Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
TeemuVanBasten

"We were not physical enough" - Farke

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, hogesar said:

No idea what your point is because with a fully fit squad Godfrey and Zimmerman would be two physical players and Amadou would be in midfield.

Which replicates your Kompany and Toure combination...

The two smallest sides in the league last season were Bournemouth and Man City, I don't know if we've taken one of those top two spots this season but think about our results this season and then ask yourself whether this is a coincidence.

Whilst those two teams may possess other strengths like pace and intelligence which help them to negate their lack of physicality against the stronger sides in the league.... evidence so far suggests that we don't.

A "fully fit" squad is something which does not currently exist in the Premier League, there is no club with no injuries, I suspect that this would be an extremely rare occurrence. We currently have a slightly higher than average number of injuries for the league. 

In this entirely hypothetical but unrealistic scenario where we would have a fully fit squad, would the other 19 clubs all have a fully fit squad too?

Bournemouth had 6 or 7 players out when they played us, as did Man Utd. So do we have to imagine us having 0 injuries versus them having 6, or us having 0 injuries and them having 0 injuries? 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/10/2019 at 16:36, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Or people are presenting horribly simplistic solutions as self-certified pub wisdom. 
 

We can attract young, unproven, technical talent because we play such players. We don’t have a lot of money. Quality technical and big physical players are very expensive and everyone chases them.
 

We have no money so we go after players with chequered careers, injury risks or those who have travelled without settling or - excellently - quality young players starved of opportunity (that de-facto others have rejected or not opened the door to).
 

Whatever we choose we want players who can play a fluid, expansive, possession-oriented game. 
 

To bring in physical players therefore either means the binary of bringing in players who are big and physical (and perhaps not so technical, thus undermining the model) or bringing in players who are big and physical and technical (which every half-baked analyst from a 3rd tier side can identify. They cost a fortune and everybody chases them, thus undermining the model - again). 
 

We are on a model on the Auxerre-Ajax-Barcelona spectrum of long term methodology and philosophy. We will prefer players we have bred and talent we have schooled. 
 

If we can have all the assets plus physicality of course we will welcome it with open arms. Of course equal brilliant and superior physical beats just equal brilliant most times. 
 

To change means so much more than trite pub landlord solutions and simplicities. 
 

We were incredible last year. It was a wonderful unexpected miracle. We didn’t then spend any money. Other Premier teams already had lots of money and lots of great players. 
 

Our methodology is refreshing and will maximise our chances and improve our players based on our available parameters. 
 

Repeatedly upsetting the odds against teams and players that are better is unlikely however. You must believe it and you will sometimes achieve it, though let us not stake our houses on rainbows and unicorns, rather let us enjoy victories against Man City and the wonderful memories of a beautiful and - let’s not forget - the already against the odds and unexpected success of last year.

We are pocketing the cash to develop the model. A pragmatic choice and one that has momentum behind it, though is borne as much out of necessity as choice.

We either go into a gunfight with a knife or we try some innovative guerilla tactics that may not work, though which do not see Steven Naismith in the reserves, but rather see Godfrey, Aarons, Lewis, Cantwell et al receive an unbuyable education, likely enhancing their values (perhaps exponentially) and ‘proving’ to the world that we meant it when we said ‘come here (excellent young, underused player) and you’ll be given a fair chance and a great education.

 This way the next Maddison comes to us too. And slightly better young players are attracted than even before. And so it continues. 
 

 Or you could spend a load of cash on big lads that are a bit worse than everybody else’s big lads, with money we don’t have and putting off all the young gifted players  that we haven’t yet signed that are crucial to our sustainability under the current model.

 Parma

Fantastic post 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The two smallest sides in the league last season were Bournemouth and Man City, I don't know if we've taken one of those top two spots this season but think about our results this season and then ask yourself whether this is a coincidence.

Whilst those two teams may possess other strengths like pace and intelligence which help them to negate their lack of physicality against the stronger sides in the league.... evidence so far suggests that we don't.

A "fully fit" squad is something which does not currently exist in the Premier League, there is no club with no injuries, I suspect that this would be an extremely rare occurrence. We currently have a slightly higher than average number of injuries for the league. 

In this entirely hypothetical but unrealistic scenario where we would have a fully fit squad, would the other 19 clubs all have a fully fit squad too?

Bournemouth had 6 or 7 players out when they played us, as did Man Utd. So do we have to imagine us having 0 injuries versus them having 6, or us having 0 injuries and them having 0 injuries? 

