When to do it

[mozo]

8 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

As someone calling for Manning's head four games ago then my answer is that you can only make a decision based on the evidence available at the time. After West Brom, I'd have 100% have sacked Manning if we'd lost the next couple and I couldn't see it turning around. I'm delighted that there are huge signs of improvement but I still think calling for his sacking was an utterly valid call based on the info available.

Right now, there's really positive signs and he obviously deserves to see out this season, rebuild over the summer and show what he can do next season. It might be we get ten games in and are challenging for promotion and, if so, the board and Technical Director will deserve praise for a brave call in sticking with him when the fans were turning against him. On the other hand, we could revert to poor form again and it'll turn out in hindsight that his appointment does not work out. We don't know.

But, if we end up sacking him in October, the people who are praising him for the last four games are not suddenly "wrong" for their opinion at this moment in time, in the exact same way that nobody was "wrong" to feel he should be sacked after two extended winless streaks. 

That's a very good point. My only counter to that would be that the sample size available 4 games ago just wasn't enough to reach such a strong conclusion, and this run of form has proved that. I actually don't believe we should make any final assessments even if we win our remaining games. I think we need to be patient.

[Dan11]

24 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Can’t believe I’m saying this, but I now want Ipswich to go straight up, so that at least one relegated club stats down, if not two.

Hopefully it’s Southampton, because of Russell Martin 

Welcome to the club 

[Wanderingred]

“Stop gloating and just enjoy the win” is something I read a lot on here but it doesn’t really make any sense does it ? Why would one be exclusive of the other?

People here post their opinions in a public space, some of which are very partisan. They shouldn’t then be upset when those opinions are scrutinised by others, particularly when in hindsight, they may appear to have been reactionary.

[exAtyeoMax]

1 minute ago, Wanderingred said:

“Stop gloating and just enjoy the win” is something I read a lot on here but it doesn’t really make any sense does it ? Why would one be exclusive of the other?

People here post their opinions in a public space, some of which are very partisan. They shouldn’t then be upset when those opinions are scrutinised by others, particularly when in hindsight, they may appear to have been reactionary.

I find those kinds of posts really irritating. I think people mistake 'negativity' for constructive criticism. 

I don't really understand why people care that other people have voiced a different opinion. So what! The virtual punch up / name calling / nah nah nah is just silly.

[Major Isewater]

12 hours ago, Fontaineofallknowledge said:

a couple of poor performances/defeats

A ‘ couple ‘ is two Fontaineofnoknowledge. We have been poor and defeated in more than that. 
It’s not all about results either, it’s about progress in our style of play and let’s be honest we have been dire with zero attacking play for a while now. 
I am no ‘bed wetter ‘ but had doubts and still do , despite the green shoots. I hope to be proved wrong. 
 

[mozo]

Just now, Major Isewater said:

A ‘ couple ‘ is two Fontaineofnoknowledge. We have been poor and defeated in more than that. 
It’s not all about results either, it’s about progress in our style of play and let’s be honest we have been dire with zero attacking play for a while now. 
I am no ‘bed wetter ‘ but had doubts and still do , despite the green shoots. I hope to be proved wrong. 
 

That is a bit subjective imo. I personally didn't think we were 'dire' in most of Manning's games. And attacking play has been a problem ever since Weimann's wonder season.

[Supersonic Robin]

12 hours ago, HunstantonRed said:

Wow some absolute whoppers early in this thread. Shocking people were actually calling for him to be sacked.

Is it that shocking?

Across Manning's first 20 games or so our form was near relegation standard. Results were poor, performances were poor, underlying numbers were poor, eye test was poor.

I never got quite as far as calling for Manning to be sacked, but you can absolutely understand why some people did.

[Silvio Dante]

To quote John Maynard Keynes - “When the facts change, I change my mind”.

And pre Easter, the facts were that we were in relegation form, performances were dire and we looked directionless. We were also playing without any “intent”.

Since Easter, having not seen Sunderland (so I won’t pass comment there), in three games we’ve had a bit more “intent” about us. Yep, we’ve been helped by terrible Vardy finishing and a horrific Blackburn, but we’ve had intent and we’ve won the games. I’m not convinced we’re sustainable but what it has done is buy the head coach time. I’m not going to say I think he’s the right man long term, but I’m happy with the “intent” improvement however that has come about.

