When to do it

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, Silvio Dante said:

You are totally right.

But as others have pointed out, this is you curating a selection to be the worst possible for Manning.

It's probably the only permutation of consecutive games you can use for this outcome.

So, why would anyone reasonable person hyper focus on one set to try and push a narrative that doesn't apply to any others, doesn't apply for the established ways that form is generally used (past 5/6 games), and doesn't apply over the established methods even with our recent upturn in form disregarded?

If I showed a similar table with us top or close to it because of our wins over Sunderland, Hull and Watford in December would that mean we were on course to win the league?

Absolutely not. Intentionally selective datasets are a dishonest way to conduct an argument one way or the other.

[transfer reader]

2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

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!

So why to the start of the year instead of any other period?

Why not back to his appointment?

Why not to the start of February or Boxing day?

Artificially selected samples get scrutiny for a reason.

This is why there are commonly used standard blocks when looking at form, usually 5 or 6 games depending on the place doing it, but even they will be consistent with what they use.

So going forward will you stick to a 13 game form, or will you change to what's convenient for you at the time?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

Emotionally, I just can't bring myself to want any kind of success for Ashton, especially after the mess he left here.   

It’s hard isn’t it!

1 hour 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.

Despite my desire for a “winning season”, I’m beyond points, wins, losses, etc.. I mainly have been anyway, because I’m mainly about the underlying performance will eventually equate to results.  If we play with the kinda intent we have since Easter (which frankly is a big difference from pre-Easter) then we will create all types of chances, and be backed up by a decent defence, if sometimes overworked.  But I can accept the shift from sterile with the ball / passive without it, to what we’ve seen since Easter.  That football was taking us backwards.  This football gives us a chance, hell, we can even give Leicester a run for their money and come out on the right side.

There will always be inconsistency in execution, but there doesn’t have to be in intent.

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

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.

Maybe not as blunt as you, but as above, that “style” was getting bloody hard to watch, and results were not looking either.

[Wanderingred]

2 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

But as others have pointed out, this is you curating a selection to be the worst possible for Manning.

It's probably the only permutation of consecutive games you can use for this outcome.

So, why would anyone reasonable person hyper focus on one set to try and push a narrative that doesn't apply to any others, doesn't apply for the established ways that form is generally used (past 5/6 games), and doesn't apply over the established methods even with our recent upturn in form disregarded?

If I showed a similar table with us top or close to it because of our wins over Sunderland, Hull and Watford in December would that mean we were on course to win the league?

Absolutely not. Intentionally selective datasets are a dishonest way to conduct an argument one way or the other.

Thanks, you’ve just put across my thoughts in a much more eloquent way than I’ve been able to !

Ive just tried selecting the form table for random groups of 13 games across the season using that website. I’ve seen Preston, Norwich, Sunderland and Watford appear in that bottom 3, all teams nowhere near relegation. I’m sure I could find a lot more teams if I could be bothered. It’s no way to try and establish an argument.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

7 minutes ago, eardun said:

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.

I agree with you if, for example, if Pearson was underperforming; however, Manning was almost immediately in a better position than his predecessor and with the same group of players.

 

Edited April 11 by Lorenzos Only Goal

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, transfer reader said:

But as others have pointed out, this is you curating a selection to be the worst possible for Manning.

It's probably the only permutation of consecutive games you can use for this outcome.

So, why would anyone reasonable person hyper focus on one set to try and push a narrative that doesn't apply to any others, doesn't apply for the established ways that form is generally used (past 5/6 games), and doesn't apply over the established methods even with our recent upturn in form disregarded?

If I showed a similar table with us top or close to it because of our wins over Sunderland, Hull and Watford in December would that mean we were on course to win the league?

Absolutely not. Intentionally selective datasets are a dishonest way to conduct an argument one way or the other.

As you’ve mentioned 5/6 games as a reasonable arbiter of form, once more I agree. And in the six games pre Easter (which was the whole point - we were in relegation form pre Easter) this is the table.

So, as you’re happy 5/6 games is a reasonable arbiter of form, this isn’t an intentionally selective dataset - we were in relegation form pre Easter. It’s not even close to being a controversial point, and when it’s extended to year start it remains the same issue.

[bcfcredandwhite]

I like what Manning is trying to achieve. 
I like it that we don’t try and sit on a 1-0 lead and keep going for more goals. 
I like that despite some dodgy results and performance we’ve also had some wonderful performances and results. 
I didn’t want Pearson sacked, but it happened and it wasn’t Mannings fault. 
I like that I look forward to city games again, instead of feeling almost indifferent. 
Manning IN. 

