It was the opposite, I think we were either 1st or second in points lost from winning positions. Our defence was bad because it was 3/4 kids 19,20,21. Ridiculously young and they'd not played together. Thorup got a real bad hand from Knapper. He got rid of Thorup to cover his own bad signings. Those signings are now barely playing so what does that say. Crnac has also regressed in my opinion. The defence is still conceding plenty of goals because he's trashed the midfield now. 1 clean sheet in 7 games. Knapper is incompetent in my opinion and will be hopefully be gone at the end of the season. He's gone looking for those easy attributes to cover his arse in the short term.
@carrabuh Agree with virtually all of that. Thorup was hung out to dry. The fact that Knapper has seen fit to bring in 2 new CBs, three new goalkeepers, not one but two more experienced defensive midfielders, and an experienced L(W)B, tells you exactly where he thinks last season's defensive deficiencies lay. If Thorup was the problem there would be no need for all these incomings; a change of coach and system ought to have been enough to get the defence sorted. If you want further evidence, look at the discrepancy between goals conceded and expected goals against; we conceded 14 more than expected. That's an additional 25% over and above what the GA total should have been. Vincent Reyes made a better fist of keeping the ball out of the net in his few appearances than either George Long or Angus Gunn.
I totally agree. He was given a bunch of kids, told that it was a transition season so the final league position didn't matter because it was all about building a base for the future, and then dumped to deflect attention from Knapper's own failures. Last summer's hires are still showing no sign of improvement. People say the defence has improved, and yes it has, but the fact that Manning has Darling (in particular) and Medic, while Thorup had an ageing Duffy and a Cordoba who was adapting to English football might have something to do with it, plus the other recruitment this summer that you point out. Not to mention the difference in approach between the two coaches: one trying to play attractive football, the other managing a side that starts time-wasting with an hour to go.
That's very selective of you to use Cordoba as your other defensive choice rather than Doyle who played significantly more, many on here were suggesting was an amazing defender and wanted us to spend nearly £10m on! Not my opinion as I didn't think he was great and agree that Darling is certainly an upgrade. We are yet to see if Medic is an improvement on Duffy, he has the potential to be, but Duffy was an incredibly experienced leader for Thorup to rely on in that backline.
He wasn't given a bunch of kids, he had experience players, which he decided he didn't want to use, so they got sold on. With so many young kids maybe if he had spent more time on the training pitch than looking at the tactics board they would have developed quicker. I doubt Darling would have signed if it wasn't for his connection to Manning.
....in your opinion! We are 5 league games in to Manning's reign, there are 12 new players in the squad, many of whom haven't played in this country before let alone this league. Give them some bloody time! It is my belief that Manning is trying to build a strong defensive base to our play before developing the forward play, he has however said following this game that he expects us to be much better on the ball. Coventry have the same manager as last season and a very settled squad, they scored 12 goals in their last 2 games and were at home. I didn't watch the game this weekend as I was on the golf course, but I have watched it since on the NCFC Youtube channel. Now in the interest of the balance, were we good enough on the ball? - No absolutely not. Topic had his worst game since joining and we lost complete control in midfield. Crnac also really struggled to get in the game. Coventry pressed very high and left us with very little in terms of an out ball. We have no recognised LB on the pitch from 65mins, Fisher had to play there whilst on a yellow card. Despite the heavy possession dominance we arguably created the 2 best chances in the first half and had some good chances to counter had we made the right pass. On a positive note the rearguard action was very good, the majority of Covs efforts were from outside the area and the defence were well positioned to block.
You say 'he wasn't given a bunch of kids' and in the next sentence you say, 'With so many young kids'. Which is it? Can you also list all these experienced players he had and didn't want to use? In the 24/25 squad, there was Hanley and Barnes, while he played Stacey, Duffy and McLean a lot, Fassnacht and Hernandez less so. Take these away and the others are mainly very young.
Those yellow and green glasses must look very nice on you. You suggest my opinion is wrong but then go on to set out in detail that they were crap and showed no signs of improvement. Yet again we have the excuse about new players as if we were the only Club facing that. Our friends down the road lost a striker now considered to be first choice for a top 6 Premiership side and probably had a bigger squad turnover than us including one signed on the last day of the window - sore point - yet managed to beat Sheff Utd 5-0!! You say give them time - how much time? 5 games in and no sign of progress and they don't seem to be even fully fit. Perhaps they should spend more time in the Gym or running around Colney and less time practising passing the ball backwards and sideways.
And your pants look like they need a go in the tumble drier. I merely suggest that you present your posts as your opinions rather than statements of fact. I didn't say we were total crap - I said on the ball we were poor but defensively we look better (improved). Players missing passes isn't down to the manager. On another day we could have lost by 1 or 2 but we also could have won by 1 or 2 had we made the right pass on the counter. Can you not take anything from the fact that we held the lead for the vast majority of the game and only conceded due to an error from Darling (he was exceptional otherwise). Of the sides that we have faced we have the most changed starting line-up from last season - Millwall, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth, Coventry are all very settled sides. Delap is second choice to Joao Pedro at Chelsea and may not even be that by the time he returns from injury. Ipswich didn't have a bigger squad turnover than us. Shef United are bottom of the table on 0 points, 2 goals were stunners from Philogene - signed when they were in the Prem and 3 awful pieces of goalkeeping and defending. Oh and guess what...they are both below us in the league. Again in you opinion there is no sign of progress, I believe the defence is showing signs of progress but there is work to do going forwards. I have to wonder whether you've actually watched us play this season, passing backwards and sideways is not a criticism you can chuck at this team, if anything they need to do that more as in my opinion the reason they are surrendering possession too often is because they are trying to force the early ball forward too often. Last season you were saying that we couldn't judge JHT after 20 games, but you liked him so that was different I guess. I would say we will have a fair idea of where this team is headed by January. Mannings sides have typically been slow starters, we've currently won 2, drawn 2 and lost 2 in the league - its not the end of the world yet!
