|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 15:41:26 GMT
I just realised that the really short response about my opinion could and should just be, I think we needed two CBs and a striker brought in this window and so far we've got two strikers and one CB. If we stick with one up front or a three, I think we needed Hemed or Wells to come in for the centre forward role, because our strikers can't play that role very well. Unless we switch to two up front, that means Wells on the right. And I rate him highly, but while they're on contract, that's a role I feel we are fine with Smyth or Wzsolek playing.
Much easier!
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 15:01:15 GMT
I never advocated dropping Leistner. I just stated that anyone we might sign in that position before Thurs and Hall might be a better pairing, and when Hall is fully fit we might see that. Smyth and Wells are definitely not midfielders. They can play up front or wide in an attacking role (as part of a 4-3-3). Shodipo and Osayi-Samuel are not midfielders. They are wingers and pretty ineffective anywhere else. To accomodate two up front I would expect Scowen to shield the defence and then Freeman, Eze and Luongo to play across the midfield ahead of him. Or a diamond with Eze at the top. Just because McClaren has played 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 this season does not mean he'll continue that way. Wells and Hemed have changed his options dramatically. They are both proven Championship goal scorers (none of our other strikers bar Smith - who only usually scores coming off the bench - are) and Wells and Hemed need to play up front in their best position. That said Wells may play wide right in a 4-2-3-1 tomorrow! Manning is not a casualty - he's playing Championship football every week. He'll return a much better player for it. A win for us. Smyth might benefit likewise, maybe in League 1. Kakay too. If we had beaten Sheff Utd and drawn at WBA or lost by one goal there is every chance Kakay would have kept his place. Results, esp. losing 1-7, dictated that Angel really had to start. We were never told that the youngsters would play week in week out. They have to earn their places. Eze has. Furlong has. The others will play from time to time when the opportunity arises - that's how you blood them. Not all at once - unless you want a trip to Shrewsbury and Wimbledon next season. They learn more coming into a team that is competitive each week, not one that loses most weeks. Has Osayi-Samuel taken his chance when given it in the way Eze and Furlong have? Not really - but he looks like he will in time. Has Smyth? Ditto. Has Shodipo? Ditto. Has Manning? Perhaps more than the others but not enough to dislodge Scowen, Freeman or Luongo just yet. I think that's semantics on the wingers and midfielders. I say attacking roles either side of the attacker can either be seen as three strikers or as one out and out striker flanked by two attacking wide players. They are not in the same bracket as Hemed, Smith and Sylla - i.e. players who can only play as a one or two up front. Meanwhile, a lot of those players have been shifted around in different roles and can be seen differently. Smyth has been played on the right of the midfield and as the right hand-side of an attacking three, so we don't see him simply as a 'striker'. Meanwhile Wells has been played up top and on the right hand side of an attacking three. So he's a potential 'one' up top, he can be part of a 'two' up top, but he can also (as you point out too) be part of a 'three' on the right. It's just a way of grouping to show where the overlaps are. Smyth or Wzsolek can potentially be superseded by Wells on the right of an attacking 'three', but Hemed can't and neither can Smith. Hence the overlap in personnel and why I put them together i.e. who playing could mean somebody else is not. Ditto Shodipo and Osayi-Samuels, I said they were wingers, that's why I put LW next to their names. Again semantics but in most systems, out and out wingers are part of a line of four in the middle...which are midfielders. I disagree about Osayi-Samuels though as while he's been used as a winger and can do that role, he's also played both here and at Blackpool on the left-hand side of a three. He even played that exact role in pre-season and scored against Union Berlin. Do we think of him as a striker? No. Meanwhile, we've only really seen Shodipo as an out and out winger on the left. Neither are strikers in the 'one' or 'two' mould, so they're in that pool of midfielders because that represents the players they can supersede. As I said, I'm speculating but you're basing it on what you think would be the best use of his options (and for what it's worth, I agree with the shape you suggest) and I'm basing it on what McClaren has done elsewhere and here. First few games have shown that McClaren has prioritised the shape he wants over the players he has at his disposal. So my assumption is that he'd do something similar as Hemed gives him the option of a striker with a good back-to-goal game that keeps the midfield in-tact. The crux of my point is, how would Wells fit in to McClaren's system of preference and what options does it give him? If Hemed is CF then pending a overhaul in formation, Wells is on the right of that, which would shift Smyth and Wzsolek down the pecking order. On those young players, I guess that's a difference in opinion. I think Smyth has done plenty to earn a run on the