The Style...

[Robbored]

5 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

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

You’re right it was, Second half we played towards the SS.

[Numero Uno]

I won’t quote the post @The turtle but spot on. If football gets any more scientific it will simply go back to the 80’s i.e. **** all bums on seats. For many people there needs to be action on the pitch. People who enjoy a tactical 0-0 are very much in the minority and there certainly ain’t enough of ‘em to pay football’s way, that’s for sure. PowerPoint Binary Ball coaches will end up killing the game.

[Cityboy1954]

On 13/04/2024 at 20:03, Edgy Red said:

Agree with this... we need some pace and physicality at the top end of the pitch and Twine hasn't shown enough to justify a hefty transfer fee.

Yeh just ok doesnt stand out certainly not worth money mentioned

[Jerseybean]

My observations about our style of play are based on the Huddersfield game, however, much of what follows has been a recurring theme under Manning.

The approach seems to be a very cautious one based on keeping the ball, particularly in our own defensive third of the pitch, this results in passing sideways or backwards and making no progress forward whatsoever. At times, despite our defence being reasonably competent, we expose ourselves to the risk of losing the ball, which would probably lead to a goal for the opponents.

Eventually, when a ball is played forward, either because Max has to kick long or we attempt to play out of defence into midfield, most times we either pass to the opposition put it out of play or pass to a  City player who is so closely marked that it is almost guaranteed he ain’t gonna control the ball and we lose possession.

Furthermore, there is virtually no movement or forward options, meaning we play a very pedestrian, predictable, chess like game, which gets us absolutely nowhere. Not only is this very, very boring and frustrating to watch, it must also be pretty soul-destroying for the players themselves.

Against Huddersfield, we had 27% possession, the vast majority of which would’ve been in our own defensive third.

Playing with a lone striker (whether that be Conway or Wells), with no creativity in front of them, or much support alongside them, means that they are extremely isolated and highly unlikely to be able to do anything when they do receive the ball, other than try to win a foul or hold the ball up in order to play it backwards again.

I’m not a professional footballer or a professional coach, but I have played the game and did some basic coaching qualifications back in the day. What I remember is that in order to score you have to get into the other teams half and better still into or around their penalty box. In pure percentage terms, this might then lead to goal scoring opportunities. In  our case we are creating so few scoring opportunities that even if we had Haaland in our team, we wouldn’t score many.

Put simply we need to play football in the opponents half far more than we do and get the ball into their box far more than we do!

The mentality under LM seems to be play for a nil-nil. Keep the opponents at bay in the hope that we might sneak a goal by some means or another, to be fair this actually did happen in the Huddersfield game, as we were awarded a 100th minute penalty, to be totally honest we never looked like scoring from open play.

So in summary Manning-ball is like a chess game involving static players and sideways or backwards passing, mainly in our own half. It’s hard to watch, unlikely to lead to much goal scoring action and highly predictable. Given that I watch football for enjoyment, entertainment, and excitement I don’t like it at all.

Finally, the style is totally at odds with what the hierarchy communicated at the time of Manning‘s appointment when they suggested we were a front-footed team that wanted to be attacking, pressing and exciting. Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention, to be in the top six.

[Sir Geoff]

34 minutes ago, Jerseybean said:

My observations about our style of play are based on the Huddersfield game, however, much of what follows has been a recurring theme under Manning.

The approach seems to be a very cautious one based on keeping the ball, particularly in our own defensive third of the pitch, this results in passing sideways or backwards and making no progress forward whatsoever. At times, despite our defence being reasonably competent, we expose ourselves to the risk of losing the ball, which would probably lead to a goal for the opponents.

Eventually, when a ball is played forward, either because Max has to kick long or we attempt to play out of defence into midfield, most times we either pass to the opposition put it out of play or pass to a  City player who is so closely marked that it is almost guaranteed he ain’t gonna control the ball and we lose possession.

Furthermore, there is virtually no movement or forward options, meaning we play a very pedestrian, predictable, chess like game, which gets us absolutely nowhere. Not only is this very, very boring and frustrating to watch, it must also be pretty soul-destroying for the players themselves.

Against Huddersfield, we had 27% possession, the vast majority of which would’ve been in our own defensive third.