The approach has definitely changed post Easter.

Does that make me Manning in? Not at present, no. But I’m now in the place that he’s here for the rest of this season and those first 10-12 games of next season as a minimum (unless he obviously loses the first six!). What he needs to do is continue the pattern of “intent” as a minimum for that timeline.

The broader question is why the head coach changed his approach. My gut is he knew his arse was on the line and sedate, Swansea style games would see him gone. But a lot of football positives come from desparate circumstances. The trick now is sustaining it.

[Wanderingred]

27 minutes ago, Supersonic Robin said:

Is it that shocking?

Across Manning's first 20 games or so our form was near relegation standard. Results were poor, performances were poor, underlying numbers were poor, eye test was poor.

I never got quite as far as calling for Manning to be sacked, but you can absolutely understand why some people did.

6 wins, 5 draws, 9 defeats in his first 20 league games. That’s the form of lower mid table, the position we’ve finished for the last two seasons under Pearson.

Calling for Manning to be sacked was pointless. We all know the real reason we are stagnating as a club and it’s not the manager. Sack him and then what? They’ll only make another appointment that satisfies their agenda. May as well give the guy a proper go at it.

Edited April 11 by Wanderingred

[transfer reader]

44 minutes ago, mozo said:

It was the same with LJ and with Nige. And forever more...

I said on a another thread that I think Manning needs 7 points from the last 4 games to hit par.

That's a stretch, but with our current momentum, it's possible.

'Par' is just my personal assessment of what I think a competent gaffer would achieve, and the same target would have applied to the previous gaffer.

If, however, we only manage 4/5 points, we're still bloody close to par. 

Finishing near my abstract par is fine, and certainly not a sign that the head coach is out of his depth IMHO.

My par will then be raised next season.

BTW, how we achieve par is irrelevant. Streaks are fine, and quite normal at this level. 

Yeah, I just want the yo-yo clubs to be disrupted.

Purely from a curiousity, what's your acceptable tolerance?

Within 10% of the par target? Although that gives a bigger leeway the higher the initial target was.

Does the way the final tally gets achieved play a part? I.e being above par (for that point in the season) for 90% then dropping off, vs being a fair bit below and then surging up- assuming equal outcome.

Does your perception of strength of other teams play a factor too?

You've said next season's will be a higher target, but let's say it's Everton that takes the final relegation spot and that it's WBA or Norwich that goes up in the playoffs. That's likely the strongest relegated side (close with Leicester) plus 2 extremely strong sides from this season staying down.

 

None of this is to argue, just wondering.

 

[pj76]

13 hours ago, Andy082005 said:

Great result and performance - agreed. But my point is that crowd tonight wasn’t just because it was a dead rubber 

Weve had plenty of dead rubber games over the last 8/9 years - and the crowd have never stayed away like they have tonight and the last few games 

Edited April 11 by pj76

[transfer reader]

11 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

And pre Easter, the facts were that we were in relegation form

That's an interesting definition of a fact.

Over the last 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 games, the worst our results have been was 15th in the league for the period.

If we disregard the last 5 games our form over the prior 15 is still better than the form over 3 clubs over the last 20 games.

Our results over 20 of the last 25- again disregarding the last 5 games- stays better than 3 teams managed over the last 25.

Was it bad form that we went through? Yes. But factually relegation form? No.

 

[Silvio Dante]

4 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

That's an interesting definition of a fact.

Over the last 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 games, the worst our results have been was 15th in the league for the period.

If we disregard the last 5 games our form over the prior 15 is still better than the form over 3 clubs over the last 20 games.

Our results over 20 of the last 25- again disregarding the last 5 games- stays better than 3 teams managed over the last 25.

Was it bad form that we went through? Yes. But factually relegation form? No.

 

I’d argue that five defeats in six would have been relegation form, but each to its own! Course of a season that gives you about 23 points at best.

Edited April 11 by Silvio Dante

[transfer reader]

6 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I’d argue that five defeats in six would have been relegation form, but each to its own! Course of a season that gives you about 23 points at best.

It was better than 3 other teams over the same time frame.

Therefore not relegation form.

[mozo]

6 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Purely from a curiousity, what's your acceptable tolerance?