I really wish you'd stop banging on about the number of our injuries & recognise it's the devastation caused by the disproportionate number we've had to an already suspect defence.

FFS ManC were putting their loss to us down to having one CB missing! ONE"!!

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

I really wish you'd stop banging on about the number of our injuries & recognise it's the devastation caused by the disproportionate number we've had to an already suspect defence.

FFS ManC were putting their loss to us down to having one CB missing! ONE"!!

 

Agreed.

 https://www.premierinjuries.com/injury-table.php

Simply listing the amount of injuries is playground stuff. Not only were we hit largely in one position but also just about every injury we have had would have been to a player who would have been in the starting 11 or his replacement!

Don't think you can say that about any other team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/10/2019 at 16:30, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Or people are presenting horribly simplistic solutions as self-certified pub wisdom. 
 

We can attract young, unproven, technical talent because we play such players. We don’t have a lot of money. Quality technical and big physical players are very expensive and everyone chases them.
 

We have no money so we go after players with chequered careers, injury risks or those who have travelled without settling or - excellently - quality young players starved of opportunity (that de-facto others have rejected or not opened the door to).
 

Whatever we choose we want players who can play a fluid, expansive, possession-oriented game. 
 

To bring in physical players therefore either means the binary of bringing in players who are big and physical (and perhaps not so technical, thus undermining the model) or bringing in players who are big and physical and technical (which every half-baked analyst from a 3rd tier side can identify. They cost a fortune and everybody chases them, thus undermining the model - again). 
 

We are on a model on the Auxerre-Ajax-Barcelona spectrum of long term methodology and philosophy. We will prefer players we have bred and talent we have schooled. 
 

If we can have all the assets plus physicality of course we will welcome it with open arms. Of course equal brilliant and superior physical beats just equal brilliant most times. 
 

To change means so much more than trite pub landlord solutions and simplicities. 
 

We were incredible last year. It was a wonderful unexpected miracle. We didn’t then spend any money. Other Premier teams already had lots of money and lots of great players. 
 

Our methodology is refreshing and will maximise our chances and improve our players based on our available parameters. 
 

Repeatedly upsetting the odds against teams and players that are better is unlikely however. You must believe it and you will sometimes achieve it, though let us not stake our houses on rainbows and unicorns, rather let us enjoy victories against Man City and the wonderful memories of a beautiful and - let’s not forget - the already against the odds and unexpected success of last year.

We are pocketing the cash to develop the model. A pragmatic choice and one that has momentum behind it, though is borne as much out of necessity as choice.

We either go into a gunfight with a knife or we try some innovative guerilla tactics that may not work, though which do not see Steven Naismith in the reserves, but rather see Godfrey, Aarons, Lewis, Cantwell et al receive an unbuyable education, likely enhancing their values (perhaps exponentially) and ‘proving’ to the world that we meant it when we said ‘come here (excellent young, underused player) and you’ll be given a fair chance and a great education.

This way the next Maddison comes to us too. And slightly better young players are attracted than even before. And so it continues. 
 

Or you could spend a load of cash on big lads that are a bit worse than everybody else’s big lads, with money we don’t have and putting off all the young gifted players  that we haven’t yet signed that are crucial to our sustainability under the current model.

Parma

 

I'm a latecomer to this thread, but this is one of the best single posts I've ever read on here.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/10/2019 at 16:30, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

To bring in physical players therefore either means the binary of bringing in players who are big and physical (and perhaps not so technical, thus undermining the model) or bringing in players who are big and physical and technical (which every half-baked analyst from a 3rd tier side can identify. They cost a fortune and everybody chases them, thus undermining the model - again). 

+

We have no money so we go after players with chequered careers, injury risks or those who have travelled without settling or - excellently - quality young players starved of opportunity (that de-facto others have rejected or not opened the door to).

+

We are pocketing the cash to develop the model. 

+

you could spend a load of cash on big lads that are a bit worse than everybody else’s big lads, with money we don’t have and putting off all the young gifted players  that we haven’t yet signed that are crucial to our sustainability under the current model.

Taking a punt on Leitner's and Trybulls (misfits), and on players who have had serious injury set backs (like Tim Krul), worked wonderfully for us in the Championship with a limited amount to spend on transfer fees.

ps. If we've knowingly taken lots of 'injury risks' as you put it, then can we then use injuries as an excuse for failure, or indeed ever call this 'bad luck'? 

But what is superior about our model to buying talented young 19/20/21/22 year old who are ready for first team football or very close to being ready and selling them on for a huge profit? Its basically what we did with Maddison and Godfrey. 

