Too Much Negativity

[Davefevs]

52 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

It’s interesting for me as I never really expected top 6 this season under NP - especially after selling Scott - unless the chequebook suddenly opened in Jan (which it didn’t) - so my eyes were always on next season - where I felt NP could start to really show the fruits of his foundations and be judged fairly on results.

Why am I frustrated/concerned/now a little negative about next season:

1) Apart from the club taking us for fools talking about top 6.

2) I have my concerns that appointing Manning just isn’t that continuity appointment from NP. Is that a problem? Well maybe..:

My question - is his style of football (desirable as it may be) realistic for us as a club, with our budget? Is his style of football too expensive for us? 

If so, can he adapt to find a way to “successfully” work with the resources he actually has?

Successful being a ‘top 6 challenge’, not us playing some nice football a couple of a times a month amongst many frustrating losses. Every mid table championship team can do that.

So it feels like we could be heading for another re-build and one we might not be able to afford - if it’s not working this time next year, what then? Another re-build again? And so on so on. The Lansdown Loop.

Ultimately if you like the guy you’ll be patient, if not you won’t. We all do it, we all have a personal hunches on managers. Feels to me like nice guy, good coach, Wrong time wrong club. How long will the majority of fans give Manning - Time will tell. 
 

As always I’ll sign off with hope I’m wrong.

The bit in bold is the general “thrust” of the WhatsApp debate me and @Harry keep coming back to.

Can we recruit the quality we need to be the “difference” within the budget.

Harry will rightly say, we could’ve had Grimes for £small, Sheaf before he went to Coventry, etc, etc.  So, yes we can….but it comes down to execution.

Recruitment was improving, Jan looks like it hasn’t taken a step backwards, but we are at the whim of the success of Recruitment, especially as we probably have a fallow period of producing the next Academy star.

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Can we recruit the quality we need to be the “difference” within the budget.

Which is the million dollar question really. 

I asked earlier where this idea of a "rebuild" has come from. I don't think we need a rebuild. I think, as this question alludes to, it's about finding a way to add the necessary gloss to an already solid squad, and doing that within our budget.

It's the old adage of Maguire's. We need resource, opportunity, and then execution. The first is there, the second is there. The third is the enigma.

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Which is the million dollar question really. 

I asked earlier where this idea of a "rebuild" has come from. I don't think we need a rebuild. I think, as this question alludes to, it's about finding a way to add the necessary gloss to an already solid squad, and doing that within our budget.

It's the old adage of Maguire's. We need resource, opportunity, and then execution. The first is there, the second is there. The third is the enigma.

I agree.

These aren’t a group of footballers who’ve been brought up on a staple diet of long-ball / direct football, nor were they playing that under Nige either, so we have capable players already here, imho.  It’s up to Manning to find the best way to win games, which might not be pure-Manning-ball.

[W-S-M Seagull]

23 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I agree.

These aren’t a group of footballers who’ve been brought up on a staple diet of long-ball / direct football, nor were they playing that under Nige either, so we have capable players already here, imho.  It’s up to Manning to find the best way to win games, which might not be pure-Manning-ball.

This is the thing I keep coming back to. 

Why can't Manning get the best out of this squad that is a decent squad? Other managers have taken over other teams before and have made them out perform their ability in a short space of time, so why can't Manning do that? 

We're 18 games in with Manning and there is a nagging concern that there is no plan b. 

The QPR game was an interesting one. I think Manning puts far too much emphasis on tactics and not enough on motivational stuff. I suspect that probably has something to do with his lack of emotions and him constantly saying he wants to remove emotions from the players. 

We've shown when we want it we can match anyone. The problem is it felt like QPR wanted it more than us. We can all look at the tactics til were blue in the face but the reality is we just didn't really want it against QPR. I'm not sure if Manning has that motivational factor in his skillset based on his beliefs about emotions. 

I think his inability to harness emotions is probably going to be his downfall here. 

