Separating the truth from fiction (I’m encouraged)

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Generally a change is made to improve. Time will tell.

I'm still waiting for someone (who's not known for being anti Pearson) to tell me what has improved. I don't class our CBs passing the ball between them as an improvement either. 

After 5 games there must be some improvements? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3.5 year deal ie until summer 2027 means he probably won't be off anywhere soon unless a) It's disastrous or b) He gets headhunted.

I know contracts aren't always worth much in football but it strikes me that least medium term barring disaster or headhunted he'll be here.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, George Rs said:

Very difficult to judge how Mannings doing at the moment for me. Over I like the football he’s trying to play, seems more controlled and thoughtful. 

I don’t see what there is to gain from comparing him to Pearson, not only are they two completely different style managers but at the end of the day what’s done is done. Whether there was more to the nige sacking then we know, he’s gone and he won’t come back. To say I loved the nige era would be an exaggeration as it wasn’t all sunshine’s and rainbows. But I fully appreciate the tremendous job he has done for our club. 
 

The question I think that is most prevalent now is how much more does manning need? For the first time in a long time, the way we try to play is a system I can see winning a team a lot of points and hopefully promotion. But with the ability of players currently it hinders the efficiency of the play style significantly. Can Manning coach the players to a level that the can carry out this style to a high enough degree? How many of them can he coach to that level? And if we need reinforcements how many? How many windows will it take?
 

All questions that currently can’t be answered, but those are the ones that are most important for me. Today will be an extremely interesting test of what “manning ball” is capable of. COYR

Whether you compare manager to manager is a personal choice. What imho I think is perfectly fine is to compare the “situation” at the point LM took over to the situation now, and in future / overtime.

He was appointed with a set of expectations / objectives, both internally know and / or publicly stated by the hierarchy (they may not be equal).  As fans we have our own expectations too.  Some of those will be comparison-based won’t.  Some of that will be performance data based (and various different depending on how detailed you want to go) and some will be style based.

There is no set way to compare, but if anyone is like me, they will be comparing something!!!

[Silvio Dante]

26 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

3.5 year deal ie until summer 2027 means he probably won't be off anywhere soon unless a) It's disastrous or b) He gets headhunted.

I know contracts aren't always worth much in football but it strikes me that least medium term barring disaster or headhunted he'll be here.

The question becomes that if there isn’t improvement in the short term whether there is continued justification in hoping for medium term success, when that hasn’t been delivered to date in Liams career (Simply no data - he’s been in jobs 18 and 12 months respectively and in the 18 month one it got worse as opposed to better)

Let’s give a scenario - in the 6 games left this year we take 5-7 points. We’re effectively then out of any promotion race - still highly unlikely to go down - and it’s a return of 10-12 points from 11 games at what most are comfortable is a fair review point. 
 

This place is polarised, but both sides of the argument agree Nige was withheld funds because the board didn’t consider he was the right man long term (and that’s a totally reasonable position to take). If Liam is sitting on less or around 1ppg with probable increased dissatisfaction at that point, do they consider it’s worth cracking the nest egg - I.e. is he then still considered the right man to spend it, or do they hold it for the next candidate?

Of course, get c10 points (or even 18) from the next 6 and I’ve no doubt they crack it open in January to accelerate the process. But I don’t think it can be underestimated how important the next six games are in the context of how much latitude Manning is given to reshape the squad, and therefore be here for the lions share of that contract.

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

The question becomes that if there isn’t improvement in the short term whether there is continued justification in hoping for medium term success, when that hasn’t been delivered to date in Liams career (Simply no data - he’s been in jobs 18 and 12 months respectively and in the 18 month one it got worse as opposed to better)

Let’s give a scenario - in the 6 games left this year we take 5-7 points. We’re effectively then out of any promotion race - still highly unlikely to go down - and it’s a return of 10-12 points from 11 games at what most are comfortable is a fair review point. 
 

