Points per game and League table since Manning took charge

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, Galley is our king said:

I apologise, that was the Cardiff away game. Around that time the number of injuries were confusing game per game.

Home to Ipswich it was obviously much easier as we were only without.... Tanner, McCrorie, Naismith, Vyner, James, Wells and Conway (from memory).

There may well have been more.... anyone? I actually believe it was 9?

The player availability was far worse for Pearson than Manning. FACT!

Atkinson and Benarous too, albeit they haven't so much as made a bench all season so do we cross them off?

As I recall, Roberts and King went off injured during the game albeit possibly one of those you listed was available but can't think who.

Edited March 8 by Mr Popodopolous

[Galley is our king]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Atkinson and Benarous too, albeit they haven't so much as made a bench all season so do we cross them off?

As I recall, Roberts and King went off injured during the game albeit possibly one of those you listed was available but can't think who.

Was Pring suspended?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Galley is our king said:

Was Pring suspended?

I'll check the team from that evening.

Bench.

I think but don't quote me by process of elimination. .

McCrorie, Tanner, Vyner.

Naismith, Williams

Wells

Atkinson and Benarous haven't kicked a ball or even made the bench this season yet.

King started, went off injured, Roberts was the sub for him but also went off injured.

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'll check the team from that evening.

Bench.

I think but don't quote me by process of elimination. .

McCrorie, Tanner, Vyner.

Naismith, Williams

Wells

Atkinson and Benarous haven't kicked a ball or even made the bench this season yet.

King started, went off injured, Roberts was the sub for him but also went off injured.

As I’ve said before. That game we were short at CB. So in my mind you don’t then play others in unfamiliar roles which then weakens further areas of the team. 
Hickman should have played RB. He’d done it plenty before. That means Knight would be CM. Sykes RM and move Weimann inside to the AM. 
 

That would have ensured we weren’t weakening the whole right side of defence. 

[BrizzleRed]

9 hours ago, Baldyman said:

If we stay up , it’ll thanks to the form under Pearson and nothing to do with Manning . 

 

It’s certainly looking that way.  If the average points per game under Pearson had been as low as under Manning, we’d have been right in the middle of a relegation battle right now, not just a potential one.

There’s definitely no way JL or BT can claim they’ve released any additional potential from this squad by the appointment of Manning, which was supposedly their aim.

[BrizzleRed]

9 hours ago, AshtonGreat said:

That's a fair opinion, though i think we looked really good against Ipswich

That’s true, but the most worrying thing is his inability to counter any deep lying and ultimately defensive teams.  

As we get sucked closer to the relegation places, I’ve got precius little confidence that we’ll beat any of the low lying teams in those six-pointer games coming up.

Let’s just hope he finds a solution super quick, or we could be in real trouble, which you wouldn’t have expected after the comfortable position he’d inherited.

[Olé]

20 hours ago, Harry said:

Relatively speaking, if we were 4 points off the playoffs after 15 games, then under the same trends we’d be 8 points off the playoffs after 30 games. 

18 hours ago, Leabrook said:

Being four points off the play offs after 15 games is the same as being 12 off the play offs at the end of the season so let’s not pretend anymore than four is a bad result here 

People rightly pointing out that a 4 point gap will widen with the additional games played (as just extrapolation rather  than anything to do with Liam Manning) missing the point that @Mr Popodopolous specifically posted only the period Liam Manning has been in charge for which shows us 15 points off 6th from 21 games vs 4 points off from 15.

4 points off the playoffs from 15 extrapolated to 21 games is still 5.6 points off the playoffs not 15 points. 15 points off from Manning’s 21 games is a 9.4 point negative swing in less than half a season and almost half a point worse off per match. That is huge regression - stop doing the clubs work for them by defending the return on their decision.

[Red Skin]

19 hours ago, 2015 said:

LM wants us to be a slow possession based side

Where do you get that from?  I think that's what we are witnessing, but I'd be astounded if that is the intention when he sends the team out.  In what universe do you think a manager would set that out as a strategy?

My only experience of Manning before he joined was when we played Oxford.  They looked a really good attacking team in the first portion of that game.  They crumbled and maybe there were signs back them of Manning not reacting in game, but they moved the ball quickly and were incisive in their attacking play and could have well ahead before we woke up. 

