Awaiting Silvio’s post…

[steviestevieneville]

15 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I said I will make a judgment in February, I might as well stick to that .
He has one way of playing, he likes possession , but that doesn't mean he can't adjust formation or shape . 
I will give him the benefit and say, maybe he has been trying to get them to retain the ball, ingrain the movement needed to be able to play and may gradually bring in other shapes or set ups down the line, I don't know but we can only hope. We have improved in possession, but there are times we look lost . Games like Birmingham, Millwall and 2nd half today, nowhere near looking as though we can pass let alone retain the ball, this is where Manning must earn his corn.

I differ from many on here, I think that players at Championship level can be turned into possession minded. It may have to be drummed into some and others may not cope, but most I believe can . The problem we have is consistency and being able to change things on the fly.
This is where my main worry is .
He is detail led and coaches players throughout the game , it was mentioned before how he walked Mehmeti through the first half a few weeks ago, then 2nd half when he wasn't close enough AM's performances dropped , extreme example but I wonder if that detail impacts when things go wrong. Everyone has been coached and cajoled into retaining the ball, to the extent it looks like some 2nd guess themselves and don't play the quick ball that is on. I may be wrong , but whatever , I think come Feb we will be able to see where we stand and with luck and some new recruits things may look a little better. We can only hope.

I put in another post how decision making & speed of it is fundamental . I agree , some championship can be coached to be possession based but not on the whole. Look at mehmeti . Ripped it up in league one because he’s instinctive . He’ll turn defenders inside & out . In this league he’s not quick enough mentally to see the pass & move into space . That part of his game is not instinctive. 
I really hate saying this but I’m worried about Sam bell as well . He doesn’t seem to have it upstairs to play in a possession side . He suits a big man small man partnership imo & isn’t as quick as I thought . 
 

[1960maaan]

7 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

I put in another post how decision making & speed of it is fundamental . I agree , some championship can be coached to be possession based but not on the whole. Look at mehmeti . Ripped it up in league one because he’s instinctive . He’ll turn defenders inside & out . In this league he’s not quick enough mentally to see the pass & move into space . That part of his game is not instinctive. 
I really hate saying this but I’m worried about Sam bell as well . He doesn’t seem to have it upstairs to play in a possession side . He suits a big man small man partnership imo & isn’t as quick as I thought . 
 

The most frustrating thing about today for me was Mehmeti . I've mentioned it before but, with 2 passes on fronting up a player he took the man on and lost the ball . About a minute later identical situation he did exactly the same thing. After a few good moments recently I thought he was learning, it appears not.
I want to see Bell infront of McCrorie, someone more willing or finds attacking more natural . Most of Bell's good work seems to come defending , I would give him a run off of TC or try him on the left. I share your fears he may not make it long term though. 

[steviestevieneville]

31 minutes ago, Harry said:

Ha ha. I was planning on having a quiet night Dave. This question, as I know you very well know, is gonna get my hackles right up

As said, there are 3 ways that this goes :

1) Coach the current players to play LM’s way. 
Answer - I can’t see it. I’ve always said I just can’t see the players being able to regularly sustain the style LM wants. Patches, yes. But not consistently or quick/slick enough. 
 

2) LM adapts to this squad. 
This is a comment I see a lot. Yes. Maybe he should. But my argument would be; why should he?? We’ve recruited him as manager based on what we’ve seen him produce in previous roles. He has a very clear CV.  Why would you hire a cocktail-shaker to work in the cloakroom? Why would you hire a sparky to sort out your plumbing (and other such crap analogies). 
 

3) Buy players to suit the managers style. 
This is all we can be left with. I just don’t see options 1 or 2 as credible. 
 

So, to answer your questions. Can we afford to buy the style of players required? The answer to that is Yes. It can definitely be done. 
But of course that leads into question 2) can we recruit expertly. 
My answer to that is a resounding and very sorry No. 

As you know, I have very little faith in our recruitment structure and team. I’m sure Brian is very keen to complete his TGH deal that he’s oh so very proud of. And yes, TGH is a good player, I’m not doubting that. But does he suit LM’s style. I personally don’t think he does, no. 
We will of course sign him. But I’m not actually convinced LM would target him if he wasn’t already here. 
And as you’ve noted elsewhere re Knight. The recruitment team and Brian are oh so proud of him too. And I again say that yes he’s a very good player. But hand on heart, if he wasn’t already here, would Manning have him on a list of targets? I’d say the answer to that is also no. 
 

