The Style...

[IAmNick]

41 minutes ago, chinapig said:

@ExiledAjaxhit the nail on the head in the MDT. There is no Manning style, our approach to any game is determined by how the opposition set up.

Which is why we play with aggressive intent in one game then revert to pedestrian football in the next. He just will not consistently play in a way that suits the players we have.

He even out ranks LJ in the  over thinking stakes. Though he no doubt thinks it's sophisticated.

I partly agree, but I don't think he intentionally changes our approach that much between games. That's nonsensical imo. He's a smart guy (there, I said it).

I think he doesn't really seem to appreciate the impact that moving players into different positions has on our overall play - Knight from midfield into today's role for example. Yes, in an ideal world those players know all the positions and can play any of them, and you can move them around and they improvise and adapt and yadda yadda. Maybe that's where he wants to get to, or maybe that's where he thinks we are - but we're not. That's evident.

In reality players obviously have their own strengths and weaknesses which mean they raise or lower the overall dynamic when played in a certain position (or rather, with a certain role in the team to be more precise). I think that's where he's going wrong, rather than intentionally trying to have us play a markedly different approach.

I don't for a second think he said "Ok lads, I know it's been working but today instead lets slow it down, play it at a pedestrian pace, struggle to break into midfield, and get pinned back on each wing" today.

[Silvio Dante]

4 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I partly agree, but I don't think he intentionally changes our approach that much between games. That's nonsensical imo. He's a smart guy (there, I said it).

I think he doesn't really seem to appreciate the impact that moving players into different positions has on our overall play - Knight from midfield into today's role for example. Yes, in an ideal world those players know all the positions and can play any of them, and you can move them around and they improvise and adapt and yadda yadda. Maybe that's where he wants to get to, or maybe that's where he thinks we are - but we're not. That's evident.

In reality players obviously have their own strengths and weaknesses which mean they raise or lower the overall dynamic when played in a certain position (or rather, with a certain role in the team to be more precise). I think that's where he's going wrong, rather than intentionally trying to have us play a markedly different approach.

I don't for a second think he said "Ok lads, I know it's been working but today instead lets slow it down, play it at a pedestrian pace, struggle to break into midfield, and get pinned back on each wing" today.

In effect, the best eleven players don’t make the best team.

[1960maaan]

21 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

In effect, the best eleven players don’t make the best team.

But playing your best players, in their best positions might help a little.

[Silvio Dante]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

But playing your best players, in their best positions might help a little.

“Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter”

[Shauntaylor85]

2 hours ago, Roger Red Hat said:

I'm probably in a minority here but I think the 'style' was dictated by the available defenders, and the fact that Max was virtually playing on one leg after about 20 minutes! I saw the team and thought that it was going to be a back 4. I don't see the fuss about Twine and I can't see us parting with the reported fee for him.

I'm pleased we got a draw out of it really, and not having Vyner or Dickie or Atkinson available we achieved a reasonable result.

3 at the back is the way to go. We are dreadful in a 4. I hope they have a good plan for the summer because it really is a critical period for the club. Another mid table season of dire football and I don’t think many will bother turning up again. City fans want to see good football played a pace with width and edge of your seat play, the only time I get off my seat is to get a beer at HT. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

3 at the back is the way to go. We are dreadful in a 4. I hope they have a good plan for the summer because it really is a critical period for the club. Another mid table season of dire football and I don’t think many will bother turning up again. City fans want to see good football played a pace with width and edge of your seat play, the only time I get off my seat is to get a beer at HT. 

Are we dreadful in a 4? The results are varied to say the least..a 4-3-3 with Sykes in a natural position feels more comfortable.

[Back of the Dolman]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Are we dreadful in a 4? The results are varied to say the least..a 4-3-3 with Sykes in a natural position feels more comfortable.

We certainly looked better in the 4 today.

I think we could use both effectively if LM was willing to be flexible dependant on player availability and opposition etc 

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

We certainly looked better in the 4 today.

