LondonBristolian

Yeah - he was the star of that pre-season and looked like a bargain. And then we signed Palmer. Then sold Webster, lost to Leeds and had a complete midfield reshuffle and changed formation. Then lost Afobe to injury and the rest of the season trying pretty much every playing system available with the only coherent thread being the fact that Szmodics had no role to play in any of them.

Yes - you’re right. Thinking about it, Szmodics came on and struggled during that game. Definitely the right call to get rid!

I think what annoyed me was the inconsistency. I’m not going to pretend I had any idea whether he was good enough or not but we signed him presumably on the basis that we rated him, he did well in pre-season and he never got a fair chance beyond the odd 10 mins here and there beyond one League Cup game where he scored a beautiful free kick. It felt like we signed a player who did all the right things but wasn’t wanted by a manager who pretty much admitted Szmodics did all the right things but wasn’t a player he rated.

Good work. How much did the therapy cost and would you recommend the therapist?

Yes - but if we had kept Szmodics then how would Kasey Palmer or Marley Watkins have got game time?

Let’s be honest here. He’s a conference player at best and far worse than literally every single player in England who hasn’t come through our youth system.

We are going to have to wait and see but my current feeling - and I say this as someone currently leaning towards giving Manning more time - is that I don’t think any of our youth players will get opportunities next season with Manning at the helm. No idea if that is the right decision or wrong one but I struggle to see how a manager is going to decide that players he would rather not select on the bench even with no other options are suddenly ready for time on the pitch.

Thank you. I now feel acknowledged.

Five people is a lot of people to buy a football club. How on Earth are they going to split the bill?

I think there are some great posts in this thread. For me, it's less about a middle ground so much as an understanding that different players respond to different things. There are undoubtedly players that benefit from a lot of coaching and instruction but there other's who learn by subconsciously absorbing what they observe but struggle if they over-think things, or simply thrive on instinct. What worries me is the idea from Saturday that the game plan was right and the players didn't execute it. Several years ago, I worked in an outpatient psychology service. Whenever treatment didn't succeed, the psychologists would always frame it as "The patient didn't engage with the treatment". There was never any questioning of whether they were being offered the right treatment, or whether the psychologists were doing it effectively. It was always the patient who was to blame for supposedly not wanting to be cured enough. At the moment, I feel Manning is sitting around telling himself, "No, it's the players who are wrong", Seymour Skinner-style. But ultimately I think he'll only develop to achieve his potential as a manager if he can start to interrogate whether he is working to the strengths of his players.

Which bit? I might be wrong but I think the fact that Yeboah in particular - and young players in general - are training less with the first team is something that has been reported by more than one poster with genuine insight into what's going on on the training ground.

I'd say that's slightly revisionist. A lot of our injuries at the time were in defence. We had 5 forwards available (Wells, Sykes, Cornick, Bell and Mehmeti) as well as Knight who could have played higher up the pitch in an emergency. At times Yeboah was getting on the pitch ahead of Mehmeti and possibly Cornick. I'd agree he was raw but he wasn't just there to make up the numbers. Pearson obviously had more injuries than Manning but injuries are still disrupting us somewhat. Worrying difference though is Manning seems happier to just not put players on the bench. I can get why sending Yeboah on loan is better than being in the Under-18s but I do find it worrying how many young players seem to be further away than they were a year or six months ago and I can't name a single one that's any closer to the first team since Manning took over.

Just realised I'm talking nonsense in this post as @REDOXOwasn't the person who had mentioned the Boro game. Sorry!

Sure, but you're using an example of a game where we were drawing 2-2. Granted, we had just conceded two quick goals in succession having been 2-up but I'm still not sure you can call drawing 2-2 at home "not competing".

I'd be interested to see what Pearson said. I suspect it's not quite as bleak as some might think given he obviously wanted to stay. I imagine certain figures in the hierarchy aren't his favourite people but he also clearly connected with the fans and many at the club. I'm sure he'd caution people at the cons and issues but I'm not wholly certain he'd tell them it was a completely terrible place to be.

If you go, we'll lose a boring match to a late own goal and, if you don't go, you'll miss a stunning 7-1 Bristol City victory....

