Points Per Games

[Tomo]

15 points from Mannings 12 league games = 1.25PPG so there has been no real improvement so far on Pearsons stats this season.

Disappointing. No manager bounce.

The board is to blame though for not investing in the August transfer window. No fault of Nigel or Liam.

[GrahamC]

Manager bounce is a myth.

[bearded_red]

Yawns per game is well up though tbf.

[Red Army 75]

8 minutes ago, Tomo said:

15 points from Mannings 12 league games = 1.25PPG so there has been no real improvement so far on Pearsons stats this season.

Disappointing. No manager bounce.

The board is to blame though for not investing in the August transfer window. No fault of Nigel or Liam.

Yep listening to the bullshit from Laurel and Hardy when they sacked Pearson, and the remarks about the squad and top six. And Tinnion leaving twitter saying see you when we are in the premiership. Has made Mannings Job a lot more difficult . Performances like the last few league games only emphasise it. 

[formerly known as ivan]

7 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Manager bounce is a myth.

It’s not, it happens time and time again. The problem we had was that we weren’t in a decline when Pearson went and Manning came in so there was no bounce to happen.

[RobImps]

As decisions from board level go - sacking NP, with the outrageous reasons given - was an absolute howler.

Proper .

We had sold players for big money, replaced on the cheap, both in terms of fees paid and presumably wages, we also were in the midst of a stinking injury crisis, yet, for the most part, fans were onboard and we had (very minimally) improved.

The football under NP, certainly when we had Semenyo & Scott was good - blistering counter attacking football AT PACE.

Talk of us having a top 6 squad is quite frankly, mugging off the intelligence of the paying fan base & something I'll not be in any hurry to forget or forgive.

Manning will need time & money to make his style of football work....

Hopefully he will get the time/cash to make it work, ultimately I'll always be a City fan, I'll always travel the country and spend my hard earned money.

But..

What is currently being served up is an absolute snoozefest, it's so slow, so turgid and so predictable and I don't enjoy watching it.

Mr Lansdown, Tins, do you still feel we have a top 6 squad? And are you happy with our style of football as we are... Being the players didn't need changing in your opinions?

[Tomo]

18 minutes ago, RobImps said:

As decisions from board level go - sacking NP, with the outrageous reasons given - was an absolute howler.

Proper .

We had sold players for big money, replaced on the cheap, both in terms of fees paid and presumably wages, we also were in the midst of a stinking injury crisis, yet, for the most part, fans were onboard and we had (very minimally) improved.

The football under NP, certainly when we had Semenyo & Scott was good - blistering counter attacking football AT PACE.

Talk of us having a top 6 squad is quite frankly, mugging off the intelligence of the paying fan base & something I'll not be in any hurry to forget or forgive.

Manning will need time & money to make his style of football work....

Hopefully he will get the time/cash to make it work, ultimately I'll always be a City fan, I'll always travel the country and spend my hard earned money.

But..

What is currently being served up is an absolute snoozefest, it's so slow, so turgid and so predictable and I don't enjoy watching it.

Mr Lansdown, Tins, do you still feel we have a top 6 squad? And are you happy with our style of football as we are... Being the players didn't need changing in your opinions?

Jon & Tins thinking that we were a top 6 outfit is worrying...

[Mr Popodopolous]

18/14.

15/12.

1.2857

1.25.

Minor regression if anything, average injuries per game would be interesting too.

1.4 PPG inherited post Fleming. 40% win ratio.

5 wins 14 NP. 35.71%

4 wins from 12 LM is it? 33.33%

Again slightly worse than the direct NP v LM.

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of a slightly bigger picture I thought early on:

Below 60 pts- Disappointing, stagnant at best.

60-62..that's okay. Small but tangible, 60 the minimum really.

63-65 pts- Definite progress, signs of it.

>65 pts- Clear clear signs.

[fgrsimon]

42 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In respect of a slightly bigger picture I thought early on:

Below 60 pts- Disappointing, stagnant at best.

60-62..that's okay. Small but tangible, 60 the minimum really.

63-65 pts- Definite progress, signs of it.

>65 pts- Clear clear signs.

