I'll go against the tide

[TDarwall]

6 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Must admit I was surprised how negative the reaction on here was when I got home. It wasn't a great performance but I don't think it deserved the criticism it's getting.

 

2 rules of football:

1). The result is everything

2). See rule 1

The forum would be totally different had Zak not got done in the last min of injury time.  The forum would be in a frenzy of positivity had Tommy taken his 1 on 1 chance & then Zak had not got done last minute.

One thing I find really odd is people saying how boring we are under Manning. Yes, there are tweaks but the games really aren't much more / less exciting than under Nige. Clearly we are trying to keep the ball more & there are less aimless punts (not a typo) but it's not as tho we've suddenly become Jaap Stam era Reading.

It does seem that many people have made their mind up already (either pro or anti Manning/Pearson) & are looking for anything to justify their view.

[Numero Uno]

6 hours ago, Harry said:

I think we’ve generally done ok so far and I can see positive changes in how we are playing. 

We’ve let in 5 goals under Manning. 
1 dickwad own goal from Vyner. 
1 sloppy mistake from Tanner gifting Boro the ball in his own half. 
1 unstoppable shot into the top corner by a full back. 
1 unlucky own goal that derived from Weimann gifting Norwich the ball in his own half. 
1 dickwad error from Vyner misjudging the flight of a long ball. 
 

We’ve actually played ok I think. We’ve competed, we’ve created, we’ve ran, we’ve worked, we’ve passed, we’ve just conceded 4 very very soft goals (none of which were as a result of how we’re trying to play and thus are not manager error). 

I’ve actually been rather encouraged so far. 

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.

[Major Isewater]

6 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Must admit I was surprised how negative the reaction on here was when I got home. It wasn't a great performance but I don't think it deserved the criticism it's getting.

I think a not great performance is being amplified by a few loud voices.

I think we're starting to see little movements, sequences, and patterns of play we didn't under Nige. Some of them looked pretty good so I was encouraged by that.

We're keeping the ball better, having more shots, and have cut out the endless chipped balls into the channels.

It's not all great and there were many poor things today but I do feel the reaction is a little OTT personally.

It seems that whilst our attacking play was hit and (mostly ) miss under Pearson the team defended as if  their lives depended on it. There was a fighting spirit and a belief in the direction the club was going in. 
This was generated by NP . He oozed confidence and integrity. Exactly what we , the supporters, were crying out for knowing that was what the club needed.
Manning has a very tough job to get everyone on side and he won’t do it whilst losing matches , criticising what the players previously bought in to and reminding everyone of LJ’s style of ‘ coaching ‘ and communication.

My  feeling is that we have had all our Christmas presents stolen by The Lansdowns and they’re telling us to be good and they might replace them. 

 

[johnheadbcfc]

Conway needs to shape up real quick l, if it was cornick that has played the way he has since his brace off the bench, there would be threads on how shit he is and how he's just not good enough (pearson bought cornick btw).

[mozo]

9 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.

I agree with a lot of that. I didn't think it was a 'freakish' goal though. It was a dangerous cross and lazy defending. If you don't defend with full commitment things like that can happen. Hopefully a lesson for Tanner.

But you can't blame Manning for Tanner's form. Tanner hasn't been right all season,and I say that as a fan of his. I wonder if Oddjob Sykes needs to fill in there for now.

Edit: equally you can't blame Manning for Vyner's sudden loss of confidence, can you?

Nige was forever bemoaning the lack of execution from his players and now it's Manning's turn.

Edited December 4, 2023 by mozo

[2015]

8 hours ago, REDOXO said:

I really don’t see where we have improved. We tip tap the ball around going nowhere which teams will allow us to do. Hickmans goal papered over cracks and helped us all to believe for a second that maybe the firing of Pearson was a good idea. 

Vyner has converted back to his former self. Bell looks off it as does Wiemann. ConwAy looks like he couldn’t score in a brothel. Tanner was completely uncomfortable further forward. Mehmeti looks as crap as he’s always been and Pring seems to be second guessing himself and becoming a bit anonymous as a threat

Knight and Dickie are putting it in and Sykes has been decent enough. 
 

Where are we improved under Mr Manning so far. Asking for a friend. 

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.

[NcnsBcfc]

1 hour ago, Sir Geoff said:

And scored only 3.