Playing with a lone striker (whether that be Conway or Wells), with no creativity in front of them, or much support alongside them, means that they are extremely isolated and highly unlikely to be able to do anything when they do receive the ball, other than try to win a foul or hold the ball up in order to play it backwards again.

I’m not a professional footballer or a professional coach, but I have played the game and did some basic coaching qualifications back in the day. What I remember is that in order to score you have to get into the other teams half and better still into or around their penalty box. In pure percentage terms, this might then lead to goal scoring opportunities. In  our case we are creating so few scoring opportunities that even if we had Haaland in our team, we wouldn’t score many.

Put simply we need to play football in the opponents half far more than we do and get the ball into their box far more than we do!

The mentality under LM seems to be play for a nil-nil. Keep the opponents at bay in the hope that we might sneak a goal by some means or another, to be fair this actually did happen in the Huddersfield game, as we were awarded a 100th minute penalty, to be totally honest we never looked like scoring from open play.

So in summary Manning-ball is like a chess game involving static players and sideways or backwards passing, mainly in our own half. It’s hard to watch, unlikely to lead to much goal scoring action and highly predictable. Given that I watch football for enjoyment, entertainment, and excitement I don’t like it at all.

Finally, the style is totally at odds with what the hierarchy communicated at the time of Manning‘s appointment when they suggested we were a front-footed team that wanted to be attacking, pressing and exciting. Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention, to be in the top six.

Exactly the reasons I won't be renewing. 150 mile round trip to watch that 23 times. No thanks.

[mozo]

56 minutes ago, Jerseybean said:

My observations about our style of play are based on the Huddersfield game, however, much of what follows has been a recurring theme under Manning.

The approach seems to be a very cautious one based on keeping the ball, particularly in our own defensive third of the pitch, this results in passing sideways or backwards and making no progress forward whatsoever. At times, despite our defence being reasonably competent, we expose ourselves to the risk of losing the ball, which would probably lead to a goal for the opponents.

Eventually, when a ball is played forward, either because Max has to kick long or we attempt to play out of defence into midfield, most times we either pass to the opposition put it out of play or pass to a  City player who is so closely marked that it is almost guaranteed he ain’t gonna control the ball and we lose possession.

Furthermore, there is virtually no movement or forward options, meaning we play a very pedestrian, predictable, chess like game, which gets us absolutely nowhere. Not only is this very, very boring and frustrating to watch, it must also be pretty soul-destroying for the players themselves.

Against Huddersfield, we had 27% possession, the vast majority of which would’ve been in our own defensive third.

Playing with a lone striker (whether that be Conway or Wells), with no creativity in front of them, or much support alongside them, means that they are extremely isolated and highly unlikely to be able to do anything when they do receive the ball, other than try to win a foul or hold the ball up in order to play it backwards again.

I’m not a professional footballer or a professional coach, but I have played the game and did some basic coaching qualifications back in the day. What I remember is that in order to score you have to get into the other teams half and better still into or around their penalty box. In pure percentage terms, this might then lead to goal scoring opportunities. In  our case we are creating so few scoring opportunities that even if we had Haaland in our team, we wouldn’t score many.

Put simply we need to play football in the opponents half far more than we do and get the ball into their box far more than we do!

The mentality under LM seems to be play for a nil-nil. Keep the opponents at bay in the hope that we might sneak a goal by some means or another, to be fair this actually did happen in the Huddersfield game, as we were awarded a 100th minute penalty, to be totally honest we never looked like scoring from open play.

So in summary Manning-ball is like a chess game involving static players and sideways or backwards passing, mainly in our own half. It’s hard to watch, unlikely to lead to much goal scoring action and highly predictable. Given that I watch football for enjoyment, entertainment, and excitement I don’t like it at all.

Finally, the style is totally at odds with what the hierarchy communicated at the time of Manning‘s appointment when they suggested we were a front-footed team that wanted to be attacking, pressing and exciting. Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention, to be in the top six.

It think Manning's post match comments were interesting and suggest that what we saw on Saturday is not how we intended to play:

"It was just the basics for me. Mistakes will happen, I’m okay with the lads making mistakes, you’re never going to see or play the perfect game of football it’s then the type of mistake. It was just a little bit too sloppy, we turned it over too cheaply, too passive with the ball, too passive with our running.