[transfer reader]

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

As you’ve mentioned 5/6 games as a reasonable arbiter of form, once more I agree. And in the six games pre Easter (which was the whole point - we were in relegation form pre Easter) this is the table.

So, as you’re happy 5/6 games is a reasonable arbiter of form, this isn’t an intentionally selective dataset - we were in relegation form pre Easter. It’s not even close to being a controversial point, and when it’s extended to year start it remains the same issue.

Except that isn't a table of 6 games is it?

It's a table from a date range, in which multiple teams had played 7 games and a couple played 5.

You know what happens if you take that extra game off Birmingham?

That's right, they go below us, over an EQUAL 6 game period.

 

I know you hate Manning, but at least make an effort to be honest Silvio.

[mozo]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s hard isn’t it!

Despite my desire for a “winning season”, I’m beyond points, wins, losses, etc.. I mainly have been anyway, because I’m mainly about the underlying performance will eventually equate to results.  If we play with the kinda intent we have since Easter (which frankly is a big difference from pre-Easter) then we will create all types of chances, and be backed up by a decent defence, if sometimes overworked.  But I can accept the shift from sterile with the ball / passive without it, to what we’ve seen since Easter.  That football was taking us backwards.  This football gives us a chance, hell, we can even give Leicester a run for their money and come out on the right side.

There will always be inconsistency in execution, but there doesn’t have to be in intent.

Maybe not as blunt as you, but as above, that “style” was getting bloody hard to watch, and results were not looking either.

Just out of interest, do you think there was a consistency of intent last season? 

[Silvio Dante]

15 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Except that isn't a table of 6 games is it?

It's a table from a date range, in which multiple teams had played 7 games and a couple played 5.

You know what happens if you take that extra game off Birmingham?

That's right, they go below us, over an EQUAL 6 game period.

 

I know you hate Manning, but at least make an effort to be honest Silvio.

I don’t hate Manning. I doubt him as a manager. But we’ve just proved we were in relegation form this year pre Easter. It’s not controversial it’s factual. And yes, if you extend it to Watford or Hull then we go up that table - I’m happy to accept that. 
 

We were in relegation form pre Easter. We were in relegation form in 2024 prior to Easter.

Anything else is fundamentally dishonest.

Any reasonable person would say that 13 games from start of year is a reasonable gauge of “form”  - and “form” by nature can’t be infinite. Check how often journalists, and this forum even, use form since x date. And the start of the year is quite an established date - ie “Liam you’ve been in good form this year/bad form this year”

But you carry on. I’m not going to convince you that 11 points from 13 since the start of the year is relegation form. Hope we don’t have to explain the offside rule next, that’ll blow your mind!

Edited April 11 by Silvio Dante
Year not season/ 11 and 13 transposed

[Mr Popodopolous]

So far under Manning, League only...

1 win in the first 5 and Blackburn away looked especially poor for the most part. The Norwich Home game was technically okay but very very dull. 1 win and 4 points.

Then 11 from 5, that is more like it.

5 without a win- I include Millwall at Home as the start of the bad run, Birmingham away while not a great point I can sort of take to keep it ticking over provided we back it up which we wholly failed to do.

Back to back v Middlesbrough and Southampton, then 4 losses on the spin.

4 wins and a draw in 6 but while Swansea stopped the rot it was mainly dire and the last 4 games, first half especially any Sunderland aside much more encouraging.

Perhaps the penny has dropped with Manning at last.

[formerly known as ivan]

Damage has been done for me, a few meaningless end of season wins doesn’t change anything. You’ve seen the brand of football Manning wants to play from October until March. Playing the type of football from the last few games is easy to do with no pressure on.

And as repeated many times, Manning was the only issue. It was the ones at the very top that drove fans away.

Too much negativity, lies and poor football means I stand by my decision not to renew my season ticket.

In terms of Manning himself, the true test will be the first 10 games of next season. Pressure would soon be back on.

[transfer reader]

8 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I don’t hate Manning. I doubt him as a manager. But we’ve just proved we were in relegation form this year pre Easter. It’s not controversial it’s factual. And yes, if you extend it to Watford or Hull then we go up that table - I’m happy to accept that. 
 

We were in relegation form pre Easter. We were in relegation form in 2024 prior to Easter.

Anything else is fundamentally dishonest.

Any reasonable person would say that 13 games from start of year is a reasonable gauge of “form”  - and “form” by nature can’t be infinite. Check how often journalists, and this forum even, use form since x date. And the start of the year is quite an established date - ie “Liam you’ve been in good form this year/bad form this year”

But you carry on. I’m not going to convince you that 13 points from 11 since the start of the season is relegation form. Hope we don’t have to explain the offside rule next, that’ll blow your mind!

