Okay, not really slating that tonight

[Silvio Dante]

Imagine.

Imagine we’d not lost the last three and we’d gone to second in the league and matched them for most of the game. There wouldn’t be any real negativity. The negativity, quite understandably, is driven by wider factors. But tonight, in isolation, wasn’t horrific.

I think until we went ahead Manning got it spot on. The first half was boring as hell, but contained them. This led to frustration from Ipswich and we reacted well - we could have been two up easily. What was totally noticeable though is how much better we were when attacking at pace. Real lesson there.

I do go with that after we went ahead that McKenna managed the game better than Manning. Our second was great but a bit against the run, and not even making a disruptive sub when things were drifting last ten is a big no no.

I said pre match that what happened changed nothing. It really doesn’t. It was better, but similar concerns remain. If Liam was a 4 last three games he’s a 7 tonight. But the aspects that drive that grade down are still there.

Not hanging him in isolation and 2/3 good tonight. But it’s still not enough.

[petehinton]

I’m surprised at the amount of comments saying you can lay any blame on him tonight.
 

We were ahead twice and lost the game, and also conceded 2 goals & gave away a penalty in the space of 12 minutes. Made absolutely no changes or tweaks, two days after he says “if you aren’t going to win it, make sure you don’t lose it” about Cardiff. 
 

We were solid for large parts of today, but you certainly can’t say that’s 100% down to the players imo. 

[Andy082005]

3 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Imagine.

Imagine we’d not lost the last three and we’d gone to second in the league and matched them for most of the game. There wouldn’t be any real negativity. The negativity, quite understandably, is driven by wider factors. But tonight, in isolation, wasn’t horrific.

I think until we went ahead Manning got it spot on. The first half was boring as hell, but contained them. This led to frustration from Ipswich and we reacted well - we could have been two up easily. What was totally noticeable though is how much better we were when attacking at pace. Real lesson there.

I do go with that after we went ahead that McKenna managed the game better than Manning. Our second was great but a bit against the run, and not even making a disruptive sub when things were drifting last ten is a big no no.

I said pre match that what happened changed nothing. It really doesn’t. It was better, but similar concerns remain. If Liam was a 4 last three games he’s a 7 tonight. But the aspects that drive that grade down are still there.

Not hanging him in isolation and 2/3 good tonight. But it’s still not enough.

Where as I agree to an extent - our absolute failure to manage the last 15 minutes is a result of a weak coach and a weak mindset that has been allowed to manifest 

2-1 you try to kill the game. Frustrate the home team and get the fans agitated. We just don’t have it in us - and under Manning we never will 

It reminds me so much of the Lee Johnson era. Weak with no personality - just like our head coach 

I can’t believe how wrong they have got it with this bloke 

[BCFC31]

I'm slating it as its the same old lack of quality crap we're shocking.

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, petehinton said:

I’m surprised at the amount of comments saying you can lay any blame on him tonight.
 

We were ahead twice and lost the game, and also conceded 2 goals & gave away a penalty in the space of 12 minutes. Made absolutely no changes or tweaks, two days after he says “if you aren’t going to win it, make sure you don’t lose it” about Cardiff. 
 

We were solid for large parts of today, but you certainly can’t say that’s 100% down to the players imo. 

I think that’s where I go with the 2/3 good Pete. I think the setup was good but the reaction wasn’t. I can understand the not doing anything post first equaliser but that momentum shift last ten was crying out for leadership and it wasn’t given.

Again, it’s far from the worst he’s been but it still isn’t anywhere near good enough. My broader point is that there isn’t enough credit in the bank for a 7/10 and it changes nothing in the bigger picture.

[GrahamC]

Tonight was far better than I expected.

Not for the first time this season (under him & Pearson) the paper thin squad cost us.

We only had 7 subs (again) & look at what we had left to come on, a 35 year old, some kids & our reserve left back.

Badly need a couple more available & a positive that Conway is back on the scoresheet.

[IAmNick]

Manning said pre-match that Pring wasn't 100%, and even the Sky commentators said Burns would come on before the end. We needed some kind of mitigation/plan there, and didn't really see it.

7/10 is probably fair I think though

[Packman]

Only being able to hold onto a lead twice for a matter of minutes is shocking and just shows what a weak bunch we are. And where was the urgency in the 8 minutes of injury time? Looked like we were happy to only lose by 1. Rubbish yet again.

[Curr Avon]

5 minutes ago, Andy082005 said:

Where as I agree to an extent - our absolute failure to manage the last 15 minutes is a result of a weak coach and a weak mindset that has been allowed to manifest 

2-1 you try to kill the game. Frustrate the home team and get the fans agitated. We just don’t have it in us - and under Manning we never will 

It reminds me so much of the Lee Johnson era. Weak with no personality - just like our head coach 

I can’t believe how wrong they have got it with this bloke 

Ipswich are second for a reason and all credit to them for responding from behind. Weak manager? We played aggressively for the majority of the game but visibly tired and were beaten due to Ipswich's subs. We couldn't match their pace and power. The players gave everything tonight for Manning. Lost the dressing room? No chance. We'll improve if we keep playing with that drive and fantastic pressing.

 

Edited March 5 by Curr Avon

[Eco]

Just now, GrahamC said:

Tonight was far better than I expected.

Not for the first time this season (under him & Pearson) the paper thin squad cost us.

We only had 7 subs (again) & look at what we had left to come on, a 35 year old, some kids & our reserve left back.

Badly need a couple more available & a positive that Conway is back on the scoresheet.

Yep great header from TC. Slightly bizarre 'celebration'

[Ivorguy]

11 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Imagine.

