Separating the truth from fiction (I’m encouraged)

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

@ExiledAjax @Sir Geoff @Bristol Oil Services

I’m not suggesting that they meant 7th, or 11th any more than 6th.

Thats exactly my point. “Top end” doesn’t really mean anything specific beyond top half. It’s bluff. Which is why they used it. If they’d wanted to say ‘top 6’ then that’s what they’d have said - people understand that. 

You can put different interpretations on it if you want, but that’s all they are. 

And even then the carefully crafted public statements noticeably don’t mention anything about ‘this season’.

It gets harder for people to maintain that deliberately evasive line under scrutiny (interviews) which is why they start to bluff.

I take your point EA about Marshall: I’ve acknowledged that elsewhere. As you say, yes we have had this discussion previously! And I’m not going to sit through those interviews again for a third time!

As I’ve said, I’m not trying to defend either BT or JL. I think all three of you feel that there was much more we’re not being told, and that a degree of honesty would have been better. And I’m with you on that.

So by all means beat the leadership up about being evasive, about bluffing, about being unclear what the real reasons were. But let’s not beat ourselves, the players and the manager up with unrealistic expectations about things that weren’t actually said.

And - what started this revisit of the subject - put that “top 6 this season” statement into quotation marks and attribute to it to JL. 

You're last paragraph is fair. JL never said it explicitly or in my opinion particularly implicitly.

I do think it needs to be said that presumably they (and we) really only care about our position at the end of the 46th game of the season.

I honestly don't think the mid season switch increase out chances of doing that this season. We were heading for a lower top half* finish under Pearson and that's where we are still heding I think.

I do think that there's a couple of unspoken factors: 1) fears over missing out on Manning either now in the manager-merry-go-round season, or at the end of the season, and 2) I suspect there were a few technical breaches of Pearson's contract - from him on training session attendance and his comments in interviews, and from the club on budget.

Those are unfounded suspicions based on what others have written and on my knowledge of what manager contracts look like.

I don't know what else to say really. The same conversations have been going round and round on here for the last 6 weeks. 

*8-12th 

[italian dave]

12 minutes ago, spudski said:

Morning Dave...When the board mention top half and looking to get promotion, then you would put two and two together that they mean top 6, as that's the only way of achieving it. 

Then the mention of Luton, with a lesser squad. 

It's my belief that the board in making those implications, think our squad is strong enough for top 6, otherwise they wouldn't make those observations and say such things. 

It's ridiculous to put pressure on managers to achieve that and say it publicly. 

Morning Spud!

Bottom line 1 - of course; any board, any leadership, at any club have an ultimate aim of top 6 and promotion.

Bottom line 2 - they implied things around it when they did because they had to give some explanation for sacking NP. Rightly or wrongly they decided they couldn’t publicly give the real reasons. They could hardly sack him and refuse to give any reason - although in hindsight that might have been a better approach .

Bottom line 3 - this started as a response to a post that quoted JL as explicitly saying ‘top 6 this season’ and I simply questioned whether that was accurate.

Agree with your last point. I’m sure that internally managers have objectives. I think SL has historically been pretty realistic with those. I think LJ had an explicit top 6 one that last season. But as you say, you don’t make those public. 

[italian dave]

15 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

You're last paragraph is fair. JL never said it explicitly or in my opinion particularly implicitly.

I do think it needs to be said that presumably they (and we) really only care about our position at the end of the 46th game of the season.

I honestly don't think the mid season switch increase out chances of doing that this season. We were heading for a lower top half* finish under Pearson and that's where we are still heding I think.

I do think that there's a couple of unspoken factors: 1) fears over missing out on Manning either now in the manager-merry-go-round season, or at the end of the season, and 2) I suspect there were a few technical breaches of Pearson's contract - from him on training session attendance and his comments in interviews, and from the club on budget.

Those are unfounded suspicions based on what others have written and on my knowledge of what manager contracts look like.

I don't know what else to say really. The same conversations have been going round and round on here for the last 6 weeks. 

*8-12th 

Agree with all of that EA.

And I suspect the same conversations will still be going round in another 6 months! 

[Bristol Oil Services]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

@ExiledAjax @Sir Geoff @Bristol Oil Services

I’m not suggesting that they meant 7th, or 11th any more than 6th.

