Jon talks...

[Harry]

In answer to the question about Phil Alexander leaving and there being no single figurehead, this is the sort of wafflly nonsense I referred to earlier. It’s a collection of words that mean absolutely nothing : 
 

“yes absolutely. I mean we’re set up slightly differently here in the fact that the chief executive as it was isn’t really running the commercial operation of the club which it would be most places. Look, the operation part that Tom is fulfilling here is the necessary part and we obviously need leadership in terms of the people, the teams and the building, but then in terms of your figurehead, for me you need different voices. Obviously we’re all talking we should be giving similar messaging, but you’ve got your people giving messaging externally, but internally it’s how it works and operates, so there’s not really any void there in that sense and you’ve got to get used to a team”. 
 

I mean - is anyone any the wiser after that?? 

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Kibs said:

Okay understood, I actually thought we saw some of that pre-international break too - Forest, Boro, Ipswich, spells against WBA…..but those home matches in amongst that were dire. It has also coincided with some key players returning but I’m hoping he’s found a formula that can continue to develop, particularly against similar ability teams where we have struggled in the past.

My view only Kibs.

What I saw in some of the games you reference were settle into low / mid block, only pressing off of preset trigger once in block (no idea of the coaching lingo but I’d call it it “block to press”), and if we had to wait until we’d been forced back before winning the ball, we’d then counterattack from deep.

Perfect for Southampton for example, who overcommit their full-backs forward and leave huge spaces for their CBs to cover.  We know they’ll build patterns from deep that means pressing can leave you open, so first instinct is sit in.  Doing that against a much weaker Swansea is a different kettle of fish.

What I’ve seen since Easter is us pressing higher up the pitch, not reverting in first instance into a block, trying to win it earlier, so we can attack an unsettled defence.  If we can’t then, at that point, we will drop into the block (let’s call it “press to block”).  A different emphasis / intent.

Theres a guy on Twitter - Bristol City FM (he’s the Football Manager researcher for City) - who explains these things better than me.

But placing an intent to press just 10 yards higher up the pitch has made a big difference.  We stop our opponent building patterns and getting into the middle third as easily as they did.

Thats my my view, anyway.  It feels very different to majority of pre-Easter.

[Davefevs]

Just now, Harry said:

In answer to the question about Phil Alexander leaving and there being no single figurehead, this is the sort of wafflly nonsense I referred to earlier. It’s a collection of words that mean absolutely nothing : 
 

“yes absolutely. I mean we’re set up slightly differently here in the fact that the chief executive as it was isn’t really running the commercial operation of the club which it would be most places. Look, the operation part that Tom is fulfilling here is the necessary part and we obviously need leadership in terms of the people, the teams and the building, but then in terms of your figurehead, for me you need different voices. Obviously we’re all talking we should be giving similar messaging, but you’ve got your people giving messaging externally, but internally it’s how it works and operates, so there’s not really any void there in that sense and you’ve got to get used to a team”. 
 

I mean - is anyone any the wiser after that?? 

It’s verbal diarrhoea, made only worse by PA being brought in for his Commercial expertise!

[The Exiled Robin]

1 hour ago, Tim Monaghan said:

Another one with inside knowledge. Come on, spill the beans. Who told you this? Must be one of the first time players. Who is it? Don't be shy. 

This ‘name the source’ nonsense again…?

If people do know certain things, and they have got that from someone specific, the last thing they’ll do is name them as they’ll potentially get that person in trouble and will definitely stop any further news coming that way. 

[Kibs]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

My view only Kibs.

What I saw in some of the games you reference were settle into low / mid block, only pressing off of preset trigger once in block (no idea of the coaching lingo but I’d call it it “block to press”), and if we had to wait until we’d been forced back before winning the ball, we’d then counterattack from deep.

Perfect for Southampton for example, who overcommit their full-backs forward and leave huge spaces for their CBs to cover.  We know they’ll build patterns from deep that means pressing can leave you open, so first instinct is sit in.  Doing that against a much weaker Swansea is a different kettle of fish.