You haven't proven it because you've used an imbalanced reference.

As I already told you, you take away the extra game Birmingham had in that last table, and they go below us, that is removing the oldest game of theirs for that period, because that's how it works when checking a teams form, oldest off and newest added.

What you've done is cherry picked 2 tables, one of which is not equitable, and decided to disregard anything else.

I'll look forward to your lone use of 13 game form guides for the future then, while everyone else sticks with the standard ones. Or perhaps you'll switch to those when it suits your agenda.

The only thing fundamentally dishonest in this, is yourself.

Edited April 11 by transfer reader

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, transfer reader said:

You haven't proven it because you've used an imbalanced reference.

As I already told you, you take away the extra game Birmingham had in that last table, and they go below us, that is removing the oldest game of theirs for that period, because that's how it works when checking a teams form, oldest off and newest added.

What you've done is cherry picked 2 tables, one of which is not equitable, and decided to disregard anything else.

I'll look forward to your lone use of 13 game form guides for the future then, while everyone else sticks with the standard ones. Or perhaps you'll switch to those when it suits your agenda.

The only thing fundamentally dishonest in this, is yourself.

Cool man, cool.

Can I explain offside now then?

[transfer reader]

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

Cool man, cool.

Can I explain offside now then?

In other words, you know you were dishonest with it, but lack the integrity to admit it.

 

Grow up and stop being such a patronising git 

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, transfer reader said:

In other words, you know you were dishonest with it, but lack the integrity to admit it.

 

Grow up and stop being such a patronising git 

You haven’t answered sweetheart - I’ve got five. I’m more than happy to explain the offside rule if you’re free?

[Davefevs]

21 minutes ago, mozo said:

Just out of interest, do you think there was a consistency of intent last season? 

Yes, always. Did we always execute?  Nope.

[transfer reader]

5 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

You haven’t answered sweetheart - I’ve got five. I’m more than happy to explain the offside rule if you’re free?

I don't need you to explain anything to me, but we all know this.

And you've exposed yourself as a liar during this conversation as well.

Next time, try and be honest just for a change.

Because not only are you a liar, you're a coward as well who lacks the balls and integrity to admit to being wrong even when it is shown to them.

Edited April 11 by transfer reader

[Silvio Dante]

2 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

I don't need you to explain anything to me, but we all know this.

And you've exposed yourself as a liar during this conversation as well.

Next time, try and be honest just for a change.

Because not only are you a liar, you're a coward as well who lacks the balls and integrity to admit to being wrong even when it is shown to them.

Hmmm. So we’ve moved from me making a relatively uncontroversial statement of us being in relegation form pre Easter (in a post where I said things had got better!) to yourself accusing me of lying, lacking integrity, having no testicles and being a coward.

I’d lay off the meths tbh.

 

[mozo]

31 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I don’t hate Manning. I doubt him as a manager. But we’ve just proved we were in relegation form this year pre Easter. It’s not controversial it’s factual. And yes, if you extend it to Watford or Hull then we go up that table - I’m happy to accept that. 
 

We were in relegation form pre Easter. We were in relegation form in 2024 prior to Easter.

Anything else is fundamentally dishonest.

Any reasonable person would say that 13 games from start of year is a reasonable gauge of “form”  - and “form” by nature can’t be infinite. Check how often journalists, and this forum even, use form since x date. And the start of the year is quite an established date - ie “Liam you’ve been in good form this year/bad form this year”

But you carry on. I’m not going to convince you that 13 points from 11 since the start of the season is relegation form. Hope we don’t have to explain the offside rule next, that’ll blow your mind!

Interestingly, between GW 9 and 19 last season, we picked up 8 points from 11 games.

Later, from GW 25 we went on a run of 17 points in a block of 10 games.

So we had a lesson last year in patience.

I find the symmetry quite telling, particularly as most of the players are the same.

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, always. Did we always execute?  Nope.

Execution and consistency are the tricky bits, I guess.

Edited April 11 by mozo

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, Silvio Dante said:

Hmmm. So we’ve moved from me making a relatively uncontroversial statement of us being in relegation form pre Easter (in a post where I said things had got better!) to yourself accusing me of lying, lacking integrity, having no testicles and being a coward.

I’d lay off the meths tbh.

 

Uncontroversial, but factually incorrect by any equitable and standard use of a form guide.

After several patronising and condescending posts from yourself, yes.

As well as continual dishonesty.

I hope you do lay off the meth. 

[The Fat Controller]

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

a relatively uncontroversial statement of us being in relegation form pre Easter

What's so special about the pre Easter period? 

Why not any other block of a similar number of games?