The players you describe do end up costing a fortune, when they get signed by top 6 clubs.

But look at Celtic, purchased Wanyama from Belgium for £900k as a 20 year old who had already played 56 senior games and football for the Belgium U21 team. Sold for £12.5m two years later. Champions League runner up last season. 

Purchased Virgil Van Djik for £2.6m from the Dutch league as a 22 year old who had played 66 senior games in the Dutch league and had been getting caps for the Holland U21's. Sold for £13m two years later. Champions League winner last season.

Kristoffer Ajer will be the next one, signed in 2016 for £650k as an 18 year old who had played 61 senior games in Norway, now being linked with a move to Leicester. 

And guess what, none of these players were a huge secret, any Football Manager player would have been fully aware of them, they are all technically very good, they are all big strong lads. 

Perhaps I just don't 'see' the model and how it can establish us as a Premier League side. Even if the academy could churn out one new Max Aarons every year that's not going to give us a Premier League side,  if in the Championship we'd need to sell a Max Aarons every now and again to balance the books.

I was hoping we'd invest some of our TV money into prospects like this, young players who had already broken through at some level, like Godfrey and Maddison had. 

We're "pocketing the money" as you say, I'm still not 100% sure what for. Because if it is to have an academy as successful as Southampton's was for a decade, then well..... they also purchased Wanyama and Van Djik from Celtic.

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ron obvious said:

I really wish you'd stop banging on about the number of our injuries & recognise it's the devastation caused by the disproportionate number we've had to an already suspect defence.

"Already suspect defence" (you)

"We're pocketing the money" (Parma)

=

Is the penny dropping?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

"Already suspect defence" (you)

"We're pocketing the money" (Parma)

=

Is the penny dropping?

 

Every man & his dog knows our defence isn't our greatest strength. What's your point?

Are you another one of those who think Delia's stealing money from the club?

Would be interested to know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Are you another one of those who think Delia's stealing money from the club?

No, because I'm a chartered accountant. Next. 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ron obvious said:

So who's 'pocketing' the money?

 

I was quoting Parma, hence the quotation marks and the attribution. What he was trying to say is that we have opted not to spend money. Do you get it now? 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I was quoting Parma, hence the quotation marks and the attribution. What he was trying to say is that we have opted not to spend money. Do you get it now? 

Why do you think we have opted not to spend money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Why do you think we have opted not to spend money?

To fund 'the model', according to Parma. Why not ask him. You've already said that his posts on this thread are excellent, I'm assuming you did so because you agree with them and not without having first read them - so why don't you explain this to me instead? 

His quote "we are pocketing the cash to develop the model". 

I'm not entirely sure what that means, because I think it's all become a bit of a cult of personality surrounding an apparent 'genius' who has a special vision. One which required giving Grant Hanley a 4.5 year deal and trying to sign Jordan Rhodes.

I'd rather we had adopted the 'spend some of the cash to increase our chances of survival' model.  That's the whole premise of my argument. I genuinely thought we'd be spending circa-£20m. I considered that realistic considering the bond repayment, player bonuses etc. 

But 'the model' with parachute payments is more important than a chance of another years TV money apparently. It's the model you support mate, you explain it? 

Something about local team for local people and rather having a Cantwell out of the academy than the next Maddison for £4m because at least Cantwell knows how to pronounce Wymondham is my best guess. Other than that, I have no idea why we didn't spend. 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

To fund 'the model', according to Parma. Why not ask him. You've already said that his posts on this thread are excellent, I'm assuming you did so because you agree with them and not without having first read them - so why don't you explain this to me instead? 

His quote "we are pocketing the cash to develop the model". 

I'm not entirely sure what that means, because I think it's all become a bit of a cult of personality surrounding an apparent 'genius' who has a special vision. One which required giving Grant Hanley a 4.5 year deal and trying to sign Jordan Rhodes.

I'd rather we had adopted the 'spend some of the cash to increase our chances of survival' model.  That's the whole premise of my argument. I genuinely thought we'd be spending circa-£20m. I considered that realistic considering the bond repayment, player bonuses etc. 

But 'the model' with parachute payments is more important than a chance of another years TV money apparently. It's the model you support mate, you explain it? 

Something about local team for local people and rather having a Cantwell out of the academy than the next Maddison for £4m because at least Cantwell knows how to pronounce Wymondham is my best guess. Other than that, I have no idea why we didn't spend. 

I don’t get it. We’re damned if we do (spend the money, and it turns out to be another Naismith) and damned if we don’t. The only way the club can do right is if in hindsight we’re successful. 
 

