westcoastcanary

[quote user="Woodman"]So, we have Redmond, Bennett, Wes, Andreu, Johnson, Howson, Tettey, Dorrans, Murphy, O''Neil, McGrandles, Hooper, Jerome, Loza and Grabban.Assuming they''re all fit and available, who''s your best front 6? I''d go Tettey, Redmond, Dorrans, Johnson, Hooper, Jerome but I find it hard to leave out Howson and Grabban on current form.[/quote]We aren''t so good that we can just pick a "best" eleven, play in our way and ignore the opposition home or away. That may work most of the time against weaker teams, but not against the top six or eight.

[quote user="Mr Jenkins"]I wonder if their ground is anywhere near up to PL standards. I went there earlier in the season and loved it, proper football ground, but I wonder what the cost would be of improvements. I believe from a friend that there is a new ground being planned but it will be a few years yet. In a way if they did go up, which is seeming less likely by the minute, it could ruin what they have there. As we have found in the past, the chase is often better than the prize.[/quote]Info about the new ground hereAs your friend said, will not be ready for a year or two.

One question I have is why people assume that promotion to the PL is good for any club at any time. For many clubs the pot of gold has turned out to be a poison chalice. In our case promotion was unequivocally a good thing because, irrespective of anything else, it enabled us to free ourselves of the burden of external debt. You have to look at the precise situation of each club and recognise that promotion when ill-prepared for it can be detrimental to a club in the longer term. It looks to me as if Benham is totally relaxed about promotion this year; if it happens well and good, if it doesn''t well and good also. His priority is to keep moving forward with building a modern club equipped to survive long term in the top division. A start is due to be made this year on their new, larger capacity ground at Lionel Road, and the process of implementing the necessary club infrastructure is on-going. He isn''t alone in viewing the idea of the traditional British manager as out-dated and as often as not damaging. The recent interview with the Southampton chairman, reported widely in the press, gives a good insight into the approach Benham is obviously seeking to emulate at Brentford.

[quote user="Webbo118"]Sometimes owners get lucky and sometimes they don''t. Time will tell.[/quote]And in the majority of cases luck has very little to do with it, as opposed to a good brain, sound judgement, knowing what you are doing and an ability to see the wood from the trees (or in cases of "bad" luck, the lack thereof).

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Its crackers, just crackers ![/quote]What is crackers about refusing to let a slim chance of immediate short-term gain de-rail an obviously successful, longer-term plan to position Brentford as a club well-placed to establish itself in the PL? People seem to think that promotion to the PL at any time must be a good thing for any club; there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in the shape of clubs for whom it has ultimately proved a disaster. And by the way, before this broke, most people on here were predicting that Brentford would drop out of the play-off places. Now they are talking as if Benham has cost his club promotion! Warburton is still in charge, Weir is still his assistant, the odds on their winning promotion to the PL this season have not significantly altered.

[quote user="Webbo118"] And there was a time when everyone thought that Lambert knew what he was doing[/quote]Whose track record is the strongest, Matthew Benham''s or Mark Warburton''s? Which of the two can most plausibly be compared to Paul Lambert in his time at City? Who spotted the potential in Mark Warburton in the first place?

[quote user="lake district canary"] Track record is one thing, but no one is fool proof.   He may have miscalculated this time, who knows?  It certainly looks like he may have done. We shall see. [/quote]"Might have miscalculated this time" is a long way from "money/power but doesn''t have a clue". By the way, there''s an update now on the BBC Football web site.

[quote user="lake district canary"] I''m sorry, but the conclusions are not hard to come by.  In football you mess about with your forward momentum as a club at your peril. They have been doing great, but it is easy to see that this uncertainty, change of manager situation is going to affect their chances this season. You can disagree if you like, but imo that is going to be the case. [/quote]It may well be true that their chances this season are being/will be affected, but the conclusion to which you jump is that Matthew Benham doesn''t know what he is doing. On the contrary, his track record should tell you that he almost certainly does know what he''s doing.

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="lake district canary"]It just goes to show that having money/power actually means diddly squat if you don''t know how to use it.    They have in one fell swoop undermined all the good work done over the last two seasons to get them on the brink of  promotion to the richest league in the word.  Now dropped out of the top six and it will be a miracle if they regain momentum now imo.  Its a bit like driving at dusk and everyone has their lights on except the large 4X4 BMW............  A great car with a kn*b behind the wheel is far worse than the person who can only just afford a fifteen year old car and who drives it carefully.  (My car is seven years old, before you jump to conclusions [;)] ) .[/quote]Er, do you know anything about Brentford and its owner Matthew Benham LDC?[/quote] Not a great deal. I know that he has pumped millions into Brentford, c £40m.  So what is your point? [/quote]Simply that you have done exactly what you didn''t want anyone else to do, jumped to a conclusion.

