Canos to Brentford

[morty 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="lake district canary"]It hasn''t worked out and the penny may have dropped with him that we are not going to play a rookie in a season where promotion is seen as a must.[/quote]So perhaps you can explain why in particular the Murphy''s, as well as Thompson and Godfrey have all been in and around the team then?Neither of the Murphy''s has any more experience at this level than Canos, so claiming he''s not playing because he''s a ''rookie'' makes absolutely no sense in the overall context of players that HAVE been chosen.Canos showed at Brentford that he can play very well at this level, there are indeed concerns over his ability to play a full 90 mins on a consistent basis, but I''d certainly argue that he would likely have done no worse than others that have been called upon so far, and at least if that had been the case we''d have SOMETHING to go on, instead of little more than idle conjecture.[/quote]Players should never be picked on a basis of "He couldn''t do no worse".I have seen him play, and he didn''t particularly impress. Others have said the same.He gets his chance, every single day, just the same as every single other player in every other football team, to stake his place. Like it or not, someone who knows more about Canos, than any of us do, hasn''t deemed him good enough.And that is literally all there is to it.

[priceyrice 123]

[quote user="morty"]Pritchard is a long term replacement for Wes, who is lasting longer than predicted by the club.

[/quote]

Morty - what about Maddison?

I suspect Pritchard was brought in as he became available and we were due to lose Brady, potentially even Naismeth.

You don''t pay £8m in the championship for someone to sit on the bench, a club like ours cannot even afford to do that in the prem. In face, thinking about it, is he our second highest transfer fee paid?

[Mr Cholmondley Warner 0]

So we didn''t scout him properly and only found out he was a 🦃 turkey when we signed him

Doesn''t sound good

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Brentford are paying £2.5m up front for Canos and then add-ons, the amount of which hasn''t been mentioned yet.

To me it seems Norwich are offloading him for the exact deal they signed him for - but assumption must be Norwich paid pretty much zero of the add-ons. If he gets regular games at Brentford then it is safe to assume he will trigger a couple of the add-on payments and Norwich will get in more than they paid for him. How long it takes for this amount to be more than his wages is another matter but you wouldn''t expect a young player such as Canos to be on more that £500k a year; 6 months worth of wages shouldn''t take too long to recover.

As for Pritchard, from AN''s comments after he signed I''m 99% sure that was a transfer he pushed for, and as I said in another post I''m also pretty certain he was signed on the assumption that Naismith and Brady would leave, giving money to bring in other players.

[morty 0]

[quote user="priceyrice"][quote user="morty"]Pritchard is a long term replacement for Wes, who is lasting longer than predicted by the club.

[/quote]

Morty - what about Maddison?

I suspect Pritchard was brought in as he became available and we were due to lose Brady, potentially even Naismeth.

You don''t pay £8m in the championship for someone to sit on the bench, a club like ours cannot even afford to do that in the prem. In face, thinking about it, is he our second highest transfer fee paid?[/quote]What about him?Should we not show ambition then? Maddison has shown the right attitude, and will go on to be a big player for us. How old is Naismith, 30 or something? We may have to concede here that we actually have an overlapping, long term plan to our recruitment. I''m sure people would be wailing if we lost players and didn''t have ready replacements.

[priceyrice 123]

God, so i rediscovered my log in details and it''s so easy to get drawn back into posting a lot!

I should add as well, Pritchard has had far more chances than Canos, and I would argue Pritchard has performed medicore to poor in more games than he has looked good. Just to note, i like Pritchard, he was quality for Boro, he needs a run of games and he should be given a free role to roam as Wes has in the past. The problem now is AN likes all his players tracking back and putting tackles in, if we had a DM who was any good and a manager who had the balls to let attacking players be attacking players, then i think he would thrive.

[GJP 79]

I thought he was better than Redmond?

[morty 0]

[quote user="priceyrice"]God, so i rediscovered my log in details and it''s so easy to get drawn back into posting a lot!