Imagine we’d not lost the last three and we’d gone to second in the league and matched them for most of the game. There wouldn’t be any real negativity. The negativity, quite understandably, is driven by wider factors. But tonight, in isolation, wasn’t horrific.

I think until we went ahead Manning got it spot on. The first half was boring as hell, but contained them. This led to frustration from Ipswich and we reacted well - we could have been two up easily. What was totally noticeable though is how much better we were when attacking at pace. Real lesson there.

I do go with that after we went ahead that McKenna managed the game better than Manning. Our second was great but a bit against the run, and not even making a disruptive sub when things were drifting last ten is a big no no.

I said pre match that what happened changed nothing. It really doesn’t. It was better, but similar concerns remain. If Liam was a 4 last three games he’s a 7 tonight. But the aspects that drive that grade down are still there.

Not hanging him in isolation and 2/3 good tonight. But it’s still not enough.

Yes but in the real world we did lose the last three.  Now number risen to four

[Andy082005]

Just now, Curr Avon said:

Ipswich are second for a reason and all credit to them for responding from behind. Weak manager? We played aggressively for the majority of the game but visibly tired and we're beaten due to Ipswich's subs. We couldn't match their pace and power. The players gave everything tonight for Manning. Lost the dressing room? No chance. We'll improve if we keep playing with that drive and fantastic pressing.

 

Great to meet you Mrs Manning 

[Banjo Red]

Game management very questionable.

[Curr Avon]

1 minute ago, Andy082005 said:

Great to meet you Mrs Manning 

You too, negative boy.

[Red Exile]

I can't see what Manning is bringing. The players have raised their game in a handful of high profile matches. Which is understandable. Beyond these our record is beginning to look pitiful. The chap seems weak as water. Unless he's a completely different personality in the dressing room he's got zero presence, zero charisma. If his talents are subtle they are well disguised.

What the club needed when NP left was experience of how to achieve what we're always told is our objective, play-offs and a promotion push. We lack that from top to bottom with the exception of NP's remaining hires. Instead we again we have a chap on work experience, failing.

Let's not have this drag on for months.

[Harry]

I thought the ‘game plan’ worked well in the first 60 minutes or so. 
We basically played Wells & Knight as a front 2 and they blocked any passing lanes into Morsy & Luongo. Ipswich couldn’t play anything through midfield and were forced to play wide and long. 
This was fine by us, as Mehmeti and Cornick were very quickly getting across to the wide players. Cornick in particular gave Davis no space at all down their right. 
 

But then; the substitutions happened! 
 

Cornick hadn’t given Davis an inch. Within 10 seconds of Sykes coming on, Davis had 30 yards of space to score the first. 
Then Conway came on. 
Ok, Sykes attoned for his error on their goal with a great assist for Tommy. 
But the ‘block’ that Wells & Knight were doing so well, suddenly disappeared when Tommy came on. 
I highly doubt this was instruction. As it had basically nullified Ipswich all day. 
Their 3rd goal arose due to Tommy allowing Morsy to receive the ball on half way (hadn’t happened all game when Wells was on), and he then was able to afford Wolfenden some space to ping the ball to Davis. Where Sykes was off of Davis again!! 
 

And don’t talk to me about TGH in the 8th minute of injury time taking 4 touches in his own half and getting mugged. Awful 2nd half from Hickman. 
 

From Manning’s perspective, I’ll give him credit tonight. His game plan was actually very good and very well executed for 60 minutes. But the substitutions basically ballsed up the game plan by players switching off from their roles 

Edited March 5 by Harry

[W-S-M Seagull]

Considering how well Manning knows McKenna and how well know it is that Ipswich are very strong in the final stages of the game then its actually criminal that we were not prepared for Ipwichs changes. 

Plan a worked against Ipswichs plan a. Plan a didn't work against Ipswichs plan b. We had no plan other than plan a. 

 

[Silvio Dante]

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

I thought the ‘game plan’ worked well in the first 60 minutes or so. 
We basically played Wells & Knight as a front 2 and they blocked any passing lanes into Morsy & Luongo. Ipswich couldn’t play anything through midfield and were forced to play wide and long. 
This was done by us, as Mehmeti and Cornick were very quickly getting across to the wide players. Cornick in particular gave Davis no space at all down their right. 
 

But then; the substitutions happened! 
 

Cornick hadn’t given Davis an inch. Within 10 seconds of Sykes coming on, Davis had 30 yards of space to score the first. 
Then Conway came on. 
Ok, Sykes attoned for his error on their goal with a great assist for Tommy. 
But the ‘block’ that Wells & Knight were doing so well, suddenly disappeared when Tommy came on. 
I highly doubt this was instruction. As it had basically nullified Ipswich all day. 
Their 3rd goal arose due to Tommy allowing Morsy to receive the ball on half way (hadn’t happened all game when Wells was on), and he then was able to afford Wolfenden some space to ping the ball to Davis. Where Sykes was off of Davis again!! 
 

And don’t talk to me about TGH in the 8th minute of injury time taking 4 touches in his own half and getting mugged. Awful 2nd half from Hickman. 
 

From Manning’s perspective, I’ll give him credit tonight. His game plan was actually very good and very well executed for 60 minutes. But the substitutions basically ballsed up the game plan by players switching off from their roles 

I think we’re saying broadly the same thing here - great setup, well executed then a turning point post subs (both ours and theirs). The bit I think you haven’t mentioned is that Burns coming on with a half fit Pring should have let Roberts coming in instead. That potentially avoids the penalty and the opening up of that attacking front as Burns had him on toast (that doesn’t happen to a fit Cam). Other than that I agree.