I think we could use both effectively if LM was willing to be flexible dependant on player availability and opposition etc 

Agree I'm not totally against it, provided the availability and opposition align well.

Players such as McCrorie and Pring in the first instance can play as full backs and wing backs. Tanner and Roberts less so, at this stage certainly.

A player such as Naismith can move between a back 3 with wingbacks and a deep midfielder in this shape.

Vyner, Dickie, Atkinson,Naismith. These can all play in a back 3 or 4..

I'm talking in-game as well as game v game.

I'd rather not Sykes at wingback as it feels like he is wasted there.

(I know Tanner, McCrorie, Roberts moreso and even in extremis King and Pring can play in a back 3 but that is going right down the list after injuries etc)?).

Edited April 13 by Mr Popodopolous

[Back of the Dolman]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree I'm not totally against it, provided the availability and opposition align well.

Players such as McCrorie and Pring in the first instance can play as full backs and wing backs. Tanner and Roberts less so, at this stage certainly.

A player such as Naismith can move between a back 3 with wingbacks and a deep midfielder in this shape.

Vyner, Dickie, Atkinson,Naismith. These can all play in a back 3 or 4..

I'm talking in-game as well as game v game.

I'd rather not Sykes at wingback as it feels like he is wasted there.

(I know Tanner, McCrorie, Roberts moreso and even in extremis King and Pring can play in a back 3 but that is going right down the list after injuries etc)?).

Just shows what flexibility and fluidity we could have if we didn’t have such frustrating injury problems 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

Just shows what flexibility and fluidity we could have if we didn’t have such frustrating injury problems 

Do tend to agree, I still think Naismith in deeper midfield isn't a must but could definitely if fully fit serve us well there.

Would say that with our squad we more than many, due to specialised position in one sense Naismith and just depth wise..are harmed by injuries more than many. We are 2 or 3 light IMO depth wise and then a true competition for Max? Today was alarming when he went down.. 

Edited April 13 by Mr Popodopolous

[Back of the Dolman]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Do tend to agree, I still think Naismith in deeper midfield isn't a must but could definitely if fully fit serve us well there.

I don’t think we’d be so slow to transition with Naismith in a deeper midfield position but I fear that isn’t in LM’s master planning 

[mozo]

5 hours ago, Tomo said:

Interesting that towards the end of the 1st half the crowd booed Pring for going back to the keeper...and let's be clear that the majority of the fans going to these end of season meaningless games are the hard-core type.

You can sense that the style of play is not being well received by the fan base even though we are on this unbeaten run. I guess it's all about next season now. If we are top 10 playing this way, then I'm happy as that's improvement but anything like bottom half of the table come mid October, expect more booing from the stands if we continue to go sideways, backwards and back again...

Carey on co-comms mentioned that booing, but he reckoned that Pring had done the right thing. If I'm recalling the right bit, the square pass he had on was at a slightly dodgy angle, so if he'd played it badly an interception would've been a serious problem. Having said that, it didn't seem like Huddersfield were pressing particularly well during that 'passage of play'.

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, mozo said:

Carey on co-comms mentioned that booing, but he reckoned that Pring had done the right thing. If I'm recalling the right bit, the square pass he had on was at a slightly dodgy angle, so if he'd played it badly an interception would've been a serious problem. Having said that, it didn't seem like Huddersfield were pressing particularly well during that 'passage of play'.

Yeah, just go back to Max, it is frustrating, but we saw at Huddersfield (a) what happens when the angle isn’t there (Tanner).

[Mr Popodopolous]

This is purely off the top of my head but one possible back 3 into back 4 in-game same personel. Take with a load of salt as we don't know who stays and goes.

It also isn't a reflection on individual players more a potential best fit for the system switching.

                 O'Leary

     Vyner Naismith Dickie

McCrorie Knight James Pring

       Sykes                 Mehmeti (Bell)

                  Conway

Can become...

                  O'Leary

McCrorie Vyner Dickie Pring

                 Naismith

Sykes Knight James Mehmeti (Bell)

                  Conway

Whether a flat 3, or a 4-1-2 then 3 or 2-1 to get Sykes and Bell/Mehmeti up with Conway can work differently.