1. Penalty

1. Wonder goal from the edge of the box

1. Proper goal from open play 

Glad you're satisfied with things so far, cos I'm not 

4 isn't it?

Conway Pen

TGH wonder goal

Sykes decent volley

and Knight's goal yesterday.

Certainly going to get more goals from our midfield with getting them forward through the clever inward passing. Just need to get the forwards firing now and get some of the defenders to start switching on again...

[Red Exile]

1 hour ago, TDarwall said:

2 rules of football:

1). The result is everything

2). See rule 1

....it's not as tho we've suddenly become Jaap Stam era Reading.

It does seem that many people have made their mind up already (either pro or anti Manning/Pearson) & are looking for anything to justify their view.

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.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Red Exile

[Simon bristol]

1 hour ago, johnheadbcfc said:

What about the games under Pearson that we had sometimes 1 shot on target throughout the game, I didnt recall you being critical about it then.

We all know that anyone decent was sold off and replaced with academy lads or first teamers who were inferior to what was sold, in an effort to stabilise the finances. He inherited a shambles and left us a solid mid table team with tens of millions in the bank,,, manning comes in as a super coach trying to introduce a passing game that only 1 or 2 players in the squad are technically able to cope with, when we had been building towards a fast counter team and bringing lads like knight in to play that way.

[johnheadbcfc]

1 minute ago, Simon bristol said:

We all know that anyone decent was sold off and replaced with academy lads or first teamers who were inferior to what was sold, in an effort to stabilise the finances. He inherited a shambles and left us a solid mid table team with tens of millions in the bank,,, manning comes in as a super coach trying to introduce a passing game that only 1 or 2 players in the squad are technically able to cope with, when we had been building towards a fast counter team and bringing lads like knight in to play that way.

Don't disagree with what pearson had to to do to turn the club around but my point still remains. Pearsons tactics have fewer shots in a game, the time we have 1 shot on target in 45 minutes people jump down mannings throat. Just feels people cherry pick facts for their arguments just to be right all the time. 

Some of our passing play yesterday at certain points was the best I've seen for a few seasons now and it's gonna take time to implement, and people that just bang on about top 6 side lansdowns said need to grow up. 

[ExiledAjax]

I am generally encouraged - or at least I am not seeing a dramatic regression - in our play.  However, we need to pick-up some of the statements made in this thread.

We are not taking more shots under Manning than we did under Pearson (this season). We are taking more shots at home - on average 2 extra per game - but the away numbers are much lower.

What we are doing is taking more shots on target, and impressively we are restricting the opposition to fewer shots on target (and then sabotaging that good work with two own goals). This means that whereas under Pearson we averaged a deficit of more than 1 shot on target, under Manning we are actually slightly dominating the opposition in this regard. However, we have not doubled the number of SoT - sorry @Harry. I'd always say that you should worry if you're failing to create chances rather than if you're failing to convert them. We are creating chances, and we're doing that to a greater extent than we were under Pearson.

So is it a case of fewer shots, but higher quality? Yes, but unfortunately there's been no overall improvement in our threat. Average xG remains largely the same - 1.11 per game under Pearson, 1.10 under Manning. Note thought that xGA (the xG of our opponents) has dramatically dropped from 1.27 per game to 0.87. That is very encouraging and suggests that if we can cut out the own goals and errors then we only need to score 1 goal per game to start racking up wins.

Maybe this all points towards us becoming a 1-0 team, and maybe that means we are more boring...but I'd be delighted if we won every game 1-0, and I'm sure most on here would be as well.

@Davefevs does the pretty visuals - I present raw numbers because I am basic. Apologies as I know the below is ugly. 

The caveat to all of the above (and to the whole conversation) is that it compares a 14 match sample to a 4 match sample. So each of Manning's games is worth 25% of the average figure, whereas each of Pearson's is worth 7.14%. This means that a single bad or good event/game under Manning has 3.5x the effect on his figures than an equivalent anomaly in Pearson's numbers. So you need to bear that in mind and treat it with caution.

This is most obvious in the goals for/against column.

A single extra goal scored under Pearson would move his average from 1.07 per game to 1.14, whereas 1 extra goal under Manning moves his average from 1.00 to 1.25. So you see where the issue lies with this kind of analysis.

[italian dave]

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

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

 

 

 

 

If that’s the case, and it’s become “powderpuff” (I assume you mean) in the space of 4 weeks, then I’d suggest it was pretty powderpuff to begin with. 

