Tinnion is back!

[fisherrich]

15 hours ago, Gert Mare said:

A complete lack of moral integrity, and some fans seem to think that’s ok and it’s gone now, so let’s all renew our season tickets.

Not happening. They’re shithouses and need to go.

What amazes me is how fans are happy to put up with this sh*t every season, totally bemused. How the Lansdowns and this ridiculous “Board” have got away with so many bad decisions for so long is just dumbfounding for most. Unbelievable.

[KegCity]

6 minutes ago, fisherrich said:

What amazes me is how fans are happy to put up with this sh*t every season, totally bemused. How the Lansdowns and this ridiculous “Board” have got away with so many bad decisions for so long is just dumbfounding for most. Unbelievable.

They've not let the stadium fall apart or mismanaged our finances to the point we've gone bust, that's enough for many.

[Davefevs]

26 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I'm not sure this is true, I'll defer to @Davefevs on the passing. I'm not impressed with the passing between the back 4. 

We've conceded 5 less goals than last season. Improvement yes but you have to consider it in context. Last season we didn't have Dickie and for large parts we had a make shift defence. So the question I have is do we look more solid because we've been coached better like you are presumably implying, or do we look more solid because we have purchased a solid player and have had far greater availability in defence? 

Can you say with absolute certainty that those players wouldn't have improved under Pearson or any other manager? Williams for example, Pearson and his medical team worked extremely hard to get him to a fitness level where he can be a consistent Championship player. Comparing Williams from last season to this season would be unfair because of those fitness issues. 

Similar for Roberts and Mehmeti. Can you say with absolute certainty that they'd not have improved under Pearson or another manager? Has Manning got the best out of them or have they just followed the expected trend in their development? Let's also not act like these players are world beaters, because they are not. We are in danger here of thinking everything is rosey because we went on a good run. How did the perform during the bad runs? 

OK thats good that Conway is looking more threatening, what about earlier on in Mannings time here? Again this is a question for Dave but from what I've seen in my own eyes it doesn't appear that xG has improved. 

I don't think our pressing is anywhere near as good as it was previously and for a large part Manning moved away from pressing so I'm unsure why you have come to that conclusion.

Whilst the Southampton and Leicester games were great results let's not forget that we could have played Leeds all night and still not scored for example. 

I think much of it comes down to personal preference and some personal bias too, in particular playing style preference.

As I said in the early days of Manning when I was building my opinion, many suggested we were playing better, creating more chances, better chances, etc…when we weren’t!  Perceptions!!!

Overall Manning has achieved “similar” results in a different way is the easiest way of describing it.  I could present lots of numbers to show that, but here’s a simple summary:

For me, I’ve not been hugely impressed over 30+ games overall that his “on the grass” approach to producing “front foot, high press, forward thinking, attacking football” has reached much semblance of achievement, but…at least most of the 8 games since the international appear to be more closer to the desired brief from the Hierarchy, but they couldn’t be any worse than a bunch of pre-Easter games, could they?

I could write loads more!

 

Edited May 8 by Davefevs

[luke_bristol]

2 hours ago, Jobi said:

To be fair it’s a valid point - they were both equally dire. I do think there is a degree of rose tinted specs about Pearson. But yea, little difference tbf.

Theres a bit of a difference, Preston finished above us, and Huddersfield were relegated. This is the folly of comparing a game or two rather than PPG, because LM has some excellent results against the top sides of course.
 

I’m still hopeful we can compete next season, but only with significant investment in the squad, something only possible through penny pinching and selling top players during NP’s time, 

Edited May 8 by luke_bristol

[Jobi]

20 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I'm not sure this is true, I'll defer to @Davefevs on the passing. I'm not impressed with the passing between the back 4. 

We've conceded 5 less goals than last season. Improvement yes but you have to consider it in context. Last season we didn't have Dickie and for large parts we had a make shift defence. So the question I have is do we look more solid because we've been coached better like you are presumably implying, or do we look more solid because we have purchased a solid player and have had far greater availability in defence? 

