LondonBristolian

I totally get the results won't bear out in reality and it is very possible we'll get points where we don't expect and not get points where we do. That was why I originally just said 16 from 9 rather than putting my workings. I think where we disagree is that I don't want to go off what Manning is actually doing but what I want us to achieve. Frankly what Manning is doing isn't good enough, which is why I'm not confident in him for next season. Ultimately Manning will, likely as not, be in charge next season. And I'll support the team, whoever the manager is. But, if I'm honest, 10 points or even 12 - whilst I agree a reasonable target on the face of it - would not assuage the significant doubts I have as to whether Manning is the right person to take us forward. 16 points is a big ask but not an impossible one and, after a run of generally poor form since Christmas, it would take that sort of return for me to genuinely go into next season with confidence.

You seem to have ignored literally everything anyone has actually posted and then invented a load of things nobody has actually said. I'm not entirely sure that rebutting arguments nobody is actually making is as constructive a contribution as you think it is.

I felt someone would come back and say that. My counter to it would be that I also think the run-in - once we get past the next two - is the most favourable run of fixtures we have had all season. My calculation is as follows: West Brom (A) - Not impossible to get a result but I'd not expect one. 0 Leicester (H) - ditto. Except far less likely to get a result. 0 Plymouth (A) - Currently 22nd in the form table. We should be targeting a win. 3 Sunderland (A) - 23rd in form table but admittedly better than the form table exists so put this down as a draw. 1 Blackburn (H) - home game against a team just outside the relegation zone who are, again, below us in the form table. We should target a win. 3 Huddersfield (H) - home game against a team in the bottom 3. We should target a win 3 Norwich (A) - Not impossible but a tough game. I don't necessarily expect any points. 0 Rotherham (H) - bottom of the table and the form table. We should target a win. 3 Stoke (A) - struggled all season. Reasonable to target a win. 3 That gets us to 16. I agree it is a better return than the rest of the season but I struggle to see why we shouldn't be setting a target of winning the 3 home games against Blackburn, Huddersfield & Rotherham and getting 7 from 9 at Sunderland, Huddersfield and Stoke.

This is what worries me though. I feel Manning inherited a team that was pretty consistent in terms of performances (if not results) and solid defensively but with a lack of quality in attack and my honest assessment to date is that he's undone those two strengths without addressing the weaknesses. And the board and Technical Director stated at the time of Manning's appointment that the goal was to get someone in who could get the best out of our existing players. And, whilst it was obviously silly to suggest we had a top six squad, I do think we have the nucleus of a good squad of players. I accept that it is near inevitable that Manning is going to stay until the start of next season but, at the moment, my honest feeling is that the most likely result of Manning being in charge for an extended period is going to be yet another rebuild (this time one that is completely unnecessary), a significant drop-off in opportunities to develop young talent and a bloated squad as we try to get players in that work for Manning's system but find it hard to shift players whose confidence and performance levels have dropped since he took charge. All of which seems utterly contrary to the interests of the club, irrespective of performances on the pitch.

Realistically the club aren’t going to make any kind of change unless our form is utterly disastrous. (Unlike other posters, I actually think his job would have been in genuine jeopardy if we had performed worse at Ipswich and then lost to Swansea). So I think - bar failing to win another game - any discussion of what would see Manning sacked is ultimately fruitless. In terms of what would reassure me he was the right man, I see no reason why we shouldn’t be targeting 16 points from our remaining 9 fixtures. From memory, there are 5 games I would make us favourites for and others we are capable of getting results from so I see no reason why that is not a reasonable target. I also want to see players who are tangibly improving under Manning and some evidence he wants to develop our young players and keep the pathway to the first team intact. Others may disagree but I’m not so worried about the quality/attractiveness of the football as long as we are getting results. However, if we are underperforming slightly on results but are genuinely competitive and enjoyable to watch then I would be less rigid on that 16 point target. But ultimately - whilst I know Manning will be there for the start of next season bar a complete disaster - quite a bit needs to happen before I feel any optimism or enthusiasm about that prospect.