[Charlie BCFC]

2 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

And scored only 3.

1. Penalty

1. Wonder goal from the edge of the box

1. Proper goal from open play 

Glad you're satisfied with things so far, cos I'm not 

We’ve scored 4, not enough but is that on Manning? We’ve created enough chances but not been putting them in the back of the net.

8 hours ago, Harry said:

I think we’ve generally done ok so far and I can see positive changes in how we are playing. 

We’ve let in 5 goals under Manning. 
1 dickwad own goal from Vyner. 
1 sloppy mistake from Tanner gifting Boro the ball in his own half. 
1 unstoppable shot into the top corner by a full back. 
1 unlucky own goal that derived from Weimann gifting Norwich the ball in his own half. 
1 dickwad error from Vyner misjudging the flight of a long ball. 
 

We’ve actually played ok I think. We’ve competed, we’ve created, we’ve ran, we’ve worked, we’ve passed, we’ve just conceded 4 very very soft goals (none of which were as a result of how we’re trying to play and thus are not manager error). 

I’ve actually been rather encouraged so far. 

If I can like this more than once I would, reflects my exact thoughts. Results will come but I’ve seen enough in spells that we're becoming a much better side especially in possession. We do have a tendency to drop off in the second halves under Manning but that’s something to work on

[W-S-M Seagull]

13 minutes ago, italian dave said:

If that’s the case, and it’s become “powderpuff” (I assume you mean) in the space of 4 weeks, then I’d suggest it was pretty powderpuff to begin with. 

Yes it's what I meant. Having huge issues with otib since I updated my phone. Hard to explain but the curser is forever jumping around and it's really difficult to select a word to correct it. 

Here's an example. It keeps jumping up and highlighting the quoted text. I have to keep tapping the text box. Really annoying. 

Pearson was the driver behind our never give up attitude. Despite what the players have publicly said about enjoying working with Manning. They ain't running through brick walls for him like they were for Nigel. 

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, Harry said:

I think we’ve generally done ok so far and I can see positive changes in how we are playing. 

We’ve let in 5 goals under Manning. 
1 dickwad own goal from Vyner. 
1 sloppy mistake from Tanner gifting Boro the ball in his own half. 
1 unstoppable shot into the top corner by a full back. 
1 unlucky own goal that derived from Weimann gifting Norwich the ball in his own half. 
1 dickwad error from Vyner misjudging the flight of a long ball. 
 

We’ve actually played ok I think. We’ve competed, we’ve created, we’ve ran, we’ve worked, we’ve passed, we’ve just conceded 4 very very soft goals (none of which were as a result of how we’re trying to play and thus are not manager error). 

I’ve actually been rather encouraged so far. 

53 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

4 isn't it?

Conway Pen

TGH wonder goal

Sykes decent volley

and Knight's goal yesterday.

Certainly going to get more goals from our midfield with getting them forward through the clever inward passing. Just need to get the forwards firing now and get some of the defenders to start switching on again...

27 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I am generally encouraged - or at least I am not seeing a dramatic regression - in our play.  However, we need to pick-up some of the statements made in this thread.

We are not taking more shots under Manning than we did under Pearson (this season). We are taking more shots at home - on average 2 extra per game - but the away numbers are much lower.

What we are doing is taking more shots on target, and impressively we are restricting the opposition to fewer shots on target (and then sabotaging that good work with two own goals). This means that whereas under Pearson we averaged a deficit of more than 1 shot on target, under Manning we are actually slightly dominating the opposition in this regard. However, we have not doubled the number of SoT - sorry @Harry. I'd always say that you should worry if you're failing to create chances rather than if you're failing to convert them. We are creating chances, and we're doing that to a greater extent than we were under Pearson.

So is it a case of fewer shots, but higher quality? Yes, but unfortunately there's been no overall improvement in our threat. Average xG remains largely the same - 1.11 per game under Pearson, 1.10 under Manning. Note thought that xGA (the xG of our opponents) has dramatically dropped from 1.27 per game to 0.87. That is very encouraging and suggests that if we can cut out the own goals and errors then we only need to score 1 goal per game to start racking up wins.

Maybe this all points towards us becoming a 1-0 team, and maybe that means we are more boring...but I'd be delighted if we won every game 1-0, and I'm sure most on here would be as well.

@Davefevs does the pretty visuals - I present raw numbers because I am basic. Apologies as I know the below is ugly. 