Yeah my benchmark was that if he improves on NP's points per game this season I'll be happy and we'd be in the top 10 by May. It was looking good 3 games ago....

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

18/14.

15/12.

1.2857

1.25.

Minor regression if anything, average injuries per game would be interesting too.

1.4 PPG inherited post Fleming. 40% win ratio.

5 wins 14 NP. 35.71%

4 wins from 12 LM is it? 33.33%

Again slightly worse than the direct NP v LM.

I like to look at things in context rather than looking at stats alone. 

Against Cardiff we barely had 11 fit players for example. So that loss with a depleted squad brings the ppg down. 

It's undeniable that Manning has had greater availability since he's been here than Pearson had this. 

So when you look at it in that context, Mannings lower ppg looks even worse in my opinion. 

[ashton_fan]

15 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I like to look at things in context rather than looking at stats alone. 

Against Cardiff we barely had 11 fit players for example. So that loss with a depleted squad brings the ppg down. 

It's undeniable that Manning has had greater availability since he's been here than Pearson had this. 

So when you look at it in that context, Mannings lower ppg looks even worse in my opinion. 

When Nige arrived he said he couldn't be judged until he'd had at least three transfer windows, these are still Nige's players so Manning has to be given more time, Nige's points per game were poor at the start and he had Scott and Semenyo during his best spell

[W-S-M Seagull]

15 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

When Nige arrived he said he couldn't be judged until he'd had at least three transfer windows, these are still Nige's players so Manning has to be given more time, Nige's points per game were poor at the start and he had Scott and Semenyo during his best spell

I'm not sure I go along with that thought process tbh. 

Pearson was sacked cos it was deemed we have a decent squad and that he should have been getting more out of it. The change was made so that we would be better coached on the grass. 

Mannings and Pearsons briefs were very different. Manning has not had to contend with all the stuff Pearson had to contend with like rebuilding a squad with little money and having to rely on developing youth. 

Mannings brief was to get better results and performances out of this squad. Bar a few injury problems he had it all set for him. Decent squad with a good culture already set. His only job has been to improve us on the grass and despite a few with agendas, not many can say he has been able to improve what we have. 

[robinforlife2]

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

I'm not sure I go along with that thought process tbh. 

Pearson was sacked cos it was deemed we have a decent squad and that he should have been getting more out of it. The change was made so that we would be better coached on the grass. 

Mannings and Pearsons briefs were very different. Manning has not had to contend with all the stuff Pearson had to contend with like rebuilding a squad with little money and having to rely on developing youth. 

Mannings brief was to get better results and performances out of this squad. Bar a few injury problems he had it all set for him. Decent squad with a good culture already set. His only job has been to improve us on the grass and despite a few with agendas, not many can say he has been able to improve what we have. 

But that's because you're pro Pearson, so it wouldn't suit agenda!

People talk about the board being delusional about the squad being Top 6, yet this is the squad that NP had assembled, the same squad that NP said in the summer was good enough to be competitive and he was happy with. That was after Scott was sold, before people say we sold our best player.

So, if the squad is not top 6, if it's not capable of being competitive, then NP was just as delusional as the board, and in his 3 seasons here, it's questionable if the squad progressed or regressed as a whole. 

The one thing that was clear, was the board was not happy with the direction on the pitch and were unwilling to invest further in NP. They had been told this was a capable squad. Regardless of whether they are performing as well as they can, or not, Manning has been brought in to try and perform with average tools. He is trying to change the way certain players play. He will quickly learn, who can adapt and who needs replacing. 

It's not about who gets the most PPG from this group of players, as the PPG with Nige was still not good enough. What Manning is doing, is evaluating, who is good enough to work within his training and coaching platform and help us improve and the weak areas that need improving. We don't need wide scale recruitment, but to fine tune weaker areas.

People who praise Pearson, say the squad is a mid table squad, but this is the squad NP assembled over the best part of three years. Yes, budgets were cut, but these are players HE brought in, that he believed could help us get competitive. He said as much himself in the summer after Scott went. He came to us, working with a disjointed side, who had quality in areas, but bad attitudes, but a safe mid table team, and after many ins and outs, he left us still with a mid table side, which had quality in areas, and the only thing that changed was bad attitudes were replaced with hard workers who aren't good enough.