Thats exactly my point. “Top end” doesn’t really mean anything specific beyond top half. It’s bluff. Which is why they used it. If they’d wanted to say ‘top 6’ then that’s what they’d have said - people understand that. 

You can put different interpretations on it if you want, but that’s all they are. 

And even then the carefully crafted public statements noticeably don’t mention anything about ‘this season’.

It gets harder for people to maintain that deliberately evasive line under scrutiny (interviews) which is why they start to bluff.

I take your point EA about Marshall: I’ve acknowledged that elsewhere. As you say, yes we have had this discussion previously! And I’m not going to sit through those interviews again for a third time!

As I’ve said, I’m not trying to defend either BT or JL. I think all three of you feel that there was much more we’re not being told, and that a degree of honesty would have been better. And I’m with you on that.

So by all means beat the leadership up about being evasive, about bluffing, about being unclear what the real reasons were. But let’s not beat ourselves, the players and the manager up with unrealistic expectations about things that weren’t actually said.

And - what started this revisit of the subject - put that “top 6 this season” statement into quotation marks and attribute to it to JL. 

Top end answer, as ever Dave

[Davefevs]

12 hours ago, italian dave said:

They’re the same interviews as Jerseybean posted links to in the original post though….nothing new? Yes, I’ve listened to them - and again this evening (and that’s enough!!).

Still doesn’t change my view that they are carefully avoiding straying into specific ‘top 6 this season’ objectives/commitments. In fact, they deliberately avoid that when it’s suggested to them.

“Top end”? What does that mean? 11th up? “Challenging toward”? Even more vague!

We both agree that there were other reasons they don’t want to tell us about. And this is the bluff that goes along with trying to pretend it was all about football. I’m not defending that, but I do question when it’s asserted as a fact that JL explicitly stated top 6 this season. And I just don’t see the point of beating ourselves, our players and our manager up over an unrealistic target.

You must’ve quoted my quote bloody quickly, becayse I deleted it almost as soon as I posted it….you bugger!!!

4 hours ago, TV Tom said:

We did beat Middlesbrough though who just happened to beat run-away leaders Leicester, all this is pointless

yep. You can’t pick and choose with games to include.

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Without repeating long posts - I think we had this conversation already on another thread.

You are correct that none of JL, BT or GM ever used the EXACT words "top 6" during the interviews that followed Pearson's sacking.

The closest we got was GM's assertion that promotion was the aim this season. To get promoted you HAVE to finish in the top 6. Ergo that is a statement of equivalence to saying "a top 6 season is the aim this season".

That's not my opinion. That's someone's actual words given their true implicit meaning. It has to be seen as that.

Fans/people have then used "top 6" to abbreviate all of the context, implication, and assumption into a quickly typable phrase. 

I think it is important to remember that no one ever said those exact words, but equally we shouldn't pretend that they were saying "11th place was out target".

3 hours ago, transfer reader said:

 

I also don't agree that the forum would have been accepting of NP being sacked with health issues given as the reason.

If it was "NP left by mutual consent" type thing, maybe. But then if NP wasn't agreeing to it then it's a sacking, and if they call it one when it's the other that's another issue.

 

I think sacking based on health issues might lead to a legal route!

And I think the club were hopeful for a mutual decision.

Why wasn't Nige offered some time off to sift himself out / get some tests?  I found it quite sad to see him on the pitch at Leicester, receiving a standing ovation, and barely being able to wave back whilst he leant on his crutches.

Im sure there’s an element of “proud Nige” too.

But he had a capable assistant and coaches.

My view is it was a simple case of club wanting to get rid of Nige.  And it really kicked off as the window ended.

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

Top end answer, as ever Dave

Ha ha! And that’s a top 6 one!!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Could argue top end may also include a tilt at the playoffs lasting deep into the season but ultimately finishing 7th or 8th, 9th or 10th if the points spread is thin ie a few points separating 6th to 10th. 9th or below is generous though..

Edited December 10, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Gert Mare]

I thought we were more positive in possession than we have been over the previous few games.

We’re still not moving the ball quick enough in the final third to hurt teams and the unexpected through ball by Dickie to Weimann opened them up easily for Tommy to score. We need to mix it up a bit more like that during games to avoid becoming too predictable.

I thought the decision to remove Sykes was very strange as he is one of our most creative players going forward and he’s a hardworking player who can go the 90.

