LondonBristolian

1 minute ago, BCFC_Dan said:

The complaint here is about a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

If the player on the ball can't see a progressive action that he likes the look of then he'll resort to the preferred fall-back of his manager. If his manager is a modern type, this is likely to be a safe pass to retain possession and hopefully lead to a better position. If his manager is more old school then he might just kick the ball forward anyway in the hope that something will turn up.

Either way it's reliant on hope and most of the time it won't work. The crowd sees either boring passing around the back, or a ball forward to nobody, and it doesn't like either of them.

It doesn't matter if the manager is Pep Guardiola or Tony Pulis. If a forward pass to a teammate can be made, it will be, and it will lead to "excitement". The difference is largely what happens when it can't.

The trick, therefore, is to make more viable forward passes available, and that requires movement, understanding between players, and ingenuity. It also needs the players to have the confidence to take risks when appropriate. If Manning can get that right, then it won't matter what style he wants to play because it'll be successful. If he can't, it won't matter if he just tells the players to lump it forward because the result will still be rubbish.

Excellent post.

9 minutes ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

No, I have chosen not to answer it because I have no interest in discussing the merits of 8-1-1 v 2-6-2 add infinitum. The manager will decide what system he wants to play and what we say won't change that

You can dress it up however you like but what it boils down to endless recycling of the ball, are you going to argue that point ..?

I go back to my original post where my point is that copying possession based, constant recycling of the ball with no risks (like Man City do) is what will kill off the game we love as a spectator support because it is as boring as f__k...

 

 

That isn’t how Man City play though. And it isn’t how Guardiola’s teams have ever played, or at least played on a consistent basis. You seem to keep trying to tie an (admittedly dull) style of football to a manager who has never actually played that way.

2 minutes ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

And you've just validated my point. We don't have any of these so why they to play like we do ..?

The very simple answer is they don't. Our team does not in any way try to emulate Pep's style. The misconception is that passing the ball around defence is somehow Guardola-esque when it is simply how uncreative teams have ended up playing against defensive opposition since long before Pep's time. 

Going against the grain a little on this thread but I don't fully agree - either that it's the fault of playing Guardiola-ball or what we're talking about is Guardiola-ball at all.

Where the Tiki Taka approach got its most criticism entertainment-wise was Spain in the 2010 World Cup. That gets associated with Barca due to Pep being the Barca manager and the number of Barca players but the way Spain played was very different to how Barcelona played under Guardiola or or how Bayern or Man City play under him now. That's really where this notion of passing for passing's sake comes from. (Spain scored 8 goals in 7 matches whereas the 2009-10 Barcelona team scored 98 in 38 - not far off three goals a game.) Really that Spain team - far more than anything Guardiola ever did - is why Tiki Taka is associated with low scoring.

However I don't think what we play is Guardiola-style football or that that is the reason for the results. At our worst, we look much more like another team at the 2010 World Cup - England under Capello. Our players pass it around the defence not because of any tactical master plan but because the midfield and forwards don't move enough to provide passing options. "Guardiola ball" is all about clever tactical movement to create space and passing options. That's the absolute opposite of what we do at our worst. 

And our tactical weakness under Manning is the same one we had under Pearson in games such as Preston at home on the first day. We do not have players with the the creativity or ideas to break down teams that sit back and defend against us. Our players work hard and play doggedly against stronger opponents but cannot break down defensive teams. But where I disagree with the OP is where the horse is and where cart is. I don't think we struggle against defensive teams because we pass the ball around at the back. I think we end up passing the ball around the back because we struggle against defensive teams. 

With football tactics, I don't think there ever is one simple answer to what the "way" is. Different answer suit different teams. I think our players are certainly better with a possession game than they would be with a route one-game but I think a direct counter approach best suits the players we currently have. And, in fairness, we've played that at times under Manning as we have under Pearson. The problem is you can't counter-attack a team that isn't attacking you. And we don't know what to do when teams give us the ball and challenge us to attack them. 