Also appreciate the attributes of Tanner, Atkinson, Roberts, Williams, TGH, Cornick, Wells. Plus Bird from next year. King I assume won't be retained as a regular player but you never know. However I think this a useful starting point for in-game switches.

Edited April 13 by Mr Popodopolous

[JP Hampton]

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Swansea first half there was something similar when it back to O'Leary.

 

21 hours ago, Barrs Court Red said:

I’m struggling to remember a negative reaction to a passage of play like that in all the years I’ve been watching.  

I’m not so sure, can’t back this up in terms of which games specifically, I’m  afraid, but I think there have been a fair few matches where we’ve had negative reactions usually in the form of groans, which have usually come on the back of exactly this type of play, passing backwards and sideways rather than finding forward passages of play. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, JP Hampton said:

 

I’m not so sure, can’t back this up in terms of which games specifically, I’m  afraid, but I think there have been a fair few matches where we’ve had negative reactions usually in the form of groans, which have usually come on the back of exactly this type of play, passing backwards and sideways rather than finding forward passages of play. 

One particular passage v Swansea was really noticeable however, first half.

Went back to O'Leary from an okay position for us and the crowd reacted.

[Numero Uno]

This is the problem. The previous examples of going back to Max from OUR corner kick meant that when it was possibly the right thing to do the boos ring out anyway. It’s an unfortunate case of reaping what you have previously sewn.

[Numero Uno]

15 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, just go back to Max, it is frustrating, but we saw at Huddersfield (a) what happens when the angle isn’t there (Tanner).

Angles, tactics, whatever. Not many football fans in Bristol want to see us go 75 yards backwards on numerous occasions. I literally sit in front of half a dozen people who moan all game every game about sideways and backwards. Tactics, shape and the like mean nothing to them. They don’t understand it and want to see balls played forward and chances created. Even allowing for tactics, risk, angles etc. I do get where they are coming from to a degree.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Numero Uno said:

Angles, tactics, whatever. Not many football fans in Bristol want to see us go 75 yards backwards on numerous occasions. I literally sit in front of half a dozen people who moan all game every game about sideways and backwards. Tactics, shape and the like mean nothing to them. They don’t understand it and want to see balls played forward and chances created. Even allowing for tactics, risk, angles etc. I do get where they are coming from to a degree.

Totally.  I’m as desperate as you and the people around you, that we find the angle and try to play forward.  But sometimes it’s right to be risk adverse.

[Numero Uno]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Totally.  I’m as desperate as you and the people around you, that we find the angle and try to play forward.  But sometimes it’s right to be risk adverse.

……..agreed. Had we not been so bloody risk averse in previous games that were dismal 1-0 defeats anyway fans would be more understanding when the ball back to Max is the right one. Liam has caused this himself unfortunately!!

[mozo]

16 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, just go back to Max, it is frustrating, but we saw at Huddersfield (a) what happens when the angle isn’t there (Tanner).

Tanner is the biggest backwards passer I've ever seen at the club, but he's a bloody good defender so I'll let him off! He mostly did well yesterday, as an aside. 

[Numero Uno]

Just now, mozo said:

Tanner is the biggest backwards passer I've ever seen at the club, but he's a bloody good defender so I'll let him off! He mostly did well yesterday, as an aside. 

Only him and Max turned up……..

[mozo]

7 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Only him and Max turned up……..

Roberts wasn't too bad. And, um, that's it.

[Roger Red Hat]

17 hours ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

3 at the back is the way to go. We are dreadful in a 4.

Nonsense. We need to be able to play either. We were better today after the break with the tweak of shape.

[GrahamC]

17 hours ago, Back of the Dolman said:

I don’t think we’d be so slow to transition with Naismith in a deeper midfield position but I fear that isn’t in LM’s master planning 

Probably because he struggles to be available 25% of the time.