What I’ve seen since Easter is us pressing higher up the pitch, not reverting in first instance into a block, trying to win it earlier, so we can attack an unsettled defence.  If we can’t then, at that point, we will drop into the block (let’s call it “press to block”).  A different emphasis / intent.

Theres a guy on Twitter - Bristol City FM (he’s the Football Manager researcher for City) - who explains these things better than me.

But placing an intent to press just 10 yards higher up the pitch has made a big difference.  We stop our opponent building patterns and getting into the middle third as easily as they did.

Thats my my view, anyway.  It feels very different to majority of pre-Easter.

Cheers Dave, I’ll take a look It’s interesting what a difference that 10 yards has seemingly made, though of course momentum, confidence play into the at too. Everything (on and off the ball) gets done with more purpose when you’ve won a couple!!! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Kibs said:

Cheers Dave, I’ll take a look It’s interesting what a difference that 10 yards has seemingly made, though of course momentum, confidence play into the at too. Everything (on and off the ball) gets done with more purpose when you’ve won a couple!!! 

There is IMO an element of chicken and egg. Confidence grows which can improve the performance levels and intent, I think though the first big step was the rapid start v Leicester.

That was in stark contrast to the Swansea game and tbh did differ from what we had seen for a while under Manning, pressing early, getting into the opposition- we had quite a few shots in the first 15-20 minutes too, some of without checking back I believe were brought about via turnovers from a medium to high press.

Edited April 29 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, NickJ said:

Manning replaced Pearson because so say Pearson wasn’t getting the best out of a “top 6 squad”.

Under Manning we have regressed by 5 points compared with where we were under Pearson, fact. 
 

Not sure what’s so difficult to comprehend. 
 

And don’t start me off with how he set us up against Swansea, the most boring pointless game of football I have ever seen. 

 

 

 

Mate we all know these same people that are applauding Manning for at the very most equalling last season, would have been absolutely raging if Pearson remained and he delivered the same. 

I made it very clear at the start of the season I expected progression. That expectation remained for both managers and it has not been met. 

Offers expectations have suddenly shifted because Manning can do no wrong for them, because of their dislike of Pearson and a shear desperation to be right about Pearson. 

[Son of Fred]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

In answer to the question about Phil Alexander leaving and there being no single figurehead, this is the sort of wafflly nonsense I referred to earlier. It’s a collection of words that mean absolutely nothing : 
 

“yes absolutely. I mean we’re set up slightly differently here in the fact that the chief executive as it was isn’t really running the commercial operation of the club which it would be most places. Look, the operation part that Tom is fulfilling here is the necessary part and we obviously need leadership in terms of the people, the teams and the building, but then in terms of your figurehead, for me you need different voices. Obviously we’re all talking we should be giving similar messaging, but you’ve got your people giving messaging externally, but internally it’s how it works and operates, so there’s not really any void there in that sense and you’ve got to get used to a team”. 
 

I mean - is anyone any the wiser after that?? 

The void is between his ears.... 

[Coombsy]

8 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

That's what the nest egg is for  

Just once again a huge shame that we didn't invest in the summer. Just a couple of million like all of us were calling for and maybe we'd still have something to play for now. 

That's what the nest egg is for  

Just once again a huge shame that we didn't invest in the summer. Just a couple of million like all of us were calling for and maybe we'd still have something to play for now. 

How can we invest

when you don’t buy a season ticket on the grounds that you don’t like the manager

yet you want the landsdowns  to keep throwing money in

[One Team]

7 hours ago, The Exiled Robin said:

This ‘name the source’ nonsense again…?

If people do know certain things, and they have got that from someone specific, the last thing they’ll do is name them as they’ll potentially get that person in trouble and will definitely stop any further news coming that way. 

Exactly this. I get information now and then, which is how I know Tinnion was a key part of Nige’s sacking and Manning’s appointment, but I’m not going to say who that is on a public forum. 