Within 10% of the par target? Although that gives a bigger leeway the higher the initial target was.

Does the way the final tally gets achieved play a part? I.e being above par (for that point in the season) for 90% then dropping off, vs being a fair bit below and then surging up- assuming equal outcome.

Does your perception of strength of other teams play a factor too?

You've said next season's will be a higher target, but let's say it's Everton that takes the final relegation spot and that it's WBA or Norwich that goes up in the playoffs. That's likely the strongest relegated side (close with Leicester) plus 2 extremely strong sides from this season staying down.

 

None of this is to argue, just wondering.

 

Haha, those are hard questions 

Regards the tolerance, I don't think there's a strict formula, although 10% sounds reasonable. Certainly in the season when we couldn't get a penalty decision, it makes sense to be more lenient. I keep banging on about the fine margins in the Coventry and Ipswich games, so I guess I'll apply a 5 point buffer this season. Injuries have affected us, but thats been happening for years, so I wont make an allowance for it. It's very subjective, obvs.

I think for next season I just want growth, the logic being that every player is a year older and has that little bit more experience at this level, and LM has had more time with the squad. If we finish 11th this season with 63 points, I'd set a par of something like 69 points and 9th.

The only factor that I would amend that expectation for is transfer activity. Selling Scott last season and not buying a quality striker with the dosh changed my outlook to the point whereby 10th was a good outcome.

[Supersonic Robin]

26 minutes ago, Wanderingred said:

6 wins, 5 draws, 9 defeats in his first 20 league games. That’s the form of lower mid table, the position we’ve finished for the last two seasons under Pearson.

Calling for Manning to be sacked was pointless. We all know the real reason we are stagnating as a club and it’s not the manager. Sack him and then what? They’ll only make another appointment that satisfies their agenda. May as well give the guy a proper go at it.

That's 23 points from 20 games, so 52.9 points if you extrapolate to a full season. Last season, that would have produced an 18th place finish, so it's in the bottom third. I think we're splitting hairs a bit about whether you call it "lower midtable" or "near relegation zone". By the time we had 5 losses from 6, I think fans' frustrations were very much justified.

No need to compare to Pearson, but if you do want to, then most metrics (including points per game) were showing that we were worse under Manning than Pearson (especially if you consider the relative injury situations).

I'm glad we've looked better in recent weeks, but it really wasn't that unreasonable for people to be questioning Manning's job.

 

I very much agree with your last point though. I don't trust the board to make appointments in any part of the club, manager included. The ownership is undoubtedly the reason we're stagnating.

 

 

[mozo]

24 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I’d argue that five defeats in six would have been relegation form, but each to its own! Course of a season that gives you about 23 points at best.

By that logic someone could reach the conclusion that since we are on promotion form across a 6 game period, that Manning has therefore proved he's capable of winning the league?!

Neither are very likely!

[transfer reader]

3 minutes ago, mozo said:

Haha, those are hard questions 

Regards the tolerance, I don't think there's a strict formula, although 10% sounds reasonable. Certainly in the season when we couldn't get a penalty decision, it makes sense to be more lenient. I keep banging on about the fine margins in the Coventry and Ipswich games, so I guess I'll apply a 5 point buffer this season. Injuries have affected us, but thats been happening for years, so I wont make an allowance for it. It's very subjective, obvs.

I think for next season I just want growth, the logic being that every player is a year older and has that little bit more experience at this level, and LM has had more time with the squad. If we finish 11th this season with 63 points, I'd set a par of something like 69 points and 9th.

The only factor that I would amend that expectation for is transfer activity. Selling Scott last season and not buying a quality striker with the dosh changed my outlook to the point whereby 10th was a good outcome.

All valid answers (although even ones I didn't like would still be valid, it's about how you determined a subjective opinion after all)

I guess from my perspective it's hard to set a personal goal or expectation for the club before this season is over and I think that applies to the majority of clubs across the league- basically only excluding the ones expecting a title or knowing they're at a significant disadvantage for the next season, whether that be through administration or something other circumstance.

As a result mine have been fairly similarost seasons since we went up, expecting a mid table finish, but hoping for an outside shot at playoffs.

 

Agree that as a manager has more time with a squad they should trend closer to those goals though (again, barring the rug being pulled out from beneath them)

[Wanderingred]

24 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I’d argue that five defeats in six would have been relegation form, but each to its own! Course of a season that gives you about 23 points at best.