 

 

[Davefevs]

37 minutes ago, Olé said:

People rightly pointing out that a 4 point gap will widen with the additional games played (as just extrapolation rather  than anything to do with Liam Manning) missing the point that @Mr Popodopolous specifically posted only the period Liam Manning has been in charge for which shows us 15 points off 6th from 21 games vs 4 points off from 15.

4 points off the playoffs from 15 extrapolated to 21 games is still 5.6 points off the playoffs not 15 points. 15 points off from Manning’s 21 games is a 9.4 point negative swing in less than half a season and almost half a point worse off per match. That is huge regression - stop doing the clubs work for them by defending the return on their decision.

Don’t you add 4.0 to 5.6 and say 9.6 is the extrapolated difference to playoffs after 36 games?

And he’s 13 points off, therefore he’s regressed 3.4 points over 21 games from point of appointment in comparison to pre-appointment trajectory!

For me it’s speed of regression that worries me, because for some of that early 21 game period, he was tracking / even above that trajectory.  But the drop-off is speeding up.

Just a little xG trending below / inc 6 game rolling averages:

The downturn of xG goal difference and widening of the gap between xG for and xG against (6-game rolling) is a worry.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Red Skin said:

Where do you get that from?  I think that's what we are witnessing, but I'd be astounded if that is the intention when he sends the team out.  In what universe do you think a manager would set that out as a strategy?

My only experience of Manning before he joined was when we played Oxford.  They looked a really good attacking team in the first portion of that game.  They crumbled and maybe there were signs back them of Manning not reacting in game, but they moved the ball quickly and were incisive in their attacking play and could have well ahead before we woke up. 

 

 

Because they were playing on the counter against a superior (on-paper) team.

I hadn’t seen as much of Oxford as I did MKD, but slow possession was what I witnessed, but with superior technicians - Darling, O’Riley, Twine oft-mentioned, but Harvie, Kesler-Hayden (a runner), Coventry, McEachran, Corbeanu, Parrott.  That’s a decent lg1 outfit.  And those superior technicians were good enough in slow possession to get into the final third, at whatever pace they liked, and create overloads and then chances against inferior opponents.

Oxford looked a bit more dynamic from the few times I saw them.

And that’s where I see the flaw, and apologies for repeating myself, I don’t think he’ll ever have the players here to play his way, a pure way, the hardest way to play (his words).

[Sheltons Army]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And that’s where I see the flaw, and apologies for repeating myself, I don’t think he’ll ever have the players here to play his way, a pure way, the hardest way to play (his words).

The playing philosophy , and it appears one he’s totally focused on , is a big concern for me , and I agree with you regarding the quality of players , and even then he has to be an excellent coach of this style , not ok , excellent , in terms of knowledge and delivery on the grass , (Besides the man management , in game management , etc etc as a head man) to make it successful 

I would suggest that it’s the hardest , and most complicated playing philosophy to coach 

And

For success , the best ?

For entertainment the best ?

[Galley is our king]

5 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

The playing philosophy , and it appears one he’s totally focused on , is a big concern for me , and I agree with you regarding the quality of players , and even then he has to be an excellent coach of this style , not ok , excellent , in terms of knowledge and delivery on the grass , (Besides the man management , in game management , etc etc as a head man) to make it successful 

I would suggest that it’s the hardest , and most complicated playing philosophy to coach 

And

For success , the best ?

For entertainment the best ?

Definitely not for entertainment!!

[Sheltons Army]

And on the playing ethos

Are we not just about to put our foot down on the accelerator as we turn left  in terms of our playing philosophy ie Recruitment

Because , if we continue with LM (As I absolutely believe they will) then you absolutely have to back him and his playing philosophy in terms of the profile of players in

You surely cannot contemplate recruiting without concentrating on his key wants in player profiles and then expect him to be successful (Actually this Club probably could)

But with any degree of sense , if they believe he’s worth running with then I’d expect recruitment to reflect that

So next season we have a mix of players some specifically recruited for the new playing ethos , some possibly adaptable, some not suitable ....... 