I should add as well, Pritchard has had far more chances than Canos, and I would argue Pritchard has performed medicore to poor in more games than he has looked good. Just to note, i like Pritchard, he was quality for Boro, he needs a run of games and he should be given a free role to roam as Wes has in the past. The problem now is AN likes all his players tracking back and putting tackles in, if we had a DM who was any good and a manager who had the balls to let attacking players be attacking players, then i think he would thrive.[/quote]Agree that Pritchard isn''t the finished package, which is why he is getting the game time he gets. Yeah like him too.And he has had almost exactly the role that Wes gets, when he has played. But suffers a bit from what Wes used to do, not knowing when to release the ball, and having a bit of awareness of other players.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="lake district canary"]It hasn''t worked out and the penny may have dropped with him that we are not going to play a rookie in a season where promotion is seen as a must.[/quote]So perhaps you can explain why in particular the Murphy''s, as well as Thompson and Godfrey have all been in and around the team then?Neither of the Murphy''s has any more experience at this level than Canos, so claiming he''s not playing because he''s a ''rookie'' makes absolutely no sense in the overall context of players that HAVE been chosen.Canos showed at Brentford that he can play very well at this level, there are indeed concerns over his ability to play a full 90 mins on a consistent basis, but I''d certainly argue that he would likely have done no worse than others that have been called upon so far, and at least if that had been the case we''d have SOMETHING to go on, instead of little more than idle conjecture.[/quote]It probably has less to with what other players and more to do with how Canos is himself. Other young players may be more realistic and patient about playing in the team and their attitude better suited to be given the odd chance.  It would be no surprise if Canos has shown immaturity or impatience - he showed it at Liverpool, angering Klopp in the process - and we''re supposed to be going for promotion, not acting as a kintergarden.

[priceyrice 123]

@Morty - For me, it was crazy to spend the majority of our transfer budget on someone who wasn''t the finished article. I don''t believe the intention was to bring him in to sit on the bench most games. I think the manager needs to have more faith with him and accept his defensive liabilities. He was consistently brilliant for Boro in this division, i''m sure he was championship player of the year or in team of the year a couple of seasons back. I think if we were doing well in the division we would be seeing more of him, currently AN is more keen to have a team who can scrap and then the ability to play nice football comes in at number 2. I can''t argue with this approach currently though, we have a soft core and until that it hardened it''s difficult to find a place in your team for the likes of Maddison, Canos and Pritchard (all technically gifted but not physically strong players).

Re the release of the ball, we have suffered from this problem for years but I also think the style of football we play doesn''t help (also Wes'' ability to slow down play by turning 360 degress doesn''t always help!). We aren''t a team who tends to play the ball beyond the defenders for an attacking player running through, we prefer to pass it around in front of teams or hit them on the counter. Players like Wes and Pritchard do have a real eye for a through ball, but i rarely see a run get made by a player demanding such a ball.

[Van wink 2,994]

lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) wrote the following post at 31/01/2017 10:00 AM:

Bethnal Yellow and Green wrote:

Lincoln, Have you seen any evidence Canos is a talented player while wearing a Norwich shirt? He had a good loan season at Brentford but there are tons of examples of young players have one great season and then never replicating it - Bamford being the obvious example. There is also the evidence that Canos forced a move out of Liverpool as he wanted to play games so I think it is a safe assumption that him wanting to leave Norwich is for the same reason. How long should Norwich force a player to stay when he wants to leave in the hope he''ll develop into a first team player? Norwich''s finances are tight and any wages he is collecting are wages Norwich can''t offer another player who can contribute to the first team. Norwich can''t just stockpile young players because they might get good in a few years time, the immediate needs of the team must also be considered.

No I haven''t, as he''s not had the chance. That''s the point!

Your example of Bamford is a little irrelevant, as he''s never had chance to replicate his form back in the championship. He''s only gone on to play in the premiership since that prolific championship season, hasn''t he? Perhaps he''s one of those Jerome type of players.

Without seeing Canos play for Norwich, it''s logical to make a assemenet based on his time at Brentford. Since we are in the same league.

You may very well be correct. And you put across a good point of view, but can you deny Canos hasn''t had a proper chance?

👍Good to have posters like Bethnal offering reasoned informed argument. Thanks.

[Goss Volley 0]

I don''t think you mean Boro?

[morty 0]

[quote user="priceyrice"]@Morty - For me, it was crazy to spend the majority of our transfer budget on someone who wasn''t the finished article. I don''t believe the intention was to bring him in to sit on the bench most games. I think the manager needs to have more faith with him and accept his defensive liabilities. He was consistently brilliant for Boro in this division, i''m sure he was championship player of the year or in team of the year a couple of seasons back. I think if we were doing well in the division we would be seeing more of him, currently AN is more keen to have a team who can scrap and then the ability to play nice football comes in at number 2. I can''t argue with this approach currently though, we have a soft core and until that it hardened it''s difficult to find a place in your team for the likes of Maddison, Canos and Pritchard (all technically gifted but not physically strong players).