What worries me is the message is sends out. If Manning genuinely believes none of our reserve team are ready to play for the first team even in an emergency then that is a shame but ultimately his call to make. But, by not even naming them on the bench, it implies to those at the levels below the reserves - under-18s etc - that young players will not be trusted and there isn’t a pathway. That has to subconsciously hit motivation levels as what are the players working towards?

It is but, even there, there are 4 teams below us in similarly dire form. In that sense, I'm pretty optimistic that 8 teams won't overtake us between now and the end of the season so I don't think we are going to go down. I do, however, think we're risking being far closer than we should be and that's utterly inexcusable with the players we have.

I disagree with the original post in two senses: 1) I think tying Manning and the Lansdowns' future together creates too much pressure to keep Manning (in that, if he goes, the owners have to go too). Any decision on Manning's future should be independent from any decision on the owners' future. 2) I'm past the point of talking about IF Manning doesn't work. I don't think his appointment has worked, I don't think it will work and I think every day he remains in post is a day wasted and even a day undermining the future of the club. It's time to change manager now and THEN have a discussion about the owners' future. I appreciate what SL has done but he seems to have grown tired and lost interest. I can understand that but the club needs more.

I agree. And I get the impression from your posts over the years is that, like me, you don't say that lightly. I absolutely hate for anyone to lose their job. I'm very aware managers are ultimately human beings with families and bills and I want to give any manager every chance to prove they can do the job. But I just feel that it's not working in terms of results or performances and too much at the club is going in the wrong direction. The team ethic and togetherness seems to be frayed, the players don't seem clear on what's expected of them, too many players have regressed whilst too few have improved and the pathway from the youth to the first team appears to becoming increasingly overgrown with brambles and weeds. I don't see Manning succeeding in doing what he wants to do and I actually don't think, if he did implement what he is trying to do, that it would be the right direction for the club. It's a shame and I feel for him but it is very clear to me he was the wrong appointment and - aside from everything else - he isn't meeting the brief set out by JL and BT at the time of recruitment. I just don't see any good that would arise from keeping him in the job for a game longer. I simply do not think it is going to work out and I hope the club can "take the emotions out of their decision-making" and do what needs to be done.

This bit in bold is the key bit for me. We spent three years under Pearson rebuilding and, at the start of the season, it felt like we'd finally had a hardworking squad who'd learned how to give consistent levels of performance each week and - whilst we were lacking an injection of quality in one or two areas - we had a nucleus of a good team. We've then got rid of Pearson to bring in a manager more equipped to get the best out of the squad and suddenly have an apparent situation where the squad is not good enough and a substantial rebuild is needed. For me, the two absolutely essential criteria I want in any manager at this point is a) Someone who can get the best out of the existing players b) Someone who'll continue giving young players a pathway to the first team. I can understand why the club thought Manning could be the right person to do those things but it isn't happening in practice and, if Manning isn't the right person for the job we need, someone else should be doing that job.

I totally agree with the original post. I said this yesterday but, under Lee Johnson, I fell into the trap of letting the occasional decent performance convince me against my instincts that it was going to work out eventually and it never did. Ultimately, for all the positives yesterday, we turned a potential win into a loss late on and the three defeats that preceded it have put Manning massively in debit. IF we can take the positives last night and turn it into a win against Swansea and another win in our next two after that against West Brom or Leicester, maybe I’ll start to buy into the idea that Manning might get things on course. But, as it stands, we are four defeats in a row and, shortly before that, we went six without a win. Last night showed glimpses of promise but Manning doesn’t have anywhere near enough credit in the bank for those glimpses to be enough.