Where do you go then if you bale out on Manning ?

Continue coach recruitment and player recruitment to this new philosophy

And every window LM stays we will be assembling players largely suited to a particular style and having followed that route you are committed to it for the foreseeable few years I’d suggest

A significant crossroads for us I’d suggest , with implications that will result , positive or negative , far beyond LM and his tenure here

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

And on the playing ethos

Are we not just about to put our foot down on the accelerator as we turn left  in terms of our playing philosophy ie Recruitment

Because , if we continue with LM (As I absolutely believe they will) then you absolutely have to back him and his playing philosophy in terms of the profile of players in

You surely cannot contemplate recruiting without concentrating on his key wants in player profiles and then expect him to be successful (Actually this Club probably could)

But with any degree of sense , if they believe he’s worth running with then I’d expect recruitment to reflect that

So next season we have a mix of players some specifically recruited for the new playing ethos , some possibly adaptable, some not suitable ....... 

Where do you go then if you bale out on Manning ?

Continue coach recruitment and player recruitment to this new philosophy

And every window LM stays we will be assembling players largely suited to a particular style and having followed that route you are committed to it for the foreseeable few years I’d suggest

A significant crossroads for us I’d suggest , with implications that will result , positive or negative , far beyond LM and his tenure here

Out of interest, with your past experiences, how wedded to playing styles do you think the modern day player is?  And how different are the playing styles, if you take out the extremes.

Kal Naismith at Luton (under Jones) and Bristol City (under Pearson) for example.

My simplistic view is that good players can adapt.

There are examples where it appears very sensible to have a certain type of player, e.g. target man for a direct team.  But then I would look at Ipswich and they play with Hirst (now injured) and Moore, yet predominantly try to play it through the thirds.  Even Sheffield Wednesday start build-up phase with their keeper and centre-backs in the penalty area.

[Spike]

22 hours ago, Harry said:

I guess what I’d say (and this is no defence of Manning by the way), is that you haven’t really factored in the relativity. 
 

Relatively speaking, if we were 4 points off the playoffs after 15 games, then under the same trends we’d be 8 points off the playoffs after 30 games. 
Now on 36 games, under the same trends, we’d be roughly 9.5 to 10 points off the playoffs (well, 10 would be after 37.5 games in that 15 game model). 
 

So we are currently 13 points off the playoffs, so the relative regression is only 3 points. 

Fair play to be so positive, I'd see it more like if we're factoring in relativity then Pearson. Left us with half hours squad injured and still playing football that kept us in the top half.

Manning has joined as the players were all returning and has had a largely better selection choice and has managed to take us down the league and provide with 3 consecutive games where we not only lost but didn't even look capable of creating an attack. 

Manning could have a preseason but we'll not be any better off, the man needs players that suit his system in order for it to work but at this level we can't afford those types of players, they are luxury players that the teams with a lot more money to spend sign. We can't do a Cotterill again, this isn't League one and we can't afford the quality we could in that league to build the squad that suits his tactics. 

[Silvio Dante]

33 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

The playing philosophy , and it appears one he’s totally focused on , is a big concern for me , and I agree with you regarding the quality of players , and even then he has to be an excellent coach of this style , not ok , excellent , in terms of knowledge and delivery on the grass , (Besides the man management , in game management , etc etc as a head man) to make it successful 

I would suggest that it’s the hardest , and most complicated playing philosophy to coach 

And

For success , the best ?

For entertainment the best ?

On a bizarre basis, it’s actually a bit of a risk:reward question.

If you can play the style well, it can be entertaining. It can let you steamroller teams. The problem is the margin - if you play it not even badly but less well the dropoff is more pronounced than other styles - so you are either 100% effective or 40% effective. Essentially played well you have ball and move quickly, finding gaps at pace. If you’re not great at it, you have ball but it becomes very slow and defendable.

And that’s the risk:reward. It’s like being on Who Wants To Be A Millionare - having £500k and knowing if you get it right you win big but if you get it wrong, you lose 90% of your winnings. And the odds are, unless you’re spectacularly intelligent or spectacularly lucky, you will lose those winnings more often than not.