"When you have an unforced error, make sure you don’t follow it up with another one, make sure you can get back in credit. If you have a little period when they’re pressing, okay, don’t be afraid to spin them and get up the pitch that way.

“I thought we did that in the second half, I thought we started okay, there was a bit more purpose and intent, engaging them a little bit higher. We still didn’t work it into enough good areas like the other night but at least we carried more of a threat and there was more play in their half than in the first half.”

...

So... if you think Manning prefers to be passive, to not engage high up, to not work the ball into attacking areas, and not to carry a threat...you might be wrong.

We have seen in the last year that our players have struggled to execute the game plan, under two regimes.

Ultimately, Manning is responsible for our success, or lack thereof, but I'm certain that it was his fault that we crap in the first half on Saturday. Sometimes the players just don't execute.

[Davefevs]

FWIW @Jerseybean according to bbc we had 62% possesion on Saturday.

FWIW2 you mention a chess match, whereas LM tends to use “cat and mouse”.  I think of Tom and Jerry when I think “cat and mouse” and that is high speed chases, normally with Tom ending up with a big lump on his head!

 .

Wikipedia gives this explanation:

Cat and mouse, often expressed as cat-and-mouse game, is an English-language idiom that means "a contrived action involving constant pursuit, near captures, and repeated escapes."^[1] The "cat" is unable to secure a definitive victory over the "mouse", who, despite not being able to defeat the cat, is able to avoid capture.

Which almost makes it feel like the match is to satisfy LM rather than anyone else.

+++++

But I agree with lots that you say.  I think Manning likes structure and order, because he can analyse that.  But if you go off the script he finds that hard.

[exAtyeoMax]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

FWIW @Jerseybean according to bbc we had 62% possesion on Saturday.

FWIW2 you mention a chess match, whereas LM tends to use “cat and mouse”.  I think of Tom and Jerry when I think “cat and mouse” and that is high speed chases, normally with Tom ending up with a big lump on his head!

 .

Wikipedia gives this explanation:

Cat and mouse, often expressed as cat-and-mouse game, is an English-language idiom that means "a contrived action involving constant pursuit, near captures, and repeated escapes."^[1] The "cat" is unable to secure a definitive victory over the "mouse", who, despite not being able to defeat the cat, is able to avoid capture.

Which almost makes it feel like the match is to satisfy LM rather than anyone else.

+++++

But I agree with lots that you say.  I think Manning likes structure and order, because he can analyse that.  But if you go off the script he finds that hard.

Saturday felt a bit more like Space Invaders to me. 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Saturday felt a bit more like Space Invaders to me. 

Did you know the mystery spaceship used to appear on the 16th shot you fired, the 31st, the 46th, etc, etc.  a mis-spent youth on holiday in the south of France!

[Curr Avon]

23 hours ago, Robbored said:

You’re right it was, Second half we played towards the SS.

Some acronyms work better than others.

[exAtyeoMax]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Did you know the mystery spaceship used to appear on the 16th shot you fired, the 31st, the 46th, etc, etc.  a mis-spent youth on holiday in the south of France!

I was rubbish at it. Probably only ever got to level 2. #KeynshamLeisureCentre

[Jerseybean]

42 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

FWIW @Jerseybean according to bbc we had 62% possesion on Saturday.

FWIW2 you mention a chess match, whereas LM tends to use “cat and mouse”.  I think of Tom and Jerry when I think “cat and mouse” and that is high speed chases, normally with Tom ending up with a big lump on his head!

 .

Wikipedia gives this explanation:

Cat and mouse, often expressed as cat-and-mouse game, is an English-language idiom that means "a contrived action involving constant pursuit, near captures, and repeated escapes."^[1] The "cat" is unable to secure a definitive victory over the "mouse", who, despite not being able to defeat the cat, is able to avoid capture.

Which almost makes it feel like the match is to satisfy LM rather than anyone else.

+++++

But I agree with lots that you say.  I think Manning likes structure and order, because he can analyse that.  But if you go off the script he finds that hard.

Oops my mistake Dave 62% it was 

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, mozo said:

It think Manning's post match comments were interesting and suggest that what we saw on Saturday is not how we intended to play:

"It was just the basics for me. Mistakes will happen, I’m okay with the lads making mistakes, you’re never going to see or play the perfect game of football it’s then the type of mistake. It was just a little bit too sloppy, we turned it over too cheaply, too passive with the ball, too passive with our running.

