Bristol Live Article

[1960maaan]

Regular contributor @Davefevs has done a thing with Bristol Live. Interesting article and says a few ( one or two anyway ) things I've been saying for a while but with added insight and knowledge. 
Good read, enjoy.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-liam-manning-achilles-9112040?fbclid=IwAR1IZDxoDrny6bXvX0FwHRvyor2fZ6VIN2yC_Xrlm2dsyqkhCPvADPrKu_w

Sorry, can't be bothered to C&P the whole thing.

Edited February 21 by 1960maaan

[RedZepperin]

Excellent stuff from David. It could be titled "A Nerd's Guide To Beating Bristol City".

[CodeRed]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

Regular contributor @Davefevs

Sorry, can't be bothered to C&P the whole thing.

I'll try, Bristol Live is such a shite website.

The background

Firstly, to be clear, there are both good things and bad things about (let’s call it) Manning-ball. It has different principles to how City played under Nigel Pearson, but what I see on the pitch isn’t (in my opinion) as hugely different as many suggest it is.

What has become a focus under whichever manager/head coach is City’s struggles against certain types of opponents. And in the Championship, you don’t get everyone playing one way.

There is a certain snobbery among football fans about how the game should be played, most preferring the aesthetics of a passing game-style. But they’re probably the first to cry for a targetman and going direct as a plan B.

I think fans are seeing a trend towards more teams trying to pass their way up the pitch, but without the quality to do it effectively or consistently enough to make a big enough difference on the “monied” teams like Leicester, Leeds United and Southampton. They are the three relegated clubs, and they happen to occupy the top three places in the league. Leeds perhaps the odd-one-out in terms of comparable style to the other two, but still inherently a team who want to pass their way up the pitch, but happier to do it at a quicker pace.

What is Manning-ball?

It is not easy to give a simple definition other than to pay a bit of lip-service to Manning’s own words (not one direct quote) - I want City to play with intensity, be willing to run, press high, control games through possession and dominate the mini-games.

If I take those words as a set of principles, there really isn’t anything to argue about, it’s pretty much what fans want. But through observation I see some gaps/contradictions in the execution on the pitch. That’s not necessarily a criticism either, just reflections on what I’ve seen. Nor is the die cast on how the future will pan out. At this point our season continues to tick over at around the same rate as it did pre-appointment. But I expected the football to be more different than it is has been.

The results

In the Championship: Played 18, won 6, drawn 5, lost 7, goals 22, conceded 21, points 23. It is mid-table stuff. But what if we look beyond the results and look at game-style.

Passing: More passes made per game and more made successfully per game, but perversely possession percentage slightly down. Basically, City are allowing our opponents more passes too. They’ve gone from circa 800 pass games (roughly 400 vs 400) to 1,000 pass games (broadly 480 vs 520).

Pressing: This helps answer the above. Although City weren’t heavy pressers under Pearson, we were mid-table (13th) in the pressing metrics. Under Manning we are 21st (using a data measure called PPDA – Passes per Defensive Action). City are too happy to drop into a block rather than press, they allow their opponents to pass it more in their own third than previously.

However, credit it where its due, when City do trigger the press, they are very good at executing it. Bearing in mind City are 21st for Pressing, they are seventh for High Turnovers, and eighth for shots from High Turnovers. Which resonates with QPR manager Martin Cifuentes' claim that "Bristol is one of the best teams, if not the best in the league, when it comes to high press and counter press."

Attacking: “We are creating more chances and better chances with Manning-ball than before,” is what I hear and read from supporters. They aren’t! They are creating less chances and not as good ones either, but it’s not a significant decrease.

If you split number of chances between open play and set-pieces you find it's open play where the bigger regression comes from. Under Manning City have averaged 0.7 expected goals per game in open play, as opposed to 0.81 when Nigel Pearson was in charge; in terms of set-pieces it's now 0.22 compared to 0.35 before the 38-year-old took over.

You could split open play further into "build-up" and "transition", and you’d start to see that build-up chances are where we’ve struggled most. Build-up was where I expected the improvement to come, e.g. Manning coaching his pretty patterns and them bearing fruit on the pitch. That hasn’t materialised yet.

Defending: Perversely, there has been a slight improvement here, and in particular in set-piece defending, hardly what City fans have come to expect over the years, where it has been a real weakness.

Overall, if I was to summarise all four areas above in one overriding theme, I’d be falling on the view that City’s matches have become a bit too structured, both teams dropping into good defensive set-ups, making it hard for either opposition to create in open play.

Although I was surprised with how emphatic the victory over Southampton was last week, I wasn’t at all surprised by how it was achieved. Southampton don’t defend transitions/counter-attacks well. Nor did Swansea under Russell Martin (there was my clue

Manning and City laid the trap by dropping into a block with the front four (Tommy Conway, Jason Knight, Anis Mehmeti and Sam Bell), putting in a great shift when they lost the ball to not allow Saints to pass through our first line before the block behind was set. And when Southampton lost the ball, City broke quickly.

I think most fans came away from Ashton Gate thinking that was one of City’s best and entertaining performances in a good while. Yet it was done off of the back of 33 per cent possession, the antithesis of Manning-ball, or what the perception has been of it, to a large degree.

So then, why do we struggle against teams like QPR?

The easy answer is they do to us, what we did to Southampton. Of course, it’s not as simple as that. But there is some commonality.

The Analyst, by Opta, provide some very interesting data views whereby based on passes per sequence of possession and their speed in which they move the ball QPR, Preston North End, Birmingham City and Millwall are all of a similar(ish) style, while our next opponents Sheffield Wednesday and Cardiff in there too. Those six teams occupy 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd in the Championship for average time in possession.

In eight matches under Manning and Nigel Pearson against those sides, City have won one, drawn three, lost four, scored twice, conceded seven abd claimed just six points. I really don’t want to remind anyone that those two goals came from Harry Cornick long-throws, and were right at the start of the season.