[quote user="lake district canary"]It just goes to show that having money/power actually means diddly squat if you don''t know how to use it.    They have in one fell swoop undermined all the good work done over the last two seasons to get them on the brink of  promotion to the richest league in the word.  Now dropped out of the top six and it will be a miracle if they regain momentum now imo.  Its a bit like driving at dusk and everyone has their lights on except the large 4X4 BMW............  A great car with a kn*b behind the wheel is far worse than the person who can only just afford a fifteen year old car and who drives it carefully.  (My car is seven years old, before you jump to conclusions [;)] ) .[/quote]Er, do you know anything about Brentford and its owner Matthew Benham LDC?

Don''t quite know what people have been expecting to see. He comes on as a late replacement in two games for us, just filling in for the substituted player. Do people expect to see the team suddenly transform itself into an Accies lookalike with Andreu playing a pivotal role?As Jenks says, the one thing we do know is that AN thinks highly enough of him to have made Andreu his first signing. This isn''t an "anything is better than nothing" type signing, or even one based on scouting reports, or a loan to fill a gap in the squad. This is an "I know this player and I want him in my squad" type signing.Personally I''m looking forward to seeing Andreu when AN can properly integrate him into the team. Given the relentlessness of the Championship, that may not happen for some time.

[quote user="cornish sam"]I agree about the natural leaders not needing to wear the armband and I think that it is one often overlooked contributor to our success under Lambert. He seemed to make a point of signing players who had captained teams previously, from the top of my head I can think of 5 or 6 players signed during his first 2 years who had been a captain at a previous club.[/quote]We still have three of them Sam, Russ Martin, Ryan Bennett and Jonny Howson. I too agree that the role of on-field general doesn''t have to be filled by the player wearing the armband, but having lots of club captain material on the pitch doesn''t in itself do the job. Holty had the character and commanded the respect of the other players, but being at CF meant he could only "lead" in an up-and-at ''em sort of way, or by the example he set of never giving up etc. He wasn''t in a position to ensure the team kept shape and maintained enough defensive cover when attacking. In our current squad the only person I think could perhaps do it is O''Neill.

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]Of those 36 goals, I''d love to know how many were created on a break from a set piece, or turnover of possession in midfield. [/quote]The analytics people at CR would be able to tell us no doubt, and so AN will already know. As you say, the occasions that stick in memory are  conceding straight from our own corners, or losing possession in midfield (Whittaker against Brentford, Tettey against Charlton). Both types of vulnerability stem from indiscipline, not maintaining sufficient defensive cover or losing shape.

[quote user="Suffolk Canary"]A lot of the time our defence hasn''t got the ability to concentrate for a full 90 minutes, thereby we let in some incredibly sloppy goals. Also an air of being too casual sometimes. That simple.[/quote]You say simple, but not simple to eradicate. I see it as a more general problem of repeated poor decision making and state-of-game appreciation. It points once again to our need for an on-field general to marshall the troops and maintain tactical discipline. I think Russ Martin has the necessary nous, but apparently not the assertiveness. Got to be one of the CBs, or the DM.

After 30 games we have let in 36 goals, which puts us 7th in the list of meanest defences in the Championship. Five of the current top six have conceded fewer than us, the only other club to do that being Sheffield Wednesday (second meanest defence in the division). Apart perhaps from Cuellar''s habit of conceding penalties, I don''t see any blatant weaknesses in our back five and I''d say criticism aimed at particular individuals is in general unwarranted (which is not to deny there have been one or two bad individual errors which have rightly been highlighted). Morty (on another thread) mentioned that we seem to be able to attack successfully as a team, or defend successfully as a team, but have never managed to strike the right balance which allows us to successfully do both. As Morty pointed out, this is not just this season. It was evident under Lambert (the same at Villa incidentally), defeated Chris Hughton''s attempts to confront it, and this season undermined Neil Adams. Alex Neil has already recognised the problem but it remains to be seen whether he can find the solution.Truth is, every team faces this same problem, which is why so many opt for a counter-attacking strategy. Gung-ho attacking is no solution, nor is dour nine-man defence. Be interesting to see how AN tackles it.

[quote user="Lowestoft Canary"]I would certainly wish to see him bring back Culverhouse as well. The more you think about it the more of a no brainier it turns out to be[/quote]Quite right. It doesn''t take much of a brain to understand that it''s not worth thinking about.

