Proof It Hasn't Been Delivered

[handsofclay]

In boxing parlance fighting off the back foot is being a counter puncher. Fighting off the front foot is being the aggressor, taking the fight to the opponent.

I take it that when JL was telling us we would have front foot football it was a reaction to NP's counter attacking style and telling us we would have a manager who took the game to the opponents and controlled the game rather than NP's style of absorbing opponent's play and exploiting holes created to hit quickly on the counter.

Straight away we saw that Manning was trying to turn us into a possession based side who would control matches and (in theory but not practice) create more chances and goals from that dominance  Front foot football grabbing the game by the nuts and turning that authority into goals.

I apologise if these stats have been used before but I have looked through the stats of every single league game played under Manning, 23 to date.

On 8 occasions Bristol City have had more possession than their opponents. The return from those games is 2 draws and 6 defeats. 3 goals scored and 10 against.

All 7 wins have come with City having less possession. Thus not playing possession football, playing the tactics employed by Nigel Pearson. 

It is as plain and stark as that. The fact LM is still in his post isn't due to the implementation of his tactics, one of the reasons given for ditching NP, but because of falling back (whether by accident or design) on the tactics NP favoured. 

I know plenty on here have stated that, and I apologise if these same stats have been used elsewhere. I just thought it was worthwhile spelling out the obvious and backing them up with the plain and simple facts.

[Sir Geoff]

Thanks but you could have saved yourself time. Davefevs posted those stats yesterday. 

We are better without the ball and Mannings best performances have come by playing 'Nigeball.'

[Gert Mare]

5 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

In boxing parlance fighting off the back foot is being a counter puncher. Fighting off the front foot is being the aggressor, taking the fight to the opponent.

I take it that when JL was telling us we would have front foot football it was a reaction to NP's counter attacking style and telling us we would have a manager who took the game to the opponents and controlled the game rather than NP's style of absorbing opponent's play and exploiting holes created to hit quickly on the counter.

Straight away we saw that Manning was trying to turn us into a possession based side who would control matches and (in theory but not practice) create more chances and goals from that dominance  Front foot football grabbing the game by the nuts and turning that authority into goals.

I apologise if these stats have been used before but I have looked through the stats of every single league game played under Manning, 23 to date.

On 8 occasions Bristol City have had more possession than their opponents. The return from those games is 2 draws and 6 defeats. 3 goals scored and 10 against.

All 7 wins have come with City having less possession. Thus not playing possession football, playing the tactics employed by Nigel Pearson. 

It is as plain and stark as that. The fact LM is still in his post isn't due to the implementation of his tactics, one of the reasons given for ditching NP, but because of falling back (whether by accident or design) on the tactics NP favoured. 

I know plenty on here have stated that, and I apologise if these same stats have been used elsewhere. I just thought it was worthwhile spelling out the obvious and backing them up with the plain and simple facts.

We beat Southampton with less possession and everyone was happy according to Tins, so well done Nige

[handsofclay]

7 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Thanks but you could have saved yourself time. Davefevs posted those stats yesterday. 

We are better without the ball and Mannings best performances have come by playing 'Nigeball.'

I was away for most of yesterday and caught up with a fair few (but not all) posts in the early hours, but obviously that's one I missed. Apologies to DaveFevs. 

[A Horse With No Name]

Has anyone seen that video online titled 0% possession 1-0 up.

Its a side who, straight from kick off play the ball across the back continuously, until a hard backpass to the keeper goes in without the other side touching the ball. Manning ball at its finest.

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

I was away for most of yesterday and caught up with a fair few (but not all) posts in the early hours, but obviously that's one I missed. Apologies to DaveFevs. 

No need to apologise to me.

FWIW. Here’s what I posted yesterday:

[handsofclay]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No need to apologise to me.

FWIW. Here’s what I posted yesterday:

I did read that one and think I gave it a like. It was reading that that prompted me to look at the possession stats for all LM's matches and plainly saw that Manningball, in terms of dominating possession, clearly produces very little. 

[downendcity]

51 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

In boxing parlance fighting off the back foot is being a counter puncher. Fighting off the front foot is being the aggressor, taking the fight to the opponent.

I take it that when JL was telling us we would have front foot football it was a reaction to NP's counter attacking style and telling us we would have a manager who took the game to the opponents and controlled the game rather than NP's style of absorbing opponent's play and exploiting holes created to hit quickly on the counter.

Straight away we saw that Manning was trying to turn us into a possession based side who would control matches and (in theory but not practice) create more chances and goals from that dominance  Front foot football grabbing the game by the nuts and turning that authority into goals.

I apologise if these stats have been used before but I have looked through the stats of every single league game played under Manning, 23 to date.

On 8 occasions Bristol City have had more possession than their opponents. The return from those games is 2 draws and 6 defeats. 3 goals scored and 10 against.

All 7 wins have come with City having less possession. Thus not playing possession football, playing the tactics employed by Nigel Pearson. 

It is as plain and stark as that. The fact LM is still in his post isn't due to the implementation of his tactics, one of the reasons given for ditching NP, but because of falling back (whether by accident or design) on the tactics NP favoured. 

I know plenty on here have stated that, and I apologise if these same stats have been used elsewhere. I just thought it was worthwhile spelling out the obvious and backing them up with the plain and simple facts.

Back foot, front foot?

Erin summed it up perfectly!