One thing that does concern me with the high press is the lack of cover on the counter and we are weak down the right hand side. Tanner doesn’t have the legs for a wing back and is limited in his distribution. More often than not he favours the diagonal back pass to Vyner which kills our momentum.

We have been undone by individual errors in the last few games as a result of surrendering possession with too many players in forward positions and we have been cut open at ease. We need real quality pacy wing backs to stutter these attacks allowing Vyner and Dickie to get goal side of the ball in time.

I’m not convinced that Bell is effective enough and for me that position needs someone more effective in picking out opportunities to provide Tommy with decent chances to finish. For me with Belly it’s more like hit and hope rather than a measured ball.

With a few tweaks and a bit of confidence we could potentially cause one or two teams a serious problem and they could be on the end of a 4 goal tanking. However, at the moment we are equally playing a dangerously high line that can put us in a position of having to try to get back into a game against a team that otherwise wouldn’t necessarily cause us any serious attacking threat.
 

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by Gert Mare

[Mr Popodopolous]

Attempts at a high press and possession, I'd have thought 4-3-3 or version of is best suited to tbst tactically tbh.

Especially without eg Naismith who is a player who can either drop and full backs split or stay between the defence and midfield to tactically switch in-game between a back 3 and 4.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[robin_unreliant]

7 minutes ago, Gert Mare said:

However, at the moment we are equally playing a dangerously high line that can put us in a position of having to try to get back into a game against a team that otherwise wouldn’t necessarily cause us any serious attacking threat.

 

 

I agree with this, we look a bit more prone to conceding when the ball is turned over. Opposition coaches will be getting an idea of how LM sets us up now and potentially will exploit it in future.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Don't even think we should be going down the back 3 road while Atkinson, Naismith, on a 2nd level King and Roberts are all injured. Just because we can doesn't mean we should- Tanner squeezed into a back 3, dunno about that.

[Red Skin]

18 hours ago, Alessandro said:

So for me all he’s doing is highlighting what we knew - you want this style, you want top 6? Well you’re going to need to spend money. 

Sounds pretty shrewd in that case.  Obviously, to get the appointment LM would have had to had to pitch it as some minor tinkering.  Now he's in position he can implement the style he (and the ownership) wanted and if it works then great, and if it doesn't he has some evidence to argue for some player investment. 

Whilst I don't think the squad is top 6, I'm still happy enough to let LM work with the players and see what they are capable of.  It's still relatively early days for me. 

Great post @Harry.

[Numero Uno]

35 minutes ago, Gert Mare said:

I thought we were more positive in possession than we have been over the previous few games.

We’re still not moving the ball quick enough in the final third to hurt teams and the unexpected through ball by Dickie to Weimann opened them up easily for Tommy to score. We need to mix it up a bit more like that during games to avoid becoming too predictable.

I thought the decision to remove Sykes was very strange as he is one of our most creative players going forward and he’s a hardworking player who can go the 90.

One thing that does concern me with the high press is the lack of cover on the counter and we are weak down the right hand side. Tanner doesn’t have the legs for a wing back and is limited in his distribution. More often than not he favours the diagonal back pass to Vyner which kills our momentum.

We have been undone by individual errors in the last few games as a result of surrendering possession with too many players in forward positions and we have been cut open at ease. We need real quality pacy wing backs to stutter these attacks allowing Vyner and Dickie to get goal side of the ball in time.

I’m not convinced that Bell is effective enough and for me that position needs someone more effective in picking out opportunities to provide Tommy with decent chances to finish. For me with Belly it’s more like hit and hope rather than a measured ball.

With a few tweaks and a bit of confidence we could potentially cause one or two teams a serious problem and they could be on the end of a 4 goal tanking. However, at the moment we are equally playing a dangerously high line that can put us in a position of having to try to get back into a game against a team that otherwise wouldn’t necessarily cause us any serious attacking threat.
 

 

Our biggest issue with the new style is that Dickie is the only player with the passing ability to make it work.  Second half last week Wagner nullified Dickie and the balls in behind their midfield to players getting in behind it dried up. That is where Vyner, Pring and Tanner need to get better.

[GrahamC]

15 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Nige is on record as saying him and JL got on fine, I think the problems lay elsewhere. 

Plymouth reserves. Let's be honest we were very lucky Schumacher "rested" their best players. He won't be doing that again in a hurry. 