Can you say with absolute certainty that those players wouldn't have improved under Pearson or any other manager? Williams for example, Pearson and his medical team worked extremely hard to get him to a fitness level where he can be a consistent Championship player. Comparing Williams from last season to this season would be unfair because of those fitness issues. 

Similar for Roberts and Mehmeti. Can you say with absolute certainty that they'd not have improved under Pearson or another manager? Has Manning got the best out of them or have they just followed the expected trend in their development? Let's also not act like these players are world beaters, because they are not. We are in danger here of thinking everything is rosey because we went on a good run. How did the perform during the bad runs? 

OK thats good that Conway is looking more threatening, what about earlier on in Mannings time here? Again this is a question for Dave but from what I've seen in my own eyes it doesn't appear that xG has improved. 

I don't think our pressing is anywhere near as good as it was previously and for a large part Manning moved away from pressing so I'm unsure why you have come to that conclusion.

Whilst the Southampton and Leicester games were great results let's not forget that we could have played Leeds all night and still not scored for example. 

Well I think it’s important to look at the facts rather than, “what ifs”, because then anything could be anything. Mehmeti and Roberts were clearly out of favour under Pearson, one was on his way to Oxford and the other requested to go out on loan - so it’s safe to say they have improved under Manning and there is little evidence to suggest that that would’ve happened under Pearson, based on what we have seen. 

I think it’s clear that we are defending better as a unit, whilst we have gained Dickie we lost Naismith, Atkinson, Kalas and DaSilva. 
 

 

[Jobi]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think much of it comes down to personal preference and some personal bias too, in particular playing style preference.

As I said in the early days of Manning when I was building my opinion, many suggested we were playing better, creating more chances, better chances, etc…when we weren’t!  Perceptions!!!

Overall Manning has achieved “similar” results in a different way is the easiest way of describing it.  I could present lots of numbers to show that, but here’s a simple summary:

For me, I’ve not been hugely impressed over 30+ games overall that his “on the grass” approach to producing “front foot, high press, forward thinking, attacking football” has reached much semblance of achievement, but…at least most of the 8 games since the international appear to be more closer to the desired brief from the Hierarchy, but they couldn’t be any worse than a bunch of pre-Easter games, could they?

I could write loads more!

 

So the answer is - not a huge amount of difference, just going about it in a different way. 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Jobi said:

Well I think it’s important to look at the facts rather than, “what ifs”, because then anything could be anything. Mehmeti and Roberts were clearly out of favour under Pearson, one was on his way to Oxford and the other requested to go out on loan - so it’s safe to say they have improved under Manning and there is little evidence to suggest that that would’ve happened under Pearson, based on what we have seen. 

I think it’s clear that we are defending better as a unit, whilst we have gained Dickie we lost Naismith, Atkinson, Kalas and DaSilva. 
 

 

Did you mean “opinion”?

Edited May 8 by Davefevs

[Selred]

2 minutes ago, Jobi said:

Well I think it’s important to look at the facts rather than, “what ifs”, because then anything could be anything. Mehmeti and Roberts were clearly out of favour under Pearson, one was on his way to Oxford and the other requested to go out on loan

Mehmeti was not off to Oxford. He was wanted by them, there's a difference. So maybe look at "facts" instead.

[Jobi]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Did you mean “opinion”?

No, I mean facts - as in we have conceded less goals was what I was referring to - 5 as the other poster said. 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Jobi said:

No, I mean facts - as in we have conceded less goals was what I was referring to - 5 as the other poster said. 

What about the sentences that followed your use of the word “fact”?

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Jobi said:

So the answer is - not a huge amount of difference, just going about it in a different way. 

Then you need to ask - what was the expectation?

[Galley is our king]

8 minutes ago, Jobi said:

So the answer is - not a huge amount of difference, just going about it in a different way. 

So you DO agree with me....

Pointless and totally unnecessary to sack Pearson....

[Jobi]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Then you need to ask - what was the expectation?