[quote user="Bradwell canary"]This season most of his passes have been backward or at best sideways. Both of which are negative moves. Despite having great speed to go past people very really uses it. Garido is a better crosser of the ball , nearly as back as the other full back at times. Time for a change I think, starting on Saturday.[/quote]A full back playing without a proper wide player ahead of him is likely to find his forward passing options limited. You only have to compare our play up the right and left flanks. Likewise, unless there is someone he can rely on to cover the space he leaves behind him, a responsible full back is not likely to risk bursting forward at speed. Olsson is not the problem; it is not having managed to bring in a replacement for Pilkington. Just playing Garrido instead will not solve it. The likelihood is that AN will try to bring someone in on loan to fill the gap, the other, as yet untried, alternative being to play Garrido at full back with Olsson ahead of him (as several on here have suggested).

From what was said on Radio Norfolk, it sounded to me as if AN took the opportunity to let Olsson know one to one what he thought, rather than when they were all back in the dressing room. Described Olsson as angrily tearing off his gloves as he headed for the tunnel.

[quote user="Chip20"] Ooooh; don''t mention the debt. Apparently we could  ''simply'' have cancelled the agreement and restructured it elsewhere(!)[/quote]So THIS is where the Greeks got the idea from?

Sorry about the typo: should read £20M debt which had to be paid off.

[quote user="ellis206"] When Southampton got promoted, they had a strikeforce which consisted of 3 players (Ramirez, Osvaldo & Rodriguez) who they had signed that summer which totalled roughly around £37m pound. Not really a fair comparison is it. Swansea are the exception to the rule, they have done incredibly well and fair play to them. [/quote] Agreed Swansea are to be admired, but they are no more a fair comparison for us than Southampton. People seem to forget how long the Swans took building to where they are now. Their rise started in League 2 in 2004 under Kenny Jackett, who was followed by Martinez, Sousa, Rogers etc. By the time they got into the PL, all the necessary foundations had been laid for survival at that level. We in contrast arrived in the PL without laying any foundations and still saddled with £29M debt which we were committed to paying off at the end of our second year in the top flight.

[quote user="Shyster"]westcoastcanary -- ''They have not been hampered by the unsettling effects of relegation and have been building steadily over a number of seasons to reach this point. Instead of this guff about where we "should" be and who we "should" be above, people need to look at where Cardiff, Wigan, Fulham, Blackburn, Birmingham and others are.'' Then pardon me all over the place for preferring to look where Southampton & Swansea are at.[/quote]Have you analysed the reasons why Swansea and Southampton have survived and progressed in the PL in contrast to ourselves and others? Everyone can see where those two clubs are; does it mean we "should" be there too?

[quote user="Tumbleweed"]I''d imagine that a lot of the frustration is that we should have been set up for making a better fist of this, but instead: 1. chose the wrong manager in the summer 2. acquired then lost Royle and Phelan 3. removed the manager and brought ina new one 4. brought in a new head coach I think the bottom line is that while we have some good players, and I still maintain a squad every bit as capable as others in the top 8, we have not created a team, and that is the difference. B''mouth, Boro, Derby etc all look like a team, with a plan, a settled side and a confidence. We have seemingly done everything we could to undermine the team ethic, that one factor which lambert so brilliantly created with inferior players and which took us to the Prem. That to me is the frustration. If AN, FM, GH can get the team thing going again, and the return of Bassong is a good sign in that direction, then the short term future may look quite rosy again.[/quote]What you list as the sources of frustration are pretty much the standard when teams are relegated from the PL. I''d say that things have actually held together pretty well -- just look at Cardiff and Fulham who came down with us, or Wigan from the previous year, or Bolton and Wolves (not to mention the host of "big" clubs all of whose supporters think they "should" be in the PL but who have been stuck in the Championship year after year: Forest, Birmingham, Leeds, Wednesday etc.)And yes, "B''mouth, Boro, Derby etc." do look like "teams, with a plan, a settled side and a confidence" which we have not managed to emulate as yet. But it is no accident that those teams are showing those characteristics. They have not been hampered by the unsettling effects of relegation and have been building steadily over a number of seasons to reach this point. Instead of this guff about where we "should" be and who we "should" be above, people need to look at where Cardiff, Wigan, Fulham, Blackburn, Birmingham and others are.

And yes, I know we finished second behind QPR that year, but in my book the difference between first and second is irrelevant.

[quote user="6088m canary"] To all people slagging off the OP tell me honsetly that we shouldn''t be above the likes of the binners, boro and brentford?!?[/quote]This being my first post on the thread I can''t be accused of slagging off the OP, but I will tell you honestly that saying "we should be above the likes of the binners, boro and brentford" is nonsense. They thoroughly deserve to be where they are at the moment, as do we. Why not give proper credit to the teams currently above us? Alternatively, maybe you could spell out exactly why you think we "should" be above them? How many of the teams we out-performed in our last Championship-winning season under Lambert "should" have finished above us?