Not sure Nige was ever going to say in public “the chairman, uninspiring sort, who clearly only got the gig because of his Dad” was he?

It wasn’t Plymouth’s reserves it was the side Schumacher chose to pick from a squad (unlike us) with hardly any injuries.

Reckon someone on the Cardiff forum ever went we only beat Bristol City reserves because they had 10 players missing? Not a chance.

[Kid in the Riot]

11 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Not sure Nige was ever going to say in public “the chairman, uninspiring sort, who clearly only got the gig because of his Dad” was he?

No. But Nige wasn't one to go out of his way to praise anyone in the club hierarchy either, was he? Nige's relationship with Jon was not an issue.

11 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

It wasn’t Plymouth’s reserves it was the side Schumacher chose to pick from a squad (unlike us) with hardly any injuries.

Reckon someone on the Cardiff forum ever went we only beat Bristol City reserves because they had 10 players missing? Not a chance.

OK, we were the beneficiaries of a charitable team selection from Plymouth...that better? 

The wider point I was making was that our home form this season continued to be shite, as it has been since 2016. Yet again it looks unlikely we'll manage to win much more than half our home games this season, and it's getting pretty tedious to say the least! 

[Red_Alligator]

At this early stage in proceedings I'm not at all convinced by young Manning as a good fit to push on with this squad of players. 

But he deserves time, transfer windows etcetera to show us what he can do. 

I'm left feeling, as others have expressed, that we're in a "back to square one" situation, rather than a "next step in progress", towards that "top six" position.

[chinapig]

38 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

No. But Nige wasn't one to go out of his way to praise anyone in the club hierarchy either, was he? Nige's relationship with Jon was not an issue.

Yep, the Lansdowns like having their egos stroked. Nigel was never going to follow his predecessors and say how wonderful they are on a weekly basis.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

No. But Nige wasn't one to go out of his way to praise anyone in the club hierarchy either, was he? Nige's relationship with Jon was not an issue.

OK, we were the beneficiaries of a charitable team selection from Plymouth...that better? 

The wider point I was making was that our home form this season continued to be shite, as it has been since 2016. Yet again it looks unlikely we'll manage to win much more than half our home games this season, and it's getting pretty tedious to say the least! 

Shite is a bit all or nothing IMO.

PPG at home is dropping a bit at this level for one and think we were 12th last year. What metrics and criteria are you using?

https://www.soccerstats.com/homeaway.asp?league=england2

There aren't that many Fortresses at Championship level atm.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[TheSpaniard]

21 hours ago, Harry said:

I’m rather encouraged by what I’ve seen so far with Manning. I know many won’t agree but that’s how I feel. 
 

I am keen to separate the performances under Manning from the ridiculous decisions and comments from Jon, Brian & Gavin. 
 

The reasons for sacking Pearson were, as we all know, spurious. 
Their comments about top 6, top end, best squad etc etc were again, spurious. 
 

I’ve said clearly on threads at that time that I will very much be judging the hierarchy on those comments and expectations. 
 

However, I am not judging Manning on those same comments and expectations. I will judge Manning on what I see on the field. 
 

In my opinion, the squad which Pearson had was a squad which I thought would be about 10th-15th, and would be one where we’d see less of the ball and be rather stodgy. A counterattack team which might get a few results against the grain but generally have less of the play but get enough results for mid table. 
I wasn’t expecting any more than that. 
 

With Manning, my expectations aren’t changing. I still think this is a mid table squad. 
However, I am really encouraged (and frankly amazed) that he’s got this team playing dominant possession football and having twice as many chances as the opposition. 
I actually really like how we’ve played so far. Yes, the results haven’t been there but I’ve enjoyed seeing a City team having 60%+ possession, looking like the better football team, being creative up front and making plenty of decent chances. I also liked today the battling qualities we showed - the 2nd half conditions were horrendous and we had to scrap for loose balls and aerials and we won more than our fair share - for once it seemed like the 2nd balls and ricochets mostly went our way, when can we ever say that as a City fan! Thats not luck. Its effort. 
 

Yes, we could easily have won today. We could easily have won v Norwich. We could have got a point at Southampton. We didn’t. And that will rightly be questioned, but the performances, for me, have been encouraging. 
 