This place is polarised, but both sides of the argument agree Nige was withheld funds because the board didn’t consider he was the right man long term (and that’s a totally reasonable position to take). If Liam is sitting on less or around 1ppg with probable increased dissatisfaction at that point, do they consider it’s worth cracking the nest egg - I.e. is he then still considered the right man to spend it, or do they hold it for the next candidate?

Of course, get c10 points (or even 18) from the next 6 and I’ve no doubt they crack it open in January to accelerate the process. But I don’t think it can be underestimated how important the next six games are in the context of how much latitude Manning is given to reshape the squad, and therefore be here for the lions share of that contract.

I reckon the hierarchy might tbh, because to try and save face if it is faltering or starting slowly, stalling whatever you want to call it they may wish to be proven correct, that they do know what they are doing so at least so he may get some backing.

Which would further fly in the face of what they said post NP, believe Jon Lansdown used the term best interests of the club or words to that effect.

I am resigned to the season being to all intents and purposes over sooner rather than later. Not at all what we were promised, not what was the brochure but we will drift and before we know it 4 points off will become 10 or 11 and the board won't act especially sharply unless it's a disaster.

It could easily just stall because Manning experimenting, seeing what he likes, doesnt like, back 3 , back 4, Sykes here there and every where, Weimann left, Pring left out..that relative instability hardly helps a side to gain positive momentum.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I reckon they might tbh, because to try and save face if it is faltering or starting slowly, stalling whatever you want to call it they may wish to be proven correct, that they do know what they are doing so at least so he may get some backing.

Which would further fly in the face of what they said post NP, believe Jon Lansdown used the term best interests of the club or words to that effect.

I am resigned to the season being to all intents and purposes over sooner rather than later. Not at all what we were promised, not what was the brochure but we will drift and before we know it 4 points off will become 10 or 11 and the board won't act especially sharply unless it's a disaster.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they’d be looking to get rid in January unless we lost the next six (and even then I’m not sure they would).
 

I do think, however, that a low to middling next six games may make them consider if they want to open up the funding, or just go to seasons end to give them a larger sample size. Jon and Brian are not the sharpest tools, but I don’t think they’d just throw money (considering where we were) if there were signs it wasn’t working. The advantage of holding funding to season end is also threefold:

- It proves if Liam can make progress with this group of players

- It allows them to see ST sales - which they’ll see as a far more fan opinion metric than anything on a forum

- It allows them to save some face - ie prove that the funding wasn’t there for any manager.

I don’t see Liam losing his job in January - let me be clear on that! I do see a few scenarios as to how we play the window based on the games until then though.

[italian dave]

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

I'm still waiting for someone (who's not known for being anti Pearson) to tell me what has improved. I don't class our CBs passing the ball between them as an improvement either. 

After 5 games there must be some improvements? 

I responded with a suggestion this morning. You’ve clearly either missed it or ignored it because it doesn’t fit with your particular view. 

[fisherrich]

Nothing against Manning (poison chalice if anything), but he will be one of those coaches who you will struggle to remember at City in 5 years time, whereas Nige P, everyone will remember. Nuff said.

New owners (when it happens), will have there coach in. Manning is a bit of a sitting duck potentially.

Edited December 12, 2023 by fisherrich

[ENOUGH]

The truth is we are a bottom six club under this chairman and his choice of manager, the fiction is his constant piffle that we are a top six club.

Give us our City back and jog on.

[Mike Hunt-Hertz]

5 hours ago, fisherrich said:

Nothing against Manning (poison chalice if anything), but he will be one of those coaches who you will struggle to remember at City in 5 years time, whereas Nige P, everyone will remember. Nuff said.

New owners (when it happens), will have there coach in. Manning is a bit of a sitting duck potentially.

A latter day Denis Smith.

[NickJ]

I’m not. Encouraged.

Sorry Harry mate.

The asylum is being run by the lunatic, and it’s tragic.

[Ziderarmy]

8 minutes ago, NickJ said:

I’m not. Encouraged.

Sorry Harry mate.

The asylum is being run by the lunatic, and it’s tragic.

Superb