I'll go against the tide

[Gert Mare]

I thought we played well in the first half, but in the second half we were pedestrian, predictable and over passed without getting anywhere. There seemed to be no plan to change the play to counteract the improvement from Norwich in the 2nd half. 

We changed the personnel, but continued to attempt what had become an ineffective plan which turned the match into a bore fest where we ended up being done by the good old route one.

Passing and possession are great as long as the intention is to get into a promising position to score goals. 

As soon as you break forward and then pass back to the defence you’ve got a packed opposition defence and it’s like trying to play chess and it’s boring, especially when you lack the players with the creativity to spot and effectively execute an eye through a needle pass.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Gert Mare

[Redrascal2]

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

Whilst we may be 'better coached' we have also developed a powerpuff mentality. 

 

 

 

 

I watched Manning's Oxford team earlier in the season and they were definitely not powderpuff. They won at Stevenage and you know you have been in a game if you beat them at their ground.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I agree with you, and there have been any number of similar comments over the past few weeks, which I take to mean that there are lots of us who think so too.

So why didn’t they do something like this? The Lansdowns, their senior staff, their advisers, must realise that too. They aren’t (in all seriousness) stupid.

My guess (that’s all it is) would be that they worried that bringing NPs health into it would leave the club open to risks in relation to either privacy or employment legislation.

In a football world, football reasons is always going to be the easy option for a risk averse organisation. And they’ll no doubt have had legal advice along the way, and corporate lawyers in these scenarios will generally be pretty risk averse. 

Just to say that manager contracts can and often do contain clauses that effectively say something like "if you can't/don't attend training for a number of consecutive or cumulative weeks than we have the right to sack you". There's also often a clause that says "if you criticise the board/owner in public interviews then we have the right to sack you". Contracts I've seen had that one as the first cause for sacking!

I don't know if either are in our contracts, but they are in three or four that I've seen for other clubs.

Whether this would be disclosable I don't know, but it would depend on the terms of the contract and settlement agreement (if there is one).

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, Redrascal2 said:

I watched Manning's Oxford team earlier in the season and they were definitely not powderpuff. They won at Stevenage and you know you have been in a game if you beat them at their ground.

We might find out next year

(Avoidance of doubt I don’t think we’re going down!)

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Just to pick up on this one, because for me it gets to the heart of the issues we’re having. It has been under any analysis worse in the second half than first over the embryonic Manning regime, and I don’t think it’s because he’s drugging their tea at half time - I think it’s for a couple of reasons:

- I do think Manning has a plan for each game based on the “process”. We can play better in the first half of games in part because there is a pretty small sample of how we’ve played under Manning and that leads to natural caution from the opposition - effectively they’re sussing us out for that period. It’s possibly, nay likely, as a bigger sample size is seen by opponents they adapt to us earlier in game and our “second halves” become first halves. On the counter, we will become more comfortable and may be able to enforce.

(I know you know this but this is the essence of new manager bounce under real terms - it’s part psychological but part opponents don’t know what to expect and element of surprise)

- The point you make about Saints, and others, is very pertinent though. There are two teams, two managers in every game. Liam sets us up pretty well to start with but in every game post break the opposition manager has seen it, sussed it, and countered it. What Liams then shown an inability to do is counter that counter - in effect “in game management” - that pretty much plays to your last point.

My main concern with him is, and remains, the ability to change things when his plan isn’t working. I don’t think that’s an unfair concern from evidence to date both here and in prior jobs (I saw a comment on the EP site that we got on top of Oxford as that game progressed and they couldn’t change so quality of teams notwithstanding it does seem to be a pattern with his teams, particularly when you add the Dons tailspin). It might be a function of the coach he is - he’s a “textbook” as opposed to intuitive. The problem is when everyone else has read the book, you’d better be better!

Very thought-provoking way of looking at it.  And something to look at as opponents “get used to us” under LM.

[mozo]

36 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Your first paragraph is spot on, shame the people running the club didn’t see it like that.

As for the game, we were worth a point & some of the frustration probably comes from the timing of their winner.

Style of football is often a preference thing, but like a Russell Martin team watching us pass the ball around the back endlessly sends me to sleep.