Anyway. A quiet night for me.

So my short answer to your questions are :

1) Yes. It’s very do-able. 
2) No. I have no trust in our recruitment. 

Answer no2 it’s what eve done for decades. Get manager in thinking he’ll adapt the squad. Squad doesn’t /can’t play his way. Buy new squad . Sack manager etc etc etc . Let’s try the Brentford way or Brighton way .

Heres an idea , have one of your own . Ah well , the problem with that is , football to the lansdowns is like me reading mandarin 

[Davefevs]

33 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I differ from many on here, I think that players at Championship level can be turned into possession minded. It may have to be drummed into some and others may not cope, but most I believe can

You know what Mike, I’m with you.  I think too much is made of “these players don’t suit…”, “it’s not his players” type comments.  Most if not all have come through academy systems where they’d have been taught what I’ll just simply call “pass and move” and technical ability.

We saw first half (on a shit pitch) that we can play fine.

In the past we’ve been a bit soft, perhaps lacking in hard work.  That’s not the case anymore.

The main problem is ability.

They are mid-table ability wise, on average.

Until you improve the players ability, it doesn’t matter how you play (within reason), we will get similar results.

Can LM improve the current players ability by on the grass coaching?  If he can, fair play.

More likely is that he’ll coach them to play his system to a similar level to how Curtis / Jase coached them to play Nige’s system.

Will there be a point where some players look at it and think - why isn’t this method getting us better results, it’s what we were sold.

Maybe I’m just a bit cynical?  Maybe that’s based on my view that there’s no one way to play this game.  I dunno.

[steviestevieneville]

6 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

The most frustrating thing about today for me was Mehmeti . I've mentioned it before but, with 2 passes on fronting up a player he took the man on and lost the ball . About a minute later identical situation he did exactly the same thing. After a few good moments recently I thought he was learning, it appears not.
I want to see Bell infront of McCrorie, someone more willing or finds attacking more natural . Most of Bell's good work seems to come defending , I would give him a run off of TC or try him on the left. I share your fears he may not make it long term though. 

And imo with mehmeti keeping the ball is a lack of vision , he doesn’t read the game . I used to play full back . You love to play against players like him . As you & others know. Players like him need to make runs off the ball to create space for others & to take defenders away . He doesn’t do any of that 

[1960maaan]

36 minutes ago, Harry said:

2) LM adapts to this squad. 
This is a comment I see a lot. Yes. Maybe he should. But my argument would be; why should he?? We’ve recruited him as manager based on what we’ve seen him produce in previous roles. He has a very clear CV.

I would ask, don't all good Managers / Coaches adapt ? Surely they have to to some extent at least unless you are Brentford or Brighton etc. He was recruited with a plan, but do you really have faith in the recruiters to have judged the squad and Manager to be a good fit ?

 

[1960maaan]

2 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

And imo with mehmeti keeping the ball is a lack of vision , he doesn’t read the game . I used to play full back . You love to play against players like him . As you & others know. Players like him need to make runs off the ball to create space for others & to take defenders away . He doesn’t do any of that 

That was another moment , and I don't want to come across as some sort of Anis basher but he did annoy me today. When TC got the ball , made it to the touchline to cross, it wasn't a great cross but even the commentator mentioned Mehmeti was just jogging into the box. I think he's miles off ATM, but Manning likes him, technically fine but needs to add a lot to his game. If Manning can work magic , brilliant , we all benefit , but it will be a long road IMO.

[Davefevs]

Just now, 1960maaan said:

and I don't want to come across as some sort of Anis basher

You checked and rechecked your spelling there didn’t you!

[steviestevieneville]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You know what Mike, I’m with you.  I think too much is made of “these players don’t suit…”, “it’s not his players” type comments.  Most if not all have come through academy systems where they’d have been taught what I’ll just simply call “pass and move” and technical ability.

We saw first half (on a shit pitch) that we can play fine.

In the past we’ve been a bit soft, perhaps lacking in hard work.  That’s not the case anymore.

The main problem is ability.

They are mid-table ability wise, on average.

Until you improve the players ability, it doesn’t matter how you play (within reason), we will get similar results.

Can LM improve the current players ability by on the grass coaching?  If he can, fair play.

More likely is that he’ll coach them to play his system to a similar level to how Curtis / Jase coached them to play Nige’s system.

Will there be a point where some players look at it and think - why isn’t this method getting us better results, it’s what we were sold.