[Harry]

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

Considering how well Manning knows McKenna and how well know it is that Ipswich are very strong in the final stages of the game then its actually criminal that we were not prepared for Ipwichs changes. 

Plan a worked against Ipswichs plan a. Plan a didn't work against Ipswichs plan b. We had no plan other than plan a. 

 

Plan A wasn’t executed by the substitutes. 

1 minute ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think we’re saying broadly the same thing here - great setup, well executed then a turning point post subs (both ours and theirs). The bit I think you haven’t mentioned is that Burns coming on with a half fit Pring should have let Roberts coming in instead. That potentially avoids the penalty and the opening up of that attacking front as Burns had him on toast (that doesn’t happen to a fit Cam). Other than that I agree.

Agree. Roberts perhaps could / should have come on for Pring 

Although Pring is quicker than Roberts. So Burns would have had Roberts on toast too 

Edited March 5 by Harry

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Tonight was far better than I expected.

Not for the first time this season (under him & Pearson) the paper thin squad cost us.

We only had 7 subs (again) & look at what we had left to come on, a 35 year old, some kids & our reserve left back.

Badly need a couple more available & a positive that Conway is back on the scoresheet.

We have a good group of pros, they have pride.  They will always try, they’ll always work hard.

The stupid thing is having gone 2-1 up with 13 mins to go, we looked like we wanted another.  Burns was giving Pring a tough time.  Mehmeti who’d had a good game was struggling.  Just back him up with Roberts, close that side down.

@Harry I’m gonna be harsh here, you or I could come up with that game plan.  I’ve said this week that we should block not press.  I’ve said you need to be aware of Davis playing high.  I think it’s generous to give his credit for the set up.  There was nothing fantastic about it.

[Silvio Dante]

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

Plan A wasn’t executed by the substitutes. 

Agree. Roberts perhaps could / should have come on for Pring 

Although Pring is quicker than Roberts. So Burns would have had Roberts on toast too 

True - but I’d wager a wager that a fit Roberts is probably quicker than an unfit Pring that’s played for 80 minutes. The “momentum disruption” may have also helped.

As I say, broadly improved but probably not enough

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We have a good group of pros, they have pride.  They will always try, they’ll always work hard.

The stupid thing is having gone 2-1 up with 13 mins to go, we looked like we wanted another.  Burns was giving Pring a tough time.  Mehmeti who’d had a good game was struggling.  Just back him up with Roberts, close that side down.

@Harry I’m gonna be harsh here, you or I could come up with that game plan.  I’ve said this week that we should block not press.  I’ve said you need to be aware of Davis playing high.  I think it’s generous to give his credit for the set up.  There was nothing fantastic about it.

Maybe. But it was still the correct plan. And it was what he put out there. 
We’d knock him if he hadn’t played that way so we surely have to credit when he did actually do the right thing. 

[Jeez]

It wasn’t terrific

[Severn Beach Pigeon]

31 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

Yes but in the real world we did lose the last three.  Now number risen to four

Just like you wanted.

[GrahamC]

19 minutes ago, Harry said:

I thought the ‘game plan’ worked well in the first 60 minutes or so. 
We basically played Wells & Knight as a front 2 and they blocked any passing lanes into Morsy & Luongo. Ipswich couldn’t play anything through midfield and were forced to play wide and long. 
This was fine by us, as Mehmeti and Cornick were very quickly getting across to the wide players. Cornick in particular gave Davis no space at all down their right. 
 

But then; the substitutions happened! 
 

Cornick hadn’t given Davis an inch. Within 10 seconds of Sykes coming on, Davis had 30 yards of space to score the first. 
Then Conway came on. 
Ok, Sykes attoned for his error on their goal with a great assist for Tommy. 
But the ‘block’ that Wells & Knight were doing so well, suddenly disappeared when Tommy came on. 
I highly doubt this was instruction. As it had basically nullified Ipswich all day. 
Their 3rd goal arose due to Tommy allowing Morsy to receive the ball on half way (hadn’t happened all game when Wells was on), and he then was able to afford Wolfenden some space to ping the ball to Davis. Where Sykes was off of Davis again!! 
 

And don’t talk to me about TGH in the 8th minute of injury time taking 4 touches in his own half and getting mugged. Awful 2nd half from Hickman. 
 

From Manning’s perspective, I’ll give him credit tonight. His game plan was actually very good and very well executed for 60 minutes. But the substitutions basically ballsed up the game plan by players switching off from their roles 

Re TGH again he faded badly & I’d have taken him off for King at 2-2 & hoped his experience could help see us hold on for a point.

Maybe it would have been seen as negative but I’d have taken off Mehmeti too who was tiring by then & put Roberts in front of Pring to support.

Wouldn’t have minded a few strong challenges well up the pitch to slow their flow.

[Harry]

1 minute ago, GrahamC said:

Re TGH again he faded badly & I’d have taken him off for King at 2-2 & hoped his experience could help see us hold on for a point.

Maybe it would have been seen as negative but I’d have taken off Mehmeti too who was tiring by then & put Roberts in front of Pring to support.

Wouldn’t have minded a few strong challenges well up the pitch to slow their flow.

Yep. Agree on both. 
 

[Charlie BCFC]

41 minutes ago, petehinton said:

I’m surprised at the amount of comments saying you can lay any blame on him tonight.
 

We were ahead twice and lost the game, and also conceded 2 goals & gave away a penalty in the space of 12 minutes. Made absolutely no changes or tweaks, two days after he says “if you aren’t going to win it, make sure you don’t lose it” about Cardiff. 
 