I acknowledge that he’s trying to play differently but it bores me & whilst I’m a lifer so won’t be going anywhere I can’t say this prospect fills me with any enthusiasm.

I don't think you'll find it boring if we can get that connection between possession and creating chances. The idea is that we keep the ball until we have created the space or overloads and then strike. What was apparent yesterday was that we haven't mastered the second part. The passing was good. The bit around the final third wasn't right at all. To quote Manning's favourite phrase, "that's the biggest bit, right?"

Edited December 4, 2023 by mozo

[italian dave]

8 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I think that is the case with the majority support away from this forum judging from people around me in the Dolman and a wider group of friends, pub etc. Some are still livid over the way NP was treated and the reasons given for his sacking (as I was) and conflating LMs appointment with NPs sacking. Chuck in a defeat to get the knee jerkers going and you have the current threads on the forum.

Interesting you say that because my experience in the Dolman was a bit different. In terms of the sacking of NP anyway. I found the overwhelming view to be pretty neutral - certainly not as strong as on here. And the only strong views I heard were actually glad to see the back of NP - principally because of the perceived quality of the football. 

[Clutton Caveman]

11 hours ago, cheese said:

Well, not sure this will be universally accepted but I thought the first half today was better than we were used to seeing under Nige.  There was better control in confined spaces and I thought that we always had an "out" ball.  We had players taking the ball between the lines and, with some better finishing could have been a couple of goals to the good.  I thought the "system" was working well but that the players didn't quite have the quality (or confidence maybe) to finish the job.

Second half, clearly Norwich made some adjustments to counter what they'd seen in the first half which made it more difficult.  Then they equalised with a freakish own goal and then Zak got caught out under the ball and with a player like Idah (who would walk into our team but can only make the Norwich bench) was a fatal mistake.

Against So'ton we could, and should, have been 2/3 goals up at half time.

Fine margins and I'm optimistic it will come good and the results will come.

My worry is the second half. Either LM's system is too physically demanding to maintain for 90 mins or the other teams figure us out and get on top. Knight looked knackered after the half time and so did many of the team. To play 90mins of LM ball needs massive concentration and also courage not to just hoof it in tight situations. In may opinion in recent weeks our key players stop making the runs in the second half and although we keep the ball we have it in the wrong areas of the pitch and it becomes really boring to watch.

[REDOXO]

2 hours ago, 2015 said:

The stats say we have more possession and more shots some say. Stats can be misleading. It doesn't feel like we are playing better than under NP. We're still inconsistent and have unforced errors in us.

Swansea away, Stoke home (should have won), Plymouth home for example were games in which we played high tempo really good passing football but it went unnoticed. What are we comparing the last 4 games against? NPs very worst performances or his best ones? 

I reiterate I don't think slow possession football suits this current group of players.

No the slow possession game does not suit the players it suits Manning.

He plays one way which is all very well but when you don’t have the players it’s going to take an age to find them.

 

In the mean time the supporters and players suffer the consequences of a completely insane decision to allow an untried lower league manager to spend the money Pearson brought in to support his style. 
 

 

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

I’m glad you noticed their first goal came from Weimann, same as I did. The bloke has lost what he had it would seem, literally contributed LESS than nil yesterday. Cost us the game in hindsight. That said Mehmeti did **** all also. When Sykes went out to the right guess what happened………………that was his manager error yesterday imo.

Yes. Weimann’s role in the first goal is one which I would I apportion almost 100% of the blame on him. 
As regards Mehmeti, I think he did ok. He only receive the ball about 10 times, didn’t give it away, got 2 decent crosses in and helped to force us into good positions on the edge of the box on the final 5 minutes. 
Was he brilliant? No. But he did ok. 
 

Anyway, onto Weimann (in pictures) 

Pic 1 : He’s about to receive the ball, takes a terrible touch and turns in toward the Norwich player and loses it. Absolutely no reason to have lost possession here. It’s simply poor poor play. 
 

Pic 2 : GT, ZV & RD all have a man each in the box. Weimann knows he’s responsible for the left back and even has a look at him, correctly anticipating the switch. 
 

Pic 3 : When the switch occurs, Weimann has turned his back on it (even though he’d scanned it 1 second earlier) and actually begins running back toward goal rather than toward the left back who is his responsibility!! This is awful. 
 