I don’t know what the expectation was? I know JL said we had a top 6 squad or something along those lines - not sure that is reality though. Or spin. Or a badly managed sacking. Or maybe it was the expectation, I find it hard to believe though. For me, my personal expectation was to see the building blocks in place for next season - maybe I have low expectations, I definitely expect to see progress next season though, if not then Manning will only have himself to blame - assuming he gets 1 or 2 in.

[mozo]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think much of it comes down to personal preference and some personal bias too, in particular playing style preference.

As I said in the early days of Manning when I was building my opinion, many suggested we were playing better, creating more chances, better chances, etc…when we weren’t!  Perceptions!!!

Overall Manning has achieved “similar” results in a different way is the easiest way of describing it.  I could present lots of numbers to show that.

For me, I’ve not been hugely impressed over 30+ games overall that his “on the grass” approach to producing “front foot, high press, forward thinking, attacking football” has reached much semblance of achievement, but…at least most of the 8 games since the international appear to be more closer to the desired brief from the Hierarchy, but they couldn’t be any worse than a bunch of pre-Easter games, could they?

I could write loads more!

 

This is obviously a thread where we just rewrite what we've all written before on other threads, but...

I don't think City have been good at creating chances for a long time, and it hasn't looked better under Manning to me.

What I've personally liked under Manning is the midfield play, which surprises me, because we lost Scott.

Our midfield just seems to look  more coherent to me, and that might be because we used to be more direct.

We do a good job of breaking up play and passing our way into the final third. 

A few games aside from both managers, we've just been shit in the final third. So wasteful. 

This hasn't been helped by various injuries, but we have inconsistent forwards, and I don't see what Nige or Liam could really do about that. Weimann had his lethal season, either side of which he was hit and miss self. 

We need some consistent quality up there. I think that's the final part of the puzzle, irrespective of manager, and I don't think our xG is going to improve until that happens.

Unfortunately, I think that's three new players, otherwise we will have to wait for Bell and Mehmeti to mature into their prime, and hope that Conway miraculously stays. 

[Jobi]

1 minute ago, Galley is our king said:

So you DO agree with me....

Pointless and totally unnecessary to sack Pearson....

I personally don’t think it’s as simple as that, because in my view a new manager needs time, so we can come back in a year and re-evaluate.

[mozo]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Then you need to ask - what was the expectation?

Realistically, the answer doesn't relate to results.

[W-S-M Seagull]

12 minutes ago, Jobi said:

Well I think it’s important to look at the facts rather than, “what ifs”, because then anything could be anything. Mehmeti and Roberts were clearly out of favour under Pearson, one was on his way to Oxford and the other requested to go out on loan - so it’s safe to say they have improved under Manning and there is little evidence to suggest that that would’ve happened under Pearson, based on what we have seen. 

I think it’s clear that we are defending better as a unit, whilst we have gained Dickie we lost Naismith, Atkinson, Kalas and DaSilva. 
 

 

These are not facts! 

I'm not sure many of us would have selected Mehmeti either. He was in the process of receiving the Atkinson treatment. 

So you'd have dropped Pring for Roberts? 

Mehmeti was never on his way to Oxford. 

Naismith was in and out last season too, Kalas was injured all season. Atkinson whilst a very decent player, wasn't at the level Dickie is and JD was well, JD. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

9 minutes ago, Jobi said:

I personally don’t think it’s as simple as that, because in my view a new manager needs time, so we can come back in a year and re-evaluate.

Rob Edwards at Luton didn't need time for example. 

[Jobi]

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Rob Edwards at Luton didn't need time for example. 

No what I meant is “should get time”. 

[Silvio Dante]

I think what can be said (and kind of tying it into Tinnions competence), is that under Liam we’ve stood still or worsened slightly in multiple factors:

- The ppg is slightly worse

- No real movement on the pathway 

- For those he has improved (and again taking Mehmeti from not completely pointless to just largely so is not a W) there are equal and opposite reactions - and you’d expect that under any manager. Mehmeti/Roberts may have improved but Sykes has gone backwards, as has Conway. At best it’s a zero sum game.