"When you have an unforced error, make sure you don’t follow it up with another one, make sure you can get back in credit. If you have a little period when they’re pressing, okay, don’t be afraid to spin them and get up the pitch that way.

“I thought we did that in the second half, I thought we started okay, there was a bit more purpose and intent, engaging them a little bit higher. We still didn’t work it into enough good areas like the other night but at least we carried more of a threat and there was more play in their half than in the first half.”

...

So... if you think Manning prefers to be passive, to not engage high up, to not work the ball into attacking areas, and not to carry a threat...you might be wrong.

We have seen in the last year that our players have struggled to execute the game plan, under two regimes.

Ultimately, Manning is responsible for our success, or lack thereof, but I'm certain that it was his fault that we crap in the first half on Saturday. Sometimes the players just don't execute.

Have you noticed though that if we play well it's down to the game plan and if we don't it's down to the players?

[Numero Uno]

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Have you noticed though that if we play well it's down to the game plan and if we don't it's down to the players?

Whatever you think of him Gary Johnson was identical in that regard. Was always they and them when we were poor.

[Barrs Court Red]

2 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Whatever you think of him Gary Johnson was identical in that regard. Was always they and them when we were poor.

Too be fair, he could get away with that for the first 3 or 4 seasons? 
 

Different scenario I guess. He had the capital due to a) having a very good recent record and b) taking over from an utter fraud.  

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, mozo said:

It think Manning's post match comments were interesting and suggest that what we saw on Saturday is not how we intended to play:

"It was just the basics for me. Mistakes will happen, I’m okay with the lads making mistakes, you’re never going to see or play the perfect game of football it’s then the type of mistake. It was just a little bit too sloppy, we turned it over too cheaply, too passive with the ball, too passive with our running.

"When you have an unforced error, make sure you don’t follow it up with another one, make sure you can get back in credit. If you have a little period when they’re pressing, okay, don’t be afraid to spin them and get up the pitch that way.

“I thought we did that in the second half, I thought we started okay, there was a bit more purpose and intent, engaging them a little bit higher. We still didn’t work it into enough good areas like the other night but at least we carried more of a threat and there was more play in their half than in the first half.”

...

So... if you think Manning prefers to be passive, to not engage high up, to not work the ball into attacking areas, and not to carry a threat...you might be wrong.

We have seen in the last year that our players have struggled to execute the game plan, under two regimes.

Ultimately, Manning is responsible for our success, or lack thereof, but I'm certain that it was his fault that we crap in the first half on Saturday. Sometimes the players just don't execute.

Well he was standing on the half way line all first half with his hands in his pockets. Why didn't he issue some useful instructions to the players to help them out a bit.

No point moaning about them in a post match presser.

[Silvio Dante]

1 hour ago, mozo said:

Ultimately, Manning is responsible for our success, or lack thereof, but I'm certain that it was his fault that we crap in the first half on Saturday. Sometimes the players just don't execute.

Are you missing the words “far from” or have you seen the light

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

But I agree with lots that you say.  I think Manning likes structure and order, because he can analyse that.  But if you go off the script he finds that hard.

Game management klaxon! 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Game management klaxon! 

We’ve heard from Hoggy, I wanna hear from Krause now!

[Numero Uno]

15 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

Too be fair, he could get away with that for the first 3 or 4 seasons? 
 

Different scenario I guess. He had the capital due to a) having a very good recent record and b) taking over from an utter fraud.  

Yes, he did get away with it for a while. As you say his record allowed that to happen. As with traits like that it became tedious at the end. Players notice it when things go a bit wrong.

[mozo]

35 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Are you missing the words “far from” or have you seen the light

Game management klaxon! 

Edit disappeared 

[Numero Uno]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

 

Which almost makes it feel like the match is to satisfy LM rather than anyone else.

That's one of the things that concerns me. They should name it Russell Martin Syndrome - where a coach has a fixed idea of how to play football and when it's wrong it's still right and the only people who "don't get it" are the players that can't deliver it and the fans who pay to watch it.

Mugs. Punters. What do they know about football? Who have they played for (mind you that goes for our manager tbf!!)? What coaching qualifications do they have? Blah blah blah - you can guarantee that will be heard in Bristol Sport Towers.