Manning should not be judged on what he does with Pearson's team, as we all know it's not good enough. He needs to be judged in 2 years when he has put his own twist and turns on the team and has a team playing his football. For me, their has been glimpses of promise, but also levels of inconsistency which have become all too common with Bristol City. WE can go one week looking capable of beating anyone, to looking like a team who wouldn't win in the Downs League the next. No team performs week in, week out (Look at Leicester for instance, battered by Coventry yesterday), but I swear we are way more inconsistent than any other team in this league. 

People can say that Manning isn't getting the best from this team, or getting the results, but he is still getting to know the players he has, Pearson wasn't getting much better and he knew his team inside out! 

Realistically, this season is a write off. We're not good enough to compete and we won't go down, but if anything, it feels like we've been in this groundhog day for an eternity now. 

[Sir Geoff]

3 hours ago, ashton_fan said:

When Nige arrived he said he couldn't be judged until he'd had at least three transfer windows, these are still Nige's players so Manning has to be given more time, Nige's points per game were poor at the start and he had Scott and Semenyo during his best spell

The points per game stats quoted by Mr pops are for this season. 

[City oz]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In respect of a slightly bigger picture I thought early on:

Below 60 pts- Disappointing, stagnant at best.

60-62..that's okay. Small but tangible, 60 the minimum really.

63-65 pts- Definite progress, signs of it.

>65 pts- Clear clear signs.

Mr Pop, yes agree what you have indicated is an honest assessment.

[Silvio Dante]

22 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

Manning should not be judged on what he does with Pearson's team, as we all know it's not good enough. He needs to be judged in 2 years when he has put his own twist and turns on the team and has a team playing his football.

I don’t disagree with a lot of the post but will just highlight this as it’s absolute folly, in part because of the delusional comments made by Tinnion and Lansdown which gave unrealistic expectations, but also because of the nature of football.

Yesterday, we faced a PNE side whose manager was in danger of the sack. Hes the second longest serving manager in the division at 2y 35 days.
 

Our current head coach was appointed by Oxford after being sacked and leaving a club which ultimately got relegated. He jumped at the first opportunity of a better job, even though he probably indicated to Oxford he’d be buying into a project, need x years etc. He’s had less than 18 months at each job to date.

In short, based on both performance expectations on a macro basis and on Liams (admittedly small sample) behaviour, he ain’t getting 2 years to have a squad to judge him on - because he’ll either be sacked or bugger off before then.

And that brings me back to why identity and a coach who needed to develop as opposed to reshape the squad was so key and what it seems we got wrong.

[Sir Geoff]

25 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

But that's because you're pro Pearson, so it wouldn't suit agenda!

People talk about the board being delusional about the squad being Top 6, yet this is the squad that NP had assembled, the same squad that NP said in the summer was good enough to be competitive and he was happy with. That was after Scott was sold, before people say we sold our best player.

So, if the squad is not top 6, if it's not capable of being competitive, then NP was just as delusional as the board, and in his 3 seasons here, it's questionable if the squad progressed or regressed as a whole. 

The one thing that was clear, was the board was not happy with the direction on the pitch and were unwilling to invest further in NP. They had been told this was a capable squad. Regardless of whether they are performing as well as they can, or not, Manning has been brought in to try and perform with average tools. He is trying to change the way certain players play. He will quickly learn, who can adapt and who needs replacing. 

It's not about who gets the most PPG from this group of players, as the PPG with Nige was still not good enough. What Manning is doing, is evaluating, who is good enough to work within his training and coaching platform and help us improve and the weak areas that need improving. We don't need wide scale recruitment, but to fine tune weaker areas.

People who praise Pearson, say the squad is a mid table squad, but this is the squad NP assembled over the best part of three years. Yes, budgets were cut, but these are players HE brought in, that he believed could help us get competitive. He said as much himself in the summer after Scott went. He came to us, working with a disjointed side, who had quality in areas, but bad attitudes, but a safe mid table team, and after many ins and outs, he left us still with a mid table side, which had quality in areas, and the only thing that changed was bad attitudes were replaced with hard workers who aren't good enough.