He’s been in charge for around 25 games. You can’t just select the six games with the lowest points return and claim we’re in relegation form. We’ve collected 12 points of the last eighteen which over a season would see us comfortably promoted, but you’d rightfully laugh if somebody tried to claim we are in promotion form now.

[Silvio Dante]

8 minutes ago, mozo said:

By that logic someone could reach the conclusion that since we are on promotion form across a 6 game period, that Manning has therefore proved he's capable of winning the league?!

Neither are very likely!

If you want a bigger sample, since the start of the year up until Easter it was P13 W3 D2 L8 Pts 11

Over a season that’s 39 points.

Whatever way you cut it, that gets you relegated. 
 

 

3 minutes ago, Wanderingred said:

He’s been in charge for around 25 games. You can’t just select the six games with the lowest points return and claim we’re in relegation form. We’ve collected 12 points of the last eighteen which over a season would see us comfortably promoted, but you’d rightfully laugh if somebody tried to claim we are in promotion form now.

Relegation FORM pre Easter.

Edit - I’m more than happy to say if we got 26 points from 13 that’s promotion form. 11 from 13 is relegation form however it’s cut!

Edited April 11 by Silvio Dante

[Wanderingred]

24 minutes ago, Supersonic Robin said:

That's 23 points from 20 games, so 52.9 points if you extrapolate to a full season. Last season, that would have produced an 18th place finish, so it's in the bottom third. I think we're splitting hairs a bit about whether you call it "lower midtable" or "near relegation zone". By the time we had 5 losses from 6, I think fans' frustrations were very much justified.

No need to compare to Pearson, but if you do want to, then most metrics (including points per game) were showing that we were worse under Manning than Pearson (especially if you consider the relative injury situations).

I'm glad we've looked better in recent weeks, but it really wasn't that unreasonable for people to be questioning Manning's job.

 

I very much agree with your last point though. I don't trust the board to make appointments in any part of the club, manager included. The ownership is undoubtedly the reason we're stagnating.

 

 

Looking at the last decade, 53 points is almost always nowhere near a relegation spot, the only exception being the year when Blackburn went down with 51 points, a freakishly high points total for relegation. I stand by my opinion that we have not been in relegation form under Manning (unless you take a really small sample of games). Some of the football has been so bad though, that it’s probably made things appear worse than in reality.

Edited April 11 by Wanderingred

[mozo]

1 minute ago, Silvio Dante said:

If you want a bigger sample, since the start of the year up until Easter it was P13 W3 D2 L8 Pts 11

Over a season that’s 39 points.

Whatever way you cut it, that gets you relegated. 
 

 

Relegation FORM pre Easter.

I was just responding to your point about that run of games, but I think I've said a few times, I personally think that even 6 months is a small size (within reason!)

For me, the fact that the effort levels were high, that we had spells of good play, a handful of very promising games and were only being edged out of games (WBA the only two goal margin), was enough for me to not give up hope.

It's strange really, because despite neither of us having any particular prejudice for or against Manning  we saw the performances so differently. Funny old game!

[transfer reader]

9 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

If you want a bigger sample, since the start of the year up until Easter it was P13 W3 D2 L8 Pts 11

Over a season that’s 39 points.

Whatever way you cut it, that gets you relegated. 
 

 

Relegation FORM pre Easter.

Edit - I’m more than happy to say if we got 26 points from 13 that’s promotion form. 11 from 13 is relegation form however it’s cut!

But you have to also look at other teams over the same time frame

As long as there were 3 who were worse, then it isn't relegation form.

 

You can't apply something to one team and disregard everyone else.

[Wanderingred]

16 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

If you want a bigger sample, since the start of the year up until Easter it was P13 W3 D2 L8 Pts 11

Over a season that’s 39 points.

Whatever way you cut it, that gets you relegated. 
 

 

Relegation FORM pre Easter.

Edit - I’m more than happy to say if we got 26 points from 13 that’s promotion form. 11 from 13 is relegation form however it’s cut!

You’re doing it again, carefully selecting groups of games to try and prove something that’s not there. You’ve picked out a bad spell of form sandwiched between 3 successive wins and our current good run, a time when we also had four cup games against Premier League opposition. You could probably pick out a bad spell from any team outside the top 4 this season and call it relegation form.