I honestly don’t think we’ll get an offer that makes financial sense. He has 18 months on his contract but we will get compensation either way. 

I don’t reckon a fee we were offered now would reflect his potential value in 6 months or a years’ time if he is in-form, and it might not even be more than the compensation we’d get if he stayed to the end of his contract but scored 15-20 goals next season.

Manning needs to get Conway back on form but there is plenty of time before his contract expired and I see no reason to sell an out of form high potential player at a point when his form will likely lower the fee.

10 minutes ago, johnheadbcfc said:

I wouldn't rush to sign tgh in my opinion, he's played well in games and then dissapeared in others. Joe Williams must be playing for a contract as he's never played this well for this amount if time (which annoys me).

You could argue he’s not been confident of his fitness for much of the time he has been here. Also it could be that he feels more comfortable with Manning’s tactical approach or more trusted by the manager.

There are all sort of reasons why he MIGHT be playing better. One of those COULD be that he is playing for a contract but to say it MUST be that is a long way wide of the mark and discounts a number of equally as plausible explanations.

15 hours ago, cotswoldred2 said:

Well that's inconvenient, doesn't fit the narrative on here.

No disrespect but I can’t help feeling you have either not read the thread or perhaps read it but not fully understood the point being made.

The point being made with Cotts was that, after he left and once LJ was in charge, there was very little mention or acknowledgement of his role in our promotion season.

However that was almost a decade ago. Managers have been and gone and a lot has happened, not least the outpouring of concern when Cotts was very ill two or three years ago.

In this case, a media company rather than the club have invited Cotts back but, even if the club did - which would not be a surprise at all many years later - it still would not be relevant to the question of whether Cotts’ role was acknowledged during the reign of his successor. Just as the club might very well invite Pearson back as a guest in 5 or 10 years time and it wouldn’t change the lack of acknowledgment now.

2 hours ago, maxjak said:

At 20 and 21, IMHO Cole  Palmer and Scotty are the two best young English Players in the Prem at this time?  PS.  I see little Lee's reputation as a coach/manager continue's to plummet, as he was unable to even hold down a job in League 1?    

This feels slightly premature to me after Scott's played 6 games, especially as Rico Lewis (over year younger than Scott) has featured semi-regularly for Man City, and Levi Colwill (6 months older) is playing consistent for Chelsea, as with Harvey Elliott (4 months older) for Liverpool. Plus, depending on definitions of young player, Saka is still only 22 and probably in contention for best player - young or not.

I'd argue Scott needs to stay fit and keep us his levels for the rest of the season to get to that level. As it stands, he's also (I think) yet to make an England U-21 squad.

He's made an impressive start and, if he keeps it up, he'll certainly be in that "best young English player in the division" discussion but he's yet to have an opportunity to show he can perform consistently in the Premier League over a sustained period. 

I don't have my head fully around FFP and accounting but presumably there's accountancy factors too in terms of when it best suits us for a deal to be factored into our profit and loss? 

Edit: If I'd read the thread properly, I'd have realised @Mr Popodopolous had already covered this!

36 minutes ago, RUSSEL85 said:

Thing is, if he concentrated on the main aspects of football management he would be a fine league 1 coach/manager. Unfortunately, bullshit baffles brains. He worries so much about small details here and there and seems to forget the main bit of the job. Just an observation on my part, but I’m sure he will end up in league 2 job shortly.

I agree. I remember saying this when he was here but a lot of the issue for me was he spent so much time trying to get 5% extra out of players that he frequently forgot how to get the main 95% out of them.

I don’t think he is a bad manager or that he did a terrible job for us but I do think he’d be a much better manager if he stopped trying to prove how good he was and trying to bamboozle the opposition in ways that frequently end up bamboozling his own players and probably himself. 
 