It doesn’t make pleasant reading. Only Preston are a top-half team and are arguably over-performing their underlying numbers.

It’s easy to pick isolated incidents in games to prove a point, but I’ve tried to stay honest to the task. I referred to City’s press earlier and in the main it’s what I’d describe as a 4-2-4 block. It doesn’t set out to press the man on the ball particularly aggressively, more to stop balls breaking the lines.

Below is from game one of Manning's tenur against QPR at Loftus Road, and it’s been a recurring theme since. It’s been relatively successful in terms of giving a good foundation for the press, which usually comes from three triggers:

• Less accurate pass to goalkeeper
• Pass to full-back where City can squeeze that side of the pitch and attack the next pass, whether that be forward into midfield, or back/sideways to defenders/goalkeeper
• Poor touch by centre-back

 

The first line of Bristol City's press against QPR at Loftus Road in November

When the press has been triggered, it’s been executed well, winning ball high-up the pitch and scoring against Sunderland, albeit from the resultant penalty.

There have been occasions where City have pressed with a three rather than a four, but most of the time it’s been a four as detailed above.

Where it has come slightly undone is against teams like the aforementioned four who are happy to go long as soon as they are pressed. They might not play with an out-and-out “big-man” like Will Keane (Preston) or Lyndon Dykes (QPR), but all of the four teams are good as getting around the loose ball, whether that be willing-runners like Tom Bradshaw (Millwall) or Jay Stansfield (Birmingham) or midfielders closing the space instead.

On Saturday versus QPR, the way Ilias Chair and Lucas Andersen got around Dykes meant that whenever Rob Dickie didn’t win clean-ball, the visitors anticipated where the ball was going to drop and immediately put City on the back foot.

 

 

 

•  

Bristol City head coach Liam Manning on the touchline at Ashton Gate (Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

 

If there is one positive to have emerged from Saturday’s defeat to QPR, it’s that enough evidence has been formed to reveal a fundamental flaw in this Bristol City team, but more importantly, Liam Manning and his staff have time on the training pitch to try and remedy it.

Just like against Birmingham City, Preston North End and Millwall before them, the Robins simply do not function particularly well when faced with a low possession team, happy to surrender the ball and defend in a medium to low block.

Broadly speaking, City’s best performances under Manning have been when they’ve ceded possession to the opposition, but then defended, pressed and counter-attacked with purpose. That becomes difficult against opposition, such as QPR, who don’t want to play any part in that process, an approach we’re likely to see over the next two weeks from Sheffield Wednesday and Cardiff City.

They are crucial games in the sense that they will tell us about how efficient City’s problem solving is and whether this issue is fixable in the short term, Manning’s work on the training ground, the squad’s ability to adapt and absorb, plus the fact that if positive results can be secured, it keeps the season feeling relevant.

 

 

 

 

 

340.3K

 

'Hojlund looks a top end player!' | Man Utd are in fine form after Luton win | Football Digest

 

 

 

 

 

 

For a review of City’s approach so far against low block teams, what’s gone wrong and possible solutions moving forward, we enlisted the help of Bristol City ‘Fanalyst’ Dave Featherstone, who you can find on Twitter at @FevsFootball, who takes over the discussion from this point...

RELATED ARTICLES

• Bristol City have rare and precious commodity as Manning looks to answer million dollar ques

The background

Firstly, to be clear, there are both good things and bad things about (let’s call it) Manning-ball. It has different principles to how City played under Nigel Pearson, but what I see on the pitch isn’t (in my opinion) as hugely different as many suggest it is.

 

 

What has become a focus under whichever manager/head coach is City’s struggles against certain types of opponents. And in the Championship, you don’t get everyone playing one way.

There is a certain snobbery among football fans about how the game should be played, most preferring the aesthetics of a passing game-style. But they’re probably the first to cry for a targetman and going direct as a plan B.

I think fans are seeing a trend towards more teams trying to pass their way up the pitch, but without the quality to do it effectively or consistently enough to make a big enough difference on the “monied” teams like Leicester, Leeds United and Southampton. They are the three relegated clubs, and they happen to occupy the top three places in the league. Leeds perhaps the odd-one-out in terms of comparable style to the other two, but still inherently a team who want to pass their way up the pitch, but happier to do it at a quicker pace.

What is Manning-ball?

It is not easy to give a simple definition other than to pay a bit of lip-service to Manning’s own words (not one direct quote) - I want City to play with intensity, be willing to run, press high, control games through possession and dominate the mini-games.

If I take those words as a set of principles, there really isn’t anything to argue about, it’s pretty much what fans want. But through observation I see some gaps/contradictions in the execution on the pitch. That’s not necessarily a criticism either, just reflections on what I’ve seen. Nor is the die cast on how the future will pan out. At this point our season continues to tick over at around the same rate as it did pre-appointment. But I expected the football to be more different than it is has been.

 

The results

In the Championship: Played 18, won 6, drawn 5, lost 7, goals 22, conceded 21, points 23. It is mid-table stuff. But what if we look beyond the results and look at game-style.

Passing: More passes made per game and more made successfully per game, but perversely possession percentage slightly down. Basically, City are allowing our opponents more passes too. They’ve gone from circa 800 pass games (roughly 400 vs 400) to 1,000 pass games (broadly 480 vs 520).

Pressing: This helps answer the above. Although City weren’t heavy pressers under Pearson, we were mid-table (13th) in the pressing metrics. Under Manning we are 21st (using a data measure called PPDA – Passes per Defensive Action). City are too happy to drop into a block rather than press, they allow their opponents to pass it more in their own third than previously.