Even Man City, the best coached team in the world have a manager who is very emotional. It's why City always go on these incredible runs in the second half of the season. Being part of the CFG group previously. You'd have thought Manning may have learned that it's not all about tactics. 

Edited February 22 by W-S-M Seagull

[Dr Balls]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I agree.

These aren’t a group of footballers who’ve been brought up on a staple diet of long-ball / direct football, nor were they playing that under Nige either, so we have capable players already here, imho.  It’s up to Manning to find the best way to win games, which might not be pure-Manning-ball.

Agree and have also suggested the same thing. Can Manning find an approach that suits the players and fits his preferred way of playing? In essence, the style developed under Pearson was based on what he had already and what we could afford. My concern has always been that successful possession-based football requires the best and therefore the most expensive players, which brings us back to why are 3 of the top 4 teams in the Championship playing that way? Because they are the relegated clubs with higher paid players and parachute payments. Trying to beat them at their own game, so to speak, is not very likely and actually our approach against Southampton is a better way to play these teams. I would rather we work out how to beat teams that “park the bus” at Ashton Gate. And that really means more creativity in midfield to play balls through the defence, rather than what your article for the Bristol Post showed, which is a lot of passing round a u-shaped back 4 with little or no intent to go forward. The times we do look more dangerous is when one of the centre backs brings the ball out past the opposition attacker(s) and even their midfield. Suddenly we have options and it causes difficulties for the opposition defence as they are overloaded. It doesn’t have to be Dickie every time, (although I would trust him much more than Vyner, if only because Zak’s passing in tight spaces is so poor) but we need players who are braver on the ball to drive forward and take on the opposition. That’s where we really miss Alex Scott.

[Dr Balls]

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

This is the thing I keep coming back to. 

Why can't Manning get the best out of this squad that is a decent squad? Other managers have taken over other teams before and have made them out perform their ability in a short space of time, so why can't Manning do that? 

We're 18 games in with Manning and there is a nagging concern that there is no plan b. 

The QPR game was an interesting one. I think Manning puts far too much emphasis on tactics and not enough on motivational stuff. 

We've shown when we want it we can match anyone. The problem is it felt like QPR wanted it more than us. We can all look at the tactics til were blue in the face but the reality is we just didn't really want it against QPR. I'm not sure if Manning has that motivational factor in his skillset. 

It’s an interesting one, because I would say that the absolute opposite to Manning is our favourite pantomime villain, Warnock. Colin’s tactics are rarely that sophisticated but boy can he motivate a team and that’s what has really brought him repeated success. And the reality is that for all that Guardiola and Klopp might be great tacticians, a lot of their success is down to motivation. You can’t have one without the other.

[downendcity]

Negativity and pessimism.

We're Bristolians, they are in our DNA!

 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

It’s an interesting one, because I would say that the absolute opposite to Manning is our favourite pantomime villain, Warnock. Colin’s tactics are rarely that sophisticated but boy can he motivate a team and that’s what has really brought him repeated success. And the reality is that for all that Guardiola and Klopp might be great tacticians, a lot of their success is down to motivation. You can’t have one without the other.

As you were typing this I was editing my post adding on about how Pep uses emotions. 

Totally agree with you about Warnock. I'm not suggesting we should have gone for Warnock but I’ll put my neck on the line and say if he would have taken over from Pearson, we'd not be talking about our season being finished in February. 

It's a long hard brutal season in the Championship. The weather up Failand isn't kind. As Manning has found out Nov-Feb is relentless. You need to be able to motivate your players day in, day out and I'm just not sure Manning has that in his locker. In his interview yesterday one thing that popped into my head whilst watching it was, he seems to prioritise players performing well in training and I think as a coach that's ingrained in him. 

I think Manning is a fantastic coach and it's clear that's what he enjoys the most. I think it's matchdays he struggles with. It's out of his comfort zone. Too many variables, too many emotions and its not a sterilised environment like the training ground is. 