We were solid for large parts of today, but you certainly can’t say that’s 100% down to the players imo. 

The team was the same team that got in front, the players shat themselves on Sky. That’s how I see it, I don’t see how that’s on Manning unless you think he told them to start making terrible decisions

 

41 minutes ago, Andy082005 said:

Where as I agree to an extent - our absolute failure to manage the last 15 minutes is a result of a weak coach and a weak mindset that has been allowed to manifest 

2-1 you try to kill the game. Frustrate the home team and get the fans agitated. We just don’t have it in us - and under Manning we never will 

It reminds me so much of the Lee Johnson era. Weak with no personality - just like our head coach 

I can’t believe how wrong they have got it with this bloke 

Our failure to manage the last 15 happened numerous times under Pearson even this season. Why haven’t you mentioned him in this when you have slated both Johnson and Manning for going that?

[Andy082005]

4 minutes ago, Charlie BCFC said:

The team was the same team that got in front, the players shat themselves on Sky. That’s how I see it, I don’t see how that’s on Manning unless you think he told them to start making terrible decisions

 

Our failure to manage the last 15 happened numerous times under Pearson even this season. Why haven’t you mentioned him in this when you have slated both Johnson and Manning for going that?

Are you seriously suggesting I didn’t criticise Pearson?

You clearly don’t know me 

Edited March 5 by Andy082005

[Charlie BCFC]

1 minute ago, Andy082005 said:

Are you seriously suggesting I didn’t criticise Pearson?

Not that I can see no?

[Andy082005]

1 minute ago, Charlie BCFC said:

Not that I can see no?

It was absolutely the right time to move Pearson on 

They just got his replacement absolutely wrong 

[Charlie BCFC]

1 minute ago, Andy082005 said:

It was absolutely the right time to move Pearson on 

They just got his replacement absolutely wrong 

Fair I’m still behind Manning personally but that’s your opinion

Edited March 5 by Charlie BCFC

[Andy082005]

Just now, Charlie BCFC said:

Fair I’m still behind Manning personally but that’s your opinion

Played 21 

won 6, drew 5, lost 10

relegation form with no sign of improvement 

Just let that sink in pal 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Andy082005 said:

It was absolutely the right time to move Pearson on 

They just got his replacement absolutely wrong 

Disagree.

Agree.

()

[Tomo]

57 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

Ipswich are second for a reason and all credit to them for responding from behind. Weak manager? We played aggressively for the majority of the game but visibly tired and were beaten due to Ipswich's subs. We couldn't match their pace and power. The players gave everything tonight for Manning. Lost the dressing room? No chance. We'll improve if we keep playing with that drive and fantastic pressing.

 

Fantastic Pressing I'm not convinced Mark but I could be miles off. We appear to back off much more than we ever have previously? although that's one for @Davefevs to confirm. Dave? 

Edited March 5 by Tomo

[REDOXO]

54 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

Ipswich are second for a reason and all credit to them for responding from behind. Weak manager? We played aggressively for the majority of the game but visibly tired and were beaten due to Ipswich's subs. We couldn't match their pace and power. The players gave everything tonight for Manning. Lost the dressing room? No chance. We'll improve if we keep playing with that drive and fantastic pressing.

 

What are you smoking?

The team give a performance that is not total rubbish and showed a little more than the last three games and that’s the shoots of a revival

We are bottom of the form table for a reason. Liam Manning and our acceptance of mediocrity after a bullshit decision would be it!

Edited March 5 by REDOXO

[Curr Avon]

Just now, REDOXO said:

What are you smoking?

My brain by the feel of it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Charlie BCFC said:

Fair I’m still behind Manning personally but that’s your opinion

1.1 PPG, 28% win ratio.

Alarming no?

[ProfitInMyPocket]

He's halfway to the record setting streak!

[Andy082005]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Disagree.

Agree.

()

I am swinging towards the “perhaps I don’t know what I had until it’s gone” position when I comes to Pearson 

Edited March 5 by Andy082005

[Supersonic Robin]

16 minutes ago, Andy082005 said:

It was absolutely the right time to move Pearson on 

They just got his replacement absolutely wrong 

For me, the frustrating thing about moving Pearson on when we did is that it will always be a "what if?"

Had we given him funds in the summer and this season to do something with it, then by now we might have a clearer idea of whether Pearson could have taken us on further, or whether we'd reached our ceiling under him.

Alas, we'll never know.

[spudski]

56 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

Ipswich are second for a reason and all credit to them for responding from behind. Weak manager? We played aggressively for the majority of the game but visibly tired and were beaten due to Ipswich's subs. We couldn't match their pace and power. The players gave everything tonight for Manning. Lost the dressing room? No chance. We'll improve if we keep playing with that drive and fantastic pressing.

 

No we won't improve...because we don't have a squad that can play that way, continually every game, over a whole season, with that intensity, without getting injuries ( we've had loads, another tonight).

We put in performances like that once in a blue moon. 

Our coach reacted to Subs again, instead of being pro active and subbing first when we went 2-1 up. 

He cocked up again...regardless of a better performance. 

He would of known the likes of Burns would be brought on in the second half.  And he kept Pring on with an injury. Roberts should have been on way before Burns came on. And Mehmetti should have been hooked as well. And put King on. 

He's reactionary rather than pro active. 

 

[fgrsimon]

A loss is a loss. We lose to the poor teams, we lose to the good teams and now we're only 6 points off 2nd bottom. Struggling to see anything positive.