However, credit it where its due, when City do trigger the press, they are very good at executing it. Bearing in mind City are 21st for Pressing, they are seventh for High Turnovers, and eighth for shots from High Turnovers. Which resonates with QPR manager Martin Cifuentes' claim that "Bristol is one of the best teams, if not the best in the league, when it comes to high press and counter press."

Attacking: “We are creating more chances and better chances with Manning-ball than before,” is what I hear and read from supporters. They aren’t! They are creating less chances and not as good ones either, but it’s not a significant decrease.

If you split number of chances between open play and set-pieces you find it's open play where the bigger regression comes from. Under Manning City have averaged 0.7 expected goals per game in open play, as opposed to 0.81 when Nigel Pearson was in charge; in terms of set-pieces it's now 0.22 compared to 0.35 before the 38-year-old took over.

You could split open play further into "build-up" and "transition", and you’d start to see that build-up chances are where we’ve struggled most. Build-up was where I expected the improvement to come, e.g. Manning coaching his pretty patterns and them bearing fruit on the pitch. That hasn’t materialised yet.

Defending: Perversely, there has been a slight improvement here, and in particular in set-piece defending, hardly what City fans have come to expect over the years, where it has been a real weakness.

Overall, if I was to summarise all four areas above in one overriding theme, I’d be falling on the view that City’s matches have become a bit too structured, both teams dropping into good defensive set-ups, making it hard for either opposition to create in open play.

Although I was surprised with how emphatic the victory over Southampton was last week, I wasn’t at all surprised by how it was achieved. Southampton don’t defend transitions/counter-attacks well. Nor did Swansea under Russell Martin (there was my clue).

 

Jason Knight tries to challenge Southampton midfielder Joe Rothwell (Photo by Matt Watson/Southampton FC via Getty Images)

Manning and City laid the trap by dropping into a block with the front four (Tommy Conway, Jason Knight, Anis Mehmeti and Sam Bell), putting in a great shift when they lost the ball to not allow Saints to pass through our first line before the block behind was set. And when Southampton lost the ball, City broke quickly.

I think most fans came away from Ashton Gate thinking that was one of City’s best and entertaining performances in a good while. Yet it was done off of the back of 33 per cent possession, the antithesis of Manning-ball, or what the perception has been of it, to a large degree.

READ 

So then, why do we struggle against teams like QPR?

The easy answer is they do to us, what we did to Southampton. Of course, it’s not as simple as that. But there is some commonality.

The Analyst, by Opta, provide some very interesting data views whereby based on passes per sequence of possession and their speed in which they move the ball QPR, Preston North End, Birmingham City and Millwall are all of a similar(ish) style, while our next opponents Sheffield Wednesday and Cardiff in there too. Those six teams occupy 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd in the Championship for average time in possession.

In eight matches under Manning and Nigel Pearson against those sides, City have won one, drawn three, lost four, scored twice, conceded seven abd claimed just six points. I really don’t want to remind anyone that those two goals came from Harry Cornick long-throws, and were right at the start of the season.

It doesn’t make pleasant reading. Only Preston are a top-half team and are arguably over-performing their underlying numbers.

It’s easy to pick isolated incidents in games to prove a point, but I’ve tried to stay honest to the task. I referred to City’s press earlier and in the main it’s what I’d describe as a 4-2-4 block. It doesn’t set out to press the man on the ball particularly aggressively, more to stop balls breaking the lines.

Below is from game one of Manning's tenur against QPR at Loftus Road, and it’s been a recurring theme since. It’s been relatively successful in terms of giving a good foundation for the press, which usually comes from three triggers:

• Less accurate pass to goalkeeper
• Pass to full-back where City can squeeze that side of the pitch and attack the next pass, whether that be forward into midfield, or back/sideways to defenders/goalkeeper
• Poor touch by centre-back

 

The first line of Bristol City's press against QPR at Loftus Road in November

When the press has been triggered, it’s been executed well, winning ball high-up the pitch and scoring against Sunderland, albeit from the resultant penalty.

There have been occasions where City have pressed with a three rather than a four, but most of the time it’s been a four as detailed above.

Where it has come slightly undone is against teams like the aforementioned four who are happy to go long as soon as they are pressed. They might not play with an out-and-out “big-man” like Will Keane (Preston) or Lyndon Dykes (QPR), but all of the four teams are good as getting around the loose ball, whether that be willing-runners like Tom Bradshaw (Millwall) or Jay Stansfield (Birmingham) or midfielders closing the space instead.

On Saturday versus QPR, the way Ilias Chair and Lucas Andersen got around Dykes meant that whenever Rob Dickie didn’t win clean-ball, the visitors anticipated where the ball was going to drop and immediately put City on the back foot.

READ MORE

•  

City's shape

This is not the time to talk about formations, the game is too fluid to define a team’s chances of success by how you place magnetic blobs on a whiteboard. City have played both back-three and back-four systems under Manning, wide-forwards, inside No10s, etc too.

The constant has been two central midfielders (DM/CM to you FIFA players) and Manning voicing over that he really only plays “one-up-top”. We’ve played well in each set-up, poorly in each set-up. I’m becoming more inclined to just look at City’s out-of-possession shape for a guide to formation, although under Manning I see formation being largely irrelevant.

So, having overcome that part of the potential debate, how have City built up? Essentially, they try to play up the pitch starting from Max O’Leary, and via the centre-backs. If opponents press O’Leary or block passes to Dickie and Zak Vyner, then he angles long passes to the wings (some do end up out of play). When he can find Vyner and Dickie, what I’ve seen against these four teams is that they very quickly condense the centre of pitch.

 

Bristol City's U-shape in possession against Norwich

Early in Manning’s reign we saw how Norwich were happy to sit in an old-fashioned two blocks of four and force us wide. In effect we attacked in a “U-shape”. We’d get as far as 30-yards out in wide areas but couldn’t penetrate infield.