Just to be clear - you’d rather we spent the money we have immediately, rather than kept it until we felt it was justified spending it? If not, what do you think we should be doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I don’t get it. We’re damned if we do (spend the money, and it turns out to be another Naismith) and damned if we don’t. The only way the club can do right is if in hindsight we’re successful. 
 

Just to be clear - you’d rather we spent the money we have immediately, rather than kept it until we felt it was justified spending it? If not, what do you think we should be doing?

You won't get a straight answer, just 4-6 paragraphs of whataboutism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I don’t get it. We’re damned if we do (spend the money, and it turns out to be another Naismith)

We've already got another Naismith.

Timeline: 

2020 = Relegation

2022 = Parachute Payments run out, and Webber leaves (he said 3 years).

2023 = Grant Hanley stops getting paid 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Just to be clear - you’d rather we spent the money we have immediately, rather than kept it until we felt it was justified spending it? If not, what do you think we should be doing?

I expected us to spend a bit of money upon promotion to give us a chance of staying in this league, and if people on here were being honest with themselves they did too. The summer transfer threads are evidence of that.

Did anybody expect us to make one permanent signing for £750k? 

Sheffield United spent about £43m. That's probably far more than we could spend considering the various liabilities we had, including the academy bond and larger than typical player bonuses, but it looks like they are capable of remaining in this division and while we take circa-£40m in parachute payments next season they will be taking three times that.

Any other regime and you'd all be calling out our complete lack of ambition, but because Webber talks a good game you don't. 

Please somebody explain what the big idea is because I just don't see it. We will have 7 or 8 kids of potential world class ability come through the academy at the exact same time in a few years, and then we are the new Barcelona? That seems to be the gist according to this thread.

As I was advocating we spent relatively small sums of money on up and coming younger players, e.g. 20 to 23 who we could improve and realise a huge profit on in the future, like Celtic have done to great effect, I don't think your Naismith example is at all relevant. Particularly as he was a January panic buy, and we've left ourselves in a similar situation where we perhaps need to do business in January which could and should have been sorted in the summer. 

It feels all too similar to the Worthington season with penny pinching Doncaster. We left ourselves short in some positions, centre back believe it or not,, play a 5ft 8 inch left back in that position, then buy some actual quality (an up and coming young player as it happens) in January when it is too late. Then we return to the Championship richer, and with parachute payments, but too many quality players decide that they feel they've paid their dues in the second tier and don't fancy it again. 

We replace those departing players with the aim of a swift return to the top tier but fail to bring in players of equal quality, or the dynamic and belief of the team is destroyed.

I think there are a lot of parallels to be drawn. I'm surprised that so many fans seem accepting of our willingness to just take the money and go back down, considering the difficulty that so many relegated teams have in coming back up. 

Failure to invest was not us having absolute faith in the squad to stay in this league, it was the club having no faith in our ability to stay up. To them it was a choice of being relegated having spent money or relegated having not spent money. What's the point in even getting here. 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair play to you for explaining your point of view. I am still of the view that first team injuries are the problem. I would add that the money was available for the right player and think it prudent that when that player was unavailable we kept the money for January.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Parma has answered it perfectly, but in a way we all know what he says and it's no secret - the issue is whether we are comfortable with it or not.   I don't really understand why anyone would want things any different to how they are - all that is required is that we get defenders fit as soon as possible so we can get Amadou palying in his best position - or at least challenging for that place.  Tettey and Trybull are good enough DM's in a fully functioning team, but every player has been given an extra load because of the injuries - no chance of them being taken out of the firing line if things aren't quite working for them or if they were injured themselves like Godfrey was.

We have been running on empty the last few games, really up against it and we all know that the system only works if every aspect is right - and it can and will be right again, as long as everyone stays together - including fans. Imo we are one good result from being right back in the zone - the feel good factor will return.

It's not about spending ten or twenty million, that is peanuts in today's premier league football, it's about sticking to the plan. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

What's the point in even getting here. 

Edited 3 hours ago by TeemuVanBasten

The money earned by promotion has fully stabilized the Club, financially. It's as simple as that really TvB, you may not agree with our policy, but that's what it is.   I don't think it'll change anytime soon no matter how many ways you present your disagreement  with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

We've already got another Naismith.

Timeline: 

2020 = Relegation

2022 = Parachute Payments run out, and Webber leaves (he said 3 years).

2023 = Grant Hanley stops getting paid 

No way are you claiming Hanley to be another Naismith...