Lose to Swansea and I think it'll be the end for Manning as we'll get nothing from WBA or Leicester.

 

[The Original OTIB]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

No we won't improve...because we don't have a squad that can play that way, continually every game, over a whole season, with that intensity, without getting injuries ( we've had loads, another tonight).

We put in performances like that once in a blue moon. 

Our coach reacted to Subs again, instead of being pro active and subbing first when we went 2-1 up. 

He cocked up again...regardless of a better performance. 

He would of known the likes of Burns would be brought on in the second half.  And he kept Pring on with an injury. Roberts should have been on way before Burns came on. And Mehmetti should have been hooked as well. And put King on. 

He's reactionary rather than pro active. 

 

REACTIVE!

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Fantastic Pressing I'm not convinced Mark but I could be miles off. We appear to back off much more than we ever have previously? although that's one for @Davefevs to confirm. Dave? 

We changed tonight from a predominant 424 block (with pressing triggered when appropriate) to something more like a 442 block (with less triggers). 

[Ivorguy]

5 hours ago, transfer reader said:

Just like you wanted.

Oh please try and understand what I was saying, rather than continuing to snipe.  Not a good look

 

[Capman]

Position is pretty simple. We bought in a manager who we were told would coach the top 6 squad up the league as it was underperforming under the previous regime. 
We were 4 points off the playoffs at the time and many, myself included, thought we stood a reasonable chance of pushing on and finishing well into the top ten with an outside chance of the playoffs. 

We are now 13 points off the playoffs which are out of reach for this season. We are 6 points from the relegation zone and dropping closer to it all the time. The board lied to us about the squad, they lied about the old manager and lied about his replacement. They have taken the supporters for mugs, treated us with absolute contempt. They have taken the money for tickets and the rest and then lied to us in return. 
Steve needs to step up and Jon and Brian need to be gone. You simply cannot run an organisation where its management has nothing but contempt for its loyal customers. Manning is a symptom of the problems at Ashton Gate, he is not the cause. I am sure Manning will go, and probably soon, but until the wider issues are addressed, nothing will really change. 

[Monkeh]

7 hours ago, transfer reader said:

Just like you wanted.

I very much doubt that

Simple fact, Manning is out of his depth, the results tell us that

This is like tinnions reign all over again

Install a proper ceo dof get rid of tinnion and JL so there is no nepotism and job for the boys,

Bring in more voices in the board room, ita the only way to sort this mess out now

[RollsRoyce]

I rather thought that Ipswich, with their squad, and results this season demonstrated that the way Manning wants to play is not the only way to play and be successful. Indeed, you can add Luton last season too. Both non-parachute payment clubs, both being fast in transition and creating disruption. We did that too, to Luton last season, if anyone recalls. 

So why did someone think that playing like Man City with our mid-table budget was the way forward? Even when you have PP, get promoted and get battered like Burnley, because when you have a £50M advantage at our level, you can maybe do it, but when you are promoted, you are then a small fish. 

Reality, pragmatism and not idealistic dreams are needed. McKenna is proving to be all of that and a very talented coach. 

[Silvio Dante]

2 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

I rather thought that Ipswich, with their squad, and results this season demonstrated that the way Manning wants to play is not the only way to play and be successful. Indeed, you can add Luton last season too. Both non-parachute payment clubs, both being fast in transition and creating disruption. We did that too, to Luton last season, if anyone recalls. 

So why did someone think that playing like Man City with our mid-table budget was the way forward? Even when you have PP, get promoted and get battered like Burnley, because when you have a £50M advantage at our level, you can maybe do it, but when you are promoted, you are then a small fish. 

Reality, pragmatism and not idealistic dreams are needed. McKenna is proving to be all of that and a very talented coach. 

The thing I really liked about them was the way they stretched the game - it was almost a counter to our wanting to come inside all the time. They weren’t scared to get the ball forward early to wide areas - whether at feet or trying to play a ball in behind the fullback as a percentage chance. They weren’t at their best but they were trying to stretch the game and create spaces (overloads) elsewhere. The pace of it was much different to our more “considered” build up and dare I say a bit more “instinctive”.

Id say McKenna ball is a lot different to Manning ball from the intent shown there 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, RollsRoyce said:

I rather thought that Ipswich, with their squad, and results this season demonstrated that the way Manning wants to play is not the only way to play and be successful. Indeed, you can add Luton last season too. Both non-parachute payment clubs, both being fast in transition and creating disruption. We did that too, to Luton last season, if anyone recalls. 

So why did someone think that playing like Man City with our mid-table budget was the way forward? Even when you have PP, get promoted and get battered like Burnley, because when you have a £50M advantage at our level, you can maybe do it, but when you are promoted, you are then a small fish. 

Reality, pragmatism and not idealistic dreams are needed. McKenna is proving to be all of that and a very talented coach. 

Nutshell 

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

The thing I really liked about them was the way they stretched the game - it was almost a counter to our wanting to come inside all the time. They weren’t scared to get the ball forward early to wide areas - whether at feet or trying to play a ball in behind the fullback as a percentage chance. They weren’t at their best but they were trying to stretch the game and create spaces (overloads) elsewhere. The pace of it was much different to our more “considered” build up and dare I say a bit more “instinctive”.

Id say McKenna ball is a lot different to Manning ball from the intent shown there 

High press (and counter press), attack minded football.

The opposite of mid-block, passive, patient football.