Against Millwall I see City further upfield, but no way infield through their low block. It becomes a case of going backwards then out the other side of the pitch, and often, back from where they came.

 

Millwall's low block, as deployed during the 1-0 defeat at Ashton Gate on New Year's Day

When City have tried to play infield, into congestion, the intricate patterns haven’t materialised. I thought I’d see this patient approach result in moving opponents around to create gaps to thread passes through, but that isn’t something I’ve observed. If I take a team like Leicester, they might look like they are passing for passing’s sake but inevitably a player becomes free. I don’t see that with City.

If we think back to last season, City tended to create or score from players getting to the byline and cutting balls back. City haven’t done that anywhere near enough under Manning. Too much happens in front of the opposition defence and midfield.

Quick possession

Where City have had success, even if it’s not materialised in goals per se, is being able to attack before the opponent’s defence is set.

In the picture below we can see Dickie has threaded a pass between the Millwall midfield, allowing Jason Knight to take the ball on the half-turn and drive at the defence.

You can see the Lions midfielders are too far ahead of the ball and not structured to defend. Knight is often the key to finding those pockets, but I think City’s opponents have cottoned-on to this tactic.

 

Jason Knight spins into space after getting beyond Millwall's midfield line

A different route this time. Although using the wings, Dickie has found Cam Pring before Millwall’s defence is set. He can stride down the wing and then use options inside or outside.

 

This time Rob Dickie goes wide to Cam Pring whose pace down the side can take him beyond Millwall's midfield

On Saturday, Manning called out that although we were forced wide, we didn’t pass the ball quickly enough to take advantage of QPR’s retreating midfield. The other options are from Dickie bringing the ball into midfield himself, or maybe see Haydon Roberts inverting to create numerical advantage in the middle of the pitch.

 

QPR maintain their tight shape out of possession at Ashton Gate on Saturday

In summary and possible solutions

City increasingly appear almost too structured in and out of possession, not enough “chaos” being created (structured chaos, perhaps) against these types of teams. They need to turn the game into a match where their quality (on paper) should shine through, not be dictated too by how their opponents want them to play.

Manning said after the 0-0 draw at QPR in November: “If you force the team to go direct and take the decision away, you get a certain outcome that might hit a level; the same if you force a team to build; but it’s that solution, it’s not about just play off the cuff, it’s real clear structures and rotations and understanding which one do you pick at the right time.

“I think the biggest bit is you have to look how QPR set up. Naturally if a team blocks, you’re going to have a lot less touches than if they press, because of where they give you space.

“The fact they gave us space in front and down the sides, allowed us to have a lot of the ball in those areas which, again, you’re looking at - you can drop Tommy outside it, but what we had to do a better job was getting into wide areas behind them, so he’s on the end of the finish."

On Saturday, what did he learn from the first game and what did he adapt for the return match? Very little it seems! That may sound harsh, but if I’m going to praise the game plan a few days earlier against Southampton, I’m gonna critique QPR.

Maybe the positive is that all eight games against QPR, Birmingham, Preston and Millwall are done and dusted for 2023/24. Take the five games against those teams that Manning has presided over and City are: Played 13, won 6, drawn 4, lost 3, points 22 – play-off form! Unfortunately, you can’t pick and choose which results count.

However, they now have back-to-back games against Sheffield Wednesday and Cardiff which will tell us if time on the training ground has bore fruit and/or City have learned from their mistakes against these type of teams.

Somewhat ironically, the very issue Manning is looking for a solution to is something which formed the basis of his Coaches Voices webinar in 2021, in which presented ideas on how to beat a medium block when in charge of Lommel SK in Belgium.

"We don't work off patterns, we give the players solutions and then it's on the players to own their decisions and pick the soplution at the correct time," Manning said. "When you're playing against the block, mentality is key.

"We've been punished many times this season for the mentality of the players. What can happen against the block is you have time on the ball, you shift it side to side, players tend to become a little bit loose, a little bit careless, slow things down or take too many touches or misplace a pass because they think it's easy, as opposed to maintaining discipline and focus

As it stands, we aren't getting the rotations from the two 6s - Williams and James - to create the necessary overloads to make this work. They are great in a block, but not so good when against one. Hence why the decision to leave Taylor Gardner-Hickman out of the starting XI against QPR was a puzzling one.

Knight also appears at times to be playing too much against the opposition centre-back, almost as a secondary forward. He could look to drop a few yards deeper and make the defenders ahead of him or defensive midfielder behind him think about tracking him.

Either way, it opens up space, and Conway and Nahki Wells then have more chance of being slid in. If Knight's runs are ignored by the opposition then he can receive in the pocket.

Finally, either there has to be more bravery or smoother execution in switching the ball, to ensure quicker movement across the pitch, further dragging opposition players out of position. Dickie, Vyner, Williams, James and Gardner-Hickman are all capable of delivering such passes, but we don't seem to try it enough.

[Silvio Dante]

14 minutes ago, RedZepperin said:

Excellent stuff from David. It could be titled "A Nerd's Guide To Beating Bristol City".

Yeah @Davefevs

[1960maaan]

Thanks @CodeRed , that site is shite , but every now and then there is something worth reading.

[DaveInSA]

Loved reading this.

I don’t get down to the Gate much, but my 50th is in two weeks time and I’m expecting a gift from BCFC on Baxtermas Eve against Cardiff.

I expect, as usual I will be disappointed with a limp biscuit of a performance.

[Gazred]

Good read and no elephants in sight.

[Nogbad the Bad]

It's a very well written article but I'm afraid I don't share Dave's fascination with tactical aspects of the modern game. 

High block, transition, possession percentages, passes per sequence etc etc leave me cold. I just want to see City set out to play attacking football at AG with as much goalmouth action as possible. In other words to be entertained.