right of a front three, personally. Shodipo, that's not really a 'ditto' situation because as we have both agreed, he's a winger and we don't play with wingers. He could be upper Championship quality or League 2 quality, if we don't play with four across the middle then he doesn't have a job in this team. Manning - no, not enough to dislodge Scowen, Freeman or Luongo but, he is one of the few who can cover in the Scowen role next to Luongo and has experience of covering (well) at LB/LWB when it's been asked of him, which is cover for Bidwell, seeing as Hamalainen is out of the picture. More pressingly, he has steel - he's exactly the kind of player we should have had in our back pocket when we were getting torn a new one at West Brom. He's a little git, batten down the hatches and add him in, compared to the impact say Cousins and Washington had by comparison. I agree you can't blood them all at once but you can't blood anyone if they're not here. I don't think the 7-1 is a good example on Kakay because literally nobody played well in that game, you could justify dropping most of them for a loanee. This isn't like throwing Furlong in against Sanchez against Arsenal, it's giving him a run against Wigan's Michael Jacobs on Saturday and seeing how he copes with it. Swansea didn't bother keeping Angel on at this level and as much as I rate him and think he could do a job, I'd still rather persist with a player who's ours after four games, otherwise I don't know why we bother having him in the senior squad to begin with. As Harr alluded to earlier, we talk about the developmental potential of these players but we're willing to let other clubs do it for us. I rate players going out on loan, it's good for them. Did wonders for Eze, Furlong and so on. If they have no shot in this team, then that's top. But if they don't have a shot because of loanees coming in, then that's still problematic. Even if they're better players, they are not ours - they should supplement, not supplant.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 13:25:21 GMT
Meanwhile Woods is apparently set to leave Brentford for Stoke on loan ahead of a £7m deal.
That would be a huge loss for them but they always have a knack for finding a cheaper replacement.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 13:17:30 GMT
Also true but the difference is those were players who, albeit pricey mistakes, were in positions where we had cover. That's not true at CB. Gladwin didn't work out but we had, and still do, have midfielders coming out of our ears. JET was a risk when we had other options up front - shock horror he was a wrong'un when we signed him and is still a wrong'un today. No Leistner means Baptiste and Lynch which is categorically worse. Bring in a loanee with a little pace and guile on the ball if possible and I don't see Leistner being any worse than Baptiste or Lynch alongside them. CBs are about partnerships. Bottom line is signing a player for three years then deciding they aren't good enough after four games is not a luxury we have. We need to give him much longer for sure. Just saying, some early indications that have worried me. Another point would be shouldn’t the Captain be the leader when everything is going wrong, when your 3-4 goals down , don’t we try to shut up shop and stop the team and fans getting humiliated , that didn’t happen. Hopefully he can start to up his game now with Angel in and Hall nearly back. PS I’m with Terry , time for Ingram to sit out a game ....l Fair point. I'd say though that the shutting up shop comes from the manager, not the captain. Look at the subs we made against West Brom, particularly bringing Washington on when we're already getting pounded. Even Redknapp used to add a body into the DM role when we were getting pummelled. The captain has a role in getting heads together, but shape, intent and tactics is from the manager. With Hall back yes, I'd hope things would improve. He's a very good player and a good counter-weight to the basic grit Leistner (or to a lesser extent) Baptiste and Lynch bring to the position. I'm all ears on Angel - he's a lovely and accomplished bloke but we still got absolutely humped with him in the team on Tuesday and in my eyes is still a 35 year old who isn't ours.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 13:08:47 GMT
I agree with most of that Bow, but I fail to see Ingram as a realistic choice for Saturday. He certainly looks the part as his physique shouts out that "I'm a comarding 'keeper", but I'm yet to see him command one inch of his goal area, let alone the penalty area. I've not looked at any highlights of the West Brom or Bristol game, but my reaction to the first goal on Tuesday from the Upper Loft was that it was so simple a save to make, that at the age of 67 I would be deverstated if I had not made it! Perhaps there was a deflection that I missed, but it looked like the old weetabix advert to me! My assumption is that Hemed & Wells will play as a forward two, but I can't envisage how a four man midfield would be comprised. I had not considered Wells starting on the right of midfield & surely that would negate his scoring ability? Anyhow, I will be my position in the Loft tomorrow afternoon, but due to rail disruption I expect to need more alcohol in the pub pre match than I can allow myself! I agree he's been very poor. In current form, I don't see him as sustainable - I only see him as an option for Saturday insomuch as he's got a last chance with some