James said that’s the most controlled he’d ever felt in a game, complete dominance” Now, that quote to me is revealing for a few reasons; - He’s name dropping a senior professional and a “Pearson” player. A bit of this is to say “look the players are on side” but it is also a classic tactic when you know you’re under pressure or haven’t performed well “look x said it was good”. Any of us who have worked in offices will have seen that tactic and it’s normally the preserve of the weak - It’s very unlikely to be true. Matty James has played for teams who have won this league and the league above. He’s undoubtedly been in more control of games - It wasn’t complete dominance. That was tacked on as Liams opinion but any watcher would tell you that was never the case. Ball dominance in sections (mainly defence) granted but not complete dominance. Its again, an odd quote and one which is worth highlighting here.

Yup. Volume of passes and volume of shots is not necessarily a reliable metric when it comes to entertainment and/or performance. Today we allegedly had 14 shots. Ignoring xG (we’ve been through that!) the number of genuine tests for the goalkeeper were low (Sky says 1 clear cut chance). If you have the majority of possession but create one clear chance, it’s bad possession - simple as. What there is, and I got some pelters for pointing this out on Wednesday, is a degredation as the game goes on. Teams are happy to let us have the ball and get our pass count up at the back in the first half then tweak what they need to at half time. And so far, there has been a chronic inability from the coach to “combat the counter”. I get that he believes in process over outcomes, but when other coaches counter that process you need to have a plan B and not get all huffy and blame it on a culture that only existed since you signed your contract.

It’s an interesting point but I think a tad unfair. The majority of moves were under the umbrella of the “City Group” so I kind of view those as moving intra organisation. I do, however, subscribe to the view that Oxford probably deserved more from him, and also that spell - brief as it was - warranting a job at a higher level is in itself odd. Against that, Oxford would have jettisoned him quickly if he failed and as I understand it he asked for mutual clauses for that reason (might need those here…!) Whenever, though, I hear of a coach who was highly rated and young who bounced around for ambition I’m always minded of Michael Appleton. And that’s not a good thing!

What with Mannings somewhat bizarre post match interview and storm down the tunnel, and now this petulant overgrown man child leaving Twitter, the signs are that there is starting to be a realisation at the club that they have brought themselves under unnecessary pressure with their actions, and I think what we’re seeing on both counts is a reaction to that pressure. All it needs now is Jon to throw his crayons and have a tantrum and that theory will be confirmed.

Yep, overall the start of 4 points from 4 games is relegation form, with broadly performances to match - as yet there’s not been an uptick in results or performance, in fact it’s got worse. I don’t think he’s stupid and he must know that hence coming out with what seems a bizarrely constructed argument today.

Agree the board are to blame but 4 points from 4 games with a broadly fit squad and performances poor overall (Soton good 45, Boro and QPR good 20, nothing much today) is by any definition not a “not-terrible” start. It’s verging on relegation form and deservedly so.

Yup. Posted similar the other day. He’s no doubt and by all accounts a good coach. Jury definitely out on if he’s a good manager.

I posted not long after he joined that Liams style in interviews wouldn’t be a plus. It’s pretty much monotonous and not engaging (ironically by all accounts he was far better at the fans forum), and in a situation where he needs every advantage he can to get the fans on side, it’s unfortunate. However, if you’re winning games and/or playing well, it wouldn’t matter. But we’re not. It’s turgid. And it’s poor football primarily. For Liam to throw in a piece around “culture” and to stomp down the tunnel tells me that he knows he’s under more pressure than a man who has played 4 games should reasonably be. But that’s the scenario. The first question is total bullshit, however. Framing it as a game we should have had three points from is nonsense, and Liam claiming we’d have taken 4 points from 3 games is also ridiculous. I don’t care about interview style. But take some sodding responsibility and have some realism.

Equally apt from the bard of Woking ”Bullshit is bullshit it just goes by different names”

I made that exact point on the thread “More Questions Than Answers” on Wednesday and got a lot of laughing emojis for it. There is a question mark over Mannings ability to alter things when the other team changes things, or when his team a la MK Dons are performing badly. Thats not criticism- it’s a totally valid question that is becoming more valid week by week

I think the thing we can be reasonably sure of is that we know the identity of 9 of the 11. I’m not sure we’ll change shape/system purely because of the quick turnaround and time to train it in. But it’s pretty damning at the moment that some of our front players make a more compelling case for exclusion than inclusion!

