JBFC II

5 minutes ago, phantom said:

Where was this posted?

It needs a few of us to add some facts to this nonsense

Not sure sadly, just got a screenshot on twitter.

It's a Facebook comment though, so best bet is a post from Wally or the club on there

3 minutes ago, Stortz said:

Muppet is indeed harsh, but I think it's reasonable to speculate about what a less conservative manager could do with the talent Southgate's had available.

Can't argue with the way he and the team have represented themselves though.

Oh I agree, there are more accomplished managers out there who may well have done better with the squad available.

But then, Capello, Sven and Hodgson were all more accomplished and achieved way less.

He’s not perfect, but I’ve not felt so connected with the national side for many years, he’s done a lot of things right. Genuinely looking forward to the Euros, which hasn’t been the case for many major tournaments over the past 20 years, a lot of that is due to what he’s created

20 minutes ago, Bristolisredd said:

Blokes a muppet the sooner he goes the better 

‘Muppet’ is incredibly harsh.

Has he achieved all he should have with the squad we have? Of course not, but then neither has any England manager since Ramsey. In reality, a Euros final, World Cup semi final and Quarter final (with a loss to France hardly a major disappointment) and a 3rd place finish in the Nations League is about as good as we’ve had for many years.

Is he the best option out there? No. Is the national team in a better place than it has been at any point this century? Yes. Is he a ‘muppet’ who we should get rid of as soon as possible? Of course not

3 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Mate I've watched so many Bristol City games where we've been 2 nil down and we havent done as you say. 

I've watched even more football games in general where that hasn't happened. 

The changes we made invited the pressure. 

I feel the fact we played 120 minutes midweek invited the pressure.

We didn't press anywhere near as well as the 2nd half went on, we looked knackered and off our feet. The changes pushed us deeper, but at that point we were trying to conserve the win, going for anything more would have been ridiculous, they'd have walked through us

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

This is an interesting and this was rudimentary stats but 60-90 hugely was worse than 45-60.

45-60 still posed some degree of threat.

61 to the end..

If the change took place on 60 rather than 45, it well and truly pushed us down and back.

That's fair, but I think that was as much to do with Boro really, we were under the cosh for the whole 2nd half, tried to change it to counteract that but failed to.

The way I'm seeing it is how we played in the 2nd half isn't how Manning will want us to play in the long run, it was a reaction to being 2 up and tiring rapidly after playing 120 minutes mid week. If we started the match in that vein, I'd be concerned, but we didn't, far from it. Nothing to be disappointed or angry about with it imo

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We moved to the back 3 right at the start of the second 45, not when McCrorie came on, fwiw.

Did we? From where I saw it, Mehmeti was a straight swap for Cornick and McCrorie came on for Bell at around 60 minutes which saw a change in shape.

Not always easy to see shape from the angle we were at though!

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

No, not imho we didn’t.  We didn’t react at all to what became one way traffic.

We attempted to by bringing on McCrorie and moving to 3 at the back and congesting the middle. I don't think we had the options on the bench to properly react to it, we ended up going a bit deeper and losing the midfield battle as players tired.

Felt we dealt with their dominance well for the majority of the half really, it wasn't as if they were lining up shot after shot

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

They happened under him too.  Unfortunately some of those posters who had it in for Nige wouldn’t have created any positive posts re other aspects of the game like I did.

Perhaps they did, can't fully remember many after unexpected wins like today.

My point there was that Manning gets stick when we lose, huge threads complaining about our performances (rightly so in many instances), having another thread complaining about aspects of our performance when we've won just seems unnecessarily harsh, it's the sort of thing I can't remember happening under Pearson. There's stuff to work on from today, of course there is, but it's hardly the sort of performance to be angry about imo

38 minutes ago, RedLionLad said:

He’s not bitter or jealous….

 

You will no doubt find this hard to understand BUT i am not jealous of your club and do not cast envious eyes across the City, the fans there are your typical 'poor' little rich kids, have everything but still not happy , your post sums it up' my so and so is bigger /better than your so and so,nah,nah,na,na na ! Pathetic,! you will never understand this but our season in the 5th tier was rewarding and enlightening, the dedication of the fans there was extraordinary! you will never understand it. you actual went bankrupt and ruined peoples lives , players included, ashamed .not you lot you hold a celebration to commemorate the event!! I am very happy with our new stand thank you, our Girls are rising through the ranks without any help from a big PR machine, we have a very decent training ground and facilities, yes you do well with transfers but that should tell you something, i.e. all your best players leave, there is a reason for that , any idea what? clutching at straws ,not me mate, you have your culture we have ours , you are welcome to yours, i will stick with ours if you don't mind. 

‘Girls are rising through the leagues’.

Just for a bit of context to that, over the past 3 years they’ve had 2 promotions from the 7th tier to the 5th tier. They’re now at the same level as the likes of Larkhall, Pucklechurch and St Austell and in the division below Keynsham and Portishead.

Not exactly sure it’s comparable to our women’s team, who are competing against the likes of Chelsea, Arsenal and Man United, but they’re used to competing in the 5th tier I guess!

Genuine question.

Has there ever been an instance where a club has upgraded their stadium, built a new stand and the attendances have dropped off the back of it?

Didn't they say the reason they weren’t getting 10k at home is because of how poor their ground is, so now they upgrade it and their crowds drop even further. Has that ever happened before?

1-0 FT.

Sunderland ultimately a level above, looked dangerous throughout.

Had a couple of chances in the 2nd half, Olly Thomas will feel like he should have had one.

Knight-Lebel was our stand out, but Rose came into the game 2nd half, and Backwell got better as the match went on.

Means we've been knocked out, but some good stuff on show against a strong Sunderland side. A couple of the more experienced players were a bit anonymous, and Acey shouldn't be taking corners, but some positives for sure!