new bodies (and potentially new shape) in front of him but not much more than that really. I'd have started the season with Lumley given the choice but as above, I understand why Ingram was the next cab off the rank. You're right about that first goal on Tuesday. From my view in R Block, it was just as shocking. Simply did not get down quick enough. Minor mitigation about maybe being unsighted but yeah, I think that's poor goalkeeping and as I said in the match thread, I'd made a save better than that on Monday night with the proviso of me 1. not being very good and 2. a bit overweight. I think you give keepers more time than others to get their confidence and eye in, but he looks absolutely bereft already. Few reasons for thinking of Wells potentially being on the right. Firstly, McClaren has played 4-2-3-1 pretty much everywhere he's been. He compromised with a 4-3-3 on Tuesday but the dynamic is similar. Secondly, the fact that Wells played on the right for most of his time at Hudderfield in this division. Thirdly, the ongoing rumours that Smyth was going to be allowed out on loan (firmed up again with recent interest from Pompey). I may be completely wrong but it would be quite the sea-change for McClaren to suddenly go for two up-top and like you say, what does that mean for a midfield four? Osayi-Samuel and Wzsolek on the wings, Eze and Freeman in the middle? I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 12:13:51 GMT
That's kind of my point though about the mindset of the Club and fans in this situation. Whether we rate him or not, we scouted him, we rated him enough to sign him and he's on a three year deal. You can't just chuck him aside for a loanee after four games, it makes a mockery of our situation. He's had four games at this standard as part of very limited partnerships. Like I said above, the man is a brute being tasked with playing alongside brutes. That wouldn't have worked last season if we played both Baptiste and Lynch and it wouldn't work this year, either. With Hall not being fit, I do not see a better option. I think the Captaincy is a bit of a red herring. It's a good statement of value giving him the armband, though agree I'd have rather given it to Scowen or perhaps Bidwell. Nonetheless, I think the armband is pretty symbolic. Putting it on Taarabt to make him feel good didn't mean Derry wasn't in the refs ear all the time. I’m all for giving the guy a good run in the team and a chance for him to develop when he has some better defenders and a more stable environment. But occasionally we do get it wrong, Gladwin, JET, Also true but the difference is those were players who, albeit pricey mistakes, were in positions where we had cover. That's not true at CB. Gladwin didn't work out but we had, and still do, have midfielders coming out of our ears. JET was a risk when we had other options up front - shock horror he was a wrong'un when we signed him and is still a wrong'un today. No Leistner means Baptiste and Lynch which is categorically worse. Bring in a loanee with a little pace and guile on the ball if possible and I don't see Leistner being any worse than Baptiste or Lynch alongside them. CBs are about partnerships. Bottom line is signing a player for three years then deciding they aren't good enough after four games is not a luxury we have.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 11:59:38 GMT
(Tin hat on etc. as I'm probably in the minority here but I think replacing Leistner at this stage would be massively wrong. To me, for a side like ours you've got two basic moulds of defender to work with. You've got big, more basic enforcers and you've got quicker, ball-playing CBs. Leistner is the former and I think he is in the same 'family' of defenders as Baptiste and Lynch.) Not convinced about Leistner, he has been very poor last two games, although most of the team has and I don’t want to make him a Scapegoat. What I have seen of him thou, not convinced, will have another look at him tomorrow and see how he does. That was the gamble of putting in a new player in the team as a Captain, much rather they gave it to someone who had served us a year or two. Luongo, Scowen etc... That's kind of my point though about the mindset of the Club and fans in this situation. Whether we rate him or not, we scouted him, we rated him enough to sign him and he's on a three year deal. You can't just chuck him aside for a loanee after four games, it makes a mockery of our situation. He's had four games at this standard as part of very limited partnerships. Like I said above, the man is a brute being tasked with playing alongside brutes. That wouldn't have worked last season if we played both Baptiste and Lynch and it wouldn't work this year, either. With Hall not being fit, I do not see a better option. I think the Captaincy is a bit of a red herring. It's a good statement of value giving him the armband, though agree I'd have rather given it to Scowen or perhaps Bidwell. Nonetheless, I think the armband is pretty symbolic. Putting it on Taarabt to make him feel good didn't mean Derry wasn't in the refs ear all the time.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 11:47:01 GMT
I barely remember my first game. My mum and dad used to take me from, I think, about age 3 so my first game would have been around 1989/1990. I'm fairly sure it was against Notts County? My mum keeps the programme as a momento to the lifelong suffering they signed me up for so I'll have to ask her to dig it out.