- In terms of signings, the two we know have Liams fingerprints have been bizarre (Mebude) or patchy (Twine)

The inherent thing here is twofold; if we’ve not improved (and if people think the style is better that is subjective), then the change - at the time it was made - has failed. However, to plough a well worn furrow, what did greater harm is the manner in which it was done - and that we’ve paid out two loads of wages to stand still!

The other thing if this - Liam by his own analysis likes time on the grass and bemoaned the lack of that in the season due to the schedule. I’m unconvinced that he’ll get it right in the summer as he’s 50/50 on pre seasons thus far. But everything about appointing him - both in hindsight in the way of the factors above - and in foresight of how he likes to work - says he should have been a summer appointment. And the key thing Tinnion and Lansdown screwed up was not facilitating a smooth transition at a stable club

[petehinton]

42 minutes ago, Jobi said:

Well I think it’s important to look at the facts rather than, “what ifs”, because then anything could be anything. Mehmeti and Roberts were clearly out of favour under Pearson, one was on his way to Oxford and the other requested to go out on loan - so it’s safe to say they have improved under Manning and there is little evidence to suggest that that would’ve happened under Pearson, based on what we have seen. 

I think it’s clear that we are defending better as a unit, whilst we have gained Dickie we lost Naismith, Atkinson, Kalas and DaSilva. 
 

 

FWIW I’m a big fan of Roberts, but he came in to the club, sulked at not being a guaranteed starter, sulked at being told to play 21s to keep himself sharp, asked to go out on loan, and then got a bad injury.

I don’t think that’s any cause for ‘out of favour/not rated by the old guard’. 

[Selred]

Also would Mehmeti get as many starts under Manning if Bell didn't get injured? I'd expect not.

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, Jobi said:

Well I think it’s important to look at the facts rather than, “what ifs”, because then anything could be anything. Mehmeti and Roberts were clearly out of favour under Pearson, one was on his way to Oxford and the other requested to go out on loan - so it’s safe to say they have improved under Manning and there is little evidence to suggest that that would’ve happened under Pearson, based on what we have seen. 

I think it’s clear that we are defending better as a unit, whilst we have gained Dickie we lost Naismith, Atkinson, Kalas and DaSilva. 
 

 

Roberts requested a loan last October ?

Where has that come from ?

[Capman]

This whole thread exemplifies the thing that really mystifies me about BCFC and the Lansdown stewardship of it. That is the seemingly total lack of suitable well documented and articulated targets. The financial services industry is stuffed full of them. No self respecting fund manager does not know their target to the nearest pound. Every element is targeted. Costs, returns. It is not possible to move without someone putting a number to it to measure performance. Yet very little of that rigour seems to have been applied to the football club.
We have vague targets which no one seems to measure and even fewer people seem to understand. We have managers fired, but we, and they, don’t know why and a CEO who seemed to give up and leave because he could not work out what his job was. 
The whole club appears to have a level of professionalism which would not be acceptable in a local charity. Then they wonder why other similar sized clubs deliver outcomes of which we can only dream. 
It’s not complicated Steve, they do it because they have a plan. For them the objective is not about not upsetting Jon, it’s 100 percent about getting into the premier league. Until BCFC understands that, it will not happen. Change comes from the top. 
 

[W-S-M Seagull]

47 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

 and that we’ve paid out two loads of wages to stand still!

@Davefevs may be able to assist me here again but on top of the two loads of wages, we've also had greater player availability?

[W-S-M Seagull]

48 minutes ago, petehinton said:

FWIW I’m a big fan of Roberts, but he came in to the club, sulked at not being a guaranteed starter, sulked at being told to play 21s to keep himself sharp, asked to go out on loan, and then got a bad injury.

I don’t think that’s any cause for ‘out of favour/not rated by the old guard’. 

Something about this has always bothered me. 

To us it was always very clear that to begin with he'd be back up to Pring. 