[And Its Smith]

I get inside info as well.  This bloke tells me after every win that he’s helped Manning come up with a master plan and that after every defeat it’s cos Manning didn’t listen to him. He also tells me that Brian Tinnion is the greatest technical director of all time and was the best player of all time who should have played for England. Naturally, as with all inside sources, I’m not going to tell you who it is. 

[Crimson Crayola]

8 hours ago, NickJ said:

Manning replaced Pearson because so say Pearson wasn’t getting the best out of a “top 6 squad”.

Under Manning we have regressed by 5 points compared with where we were under Pearson, fact. 
 

Not sure what’s so difficult to comprehend. 
 

And don’t start me off with how he set us up against Swansea, the most boring pointless game of football I have ever seen. 

 

 

 

But at the very start of the season we were joint top and Pearson saw us slowly regress too. Comparing where we were at point a. To where we are now at point b. Is not as simple as you make out.

[NickJ]

16 minutes ago, Crimson Crayola said:

But at the very start of the season we were joint top and Pearson saw us slowly regress too. Comparing where we were at point a. To where we are now at point b. Is not as simple as you make out.

Its very simple to point out that Manning was brought in to get a top 6 squad into the top 6, and didn’t.

[Kid in the Riot]

7 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I made it very clear at the start of the season I expected progression. That expectation remained for both managers and it has not been met. 

How are you judging progression? 

Points?

League position?

[westonred]

You would have thought he would have given us an update on number of season tickets sales to be honest the interview was a waste of time and we didnt learn anything new from it. Yes we want the hierarchy to come out be honest and keep the fans in the picture but if they arnt going to tell us anything new then why bother

Edited April 30 by westonred

[1960maaan]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

My view only Kibs.

What I saw in some of the games you reference were settle into low / mid block, only pressing off of preset trigger once in block (no idea of the coaching lingo but I’d call it it “block to press”), and if we had to wait until we’d been forced back before winning the ball, we’d then counterattack from deep.

Perfect for Southampton for example, who overcommit their full-backs forward and leave huge spaces for their CBs to cover.  We know they’ll build patterns from deep that means pressing can leave you open, so first instinct is sit in.  Doing that against a much weaker Swansea is a different kettle of fish.

What I’ve seen since Easter is us pressing higher up the pitch, not reverting in first instance into a block, trying to win it earlier, so we can attack an unsettled defence.  If we can’t then, at that point, we will drop into the block (let’s call it “press to block”).  A different emphasis / intent.

Theres a guy on Twitter - Bristol City FM (he’s the Football Manager researcher for City) - who explains these things better than me.

But placing an intent to press just 10 yards higher up the pitch has made a big difference.  We stop our opponent building patterns and getting into the middle third as easily as they did.

Thats my my view, anyway.  It feels very different to majority of pre-Easter.

The first time I saw that "low block" was actually under Nige at Leicester . 
I said at the time we looked like we set up to stay in the game. We did actually play a better tempo than the first couple of times we used it under Manning. 

We could possibly have nicked something from the game, but it would have been like the home game. Relying on them missing chances, Max making saves and taking one of our few chances. 
That sentence I highlighted is key for me , it helps the press and IMO a good press helps set our tempo which makes a big difference to how we play. Those games we get wrong we end up in a slow passing borefest , few chances and little excitement. 

[ciderwithtommy]

@Harry appreciate the insight and of course it makes sense not to throw someone under the bus to appease the forum! The one bit I am slightly unsure on, is if it was the players who suggested to LM we needed a change, and he listened, does that equate to poor leadership? Or does it lend itself to creating more accountability for the players? I.e. we have problems and if you have the answers, I’m happy to facilitate that. The other option from the player meeting would’ve been “do it my way or leave” - not sure that’s great leadership from someone so new to the group whilst they were struggling for form. 