Apparently I used to spend most of the time climbing over the seats and annoying the people around me, so often had to be taken home at half time. I last the full 90 minutes these days but beyond that, my behaviour hasn't actually changed a bit. I just swear more, now.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 11:40:54 GMT
Well done Les Ferdinand on getting two proven Championship goal scorers at an affordable cost. Let's hope they link up well and get match fit/sharp fairly quickly. ---- I think I'm just a bit weary about the tone of this season and the club's direction. Some loans I get, we desperately needed some bodies. But I just don't want the aspirations to move too far away from what we were specifically sold by both the club and McClaren at the start of the season. Midfield and up-front: There's a domino effect here and regardless of whether we feel players are up to task, our players who are on contracts, paid out of our money, have asset value and loanees do not. For example, if we are playing either a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 (the two formations used so far) and based on how players have been shifted about... The '1' striker/middle of a front 3: Wells, Hemed, Washington, Sylla, Smith, Oteh. Midfield options: Wells (F/RW), Smyth (RM/RW), Wzsolek (RW), Cousins (CM or RM), Luongo (CM/AM/DM), Scowen (DM), Eze (AM/RM), Freeman (AM/LM), Chair (CM/AM), Goss (DM/CM), Osayi-Samuel (LW/LM), Shodipo (LW/LM). That's six into one up top and twelve into five (either 2-3 or 3-3 where one is a striker) in the middle. Now options are good, but regardless of how we rate each of those players, those are still people drawing a wage, many of them young, many of which we were told we were going to develop and see much more of this season. The club actually set out to promote that this was a big season for the likes of Osayi-Samuel, Smyth, Chair, Manning (already a casualty) and Eze (he's safe). As far as I can tell, the biggest potential casualties of this are Kakay, Smyth, Wzsolek, Osayi-Samuel and Chair. We've already seen Cousins preferred in RM to Smyth and Wzsolek getting some time there too. You add Wells into the mix as a RW/Striker and Smyth does not get anywhere near the team. Similarly, you now have a situation where at least three of the six strikers on our books have no football to play. They're dead weight extracting wages. I think both Wells and Hemed (now I've learnt a bit more about him) are both potentially very, very good players for us at this level. But I'm weary that we've got both of them, I feel like one of them would and should have been OK because of the roadblocks it throws up to other players. Other players, bare in mind, that we weren't even close to getting relegated with last season. The caveat is that the loan window is still just about open, so we could shift some of these players out. But we'd still be subsidising their wages and the remit laid out by the club was the further integration and development of what he had. But the risk for McClaren here is that if this doesn't work out, then most of his excuses have flown out the window. This ceases to be a young team and it's less of a case of adapting to what we've got. The only youngster involved now would be Eze. If he fails now, it's on his own terms. Keepers: I agree with you on that. Ingram will probably get Saturday and if he doesn't improve, Lumley gets his shot. Ingram gets some mitigation for being asked, along with the CBs, to play a trendy play-out-from-the-back role that none of them have ever been suitable for. He wouldn't have been my first choice but I appreciate why politically he needed to start the season as number 1. But we went simpler at the back for the Bristol City game and he was very poor once again and his confidence seems to be draining. Defence: Tin hat on etc. as I'm probably in the minority here but I think replacing Leistner at this stage would be massively wrong. To me, for a side like ours you've got two basic moulds of defender to work with. You've got big, more basic enforcers and you've got quicker, ball-playing CBs. Leistner is the former and I think he is in the same 'family' of defenders as Baptiste and Lynch, but he's better than both of them. What we haven't replaced is the latter, where we've lost Onouha and Robinson. Hall fits that mould but as you say, he isn't fit yet and probably needs to be handled with kid gloves. I think the defenders we've got look worse because we've lost that more nuanced presence next to them. I'd expect any of them to look better next to Hall (or a loan signing that's like him or the CBs we lost in the summer) because it shares responsibility and allows them to focus on their strengths. Faurlin was incredible but could he have done his job without Derry doing the 'fetching'? Without Scowen doing his ratty best, Freeman and Eze can't express themselves. Blackstock without Lee Cook popping balls onto his head is half the player. Partnerships and mutually supportive roles make or break a team. Onouha with Baptiste or Lynch was workable. Baptiste and Lynch is relegation fodder. Either way, signing a player like Leistner up for a few years and then dropping him is a mis-use of resources. He's in a brand new league in a brand new team - a team that is rock bottom on confidence and playing poorly. Give him some time, the core ingredients are there, not everything can or should be fixed by layering people on