italian dave

Blimey……this isn’t meant to be a technical examination, just a bit of fun! Yes, the Led Zeppelin version, which is the one that’s famous, was strictly speaking late 1969 - but was played throughout the early ‘70s. And when you say “too” - as has been confirmed twice above, Won’t Get Fooled Again was NOT from the ‘60s, it was 1971. But in future I’ll try to remember that on a weekend after we’ve lost everyone gets a bit grumpy!

I think there’s a danger that “why don’t we use academy players?” Becomes a bit like the “why didn’t we sign a 20 goal striker in January?” question. It’s not that simple, and it depends on the right players and on good enough players being available. I don’t see any evidence that any of our managers of the past decade haven’t bought into the academy, and from Bryan to Kelly to Reid to Semenyo to Scott to Vyner we’ve brought players through if they’re good enough. And I’m struggling to think of anyone who’s “pathway” we’ve blocked who’s gone on to prove themselves at Championship level. I don’t watch the U21s, U18s, so others may speak with more authority than me, but friend who do watch them tell me that there is no-one there at the moment who stands out as either a Scott of the future or as someone we should be giving first team game time to. It’s too early to judge LM, but the fact that (again, I’m told) we are now getting all the sides in our pyramid to play the same style and with the same philosophy is surely an indication that we’re trying to make it work. I’m told that hasn’t always been the case. And I was also going to make exactly the point @robinforlife2 makes above about bringing in almost ‘almost finished articles’ from elsewhere when we haven’t got them ourselves. I think if there was a difference between NP and his predecessor and successor (I’m ignoring Holden in this!) it’s about expectations. When the expectations are principally about saving money and just staying in the Championship then giving young players a chance is a lot less risky than when expectations are top 6 (which they clearly were for LJ) or top end - whatever that means! - as they are for Manning.

Just a follow on from a comment on the 1974 heritage thread. Songs from the ‘70s, that will mark both our team from that time, and our performance today. My three for starters Won’t Get Fooled Again Dazed and Confused Anything by Mud.

Generous, but fair point too Dave. I’ve said elsewhere that we’ve played 11 1/2 games since the new year, QPR have played 8. That’s almost 1/3 fewer. Bloke behind me made an observation near the end of the first half that QPR were making us run around a lot. Not necessarily doing anything constructive, just making us run. Maybe they recognised the stats and that was part of their game plan? It worked!

Me too. Great to see him, and so many from that side. Three things struck me. 1. I’m old enough to remember AD, that team, that match. A great many younger fans around me aren’t, and the events won’t mean so much to them, but without exception they were appreciative and stood and applauded. Really respectful of our heritage. QPR fans too. Great to see. 2. I’ve moaned like anything in the past about the PA in the Dolman ( @phantom ) but today I could hear everything. The club seem to have been as good as their word in trying to improve it. 3. A little alternative moan. Does no-one at the club realise that there was more than one song around in 1974? Much as I love the Wurzels and One for the Bristol City - that’s in moderation, not endlessly repeated! It just seemed like a great chance to play something different from the era.

Really. And that’s just my point: surely what we should want is for them to succeed: for the next game to be the one they turn the corner, to find the way for the Boro and Soton games to become the norm. Getting to the point where they’re sacked just means we’ve failed, and brings a whole load of upheaval. My view is that pretty much every City manager in my (long) time watching City has wanted what’s best for City and has worked to bring us success. I’ll support them in that as long as they’re in post. And yes, that includes Lumsden and most certainly includes LJ. Pulis wanted what gave him most money. Osman wanted what was best for Osman. So I’ll give you those two. But they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

That shirt was so horrible that I think I’ll rest my case on the shirt alone in that instance.

I never understand why any City fan would want a City manager sacked.

Better corners (we had a few). And we had a couple of free kicks that might have benefitted from a better ball in. Clutching at straws….

I didn’t. Hope we never do these silly ‘one off’ kits again. We always lose.

Mmmmm……if anything, I felt that the problem today was that we started off with the attitude that this was going to be a different type of game and one we were going to have to be much more patient in. Which, to be fair, is what most of us were saying. And I suspect what what was part of the pre match team discussion. But it felt almost like we translated that into an ‘all we need to do is be patient’ approach. We were notably more patient than many other games recently when we’ve gone for it from the off. I’m not saying we should have gone gung ho - but we could have done with an early goal to spoil the QPR game plan, and we just never looked like wanting that,

We didn’t “steal” a win at Boro. We deserved it. And before that we more than held outright own at PL Forest. We lost to a Leeds side who are ripping everyone apart at the moment, and before that we got a point - which could easily have been three - at Coventry. A lot more than one good performance in 6. We were shit today mind! I’d call it generous!!

I think you need to read their post a bit more carefully.

I thought we struggled wide on both sides today. Injury to Bell not helping. Positive: we’ve got that one out of our system. Can’t think of much else!

And a power cut at half time!!

My guess is that he will.

Last time I read (which was a while back) they still intended to go ahead, but they were having planning problems with the other things that were proposed for the site (and presumably helped to support it financially). Bit like us and the Sporting Quarter I guess.

1969maaan (whose post you replied to). Sorry! You Remember it better than me

Not as far as I’m aware.

I think you’re probably right! Although the fact that “in a free country” someone can be criticised for choosing to be a vegan gets a bit confusing!

I’m still trying to figure out whether that barb is directed at 1960 or at Dale Vince…..

One of the immutable facts of football……….which literally thousands of posts on here the past few months have failed to recognise

Biscuit…….Portishead

An aside, as you say, but what Ratcliffe gets is far more complex than “just 25%” suggests. The terms of the deal give him control of footballing matters at the club. That includes player transfers and managerial appointments. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/13037428/manchester-united-sir-jim-ratcliffes-deal-with-the-glazers-explained-and-what-it-means-for-the-premier-league-club

Mmmmm…..not sure that’s a good enough reason to want to play Leeds at the moment