With Klopp leaving at the end of the season and all the emotions that go with that, he is certainly trying to harness those emotions to try and win the premier league. If they do win the premier league, it won't be down to tactics alone, it will be a combination of tactics and emotions/motivation. 

City are going for 4 in a row this season. I don't think it's ever been done before in the PL? Everyone knows it's not the first premier league title that's the hardest, it's the 2nd and 3rd in a row that's the hardest because of motivation levels. Pep has that fantastic ability to keep his players motivated and hungry. Sir Alex had it too. This is what makes them the greatest. 

I don't think any of us can sit here and say that Sir Alex was a great tactician. Of course he was decent at it but his strengths were all about team spirit, motivation and all that over an extraordinary amount of time. 

I think Manning would probably have done well in his career to have been an assistant to someone who had qualities that he doesn't have. 

[RedRock]

Seems to me that we’re transitioning from a ‘traditional’ build a squad that has strength through unity with the sum bigger than parts approach with a direct, pragmatic style of play (Pearson), to a ‘modern’ possession/tactically/technically based, robotic approach (Manning). 

Question is which style is a non-parachute Club such as Bristol City most likely to succeed with? 

My view is that you need higher quality players to make a success of the possession approach. 

Looking at last Season, Burnley possession-based had parachute payments and more quality players, Luton and Sheff Utd did not have parachute payments and played a more direct game. 

Interesting that Tins and Jon, I think, looked at Ipswich at AG and thought we could go down the possession-based route without having the luxury of parachute payments. 

My gut instinct - partly because I think our ‘hit’ rate on quality first team signings is so poor - Cornick and Annis ffs. - is we’d be best employing a Pearson-style approach. However, I’m not closed to thinking the Manning-style can succeed. It was a massive change in approach, a complete reset and will take time and a lot fewer **** ups on transfers. So, Tins and Manning over to you. 
 

Going for yet another ‘reset’ does feed the frustration when things don’t go right. So I understand the anger when we put in a limp-wristed performance like that witnessed against QPR. 

[SydneyCity]

It looks like next season really will be one of “no excuses”.

- The club will be better placed for FFP.

- The new structure will be wedded in.

- Manning will have had a pre-season.

- His players will have been recruited.

- O’Neils will have had a suitable production cycle.

- The club shop have a local supplier who can deliver to demand.

That’s a lot of pressure and, to be honest, I’m pretty pessimistic about it all. Hopefully I’m wrong but, good or bad, it does feel like it’s all coming to a head.

[FNQ]

55 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I asked earlier where this idea of a "rebuild" has come from. I don't think we need a rebuild. I think, as this question alludes to, it's about finding a way to add the necessary gloss to an already solid squad, and doing that within our budget.

I thought LM was on to it when he brought in Scott Twine on loan… then he inexplicably left him on the bench vs QPR, which assuming he was fit enough to get changed then he would have been fit enough to at least play a part being totally ridiculous.

Hull seem to have cracked it though, Carvalho and Zahoury both brought in on loan in January to supplement their existing squad, which is really no better than our squad, and both scoring in the win at the Dell on Tuesday with Russel Martin even saying that they were beaten by the better side, he wasn’t that gracious versus us.

If we want to be serious about challenging at the top end of the division then we need to in fact get serious.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Seems to me that we’re transitioning from a ‘traditional’ build a squad that has strength through unity with the sum bigger than parts approach with a direct, pragmatic style of play (Pearson), to a ‘modern’ possession/tactically/technically based, robotic approach (Manning). 

Question is which style is a non-parachute Club such as Bristol City most likely to succeed with? 

My view is that you need higher quality players to make a success of the possession approach. 

Looking at last Season, Burnley possession-based had parachute payments and more quality players, Luton and Sheff Utd did not have parachute payments and played a more direct game. 

Interesting that Tins and Jon, I think, looked at Ipswich at AG and thought we could go down the possession-based route without having the luxury of parachute payments. 