The caveat to all of the above (and to the whole conversation) is that it compares a 14 match sample to a 4 match sample. So each of Manning's games is worth 25% of the average figure, whereas each of Pearson's is worth 7.14%. This means that a single bad or good event/game under Manning has 3.5x the effect on his figures than an equivalent anomaly in Pearson's numbers. So you need to bear that in mind and treat it with caution.

This is most obvious in the goals for/against column.

A single extra goal scored under Pearson would move his average from 1.07 per game to 1.14, whereas 1 extra goal under Manning moves his average from 1.00 to 1.25. So you see where the issue lies with this kind of analysis.

Thanks all for your posts, they sum up quite nicely that we are a bit different in the way we play (not majorly), but the effect on performance and ultimately results is not really any different.

+++++++

If I (deliberately) take Russell Martin at Swansea.  Here is a team that dominated / controlled possession.

They had 66.66% to 33.33% possession - so they had 2x as much of the ball as their opponents.

Did that lead to 2x goals as conceded

Did that lead to 2x shots / on target as conceded

Did that lead to 2x wins as losses

No, is the simple answer.

It led to 68 GF vs 64 GA

It lead to 552 shots vs 403 shots against (that’s pretty good, but if you then overlay xG it shows they conceded better chances than they rested)

etc.

We need to be careful not to pick individual “stats” to prove something whilst ignoring the bigger picture - results.

Its fine saying goals conceded have been because of errors, but you could argue our defence is coming under different pressures too.

 

[GrahamC]

10 hours ago, cheese said:

Yes, absolutely.  Honesty is all we needed.  They could easily have said that they thought Nige had now taken us as far as he could.  That, with his health issue making it impossible for him to attend the training ground that it would be better to change now rather than wait.  Thank him properly for what he had done and achieved since joining, and wish him well and a speedy recovery. Then maybe, just maybe, they would have had the fanbase on their side.

But, as Nige would probably have said himself, we are where we are and have to get on with it.  And I just think I can see what Manning is trying to do and he has made a difference in the short time he's been here.

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.

[bcfc01]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Thanks all for your posts, they sum up quite nicely that we are a bit different in the way we play (not majorly), but the effect on performance and ultimately results is not really any different.

+++++++

If I (deliberately) take Russell Martin at Swansea.  Here is a team that dominated / controlled possession.

They had 66.66% to 33.33% possession - so they had 2x as much of the ball as their opponents.

Did that lead to 2x goals as conceded

Did that lead to 2x shots / on target as conceded

Did that lead to 2x wins as losses

No, is the simple answer.

It led to 68 GF vs 64 GA

It lead to 552 shots vs 403 shots against (that’s pretty good, but if you then overlay xG it shows they conceded better chances than they rested)

etc.

We need to be careful not to pick individual “stats” to prove something whilst ignoring the bigger picture - results.

Its fine saying goals conceded have been because of errors, but you could argue our defence is coming under different pressures too.

 

You also need to take into account the number of very good chances that we have made and missed.

Small margins and all that.

For me, I'm happy with the way the team are playing after such a short time with the new regime, improved imo. But, obviously, there is still a long way to go to get the possession based football on the front foot.

Cautiously optimistic.

 

[Harry]

56 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I am generally encouraged - or at least I am not seeing a dramatic regression - in our play.  However, we need to pick-up some of the statements made in this thread.

We are not taking more shots under Manning than we did under Pearson (this season). We are taking more shots at home - on average 2 extra per game - but the away numbers are much lower.

What we are doing is taking more shots on target, and impressively we are restricting the opposition to fewer shots on target (and then sabotaging that good work with two own goals). This means that whereas under Pearson we averaged a deficit of more than 1 shot on target, under Manning we are actually slightly dominating the opposition in this regard. However, we have not doubled the number of SoT - sorry @Harry. I'd always say that you should worry if you're failing to create chances rather than if you're failing to convert them. We are creating chances, and we're doing that to a greater extent than we were under Pearson.

So is it a case of fewer shots, but higher quality? Yes, but unfortunately there's been no overall improvement in our threat. Average xG remains largely the same - 1.11 per game under Pearson, 1.10 under Manning. Note thought that xGA (the xG of our opponents) has dramatically dropped from 1.27 per game to 0.87. That is very encouraging and suggests that if we can cut out the own goals and errors then we only need to score 1 goal per game to start racking up wins.