1-0 Sunderland, City fail to clear their lines and Sunderland win the ball high on their right hand side, ball cut back and thumped home.

A bit sloppy after what's been a much improved second half

Half time.

Pretty one sided really, Sunderland could easily be 2-3 up. City with a couple of half chances on the break but been second best.

Knight-Lebel has been our stand out alongside Acey, very little threat has come down their left, despite Mundle and Semedo being threats. We've been weak defensively down our left, Idehen has been caught out a couple of times, fortunately neither have led to a goal.

Kadji been pretty anonymous, Taylor-Clarke busy but not seen enough of the ball going forwards. Really like the look of Backwell as well, seems a threat whenever he gets on it

A one man away end I think tonight, a couple of first teamers returning in the Sunderland line up so will be a good test for our boys. 

Currently 2nd in the group on goal difference, so a win would put us in a great position to qualify 

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

I think thats an unfair comparison. 

It's well documented that Pearson had to rebuild the squad with limited resources and shift the deadwood, build a culture and develop youth all whilst we had quite bad injuries. 

This season was the 1st season where you could say it was Pearsons team and that we were finally in a position to give it a go. There was a general expectation that this season we would improve upon that 14th place finish. I think most expected top 10. We were on course for that despite the injury problems. And had we of not reached that expectation then Pearson would have got the same shit as Manning is now getting. 

Now we're on course to finish mid table yet again despite Manning having a better squad than Pearson had last season and better player availability. The squad was primed for Manning to come in and take it forward. We've not stood still, we've regressed. 

So to compare Manning this season and Pearson last season is completely unfair when you consider it in the context that we were expected to take big steps forward this season. 

We weren’t exactly on course for a top 10 finish, we were 15th when Pearson departed and on course for 60 points, which hasn’t been enough for top 10 for the last decade.

Would things be different if Pearson were here now? Who knows? There’s no evidence from his time here to say they would have been, but then perhaps he may have had different January targets who would have seen us surge up the table.

Not comparing them in different seasons, we’re at a point now where they’ve both had similar amounts of games this season, and there’s very little difference between what Pearson did and what Manning has done. 

Just now, Jose said:

LJ? Are you taking the piss?

He obviously isn’t popular on here, and was provided with a shed load of money.

But, at times, he took us to places we haven’t been for a long time. That counts for something in my book

19 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

1.43 this season.

18 points in 14 games come to 1.29 doesn’t it, unless my maths is vastly out

6 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

He was - let’s here your list of better ( with some rationale regarding level , resources offered etc )

 

Will be interesting 

 

Well, Dicks and Gary Johnson are a clear 1 and 2.

3rd could be a whole host of people, LJ saw us to one of our highest ever league positions, as well as that run in the cup. Cotterill saw that season in league one, ultimately didn’t have the squad to compete in the championship. Terry Cooper was before my time, but he took on a markedly worse position than Pearson and nearly gave us two promotions.

For me any one of those three is more deserving of that title. Of course Pearson cleared up a mess that was left before and provided some seriously needed stability, but to claim he’s one of our greatest ever managers when in 3 years he took us from 13th in the championship to 15th in the championship, compared to other mentioned (as well as Joe Jordan, John Ward etc) doesn’t sit well with me tbh

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Pearson 46 * 18 / 14 = 59, but an expectation of improvement with players returning from injury 

Manning 17 / 15 * 30 (games under him) = 34 plus the 21 points that he started with = 55 with those players back.

But one less win is a regression, especially against an expectation of progression.

But I can’t be arsed to put too much effort into the debate tonight!

I suppose my point was that things aren't markedly worse now than they have been over the past few years under Pearson. We're on track to end this season in exactly the same place we ended last.

Manning is no better, nor any worse than Pearson results wise and until the squad is improved that won't change. Considering the high esteem many held Pearson in (saw some on here claiming he was our 3rd best manager in the last 50 years...), nothing (apart from hope) points to us being any further forward under him than we are currently.

That doesn't take away from the ridiculous nature of his sacking, and it doesn't make the laughable statements the board came out with after it correct, but it does highlight that much like how Manning isn't underachieving, Pearson wasn't overachieving this season either

5 minutes ago, Galley is our king said:

Far to simplistic I'm afraid.

Manning has many more experienced players returning from injury, from memory...Vyner, Tanner  Williams, McCrorie, Wells, Conway just returned to bench (I'm sure there's more). Everyone would have expected progression under Nige with all the players back from injury

If winning one game less isn't regression what is?

If this is what was expected then there was no reason to sack Nige, none whatsoever!

That was just off this season, his PPG off the 14 games this season was actually higher than in any other he had at the season at the club.

The sacking of Pearson and appointment of Manning was ludicrous at best, but there's no evidence to back up any thought that we'd be better off if he'd stayed than we are now under Manning.

Ultimately, no matter what the board might say, we're a mid table side, we were under Pearson and we still are now, and that's where we'll finish up this season. Perhaps with some FFP pressure off our backs we may be able to improve that in the summer, who knows 

Under Pearson we were averaging 1.29 PPG this season, under Manning we are averaging 1.21.

That's basically one more win over the course of a season under Pearson. So we've not regressed nor have we improved, we've stayed where we were.

We're on to finish with 59/60 points at the end of the season, so absolutely 0 progress from last season as things stand!

1 minute ago, The Gasbuster said:

Sick and tired of losing to Leeds, tbh

They'll be heading back up this season anyway, so at least a season of not having to face them...

Not too concerned about losing to Leeds, they're on a different level to us wage budget and quality wise.

However, we've barely paid a glove on them and have gifted them chance after chance through our own sloppiness. Really frustrating