My gut instinct - partly because I think our ‘hit’ rate on quality first team signings is so poor - Cornick and Annis ffs. - is we’d be best employing a Pearson-style approach. However, I’m not closed to thinking the Manning-style can succeed. It was a massive change in approach, a complete reset and will take time and a lot fewer **** ups on transfers. So, Tins and Manning over to you. 
 

Going for yet another ‘reset’ does feed the frustration when things don’t go right. So I understand the anger when we put in a limp-wristed performance like that witnessed against QPR. 

The thing was, IMO we were transitioning to a best of each last season or the latter stages anyway under NP there were early indicators at least.

Granted v bottom third sides mostly but not solely we had a good chunk of the ball and or chances. Having Scott didn't half help though...both the possession but the ability to carry, drive us on, win free kicks in both halves of the pitch to help with both easing pressure and or building a bit.

4-3-3 feels a good base on which to build some level of intensity which I think we had under NP, but add some craft too. I habe wondered since August about  Naismith-Scott-Knight hypothetical midfield and whether that may have flourished I  all areas.

You then sell Scott early season, you don't replace with a carrying player and it is all out the window- and I still believe a fully fit Naismith could have a useful role in midfield.

Edited February 22 by Mr Popodopolous

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

The bit in bold is the general “thrust” of the WhatsApp debate me and @Harry keep coming back to.

Can we recruit the quality we need to be the “difference” within the budget.

Harry will rightly say, we could’ve had Grimes for £small, Sheaf before he went to Coventry, etc, etc.  So, yes we can….but it comes down to execution.

Recruitment was improving, Jan looks like it hasn’t taken a step backwards, but we are at the whim of the success of Recruitment, especially as we probably have a fallow period of producing the next Academy star.

The other issue is we’re left with doing the really difficult bit.

We need a consistent goal scorer at Championship level & another who will chip in with a fair few & create more.

Pretty much since Kodjia incredibly we have tended to produce these players ourselves (Bobby Reid, Semenyo, Scott, arguably Conway & Bell) rather than buy them in, though I’d argue Weimann with 50 goals & numerous assists might be a (much maligned) exception.

Everyone is looking for these type of players & many clubs have far more to spend.

Our only hope of reaching the top six is getting both of these signings absolutely spot on & both of them then having injury free seasons.

Eye of the needle stuff.

[Super]

How on earth can people say we have a decent squad? We don't have a prolific goal scorer,  The wide players rarely score and we lack creativity in the middle of the park. We have an average squad and are about where we should be mid table.

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

The other issue is we’re left with doing the really difficult bit.

We need a consistent goal scorer at Championship level & another who will chip in with a fair few & create more.

Pretty much since Kodjia incredibly we have tended to produce these players ourselves (Bobby Reid, Semenyo, Scott, arguably Conway & Bell) rather than buy them in, though I’d argue Weimann with 50 goals & numerous assists might be a (much maligned) exception.

Everyone is looking for these type of players & many clubs have far more to spend.

Our only hope of reaching the top six is getting both of these signings absolutely spot on & both of them then having injury free seasons.

Eye of the needle stuff.

We probably have the 6th or 7th or at the very worst 8th highest revenue in the division tbh (5 Parachute, then Sunderland probably all ahead), but then it comes down to how much the hierarchy want to risk vs other clubs.

Hull owner is clearly a man in a hurry, Birmingham who knows, Vincent Tan at Cardiff who the hell knows his strategy to name 3.

Coventry have probably pushed up the cost base following the Hamer and Gykores sales, Stoke again seem to have made a push.

Edited February 22 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

21 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Seems to me that we’re transitioning from a ‘traditional’ build a squad that has strength through unity with the sum bigger than parts approach with a direct, pragmatic style of play (Pearson), to a ‘modern’ possession/tactically/technically based, robotic approach (Manning). 

Question is which style is a non-parachute Club such as Bristol City most likely to succeed with? 

My view is that you need higher quality players to make a success of the possession approach. 

