5 wins in 18 games….dreadful!

[Sir Geoff]

3 hours ago, supercidered said:

Agree with this.

However, we keep discussing that the current squad isn't Manning's and so he needs to build his own etc, etc. We also keep get told that he wants to play his style but some of our players don't fit that style. So my question is, until the players are what he wants then it is Manning's job to adapt to the situation rather than trying to make a silk purse out a sow's ear. That's what he gets paid to do. From what I see, he seems unable to adapt from his coaching playbook. 

I may be wrong re my understanding of his job description, but as Head Coach he should be coaching the players that the club present to him. It shouldn't be up to him to suggest players or have a say in recruitment. That would be a Managers job imo. The style of play he implements should also be the style of play that the club wants him to play, otherwise again , he is a Manager not Head Coach. Splitting hairs maybe but they were quite specific that after Pearson they would be employing a Head Coach (to improve the current squad on the grass).

[Gilli74]

On 02/02/2024 at 22:35, One Team said:

Exactly.

Sack Pearson for supposedly football reasons and we’re in the same position. 

Ah but in the same position with a cheaper option..... you know how their minds work

[Silvio Dante]

3 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

I may be wrong re my understanding of his job description, but as Head Coach he should be coaching the players that the club present to him. It shouldn't be up to him to suggest players or have a say in recruitment. That would be a Managers job imo. The style of play he implements should also be the style of play that the club wants him to play, otherwise again , he is a Manager not Head Coach. Splitting hairs maybe but they were quite specific that after Pearson they would be employing a Head Coach (to improve the current squad on the grass).

Although I get what you’re saying in pure logic terms in real terms it feels unworkable. I’m in total agreement that the philosophy of a manager/coach and “technical director” or similar should be broadly aligned, and teams across the club should (where possible) play the same way, and that should be driven more by heirarchy than club in view of average head coach tenure. Thats a utopia position that never arises.

The reason is that managers or coaches do need their own players. Whether that’s Andy King for Pearson in a “culture” way or Twine for Manning in a “style” way. There is little to no sense in a club buying players a manager won’t use as they don’t fit for him so he has to be engaged in the process. 

The trick here is clearly to have a coach whose philosophy and style is aligned with the clubs so you don’t get mismatches and rebuilds. Thats kind of where we’ve gone wrong here as we shouldnt be having the “he needs his own players” conversation 

[supercidered]

8 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

I may be wrong re my understanding of his job description, but as Head Coach he should be coaching the players that the club present to him. It shouldn't be up to him to suggest players or have a say in recruitment. That would be a Managers job imo. The style of play he implements should also be the style of play that the club wants him to play, otherwise again , he is a Manager not Head Coach. Splitting hairs maybe but they were quite specific that after Pearson they would be employing a Head Coach (to improve the current squad on the grass).

I get all of that and I agree with you.

Whatever the squad looked like 17/18 games ago or now or for the rest of the season, is almost irrelevant in my eyes. Manning has been lauded as the mutts nuts and to much fanfare when JL & Co acquired his services.

As such, he needs to coach whatever he has available to him at any given point and get the best out of them. That's his job. If the players can't implement his plans and methods then it is up to him to adapt, change and make it work differently. To me, he just seems to do the same things and make the same changes and then expecting it turn out differently. Opposition Managers / Coaches have obviously sussed it and we are so easy to read.

 

[Numero Uno]

2 hours ago, Supersonic Robin said:

Not picking on you in particular, N.U, but I really don't understand this obsession with "positive front-foot football".

We are a club stuck midtable in the Championship, who haven't come close to promotion to the Premier League in well over a decade. The idea that we (and 99.9% of other clubs) can be picky about the style in which we try to win games is ridiculous to me.

Perhaps once we've won our 3rd Champions League in a row, then we'll start worrying about the style in which we're winning. For now, let's simply worry about playing winning football.

I agree with you tbf. If Manning’s possession based football gets to 75% of what Leeds produced (the Technical Director would do well to note that is what true front foot football looks like at our level) with the emphasis on looking to play forward at least, creating chances and picking up results, especially at home where we are generally abysmal tbh, that will do for most.

Its worth noting that it is Jon and Sid who have been picky about the style we play and currently we are not even close to what they are expecting. It is them that used the term “front foot”!! Manning isn’t a Manager who will deliver 100% Leeds style football but between now and the end of the season he needs to deliver a lot better than the last six games and overall BETTER than what the previous manager got canned for delivering!!

[Ivorguy]

Précis of above posts =. We are in a mess

[supercidered]

2 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

Précis of above posts =. We are in a mess

Of the clubs own making.