Maybe I’m just a bit cynical?  Maybe that’s based on my view that there’s no one way to play this game.  I dunno.

Sorry if I keep going on about this . But like I’ve said previously we don’t have football intelligent players . As you know . The further up you go is about technic yes but speed of thought and making the right decisions . I’ve seen it in the last third especially with our players , not Tommy so much . They’ll get the ball & dwell on it . That could be , a lack of intelligence with the run off them , or they’ve got the ball where they’ve closed themselves off . I know it’s part of the championship to have players of that level. Is it also coaching when you look how Ipswich play with largely league one players . I’m rambling , into my second bottle of wine & ****** off I’ve wasted another Saturday moaning about city

[steviestevieneville]

2 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

That was another moment , and I don't want to come across as some sort of Anis basher but he did annoy me today. When TC got the ball , made it to the touchline to cross, it wasn't a great cross but even the commentator mentioned Mehmeti was just jogging into the box. I think he's miles off ATM, but Manning likes him, technically fine but needs to add a lot to his game. If Manning can work magic , brilliant , we all benefit , but it will be a long road IMO.

You can have technically prem players but they’re mentally park players 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Sorry if I keep going on about this . But like I’ve said previously we don’t have football intelligent players . As you know . The further up you go is about technic yes but speed of thought and making the right decisions . I’ve seen it in the last third especially with our players , not Tommy so much . They’ll get the ball & dwell on it . That could be , a lack of intelligence with the run off them , or they’ve got the ball where they’ve closed themselves off . I know it’s part of the championship to have players of that level. Is it also coaching when you look how Ipswich play with largely league one players . I’m rambling , into my second bottle of wine & ****** off I’ve wasted another Saturday moaning about city

Yeah, yeah, mental is just another “attribute” that we are generally mid-table ability-wise across the group.

[steviestevieneville]

8 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

That was another moment , and I don't want to come across as some sort of Anis basher but he did annoy me today. When TC got the ball , made it to the touchline to cross, it wasn't a great cross but even the commentator mentioned Mehmeti was just jogging into the box. I think he's miles off ATM, but Manning likes him, technically fine but needs to add a lot to his game. If Manning can work magic , brilliant , we all benefit , but it will be a long road IMO.

Sorry to quote you again. I don’t believe a football brain can be taught . You either got it or you haven’t. 
 

[steviestevieneville]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, yeah, mental is just another “attribute” that we are generally mid-table ability-wise across the group.

Who would you say had it mentally as a city player ? Recent times I’d say David noble but lacked the fitness . Trundle . Cormack  my dad loved him . He used to say when we got home (me about 7 or 8 ) all those idiots moaning about Pete but we ain’t intelligent to see his passing mate . 

Edited January 13 by steviestevieneville

[Red Skin]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

You could also least tag me Fevs, I might not have seen this!

Theres a lot I could say today but you’re right - it would follow the similar pattern about reacting in game. We were the better side for my money half one but I don’t think LM anticipated the change made by Lowe - and to be fair, I’m not sure many of us would but there was always a chance - manager in last chance saloon, booed off, what’s to lose? The trick is once that unexpected change was made not to be all rabbit in headlights and just assume “the process” would work - we were being asked different questions.

There are two real points for me today. The first is the adaptability in game - that’s obvious. The second is that teams know how to play us. I’m fascinated to see what Watford do next week having been torn apart by us - for me Ishmael is a good enough coach to ask a different question to Boxing Day with what he knows now.

Finally, I’ll leave it for now with the thought that a certain Brian Tinnion should remember the 1993/94 season. We were better than Liverpool for 2 2/3 games. Had less of the ball than them. In the league it was turgid stuff with a mid table record and less than a goal a game scored. The turgid football was found out and the next season was a disaster. Just saying.

If teams know how to play against us, then why did to dominate the first half?

I don't think it's fair to criticise LM not not anticipating a change by Lowe.  Maybe he should have reacted, but he can't really anticipate and make changes on guesswork.

There does seem to be a pattern where we dominate early, then don't react to a tactical change by the opposition though.   

 

[Silvio Dante]

12 minutes ago, Red Skin said:

If teams know how to play against us, then why did to dominate the first half?

I don't think it's fair to criticise LM not not anticipating a change by Lowe.  Maybe he should have reacted, but he can't really anticipate and make changes on guesswork.

There does seem to be a pattern where we dominate early, then don't react to a tactical change by the opposition though.   