Looking at last Season, Burnley possession-based had parachute payments and more quality players, Luton and Sheff Utd did not have parachute payments and played a more direct game. 

Interesting that Tins and Jon, I think, looked at Ipswich at AG and thought we could go down the possession-based route without having the luxury of parachute payments. 

My gut instinct - partly because I think our ‘hit’ rate on quality first team signings is so poor - Cornick and Annis ffs. - is we’d be best employing a Pearson-style approach. However, I’m not closed to thinking the Manning-style can succeed. It was a massive change in approach, a complete reset and will take time and a lot fewer **** ups on transfers. So, Tins and Manning over to you. 
 

Going for yet another ‘reset’ does feed the frustration when things don’t go right. So I understand the anger when we put in a limp-wristed performance like that witnessed against QPR. 

Its bizarre. It was often said by the club what Luton have done and we wanted to emulate that and you could see that was what we was doing. Even signed two of their players. 

And then like you say we then switched from that to wanting to be like Ipswich. 

You know when you're drunk with your mates and you end up doing silly things that sound great at the time like going on ebay and buying something ridiculous like 10 jetskis without engines? I can only assume that's what happened here. 

The only way we will be successful is if we stumble upon success like we did under Gary Johnson. 

Those running the club just do not have the ability to stick to the plan and therefore we just constantly jump from plan to plan. 

The flaw in the reasoning about emulating Ipswich is that a lot of their recent success is built upon investment and momentum. I'm not sure that's a robust plan to follow. 

Luton didn't become a premier league team by ripping up their plan and deciding to follow another plan. They got there by sticking to their plan. 

No manager in the world is going to be able to turn Harry Cornick into Messi which is what we hope to do with this mee plan, but following the Luton sort of method, you can get Harry Cornick outperforming his ability. 

All last season I said that Sheffield Utd, Coventry and Luton to an extent should not have been challenging. Sheffield Utd were not very good at all. But all 3 of those clubs had that belief and resilience to grind out results with squad's of players that shouldn't have been in the top 6 on paper (maybe Sheffield Utd aside) 

That's how a club like ours gets out of this division without parachute payments. Not by playing pretty football that we can't do anyways 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

20 minutes ago, Super said:

How on earth can people say we have a decent squad? We don't have a prolific goal scorer,  The wide players rarely score and we lack creativity in the middle of the park. We have an average squad and are about where we should be mid table.

Sorry Super but you're saying this to downplay the shite we've been seeing. 

How you considered that we don't have a prolific goalscorer because we are not creating chances for our strikers? If you put Conway in Coventrys team for example, he gets 15-20 goals. 

So the issue isn't with our strikers or our wide players. Maybe if Manning stopped dropping TGH we would have more creativity in the middle? 

Once again, you're only saying we have a mid table squad in an attempt to take the heat off of Manning. Its so obvious. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Okay I've a theory on the decision to change which is probably rubbish.

Clubs are trying to scramble up before this new 70% vs 85% rule kicks in, possibility of Parachute Payments remaining albeit a reduced gap etc.

The hierarchy twisted to try and get up this season. I dunno...still very hard to make sense of it.

Edited February 22 by Mr Popodopolous

[RedRock]

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

Its bizarre. It was often said by the club what Luton have done and we wanted to emulate that and you could see that was what we was doing. Even signed two of their players. 

And then like you say we then switched from that to wanting to be like Ipswich. 

You know when you're drunk with your mates and you end up doing silly things that sound great at the time like going on ebay and buying something ridiculous like 10 jetskis without engines? I can only assume that's what happened here. 

The only way we will be successful is if we stumble upon success like we did under Gary Johnson. 

Those running the club just do not have the ability to stick to the plan and therefore we just constantly jump from plan to plan. 

The flaw in the reasoning about emulating Ipswich is that a lot of their recent success is built upon investment and momentum. I'm not sure that's a robust plan to follow. 