Modern coaches like LM should remember football is a spectator sport and if their cagey approach doesn't at least yield the 3 points - the one consolation for a dull match -  it can more often than not be a frustrating bore for the average fan who's gone down there to see some action, let off some steam, and be entertained.

 

[Peter1450]

Where’s Big Tone when you need him? That’s a lot of text to say we haven’t really made much progress!

[Henry]

8 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

It's a very well written article but I'm afraid I don't share Dave's fascination with tactical aspects of the modern game. 

High block, transition, possession percentages, passes per sequence etc etc leave me cold. I just want to see City set out to play attacking football at AG with as much goalmouth action as possible. In other words to be entertained.

Modern coaches like LM should remember football is a spectator sport and if their cagey approach doesn't at least yield the 3 points - the one consolation for a dull match -  it can more often than not be a frustrating bore for the average fan who's gone down there to see some action, let off some steam, and be entertained.

 

I sort of agree and to be fair, I think @Davefevs has said he isn’t fussed about the styles as long as we win.

Gary Johnson’s football wasn’t always slick but the promotion and play off season wears a brilliant time to be a fan. (Unless you are @Robbored.)

[spudski]

7 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

It's a very well written article but I'm afraid I don't share Dave's fascination with tactical aspects of the modern game. 

High block, transition, possession percentages, passes per sequence etc etc leave me cold. I just want to see City set out to play attacking football at AG with as much goalmouth action as possible. In other words to be entertained.

Modern coaches like LM should remember football is a spectator sport and if their cagey approach doesn't at least yield the 3 points - the one consolation for a dull match -  it can more often than not be a frustrating bore for the average fan who's gone down there to see some action, let off some steam, and be entertained.

 

In all honesty Noggers...how many sports these days do you watch and come away thinking I've been thoroughly entertained?

You get the occasional ones...but on average, most sports are dull as dishwater these days. 

Everything is too perfect. 

Technology, science, coaching etc, has pretty much nullified any ' entertainment'. 

Because its the imperfections that create excitement in sport. 

The more precise and ' perfect' it becomes...the less entertaining.

If LM set up as you'd like...there would be lots of goal mouth action...in our own box. 

It's just how it's become.

Television hasn't helped either. Full saturation. 

[TDarwall]

9 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

It's a very well written article but I'm afraid I don't share Dave's fascination with tactical aspects of the modern game. 

High block, transition, possession percentages, passes per sequence etc etc leave me cold. I just want to see City set out to play attacking football at AG with as much goalmouth action as possible. In other words to be entertained.

 

 

I think that's fine Nogs, there are numerous ways to "consume" Bristol City, none of them are more or less valid than any of the others imo.

The bit I really agree with in the article is I thunk people have over stated the change in styles between the ex & current manager. On the whole, I'm not coming away more / less entertained or happy than I was previously.  It was pretty middling, it remains so & expect it will be for the near future.

 

[Nogbad the Bad]

10 minutes ago, Henry said:

I sort of agree and to be fair, I think @Davefevs has said he isn’t fussed about the styles as long as we win.

Gary Johnson’s football wasn’t always slick but the promotion and play off season wears a brilliant time to be a fan. (Unless you are @Robbored.)

Dave gets his enjoyment from watching football (studying it in his case) in a different way to me which is fair enough. I think the average fan sees it in a much less analytical way and craves excitement but I am also largely happy as long as we win - at least we must have had a goal to celebrate, and have succeeded in defending a lead.

Agree about GJ, not that many goals in that play off season but he got the most out of committed team, lots of excitement and a very enjoyable time to be a fan.

[TV Tom]

29 minutes ago, spudski said:

In all honesty Noggers...how many sports these days do you watch and come away thinking I've been thoroughly entertained?

You get the occasional ones...but on average, most sports are dull as dishwater these days. 

Everything is too perfect. 

Technology, science, coaching etc, has pretty much nullified any ' entertainment'. 

Because its the imperfections that create excitement in sport. 

The more precise and ' perfect' it becomes...the less entertaining.

If LM set up as you'd like...there would be lots of goal mouth action...in our own box. 

It's just how it's become.

Television hasn't helped either. Full saturation. 

Test cricket is more entertaining than it’s ever been, it knows it’s had to adapt, the days of Boycott batting all day to be 70 not out (all singles) have thankfully long gone

[Eddie Hitler]

26 minutes ago, spudski said:

In all honesty Noggers...how many sports these days do you watch and come away thinking I've been thoroughly entertained?

You get the occasional ones...but on average, most sports are dull as dishwater these days. 

Everything is too perfect. 

Technology, science, coaching etc, has pretty much nullified any ' entertainment'. 

Because its the imperfections that create excitement in sport. 

The more precise and ' perfect' it becomes...the less entertaining.

If LM set up as you'd like...there would be lots of goal mouth action...in our own box. 

It's just how it's become.

Television hasn't helped either. Full saturation. 

 

Yes, I stopped watching the Premiership for just this reason and my dad, previously an avid MOTD viewer, mentioned that he doesn't watch it much these days.

All the emphasis on technical excellence, diet and fitness certainly means that you win more games, but it also strips the excitement from the game and the fans drift away.

When I bump into my old school mates these days and go down the pub for a chat, football rarely merits a mention when it used to be the main topic of conversation.

You could say it's becoming older but it's more than the regular excitement has gone. Two teams with technically good coaches and technically good players makes for a very dull spectacle. Tap tap tap.

Give me Hereford vs Newcastle on a muddy pitch every time.

[Davefevs]

34 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

It's a very well written article but I'm afraid I don't share Dave's fascination with tactical aspects of the modern game. 

High block, transition, possession percentages, passes per sequence etc etc leave me cold. I just want to see City set out to play attacking football at AG with as much goalmouth action as possible. In other words to be entertained.