Pic 4 : And we can now see the result. Tanner has had to come out to their left back, which meant he left his man on the near post. Vyner then has to leave his man and try to get goal side of Tanner’s man but it’s impossible to get there. 
 

Weimann gave the ball away too easily in his own half and then didn’t defend his man properly, leaving it up to others to do his job. 

This isn’t the managers fault or a style of play issue. It’s just shit play all round from our captain. 
However; what is the managers fault is playing a woeful Weimann in the first place. He wouldn’t be in my team, full stop. 

[Clutton Caveman]

1 hour ago, Red Exile said:

To an extent I agree with your rules! I don't have any beef with Liam Manning, know almost nothing about the bloke, except the style of football his sides have played. Good luck to him but since you mention it Jaap Stam era Reading is precisely what came to mind both yesterday and against Southampton. Regardless of the result that style of football is like watching paint dry. That said it clearly has its fans on this forum, fair play to them but it's not going to get me making many day long round trips to the Gate.

He promised, exciting football playing on the front foot. Sorry but the delivery is something quite different. When the ball spends more time with the 2 centre backs and the goalkeeper than anyone else, I get very bored. When he keeps playing Conway up front on his own with no good result and in the process destroying his confidence and when he can't see that Bell is shot and needs a lone at a lower level it worries me. Great to believe in a certain way to play but when the squad doesn't suit that system and we are not getting results we need a plan B. That is just not evident.

[bcfc01]

9 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Interesting you say that because my experience in the Dolman was a bit different. In terms of the sacking of NP anyway. I found the overwhelming view to be pretty neutral - certainly not as strong as on here. And the only strong views I heard were actually glad to see the back of NP - principally because of the perceived quality of the football. 

My post wasn't clear, I was agreeing with your observations.

In my second/third paragraph, I was referring to the sentiments on here.

 

 

 

[bcfc01]

Just now, Clutton Caveman said:

He promised, exciting football playing on the front foot. Sorry but the delivery is something quite different. When the ball spends more time with the 2 centre backs and the goalkeeper than anyone else, I get very bored. When he keeps playing Conway up front on his own with no good result and in the process destroying his confidence and when he can't see that Bell is shot and needs a lone at a lower level it worries me. Great to believe in a certain way to play but when the squad doesn't suit that system and we are not getting results we need a plan B. That is just not evident.

So how long do you think it will take to get to front foot football ?

3 games ?

 

[italian dave]

24 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Just to pick up on this one, because for me it gets to the heart of the issues we’re having. It has been under any analysis worse in the second half than first over the embryonic Manning regime, and I don’t think it’s because he’s drugging their tea at half time - I think it’s for a couple of reasons:

- I do think Manning has a plan for each game based on the “process”. We can play better in the first half of games in part because there is a pretty small sample of how we’ve played under Manning and that leads to natural caution from the opposition - effectively they’re sussing us out for that period. It’s possibly, nay likely, as a bigger sample size is seen by opponents they adapt to us earlier in game and our “second halves” become first halves. On the counter, we will become more comfortable and may be able to enforce.

(I know you know this but this is the essence of new manager bounce under real terms - it’s part psychological but part opponents don’t know what to expect and element of surprise)

- The point you make about Saints, and others, is very pertinent though. There are two teams, two managers in every game. Liam sets us up pretty well to start with but in every game post break the opposition manager has seen it, sussed it, and countered it. What Liams then shown an inability to do is counter that counter - in effect “in game management” - that pretty much plays to your last point.

My main concern with him is, and remains, the ability to change things when his plan isn’t working. I don’t think that’s an unfair concern from evidence to date both here and in prior jobs (I saw a comment on the EP site that we got on top of Oxford as that game progressed and they couldn’t change so quality of teams notwithstanding it does seem to be a pattern with his teams, particularly when you add the Dons tailspin). It might be a function of the coach he is - he’s a “textbook” as opposed to intuitive. The problem is when everyone else has read the book, you’d better be better!

Interesting SD. Thanks.

Just to add a couple of points into that mix.

You’d maybe have to say that he’s been very unlucky in terms of how a couple of second halfs have started. The Southampton goal was something special. And the Vyner og was a pure freak.