How on earth do you plan a formation based in any way on a bloke who managed to start 9 league games this season & 23 last?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Can Bird do something similar, by which I mean okay in both midfield and a back 3 say or..I know bits about him  and if he is deeper I wonder.

[Back of the Dolman]

19 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Probably because he struggles to be available 25% of the time.

How on earth do you plan a formation based in any way on a bloke who managed to start 9 league games this season & 23 last?

I didn’t say we’d ever see it but there is no doubt that Naismith is a more progressive and braver passer of the ball than the other two 

[Robbored]

22 hours ago, Barrs Court Red said:

I’m struggling to remember a negative reaction to a passage of play like that in all the years I’ve been watching.  

It has happened at least once before under Manning. On that occasion it was Tanner who at the time was getting flak on here for being ‘negative’.

The negative reaction yesterday may have been because we were losing at the time.

[Numero Uno]

6 minutes ago, Robbored said:

It has happened at least once before under Manning. On that occasion it was Tanner who at the time was getting flak on here for being ‘negative’.

The negative reaction yesterday may have been because we were losing at the time.

It was 0-0 when it happened. First half.

[The turtle]

Firstly it's important to understand there are two styles at play;
style A is when the opposition impose themselves 
style B when they let us play the way we want.

Style A has been worked on for a number of years. It's what this squad was built for. Counter attacking pressing football 

You only have to look at the possession stats to know what has happened in city match.
Over 50 it was probably an awful game
Under 50... We were in the game

Style b - is the way manning wants to play. It's the ultimate man city trick, yet death of football as we know it.

Yesterday as an example, we took a goal kick with 3 players in our own box, yet not 1 Huddersfield player was in our half.

For style B to work- you would need.
Multi million pound striker or 2.
A multi million pound AM.
4 super quick, super electric wingers.. Basically rotated on who is in form..

Overlapping full backs on both sides 

And ball playing, pacey DM or 2

It's a lot of money, a whole lot of money. With no guarantee it will work.

Leeds do not play that way 
Ipwich do not play that way.
Both entertain

.........................

The problem with style B, even at it's best there are long periods of games where nothing happens.
There are less threatening shots 
Leds turning the defence
Less crosses 
Less beat your man,
Less get to the byline 

In the few manning pressers i have seen, he likes the phrase we've had to work harder for our goals. Well that goes without saying when the opposition know your plan, and will allow holes elsewhere to stop that plan.

A lot of the footbal in style A is dull, boring, lacking intensity, devoid of, well you know the E word.

There was a moment yesterday when city went back to max from an attacking corner.
The crowd not angry.
Carey on bctc (he was fantastic and insightful bar this comment) insinuated the crowd don't understand the ploy here.

The crowd understood it perfectly, but were making it clear they do not want backwards safe option by instinct football 

(As an aside; I've watched 3 games this week where a co- commentator has implied the crowd didn't understand - - - they did, but rejected what they saw)

Think about it like this. 4 games unbeaten, off the back of a 5-0 win. And yet the crowd were restless and annoyed because the entertainment and enjoyment factor was 0. 
Ashton gate is not a place for safety first  football.
I understand results matter, i understand ultimately that's the games. But it's supposed to be fun, have you on the edge of your seat.
It just doesn't do that, not even mostly for man city 

And yet they've said.... Transfer tweaks.
So what's going to change?
Well everything becomes about the result.
Win or lose
That's it.
The actual entertainment factor, a buzzing Ashton gate.
Will be few and far between.

I hate ball retention for the sake of it football.
It's just not a way I want to spend my Saturdays.
Be intent, be aggressive, and go at the opposition.
Take risks in their half, not yours.

At one point yesterday, the commentator and carey were complimentary because we pulled their striker out of play, and created space for a full back in line with our penalty area.
Do you know what happend next?
Absolutely nothing.
Miles from their goal
And no intent to disrupt their shape where damage can be done.

.....
Away from home will always be a different story. Wins and draws are hard thought and earnt 
But at home- with that style 
I don't exactly live in hope, and I'm not exactly a fan even when it works 

Edited April 14 by The turtle