 

I’m not sure I did criticise LM for not anticipating the change??? You highlighted one part of my paragraph but for some reason missed the part which said and to be fair I’m not sure many of us would

My main issue with LM is not “reacting to the reaction” which is what your last paragraph indicates. You’re actually agreeing with me despite the misreading!

[Davefevs]

19 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Who would you say had it mentally as a city player ? Recent times I’d say David noble but lacked the fitness . Trundle . Cormack  my dad loved him . He used to say when we got home (me about 7 or 8 ) all those idiots moaning about Pete but we ain’t intelligent to see his passing mate . 

You’ll laugh…

King and James - the problem is their legs.  I watched a ball get knocked out to Pring and saw James know he had to create an angle for a pass or Pring would be cornered.  He did that, got the pass, then just turned and opened a pass out to Tanner in acres.  Nothing flashy, but he had that pass in his mind before he made the run to receive a pass from Pring.

They have it!

[Red Skin]

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

I’m not sure I did criticise LM for not anticipating the change??? You highlighted one part of my paragraph but for some reason missed the part which said and to be fair I’m not sure many of us would

My main issue with LM is not “reacting to the reaction” which is what your last paragraph indicates. You’re actually agreeing with me despite the misreading!

True I did, but it's a pretty redundant sentence with that qualification so why mention at all?

You ignore my other point, so I guess that's fair though.  If everyone knows how we are gonna play, then why did have a good first half?

It's clear we aren't able to play a full 90 mins dominating a game, except may be Watford.  What isn't clear is why.  On a previous post along these lines is you thought 80% Manning, 20% players but I don't see it the same way.

 

[steviestevieneville]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

You’ll laugh…

King and James - the problem is their legs.  I watched a ball get knocked out to Pring and saw James know he had to create an angle for a pass or Pring would be cornered.  He did that, got the pass, then just turned and opened a pass out to Tanner in acres.  Nothing flashy, but he had that pass in his mind before he made the run to receive a pass from Pring.

They have it!

Yes I agree but intelligent enough not to get too expansive & also just help players into position by talking to them . I was kind of talking Hoddle chatting to the England lads & them all staring back at him In attacking flare I’d say jacki & he was another who’d play a ball that would run through to a keeper & he’d have his arms in the air . Like ? How didn’t you read that pass 

[PHILINFRANCE]

29 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Who would you say had it mentally as a city player ? Recent times I’d say David noble but lacked the fitness . Trundle . Cormack  my dad loved him . He used to say when we got home (me about 7 or 8 ) all those idiots moaning about Pete but we ain’t intelligent to see his passing mate . 

I know a lot on here like to refer to Gerry Gow as a 'Hard Man', but he was also a very good player technically.

Just after he broke in to Alan Dicks' First Eleven, having starred in the youth team alongside several of his teammates, he was often criticised for just 'passing the ball in to empty space'.

I well remember my late father saying something very similar to yours. 

[Silvio Dante]

2 minutes ago, Red Skin said:

True I did, but it's a pretty redundant sentence with that qualification so why mention at all?

You ignore my other point, so I guess that's fair though.  If everyone knows how we are gonna play, then why did have a good first half?

It's clear we aren't able to play a full 90 mins dominating a game, except may be Watford.  What isn't clear is why.  On a previous post along these lines is you thought 80% Manning, 20% players but I don't see it the same way.

 

I’d kind of put it as a defence of LM tbh. It’s an easy target to say “they changed, why didn’t we” but I think when the change is that unanticipated you cut slack. What then isnt defensible is the delay in reaction.

As to why we do well first vs second then I’d say most managers are predicated to play the way they think is best for their teams. Under LJ a huge criticism was that we changed too much to counteract opponents. I do think (and this speaks to LM being a decent coach) that we generally do well first half when the plan is in, but then we fall down when opponents adapt away from their setup. Fans often criticise playing the opponent as opposed to to strengths so I think we benefit from that first half.

And tbh it is 80-20 to adapt. As I’ve said elsewhere tonight the fullback (for example) can make a decision to show his winger inside as opposed to outside but material changes are totally the mangers remit. And that is the bit he is getting really wrong at present as your comment in respect of reaction confirms

[Davefevs]

29 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Yes I agree but intelligent enough not to get too expansive & also just help players into position by talking to them . I was kind of talking Hoddle chatting to the England lads & them all staring back at him In attacking flare I’d say jacki & he was another who’d play a ball that would run through to a keeper & he’d have his arms in the air . Like ? How didn’t you read that pass 

Have you ever seen this:

I also recall Mark Hateley managing Hull in the data where they almost went out of business.  He just couldn’t comprehend how some players couldn’t do the basic things he took for granted.