Whatever Lansdown and Tinnion said, I will judge them at the end of the season. Failure is on their heads. 
For Manning, I’m positively encouraged by how he’s managing to get this team playing - I like what I’ve seen so far. I don’t think we’re too far off. Most of the goals against haven’t been anything to do with system, shape, management etc they’ve mostly been basic individual errors. 
Yes, those things will happen (they happened under Nige too). But overall I’m actually quite happy so far. 

Hi my first post, I agree with this it’s nice to see us have patterns of play and trying to have some form of identity, which we have lacked for years. I do think the reason we struggle to maintain the positive moments is mental fatigue, players aren’t used to this style and some you could argue don’t have the skill set - but I can definitely see what he is doing so I agree with the OP

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

Our biggest issue with the new style is that Dickie is the only player with the passing ability to make it work.  Second half last week Wagner nullified Dickie and the balls in behind their midfield to players getting in behind it dried up. That is where Vyner, Pring and Tanner need to get better.

Dickie and Atkinson will be the dream team then.

 

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, Countryfile said:

Dickie and Atkinson will be the dream team then.

 

It will help I reckon. If there is only one lad at the back that can pass it properly it does makes us easy to defend against………as Huddersfield found once they gave up trying to win the game and settled for the point. Listen to Darren Moore, more than happy with another point.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Naismith has a good range of passing when fit, could be useful in a back 3.

My bigger concern is, why are we seemingly shifting to a back 3 again after a whole season indeed almost a whole year of playing and drilling the 4-3-3?

Edited December 10, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Numero Uno]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Naismith has a good range of passing when fit, could be useful in a back 3.

My bigger concern is, are we shifting to a back 3 again after a whole season indeed almost a whole year of playing and drilling the 4-3-3?

Apologies, missed him, great shout. The fact we only have one of our three “passers” available is a huge issue and is affecting what Manning is looking to implement.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Apologies, missed him, great shout. The fact we only have one of our three “passers” available is a huge issue and is affecting what Manning is looking to implement.

I think it might be a good idea were we to park the back 3 until such time as we have a fuller squad to choose from.

Tanner-Vyner-Dickie

Feels a bit forced, shoehorned- square pegs round holes.

If we should even go in that direction of course which I question.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think we should park the back 3 until such time as we have a fuller squad to choose from.

Tanner-Vyner-Dickie

Feels a bit forced, shoehorned- square pegs round holes.

If we should even go in that direction of course which I question.

In terms of the style Manning wants I would have thought a back four with Dickie and Atkinson and Naismith at CDM would fit the bill. We really could look to control possession then.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Numero Uno said:

In terms of the style Manning wants I would have thought a back four with Dickie and Atkinson and Naismith at CDM would fit the bill. We really could look to control possession then.

Agreed, wouldn't entirely count out Vyner if he could regain some of the form of last season especially, good first reserve.

Good thing about Naismith too is that given his flexibility he can drop in at times to create a back 3 in some phases and others yeah back in CDM.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think we should park the back 3 until such time as we have a fuller squad to choose from.

Tanner-Vyner-Dickie

Feels a bit forced, shoehorned- square pegs round holes.

If we should even go in that direction of course which I question.

Naismith said yesterday that he preferred playing as a LCB, so when for perhaps 

Dickie, Atkinson, Naismith.

So many options if we can just get a couple of people fit.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Countryfile said:

Naismith said yesterday that he preferred playing as a LCB, so when for perhaps 

Dickie, Atkinson, Naismith.

So many options if we can just get a couple of people fit.

Should we be changing tack though?

Was Manning not added in order to build on what we have, not start with a newish philosophy.

I don't take that to mean a switch from a 4-3-3 ish to a back 3..granted you can switch a bit in-game with Naismith but..

Edited December 10, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[bcfc01]

4 minutes ago, Countryfile said:

So many options if we can just get a couple of people fit.

Yep, it'll be looking good with Atkinson, Naismith, and McCrorie back (not that I've seen anything of McCrorie other than a friendly).

It'll give us so many options.

[Numero Uno]

12 minutes ago, Countryfile said:

Naismith said yesterday that he preferred playing as a LCB, so when for perhaps 

Dickie, Atkinson, Naismith.

So many options if we can just get a couple of people fit.

Agreed and that’s why I can’t get on board with people expecting it to be “toxic” by the New Year. Granted there would have been a reaction had we lost three on the bounce and will be if we get done on Tuesday but we do have room to improve it.