top. Look at the Luongo of last season compared to the player we signed. Fundamentally then, my only long-term cause for concern is that we currently have a 35 year old loanee playing ahead of a young RB we own, we have a 28 year old loanee potentially freezing out Smyth, who I love to bits and a 32 year old striker that means at least three of our own strikers likely spending the season picking up a wage for sitting on their arses. Defence, less concerned as we're very undermanned back there and Lynch and Baptiste have always been cover. But a CB in the mould of Hall would be far, far more valuable to us than another body like Leistner. We've got three of them already and the one we literally just bought has only played four games in this country so far. This isn't doom and gloom. We may well be far better off for these changes. But I'm acutely aware that we've turned a bit of a corner here in terms of our direction and it is not the direction I feel like we were sold during the summer.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 9:54:32 GMT
We are able to convert loans from this window into permanent deals in January, provided the terms of the purchase are registered in this window. That is what Hoos said in his podcast anyway. We can also sign players for 70% of what we receive on any player sale. Thanks ricky, I didn't appreciate that we could convert loans to permanent in January. I don't think the 70% of a sale would apply though. If the mentioned £4 million is correct, we would need to sell a player for near £6 million! Cynic in me says it's an agent trying to jack the fee and interest up in his client. Everyone knows we're after a centre back, chuck our name in the ring at the £4m mark and hopefully another club will panic and offer more. Cannot see how that's actually workable for us. I feel like the same thing happened with Freeman. Boro were interested at around the £3m mark and then someone the day before the window closes comes out with the story that Blackburn had magically found £4.5m down the back of the sofa and were in for him too. Not a chance.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 9:32:07 GMT
It's just dawned on me. He's a jinx. We'll be fine now he's gone back. Here's me thinking it was our manager's fault. We're going to have to build a Wicker Man on Shepherds Bush Green...
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 24, 2018 9:29:08 GMT
I think the club feed Dave Mcintyre with what they want to be leaked. He is pretty accurate, currently more so than any other intelligence. Fair enough, he is supportive usually but I suspect he got thumped for his comments about Shteve and the problems behind the scenes last weekend. But today's business was not cheap, so some money was found from somewhere although he always maintained the funds were there. Just hope that likes of Smythe do not go out on loan as a consequence. I like Dave and value his comments, thought he let himself down last week referring IH to a child, no need to do that. I think (may be wrong) he clarified that the 'child' comment was how he was perceived by some at the club rather than is personal opinion. I cut WLS a lot of slack because as others say, Dave's fully QPR and he's normally correct with the information he gets. He's cultivated links with the club for years for information while not being afraid to fall out with them if he disagrees with what they're up to.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 12:57:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 10:48:47 GMT
This is merely speculation so it may be concern over nothing, but one worry is that Wells actually played on the right for a lot of the time he was at Huddersfield and we played 4-3-3 on Tuesday. If McClaren wants to start with both Hemed and Wells, that would likely mean the latter going on the right of the three, which would push Wszolek and (far more concerning, for me) Smyth out of the picture for the foreseeable. I rate Wells but that would stick in my craw a bit if that happened, considering all the talk about development of the squad. This is my biggest bug bear. Holloway was supposedly pulled away from the team as Fernandes and the board wanted McClaren in to supposedly develop the younger players in the squad as they though Holloway and Bircham couldn’t do it. Manning goes out on loan..... Completely agree. Holloway, rightly or wrongly, was painted as too unstable and erratic to take our young players to the next level, compared to McClaren's experience of development. This may not all come to pass and I'm not poo-pooing all loan signings because whether it was Holloway or McClaren or anyone in the hot seat, we needed bodies in at CB (one in, you could easily argue we need one more considering we lost Onouha and Robinson) and a better option up top. But there is a line and it has huge reverberations around the club for our young players. I still feel uneasy about Rangel - I'm in the minority (probably?) who feel we should be giving Kakay a longer run but acknowledge the positives in short-term cover. But we've already pushed Manning out on loan and attacking right midfield is not a position I feel we are weak in. There's supplementing with experience and there's building core positions around loan signings at the expense of players already on the payroll who have done nothing to show that they can't do a job. Happy to be proved wrong but my gut would say Hemed OR Wells makes sense, I don't see how they both do.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 10:36:26 GMT