I can imagine Harry Cornick finding it hard under Manning.  If you’ve watched his interview with Joe Partington, you’ll get what I mean.

[Cowshed]

3 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

I put in another post how decision making & speed of it is fundamental . I agree , some championship can be coached to be possession based but not on the whole. Look at mehmeti . Ripped it up in league one because he’s instinctive . He’ll turn defenders inside & out . In this league he’s not quick enough mentally to see the pass & move into space . That part of his game is not instinctive. 
I really hate saying this but I’m worried about Sam bell as well . He doesn’t seem to have it upstairs to play in a possession side . He suits a big man small man partnership imo & isn’t as quick as I thought . 
 

Any team can be coached to be possession based. Possession football is prioritizing ball control in differing manners. Children's teams can be taught to prioritize possession and build play in patterns.  

A team building play through the first two thirds and looking to penetrate quickly in the final third and frequently losing possession is still possession based. Possession is the means to provide Mehmeti opportunity and if he turns possession over quickly the team is still possession based, possession based teams can alter principles/priorities across differing zones and thirds of the pitch.

[Red Skin]

10 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

I’d kind of put it as a defence of LM tbh. It’s an easy target to say “they changed, why didn’t we” but I think when the change is that unanticipated you cut slack. What then isnt defensible is the delay in reaction.

As to why we do well first vs second then I’d say most managers are predicated to play the way they think is best for their teams. Under LJ a huge criticism was that we changed too much to counteract opponents. I do think (and this speaks to LM being a decent coach) that we generally do well first half when the plan is in, but then we fall down when opponents adapt away from their setup. Fans often criticise playing the opponent as opposed to to strengths so I think we benefit from that first half.

And tbh it is 80-20 to adapt. As I’ve said elsewhere tonight the fullback (for example) can make a decision to show his winger inside as opposed to outside but material changes are totally the mangers remit. And that is the bit he is getting really wrong at present as your comment in respect of reaction confirms

Fair comment.  I agree with most of that, but whilst we make the same observation of failing to adap, I don't think we see the reasons behind this being the same.  I see it as WE fail to adapt, whereas you tend to lay most of this on LM.  Here's the mitigating factors as I see them

- players still have had quite limited coaching. LM mentioned 6 days, which seems a little conservative, but the obvious message is that he doesn't feel he has time to coach as much as he'd like or the players need i.e. they aren't equipped to deal with every eventuality they encounter.  You can't coach a unfamiliar pattern of play from the sidelines in game.

- players aren't reading and/or understanding the game to make in game changes and respond with what they are faced with.  

- players aren't choosing the right solutions to counter what's happening.  Forget which game now, but to beat a high press Max started kicking long. This stretched the game and opened up space in the middle of the pitch, but Max continued to kick long rather than utilise the midfield  He did the first bit right, but failed to recognise and change.

- players just fail to execute or implement things correctly.  They just fall short for a period of the game.

- We don't have the right players.  I think it's clear we need clever coachable players that can understand tactically what's happening.  They also need the physical attributes to implement what is needed. We probably don't have enough that can do both.  James/Weimann can probably do the former but not the latter. Maybe TGH has the ability, but not the understanding yet? 

I think I am more forgiving of LM as I feel these other factors go a long way to explaining why we aren't putting in complete performances.  I have seen enough good stuff in the games so far to suggest given time and some signings, LM will take us in the right direction.   

For you, and others, I may be letting LM off the hook, but what is the alternative?  If you feel he can do the job you have to support him and give him more time and resources. 

[Silvio Dante]

17 minutes ago, Red Skin said:

Fair comment.  I agree with most of that, but whilst we make the same observation of failing to adap, I don't think we see the reasons behind this being the same.  I see it as WE fail to adapt, whereas you tend to lay most of this on LM.  Here's the mitigating factors as I see them

- players still have had quite limited coaching. LM mentioned 6 days, which seems a little conservative, but the obvious message is that he doesn't feel he has time to coach as much as he'd like or the players need i.e. they aren't equipped to deal with every eventuality they encounter.  You can't coach a unfamiliar pattern of play from the sidelines in game.