I don't think anyone on this board has said more often than 1950 has, that he is merely expressing his opinion. If you want examples Suffolk, look at 1950's to-ing-and fro-ing with Rick. Would you really like everyone to begin every declarative post they make with an advisory "IMO"?
Thank you Robbie. If you look at my original post I did state that I didn't watch the game so it might be unfair for me to comment and then set out it was the 'general opinion' of others. Nowhere did I set out that the opinions were facts.
Nonsense I'm afraid. He was given Duffy and was forced to bring him back into the fold because the defenders were not good enough. He didn't fit the model but he had to pick him. Cordoba had no experience of English football.23 years old which is young for a centreback Stacey 28 and could not play possession football Fisher 20 and could Chrisene 20 and couldn't Doyle 20 and could Mahovo 19 and could. I'd be amazed if any manager could get that mix of players,players who have mostly never played together, players that are ridiculously young to play a brand new ambitious style of football. The only ones that you can say were successful were Mahovo and Fisher and they had nothing to do with Knapper. It was an impossible task. Now Manning has signed 3 far more experienced defenders, 2 defensive midfielders, a whole load of talk about improving the defence and yet we have conceded the same amount of goals as last year at this stage (and we were about to win 3 of next 4). What does anyone who likes Manning think he's building here?I honestly do not find it anything worth aspiring to. Thorup was a much better manager in my book, more creative, more ambitious than any of Mannings dull, time wasting, long ball, wingback, combative rubbish.
“How long will it take the optimists to accept that the appointments of Knapper and Manning were mistakes and we are in for a long hard season?” Is this not declaring that the appointment of Knapper and Manning are in FACT mistakes, and that we are definitively in for a hard season? I can accept that as an opinion and not agree with it but I don’t have to accept it as fact as it isn’t. I make clear that my opinions are just that because I’m not trying to force that everyone agree with me. But if I’ve misinterpreted then you have my apologies 1950, I did jump to the last pages of posts so may have missed the nuance of conversation with Rick
You are a very competent poster and a loyal supporter and like all of us entitled to their opinions. If everybody sung from the same hymn sheet there would be no discussion. I did make it clear that I didn't see the game and was basing what I said on other opinions and as Robbie said I cannot be expected to start every sentence of my reply after that with IMO. Lets see where we are in a months time although I was extremely concerned that many comments were made about lack of fitness.
Thorup knew what he was walking into. He had the squad he had. He picked the team he wanted to play. He decided which players he didn't want. He decided how much time was spent on the training ground and how much was spent in front of the tactics board. The more he coached the worse we got. The last 9 games that we played before he left were very poor in terms of both performance and points gained. Manning wouldn't have been my 1st choice to take over, but he deserves a fair crack of the whip and he certainly deserves more than 5 bloody games to show us what he can do. Which ever way you cut it, Mannings first 5 games were better than Thorup's last 5.
You conviently miss out the line between those 2 sentences. Thorup may be a great under 21's coach, but he was well out of his dept in the Chapionship. At least under Manning the team dynamic seems much better.
I don’t see how Knapper can be both incompetent by giving Thorup a crap defence and then also recognise that our weakness lies in our defence? I think Thorup was doomed by some stuff going on behind the scenes - ie a good reason which we don’t and won’t know about. There’s no explanation for the absolutely shocking form in the back quarter of the season and the apparent breakdown in his relationship with players. I’d suggest that is a more likely explanation for the oddly timed and strategically contradictory sacking than Knapper’s wholesale incompetence. Don’t get me wrong I’m not sold on Knapper and think the Manning experiment is doomed to fail, but I don’t see the rationale that Knapper’s signings were bad. If our form hadn’t tailed off so dramatically and inexplicably, we could have been having a very different conversation - remember the positivity back in February as we approach the playoffs?
You think the team is more dynamic than under Thorup. We were the divisions second top scorers. If there is one word I could pick that least describes this team its "dynamic". Its dull, boring, creates barely nothing other than long balls over the top and frankly cannot play.
I talking about the "team dynamic" Good team dynamics are characterized by effective communication, mutual respect among members, clear goals, and a strong sense of commitment. I'm far from convinced this was good under Thorup, who seemed to struggle particularly with the older players. I would be surprised if it eventually came out that his man management skills were one of the reasons he went.
You may well be right about this, Rob, because the decision to sack him with two games to go seems bizarre, especially when Wilshire was given the nod for two games, apparently believing that he stood a chance of getting it permanently, and then it being made clear that couldn't possibly happen, so we lost Wilshire as well. Knapper's learning on the job, I guess, but so was Thorup, and in my opinion his performance was certainly no worse than Knapper's in his role at that point, yet the difference in what happened to them is stark.