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Although I get what you’re saying in pure logic terms in real terms it feels unworkable. I’m in total agreement that the philosophy of a manager/coach and “technical director” or similar should be broadly aligned, and teams across the club should (where possible) play the same way, and that should be driven more by heirarchy than club in view of average head coach tenure. Thats a utopia position that never arises.

The reason is that managers or coaches do need their own players. Whether that’s Andy King for Pearson in a “culture” way or Twine for Manning in a “style” way. There is little to no sense in a club buying players a manager won’t use as they don’t fit for him so he has to be engaged in the process. 

The trick here is clearly to have a coach whose philosophy and style is aligned with the clubs so you don’t get mismatches and rebuilds. Thats kind of where we’ve gone wrong here as we shouldnt be having the “he needs his own players” conversation 

Agree somewhat albeit you also need a hierarchy who won't make strange or knee-jerk calls.

To be aligned yes you need a consistency of type of coach, you need a consistency of type of player..one or two of their own sure, exception more than rule.

Back to Point 1, Coventry could easily have hit the Panic Button in late October to mid November. I know Robins has a track record and history there but they kept with and are now, Saturday notwithstanding reaping the benefits.

Hell we could have hit the Panic Button post Boxing Day v West Brom. While I wouldn't have agreed with it even then, it would have attracted far less heat and noise I expect.

Coventry had 16 pts from 13 in mid to late October 2023 Which became 16 from 14 and 16 from 15.

17 from 16 going into the International break..good thing for them that they didn't sack Robins after a tough spell eh.

Edited February 5 by Mr Popodopolous

[Sheltons Army]

3 hours ago, Supersonic Robin said:

Not picking on you in particular, N.U, but I really don't understand this obsession with "positive front-foot football".

We are a club stuck midtable in the Championship, who haven't come close to promotion to the Premier League in well over a decade. The idea that we (and 99.9% of other clubs) can be picky about the style in which we try to win games is ridiculous to me.

Perhaps once we've won our 3rd Champions League in a row, then we'll start worrying about the style in which we're winning. For now, let's simply worry about playing winning football.

I am not over perturbed what style we play (Have my preferences) as long as it’s effective

 

But the reason why the ‘Front Football’ thing is an issue and a bit of a concern ,  is

That this is what Tinnion repeatedly quotes as our ethos /. Plan , or an element of the plan and unless we’ve had a U turn on this he is , or seems to looking at recruitment plans this way 

He's said it repeatedly over the last 18 months and very recently - Either him or JL clearly told exactly that , and this was what they wanted from a HC ,  to Jonathan Pearce before he took the commentary seat for the West Ham game !

 

*

From what I’ve witnessed to date I actually would have expected Tinnion to be saying by now ‘We are moving now towards possession and control of games and our recruitment will reflect that as we move forward ‘

Its a major change of playing ethos (And hence recruitment) IMO and would highlight what a major decision it was or should have been to sack NP and replace somebody completely different I many respects and ideas.

But what would be worse is a complete mix and mess of ideas and views 

We’ve turned left ,  and now need to follow Manning (And whoever follows him) with the changed plan , and importantly in recruitment

 

Edited February 5 by Sheltons Army

[Ivorguy]

The problem is whose plan it is.  Not Nige’s not Manning’s but JL, no firsthand experience, and BT, hardly an outstanding record as a coach or manager, and promoted way above his natural level.

 

[Natchfever]

3 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

The problem is whose plan it is.  Not Nige’s not Manning’s but JL, no firsthand experience, and BT, hardly an outstanding record as a coach or manager, and promoted way above his natural level.

 

What other professional football club would employ either of those two into equivalent positions?

[supercidered]

2 minutes ago, Natchfever said:

What other professional football club would employ either of those two into equivalent positions?

What a brilliant question that is !! 

I think we all know the answer as well.

[Sheltons Army]

4 minutes ago, supercidered said:

What a brilliant question that is !! 

I think we all know the answer as well.

The Sags ?

[bearded_red]

1 minute ago, Sheltons Army said:

The Sags ?

I’m not even sure they’d see any use in Jon Lansdown.

[Sheltons Army]

12 minutes ago, bearded_red said:

I’m not even sure they’d see any use in Jon Lansdown.

Well even he couldn’t make their kit any worse

 

* He probably could actually , What would a ‘Splat Pirate’  look like

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Sir Geoff said:

I may be wrong re my understanding of his job description, but as Head Coach he should be coaching the players that the club present to him. It shouldn't be up to him to suggest players or have a say in recruitment. That would be a Managers job imo. The style of play he implements should also be the style of play that the club wants him to play, otherwise again , he is a Manager not Head Coach. Splitting hairs maybe but they were quite specific that after Pearson they would be employing a Head Coach (to improve the current squad on the grass).

