IAmNick

Agree with a lot of this thread, particularly @Harry's post above. I think there's a HUGE survivorship / confirmation bias when it comes to a "plan" for promotion. People tend to look at the couple of clubs we want to emulate, look at their plans, and assume that's the "right" way to do it. However there are many, many more clubs who went up in a completely different way. There are also no doubt many who had a similar plan and got relegated. All clubs think they plan is good - just saying we have a plan, and here it is... that's not enough. It's a bit of a cargo cult I think. We're building stadiums and HPCs (not out of wood on a pacific island, but sort of) and talking about our behaviours without really grasping the underlying theory. That's then manifested in the confusion of the actual implementation. Steve's at home watching yet another club pass us by, pointing at the things he's done and thinking no doubt we'll be next year, I've copied them exactly!

Yeah fair, I'm not sure I can ever remember wanting City to lose, but I can sort of see the logic in it.

If he thinks that's City's greatest chance of success why is it so mad? I'm not sure I agree by the way, but just wondering.

I think they've just evolved a bit? Now lots of teams will instead try and draw the opposition to one side of the pitch and then quickly switch play leaving a "winger" with an isolated player in front of him. There's not so much running down the line trying to beat the player head on I guess. Probably a victim of greater understanding of the game/stats too. I think your 40% is very generous, and then add on the poor chance of scoring from crosses and it's not seen as productive in a very statistically focused game at the moment. It'll come back though, hopefully - at some point the current popular style will go into decline.

Yeah we're really crap, but there are better ways to measure it than comparing the number of points off the playoffs we are 20 games apart!

I see this quite a bit, implying we've moved further away - but I always think that to remain 4 points off the playoffs that means we'd have to be keeping pace with the team who are 6th. That'd be an improvement on before. In fact after 15 games we were 4 points off, after 30 or so we're 8, now we're 12... that's roughly the same pace as before (a bit worse). The issue is we're not now 20 points off the drop (having been 10 before)... the teams at the bottom are picking up points at a greater rate than we are. Using absolute points over time is a bit unfair I think... not saying we aren't a bit crap, we are, but just a comment really.

I'm not sure they have (at least not intentionally), as they're great pros like I said. However, it doesn't exactly imply "We value and need your input to get us looking up the table" when they're 2 months away from leaving the club with seemingly no offer to stay on the table. It'd feel odd to Manning to start getting them heavily involved in things at this point and in that situation imo, both for him and them.

It's a good shout and I agree, however in the squad of that stature we have: Weimann - off on loan (and making a decent impact at a side who are 5th but that's another story) Naismith - good guy, but he's always injured. He's not actually training with the squad or playing games so there's a bit of distance there King/James - Both consummate professionals I think so I don't doubt they'd help. However, they're very much Pearson players (not that this should matter, but it's still there) and they're also both off in a few months time - and if rumours are to be believed their contracts (or lack of) contributed to Pearson falling out with other senior members of staff. That's got to impact their mental state however professional they are

People often suggested the same for Lee. I always wondered that in that case, what exactly are they bringing to the table? Is it just a demotion to coach in all but name? If so, then what's the point - I'd just ditch them and get someone in to replace them rather than attempting to paper over the cracks (and then have another payoff in 6 months when that doesn't work either!)

Because presumably they like the rest of it, like I do? I started listening to FBC just over 3 years ago and really enjoyed it. I've defended it lots of times on here since when it gets some flak. I even quite liked Ian (I know I know...). He had a role on the show and he did it very well - he was the heel, the bloke who prompted discussion, he said things which were 20% over the top but they were kind of interesting and got everyone else going and people sort of met in the middle quite often. I've dipped in an out since, but this few months he's become a parody of himself. I think he's maybe played the character for so long he's just become it for real now, or maybe that's just who he really is, I have no idea. But he's rude, abrasive, talks over and down to people - and what really pisses me off, he has basically no interest in what everyone else is saying. He waits for his turn to speak, takes ages (often ignoring the point and just saying whatever he wanted to regardless of what he'd been asked), and then when someone replies he's not even listening... instead messing around on his laptop, replying to comments, whatever. It's just rude. I actually like his opinions being there as I said, and I like the rest of the pod (@headhunter does a great job, week in week out rain or shine, and his hosting and the pod in general has come on loads since it started so hats off there) but Ian really makes it borderline unlistenable at times recently which is a shame. I don't want to stop listening as I like it, and the Suttons are a great addition, but it's tough going. So I "care" about it but don't want to stop listening I guess?

If I can work out what this is meant to mean I'll respond to it properly

Thanks for sharing, insane fight! Wow! I've watched it back at least 10 times, can't get enough. The Welsh will definitely think twice before trying to walk along that small path again eh lads

You're suggesting we might need an attacking performance (for us) on the last day then?

Just wait 6 years and we'll probably have a commemorative shirt for it along with a bit of info then.

In the three games following Southampton, we made 584, 422, and 537 short passes. We had 0 chances in all 3 games from counter attacks (according to whoscored). Against Southampton we made 277 short passes. We had 4 chances from counter attacks in that game alone. What changed? Well we played football that suited us against Southampton, football the players knew and had been bought to play. Closer to Nige's football. We went back to Manning's football after that.

As has been done to death on here, there was a lot of anger in the fan base at the time directed towards the management of the club. However it's clear that never really subsided even though it's been 4 or 5 months now - that was evident both on the forum here and at the games. Now Manning is struggling the anger that was already there is being directed his way as well (fairly or not) and it's got very toxic very quickly That's the risk you run when you make decisions like the club did though - and also never really confront the fans anger head on meaning it takes a lot longer to subside. They've made their bed, now they have to lie in it. Manning is now caught in that crossfire too, but he's also not blameless by any stretch of the imagination imo.

Seems like a job entailing all the bits he seemed to hate about working in football, and none of the stuff he liked. I'd be very surprised if he was interested in it, even in the alternative universe it'd take for him to be offered it.

Really interesting post. What are your thoughts though on the last few managers - Lee, Pearson, and now Manning. To my (untrained) eye they play a very different game, so when did this playing philosophy actually start? Was it pre Pearson, but they put up with him to get us out the shit? Or was it mid Pearson, he didn't buy in, and they replaced with Manning who'd be a better fit? But if that's the case, how do we explain the signings which clearly don't fit what Manning wants... Which in theory should be what the club wants as they only just appointed him? Confused is the word.

Bit of a downgrade from your "have we turned a corner" thread about four games into Manning's rein eh

Yeah that's fair. I was considering getting my boy who's 4 his first season ticket next year but probably won't bother if it's going to be more of this. Don't want to put him off!

I'll still be there. I've seen crap down there before and no doubt will again. It'll take more than this to put me off, I'll just sit there in a grump instead. In the past there are usually a decent group of players I'm pretty sick of when we're playing awfully. I actually like most of this group a lot.

Part of the job of being a manager is working with and improving 'not your players'. Who gets to work with entirely their own squad? Nobody within a year or two of joining a club at least. If he can't get results out of a group at least equivalent to what they were doing before then that's on him.

He looked completely despondent at the end today. Holding his hands up to the fans in apology, head down. Not a happy man.

After the game Williams went over to the South stand corner to a chorus of boos and was literally holding his hands up in apology and looked completely beaten/disheartened. Same boos any time anyone went near basically, and not just from that corner. Manning got 1/3 of the way there half heartedly clapping of and the boos were even louder.

Sack or keep? How is that a yes/no question