Luton didn't become a premier league team by ripping up their plan and deciding to follow another plan. They got there by sticking to their plan. 

No manager in the world is going to be able to turn Harry Cornick into Messi which is what we hope to do with this mee plan, but following the Luton sort of method, you can get Harry Cornick outperforming his ability. 

All last season I said that Sheffield Utd, Coventry and Luton to an extent should not have been challenging. Sheffield Utd were not very good at all. But all 3 of those clubs had that belief and resilience to grind out results with squad's of players that shouldn't have been in the top 6 on paper (maybe Sheffield Utd aside) 

That's how a club like ours gets out of this division without parachute payments. Not by playing pretty football that we can't do anyways 

 

Agree, flip-flopping around like we’ve done with our approach will mean ‘luck’ will have a major role in any success.

I come back to what I’ve always thought the Club - the old chestnut - we just do not invest sufficiently in a recruitment ‘team’ at first team player level. We should have a comprehensive network of scouts watching matches. For all the analysts sat behind computers, you can’t beat experienced and knowledgable football people in the field who have a proven track record of identifying first team ready talent. 

I’m sure Cornick and Mehmeti blew a fuse in our analysts computers but …. on the grass… nah.  

[Sheltons Army]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

The bit in bold is the general “thrust” of the WhatsApp debate me and @Harry keep coming back to.

Can we recruit the quality we need to be the “difference” within the budget.

Harry will rightly say, we could’ve had Grimes for £small, Sheaf before he went to Coventry, etc, etc.  So, yes we can….but it comes down to execution.

Recruitment was improving, Jan looks like it hasn’t taken a step backwards, but we are at the whim of the success of Recruitment, especially as we probably have a fallow period of producing the next Academy star.

For me , I don’t think we can afford to assemble a ready made squad to play that way

So , to think of a run at promotion by any means ,

 

Manning either needs to prove to be an exceptional ,or at least excellent coach in drilling 11 v 11 on training ground , significantly improving / developing players we can afford , and be very good tactically in game 

Or

We we find a more pragmatic way to win games , probably more Luton than Burnley (I cant see Manning ever considering this)

53 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Seems to me that we’re transitioning from a ‘traditional’ build a squad that has strength through unity with the sum bigger than parts approach with a direct, pragmatic style of play (Pearson), to a ‘modern’ possession/tactically/technically based, robotic approach (Manning). 

Question is which style is a non-parachute Club such as Bristol City most likely to succeed with? 

My view is that you need higher quality players to make a success of the possession approach. 

Looking at last Season, Burnley possession-based had parachute payments and more quality players, Luton and Sheff Utd did not have parachute payments and played a more direct game. 

Interesting that Tins and Jon, I think, looked at Ipswich at AG and thought we could go down the possession-based route without having the luxury of parachute payments. 

I haven’t looked at any stats and only watched them casually , and Fevs will correct me if I’m wrong , but I don’t see them as possession based at all

Id certainly describe their football as front foot , which we certainly are not , for all the spout by Tinnion  

[W-S-M Seagull]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We probably have the 6th or 7th or at the very worst 8th highest revenue in the division tbh (5 Parachute, then Sunderland probably all ahead), but then it comes down to how much the hierarchy want to risk vs other clubs.

Hull owner is clearly a man in a hurry, Birmingham who knows, Vincent Tan at Cardiff who the hell knows his strategy to name 3.

Coventry have probably pushed up the cost base following the Hamer and Gykores sales, Stoke again seem to have made a push.

Hull and Cardiff are two teams who I'd say are under threat of breaching ffp in the future. 

Coventry is an interesting one. They seem to be following our strategy under Mark Ashton and we know how that ended.. find some decent players, improve them, sell them on and use the money to finance more purchases and the wage bill and hope to repeat. We obviously know how that worked out here. 

Coventry of course don't have their own stadium and have to pay to play there. How much revenue they get from matchdays with Mike Ashley the owner, who knows. 