Modern coaches like LM should remember football is a spectator sport and if their cagey approach doesn't at least yield the 3 points - the one consolation for a dull match -  it can more often than not be a frustrating bore for the average fan who's gone down there to see some action, let off some steam, and be entertained.

 

As per Henry’s reply, fascination with tactical aspects, doesn’t mean I’m less fascinated / not fascinated by goalmouth action per se.

23 minutes ago, Henry said:

I sort of agree and to be fair, I think @Davefevs has said he isn’t fussed about the styles as long as we win.

Gary Johnson’s football wasn’t always slick but the promotion and play off season wears a brilliant time to be a fan. (Unless you are @Robbored.)

To continue, Noggers….Even playing direct is a tactic.

I’ve said before that most people hated Warnock’s Cardiff promotion team of a few years back, but I liked it.  It was fast, intense, long-ball, and it created penalty box action. It was super-organised, executed to a plan.  I could see the hardwork and discipline that went into it.

The entertainment angle is an interesting one too. I guess that is the fan’s entertainment “yin” versus the manager’s results “Yang”.  I’ve often said that I think most fans cry out for entertainment but actually want results.  Or to put it differently, they are happy to win playing dull football (as you suggest), but not happy to lose playing entertaining football.  But the moment dull stops winning, fans moan.

And the other dimension which kinda goes back to the Warnock reference is that the aesthetics of passing , build-up from the keeper type approach, appears to be what today’s fans yearn for.  I find Man City boring to watch, although I appreciate what they are doing and why.

I don’t think we are dissimilar in what we enjoy watching.

I’m probably just a bit more ingrained in trying to understand the How, What, Why, etc stuff, and whether results correlate with approach.  But that’s the nerd in me…that’s not the football fan in me.  Although I’m not gonna shout “forward” every time we get the ball.

[Nogbad the Bad]

28 minutes ago, spudski said:

In all honesty Noggers...how many sports these days do you watch and come away thinking I've been thoroughly entertained?

You get the occasional ones...but on average, most sports are dull as dishwater these days. 

Everything is too perfect. 

Technology, science, coaching etc, has pretty much nullified any ' entertainment'. 

Because its the imperfections that create excitement in sport. 

The more precise and ' perfect' it becomes...the less entertaining.

If LM set up as you'd like...there would be lots of goal mouth action...in our own box. 

It's just how it's become.

Television hasn't helped either. Full saturation. 

I've given up watching most sports, even football apart from City. I find the PL and international football really boring these days.

Maybe an age thing - the passion of youth probably helped to keep me going to AG throughout our descent down the divisions, but that was a long time ago and these days, while some success would be obviously be welcome, getting to the play offs is not the be all and end all for me, or even 'season ending' because we accept we're not getting there - enjoying going to AG because the football on offer at least has some entertainment value is much more important.

Let's start by thrashing Cardiff and Swansea please LM!

 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

Test cricket is more entertaining than it’s ever been, it knows it’s had to adapt, the days of Boycott batting all day to be 70 not out (all singles) have thankfully long gone

I’m still a bit old school on this.  There was satisfaction in being 200-3 after 90 overs on day one of a test match.

Australia changed it when they started a more attacking approach, taking the draw out of the game, to ensure weather played less of a part, especially away from home.

But I do think it’s gone a bit too far with Baz-ball, but hey-ho.  Do we want 3 day test matches…they’re meant to be 5!!!

So, I’m still a purist at heart.

5 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Yes, I stopped watching the Premiership for just this reason and my dad, previously an avid MOTD viewer, mentioned that he doesn't watch it much these days.

All the emphasis on technical excellence, diet and fitness certainly means that you win more games, but it also strips the excitement from the game and the fans drift away.

When I bump into my old school mates these days and go down the pub for a chat, football rarely merits a mention when it used to be the main topic of conversation.

You could say it's becoming older but it's more than the regular excitement has gone. Two teams with technically good coaches and technically good players makes for a very dull spectacle. Tap tap tap.

Give me Hereford vs Newcastle on a muddy pitch every time.

Yep, I’m the same.  Religiously watched MOTD / 2.  I’ll watch the big games if they’re on and I’m free, but the days of doing a “likely lads”, recording Liverpool to watch without knowing the score went years ago.

I do try to consume as much EFL footie as I can though.

[TDarwall]

Re entertainment value, I think it boils down to the 2 golden rules of football:

1) the result is everything 

2) never forget rule #1

As City fans, we claim to be purists  but we'd soon take to a long ball merchant * if they got us promotion.

* not Warnock, that's a step too far.

[chinapig]

An interesting, balanced article @Davefevs based on evidence. There's no future in it Dave.

[cotswoldred2]

I am always of the opinion...his poor wife.

[TV Tom]

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

But I do think it’s gone a bit too far with Baz-ball, but hey-ho.  Do we want 3 day test matches…they’re meant to be 5!!!

 

I agree to an extent Dave, some of this baz-ball is brainless, a mixture of both styles would do me, on another note the Aussies v Windies game last week was fantastic, would love to see the Windies back to their old glories, the ‘70s & 80’s teams were unbelievable 

[steveybadger]

56 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

I agree to an extent Dave, some of this baz-ball is brainless, a mixture of both styles would do me, on another note the Aussies v Windies game last week was fantastic, would love to see the Windies back to their old glories, the ‘70s & 80’s teams were unbelievable 

Think we’re forgetting just how bad the England team was pre Bazball….

[fgrsimon]

13 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m still a bit old school on this.  There was satisfaction in being 200-3 after 90 overs on day one of a test match.

Australia changed it when they started a more attacking approach, taking the draw out of the game, to ensure weather played less of a part, especially away from home.

One of my favourite Test innings of all time is Jack Russell 29 off 235 balls defending the draw with Mike Atherton 185* against South Africa 2nd test Jo'burg in 1995. England batted for almost 2 days with a target of 479, facing Allan Donald and all.