Manning should not be judged on what he does with Pearson's team, as we all know it's not good enough. He needs to be judged in 2 years when he has put his own twist and turns on the team and has a team playing his football. For me, their has been glimpses of promise, but also levels of inconsistency which have become all too common with Bristol City. WE can go one week looking capable of beating anyone, to looking like a team who wouldn't win in the Downs League the next. No team performs week in, week out (Look at Leicester for instance, battered by Coventry yesterday), but I swear we are way more inconsistent than any other team in this league. 

People can say that Manning isn't getting the best from this team, or getting the results, but he is still getting to know the players he has, Pearson wasn't getting much better and he knew his team inside out! 

Realistically, this season is a write off. We're not good enough to compete and we won't go down, but if anything, it feels like we've been in this groundhog day for an eternity now. 

Building a promotion capable squad takes time and money. As we had little headroom FFP wise it had to be small incremental steps. 

I am sure with a bucket load of money Pearson could have done the job in half the time. As it is he started, as you say by changing the culture. 

Next phase would have been to slowly build a better quality squad. Knight may well have been the first of that ilk. We will never know now but maybe there were another couple of Knights quality lined up, but the Lansclowns refused to spend the Scott money.

[frenchred]

30 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

But that's because you're pro Pearson, so it wouldn't suit agenda!

People talk about the board being delusional about the squad being Top 6, yet this is the squad that NP had assembled, the same squad that NP said in the summer was good enough to be competitive and he was happy with. That was after Scott was sold, before people say we sold our best player.

So, if the squad is not top 6, if it's not capable of being competitive, then NP was just as delusional as the board, and in his 3 seasons here, it's questionable if the squad progressed or regressed as a whole. 

The one thing that was clear, was the board was not happy with the direction on the pitch and were unwilling to invest further in NP. They had been told this was a capable squad. Regardless of whether they are performing as well as they can, or not, Manning has been brought in to try and perform with average tools. He is trying to change the way certain players play. He will quickly learn, who can adapt and who needs replacing. 

It's not about who gets the most PPG from this group of players, as the PPG with Nige was still not good enough. What Manning is doing, is evaluating, who is good enough to work within his training and coaching platform and help us improve and the weak areas that need improving. We don't need wide scale recruitment, but to fine tune weaker areas.

People who praise Pearson, say the squad is a mid table squad, but this is the squad NP assembled over the best part of three years. Yes, budgets were cut, but these are players HE brought in, that he believed could help us get competitive. He said as much himself in the summer after Scott went. He came to us, working with a disjointed side, who had quality in areas, but bad attitudes, but a safe mid table team, and after many ins and outs, he left us still with a mid table side, which had quality in areas, and the only thing that changed was bad attitudes were replaced with hard workers who aren't good enough.

Manning should not be judged on what he does with Pearson's team, as we all know it's not good enough. He needs to be judged in 2 years when he has put his own twist and turns on the team and has a team playing his football. For me, their has been glimpses of promise, but also levels of inconsistency which have become all too common with Bristol City. WE can go one week looking capable of beating anyone, to looking like a team who wouldn't win in the Downs League the next. No team performs week in, week out (Look at Leicester for instance, battered by Coventry yesterday), but I swear we are way more inconsistent than any other team in this league. 

People can say that Manning isn't getting the best from this team, or getting the results, but he is still getting to know the players he has, Pearson wasn't getting much better and he knew his team inside out! 

Realistically, this season is a write off. We're not good enough to compete and we won't go down, but if anything, it feels like we've been in this groundhog day for an eternity now. 

If we can't judge, or points per game are not important what should be used to judge?

Entertainment value?

Tactics with players available?

Clean sheets?

Style of play?

Because all of the above are worse than under Nige! Tinnion/junior have dropped a massive gaff simply because they didn't like Nige, and why would they, must be hard knowing someone who reports to you is in fact infinitely more knowledgeable of a subject than you are!

Shall we judge on boredom levels because, I don't think it's just me but that has gone through the roof!

