LondonBristolian

I do think it is a remarkable statement of the pressures of football and the expectations of people connected with it to be superhuman that a manager missing a game due to sickness leads to a twenty page thread and people convinced there must be more going on we don't know about.

I always think it's a bit cheap and irrelevant argument to criticise someone actually trying to do something for doing the wrong things rather than the people not taking action. What frustrates me is the way businesses and governments constantly try to make us feel guilty about our individual choices and try to present climate change as something that is fixed by individual choices to distract us from putting the pressure on them to face up to their responsibilities to be sustainable. Greta should carry on doing what she is doing. But world leaders and businesses need to face up to their responsibilities. Our government - and other governments - should look at making systemic changes but also putting pressure on China, Russia, India and all the businesses contributing to emissions. I absolutely agree with @The Batman that the problem is the wealthy elite who carry on as normal. But footballers are barely even scratching the surface of that problem. The power to change lies with oligarachs and billionaires. If they don't change then any change we make is pretty much irrelevant.

You are really not alone on that! I just assumed that, if Phantom was saying Shakespeare was not the person coming in but someone was, it would be a coach rather than a manager. But I'm no clearer than you are!

"Cripes, lads. Better cancel that press conference. The media have found out that we're having it!"

Isn’t he stating we have a new member of the coaching team rather that a new boss?

I'm hoping we can get a refund on it as it's clearly not been built right...

Piercey makes an interesting argument but - whilst I agree there is an issue in the fact we have a manager who does not appear to rate or feel able to get the best out of a number of our players and we don't have money to get new ones - I think the truth is a bit more nuanced than Piercey's argument. There's not an automatic contradiction between being direct and being technical. Teams like Liverpool and the title-winning Leicester side show you can get the ball from back to front quickly whilst still playing good football. Of the players listed, I think Massengo could do well in a fast, technical direct team and I think Dasilva could do whilst I actually prefer O'Dowda on the occasions when he is a bit more direct. But, for me, the fundamental issue is that playing direct counter-attacking football requires defensive solidity and pace on the break and these are the two qualities we lack. I don't think that rules out the idea that some of the players listed could function in a team playing how Pearson seems to want us to play but we're missing the players to complement them to make it work. To my mind, the things we'd need for the type of football Pearson seems to want are: 1) Pace on the flanks and up front 2) Wide players who are willing and able to cover the full backs 3) A midfielder who can screen the defence and soak up possession. There are three things tha we currently lack.

I literally don’t understand your comment and am not even entirely sure what you are reacting to. Are you sure you’re on the right thread?

I think - given his role - you have to judge Mark Ashton on the long-term. And the reality is that is what is failing. We have too many poor players under contract and have failed to invest player sales into either a competitive team or players with resale value. That is squarely on Ashton's head. I think you have to say that Johnson maybe did better than he got credit for, given the squad of players though. I think the decline when we restarted after COVID has to also be seen in the context that both his successors have demonstrated that the sales of Pack, Webster and Brownhill have created structural problems that went way beyond Johnson's managerial ability.

To my mind, there are two logical schools of thought: 1) The team Pearson inherited needed a massive overhaul. The board have trusted him to do that massive overhaul and now that he's started it, he should be allowed to see it through. However we need to accept that will mean short-term pain- as we have several players who are not good enough and/or don't fit how Pearson want to play and we don't have the opportunity to move them on or the resources to replace them quickly. However that overhaul will ultimately get us to a better place than where we are now. Therefore we stick with Pearson and accept it isn't going to be great until some of our higher paid players who don't fit the system reach the end of their contracts and Pearson gets the players he needs. But, until then, we're hoping to narrowly beat the drop. If that's the case, Pearson stays and completes the work he has done. 2) Whatever the merits of the current squad, we have to be pragmatic and accept that - if we cannot afford an overhaul - then now isn't the time to do that. We should focus on getting a manager who can get the best out of the players we have. That will probably keep us in the division but, if we're being honest, probably mean leaving some deeper-lying problems in the squad unaddressed for the time being and hoping we'll later be in a financial situation to achieve that overhaul. Therefore we focus on staying on the division in the meantime, with the risk that an even deeper rot sets in. If that's the case, Pearson probably isn't the right manager and we might want to look again. Personally I'm a bit torn on where we stand. The reality is that - if we want an overhaul of the club and the squad in the current economic climate - this is what that looks like. It's going to be a long and messy process. That might mean it is the wrong thing to do and we are on the wrong path for the club. But I really don't hold a lot of truck with the people who wanted the playing squad and culture overhauled post-Holden, despite knowing the financial climate we were in, and don't like what that looks like in practice. I'm starting to wonder if that overhaul was the wrong move but, if Pearson goes, the only logical appointment is someone who abandons transforming the club for now and focuses on the short-term. That too has its cost.

I demand neat and orderly expressions of frustration, Goddamnit!

I think a lot comes down to confidence in the players around you. I think our players expect others around them to make mistakes, move to anticipate those and that means they leave gaps or move into positions that would not happen if they trusted others to get it right. Which leads to an increased number of errors.

I am not defending today but I do think a team with Baker and Atkinson at centre back and a midfield of Williams, James and King would have beaten the line up we put our today. Players are missing. That is certainly not the sole issue but it does not help either.

No offence meant by this but I suspect anyone who does not realise how interlinked confidence and motivation are has either been lucky enough not to experience low confidence in the work place or not perceptive enough to understand the impact when it happened.

I think that is a bit of a false argument. I think most of us - whatever our career - can recognise the difference in how we perform when we are comfortable and confident in what we are doing and feel trusted to do that and how we perform when we are scared our boss is going to haul us over the coals for any mistake we make. Footballers are humans - not some weird alien species where basic rules of human psychology no longer apply.

Being honest, I think we are struggling with the dual impact of a squad that is not good enough and managerial team that are very clear that the squad is not good enough. We have a team of poor players and a lack of balance but also a team that clearly know the manager does not rate them and probably suspect he is right not to rate them. Quality is poor and confidence is shot. Such a dangerous combination.

Based on his Twitter, he still wants to freelance about Bristol City, including for Bristol Sport. I am not expecting bridge burning…

Exactly. I do get that some topics get started at the same time but I do wonder why people who start their thread a bit later think “yes, there are several threads slagging off the performance but I have a hot new take that DEFINITELY deserves its own thread…

Have now edited!

Genuinely not criticising anyone - today was awful - but do we really need 57, 123 new threads about that on a weekly basis?

I respect what Warnock has achieved but have never wanted him at the club. Right now, I would certainly take someone who makes poor players believe they are better than they are.

Now that I do think is a fair criticism.

To an extent, I agree. But - as we cannot afford to overhaul the squad - we are working with the players we have. I agree it is not a fantastic bunch but many - such as Vyner, Dasilva, Bakinson, Martin and arguably Kalas - look worse under Pearson than they did under previous managers. I think Pearson is right about the changes we need but they are changes we cannot afford and I do not believe he is getting the best out of the players we actually have.

I honestly think indifferent is the one criticism that cannot be fairly levelled at him. At the same time, it feels pretty clear the players he has are not the players he wants to work with and that we cannot afford players he does want to work with. Whether he is right or wrong in his assessment of our players, I wonder how much it helps them to have a manager who very clearly and openly does not rate them.

To be fair, the players were all perfectly in synch and virtually telepathic at they all drifted to the left of the box and left oodles of space for the shot to go into the net.