Myself I’d start Cornick and move Tommy wide. Bell has been woefully out of form, Mehmeti had no form to start with and Yeboah seems to be on the outers. Tommy, when he first came into the side, was effectively Weimanns deputy - playing off the front man. He’s not yet ready to play the sole man up front as he’s not physically there. Cornick is. Tommy wide will do more defensively than Bell or Mehmeti and it allows him to link off the front man.

Well. You could if you were Catholic.

To answer your question seriously… A fair few teams, mine included, play home games on a 3G surface. In fact, for our older age groups in the November - February period we book it out because our normal grass pitch is off. Ensures game on and that kids get football. Secondly, the tendency of teams is to leave it until the last minute to call games off. Sometimes it’s obvious - i.e a couple of weeks ago it was definite that in all that rain a waterlogged pitch on Saturday wouldn’t recover by Sunday, but in the case of frozen pitches an overnight better than expected temperature can unexpectedly lead to a game on. So coaches work on the basis games on if at all possible. Kids will run around regardless. But coaches look to protect them from themselves, and make a call on safety/playability as soon as practical. For our teams (other than the 3G) we’ll try and make a call tomorrow. But if there is any chance, we’ll reinspect Sunday. Hope that clarifies.

Ditto. Our normal kick off time is 12:30 but have shifted this one to an early kick off at 10:30. Hoping to be done and dusted for midday and then it’s a drive from Yate to Ashton and hopefully finding a space and getting in just about on kickoff. Not ideal but probably doable. I’ve already committed that if there are unavoidable clashes between my AYL side and City that my team take precedent for me. It’s the difference between letting down one child or twelve.

Local Derby. Always going to be trouble.

The devil in me wants to say fan ownership. They’ve been owned by the fans for about 10 years and while doing so have progressed on what looks a sustainable basis (bearing in mind their size). I’m 99% certain that the fans/supporters club fund one young players wages each year as well. Ethos wise that means the managers have to fit with the fanbase, and the fanbase then give them time - it’s a mutually beneficial scenario. I think I’m right in saying that the club also barred one Jevani Brown from playing after he assaulted a woman, and Rovers were able to sign him because Exeter delayed offering a deal until legal proceedings were complete, and because Rovers have a total lack of moral fibre. Good club. Edit - @ExiledAjax, great minds.

Dispassionately it’s a good appointment for both parties. Taylor did a very good job at Exeter and earned the Rotherham job, where it’s fair to say he met or even exceeded expectation by keeping them in the division. This season not as strong but it’s hard to argue they aren’t broadly where they should be and it felt like an “early” sacking. However, having been sacked by Rotherham it’s not likely he’ll have championship clubs calling so his next job would have to be league one. He’s got links to the area (insert “knows the club” meme) and is taking over a mid sized club in the division so if he gets it right, has potential to take them forward. Hes a good appointment for them and it feels like a decent fit for him. That being said, I hope he crashes and burns into oblivion.

I posted at HT in the matchday thread that it was the best half of football under Liam - and one of the best of the season. Nobody could dispute that and if the game ends at 8:30, or if Tommy puts away one of two very good chances, or if there’s not a worldie save, again we’d be having a different conversation tonight. But we’re not. The second half was as bad as it’s been this season. I’ve no doubt Liam asked them to keep doing what they were, but Southampton, as Boro did on Saturday, changed. Quicker press, quicker pace, and we didn’t react. Maybe that’s due to the players - maybe that’s due to the manager - but that’s now twice in a row we’ve been caught cold. There are undoubted positive signs here. The first half has improved over the three games to date which gives me confidence Liam can get a message across on the training pitch and construct a good team. Against that, the second half has got progressively worse week on week. We had a good 20 post TGH entering against QPR, were largely under pressure against Boro and were dire today (against noted progressively better opponents). There are a lot of questions at the moment. The key one for me is that we undoubtedly have a very good coach in initial setup but appear to have a glaring inability to react. And I’ll say again, Liam couldn’t turn MK Dons around when things weren’t working to his plan. I’m not hitting the panic button yet. But I am seeing a pattern. And that pattern needs to change soon.