Maybe this all points towards us becoming a 1-0 team, and maybe that means we are more boring...but I'd be delighted if we won every game 1-0, and I'm sure most on here would be as well.

@Davefevs does the pretty visuals - I present raw numbers because I am basic. Apologies as I know the below is ugly. 

The caveat to all of the above (and to the whole conversation) is that it compares a 14 match sample to a 4 match sample. So each of Manning's games is worth 25% of the average figure, whereas each of Pearson's is worth 7.14%. This means that a single bad or good event/game under Manning has 3.5x the effect on his figures than an equivalent anomaly in Pearson's numbers. So you need to bear that in mind and treat it with caution.

This is most obvious in the goals for/against column.

A single extra goal scored under Pearson would move his average from 1.07 per game to 1.14, whereas 1 extra goal under Manning moves his average from 1.00 to 1.25. So you see where the issue lies with this kind of analysis.

Hi mate. 
I just wanted to clear up what I meant about “double the shots ok target”. 
I refer you to my post on the ‘Negatives/Positives’ thread. 
 

I sampled just the home games this season and I excluded the 2 games where there was a red card, as playing with or against 10 men completely skews the game. 
 

The shots on target in the 8 home games this season average at 7 per game under LM and 3.8 per game under NP. 
 

For me, the biggest problem we’ve had in our home performances for about 5 years now is giving the fans some goal action. 
We’ve had so many stale games where we’ve hardly mustered a shot on target and it’s been a big cause for concern (it’s been mentioned on here a million times in the last 5 years). 
 

So for me, nearly doubling our shots on target (okay, it’s only 2 home games so far), is rather encouraging. 

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Its fine saying goals conceded have been because of errors, but you could argue our defence is coming under different pressures too.

Just on the own goals conceded I think they tell us two different things.

The Vyner OG was just one of those awful ones that happen - and honestly I don't think it matters much. We got the win in that game and the chances of a goal like that happening again are very slim.

Tanner's OG is different though. That cross was dangerous. First time and low along the 6-yard line. Opponent striker is goal-side of his defender and waiting. At the back post are two runners. O'Leary is well positioned but he is covering three or four possible outcomes. Ultimately that may well have been a goal if it has passed Tanner.

So for me that Tanner one is the one that's concerning. How did we get ourselves in that position, and what can be done to minimise the chance of it happening again?

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

Hi mate. 
I just wanted to clear up what I meant about “double the shots ok target”. 
I refer you to my post on the ‘Negatives/Positives’ thread. 
 

I sampled just the home games this season and I excluded the 2 games where there was a red card, as playing with or against 10 men completely skews the game. 
 

The shots on target in the 8 home games this season average at 7 per game under LM and 3.8 per game under NP. 
 

For me, the biggest problem we’ve had in our home performances for about 5 years now is giving the fans some goal action. 
We’ve had so many stale games where we’ve hardly mustered a shot on target and it’s been a big cause for concern (it’s been mentioned on here a million times in the last 5 years). 
 

So for me, nearly doubling our shots on target (okay, it’s only 2 home games so far), is rather encouraging. 

Ah ok. I'd missed the caveats above. 

That aside, what I focus on is that under Pearson we were averaging 3 SoT for and 4 against. In Mannings 4 game that has swapped to 4 for and 3 against. Stick it into % terms and it's a 33% improvement in attack and a 25% improvement in defence.

But I caveat it with the xG impacts mentioned previously. No impact overall on xG for, but a considerable improvement in xGA.

If we can just edge the quality up a bit then the goals will come.

Edited December 4, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[bcfc01]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Just on the own goals conceded I think they tell us two different things.

The Vyner OG was just one of those awful ones that happen - and honestly I don't think it matters much. We got the win in that game and the chances of a goal like that happening again are very slim.

Tanner's OG is different though. That cross was dangerous. First time and low along the 6-yard line. Opponent striker is goal-side of his defender and waiting. At the back post are two runners. O'Leary is well positioned but he is covering three or four possible outcomes. Ultimately that may well have been a goal if it has passed Tanner.

So for me that Tanner one is the one that's concerning. How did we get ourselves in that position, and what can be done to minimise the chance of it happening again?

TBF, I don't think we'll see a couple of own goals like that more than once a season.