So why was he under the impression that he should have been starting? Surely, whoever does the negotiations (Marshall didn't clarify on this) would have spoken to Roberts and said he'd be back up and Roberts seemingly was ok with this. 

Unless of course he was told differently in order to get him to sign...

[hinsleburg]

12 minutes ago, Selred said:

sAlso would Mehmeti get as many starts under Manning if Bell didn't get injured? I'd expect not.

I actually disagree here and think he probably would.

Bell is a bit of a concern for me, I rate him more than most, think his pace is such a valuable asset and don't think he deserves some of the flak he got this season.

However, he doesn't suit this system at all! He's neither a number 10, lone striker nor a wing back and if this is our way to go I'm not sure where we will see him play. Think Anis would have began starting as soon as we changed shape regardless of Bell's injury. He would have given us extra options and fluidity from the bench but not sure we would have changed shape and think he would have been shoe-horned into that second number 10 slot similarly to how Sykes has been used.

Out of all our attacking players for next season, think Bell is the one who will suffer the most and be interesting to see what happens there as I don't think he possesses the attributes to play that role.

[Lew-T]

15 hours ago, Capman said:

It’s an interesting point Davefevs. In my experience when organisations do not set clear, concise and transparent objectives they tend not to deliver. I wonder if NASA would ever have got to the moon if the senior staff had spent years saying they wanted to perhaps get somewhere closer to the ‘top end’ of the atmosphere in the hope that if they did that for a while they might get to land somewhere on a rock close by. It might sound flippant but it’s the way I feel about the club. There is a complete lack of focus on delivery. They think if they make vague promises and make endless changes eventually something good will happen. It is the triumph of optimism over reality. 

This is spot on.

It appears that Steve isn’t interested anymore. There are no serious goals or targets for the near future, not that I can see anyway. It seems Steve is content with floating around the middle of the division, whilst keeping his Son and mate (Tinnion) in a very well paid position.

The academy production line is paying Steve well, and he’s not prepared to put anything back into the first team. Jon and Brian won’t question it of course, which makes Steve’s life so much easier.

In short, this club is going nowhere unless Steve and Jon go, and Brian is moved back into a better suited role.

[Davefevs]

41 minutes ago, hinsleburg said:

I actually disagree here and think he probably would.

Bell is a bit of a concern for me, I rate him more than most, think his pace is such a valuable asset and don't think he deserves some of the flak he got this season.

However, he doesn't suit this system at all! He's neither a number 10, lone striker nor a wing back and if this is our way to go I'm not sure where we will see him play. Think Anis would have began starting as soon as we changed shape regardless of Bell's injury. He would have given us extra options and fluidity from the bench but not sure we would have changed shape and think he would have been shoe-horned into that second number 10 slot similarly to how Sykes has been used.

Out of all our attacking players for next season, think Bell is the one who will suffer the most and be interesting to see what happens there as I don't think he possesses the attributes to play that role.

Glad you raised this.

Was listening to FBC pod last night (Owers on it), and a bit of talk of “we need an attacking wide man”.  My thoughts were why, we don’t play with one.  Also talk that Mebude was that signing.  Yet LM has gone away from playing with one / two.

Of course if Manning wants to be able to play specialists in BOTH a 4213 AND a 3421, he’ll need a LJ-sized squad (I don’t mean LJ’s size, but the size of squad he required - clubs in the bag).

I wrote a long doc at the weekend.  More scenario setting re who we might lose than who we should sign per se.

It’s a long read, sorry.

But the reason I didn’t want to write a “we should sign x,y,z” type document, is because I don’t know how wedded Manning is to the more-lately used 3421 or whether he wants to keep 4213 also.

Maybe recruitment inbound will start to show the preference, but I fear players like Sam Bell won’t have a home if he goes 3421.

[David Brent]

2 hours ago, Jobi said:

I personally don’t think it’s as simple as that, because in my view a new manager needs time, so we can come back in a year and re-evaluate.

You afford time to managers who need to rebuild. We were told that wasn’t the case here.