On the other hand at one of Glos one day finals v Worcestershire at Lords I foolishly went for a pee and to get a round in just as Ian Harvey was getting set and by the time I got back to my seat, the game was more or less over! 

 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

15 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

It's a very well written article but I'm afraid I don't share Dave's fascination with tactical aspects of the modern game. 

High block, transition, possession percentages, passes per sequence etc etc leave me cold. I just want to see City set out to play attacking football at AG with as much goalmouth action as possible. In other words to be entertained.

Modern coaches like LM should remember football is a spectator sport and if their cagey approach doesn't at least yield the 3 points - the one consolation for a dull match -  it can more often than not be a frustrating bore for the average fan who's gone down there to see some action, let off some steam, and be entertained.

 

I don't think Manning quite understands the whole concept that football is for the fans. Now many that will come in time but up until now I don't think he's made any real attempt to connect with the fans. 

When we win he will always say "I'm so pleased for the players and the staff" no mention of the fans until prompted. 

I didn't like how he described the away game against Forest as a free hit. I certainly didn't consider it a free hit. I didn't travel a 7 hour round trip for a free hit. I think some of his subs on the night were with the league in mind because of his mentality that it was a free hit. The point i'm making is I don't think he understood the importance that game had for the fans. Potential to get to r5 and sat up a massive game against Man Utd and potentially be 2 wins from Wembley. 

The feeling I get is that Manning prioritises having good training sessions and the players being available to train and then training well. I think that's probably because he is a got and not a manager. It feels like he gets more satisfaction from the players completing all of his processes in game. 

Of course there is an argument to he had that if a player trains well and then completes all the processes then that may lead to the 3 points. I'm not sure about that sort of mentality personally. I'd rather we focus on the 3 points. 

As a football fan as soon as we get the ball I want to see us look to get that ball forward and try to score with every attack. Front foot football. 

What we're seeing is us taking very few risks. Trying to be hard to beat and when we have posession of the ball trying to figure a way through the other team using what they've been taught. It's boring and it's predictable and it's not what I want to watch and it certainly is not front foot football. 

I'd rather lose 4-3 trying to win a game playing attacking football rather than losing 1 nil playing dull football. 

[Sir Geoff]

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

I don't think Manning quite understands the whole concept that football is for the fans. Now many that will come in time but up until now I don't think he's made any real attempt to connect with the fans. 

When we win he will always say "I'm so pleased for the players and the staff" no mention of the fans until prompted. 

I didn't like how he described the away game against Forest as a free hit. I certainly didn't consider it a free hit. I didn't travel a 7 hour round trip for a free hit. I think some of his subs on the night were with the league in mind because of his mentality that it was a free hit. The point i'm making is I don't think he understood the importance that game had for the fans. Potential to get to r5 and sat up a massive game against Man Utd and potentially be 2 wins from Wembley. 

The feeling I get is that Manning prioritises having good training sessions and the players being available to train and then training well. I think that's probably because he is a got and not a manager. It feels like he gets more satisfaction from the players completing all of his processes in game. 

Of course there is an argument to he had that if a player trains well and then completes all the processes then that may lead to the 3 points. I'm not sure about that sort of mentality personally. I'd rather we focus on the 3 points. 

As a football fan as soon as we get the ball I want to see us look to get that ball forward and try to score with every attack. Front foot football. 

What we're seeing is us taking very few risks. Trying to be hard to beat and when we have posession of the ball trying to figure a way through the other team using what they've been taught. It's boring and it's predictable and it's not what I want to watch and it certainly is not front foot football. 

I'd rather lose 4-3 trying to win a game playing attacking football rather than losing 1 nil playing dull football. 

Absolutely this. Winning is great but for me not the be all and end all. I pay to watch an entertaining game of football. For most home games that hasn't happened under Manning and I am fast losing interest tbh. Really torn between renewing next season or buying a membership.

[1960maaan]

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

I didn't like how he described the away game against Forest as a free hit. I certainly didn't consider it a free hit.

I think a lot on here did think "free hit" , I thought we may had missed our chance. I've heard that so often and used in the context of , be brave we have nothing to lose so let's win it. Not it lets just give it up.  
It's not an unusual terminology and I think I've heard it used by just about every manager at times.

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

The feeling I get is that Manning prioritises having good training sessions and the players being available to train and then training well. I think that's probably because he is a got and not a manager. It feels like he gets more satisfaction from the players completing all of his processes in game. 

Of course there is an argument to he had that if a player trains well and then completes all the processes then that may lead to the 3 points. I'm not sure about that sort of mentality personally. I'd rather we focus on the 3 points. 

I really think he focuses on the 3 points and how to get them, possibly too much at times.
Every Manager relies on training to see if a Player deserves a start, LJ was big on that , Nige maybe slightly less so , but they all do it. 
For all the talk of Continuity , Manning is different to Nige and the bigger focus on ball retention and how we move to that is not a one day process. Pearson had moved us in that direction, but it was slow. Manning's slightly different take, different process would have been easier if the change had been in the summer with a full pree season and time on the training ground to implement ideas. As it was he has had to do it with 2 games a week and a lot of the free time taken up with recovery etc. These 2 weeks will big as it's time they can spend working on the things they need to and not just limp from game to game.

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

As a football fan as soon as we get the ball I want to see us look to get that ball forward and try to score with every attack. Front foot football. 

It's funny , there was a spell we did this under LJ. The thing was as soon as we lost the ball (A) It took ages to get it back and (B) we would be defending or conceding chances during that time. I remember having conversations about the need to be able to hold and keep the ball to see games out. 
Remember those games , 2-0 or even 3-0 up and only hoping to win a game rarely expecting it.