As others have said, his CV looks very poor at the moment. I feel his best hope is probably trying to take a job in the National League, get a club into League Two and build his reputation from there. He needs to choose his next role extremely wisely though or even National League jobs could soon be beyond his reach.

7 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I think he was signed as a player to develop for the future rather than as back up. 

Whilst he has performed that role I think it's a little dismissive to suggest he was signed as back up. 

He was signed with the intention of being our no 1 rb in the future. 

I have no problems with George. I think he's a decent player. He's probably been a victim of not really having much competition. Hopefully with McCrorie soon to be available, that will help to elevate George's game further. 

With George being a dependable rb, it does give us the option of playing McCrorie in other positions if we desire/require. 

Rb has been a problem position for us for a while so I'm glad that either McCrorie soon to be available. We have that position well covered with good players. 

That’s fair. What I probably should have said was Tanner was not signed with the expectation of being immediate first choice.

The odd thing for me with Tanner is that I probably trust him more against the better - or at least more attack-minded - teams than against teams we’re expected to best. 
 

As I think @Davefevsnoted earlier in the thread, he is developing a habit of  causing some very good left wingers to have some very ineffective games. Where he struggles - which is a combination of his attributes and, I suspect, tactical instruction - is adding an extra attacking dimension against opposition who sit back and challenge us to break them down. And it might be McCrorie’s apparent* comfort and ability on the ball help us in those sorts of games. But I agree he Tanner might show a bit more to his game once he has more pressure for his place.

*I only say apparent as I have never seen him play.

I've had to (mostly) stop running and do other activities instead due to a back issue but I'd strongly recommend doing Parkrun to anyone. I still do it as an occasional treat. 

19 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

According to transfer market he's having a purple patch. 10 goal and 5 assists in 19 games so far this season in ligue 2 for Angers.

I’m actually pleased for him if he has recovered his form. He was a disaster here but I felt that was far more to do with him being the wrong signing at the wrong time than any lack of application on his part. I suspect - though of course I don’t know - that Kent was maybe a bit blase about the amount of work needed to succeed in the Championship but I think Diony was simply low on confidence and too far out of his comfort zone to succeed.

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

Pretty sure Alistair Campbell has told this story before, think it was a part of trying to get the Good Friday Agreement through. In Campbell’s version he tells him very quickly that it is a ridiculous idea, but who knows if that is true?

Brown & John Major are clearly the only PMs since Harold Wilson who were also real football fans, Brown wrote a brilliant article on Raith Rovers (he’s a shareholder, was a programme seller as a kid) recently & although much more of a cricket fan, Major is a Chelsea supporter of longstanding who doesn’t feel the need to keep mentioning it.

Major keeps it so low key that I had forgotten he was a Chelsea fan!

I think the main thing this tells you is that Blair - just like countless other senior politicians  - fundamentally did not understand football or have an instinct for what people loved about the biggest sport in the country.

In fairness to him, he at least largely stayed out of it rather than vilifying fans in the way his predecessors did or feigning support in the way his successors (bar Gordon Brown) have. 

Really glad it is clicking for Manning and the team at the moment. Long may it continue.

Massively in favour of this.

I really hope the Leeds players show their commitment to this initiative by walking to Ashton Gate from Leeds, arriving just in time for kick off.

I've got mixed views on this. Back when it originally started I was massively opposed to a Super League - and I still am. 

At the same time, I'm increasingly of the view that FIFA and and UEFA are utterly unfit to govern global sport and - whilst maybe this is a case of being careful or what I wish for - I don't think it the worst thing in the world if their monopoly is broken up.

There is part of me that thinks, whilst the Super League would also be undoubtedly run by the wrong people for the wrong reasons, an outright corporation running tournaments would at least be more honest and less corrupt than governing bodies that pretend to be about the good of the game and moral values whilst trying to hoover up the profits...

11 minutes ago, Top Robin said:

Just until we get a decent one - is that too much of an ask

If you honestly believe Tanner isn’t a decent BACK-UP right back then I think you’ve probably got a misguided idea of the quality of player that will come here to act as a squad player.