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, mozo said:

Interestingly, between GW 9 and 19 last season, we picked up 6 points from 11 games.

Later, from GW 25 we went on a run of 17 points in a block of 10 games.

So we had a lesson last year in patience.

I find the symmetry quite telling, particularly as most of the players are the same.

Execution and consistency are the tricky bits, I guess.

Cheers, that’s an interesting angle. Is the GW19 ending around the WBA game? That was really the nadir of Niges reign and - can I say it - relegation form?

I think what it probably shows is that these players (much like a lot of teams in the division) can go on hot streaks. Realistically man for man and squad for squad there’s not a lot between 4th and 18th, it’s about getting them to hit that form regularly (or conversely not hitting the opposite of that form regularly) - that’s the challenge 

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, The Fat Controller said:

What's so special about the pre Easter period? 

Why not any other block of a similar number of games?

His 2 data points that have us in the bottom 3 are New year to pre Easter, and 6 games pre Easter for us, but 7 for some other teams.

Weirdly if you use an equal number of games for pre Easter (his own selected date) we aren't bottom 3.

But this isn't dishonesty! I mean, who wants to use valid data for a comparison instead of data that is inequitable? That's just a bizarre notion and the way every reputable form guide works (using x number of games across all the clubs being compared, instead of x, x+1 and x-1 for different teams).

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, The Fat Controller said:

What's so special about the pre Easter period? 

Why not any other block of a similar number of games?

Without wanting to trigger my learned reading friend, it was at the point where this thread started. Taking the form from  November would have been bizarre and we were on 5 defeats from 6, hence the groundswell (not just me) of saying time was up. 
 

With form generally pick your poison. Too short a sample is misleading, going too far back has no relevance. It’s why the dates are often arbitrary - i.e. since start of Feb, since turn of year etc.

What is true is that up until Easter we had regressed. If you take it in blocks of six then we were looking at:

- Six pre Easter 3 points

- Six prior 8 points

- Six prior 10 points

Before that LM had 5 games which we’ll call the bedding in - W1 D2 L2

Something had to change 

[mozo]

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Cheers, that’s an interesting angle. Is the GW19 ending around the WBA game? That was really the nadir of Niges reign and - can I say it - relegation form?

I think what it probably shows is that these players (much like a lot of teams in the division) can go on hot streaks. Realistically man for man and squad for squad there’s not a lot between 4th and 18th, it’s about getting them to hit that form regularly (or conversely not hitting the opposite of that form regularly) - that’s the challenge 

The most frustrating thing during LJ's reign was that the same set of players could look like promotion candidates for a spell, then the exact same players would look meek and disjointed for a spell. Infuriating and unfathomable. They're the same bloody players!!

The other weird thing about this, is if we think of the post-Easter form as proof that Manning finally hit upon the right formula, that's implying that we could have stormed it in those first 20 games too, which means promotion was there for the taking. I can't accept that to be true!

My head hurts...

[bcfcredandwhite]

Here’s the ‘form’ that matters to me:

[TV Tom]

Leeds have only taken 1 point from a possible six in the last 2 games............... Relegation form

[ExiledAjax]

If you look at a rolling ten game period of form then we've been in definite relegation form (ie tracking at below 1.0ppg across 10 games) after three matches this season. Those were the three consecutive losses between 24 Feb and 5 March being: Sheff Wed (0.9), Cardiff, (0.8), and Ipswich (0.8).

All other complete ten game blocks across the season have us at 1ppg or above.

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, mozo said:

The most frustrating thing during LJ's reign was that the same set of players could look like promotion candidates for a spell, then the exact same players would look meek and disjointed for a spell. Infuriating and unfathomable. They're the same bloody players!!

The other weird thing about this, is if we think of the post-Easter form as proof that Manning finally hit upon the right formula, that's implying that we could have stormed it in those first 20 games too, which means promotion was there for the taking. I can't accept that to be true!

My head hurts...

I think we’ve done the LJ thing to death, but there is near universal agreement that he was better with less players. That 17/18 season started going south when he had more options, so to me not the “same players” but the “players asked to play differently”

Re hitting on the formula, as I said earlier (before the thread got derailed over semantics - apologies) I think we may lose games playing as we have post Easter but I also think the “reward” is better. So I don’t think the 10 from 4 is the shape of things to come (ie we won’t storm it) but I’m more confident of getting points playing this way than how we were before the break.

Case in point - goal one yesterday. It’s a percentage channel ball - a 60/40 in the defenders favour. We weren’t playing those balls a few weeks ago, it had to be 80/20 in our favour. We’ll lost the ball more but I’d wager when we do have it it will be in better positions.