- players aren't reading and/or understanding the game to make in game changes and respond with what they are faced with.  

- players aren't choosing the right solutions to counter what's happening.  Forget which game now, but to beat a high press Max started kicking long. This stretched the game and opened up space in the middle of the pitch, but Max continued to kick long rather than utilise the midfield  He did the first bit right, but failed to recognise and change.

- players just fail to execute or implement things correctly.  They just fall short for a period of the game.

- We don't have the right players.  I think it's clear we need clever coachable players that can understand tactically what's happening.  They also need the physical attributes to implement what is needed. We probably don't have enough that can do both.  James/Weimann can probably do the former but not the latter. Maybe TGH has the ability, but not the understanding yet? 

I think I am more forgiving of LM as I feel these other factors go a long way to explaining why we aren't putting in complete performances.  I have seen enough good stuff in the games so far to suggest given time and some signings, LM will take us in the right direction.   

For you, and others, I may be letting LM off the hook, but what is the alternative?  If you feel he can do the job you have to support him and give him more time and resources. 

Good post, and I think we’re agreed on the symptom just not the cause.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not sure I buy the “9 sessions” piece as a valid reason - it’s likely 9 sessions not on specific opponents and I think you get that at every club - it’s just a reality of being appointed mid season. As I said elsewhere, it didn’t impact LM having less time at MK Dons as he was the continuation candidate who just followed how Russell Martin had them set up. 
 

I’m agreed we need different players and I’d love players who can adapt more on the fly - but every club wants them and they cost money! It is an 80-20 piece for me (case in point yesterday - Lowe made the changes, Keane didn’t) but I’ve got no issue in disagreeing in a constructive way.

The bottom line I think for me is that LM is pretty inflexible. Thats been seen in trying to impose a style when he doesn’t have the players to do so, and then in the in game piece. And I’m yet to be convinced he can do the job, mainly for that reason.

Decent debate in the right way though

[Maesknoll Red]

As ever interesting thread with some well thought out posts and I enjoy reading those who have a far more nuanced understanding of the technical aspects of the game than me (I just like open attacking football - I think my most enjoyable season ever was 89/90).

My point to add, is we seem to do this forensic examination several times a season, we see the owners blamed, managers, players unable to adapt and more - of course, I only touch the surface with a summary like that.  But it’s not just this current period, it’s not the change of Manager, it’s the story of the last nine and a bit years…. See the table below, at least we are consistent in disappointing the fan base, should we be surprised?

Bang average, or even just below average with a 14.5 average finishing place since being promoted, I’ll admit my enthusiasm has waned, I’ve gone from season ticket and seasons where I didn’t miss a game home or away, to now mostly watching on a fire stick and then not being too bothered if I miss a game.  There doesn’t seem to be any hope of improvement in sight.  I’m critical of the parachute payments, they obviously have some detrimental influence on the Championship, but they aren’t the reason we are so average.

I’ve pretty much remained in the supportive camp for Steve Lansdown, but I do wonder what the endgame is now, what’s the goal?  If it’s not getting promoted, then why is he bothering?  I’m cautious and worldly wise enough to be careful a wanting a new investor regardless of their background and motives, but for us to have been so consistently inconsistent, to end up as one of the leagues mid table no hopers, then there must be a deeper root cause than players, Manger and coaching.

[Cowshed]

38 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Good post, and I think we’re agreed on the symptom just not the cause.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not sure I buy the “9 sessions” piece as a valid reason - it’s likely 9 sessions not on specific opponents and I think you get that at every club - it’s just a reality of being appointed mid season. As I said elsewhere, it didn’t impact LM having less time at MK Dons as he was the continuation candidate who just followed how Russell Martin had them set up. 
 

I’m agreed we need different players and I’d love players who can adapt more on the fly - but every club wants them and they cost money! It is an 80-20 piece for me (case in point yesterday - Lowe made the changes, Keane didn’t) but I’ve got no issue in disagreeing in a constructive way.

The bottom line I think for me is that LM is pretty inflexible. Thats been seen in trying to impose a style when he doesn’t have the players to do so, and then in the in game piece. And I’m yet to be convinced he can do the job, mainly for that reason.

Decent debate in the right way though

The game is five elements of defence, attack, transitions, and set plays .. Nine sessions is very little. Patterns of play are not internalised by one or two sessions. Players will need months of focussed integrated training to reach competency. 