[Sheltons Army]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Out of interest, with your past experiences, how wedded to playing styles do you think the modern day player is?  And how different are the playing styles, if you take out the extremes.

Kal Naismith at Luton (under Jones) and Bristol City (under Pearson) for example.

My simplistic view is that good players can adapt.

There are examples where it appears very sensible to have a certain type of player, e.g. target man for a direct team.  But then I would look at Ipswich and they play with Hirst (now injured) and Moore, yet predominantly try to play it through the thirds.  Even Sheffield Wednesday start build-up phase with their keeper and centre-backs in the penalty area.

I think Dave , ( and it’s a very limited general over view without the depth of current knowledge or understanding as some on here)

Firstly I think the levels vary

In simple terms despite playing against similar generally quality opposition Premier League Players I would suggest not only the best in terms of coping with the technical possession / control ethos, but also adaptable enough and athletic enough to be adaptable to all sorts of styles

From that point ‘downwards’ I think that it becomes less easy to find players so adaptable , and in particular to find the required quality players for a technical / control ethos - At our level and certainly below it appears that you have to accept some compromises

Technically good but not totally physically robust , or athletic etc

Id agree good players can adapt , the better (level) they are , as a general rule , the more adaptable

 

I think it’s a playing ethos that puts real focus not only the HC but on the quality of the recruitment team because IMO its the ethos that takes you down the ‘narrowest’ route.

My gut feel at this level is that it’s far more realistic (And cheaper) for us to recruit ‘good players’ adaptable to a number of other styles and MOP than it is for us to recruit ‘good players’ for a possession / control / technical ethos.

if that makes sense

 

I think we are heading down a ‘difficult’ choice of route where success is dependent on an excellent coaching team and an really excellent recruitment team.

 

And where it is easy for things to unravel 

[Davefevs]

Ta @Sheltons Army, makes perfect sense, and why someone like Luton took the approach they did…Adebayo and Morris up top. Campbell and Nakamba (reminded me of Kante) in midfield, albeit Nakamba on loan.

[Sheltons Army]

20 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

On a bizarre basis, it’s actually a bit of a risk:reward question.

If you can play the style well, it can be entertaining. It can let you steamroller teams. The problem is the margin - if you play it not even badly but less well the dropoff is more pronounced than other styles - so you are either 100% effective or 40% effective. Essentially played well you have ball and move quickly, finding gaps at pace. If you’re not great at it, you have ball but it becomes very slow and defendable.

And that’s the risk:reward. It’s like being on Who Wants To Be A Millionare - having £500k and knowing if you get it right you win big but if you get it wrong, you lose 90% of your winnings. And the odds are, unless you’re spectacularly intelligent or spectacularly lucky, you will lose those winnings more often than not.

Agreed Silv

Entertainment wise

I look at Man City and I enjoy watching them to a large degree , but I actually enjoy watching them not because  of the playing ethos and style but more so because of the quite brilliant ability and individual moments that win them the game 

Yes , their ethos has proved successful but I’d suggest that it’s been successful more so because of the individual brilliance of some incredible players 

I know I am talking Man City but the overall principle and pros and cons are the same 

To have a degree of control and possession  in the first two thirds is not a massive ask or task

With a relatively slow , controlled progression , opening up the opposition in the final third certainly is

 

Ipswich are far more entertaining to watch (Grrrrrr) than we are ever likely to be , and a lot easier to recruit for and continue

Edited March 9 by Sheltons Army

[BrizzleRed]

So reading this discussion, it’s sounding very much like the Club are living in cloud cuckoo land.  How on earth do they think we can convert our squad to LM’s playing style and with the quality needed to be competitive at the upper end of the Championship, whilst staying within ffp limits?

Questions that immediately spring to my mind.

1). Have the club completely changed their plans, both in terms of finance and so-called sustainability?  One minute we’re shopping in the lower leagues for bargains and now it seems we’ll be needing players of top quality and high cost, just to have a chance of making LM’s system work.

2).  Over the years, we’ve lurched from one plan to another and never seem to stick at any of them for very long.  This would appear to be a particularly fundamental change of direction and would surely need a very big churn of our squad to have any chance of working.  When Manning does go, what are the chances this new squad would then suit his eventual successor, or will we need another massive clear out?