[Olé]

This looks like the thread for me. I'm quite conflicted, I absolutely detested the decision to bin off Pearson (and the way it was handled) and I didn't warm to the idea of Manning, but I agree with both the OP's and @Harry's view of Saturday and treating Manning and performances objectively, I don't understand the overreaction on every other thread from people who I was united in anger with after NP's sacking.

Since the international break although it's 1 win and 2 defeats, I've seen a clear attempt at a new pattern of play that I recognise has the potential to be highly effective, we've dominated and looked comfortable for sustained periods against 3 good teams, and it's only our lack of form up front (Conway has had a boatload of chances) and lack of strength in depth to provide alternatives which has cost us better results. 

At Southampton we were the better side first half and as has been well covered, we should have been easily ahead. They looked nervous and worried to commit bodies forward. It's nonsense that Manning has an issue setting up in second halves, Southampton actually adjusted (other teams can do this), pressed higher and committed extra bodies in attack which pinned us deeper and suffocated it after their goal.

On Saturday we were by far the better side for an hour, looked every bit a side that was going to jump to 7th, but again we wasted a majority of chances to put the game out of reach and by the second half we started to become careless and mishit relatively simple passes which is a complete no no for a possession building side. And then you concede 2 completely avoidable goals and the outlook is totally different. 

A lot of the reaction to Manning seems to be about the style of play being boring. I really don't see it - if Conway takes a few chances I don't believe anyone is looking back at these last few games and feeling they were harder to watch. Yes we're not hitting the front early by going direct on the break, but equally we're controlling games and building complex passing moves and still creating at least as many chances.  

I'm not sure how you'd argue one pattern of play is better or worse to watch than the other, in either case it's about taking chances and getting the results, we could be counter attacking at pace under NP and wasting the same chances and still losing these games. I assume a possession based passing game does at least in the long term offer us greater chance of success due to the ability to control football games.

All that said, Manning does not get a free pass. In places he is tinkering (trying to play Weimann and Mehmeti back into form), yet conversely he does not "go for it" the way NP had the balls to late in games. Why no Yeboah? If we weren't winning a game Pearson would add extra forwards - 3 at Millwall, 3 at Rotherham, both late wins. The comment about culture on Saturday was also a bit of meaningless deflection too.

[italian dave]

10 hours ago, cheese said:

Yes, absolutely.  Honesty is all we needed.  They could easily have said that they thought Nige had now taken us as far as he could.  That, with his health issue making it impossible for him to attend the training ground that it would be better to change now rather than wait.  Thank him properly for what he had done and achieved since joining, and wish him well and a speedy recovery. Then maybe, just maybe, they would have had the fanbase on their side.

But, as Nige would probably have said himself, we are where we are and have to get on with it.  And I just think I can see what Manning is trying to do and he has made a difference in the short time he's been here.

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. 

[Charlie BCFC]

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.

Thought Weimann played well first half, actually heavily involved for the goal but he went back to crap second half. Agree completely around Sykes, one of our best players on the left Wednesday but no idea why he switched back to the left second half when we looked dangerous when he was down the right in the first half

[TV Tom]

15 minutes ago, Olé said:

This looks like the thread for me. I'm quite conflicted, I absolutely detested the decision to bin off Pearson (and the way it was handled) and I didn't warm to the idea of Manning, but I agree with both the OP's and @Harry's view of Saturday and treating Manning and performances objectively, I don't understand the overreaction on every other thread from people who I was united in anger with after NP's sacking.

Since the international break although it's 1 win and 2 defeats, I've seen a clear attempt at a new pattern of play that I recognise has the potential to be highly effective, we've dominated and looked comfortable for sustained periods against 3 good teams, and it's only our lack of form up front (Conway has had a boatload of chances) and lack of strength in depth to provide alternatives which has cost us better results. 

At Southampton we were the better side first half and as has been well covered, we should have been easily ahead. They looked nervous and worried to commit bodies forward. It's nonsense that Manning has an issue setting up in second halves, Southampton actually adjusted (other teams can do this), pressed higher and committed extra bodies in attack which pinned us deeper and suffocated it after their goal.

On Saturday we were by far the better side for an hour, looked every bit a side that was going to jump to 7th, but again we wasted a majority of chances to put the game out of reach and by the second half we started to become careless and mishit relatively simple passes which is a complete no no for a possession building side. And then you concede 2 completely avoidable goals and the outlook is totally different. 