And at QPR he made changes early in the second half which actually meant we had a better second half.

But not to detract from the point you’re making. Interesting how this pans out next few weeks. 

[NcnsBcfc]

7 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yes. Weimann’s role in the first goal is one which I would I apportion almost 100% of the blame on him. 
As regards Mehmeti, I think he did ok. He only receive the ball about 10 times, didn’t give it away, got 2 decent crosses in and helped to force us into good positions on the edge of the box on the final 5 minutes. 
Was he brilliant? No. But he did ok. 
 

Anyway, onto Weimann (in pictures) 

Pic 1 : He’s about to receive the ball, takes a terrible touch and turns in toward the Norwich player and loses it. Absolutely no reason to have lost possession here. It’s simply poor poor play. 
 

Pic 2 : GT, ZV & RD all have a man each in the box. Weimann knows he’s responsible for the left back and even has a look at him, correctly anticipating the switch. 
 

Pic 3 : When the switch occurs, Weimann has turned his back on it (even though he’d scanned it 1 second earlier) and actually begins running back toward goal rather than toward the left back who is his responsibility!! This is awful. 
 

Pic 4 : And we can now see the result. Tanner has had to come out to their left back, which meant he left his man on the near post. Vyner then has to leave his man and try to get goal side of Tanner’s man but it’s impossible to get there. 
 

Weimann gave the ball away too easily in his own half and then didn’t defend his man properly, leaving it up to others to do his job. 

This isn’t the managers fault or a style of play issue. It’s just shit play all round from our captain. 
However; what is the managers fault is playing a woeful Weimann in the first place. He wouldn’t be in my team, full stop. 

Thanks @Harry

Makes James Piercey's after match ratings seem even more deluded.

Weimann simply isn't the player he was 2 years ago, end of. Like Chris Martin, there comes a time when any player's legs/attributes start to wain, that I fear is where we are with him.

The days of him making runs, getting on the end of crosses appears to be gone from my perspective. Defensively he's never been great with the patented Neil Kilkenny pointing at other players to do what he should be doing. Without any positive offensive stats, what does he bring to the team at the moment?

That said, the player he replaced in the starting line up (Bell) is also struggling under the new way of playing. He was all about channel running, not link up. The forwards in the team are struggling to adapt full stop at the moment. TGH, Knight and Sykes seem to have some understanding of what is required in the new system.

[italian dave]

6 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

My post wasn't clear, I was agreeing with your observations.

In my second/third paragraph, I was referring to the sentiments on here.

 

 

 

Ah, got you! And yes…just as I found it. 

[bearded_red]

32 minutes ago, 2015 said:

I watched the PL games yesterday and realised no one really plays slow possession based football and are successful nowadays. Man City don't. They only do this when they're 2 or 3-0 up. 

Everything is fast, the passing is between the lines, or into an area of potential danger and playing at a low intensity is not what I see. 

I don't view slow, possession based football as particularly modern. Maybe 10 years ago when Barcelona's tiki taka was at its peak and Swansea had some success playing this way. 

We have to get in players who play with a higher intensity and are comfortable in bringing the ball forward and passing between the lines. Passing between midfield and defence slowly is not in any way 'modern and progressive'.

I agree entirely with this, I couldn’t believe all the comments on here yesterday about Man City or Pep. Man City do not spend large parts of the game with the two centre halves passing it sideways to each other at walking pace. Kyle Walker does not spend the game turning round and passing it back to centre halves. These Pep quotes would tell you what he’d have thought of the performance yesterday had he been forced to watch it for some strange reason:

[Harry]

And for those who just want us to “get it forward” instead of trying to maintain possession. Guess what. 
Their winning goal yesterday came as a result of James aimlessly hitting it forward with 30 seconds left on the clock. 
If he’d tried to retain possession we see that game out and take a well earned point.  
Kicking it forward, in this case, resulted in a goal against, rather than a goal for! 
 

Here’s another pic. There is a congested passage of play. If James just gets his foot on this, he can play a simple forward pass to Cornick, or he can manoeuvre the ball wide to Mehmeti by taking a touch and opening out. 
Instead, he lumps a panicked ball forward, straight to their CB, who hits a long one over Vyner and they score. 
 