All last season my Coventry City supporting friends kept telling me they got to the play off final with the 2nd lowest budget in the league. I called bs on that. So I'm looking forward to them releasing their accounts so they can be proved wrong. Where do you reckon they are wage bill wise compared to us? 

The problem I see them having is with their model, they are going to need to keep selling to be able to fund the wage bill. I don't really see them having anyone of any great value to sell this coming summer. Their new owner Doug King is a bit like the Hull owner, he's in a hurry to get to the premier league. 

[Natchfever]

Get the top positions right theres a good chance success will follow.

Unfortunately in our case that means no role for junior and his cronies so its as you were folks.

[Dr Balls]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Okay I've a theory on the decision to change which is probably rubbish.

Clubs are trying to scramble up before this new 70% vs 85% rule kicks in, possibility of Parachute Payments remaining albeit a reduced gap etc.

The hierarchy twisted to try and get up this season. I dunno...still very hard to make sense of it.

Well if the plan in October really was get rid of Pearson and go for the playoffs, because of the upcoming financial changes, then what we have seen since really has been a failure.

As for the argument that our strikers are rubbish and need replacing, that’s baloney. The problem is the lack of service and opportunities. Our xG is so low, because we create so little. The front players are living off scraps, such as mistakes by the opposition defenders rather than anything delivered by their own team mates. You could have Harry Kane up front for us and he would have trouble scoring given our current playing “style”.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Dr Balls said:

Well if the plan in October really was get rid of Pearson and go for the playoffs, because of the upcoming financial changes, then what we have seen since really has been a failure.

As for the argument that our strikers are rubbish and need replacing, that’s baloney. The problem is the lack of service and opportunities. Our xG is so low, because we create so little. The front players are living off scraps, such as mistakes by the opposition defenders rather than anything delivered by their own team mates. You could have Harry Kane up front for us and he would have trouble scoring given our current playing “style”.

Agree on both counts, on the first especially but I'm just trying to rationalise it all. Still months on it is hard.

[Super]

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

Sorry Super but you're saying this to downplay the shite we've been seeing. 

How you considered that we don't have a prolific goalscorer because we are not creating chances for our strikers? If you put Conway in Coventrys team for example, he gets 15-20 goals. 

So the issue isn't with our strikers or our wide players. Maybe if Manning stopped dropping TGH we would have more creativity in the middle? 

Once again, you're only saying we have a mid table squad in an attempt to take the heat off of Manning. Its so obvious. 

We don't have a creative midfielder unless you have suddenly dreamed up a replacement for Scott. You're talking nonsense again.

Edited February 22 by Super

[W-S-M Seagull]

7 minutes ago, Super said:

We don't have a creative midfielder unless you have suddenly dreamed up a replacement for Scott. You're talking nonsense again.

No super, you are. 

You're all over the place mate. One minute we don't have a prolific goalscorer, the next we don't have a creative midfielder. 

Why isn't your man coaching these players how to score more goals or at the very least bloody create chances? 

If we were creating chances and not scoring then you'd be correct to say we don't have a prolific striker but the fact is we're not doing that so it's just more nonsense from you in attempt to cover up the shite we are witnessing.  

Edited February 22 by W-S-M Seagull

[Super]

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

No super, you are. 

You're all over the place mate. One minute we don't have a prolific goalscorer, the next we don't have a creative midfielder. 

Why isn't your man coaching these players how to score more goals? 

I give up.

[Mr Popodopolous]

44 minutes ago, Super said:

We don't have a creative midfielder unless you have suddenly dreamed up a replacement for Scott. You're talking nonsense again.

Naismith if fit can create, decent range of passing if more conservative. Better link between defence and midfield perhaps played in his correct position.

Edited February 22 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Super said:

I give up.

About time. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Naismith if fit can create, decent range of passing if more conservative. Better kink between defence and midfield perhaps played in his correct position.

I'd suggest we'd create more chances for Conway by playing the more direct passes from the likes of Naismith and Dickie etc who have that in their skillset.