Not sure I agree with you there... (apart from the goalie. New players lift the crowd and can then lift the team. We are also getting a player valued at £5m in Wells and that was thought to be beyond our reach. Also, if we were to sign a commanding centre half, we could organise our existing players. Just ask Tottenham supporters about not buying players and how that impacts - the revers is also true......I hope. 100 % agree. We do need to address the Goalkeeper issue though. Get Ingram out the team and put in Lumley...... Either that or a six month loan to the Fulham keeper if we can afford him, but honestly I don’t know how good he is. I think Ingram had to start the season because of how long he waited under Smithies and left a first team role at Wycombe - he was the next cab off the rank and deserved a shot. But agree, he's been very poor and his confidence has visibly been drained. Be surprised if Lumley now doesn't get a shot to make the position his own. Wouldn't like us to get a keeper in on loan, though. It's one thing McClaren talking "development" and topping up with a couple of loans, but loaning in a keeper would be going way too far in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 10:29:31 GMT
This is merely speculation so it may be concern over nothing, but one worry is that Wells actually played on the right for a lot of the time he was at Huddersfield and we played 4-3-3 on Tuesday. If McClaren wants to start with both Hemed and Wells, that would likely mean the latter going on the right of the three, which would push Wszolek and (far more concerning, for me) Smyth out of the picture for the foreseeable.
I rate Wells but that would stick in my craw a bit if that happened, considering all the talk about development of the squad. In this scenario, I'd imagine Smyth would go the way of Manning and that would be a massive shame to me. Could and should have been a big season for him.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 10:20:53 GMT
I'm shocked that we may well end up going for both of them. With their wages, I don't see how that makes sense without shifting a couple out on loan, considering we play with one up top? By my reckoning, that would mean Wells, Hemed, Smith, Sylla, Washington and Oteh for one position - with Washington as the exception as he can play on the left of a 'one' (yes, I know he's not very good). Well all except Oteh have been put in the widow. We could sell Sylla in this window (overseas) - or perhaps loan him with an option to buy in January. I think Washington may go to Millwall or back to Peterborough (with wages subsidised) That makes sense. Question would be who wants them and would they be willing to compromise to get first team football? I think Washington to Millwall is a possibility, I weirdly think he'd be quite a good fit there. Peterborough less so, just because I think they'd be a bit financially shrewder and they brought Godden in during the summer and he's on fire at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 10:14:38 GMT
The life of a football manager is indeed a crazy one. I agree with Bow that Warnock is a past master at rewriting history - a one man PR machine going nuts on the touch line so that the cameras can capture his angst. Enjoyed his time with us, but I watch with interest how he does this year. Interesting though that the money he has spent has been on good Championship players. At least they should be able to bounce back if they are relegated. Meanwhile, Gary Rowett who we have courted on more than one occasion may be in more trouble than Shteve. The chants of 'sacked in the morning' and 'you don't know what you are doing' very loud last night. Indeed. And it's a precarious role where perceptions can shift very quickly - arguably quicker than for a footballer. Unless you're on the old boy merry-go-round where Teflon-coated figures like Redknapp and Pardew keep getting work regardless, you're only as good as your last job. Warnock knows this very well and plays the game exceptionally well. He may be all angst and niggling on the surface but there's a very shrewd, experienced PR man operating under that exterior and with good reason. It's partly why I don't fly off the handle at post-match interviews or PR guff the club chucks out. It can be annoying but these are people who know they're expendable and a lightning rod for anger. Gary Rowett is a great example. I'd also chuck in Garry Monk (taking on a MAD job at Brum), Mark Warburton (unemployed), Paul Clement (appalling last season, yet to win this season bar a cup game...against Monk's Birmingham). All hailed as messiahs at various places. The book 'Living on the Volcano' is a decent read in terms of the modern managerial experience, would recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 10:02:25 GMT
Fantastic if we have landed these two. Should start scoring some goals. The Manager needs to look at the defence now and sort the mess out. I'm shocked that we may well end up going for both of them. With their wages, I don't see how that makes sense without shifting a couple out on loan, considering we play with one up top? By my reckoning, that would mean Wells, Hemed, Smith, Sylla, Washington and Oteh for one position - with Washington as the exception as he can play on the left of a 'one' (yes, I know he's not very good).