So much for “getting it forward”. 
 

Edit - sorry, pic has gone upside down! 

[spudski]

16 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yes. Weimann’s role in the first goal is one which I would I apportion almost 100% of the blame on him. 
As regards Mehmeti, I think he did ok. He only receive the ball about 10 times, didn’t give it away, got 2 decent crosses in and helped to force us into good positions on the edge of the box on the final 5 minutes. 
Was he brilliant? No. But he did ok. 
 

Anyway, onto Weimann (in pictures) 

Pic 1 : He’s about to receive the ball, takes a terrible touch and turns in toward the Norwich player and loses it. Absolutely no reason to have lost possession here. It’s simply poor poor play. 
 

Pic 2 : GT, ZV & RD all have a man each in the box. Weimann knows he’s responsible for the left back and even has a look at him, correctly anticipating the switch. 
 

Pic 3 : When the switch occurs, Weimann has turned his back on it (even though he’d scanned it 1 second earlier) and actually begins running back toward goal rather than toward the left back who is his responsibility!! This is awful. 
 

Pic 4 : And we can now see the result. Tanner has had to come out to their left back, which meant he left his man on the near post. Vyner then has to leave his man and try to get goal side of Tanner’s man but it’s impossible to get there. 
 

Weimann gave the ball away too easily in his own half and then didn’t defend his man properly, leaving it up to others to do his job. 

This isn’t the managers fault or a style of play issue. It’s just shit play all round from our captain. 
However; what is the managers fault is playing a woeful Weimann in the first place. He wouldn’t be in my team, full stop. 

I totally agree with your assessment re Weimann being at fault 100%. That's exactly how I saw it. 

I've also said from day one...I don't see how Weimann fits in with a Manning side. 

He has many other strengths, but his technique and technical ability is woeful at this level imo. 

Playing higher up he gets away with it...but as in this case and scenario it gets shown up and magnified. 

Many on here love Weimann for his all round effort...but like you I wouldn't be playing him, as he doesn't fit. 

His strength is being an Athlete, rather than a good footballer at this level. 

[2015]

2 minutes ago, bearded_red said:

I agree entirely with this, I couldn’t believe all the comments on here yesterday about Man City or Pep. Man City do not spend large parts of the game with the two centre halves passing it sideways to each other at walking pace. Kyle Walker does not spend the game turning round and passing it back to centre halves. These Pep quotes would tell you what he’d have thought of the performance yesterday had he been forced to watch it for some strange reason:

Pep's Man City side when chasing a game 'go for it'. They don't slowly pass the ball around, they overload the wings with Doku, Foden, Grealish, Silva and attempt to get the ball into a dangerous area for Haaland or Alvarez as soon as they can. They're fast and incisive and a lot of teams cannot cope with their speed/intensity, hence why they score an awful lot of goals.

It's only when they are 2 or 3-0 up they start killing the game off by passing it slowly and keeping possession. They don't play like this at 0-0. 

Liverpool are the same - high intensity, so are Arsenal, so are Spurs currently and so are Chelsea. 

These sides are actually quite direct, particularly Liverpool, but it's exciting to watch.

Being direct does not make you a long ball side like Wimbledon or Bristol Rovers from the 1980s with massive strikers to score from long throw ins by the way.

[mozo]

28 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yes. Weimann’s role in the first goal is one which I would I apportion almost 100% of the blame on him. 
As regards Mehmeti, I think he did ok. He only receive the ball about 10 times, didn’t give it away, got 2 decent crosses in and helped to force us into good positions on the edge of the box on the final 5 minutes. 
Was he brilliant? No. But he did ok. 
 

Anyway, onto Weimann (in pictures) 

Pic 1 : He’s about to receive the ball, takes a terrible touch and turns in toward the Norwich player and loses it. Absolutely no reason to have lost possession here. It’s simply poor poor play. 
 

Pic 2 : GT, ZV & RD all have a man each in the box. Weimann knows he’s responsible for the left back and even has a look at him, correctly anticipating the switch. 
 

Pic 3 : When the switch occurs, Weimann has turned his back on it (even though he’d scanned it 1 second earlier) and actually begins running back toward goal rather than toward the left back who is his responsibility!! This is awful. 
 