This is where job titles are meaningless.  To some extent it’s the same with playing positions, it’s more about roles and partnerships these days.  The “management” roles are no different.

I posted at the time of Nige’s sacking who would undertake the roles he undertook as “Football Manager”?  Who would backfill his experience?

What we got back was a new structure.  It really covered how they replaced Phil Alexander rather than how they replaced Nigel Pearson.  I can only assume that between Liam Manning and Brian Tinnion they thought they could cover what Nige did.  The problem (in my eyes) is that Nigel worked holistically across the football side of the club and we won’t replace that with the skillsets of LM and BT, nor have they got the experience of Nige either.  I don’t see Tins as a (I’ll accept I might be naive) but I don’t see him as the deep thinker either.  I’m glad we aren’t having to negotiate FFP and having to somehow remain competitive on a relative shoestring.

Nige handed over a wonderful position to continue the progress.  It is in danger of being filed in the bin.

[Supersonic Robin]

58 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

I am not over perturbed what style we play (Have my preferences) as long as it’s effective

 

But the reason why the ‘Front Football’ thing is an issue and a bit of a concern ,  is

That this is what Tinnion repeatedly quotes as our ethos /. Plan , or an element of the plan and unless we’ve had a U turn on this he is , or seems to looking at recruitment plans this way 

He's said it repeatedly over the last 18 months and very recently - Either him or JL clearly told exactly that , and this was what they wanted from a HC ,  to Jonathan Pearce before he took the commentary seat for the West Ham game !

 

*

From what I’ve witnessed to date I actually would have expected Tinnion to be saying by now ‘We are moving now towards possession and control of games and our recruitment will reflect that as we move forward ‘

Its a major change of playing ethos (And hence recruitment) IMO and would highlight what a major decision it was or should have been to sack NP and replace somebody completely different I many respects and ideas.

But what would be worse is a complete mix and mess of ideas and views 

We’ve turned left ,  and now need to follow Manning (And whoever follows him) with the changed plan , and importantly in recruitment

 

That is a fair point - the need for a manager who plays "front foot football" (or a phrase similar to this) was quoted as part of the reason why the club chose to replace Pearson.

Not only is it a rather silly reason for a club in our position to change manager, it's something which the new manager is rather ironically failing to implement.

[Woofyourkipper]

On 04/02/2024 at 13:53, Spike said:

I agree and think it comes down to the ego. They want to get promotion doing it their way and when Pearson came in he changed that up and even when they ham-stringed him he continued to do it his way which obviously rocked the boat. 

I think the board want to get promoted in a way that have the footballing world talking about what they've done, not what the manager has done for them and so they brought in Manning to coach whilst they can get back to running the club the way they want it to be run without any pushback. 

I see Manning as LJ mark II, he's forward thinking and has ideas but ultimately doesn't have the successful experience that makes great managers great, which is being able to get the best from the players. LJ and LM both are tactical thinkers, purists so to speak when it comes to management. They focus on the tactical side of things and try to get the players playing to the tactics whereas the best managers adjust the tactics to shield players from their weaknesses and use their strengths. 

A prime example is Bell and Vyner. Pearson identified what I've been saying for as long as I can remember  now, that Vyners awareness is lacking in a back 3 and that he's uncomfortable there so his confidence shrinks and he makes mistakes. Pearson changed it up to a back 4 and once Vyner got his confidence back our fans were taking about him like he was the best CB in the game and the reason for that was Babbage he's more suited to that position mentally. He doesn't look around as frequently in a back 4 because he knows his positioning is correct, in a back 3 he's always second guessing himself and so he focuses less on the game and more on where he should be causing him to make mistakes that he doesn't make when he's comfortable with his positioning. Manning came in, changed us back into a back 3 and now Vyner looks like the shadow of the player he was when he was playing with confidence and it really showed in the Leeds game as him and Dickie both looked lost in where they should be as they struggled with their positioning. 

With Bell Pearson identified that the chances were not going to come through creativity but instead in catching the opposition off guard so he employed Bell to use his pace to force chances of which it did so well that Bell was scoring for fun, Manning has come in with his tactical vision and tried to shoehorn Bell into it but it plays to all of Bells weaknesses and nullifies his strengths so he's shrunk in the eyes of the fans. 

I am still happy to give Manning time as he's still using Pearsons players, but if he manages to change so many players in the squad and his tactical vision still overlooks players weaknesses whilst failing to come to fruition then his days are already numbered regardless of what he does as he's not the type of manager to build his team on players strengths and weaknesses, he builds his tactics and tries to implied the right players to execute it, something that you need money to buy the right players to pull off effectively. 
 

cracking post