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 9:19:07 GMT
I was reading that, poor bloke! Certainly makes me feel a bit less bad having sat through the same two games for considerably less money (though still...a fair chunk!).
In terms of Scandinavia, we've still got a pretty active Norwegian fan club I believe?
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 9:17:17 GMT
A legend in his own mind and not as good as he values himself. I know you really, really don't like the guy but can't you see the stunning level of difference between our defence with him in it and without it? It was stark when he was here (we statistically lost less and conceded less when he played throughout his career with us) and it's even starker now.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 9:12:17 GMT
Yeah I know it’s old ground. But can we 100% say we never said to No to him? Why would he say Les had told him they were appointing JFH the next day, he wouldn’t lie about that surely. Anyway he won’t be coming back to LR , not unless Cardiff sack him and Les has moved on ? We have no idea how this might pan out. We can't 100% know but Warnock is the wiliest of old foxes (and I love him for that) and he spins that story in a positive light for his own benefit. He's not lying about us saying "no" to him, he just leaves out the context. He effectively announced his retirement in 2016 and his wife was going through Cancer treatment. My understanding was QPR were interested but he categorically said no, he could not commit to a first team manager role. So we looked elsewhere and got a new manager signed up, which was the right thing to do. By the time he changed his mind, it was too late and he took on Rotherham. That bizarre win at Reading does kind of put rose-tinted glasses on things. We were bang average that night and got the result purely from Al-Habsi inexplicably dropping the ball into his own net. It was absolutely hilarious, was a great end to the evening. As an aside, my conspiracy theory based on rumours at the time was that when Warnock first started hanging around the place again, he actually fancied the Director of Football role for himself - something more stable and long-term before retirement that wouldn't require all the travelling and pressure of a manager role while his wife recovered. Just think we've got enough on our plate already without pining over Warnock, you know?
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 23, 2018 9:00:12 GMT
It is fixable. Playing to the teams strengths and not trying to turn us into Man City will help. Every team would love to be able to play out from the back, but Ingram isn't Ederson, so stop trying to turn him into that. Guys like Warnock get results in this division because they assess what they have to work with and build their team and tactics around that. Guys like Warnock and Mick McCarthy get results because they don't care for the plaudits from millenials who want to see the latest flavour of the month formations or lots of Swansea like sideways passes with no end results. If having 11 cloggers and winning ugly is what it takes they'll accept that. McClaren needs to forget trying to be a clever clever fancy dan coach and just play to this teams limited strengths. If he does that we will be fine. Agree with most of that too. Only thing I'd say is that there is that middle ground in terms of style. I agree that McClaren's key problem is that he's trying to make us play in a way that would work with the players he wishes he had, rather than what we have got. By the same token, while we do need a lot more grit, blood and thunder in the side, trying to make this group of players go too direct could also be not adapting to our strengths. Yes, we do need to win ugly, we do need to bombard teams sometimes rather than delicately moving through the thirds, just to get some bloody points on the board and a bit of momentum going, but there's talent in that midfield and we shouldn't bypass it. It is salvageable though, I agree. There's more in this team than these results show but they are being setup wrong and their confidence is in the bin. As you say, Warnock is the prime example of that in our division. You can't really point to a 'Warnock style' and that's a good thing - you get similarities in the spine having guts, but his teams range from free-flowing, marauding sides to limited but effective battering rams. Sometimes he does get a bit to spend (he certainly did with us) but he predominantly looks at the team he actually has, assesses the strengths and adapts accordingly. That's the polar opposite of what's going on at QPR this season. The difference with McCarthy is that you probably can point to a particular style and it probably depends on how screwed we all think QPR is. I think back to his relentless 4-5-1 formation at Wolves after they got relegated. Kevin Doyle up top, scrapping to stay in the Championship. It was ugly, it split the Wolves fanbase, but it definitely kept them up. Ditto at Ipswich where his style of play was ugly but kept them safe - the issue is longer term, once that job is done, fans want to see some progress. He feels like smashing the emergency red button. I don't doubt he'd get this team solid, but I also don't know if that's what we want to be lumbered with so early on. I guess we see what happens in the loan window and the next few games. Side note on the millennials thing, you're right in terms of pandering a trendier style of play but does amuse me that it's propagated by managers predominantly in their 40s and 50s and over-praised by pundits of around the same age!