[Capman]

1 hour ago, RollsRoyce said:

I rather thought that Ipswich, with their squad, and results this season demonstrated that the way Manning wants to play is not the only way to play and be successful. Indeed, you can add Luton last season too. Both non-parachute payment clubs, both being fast in transition and creating disruption. We did that too, to Luton last season, if anyone recalls. 

So why did someone think that playing like Man City with our mid-table budget was the way forward? Even when you have PP, get promoted and get battered like Burnley, because when you have a £50M advantage at our level, you can maybe do it, but when you are promoted, you are then a small fish. 

Reality, pragmatism and not idealistic dreams are needed. McKenna is proving to be all of that and a very talented coach. 

I have been wondering about this. Playing the Man City way requires players of the highest levels of technical skill. They are players who are going to cost considerably sums of money, something we have repeatedly failed to spend. Within a world of FFP and parachute payments I am remain unconvinced that as a strategy it is likely to be successful. How can City attract the players with the highest levels of technical ability to play the ‘beautiful’ game? 
Surely a high intensity, counterattack strategy which is about pace is much more likely to be practical for a club seeking to reach the premier league for the first time? 
It’s almost as if the previous manager understood football! 

[LondonBristolian]

I totally agree with the original post. I said this yesterday but, under Lee Johnson, I fell into the trap of letting the occasional decent performance convince me against my instincts that it was going to work out eventually and it never did.

Ultimately, for all the positives yesterday, we turned a potential win into a loss late on and the three defeats that preceded it have put Manning massively in debit. IF we can take the positives last night and turn it into a win against Swansea and another win in our next two after that against West Brom or Leicester, maybe I’ll start to buy into the idea that Manning might get things on course. But, as it stands, we are four defeats in a row and, shortly before that, we went six without a win. 
 

Last night showed glimpses of promise but Manning doesn’t have anywhere near enough credit in the bank for those glimpses to be enough.

[Severn Beach Pigeon]

4 hours ago, Ivorguy said:

Oh please try and understand what I was saying, rather than continuing to snipe.  Not a good look

 

"Not a good look" but actively wanting the team you 'support' (grossly false description, but seems to be what you'd claim is the case) to lose is a good look is it?

On 02/03/2024 at 22:15, Ivorguy said:

Yes, of course, we need to lose and then move forward again, hopefully.A draw, even a win, would simply delay what is now inevitable.  Manning is far more likely to take us down to Division 1 than up into The Prem

When asked if you still want us to lose...

On 04/03/2024 at 19:32, Ivorguy said:

Yes if it means we can avoid relegation, for a victory will be largely meaningless in the grand scheme of Manning’s lack of ability to coach/manage.

 

Sometimes one needs to take a step backwards in order to go forward.

 

Imo we are in serious trouble with Manning in charge.

 

Do you really want to take a real risk of relegation if a one-off victory keeps Manning in control until last match of season?  If so, I disagree

 

So, presumably celebration drinks were at yours after the Ipswich winner, after all. We lost so we must be a less risk of relegation now

 

[Severn Beach Pigeon]

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

I very much doubt that

Simple fact, Manning is out of his depth, the results tell us that

This is like tinnions reign all over again

Install a proper ceo dof get rid of tinnion and JL so there is no nepotism and job for the boys,

Bring in more voices in the board room, ita the only way to sort this mess out now

Literally their words that they wanted us to lose.

 

When someone else asked them again later, they doubled down on that stance.

 

So why are you doubting their words when I point them out?

[Red-Robbo]

11 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

What was totally noticeable though is how much better we were when attacking at pace. Real lesson there.

Neither we, nor most other teams in this tier of English football to be fair, are good enough to score many from slow, 80-pass build-ups.  Football like fencing - probing for an opening.

When it's slow, you are up against 10 bodies behind the ball - 11 if your opponents are defending the lead or playing for a draw.  Inevitably in the ultra-slow approach someone will eventually under- or over-hit a pass, we'll concede possession and with the team in a forward attacking posture, there will then be a desperate scramble to get back to defend our box. 

Pace - and having the confidence to run at your opponents - is our friend. You cause panic. You catch folk out of position. Even if you don't get a shooting chance, they may need to foul you to stop the break. 

Agree with you 100%. 

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Capman said:

I have been wondering about this. Playing the Man City way requires players of the highest levels of technical skill. They are players who are going to cost considerably sums of money, something we have repeatedly failed to spend. Within a world of FFP and parachute payments I am remain unconvinced that as a strategy it is likely to be successful. How can City attract the players with the highest levels of technical ability to play the ‘beautiful’ game? 
Surely a high intensity, counterattack strategy which is about pace is much more likely to be practical for a club seeking to reach the premier league for the first time? 
It’s almost as if the previous manager understood football! 

Bristol City don't play like Man City and are not attempting to. 

In regards to your point about high intensity, pace and counter attack would this not also require players that are highly skilled? Intensity and pace are skills. 

 

[Silvio Dante]

26 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Neither we, nor most other teams in this tier of English football to be fair, are good enough to score many from slow, 80-pass build-ups.  Football like fencing - probing for an opening.

When it's slow, you are up against 10 bodies behind the ball - 11 if your opponents are defending the lead or playing for a draw.  Inevitably in the ultra-slow approach someone will eventually under- or over-hit a pass, we'll concede possession and with the team in a forward attacking posture, there will then be a desperate scramble to get back to defend our box. 

Pace - and having the confidence to run at your opponents - is our friend. You cause panic. You catch folk out of position. Even if you don't get a shooting chance, they may need to foul you to stop the break. 

Agree with you 100%. 

I remember saying to one of the kids I coached when we played seven a side “how many players do you need to beat to score a goal”

(This is at age 10, and the kid was quality - now in academy system)

He said seven.