There is a far more critical issue to me in that, of the first choice right backs we have signed over the past few years, most haven’t worked and the latest (and most expensive) is yet to start a game for us due to injury. We need McCrorie to come back, hit the ground running and make the right back position his own.

But - whilst McCrorie’s injury appears to have been one of these freak circumstances that would have been hard to foresee - it puzzles me why you’re directing your ire at the reserve player who has stepped in and done pretty much as well as you’d expect a Championship reserve player to do.

For me, the issue with Cornick is that he strikes me as someone who operates best as a nuisance who puts himself about and draws the defence’s attention away from more composed attackers enabling them to get into more dangerous spaces. But the way we play doesn’t really lend itself to that.

We don’t get the forwards close enough to each other so, when Cornick distracts the defence, there is nobody to take advantage.

Not his fault and he works hard but I just don’t see him as a fit with how we’ve played under either manager.

1 hour ago, Top Robin said:

I do understand that and yes, Tanner is a trier but I do think he is very average and we do need to upgrade.

 

We upgraded on Tanner in the summer of 2022. The highly tipped upgrade was injured at the start of the season, never found his rhythm for us and then was moved on in the summer.

We upgraded again in the summer with a substantial outlay. The upgrade has had a freak injury so Tanner has been playing. How many right backs do you want us to sign exactly?

Tanner is a low cost budget punt at right back who has never started a season for us as first choice but who has performed solidly when called on. 

Is he a world beater? No. Is he better than many of the first choice right backs we’ve had at Championship level? Probably, yes.

Realistically he has played a lot more than he likely would have done it not been for Kane Wilson not working out and subsequently McCrorie getting injured. And, whilst he probably wouldn’t be starting if everyone was fit, he’s proved one of our better value for money acquisitions of recent seasons. 

I hope McCrorie soon gets fit and demonstrates why Pearson invested a large % of our budget to have him at right back but I fail to understand the obsession with, and scapegoating of, a low cost understudy who is doing better than you’d expect a low cost understudy to do.

Poor guy. Thoughts with him and his family and I hope he is okay.

I can’t help feeling it would be more appropriate to hold off on speculating on his long term career prospects at this moment in time. No doubt he will get appropriate medical advice at the appropriate moment.

It is still early days and Manning would be far from the first Bristol City manager to start badly but gradually turn things round - Gary Johnson and Nigel Pearson both come to mind. However both joined when the club were at a particular low point so the run of defeats was much easier to understand.

Similarly there is a perfectly valid argument that, when a new manager comes in and tries to change things, it will inevitably lead to a spell where the club will struggle as players learn. But there has to be a valid question of exactly why so much is being changed in a team that were - broadly speaking - winning the games they were expected to win and losing the games they were expected to lose.

I do think luck is a factor - I'm not saying we've been brilliant but we could very easily have drawn at Southampton and won against Norwich and, had we done that, we'd have gone into the Huddersfield and Blackburn games with a lot more confidence and those results might have looked different too. But ultimately luck matters, as do results, and we've now got the psychological aspect of a winless run which has to start to affect the players. And - as others have said - we've gone from solid and hard to beat to conceding soft goals.

Maybe we can turn it round over time but I think what we're seeing at the moment is a direct consequence of replacing an experienced manager who knew how to get results out of the team with a promising but inexperienced manager who has tried to change too much too quickly without spending enough time analysing why Pearson had set us up a particular way and what was working about that. And we've now slipped into the kind of run which saps morale and which you arguably need knowledge and experience to quickly turn around.

I feel for Manning in that I think he may well be the right manager in the wrong circumstances and it may well be that a little bit more luck in a couple of those early games would have set his time in charge up the right way so things looked totally different. But - even if he could be doing well in slightly different circumstances - these are the circumstances he has and he is under increasing pressure to show that he can respond to them.