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 22, 2018 22:26:07 GMT
Is this good? I want it to be good. I'm not v familiar with him. I think him and Wells were our best two options so can only be good. He is not prolific but seems to be steady thought very highly by the Brighton faithful. An upgrade on Washington/Sylla for sure. Legit, thank you. That sounds promising.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 22, 2018 22:03:53 GMT
Is this good? I want it to be good. I'm not v familiar with him.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 22, 2018 21:38:06 GMT
No only did we sack NW in the Prem. This still hurts when NW came back for those 3 - 4 games.... “With a bit of persuasion, I would have stayed there. (QPR) But after we won at Reading, [director of football] Les Ferdinand came into the dressing room and told me that they were appointing Jimmy the next day. It was a bolt out of the blue and I was a bit disappointed but I enjoyed that time so much and I took another job at Rotherham.” That's an old chestnut though, it doesn't tell the whole story and that's Warnock being Warnock. He took caretaker control and was around the place but didn't want to work under a DoF and when asked about the managers job, he categorically said no, because his wife was very unwell and he wanted to take a break from football. By the time he did his whole "I've got the bug again" routine and changed his mind, we had already signed up JFH. It's disappointing but the club never said no to Warnock.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 22, 2018 17:15:07 GMT
Are you annoyed because them not making the decision this morning means less time for you to prepare your "McCarthy out" posts in time for Christmas.? Well that could well happen i suppose ha ha Haha I enjoyed that, fair play.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 22, 2018 16:52:39 GMT
As for the OP, as per I agree with most of what you're saying Ricky.
If this is an issue of a lack of experience/depth as McClaren says it is (I disagree, but he's the boss), then let us try our best to bring in a CB and a striker as he wants and some games to adapt. Crap as we've been, I'd be ok with that because whether it was McClaren or Guardiola in charge, we'd still be trying to get those players in for those positions.
If nothing improves and McClaren's only answer is to bleat on about not getting the players in that he wants, then I can't see where he can go from there. The task becomes to shape and adapt with the players we've got and if he's clearly not up for that, then it doesn't feel like he's got a leg to stand on and will need to go. If Smith and Sylla are what we've got, then bloody keep players on the pitch who can supply their limited tool set, not sub them. You know, the basics.
I quite like Mick McCarthy, on a personal level at least. My only two words of warning about someone like him coming in are:
1. Based on the strengths you list (which I agree with), do you think they can adapt into the kind of tight-knit, blood and thunder football McCarthy is known for? As in, if our strengths lie heavily in a technical midfield, could they adapt to a more basic form of football? And is that the best use of them? For all the hand-wringing neutral fans did about Ipswich fans' treatment of McCarthy because he kept them up, they didn't have to watch his team every week while paying some of the most expensive ticket prices in the division. The football was genuinely appalling. I still feel there's a big grey area between McClaren's utterly naive system and going back to the absolute basics.
2. How often have we collectively cried out for stability, saying we'll compromise and just want to see hard working players and consolidate in the Championship before chucking our toys out of the pram? How many called for Ollie's head when we were never fewer than 6 points above relegation because of the style of play and so on? It's all well and good wanting it now, but what will be like in 6 months time if we're hovering in 17th grinding out bore draws?
Disagree about Leistner, though. He's hard working, nasty and strong - exactly what many of us wanted brought in. I think the problem is that he's only half of the solution for our style of play. We've got the brawn, now we need the footwork and pace, which we lost with Onouha. Or to put it another way, Leistner and Hall could be a very nice pairing at this level - one crushes, one recycles the ball. Lynch and Leistner is a disaster as there's no pace and Lynch is pap. Baptiste and Leistner are far, far too similar and one dimensional. Not saying I'm convinced but he's three games into a new season at a new level in a new country. I think he's alright, give him a bit of slack.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 22, 2018 16:24:43 GMT
We should have called McCarthy last night after the game and sacked the clown this morning. Any loans can still be got without him in charge, he is a liability and whoever sanctioned him as manager should also be sacked. Are you annoyed because them not making the decision this morning means less time for you to prepare your "McCarthy out" posts in time for Christmas.?
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Aug 22, 2018 13:04:38 GMT
I think if you watch it again the weight of Washingtons pass caused Eze to have to take a touch, if he had have rolled it across the box it would have been hard to miss (would never say impossible, it's QPR!!!) This has dredged up some repressed memories from the Cardiff play-off final! Like I say, don't want to go OTT on Eze cos I think he's great and very talented but no ideal pass or not, you should be burying chances like that even with a touch.
|
|