[FNQ]

50 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

I get inside info as well.  This bloke tells me after every win that he’s helped Manning come up with a master plan and that after every defeat it’s cos Manning didn’t listen to him. He also tells me that Brian Tinnion is the greatest technical director of all time and was the best player of all time who should have played for England. Naturally, as with all inside sources, I’m not going to tell you who it is. 

Too easy, it’s Jon Lansdown innit?

[View from the Dolman]

9 hours ago, NickJ said:

You seriously think Jon Lansdown is a credible Chairman of a £100 million turnover business?

What is the "£100 million turnover business" in question?

[mozo]

9 hours ago, NickJ said:

Manning replaced Pearson because so say Pearson wasn’t getting the best out of a “top 6 squad”.

Under Manning we have regressed by 5 points compared with where we were under Pearson, fact. 
 

Not sure what’s so difficult to comprehend. 
 

And don’t start me off with how he set us up against Swansea, the most boring pointless game of football I have ever seen. 

 

 

 

I must be an idiot because I don't comprehend this...

Hasn't our Points Per Game improved since Manning came in?

How is that regression?

[Silvio Dante]

2 minutes ago, ciderwithtommy said:

@Harry appreciate the insight and of course it makes sense not to throw someone under the bus to appease the forum! The one bit I am slightly unsure on, is if it was the players who suggested to LM we needed a change, and he listened, does that equate to poor leadership? Or does it lend itself to creating more accountability for the players? I.e. we have problems and if you have the answers, I’m happy to facilitate that. The other option from the player meeting would’ve been “do it my way or leave” - not sure that’s great leadership from someone so new to the group whilst they were struggling for form. 

In reality, it’s likely pragmatism from Liam.

If you recall pre Easter and the run we were on, a lot of talk here was how the Leicester and Plymouth games were massive. The first one was a bit of a free hit but had we lost both it could have been Manning not Foster in the dole queue post the Home Park game. So he had to win.

You then have the added complication of the Swansea game - where we did win - but if we won in that manner again, it wouldn’t appease anybody.

He fails in those two games, it’s his job. And he’s then a coach with two sackings in two years and probably fatally damaged goods.

Is it likely, all things considered, that he suddenly hit on “we need to go back more to the style before we arrived?” Nope. One of the things often said about Liam is that he’s an obsessive. He’d have watched all our games pre his arrival, all the ones he’s been in charge for and endless clips. It wouldn’t have taken him 5 months to conclude that.

I’ve got no huge doubt he was “presented” with it as a plan, shall we say - and as JL has football knowledge you could write on a stamp, the only options for presentation are Tinnion (ho ho) or the players. And as it was the players who seemed to “go rogue” as Fevs puts it against Swansea, they’re the likely candidates.

In my view, it’s likely he was presented with it by the players. He was then pragmatic enough to accept it over the likely outcome if we’d kept flogging the dead horse of losing his job and we’ve all benefitted.

The wildcard here now is next season. Now Liam feels more secure, does he go back to plan A?

[IAmNick]

6 minutes ago, mozo said:

I must be an idiot because I don't comprehend this...

Hasn't our Points Per Game improved since Manning came in?

How is that regression?

For some reason people don't seem to understand that if you were 5 points of the playoffs after 20 games (for example) then being 10 points off after 40 isn't regressing, it's actually the same. Staying 5 points off after 40 would have been an improvement in points per game (assuming everyone else carries on at about the same rate).

[Crimson Crayola]

42 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Its very simple to point out that Manning was brought in to get a top 6 squad into the top 6, and didn’t.

This again. Do you honestly think this was ever likely? (even under Pearson). If you've ever felt that "top 6" was an over ambitious (or idiotic) comment from Jon, you can't really use failing to get into the playoffs as a stick to beat Manning with.

By all means critique the playing style, interviews, pathway blocking etc, but the top 6 argument is tiresome and weak.

[Barrs Court Red]

Just now, Crimson Crayola said:

This again. Do you honestly think this was ever likely? (even under Pearson). If you've ever felt that "top 6" was an over ambitious (or idiotic) comment from Jon, you can't really use failing to get into the playoffs as a stick to beat Manning with.