I never ever want us to lose and that doesn't change tonight. What I want is for us to produce a brilliant performance and win. However, even if that happens. I want the club to look at the pattern rather than the individual dots. A win would be great but it would only be meaningful for the long-term if it is followed by consistent improvement and a sustained period of good results. Otherwise it's great to get a result but meaningless in terms of our long-term direction. In the past, I think we've been too easily swayed by the good result at the right time. Lee Johnson in particular had a knack of pulling a result out of nowhere when everyone had run out of patience and I can certainly see a scenario where the team play with less pressure to get a result against a team who provide opportunities to counter-attack and it results in a win or a draw, which then becomes "evidence" that the club is on the right path, only for it quickly to transpire that no lessons are learned. What I would say is that - whatever the results - if the team do not raise their performance levels tonight then I will be even more sceptical of the manager's ability to turn things round.

I see myself as someone who supports giving managers time and wants to ensure there is every change for a manager to turn things around before I get to a point where I feel things aren't working and can't be resolved. In all honestly, I pushed for sticking with Lee Johnson for far longer than I should have done simply because, whenever we were on a terrible run, we'd always pull a result out from somewhere. With Manning, Ive wanted to give him time and - even after the QPR and Wednesday games, was still arguing that injuries were playing a part and that there had been enough positive signs from Soton and Boro to justify patience. But the abject lack of reaction and improvement against Cardiff was the limit fro me. As you say, all the evidence suggests he is not going to be able to do the job he has been brought in to do and I just cannot see what could happen that could create an improvement. Maybe I will be shocked by improvements v Ipswich, Swansea and West Brom but I just don't see it. And, if we don't get a decent return from those three then I just don't see how he stays in the job, no matter how stubborn JL and BT try to be.

I get what you're saying and largely agree but I also think, had Manning brought in some Klug-style support at the start it might have helped. At the moment we have: 1) A (possibly) promising manager who has previously managed for a limited period of time in League One and who is at this level for the first time. 2) An assistant with the same amount of experience as he has and who has only previous been assistant to Liam before so doesn't have experience of a range of inputs and approaches. 3) A Technical Director who is a club stalwart who has worked their way through the ranks behind the scenes which has the upside of knowing the club inside out but the downside of not being able to draw upon experiences from other clubs and approaches. 4) A Chair who has been at the club from a young age through his father and, whilst having been Chair for a long time, doesn't have a wide range of workplace experiences. I don't actually think any of 1, 2 or 3 in isolation are necessarily a bad thing. It's good to give people opportunities and sometimes you are better off taking a gamble on someone who is unproven rathe than someone who has reached their ceiling and is jaded as a result. But 1, 2, 3 and 4 combined leaves us with a massive deficit in experience and - as we saw a few years back with Dean Holden - it tends to be when things are going against you that the lack of experience shows as there isn't the knowledge and experience to draw upon different solutions from different places to find something that works. If the club want Tinnion to succeed as Technical Director then brilliant but, to do that, you need some experience on the board and a relatively experienced manager to address the experience gaps. If the club want Manning to succeed, great, but you need either an experienced DoF/Technical Director OR an experienced assistant. Like I said in my previous post, I don't think there is any way that the club right now could push for a change in the managerial structure without implicitly admitting a lack of faith in the manager. But I do think Jon Lansdown and Brian Tinnion have failed themselves as much as they've failed Manning and Hogg by allowing a system to be implemented where the entire command chain from Chairman to Assistant Manager at the club has massive gaps in its range of experience and no consideration has been given to addressing the obvious gaps.

I don’t think you can bring in more experienced “help” without fundamentally undermining the manager. The board have to decide they either back him to do the job or they don’t back him. I don’t think additional help is a realistic option and I don’t think Liam could or should accept it if the offer was made.

I agree that Manning inherited a poisoned chalice and a lot of responsibility sits with the board for putting him in a position where it was extremely hard for him to succeed. However, even as someone who has pushed for giving Manning a chance, I have lost patience. He has inherited a solid, resilient tactically shrewd team with a great work ethic which lacked flair and creativity and struggled to break sides down. He has failed to improve on our weaknesses and whilst undoing our strengths and he seems intent on blaming the players for his failure to get the best out of them. He inherited a situation where few managers would have succeeded in winning over the fanbase or meeting the unrealistic expectations set out by the board but I still feel he is doing a poor job even within that context.

