Silvio Dante

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

First Vyner steal I remember first half was on the edge of 18 (think it’s on the Sky highlights as first item) so I’d have to disagree there. What I think it does do - if we’re going to play this way (and I agree with @The turtle on another thread that I think it may not be accepted based on the clubs DNA) is bring Max further into focus. His distribution remained poor today - notably one where there was an easy Tanner ball but he played a dodgy ball to Dickie, and the “floaty” distribution remained. If we’re playing it around more and out from the back then his weakest suit becomes all the more apparent and I wouldn’t be shocked to see Beadle about in January. You do raise a very important question though - if Manning did expect the higher press to happen, the players didn’t follow instructions. That may be again because they’re being asked to do something that (as yet) they’re not comfy with.

First half hour was really two sides playing the same game. Hold off, play it around the back, look for an opening. Boro did it better than us though, for a couple of reasons - we weren’t as comfortable/used to it, and their pressing was better. Again, no issues with playing from the back but it wasn’t playing from the back - it was frequent short passes to Vyner and Dickie, both of whom got caught more than once. I’m not someone who thinks we need to launch it (and we don’t have the players for that), but what did need to happen was to play with more pace - and that’s when that ten minutes arose. The overplaying you mention happened in the first half as well, we just weren’t punished (and Manning mentioned post match that they expected Boro to be higher in their press half two). (NB half time in the concourse heard multiple conversations to that effect, also reflected in forum thread from a glance) The issue there inherently is you can have a gameplan, but so do the other side. I think it’s a stretch to suggest the TGH goal came from anything other than a moment of individual genius - it wasn’t really a worked opening and xG would be on the floor for it. No issue on patience but it has to come with penetration. That was lacking for long periods today and although I can appreciate that first half tactically, it is a very risky tactic - had Boro capitalised on one of the robs from Zak or Rob, we’d be having a very different debate tonight. Thats why for me today probably raised more questions than answers - I saw play being enforced on a team who didn’t look fully comfortable with it. And they may do with time. But today, I think a spirited second half and some quality at the end of half one has somewhat shielded what for a long part - even though appreciative tactically - was a meh performance at best.

Thanks for that

Well. That was an odd old game. First things first - three points against Boro is an undoubted good result. However, there is a large part of me that sees it as achieved in spite of what we were doing as opposed to what we were doing. That first 35 minutes were as bored as I’ve been at Ashton Gate for years - I’m talking Osman era bored. I have no objection to, and am more than happy to, play out from the back. But that wasn’t that. It was safe, 90-10 risk balls across the back line (and even then we got caught a couple of times). Two incidents epitomised that period - when TGH turned and played backwards and was roundly booed, and when Sykes, on the right and looking for a pass, threw his arms up in exasperation as there were no options. Literally, our only out option appeared to be a Dickie carry, and it was awful with no penetration even in the middle let alone the final third. Tactically, I’m not sure that a plan is for your CM to hit a 30 yard worldie every game, but post that it was positive because we played front foot pressing for the last 10 - and were a better side because of it. Half time in the ground the consensus was that we were lucky. And when the two goals came in quick succession (again by some bad playing out from the back) there was another muted shout against Lansdown. The base issue is this. We have a side and squad built for a high tempo pressing game. When we do that - and when we did that today - we can be very good. However, we tried to play a passive, stand off game which is nowhere near our strength- and other sides are better than us at it. Boro waited first half and just picked off the errors as we played far too slow. In the end, sheer bloody mindedness got us through (and a quality Sykes finish). But it wasn’t great. Safe for the bits we did what we’re good at. Liam is getting used to the team and the club. The club historically have never accepted negative football which is what that was to start with and against QPR - so hopefully he’s learnt that. More pertinently, hopefully he’s learnt that as a coach you may have a philosophy but if other teams have the same philosophy- and players more versed in executing that - you end up with that 35 minutes. However, if you play to the squad strengths, there is a real chance of success.

That’s probably the side I’d have picked (liked to have seen Naismith but not sure where he’d fit) so no complaints from me in personnel. Now it’s a case of how they operate.

It’s a point I’ve made a few times but in a lot of ways Liam is on a total hiding to nothing here. He doesn’t have the new manager excitement or currency, and as this thread shows the feeling seems to be disillusionment as opposed to excitement. Thats not his fault - it’s a function of the manager prior not being wanted to be changed by the majority of fans, and also the ham fisted way things have been done. A performance like QPR can’t happen tomorrow. I’m not in the boat of he needs to get top six, but he does need to get an uptick in performance at the very least from Nige even if results are consistent to justify the decision. I don’t consider myself excited for tomorrow. But that’s down to Lansdown and Tinnion, not Manning, and he has my full support to hope this works. But if it doesn’t - and quickly - this could go very bad very very quickly. Draw as a minimum with a positive performance is required. With this and Southampton, it feels like he’s been thrown to the wolves. Hopefully he can learn from the prior occupant and fight them off.