3.  Is it just me, or do others think this just smacks of an ill thought out punt by JL and BT, with little thought of how it’s actually going to be put into practice, especially within our budget?  If by some miracle, it has been thoroughly planned, it makes you wonder what the Club have seen in LM, to think he justifies the massive change in direction, playing staff and associated costs this will involve.  You would expect this has all been run past SL, but I just can’t see how he would buy into shelling out major cash on a load of new players to suit the new plan.

It strikes me that if we’re moving in this direction, we’re taking a massive gamble.  As has been discussed earlier in this thread, it appears the system has to be working to its absolute maximum for success, as if you aren’t right at the top of your game, you fall well short.  Working fairly well just won’t cut it.

I just can’t see SL cracking open the nest egg to fund this lot and if we try to do it on the cheap, we could fail massively and soon find ourselves trying to find another Nigel Pearson, to get us out of the smelly stuff again.

This whole thing just doesn’t show any sign of joined-up thinking to me, or am I missing something?

[Davefevs]

@BrizzleRed

3. If you’ve seen the film Trading Places, you’ll get your answer.

[Tomo]

Stumbled across this...

Honest, Funny, Together.

 

[bearded_red]

9 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Stumbled across this...

Honest, Funny, Together.

 

I remember watching that and feeling so positive about the direction the club was going in and had complete trust in Pearson and Gould.

Couldn’t feel any more different now if I tried.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Apolgies I think I have found the reason for the Blackburn glitch.

Prior to this weekend.

Blackburn v Preston was a Friday night. I wasn't sampling correctly.

This was it the day he was appointed but after Rotherham v Ipswich which was people and rescheduled between times. Next one will be when this updates.

Will post update when  it all updates although perhaps best after this weekends round of games.

[Harry]

On 08/03/2024 at 13:31, Harry said:

I guess what I’d say (and this is no defence of Manning by the way), is that you haven’t really factored in the relativity. 
 

Relatively speaking, if we were 4 points off the playoffs after 15 games, then under the same trends we’d be 8 points off the playoffs after 30 games. 
Now on 36 games, under the same trends, we’d be roughly 9.5 to 10 points off the playoffs (well, 10 would be after 37.5 games in that 15 game model). 
 

So we are currently 13 points off the playoffs, so the relative regression is only 3 points. 

 

9 hours ago, Olé said:

People rightly pointing out that a 4 point gap will widen with the additional games played (as just extrapolation rather  than anything to do with Liam Manning) missing the point that @Mr Popodopolous specifically posted only the period Liam Manning has been in charge for which shows us 15 points off 6th from 21 games vs 4 points off from 15.

4 points off the playoffs from 15 extrapolated to 21 games is still 5.6 points off the playoffs not 15 points. 15 points off from Manning’s 21 games is a 9.4 point negative swing in less than half a season and almost half a point worse off per match. That is huge regression - stop doing the clubs work for them by defending the return on their decision.

 

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t you add 4.0 to 5.6 and say 9.6 is the extrapolated difference to playoffs after 36 games?

And he’s 13 points off, therefore he’s regressed 3.4 points over 21 games from point of appointment in comparison to pre-appointment trajectory!

For me it’s speed of regression that worries me, because for some of that early 21 game period, he was tracking / even above that trajectory.  But the drop-off is speeding up.

Just a little xG trending below / inc 6 game rolling averages:

The downturn of xG goal difference and widening of the gap between xG for and xG against (6-game rolling) is a worry.

Rob - Fevs has done my work for me

It’s the 4 plus the 5.6 = 9.6. As I said in my initial post. 10 points would be the XD (expected deficit) and we are 13, so a 3.4 difference. 
But also Fevs is very correct in that it’s the speed of the downturn which is a concern. 
With which I wholeheartedly agree - hence why last week I nailed my colours to the mast and said that it was time for LM to go. 
I’ve lost total confidence in him. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

It's updated at last.

Hopefully it will be several places better in this and one better in the actual come mid afternoon but onwards and.. downwards still atm.