The only way to judge Manning (although I’d say it’s way too early to really do so ) is by looking at the overall picture. He’s won as many games as he’s lost in all competitions. 

Edited April 11 by Wanderingred

[Silvio Dante]

2 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

But you have to also look at other teams over the same time frame

As long as there were 3 who were worse, then it isn't relegation form.

 

You can't apply something to one team and disregard everyone else.

You are totally right.

[Supersonic Robin]

2 minutes ago, Wanderingred said:

Looking at the last decade, 53 points is almost always nowhere near a relegation spot, the only exception being the year when Blackburn went down with 51 points, a freakishly high points total for relegation. I stand by my opinion that no point have we been in relegation form under Manning (unless you take a really small sample of games). Some of the football has been so bad though, that it’s probably made things appear worse than in reality.

I agree that 53 points would be incredibly unlikely to get you relegated. No doubt we've been in relegation form at times though, as per Silvio below.

13 games is a reasonable sample too - more than a quarter of a season.

Glad that we're improving now though.

8 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

If you want a bigger sample, since the start of the year up until Easter it was P13 W3 D2 L8 Pts 11

Over a season that’s 39 points.

Whatever way you cut it, that gets you relegated. 

 

[One Team]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

To quote John Maynard Keynes - “When the facts change, I change my mind”.

And pre Easter, the facts were that we were in relegation form, performances were dire and we looked directionless. We were also playing without any “intent”.

Since Easter, having not seen Sunderland (so I won’t pass comment there), in three games we’ve had a bit more “intent” about us. Yep, we’ve been helped by terrible Vardy finishing and a horrific Blackburn, but we’ve had intent and we’ve won the games. I’m not convinced we’re sustainable but what it has done is buy the head coach time. I’m not going to say I think he’s the right man long term, but I’m happy with the “intent” improvement however that has come about.

The approach has definitely changed post Easter.

Does that make me Manning in? Not at present, no. But I’m now in the place that he’s here for the rest of this season and those first 10-12 games of next season as a minimum (unless he obviously loses the first six!). What he needs to do is continue the pattern of “intent” as a minimum for that timeline.

The broader question is why the head coach changed his approach. My gut is he knew his arse was on the line and sedate, Swansea style games would see him gone. But a lot of football positives come from desparate circumstances. The trick now is sustaining it.

Brilliant post Silvio, exactly my perspective on things this morning. And to one of your points, yes, his position was being questioned. That will have moved on now of course and it will be interesting to see how the rest of the season pans out.

One thing is for sure, it’s been a good post international break run and nice to see a change in the style of play. 

[Silvio Dante]

11 minutes ago, Wanderingred said:

You’re doing it again, carefully selecting groups of games to try and prove something that’s not there. You’ve picked out a bad spell of form sandwiched between 3 successive wins and our current good run. The only way to judge Manning is by looking at the overall picture. He’s won as many games as he’s lost in all competitions. 

Do I have to say the word “form” again? I took the six pre Easter because - hint - they were the last six games pre Easter. I then extended the sample to the start of the year.

The whole point was we were in bad form pre Easter - and we were. Selecting the games post Easter to prove pre Easter form kind of defeats the object!

Objectively 13 games is a reasonable form sample as it’s over a quarter of a season. 
 

It’s not as if I’ve cherrypicked games, this is what happened at the time!

Edited April 11 by Silvio Dante

[Wanderingred]

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

You are totally right.

Again, I wonder how many teams have been bottom 3 in the form table at some point this season, particularly when artificially selecting a group of games?

[eardun]

3 hours ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

Me too, I don't think some people realise that your view of a manager can change over time though.  If he were to show signs of learning and growing next season   

Personally I'm still in the very worried camp, but if we have a shaky start and start picking up good results I'll be ok.  But next season I really want to see us punching at a solid top half finish, all the signs right now is we will be bobbling around 10 places off where I'd like us to be, and that's not the play offs.

That’s precisely why I thought the calls to sack Manning were premature (coupled with the fact that we had seen some good performances under him). Just three or four months doesn’t give time for any manager to adapt, learn and grow into a new club and role. That’s why I said on another thread that I feel 12 months is a better period in which to judge.