Coaching frequently is inflexible. Coaches should not be jumping across multiple elements as this decreases learning and efficiency. 

 

[Red Skin]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

The bottom line I think for me is that LM is pretty inflexible. Thats been seen in trying to impose a style when he doesn’t have the players to do so, and then in the in game piece. And I’m yet to be convinced he can do the job, mainly for that reason.

It's always the last paragragh with us isn't it?  Was with you right up to this. Ha, ha.

Let's take a different view on LM's inflexibility. 

- I think Manning is right to persevere with his approach, because as I outlined above there are lots of reason why it may not be coming off.  I'd be disappointed if he didn't have the courage of his convictions otherwise.

- Maybe he is being generous to the players in terms of the time he's giving them to adapt?  In the same way I'm prepared to give him time.

- LM came into the club with a hierarchy convinced they had the players for success playing 'front foot' football.  Maybe - and this is a stretch  - a by product of persevering is that he is demonstrating to the hierarchy that we can't have both.  If you want the front foot football then here's the evidence to show that I need some new faces to deliver it, so support me the transfer market?

As you say, good debate.

 

[Cowshed]

15 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

Sorry to quote you again. I don’t believe a football brain can be taught . You either got it or you haven’t. 
 

How would you have it? 

Footballers brains react differently to the general populaces to football. Not a remarkable statement, but what occurs is that footballers use differing parts of the brain in reaction to football. Highly skilled players brains react differently to footballing stimuli, and thus display different vision and thinking x performance v lesser skilled players. 

Players at the very top can use executive function - Parts of the brain switch off dedicating more space, and more function to faster football thinking and vision. Elite players, display elite levels of ability to process information. 

None of that is a just have, its learned, and to a very high degree taught.  

[Maesknoll Red]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

How would you have it? 

Footballers brains react differently to the general populaces to football. Not a remarkable statement, but what occurs is that footballers use differing parts of the brain in reaction to football. Highly skilled players brains react differently to footballing stimuli, and thus display different vision and thinking x performance v lesser skilled players. 

Players at the very top can use executive function - Parts of the brain switch off dedicating more space, and more function to faster football thinking and vision. Elite players, display elite levels of ability to process information. 

None of that is a just have, its learned, and to a very high degree taught.  

I wonder if there is some truth in that some people have a ‘natural talent’ that can’t be taught.  In my field of work I see people who with very similar training and career paths, produce very different outcomes to problems, in this instance I am talking fault diagnosis, some people have “it” some don’t and I don’t believe you can teach or train those that don’t have “it”, to the same level as those that do. (“It” being some natural or intelligent logical thought and understanding of system that not everyone achieves, even with training and mentoring)

Could not the same be true of footballers, I’m sure there are some players you could put with the best coaches for months and they’d never achieve the results of a player whose talents and thought processes come seemingly naturally.  

[Cowshed]

53 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I wonder if there is some truth in that some people have a ‘natural talent’ that can’t be taught.  In my field of work I see people who with very similar training and career paths, produce very different outcomes to problems, in this instance I am talking fault diagnosis, some people have “it” some don’t and I don’t believe you can teach or train those that don’t have “it”, to the same level as those that do. (“It” being some natural or intelligent logical thought and understanding of system that not everyone achieves, even with training and mentoring)

Could not the same be true of footballers, I’m sure there are some players you could put with the best coaches for months and they’d never achieve the results of a player whose talents and thought processes come seemingly naturally.  

There is no football gene. Mother nature didn't give us a football gene to help defend us against beasts that would eat us, nature gave us the primitive and intelligent brain, and our fight and flight response. 

Children do not come out of the womb with the ability to scan the pitch, and trap a football, then make a calculation in a millisecond as to how and what will occur next with a ball. Those skills are learned. 100% created by repetition and experience.

Related to football your post is about the non physical. Mindset. Growth mindset. Challenge state. That is a differing thing. These mindsets help individuals to take the physical and develop skills to for some exceptional levels. Football vision is developed, it has to be. 

Our mindset feeds ability to learn. And here yes we display different propensity and aptitude. 

In regards to your last sentence. Your right because players skill levels differ. Competency through levels massively differs, and so will the players limits. A highly skilled player will operate in a flow state, tasks are dealt with subconsciously and efficiently, stick average in the same drills as the elite for months they won't become elite, they play in a different level, conscious competence, not elite frequently unconscious competence. The players thought process and vision will reflect their ability, we don't see instantly solutions in football in football time we can't perform.