The problem with that is when the mugs revolt and say "**** you, I'm not having that, my dough is staying in the old sky rocket"..........then the indulgence suddenly has to stop.

[RollsRoyce]

51 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

That's one of the things that concerns me. They should name it Russell Martin Syndrome - where a coach has a fixed idea of how to play football and when it's wrong it's still right and the only people who "don't get it" are the players that can't deliver it and the fans who pay to watch it.

Mugs. Punters. What do they know about football? Who have they played for (mind you that goes for our manager tbf!!)? What coaching qualifications do they have? Blah blah blah - you can guarantee that will be heard in Bristol Sport Towers.

The problem with that is when the mugs revolt and say "**** you, I'm not having that, my dough is staying in the old sky rocket"..........then the indulgence suddenly has to stop.

Due to many games being televised in 24, I have watched many Leicester games. As a team they have got much worse the more they have been coached. They are pedestrian in extreme, and stroll around. Gone is the energy and panache of early season, they have just got slower and slower. If they cannot manage the Man City approach with their budget, then woah. I rather think we should all be talking more about McKenna and Ipswich, who still have a chance to win the league, with more than half of a L1 team (though a Championship budget) . Non PP and have caused problems for everyone. They seem to play in the manner Tinnion described. Manning has shown no signs he wants to emulate McKenna, so I am still confused as to what exactly the club are planning to do with Manning next season. Stick with him yes, back him to an extent, yes sure. But to play in what manner?  (as our Teknical boss spoke to Keogh about Manning for a reference, when they did not work together, this is no surprise) That really is the underlying issue, because various topics on this board have failed to unravel any clarity, and the words from the the head of football are not even close to what Manning wants to do. The on pitch displays range from mind numbing boredom to exciting (when the players go feral) So if everyone is confused, that in my opinion will lead to one inevitable conclusion. 

Being generous you can say, give him a pre season, forget he failed to deliver the objectives this season , let him have some of his own players (Mebude), set up how he really wants , all the time on the hybrid grass that he desires, and then judge him. The excuses are gone, and he can deliver what some believe he is able to and demonstrate his ability. The less generous, is let him do that and he will be out of a job in Nov, we will have a jumbled up squad, and another season is wasted and we face a relegation battle. 

We will find out in September, so enjoy 5 months off. 

 

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

Due to many games being televised in 24, I have watched many Leicester games. As a team they have got much worse the more they have been coached. They are pedestrian in extreme, and stroll around. Gone is the energy and panache of early season, they have just got slower and slower. If they cannot manage the Man City approach with their budget, then woah. I rather think we should all be talking more about McKenna and Ipswich, who still have a chance to win the league, with more than half of a L1 team (though a Championship budget) . Non PP and have caused problems for everyone. They seem to play in the manner Tinnion described. Manning has shown no signs he wants to emulate McKenna, so I am still confused as to what exactly the club are planning to do with Manning next season. Stick with him yes, back him to an extent, yes sure. But to play in what manner?  (as our Teknical boss spoke to Keogh about Manning for a reference, when they did not work together, this is no surprise) That really is the underlying issue, because various topics on this board have failed to unravel any clarity, and the words from the the head of football are not even close to what Manning wants to do. The on pitch displays range from mind numbing boredom to exciting (when the players go feral) So if everyone is confused, that in my opinion will lead to one inevitable conclusion. 

Being generous you can say, give him a pre season, forget he failed to deliver the objectives this season , let him have some of his own players (Mebude), set up how he really wants , all the time on the hybrid grass that he desires, and then judge him. The excuses are gone, and he can deliver what some believe he is able to and demonstrate his ability. The less generous, is let him do that and he will be out of a job in Nov, we will have a jumbled up squad, and another season is wasted and we face a relegation battle. 

We will find out in September, so enjoy 5 months off. 

 

Leicester have been found out.  Two wrong footed wingers, who cut in, condensing space.  Inverting Ricardo or Choudhury allows Faes to gallop forward meaning they are one decent out-ball from being caught on the break…like Martin’s Saints, albeit in a different way.

You go physical in wide positions, knowing if Mavadidi or Fatawu beat their full-back your side CB in a back-3 can cover.  Against their midfield you worry about KDH, but Winks doesn’t hurt you.

Not once have I seen Fatawu or Mavadidi swap sides.