My ex-flatmate is a QPR fan and I used to occasionally go to Loftus Road with him when his friend couldn't make it and I had a free Saturday and couldn't get to the City game. A few years ago - I'm guessing shortly before Bowles' diagnosis but perhaps it was a little afterwards - we bumped into Stan Bowles outside the grounds and I took a photo of him with my friend. Bearing in mind Bowles finished playing for QPR the year before my friend was born, the level of excitement he had upon meeting him was incredible. A true legend in the eyes of QPR fans and someone who really made time for fans even then - I'm sure my friend would have been one of several people who asked for a photo that day.

I think what is awkward with Conway is that either he, Manning or both have publicly stated Manning is trying to get him to play a different way. That’s fine - and perhaps it will work in the long-term - but I think it really piles the pressure on Manning if he’s asking our star young player to play differently and his resulting performances are diminishing buht his value to sellers and to the team. I’m not (yet) at the “sack Manning” point - I recognise injuries have hindered him (albeit less so than they did Pearson) and that the squad isn’t quite as good as JL made it out to be - but I do agree with the OP that barely any players have improved over him and several seem to have regressed. There’s still just about enough time to claim he’s trying to change the way we play and it will take time but even that’s quite at odds from the stated intention of employing a manager to get the best out of the squad.

I’m not ready to take a view at the moment as there seem to be short runs of good performances followed by short runs of poor performances. If that continues and we end up staying between 10th and 14th then I’d say back in the summer and see what happens next year. However, if the two straight defeats are the start of a genuine downturn then I would want a change before the end of the season. I’m not currently definitively back or definitively sack but I don’t see any benefit of keeping him until the end of the season and then making another change in the summer, nor in keeping him but not backing him in the transfer market. If we’re backing him, we should back him. If not then we should make the change once that is decided. I’d always rather give a manager every opportunity for improvement before I’d change things and I don’t think there is currently enough to justify sacking him but that could change in the next month or so if the form of the last two games continues.

Ultimately the buck still stops with Manning though. If your players can’t execute the game plan then it is the wrong game plan - no matter how it looks on paper. Unlike some points in the last few years, believe that the vast majority - and perhaps all - of our players give 100% and want to succeed for themselves and for each other. If they are giving their all and not delivering the game plan then the question has to be whether it is the right game plan for the players.

I’m not really trying to make any point beyond that I don’t honestly believe we would be significantly higher than 12th with our current squad regardless of who was managing us. I am far from convinced on Manning but I don’t buy into the idea the change in management - whilst unnecessary - has significantly impacted on our fortunes either way.

Cardiff was utterly ridiculous. But we were missing 5 or 6 players for much of the first part of the season and we've been missing Atkinson, Naismith, Sykes, Twine*, Pring and Bell at various points in recent weeks whilst McCrorie and Wells only came back part the way into Manning's tenure. * a new signing but we've lost Weimann, who would be counted amongst Pearson's injuries. Pearson had it worse with injuries for sure but - Ipswich and Cardiff aside - I'm not sure the difference was that dramatic and it'd certainly be an inaccurate picture to pretend Manning has generally had a fully fit squad to choose from.

Is it? When Pearson went, we had 18 points from 14 (which I make around 1.28 per game) We now have 44 from 34 (which I make around 1.29 per game)

I think the main lesson we can learn this season - as several clubs have learned before - is that sacking the manager isn't the surefire way to improve results that we think it is. I'm therefore personally not jumping towards "Sack the manager" as the answer. Whilst I didn't want Pearson to go, I don't actually think our points total would be all that different if he was still in post. We're mid-table because that's where our team is. We might win a couple and talk about promotion, then lose a couple and then talk about relegation and so on ad nauseam but mid-table is about right. And I'm no more about to accept losing two in a row as evidence that we're dramatically declining as I was prepared to accept winning two in a row before that as evidence we were hurtling towards promotion.

I genuinely don’t know. We may well not. But, even if not, I’m not sure if being that blatantly open about it is helpful. I suppose you could see it as being brutally honest and laying out a direct challenge to the players to prove him wrong but I suspect that is a motivational technique that works on some but not others…