Pic 4 : And we can now see the result. Tanner has had to come out to their left back, which meant he left his man on the near post. Vyner then has to leave his man and try to get goal side of Tanner’s man but it’s impossible to get there. 
 

Weimann gave the ball away too easily in his own half and then didn’t defend his man properly, leaving it up to others to do his job. 

This isn’t the managers fault or a style of play issue. It’s just shit play all round from our captain. 
However; what is the managers fault is playing a woeful Weimann in the first place. He wouldn’t be in my team, full stop. 

I'm not sure I agree that it was impossible for Tanner to get there. He did get there, easily in line when the ball was played, but he didn't get his body shape poised to block the inevitable square ball. 

I'm happy to concede that Weimann could have prevented the goal by owning that defensive work, but after that in my opinion Tanner could have competently blocked the cross by getting his mind and feet right.

Edited December 4, 2023 by mozo

[Harry]

9 minutes ago, spudski said:

I totally agree with your assessment re Weimann being at fault 100%. That's exactly how I saw it. 

I've also said from day one...I don't see how Weimann fits in with a Manning side. 

He has many other strengths, but his technique and technical ability is woeful at this level imo. 

Playing higher up he gets away with it...but as in this case and scenario it gets shown up and magnified. 

Many on here love Weimann for his all round effort...but like you I wouldn't be playing him, as he doesn't fit. 

His strength is being an Athlete, rather than a good footballer at this level. 

Agreed. 
I’ve also said from day 1 that there are quite a lot of players who I don’t think are suited to possession-based football. 

Weimann is one of those. 
 

I think Manning has actually done rather well to get this collection of players to have 60%+ possession. I didn’t think we had that in us. 
However, the way we played yesterday is NOT the way Manning wants to play - the slowness of possession is a symptom of having players who aren’t comfortable in a possession style. 
Manning ideally gets his full backs wide and has an attacking midfielder dropping between the lines and creating. This AM and higher FB’s allows different passing lanes for the CB’s to find. Without those 2 crucial elements, the possession will tend to be slower, as our slower-thinking players are going to be slow at noticing the opportunities. 
I can see exactly how Manning wants us to play but we don’t have the personnel to carry it out at a higher tempo at the moment. 

This is why I’m quite encouraged so far. He’s managed to get these players to have over 60% of the ball and create good chances. I’m encouraged because if he can sign a creative midfielder then it can allow us to increase the passing tempo. He’s got us playing possession football with players who don’t suit possession football - that’s quite a feat in 3 weeks!! 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Harry

[Harry]

8 minutes ago, mozo said:

I'm not sure I agree that it was impossible for Tanner to get there. He did get there, easily in line when the ball was played, but he didn't get his body shape poised to block the inevitable square ball. 

I'm happy to concede that Weimann could have prevented the goal by owning that defensive work, but after that in my opinion Tanner could have competently blocked the cross by getting his mind and feet right.

It was Vyner who I said it was impossible for. 
Once Tanner turned and noticed Weimann wasn’t where he should’ve been, Tanner had to leave his man and come out. It then meant Vyner had to leave his man and try to get across to Tanner’s man. But in the timeframe it all happened it was not really possible for Vyner to get infront of Tanner’s man. 
Basically, if the cross doesn’t hit Tanner then it gets put in the net by Tanner’s man. 
And that’s all on Weimann 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Harry

[Gert Mare]

29 minutes ago, bearded_red said:

I agree entirely with this, I couldn’t believe all the comments on here yesterday about Man City or Pep. Man City do not spend large parts of the game with the two centre halves passing it sideways to each other at walking pace. Kyle Walker does not spend the game turning round and passing it back to centre halves. These Pep quotes would tell you what he’d have thought of the performance yesterday had he been forced to watch it for some strange reason:

Agree. It’s about intent.

Also agree with @Harry that we lack the creativity. We conceded goals due to our own poor decision making, not from Norwich’s own attacking intent.

Mind you, in the first half Norwich seemed reluctant to press us and were happy to sit back and let us have possession. I think that is due to a confidence issue on their part with their recent form. 