By all means critique the playing style, interviews, pathway blocking etc, but the top 6 argument is tiresome and weak.

It’s the argument they made though no? 
 

As it was, pre Scot sale I had play offs as an outside bet, but not likely.  That went when he wasn’t replaced.  To come out and even mention it as a target was dopey. 
 

I don’t think anyone’s hammering Manning over it, the hierarchy though, now that’s different story. 

[FNQ]

9 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

The wildcard here now is next season. Now Liam feels more secure, does he go back to plan A?

Not sure how he can with pretty much the same squad? 

[Silvio Dante]

4 minutes ago, FNQ said:

Not sure how he can with pretty much the same squad? 

Didn’t stop him before!

[Show Me The Money!]

42 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

How are you judging progression? 

Points?

League position?

Whichever way sets Manning in a bad light I’d imagine.

[mozo]

26 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

For some reason people don't seem to understand that if you were 5 points of the playoffs after 20 games (for example) then being 10 points off after 40 isn't regressing, it's actually the same. Staying 5 points off after 40 would have been an improvement in points per game (assuming everyone else carries on at about the same rate).

Yeah if NickJ is judging us on points behind 6th, then the logical thing to do is to use ppg to extrapolate where we would be based on the pre-Manning total. 

We're still in with a chance of finishing 7 points off the playoffs, which would be positive no matter how you look at it.

The obsession that some people have with the top 6 comments kind of needs to be put to bed now that Jon L yesterday tried to row back in a rambly from those comments.

Edited April 30 by mozo

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, ciderwithtommy said:

@Harry appreciate the insight and of course it makes sense not to throw someone under the bus to appease the forum! The one bit I am slightly unsure on, is if it was the players who suggested to LM we needed a change, and he listened, does that equate to poor leadership? Or does it lend itself to creating more accountability for the players? I.e. we have problems and if you have the answers, I’m happy to facilitate that. The other option from the player meeting would’ve been “do it my way or leave” - not sure that’s great leadership from someone so new to the group whilst they were struggling for form. 

Think @Silvio Dante has in part answered, but for me a mix of everything.  A bit of “it’s not working” from LM to “we need to do it a bit different gaffer” from the players.  I’m glad it’s happened, however it’s happened.  Had he carried on with the pre-Easter style I don’t think his future here would’ve looked very bright.

33 minutes ago, mozo said:

I must be an idiot because I don't comprehend this...

Hasn't our Points Per Game improved since Manning came in?

How is that regression?

No.

41 points from 30 games post-LM

21 points from 15 games pre-LM

Only a smidge behind.

18 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

It’s the argument they made though no? 
 

As it was, pre Scot sale I had play offs as an outside bet, but not likely.  That went when he wasn’t replaced.  To come out and even mention it as a target was dopey. 
 

I don’t think anyone’s hammering Manning over it, the hierarchy though, now that’s different story. 

Agree.

This excellent run has helped LM though.

[petehinton]

9 hours ago, Harry said:

In answer to the question about Phil Alexander leaving and there being no single figurehead, this is the sort of wafflly nonsense I referred to earlier. It’s a collection of words that mean absolutely nothing : 
 

“yes absolutely. I mean we’re set up slightly differently here in the fact that the chief executive as it was isn’t really running the commercial operation of the club which it would be most places. Look, the operation part that Tom is fulfilling here is the necessary part and we obviously need leadership in terms of the people, the teams and the building, but then in terms of your figurehead, for me you need different voices. Obviously we’re all talking we should be giving similar messaging, but you’ve got your people giving messaging externally, but internally it’s how it works and operates, so there’s not really any void there in that sense and you’ve got to get used to a team”. 
 

I mean - is anyone any the wiser after that?? 

Said a few pages back, but imagine being a ‘group CEO’ of a business, and hearing a member of the board say publicly ‘it’s good we don’t have a single figurehead’. Talk about undermined and looked over!