 

Edited March 10 by Mr Popodopolous

[Olé]

13 hours ago, Harry said:

Rob - Fevs has done my work for me

It’s the 4 plus the 5.6 = 9.6. As I said in my initial post. 10 points would be the XD (expected deficit) and we are 13, so a 3.4 difference. 

Despite your absence from the Spanish all season I love you (and @Davefevs) but I honestly have no idea what the pair of you are on about.

Mr Pop keeps showing us a table based only on the period Manning has been in charge. The latest one shows us now 18 points off the play offs.

The one yesterday showed us 15 points off. Both are solely the result of his time in charge, it has nothing to do with NPs 15 games and 4 point gap.

It's not a net effect it's an artificial table based only on Manning's tenure. NPs 4 points off POs extrapolated for Manning's tenure is 5.6 points off.

Together we should be 9.6 off yes but that is not what Mr Pop is showing us he is showing us 15-18 off for a 21-22 game period under Manning.

It's the league if it started when LM joined. NPs form extrapolated would be 5.6 off. 15-18 off is AT LEAST a 10 point regression in little over 20 games. 

Edited March 10 by Olé

[RollsRoyce]

34 minutes ago, Olé said:

Despite your absence from the Spanish all season I love you (and @Davefevs) but I honestly have no idea what the pair of you are on about.

Mr Pop keeps showing us a table based only on the period Manning has been in charge. The latest one shows us now 18 points off the play offs.

The one yesterday showed us 15 points off. Both are solely the result of his time in charge, it has nothing to do with NPs 15 games and 4 point gap.

It's not a net effect it's an artificial table based only on Manning's tenure. NPs 4 points off POs extrapolated for Manning's tenure is 5.6 points off.

Together we should be 9.6 off yes but that is not what Mr Pop is showing us he is showing us 15-18 off for a 21-22 game period under Manning.

It's the league if it started when LM joined. NPs form extrapolated would be 5.6 off. 15-18 off is AT LEAST a 10 point regression in little over 20 games. 

Or , you could say if Manning had been here all season we would most likely be playing in L1 next season based on his results so far (extrapolated) back to August.

However we dress it up, next season looks like it will be a very nervous affair unless in these last 9 games or so, we hit some consistency and results. 

I would guess Steve L is well aware of this, and it was not the situation that was sold to him by his son and Tinnion. 

[Davefevs]

50 minutes ago, Olé said:

Despite your absence from the Spanish all season I love you (and @Davefevs) but I honestly have no idea what the pair of you are on about.

Mr Pop keeps showing us a table based only on the period Manning has been in charge. The latest one shows us now 18 points off the play offs.

The one yesterday showed us 15 points off. Both are solely the result of his time in charge, it has nothing to do with NPs 15 games and 4 point gap.

It's not a net effect it's an artificial table based only on Manning's tenure. NPs 4 points off POs extrapolated for Manning's tenure is 5.6 points off.

Together we should be 9.6 off yes but that is not what Mr Pop is showing us he is showing us 15-18 off for a 21-22 game period under Manning.

It's the league if it started when LM joined. NPs form extrapolated would be 5.6 off. 15-18 off is AT LEAST a 10 point regression in little over 20 games. 

Yes, so you’re saying that LM’s 23 (vs 41) from 21 is 18 points off.  No arguments there.

Therefore Nige’s 18 (v23) from 14 extrapolated is 27 from 21, so he’d be 14 points off had he had the same period?

You're (Mr P) using a league table where the team in 6th had 23 points from 14 games and then using a table that 41 from 22.  The team in 6th has improved from 1.64ppg to 1.86ppg in that 21 games.

The goalposts have moved in the comparison.

At the end of the day LM is underperforming.

[Ivorguy]

I do wonder what the interview selection process looked like.

Did they ask Manning what his tactical approach would be?  Did they ask him what timescale he thought it would take to get the team to change?  Did they ask him what Plan B was in the middle of a game if the team was struggling?  Did they ask him his policy re the bench and blooding youngsters? Did they talk to the club captain about the new tactical approach and ask him about possible  players’ reactions and timescale for adaptation?  Did they ask King re new approaches to coaching, given that he is both in first team squad and on coaching side of things?  Finally, I wonder when was the last time JL and BT did any training re interview techniques and good practice.