Said this elsewhere but, if the players can’t play the system then it is the wrong system, no matter how good it is in theory.

I totally agree with the second part. With the first part, I think it is harder to say as we don’t know what the options were. I certainly think the club were arrogant in not recruiting in the summer and failing to address an obvious gap in the squad. In January, it may have been a choice of settling for a poor player at poor value or holding off until the summer to get the player we actually wanted. As you say, Twine as a stopgap made theoretical sense but for the injury. However the signing of Mebude is just looking like a misfire.

I disagree. Good manager but we need someone to build for the long term. We’re obviously not going to turn back to Pearson but I would like someone with a similar mindset of doing what will help the club in the long term rather than get quick results Of course, another month of performances like this and the quick results getter might be required.

I’m going to be as fair as I can be. I don’t think - on paper - Manning was a terrible appointment. If you appoint someone with Championship experience then you often end up with someone whose career has peaked and there is a solid argument for gambling on a manager succeeding at a lower level as someone who might have the potential to get promotion. BUT it is not working, we are going backwards and it is increasingly hard to identify the positives Manning has brought or to believe he has the answers to improve us. Ultimately - unless he has a very compelling analysis of what has gone wrong so far and how he can fix it (beyond blaming the players for not understanding and implementing his tactical genius) then he has to go and JL and BT need to be honest with themselves about how this appointment went wrong and what needs to happen to get it right next time.

The sad truth is that, whilst I really rated him at one point when he played for us, I am utterly indifferent to his return. I’m not sad or upset that he is playing for Cardiff, I’m not even angry that he downed tools for five months as I don’t know the wider circumstances, what he was told and what happened behind the scenes. But those five months of disinterested performances have left me with complete apathy. I don’t care that he plays for Cardiff, he’ll just be another player on Saturday and I have absolutely no interest in his career.

For me, Conway last season looked like the most naturally instinctive goalscorer we have had at the club for a very long time. I think there is a real natural talent there, even if his form has deserted him. However the big challenge he has is that, in a sense, he is a man out of time. 15 or 20 years ago, you could have a natural goalscorer, whack a big man next to him in a 4-4-2 and he could make a career as a poacher. With the way the game has evolved tactically, that’s not really an option anymore and - whichever club Conway moves onto- he’ll be expected to have more to his game than just goalscoring instinct. It could be this season is the making of Tommy. He’s obviously trying to widen his skillset and play a different role. The problem is that learning takes time and he is currently playing with all the grace and pleasure to watch of someone trying to learn a violin in public. There is a possibility he will emerge from this a better all round player who has broadened their game and then rediscovers their instinct. There is also a possibility he will be lost in a rabbit hole and never quite master what he is trying to do whilst losing sight of what he is doing well. As it stands, you sort of feel like - in Radiohead terms - he’s trying to figure out how to make Kid A whilst everyone wishes he’d just perform Creep.

He obviously expected that he could confidently predict Twine’s return. He has decided to present himself as an “in the know” expert - nobody forced him into that role. He therefore needs to take the consequences and flak that comes to it. Confidently stating anything at all with an injury is a foolish endeavour and he chose to do it.

This is where I worry that there is a little bit of a “coaching manual” mentality. I might be wrong but I can’t help fearing Manning worked on the defensive side first because he’s been taught that you should look at the defensive side first, rather than because he had evaluated what the team actually needed to work on.

To my mind, the major problem was the fact we spent an entire preseason setting up a particular way and then - having lost Webster, missed out on Nketiah and performed badly in our first game against Leeds - abandoned the formation, sold Pack, signed two new and quite different midfielders, flailed around for a striker and never found a consistent way of playing. I don’t necessarily think losing Pack was the wrong decision but felt like one of several rushed decisions that didn’t reflect a consistent strategy. And I don’t think there was a clear understanding of what Pack offered the team so we didn’t effectively replace his role. I think that, with more of a plan, we could have moved Pack on and developed a stronger team but instead we had an unbalanced midfield which didn’t complement each other and missed Pack’s contribution as nobody else was doing what he had been.