A lot of the reaction to Manning seems to be about the style of play being boring. I really don't see it - if Conway takes a few chances I don't believe anyone is looking back at these last few games and feeling they were harder to watch. Yes we're not hitting the front early by going direct on the break, but equally we're controlling games and building complex passing moves and still creating at least as many chances.  

I'm not sure how you'd argue one pattern of play is better or worse to watch than the other, in either case it's about taking chances and getting the results, we could be counter attacking at pace under NP and wasting the same chances and still losing these games. I assume a possession based passing game does at least in the long term offer us greater chance of success due to the ability to control football games.

All that said, Manning does not get a free pass. In places he is tinkering (trying to play Weimann and Mehmeti back into form), yet conversely he does not "go for it" the way NP had the balls to late in games. Why no Yeboah? If we weren't winning a game Pearson would add extra forwards - 3 at Millwall, 3 at Rotherham, both late wins. The comment about culture on Saturday was also a bit of meaningless deflection too.

Great post

[Silvio Dante]

3 minutes ago, Olé said:

It's nonsense that Manning has an issue setting up in second halves, Southampton actually adjusted (other teams can do this), pressed higher and committed extra bodies in attack which pinned us deeper and suffocated it after their goal.

 

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!

[1960maaan]

Quite a funny and almost unique position we are in. We have lost a very popular Manager and got a new man who while saying many of the same things, trying to increase possession (something the last man also wanted) and working with the same squad (that the previous manager also mentioned individual errors ) is getting grief mainly down to how the change was done.  

I've drawn a line under Pearson as we've moved on. Doesn't matter I really liked him, new man deserves to be judged on what he does.

So . 
Yesterday I think we saw real signs of Manning's influence, though it was not universally enjoyed by all.  Moving Norwich around by going side to side isn't seen as joyous free flowing football, but against a side sitting in a little it can be necessary . You could see what was happening as they were pulled around and then space opened for the forward pass. I think we have needed to be able to keep the ball better for years, it's why we haven't been successful. We at time over the years carried a threat, but struggled to see games out because we could never controlled the ball for prolonged periods.

Ignoring the QPR snoozfest as he hadn't had any real time with the team, 
M'boro good win . Farcical OG and an error go them into a game where we should have been out of sight.
Southampton Very Good 45 . Should have been a goal or two up, then it's a very different game. 
Norwich dominated much of the game. Another OG & another mistake . 3rd 1v1 TC has missed in 3 

Massively frustrated yesterday , but the fact we could/should have been talking about at least 7 points is encouraging .If TC finds his form from last year it will make a difference, but I think he needs his mate back to do it. 
I would criticise the subs yesterday , but I don't know the reasons for them and maybe there was something else going on. 

At the moment Manning is suffering from individual errors , which Nige complained about, a lot !
Unfortunately, ATM Vyner has been involved in 3 of the 5 we've conceded , a little out of character as he's been one of the best players for a lot of the last 18 months. We may not be able to cut out mistakes, but we should be able to reduce them , that and become a little more clinical in front of goal and we'll be off. 

[2015]

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'.

[bcfc01]

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.

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.

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Olé said:

I'm not sure how you'd argue one pattern of play is better or worse to watch than the other, in either case it's about taking chances and getting the results, we could be counter attacking at pace under NP and wasting the same chances and still losing these games. I assume a possession based passing game does at least in the long term offer us greater chance of success due to the ability to control football games.

Love it Rob, well summed up.

The theory in your final sentence is true.  The practical measurement of that will ultimately be what do you create versus what do you concede from that control.

I posted about Russell Martin’s Swansea above.

The chances they conceded were 22% higher in xG than the chances they created (0.158 vs 0.129).  They conceded lots from set-pieces.  A simple conclusion was he had ball-playing defenders who could work his patterns, but couldn’t defend.  A slightly more complicated conclusion was that in making his patterns work, creating overloads in high positions, e.g. FBs high and wide, if the move broke down, they were left exposed in transition, putting pressure on a defence that wasn’t filled with all-out defenders.

Coming back to City.  I look at WSM.  Pretty exciting spell of watching City, but we shipped goals.  In-part because opponents knew that we left 3 up-top so could work numerical advantage against us once they got into our half.

Ultimately however we play our success will be largely borne out of the players we have.  They are a mid-table bunch.  If LM can find some fine margins that create tangible differences, fantastic.