We sat down and chatted. And I explained that if he beat player one, great. Maybe beat player two, great. But by the time he’s got to player three, if player one had anything about him, he’s back challenging. So now you’re up to 8. And it keeps coming - there will always be someone else working back.

And he got it. Came back on the pitch, beat the first man and played an early ball. Goal. Happened several times.

Same theory. You move quickly and exploit the opening. Always.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, Charlie BCFC said:

Fair I’m still behind Manning personally but that’s your opinion

Interested in what gives you hope.

The performance last night was an improvement but is it enough 

1.1 PPG, 28-29% win ratio.

Think the League table since Manning took over ie from Day 1 we are bottom 3rd, bottom 10 something like.

Edited March 6 by Mr Popodopolous

[Abraham Romanovich]

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

We changed tonight from a predominant 424 block (with pressing triggered when appropriate) to something more like a 442 block (with less triggers). 

                                            

[Fuber]

12 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Imagine.

Imagine we’d not lost the last three and we’d gone to second in the league and matched them for most of the game. There wouldn’t be any real negativity. The negativity, quite understandably, is driven by wider factors. But tonight, in isolation, wasn’t horrific.

I think until we went ahead Manning got it spot on. The first half was boring as hell, but contained them. This led to frustration from Ipswich and we reacted well - we could have been two up easily. What was totally noticeable though is how much better we were when attacking at pace. Real lesson there.

I do go with that after we went ahead that McKenna managed the game better than Manning. Our second was great but a bit against the run, and not even making a disruptive sub when things were drifting last ten is a big no no.

I said pre match that what happened changed nothing. It really doesn’t. It was better, but similar concerns remain. If Liam was a 4 last three games he’s a 7 tonight. But the aspects that drive that grade down are still there.

Not hanging him in isolation and 2/3 good tonight. But it’s still not enough.

I mean. If it wasn't for Max, it finishes 4-2.

That comes from not taking Pring off or adjusting shape by Manning due to Ipswich's changes. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Capman said:

I have been wondering about this. Playing the Man City way requires players of the highest levels of technical skill. They are players who are going to cost considerably sums of money, something we have repeatedly failed to spend. Within a world of FFP and parachute payments I am remain unconvinced that as a strategy it is likely to be successful. How can City attract the players with the highest levels of technical ability to play the ‘beautiful’ game? 
Surely a high intensity, counterattack strategy which is about pace is much more likely to be practical for a club seeking to reach the premier league for the first time? 
It’s almost as if the previous manager understood football! 

@Cowshed you say we aren’t attempting to play like Man City, you may be right.  But are we trying to play the CFG way? Over the last weeks we’ve seen several posts, quoting articles like coaches voice that come out of a style akin to CFG’s method, which may or may not be a more standard coaching methodology.

Ian Gay had the temerity to suggest McKenna was surprised to see how Manning set-up on the FBC pod today.  Yet McKenna had referenced exactly that in his pre-match press-conference.  They might’ve struggled to break it down first half, but they didn’t come the end.

Back to Pep, I’d suggest we have a superior coach who understands cause and effect, and understands it real-time, in-match, and is able to adapt from a well-honed toolkit.

Manning appears to just have “manual” (yes, I know it’s not a manual) and if it’s not on pg242, he’s stuffed!

[Capman]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

Bristol City don't play like Man City and are not attempting to. 

In regards to your point about high intensity, pace and counter attack would this not also require players that are highly skilled? Intensity and pace are skills. 

 

True, I’m just not convinced that pace and intensity are as expensive skills in a footballing sense as the skill of playing possession football. How many defenders can you think of who have the skill to do it constantly and effectively? Particularly as, when the defenders get it wrong the opposition are through on goal. 
But I am the first to admit, I have never played football at a reasonable level and have no coaching badges so I could  turn out to be wrong. I’m just happy to get the views of others. So do you feel there is no cost issue with the approach to style of play? Or could it be that collecting the right squad may be more expensive for different styles? 

[Cowshed]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@Cowshed you say we aren’t attempting to play like Man City, you may be right.  But are we trying to play the CFG way? Over the last weeks we’ve seen several posts, quoting articles like coaches voice that come out of a style akin to CFG’s method, which may or may not be a more standard coaching methodology.

Ian Gay had the temerity to suggest McKenna was surprised to see how Manning set-up on the FBC pod today.  Yet McKenna had referenced exactly that in his pre-match press-conference.  They might’ve struggled to break it down first half, but they didn’t come the end.

Back to Pep, I’d suggest we have a superior coach who understands cause and effect, and understands it real-time, in-match, and is able to adapt from a well-honed toolkit.

Manning appears to just have “manual” (yes, I know it’s not a manual) and if it’s not on pg242, he’s stuffed!

CFG has existed for ten years, There are 11/12/13 clubs in the group. Bolivar build up from the back, so do Man City so do New York and so do clubs who have been playing their variations of possession football longer than the CFG group existed. 

I recently posted the Liverpool decision making tree, those principles are used right across football. They apply to the teams in the CFG group. The principles were standard coaching methodology, but how those standards are applied widely differs. 

Bristol City may and do use similar principles to Liverpool, or Man City, or Brighton or any number of teams but the football clearly differs.  

Bristol City play very differently to Man City. The sub principles, that break down the approach to the football are very very different from the GK to the inverting FB's, rotating CB, the patterns, the lopsided formations .. That is unique.

