Stick with Manning or got for Robins?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

Manning. Why bring in Robins, no doubt at great expense, with no guarantee of improvement. We are not Coventry and the ownership involvement and structure of the clubs are different. Forget the stats and use your eyes, Manning has improved the side. 

Performance wise or Aesthetically wise Roy?

(I’m not suggesting Robins in / Manning out btw - I’m intrigued by posts of blackness and whiteness of improvement)

[REDOXO]

2 hours ago, REDOXO said:

Twine was being chased all summer and before that is a matter of record. 
 

We have a budget. Clubs do it’s just a thing. How many times have you heard the term cheap option on here. 
 

Thus about 3-4m was ear marked for the purchase of Twine. Some money was earmarked in wages for the alternative Earthy. 
 

Thus we are looking in a range for forwards…..Two of them that once it was final that the club had some how pissed off Tommy Conway to the point that his agent was saying no.Thus more forward money opened up

Our two forward replacements were both total punts, with no pedigree one of which had never even played here. If you think what we projected to pay Burnley and WHU didn’t effect on what we could pay for forwards then I would think again. 
 

McNally was of interest for sometime , however we had a center back crisis in the minds of Mssrs Manning/Tinnion due to injury and as they did not want to play our own players developed internally money was released for McNally to prop up our back four. 
 

However I like your premise! That we brought in two cack forwards at about 5m (also loaned Earthy) and budget had nothing to do with it, as it does then mean the football club made horrifically bad decisions on a wholly football basis and not cutting cloth accordingly and Manning/Tinnion should own it! 

 

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

Do you disagree with the view that Dickie being out for nigh on three months, Atkinson seemingly taking three years to get up to speed and Naismith being as reliable as a ten year old Trebant, fitness wise, was a bit of a crisis?

Who did we have in the 21's that was/is anywhere near the level of McNally? I mean ANYWHERE near not just near. You don't even need to answer tbf because if we had someone then that name would have been plastered all over this forum after every defeat.....................our First Team plays big boys football and you need to be at the technical, physical and mentality levels that young Morrison is to even get near the pitch, not find it hard work against the likes of Exeter 21's and Bromley B. JKL might get there but he's not there just yet and is getting a great grounding at Crewe. We ain't quite got the conveyor belt of "Championship Ready" (the important bit) pathway talent coming through that some people are being kidded into thinking we've got. The pathway is only being blocked when you have kids that are good enough and tough enough, otherwise there is no pathway for a player until they sort those rather fundamental issues out (as Morrison has).

Whether through hindsight tinted spectacles or otherwise, McNally is one of our better recruits this summer/autumn alongside the ever improving McGuane in my view. The two biggest positives by far amongst a lot of currently questionable recruitment since the final whistle blew in May (not to say it won't come good in the end but it isn't pulling up trees here and now). Bird is also very decent but was recruited almost a year ago in effect.

It’s never good to cut big swathes of a post out and then highlight a tiny portion of what you want to create an issue of. 
 

So for context the post was about how money was pushed into various areas and was replying, if I remember, to a post regarding the recruitment of Twine not effecting the spends in other areas. 
 

The section you so eloquently quoted was in fact meant as a dig at our massively changed recruitment policy since Mr Tinnions promotion (to what ever we call him now) and the recruitment policy as applied to Mr Manning

Our recruitment policy under Mr Gould and Mr Alexander was all about development to a point where Mr Pearson was playing our youth as a matter of course. And was eventually fired “for not being competitive” after he picked 7 u17/19/21 players away at Cardiff. 
 

This was not applied to Mr Manning on any basis. 
 

For the record Mc Nally didn’t start well but is better!

Edited Wednesday at 17:08 by REDOXO

[BobBobBobbin]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Performance wise or Aesthetically wise Roy?

(I’m not suggesting Robins in / Manning out btw - I’m intrigued by posts of blackness and whiteness of improvement)

this is the thing right? 

Have we improved at "Manningball" under Manning? Yes, of course! We are better at doing what Manning wants to see and that will be the case until it's embedded into the culture of the team. 

Have we improved on the strengths we had under NP? Absolutely not, we're worse in the press and worse defensively. 

"Improvement" is a total misnomer here, because the tactical styles of the two managers we're comparing are so different. It's apples and oranges. 

What Manning does or what Pearson does or what Klopp does or what Pep does are not "better" or worse. They're different. The question needs to be have we grown at an adequate pace from point A to point B and on. I'm content we are, just about. The trajectory is forwards with the odd regression or blip. It's the navigation of those blips or mistakes that will define whether LM is a success/here for the long term. 

 

As you say, too much black and white. No nuance. The data shows we are better at some things and worse at others and the net result is a near identical set of results. The eye test is excellent, but subjective. 

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

this is the thing right? 

Have we improved at "Manningball" under Manning? Yes, of course! We are better at doing what Manning wants to see and that will be the case until it's embedded into the culture of the team. 

Have we improved on the strengths we had under NP? Absolutely not, we're worse in the press and worse defensively. 

"Improvement" is a total misnomer here, because the tactical styles of the two managers we're comparing are so different. It's apples and oranges. 

What Manning does or what Pearson does or what Klopp does or what Pep does are not "better" or worse. They're different. The question needs to be have we grown at an adequate pace from point A to point B and on. I'm content we are, just about. The trajectory is forwards with the odd regression or blip. It's the navigation of those blips or mistakes that will define whether LM is a success/here for the long term. 

 

As you say, too much black and white. No nuance. The data shows we are better at some things and worse at others and the net result is a near identical set of results. The eye test is excellent, but subjective. 

And is that improvement (if that is the view) because we have depth?

[BobBobBobbin]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And is that improvement (if that is the view) because we have depth?

its certainly a case of the players being different in my view, Bird is especially important to the in possession improvements I've seen; Certainly the most enjoyable player from the eye test perspective. 

[Jefferz]

[M.D]

22 hours ago, Northern Red said:

The assistant that he fell out with and got rid of during the summer?

Yeah just read that, Robins has lost his way after that..