I dont believe even you would remove so many facts from the equation to try and make a completely invalid point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, hogesar said:

No way are you claiming Hanley to be another Naismith...

I dont believe even you would remove so many facts from the equation to try and make a completely invalid point.

As stated above Hoggo, TvB will carry on trying from different angles to get someone to say.   " yes, silly me you are right and the Club is wrong"  only he isn't and I for one , won't. Gonna stop reading this thread now cos it's not about out physicality anymore its now about TvB  trying to persuade others with unrelated nonsense that he's right, although what about I'm not completely sure, good luck to all who engage. Mic drop.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

As stated above Hoggo, TvB will carry on trying from different angles to get someone to say.   " yes, silly me you are right and the Club is wrong"  only he isn't and I for one , won't. Gonna stop reading this thread now cos it's not about out physicality anymore its now about TvB  trying to persuade others with unrelated nonsense that he's right, although what about I'm not completely sure, good luck to all who engage. Mic drop.

A quick look at the profile and I'd have to agree. He suggested signing Rodwell a few weeks ago! Binner?

Would love for him to back up his claim Webber said not getting promotion would be a disaster (which he won't be able to as it was a lie) and would love to know how he thinks all these new signings / players renewed contracts are suddenly on massive wages. Not one of them will be close to what Naismith was on

Imo TVB is just trying to stir rubbish based on nothing. Thread was worthwhile though thanks or some of the brilliant replies it generated especially from Parma

Edited by Hillhead
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hillhead said:

A quick look at the profile and I'd have to agree. He suggested signing Rodwell a few weeks ago! Binner?

Would love for him to back up his claim Webber said not getting promotion would be a disaster (which he won't be able to as it was a lie) and would love to know how he thinks all these new signings are suddenly on massive wages. Not one of them will be close to what Naismith was on

Imo TVB is just trying to stir rubbish based on nothing. Thread was worthwhile though thanks or some of the brilliant replies it generated especially from Parma

Glad i'm not the only one who thinks TvB is either a windup merchant or just very obdurate. I did offer a full apology if he could find that Webber quote, in fact I'll up the stakes and apologise as a new thread entitled APOLOGIES TO TvB if he comes up with it. Here's hoping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Hillhead said:

A quick look at the profile and I'd have to agree. He suggested signing Rodwell a few weeks ago! Binner?

Would love for him to back up his claim Webber said not getting promotion would be a disaster (which he won't be able to as it was a lie) and would love to know how he thinks all these new signings / players renewed contracts are suddenly on massive wages. Not one of them will be close to what Naismith was on

Imo TVB is just trying to stir rubbish based on nothing. Thread was worthwhile though thanks or some of the brilliant replies it generated especially from Parma

3 posts in and you're already slinging the 'binner' insult around. Stay classy....

Disappointed by some of the responses to Teemu. Not sure what he's said that's so controversial.

He expected us to spend a bit more money in the summer, maybe up to 20m. Is there really anyone on here who didn't expect us to spend a bit more than we did; I think we spent more in the championship last season than we have this.

Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - if we go down, then clearly whatever 'model' we followed didn't work, unless of course the 'model' is simply to be, at best, a forever more yo-yo club. That can be plenty exciting, no doubt about it, but is that where we want our club to be? Is that, with the current financial restraints we have as a club, the best we can hope for? Possibly it is.

Comparisons to Barcelona are somewhat ridiculous, however many words you use to dress up your opinion.

As i see it, Teemu is simply suggesting a middle path between spending nothing and breaking the bank. Not unreasonable. Is he right? F*ck knows. 

You lot are a strange bunch at time...but I still love you all the same. 🙂

...and yes, I'm a binner.

OTBC

Edited by Disco Dales Jockstrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are reasonable points being made on both sides. Given that we don't have owners who are willing/able to bankroll the club we can't risk spending beyond our means, but at the same time I can't help but feel we'd be more competitive having spent a bit more in the Summer.

I suspect there's a bit of succession planning going on with Delia and Michael wanting to ensure that they leave the club in as healthy a financial position as possible with infrastructure upgrades judged more important longer term than potentially risky spending on the squad for this season.

It does feel like the owners/Webber didn't expect us to stay in the Premier League this season and have planned accordingly. Whether that is 'little ole Norwich' or just the reality for a club of our size and financial might I guess depends on your point of view.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

Anyone know where the sale of Bellamy money went?..... 😉 

I think Delia spent it on a BOGOF offer at Asda for a shed load of Prosecco. Most of it is still in storage under the South Stand.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×