27 minutes ago, Capman said:

True, I’m just not convinced that pace and intensity are as expensive skills in a footballing sense as the skill of playing possession football. How many defenders can you think of who have the skill to do it constantly and effectively? Particularly as, when the defenders get it wrong the opposition are through on goal. 
But I am the first to admit, I have never played football at a reasonable level and have no coaching badges so I could  turn out to be wrong. I’m just happy to get the views of others. So do you feel there is no cost issue with the approach to style of play? Or could it be that collecting the right squad may be more expensive for different styles? 

There is a cost issue with any approach to football.

Being able to run explosively and have a high recovery speed post explosive movement is a skill. Pressing a ball for intensely twenty seconds one player takes ten seconds to recover another takes two minutes. That is sometimes called defensive tactical intensity. Think Famara v Bobby Reid. High DTI is prized by some teams because they need intense runners. Add pace. These physical elements have costs.

Bristol City are not in the hes a great header of the ball, hes great one v one, hes positionally great, he is really strong, he is really quick, he can bring the ball out, he has range long, and all that market. Bristol City can prioritize elements of players abilities that most suit the football. Compromise can also be made where players don't have to be of a level across all their skills, Marlon Pack (yes midfield) distributed the ball efficiently, while many can run faster pushing a wheel barrow. That was synching aptitudes and that is what any progressing and successful team do. Improvement in key positions, better than average, good at key skills the team needs is not that elite market. 

 

 

[Clutton Caveman]

14 hours ago, petehinton said:

I’m surprised at the amount of comments saying you can lay any blame on him tonight.
 

We were ahead twice and lost the game, and also conceded 2 goals & gave away a penalty in the space of 12 minutes. Made absolutely no changes or tweaks, two days after he says “if you aren’t going to win it, make sure you don’t lose it” about Cardiff. 
 

We were solid for large parts of today, but you certainly can’t say that’s 100% down to the players imo. 

Don't agree, when Wes was skinning Cam changes were needed and they didn't come

[marcofisher]

14 hours ago, petehinton said:

I’m surprised at the amount of comments saying you can lay any blame on him tonight.
 

We were ahead twice and lost the game, and also conceded 2 goals & gave away a penalty in the space of 12 minutes. Made absolutely no changes or tweaks, two days after he says “if you aren’t going to win it, make sure you don’t lose it” about Cardiff. 
 

We were solid for large parts of today, but you certainly can’t say that’s 100% down to the players imo. 

Listening to some of the views on the podcasts today is insufferable. We conceded 3 goals and a penalty all down the flanks and we changed absolutely nothing to try and nullify this, even after leading twice!

I remember a number of times Pearson hooking a defender if he was getting exposed or putting another player there up support and to sure it up. Absolutely no risk of that happening last night. 
 

Mind-blowing the amount of comments saying “that’s on the players” or “can’t blame the manager for that” or even “Ipswich were too good”. Anyone with half a brain could see where we were getting exposed following their subs and Manning did nothing about it tactically or by making changes for circa 35 minutes until the end of the game.

Saw a comment saying James has fallen out with Manning. It is likely hot air, but I wouldn’t be surprised. The players were absolutely hung out to dry last night by Manning’s tactics after putting themselves in a great position to win the game. 

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Listening to some of the views on the podcasts today is insufferable. We conceded 3 goals and a penalty all down the flanks and we changed absolutely nothing to try and nullify this, even after leading twice!

I remember a number of times Pearson hooking a defender if he was getting exposed or putting another player there up support and to sure it up. Absolutely no risk of that happening last night. 
 

Mind-blowing the amount of comments saying “that’s on the players” or “can’t blame the manager for that” or even “Ipswich were too good”. Anyone with half a brain could see where we were getting exposed following their subs and Manning did nothing about it tactically or by making changes for circa 35 minutes until the end of the game.

Saw a comment saying James has fallen out with Manning. It is likely hot air, but I wouldn’t be surprised. The players were absolutely hung out to dry last night by Manning’s tactics after putting themselves in a great position to win the game. 

Which podcast?

[marcofisher]

46 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Which podcast?

3 peeps contributors seemed optimistic to me with the performance in their pod and I couldn’t understand why.

Haven't listened to FBC in full yet bar a snippet live, but judging by the comments on here about a certain contributor’s comments, and the title of the pod, I’m expecting similar views from some.

Edited March 6 by marcofisher

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, marcofisher said:

3 peeps contributors seemed optimistic to me with the performance in their pod and I couldn’t understand why.

Haven't listened to FBC in full yet bar a snippet live, but judging by the comments on here about a certain contributor’s comments, and the title of the pod, I’m expecting similar views from some.

Ta, this morning’s FBC pod was interesting, but not as lively as it might’ve been.  We spent 50+ mins discussing the game, so the topic of Manning and his future didn’t get the time it possibly deserved, as we finished at 10

[marcofisher]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ta, this morning’s FBC pod was interesting, but not as lively as it might’ve been.  We spent 50+ mins discussing the game, so the topic of Manning and his future didn’t get the time it possibly deserved, as we finished at 10

Funny, FBC spent a large part of the pod each week discussing NP’s future when he was manager.

Used to be that each of the pods were polar opposite in their views, which wasn’t so bad when listening to both after the game. Now it seems FBC in general have U-turned on criticising the board or management, guest dependent. 

[Davefevs]

29 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Funny, FBC spent a large part of the pod each week discussing NP’s future when he was manager.

Used to be that each of the pods were polar opposite in their views, which wasn’t so bad when listening to both after the game. Now it seems FBC in general have U-turned on criticising the board or management, guest dependent. 

Worth listening to last 10-15 mins of FBC today if you can’t stomach all of it.