[Tomo]

3 hours ago, ashton_fan said:

When Nige arrived he said he couldn't be judged until he'd had at least three transfer windows, these are still Nige's players so Manning has to be given more time, Nige's points per game were poor at the start and he had Scott and Semenyo during his best spell

I thought a new Manager is appointed to improve the team with its current crop of players...not have various windows to do that.

Look at Steve Cooper when he was appointed at Nottingham Forest.

Those saying that Liam Manning should not be expected to improve the current team is laughable.

 

[Silvio Dante]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In respect of a slightly bigger picture I thought early on:

Below 60 pts- Disappointing, stagnant at best.

60-62..that's okay. Small but tangible, 60 the minimum really.

63-65 pts- Definite progress, signs of it.

>65 pts- Clear clear signs.

Just to say here this scale is a bit batshit. In effect at the end of the season your difference between “Disappointing” and “Definite Progress” is one win. So a 46 game season is distilled to the result of one game. Thats nuts.

[tin]

14 hours ago, Tomo said:

15 points from Mannings 12 league games = 1.25PPG so there has been no real improvement so far on Pearsons stats this season.

Disappointing. No manager bounce.

The board is to blame though for not investing in the August transfer window. No fault of Nigel or Liam.

New manager bounce is all about turning woeful results into positive ones. We weren’t having woeful results under Pearson; we’d lost a few games by the odd goal with most of a small squad out injured.

Totally agree it’s not Manning’s fault and the board is 100% to blame. 

[ashton_fan]

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

I'm not sure I go along with that thought process tbh. 

Pearson was sacked cos it was deemed we have a decent squad and that he should have been getting more out of it. The change was made so that we would be better coached on the grass. 

Mannings and Pearsons briefs were very different. Manning has not had to contend with all the stuff Pearson had to contend with like rebuilding a squad with little money and having to rely on developing youth. 

Mannings brief was to get better results and performances out of this squad. Bar a few injury problems he had it all set for him. Decent squad with a good culture already set. His only job has been to improve us on the grass and despite a few with agendas, not many can say he has been able to improve what we have. 

I agree that Manning has a better squad than NP had at the start, however the squad was built with to suit the style of play under NP and that will still need some slight modifications to make the new style of play work properly, so it's unfair to judge Manning until he's had a chance to make these tweaks (probably by the start of next season).

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

I agree that Manning has a better squad than NP had at the start, however the squad was built with to suit the style of play under NP and that will still need some slight modifications to make the new style of play work properly, so it's unfair to judge Manning until he's had a chance to make these tweaks (probably by the start of next season).

Nah I don't go along with this. 

He wasn't brought in to rebuild the squad. He needs to adapt to what he has got here. 

[Numero Uno]

9 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

I agree that Manning has a better squad than NP had at the start, however the squad was built with to suit the style of play under NP and that will still need some slight modifications to make the new style of play work properly, so it's unfair to judge Manning until he's had a chance to make these tweaks (probably by the start of next season).

Two pronged this is. I can agree on Liam but not on Jon and Sid. They get judged more harshly for me as they were the ones chatting shit…..

[Super]

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

I'm not sure I go along with that thought process tbh. 

Pearson was sacked cos it was deemed we have a decent squad and that he should have been getting more out of it. The change was made so that we would be better coached on the grass. 

Mannings and Pearsons briefs were very different. Manning has not had to contend with all the stuff Pearson had to contend with like rebuilding a squad with little money and having to rely on developing youth. 

Mannings brief was to get better results and performances out of this squad. Bar a few injury problems he had it all set for him. Decent squad with a good culture already set. His only job has been to improve us on the grass and despite a few with agendas, not many can say he has been able to improve what we have. 

Why because it doesn't fit your agenda?

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 minutes ago, Super said:

Why because it doesn't fit your agenda?

Your agenda? 

[Super]

4 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Your agenda? 

Being Anti Manning. 

[ashton_fan]

24 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Two pronged this is. I can agree on Liam but not on Jon and Sid. They get judged more harshly for me as they were the ones chatting shit…..

What Tins and JL said was nothing to do with Liam, it's two separate issues 

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, Super said:

Being Anti Manning. 

Don't think he's the right fit for us with the squad weve got. 

It's nothing personal. My concern is with Bristol City.