Re the release of the ball, we have suffered from this problem for years but I also think the style of football we play doesn''t help (also Wes'' ability to slow down play by turning 360 degress doesn''t always help!). We aren''t a team who tends to play the ball beyond the defenders for an attacking player running through, we prefer to pass it around in front of teams or hit them on the counter. Players like Wes and Pritchard do have a real eye for a through ball, but i rarely see a run get made by a player demanding such a ball.[/quote]Very much agree with the last paragraph!Maybe we are, subtly, trying to change the way we play with Maddison? What it does come down to, ultimately, is that we can never really plan for what division we are playing in. It has long since been seen that you need a certain type of player to get you out of this league, but that player may not be suited when you get to the Premiership. Plus we rarely have the money to make wholesale, one window, changes to our team. Virtually every player we buy, unless he is a basic, solid one, is going to be a bit of a gamble.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

I''d take it one stage further Morty - EVERY player that EVERY club buys is a bit of a gamble.

There are lots of reasons why a player may not do as well at a new club as at their last one - conversely there are potentially a lot of reasons why a player may do better at their new club than at their previous one.

It''s always been that way and it always will be.

[priceyrice 123]

[quote user="Goss Volley"]I don''t think you mean Boro?[/quote]

Was it not Boro Pritchard played for?

[priceyrice 123]

@Morty - spot on, being a yo-yo club is always going to make our transfer business tougher. Every player is a gamble and I think the type of player AN wanted in the summer has changed this window due to the physical nature having a larger part to play than I think he expected at the outset.

Looking back at it now, O''Neil would have been really useful right now, I don''t think most fans would have said that in the summer.

[morty 0]

[quote user="priceyrice"]@Morty - spot on, being a yo-yo club is always going to make our transfer business tougher. Every player is a gamble and I think the type of player AN wanted in the summer has changed this window due to the physical nature having a larger part to play than I think he expected at the outset.

Looking back at it now, O''Neil would have been really useful right now, I don''t think most fans would have said that in the summer.[/quote]Very much so, but I suspect the manager couldn''t make him any promises as to how many games he would play in. I can see both sides of that one, but he''s a solid pro that certainly could have contributed.Trouble is he would probably be behind about 4 players, and if it were not for an injury/suspension crisis, he may not have played all season.

[Goss Volley 0]

@priceyrice I think you are meaning the season he had at Brentford when he came and played well against us? (Not trying to be pedantic btw)

[priceyrice 123]

@Goss - yes your right, I had it in my mind it was Boro but your right it was Brentford. I just had it wrong in my head!

It was Bamford at Boro wasn''t it?

[Goss Volley 0]

yes mate, Bamford at Boro

[priceyrice 123]

@Morty

I agree, I don''t think anyone could have guessed we would have so many injuries to the midfielders. If i recall we offered him a 1 year contract but he wanted 2 years, I think at the time it was a sensible decision not to agree to 2 years.

[morty 0]

Confirmed?http://beesotted.co.uk/?p=20775

[Guest]

NCFC is no different from any other club re its unfortunate purchases.

Trouble is, clubs have, and can afford such large squads nowadays so the risk of failure increases.

It just wasn''t to be for Canos and it is sensible to move him on and recoup most if not all the money.

Would we have even paid Liverpool yet?

[Alex Moss 2,165]

The good news is that SKY are reporting that of the £2.5million we''re receiving (same as we paid for him?), we''re giving £750,000 of it to Liverpool.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

We''ll regret this.

[hogesar 9,618]

Ah, in which case, if Sky are correct, pretty stupid deal. But it''s Sky. They may be wrong.

[Mr Apples 1,317]

Is Canos potentially the new Daniel Ayala or the new Dani Pacheco?

Apples

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="Mr Apples"]Is Canos potentially the new Daniel Ayala or the new Dani Pacheco?

Apples[/quote]

I wish we''d kept Ayala. He''d be a first team reqular for us now.

[Van wink 2,994]

Does that mean we don''t need to sell Brady😉

[ron obvious 1,501]

There''s some real financial whizz-kids in Liverpool. Sky too by the looks of things.