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

What we're seeing is us taking very few risks. Trying to be hard to beat and when we have posession of the ball trying to figure a way through the other team using what they've been taught. It's boring and it's predictable and it's not what I want to watch and it certainly is not front foot football. 

I'd rather lose 4-3 trying to win a game playing attacking football rather than losing 1 nil playing dull football. 

I said I'd give Manning until Feb to criticise where we are, I'm using artistic licence to say I meant the end, I will add in the Cardiff game as that is after a decent opportunity to get some real "time on the grass " , to use a favourite phrase.

I can't argue it can be boring , but other teams have a big say in that and I'm hoping that this few weeks working with the team sees improvements with how to get around teams that sit deep. TBF/TBH it's not a new thing, for years we had the ability to look good against good sides and struggle against strugglers . It's nothing new and I saw it plenty under LJ and Nige .  As for winning 4-3 , I've said that plenty of times and if you could guarantee the win I think we all would, trouble is you can't . 

As I'm using the Cardiff game as a time to judge how far we have come , I'll go back to the away game that was decimated by injury. 12 first teamers out and an Academy CB making his debut at RB.  In that game I thought I saw som very encouraging signs , TGH & Knight in CMF looked like the future and Mehmeti as a 10 had his best performance to date, probably still one of . 
I would still like to see knight deeper and now we have Twine there is no reason not to.  I want to see us move the ball quicker and against a low block ( or as we called it a team sitting deep/in ) I want some genuine width to try and stretch teams.  I would rather see TC playing deeper if it allows him to use his movement like he did against QPR rather than see his isolated by staying in that '9' width of the box position. 
I have been quite pleased with how we have looked out of possession (wouldn't have said that years ago) , we can and do win it back well. We have looked reasonably solid and better , more controlled in possession. The next step is always the hardest, creating and scoring. 
Sam Bell will be a miss, and I know that's a little bit hypocritical of me as I would have liked another option. I would have given TGH a run there (if not used centrally) or Roberts could be a choice. But when we win the ball he is usually available and his pace and willingness to go outside the FB was a threat.
Ideal World for me would see Wells & TC ahead of Twine, but Manning  likes one man up top. That rigidity is a bit disappointing for me , but I am trying to give him time to see if we can get things working. We know Conway can score, but with the chances we make Lineker and Shearer would have struggled to look Championship level . 

We all want to be entertained , but if we scored and conceded for fun and ended up relegated who would seriously be happy. It's Win first , Win with luck , Win undeservedly and Win with style after , but win . 
I want to see some signs we can create chances in the next 2 games , It's unlikely to be open and free flowing . I'd also be interested to see the response on here if we win 2 dull games 2-0 . 

Where I stand is, I didn't want a change of Manager until at the earliest the summer. I ignored all the bluff and excuses and will judge the new man on what I see , when he's had enough time to implement changes . 
I want him to be successful as it means we are going well . I think there have been some improvements , all be it small , and 2 games against the type of teams we have struggled against seems a good point to judge where we and Manning are. 

[Simon bristol]

Have to agree with daves article, it wasnt hard to predict the qpr result, we just cant deal with those teams, and sheffield weds and cardiff wont be much different, then we will look better against swansea. Combine that with sone questionable subs, we will be lucky to get 2 points from the next 2 games.

[cidered abroad]

22 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

It's a very well written article but I'm afraid I don't share Dave's fascination with tactical aspects of the modern game. 

High block, transition, possession percentages, passes per sequence etc etc leave me cold. I just want to see City set out to play attacking football at AG with as much goalmouth action as possible. In other words to be entertained.

Modern coaches like LM should remember football is a spectator sport and if their cagey approach doesn't at least yield the 3 points - the one consolation for a dull match -  it can more often than not be a frustrating bore for the average fan who's gone down there to see some action, let off some steam, and be entertained.

 

As one who started following City when the normal game tactics were so similar by almost all clubs, I absolutely agree with what you want from a game.

Excitement near the goals so that even a nil nil draw is an interesting and uplifting match. After all the objectives of the game is to let off steam at the end of a working week. Not a chess match that requires the brains of a genius with moves taking place at one per day!

[Davefevs]

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

I don't think Manning quite understands the whole concept that football is for the fans. Now many that will come in time but up until now I don't think he's made any real attempt to connect with the fans. 

When we win he will always say "I'm so pleased for the players and the staff" no mention of the fans until prompted. 

I didn't like how he described the away game against Forest as a free hit. I certainly didn't consider it a free hit. I didn't travel a 7 hour round trip for a free hit. I think some of his subs on the night were with the league in mind because of his mentality that it was a free hit. The point i'm making is I don't think he understood the importance that game had for the fans. Potential to get to r5 and sat up a massive game against Man Utd and potentially be 2 wins from Wembley. 

The feeling I get is that Manning prioritises having good training sessions and the players being available to train and then training well. I think that's probably because he is a got and not a manager. It feels like he gets more satisfaction from the players completing all of his processes in game. 

Of course there is an argument to he had that if a player trains well and then completes all the processes then that may lead to the 3 points. I'm not sure about that sort of mentality personally. I'd rather we focus on the 3 points. 

As a football fan as soon as we get the ball I want to see us look to get that ball forward and try to score with every attack. Front foot football. 

What we're seeing is us taking very few risks. Trying to be hard to beat and when we have posession of the ball trying to figure a way through the other team using what they've been taught. It's boring and it's predictable and it's not what I want to watch and it certainly is not front foot football. 

I'd rather lose 4-3 trying to win a game playing attacking football rather than losing 1 nil playing dull football. 

In fairness he’s asked about the fans after every game - “how good were the fans today Liam”, etc.

You’ll always be able to pick bits out of interviews where you don’t like the response.  Yeah I didn’t like the use of the “free hit”, but I’ve genuinely warmed to his interview style.

Had the discussion yesterday about the axis of results versus entertainment versus playing style.