Against a more positive side I can’t see us having the luxury of the time we were afforded on the ball by Norwich.

I wouldn’t say that is a tactical master stroke by Manning, for me it was a case of coming up against a side who were more concerned about making mistakes and who were out of form.

Whilst we have to be patient we need to mix it up with exploiting our pace when the opposing side is higher up the field. Counter quickly and we have more opportunity to create chances for Conway who was isolated up there on his own.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Gert Mare

[Red Exile]

28 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

He promised, exciting football playing on the front foot. Sorry but the delivery is something quite different. When the ball spends more time with the 2 centre backs and the goalkeeper than anyone else, I get very bored. When he keeps playing Conway up front on his own with no good result and in the process destroying his confidence and when he can't see that Bell is shot and needs a lone at a lower level it worries me. Great to believe in a certain way to play but when the squad doesn't suit that system and we are not getting results we need a plan B. That is just not evident.

I have worked in the entertainment business all my life. I don't expect the people I entertain to understand how it's done, or even care how it's done. The point is to entertain. There are clearly lots of folk on OTIB who love tactical and statistical analysis and either are, or would like to be, football coaches. Fine. Personally what I want is to be on the edge of my seat and to be entertained, I don't feel a particular need to understand what goes on on the training ground.

I'm not all critical of Liam Manning - he'll need time and he deserves it. I'd be amazed if he immediately can get a bunch of players he's not recruited to play a style of football with which they may be unfamiliar, if indeed that's his challenge. I'm expecting nothing bar mid-table this season. The point I was trying to make was that I find a particular approach to playing football really tedious to watch. 

[chalkeyred]

Really disappointed by the nature of the result, but do feel encouraged by some of the football I am seeing.

Too much emotion about NP circumstances to be balanced, but think I see a higher ceiling to the football that LM will try to play.

It isn't one style or another (NP/LM) - we still have that counter attacking quality in the group, but think some of our players' lack of technical quality might be exposed. 

I'll bite my lip and give it until the end of January to have a better view on it....  

[milo1111]

Good OP. Might be on to something but time will tell. Let’s see how we go for the rest of this month. Plenty of games coming up so we will know plenty about where we heading after the Xmas period is over.

[Davefevs]

20 minutes ago, Harry said:

I can see exactly how Manning wants us to play but we don’t have the personnel to carry it out at a higher tempo at the moment. 

Do you think he was the right person to take over at the point he did then?  Because the view from the hierarchy was that the squad that was here was ready for him, everything was set-up to perform rather than under-performing as it was (according to them) under Nige.

But I do know I’ve also been lied to at the same time.  Thankfully I knew that straight away, the hierarchy were both lazy and provocative in the way they sacked Nige / appointed LM.  I think that enables me to stay objective about LM over the next couple of months.

I quite like LM as it happens so I have no problem with LM being Bristol City Head-Coach.

[Sir Geoff]

58 minutes ago, Harry said:

And for those who just want us to “get it forward” instead of trying to maintain possession. Guess what. 
Their winning goal yesterday came as a result of James aimlessly hitting it forward with 30 seconds left on the clock. 
If he’d tried to retain possession we see that game out and take a well earned point.  
Kicking it forward, in this case, resulted in a goal against, rather than a goal for! 
 

Here’s another pic. There is a congested passage of play. If James just gets his foot on this, he can play a simple forward pass to Cornick, or he can manoeuvre the ball wide to Mehmeti by taking a touch and opening out. 
Instead, he lumps a panicked ball forward, straight to their CB, who hits a long one over Vyner and they score. 
 

So much for “getting it forward”. 
 

Edit - sorry, pic has gone upside down! 

isn't that how they scored the winner though ?

[Davefevs]

26 minutes ago, Gert Mare said:

Mind you, in the first half Norwich seemed reluctant to press us and were happy to sit back and let us have possession. I think that is due to a confidence issue on their part with their recent form. 

Against a more positive side I can’t see us having the luxury of the time we were afforded on the ball by Norwich.

Spot on according to the numbers.  They were statistically the worst pressing side we’ve played all season, and in fact that was the worst they’ve pressed all season…by some distance.

I haven’t watched the game, so I can’t comment on whether that was down to us or them, or a bit of both!