Where did it all go wrong Daniel, Stuart, Delia?

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

I agree that we could have kept Buendia if we wanted to. He would not be willing to sit out a season of PL football at 24 years old because he was sulking about not getting a move. He could have been played and would have performed if for nothing else than his own career prospects. People still had question marks about him at this level before this season, he would have put proving people wrong over cutting his nose off to spite his face by refusing to play. 

 

My point is that if we assume we have 60-70 odd million worth of talent in Aarons, Buendia, Cantwell and Idah then why didn't we borrow to fund this summers spending to add to what we had and why didn't we try another bond scheme of say 10-15m that would be payed back upon PL survival to further fund it?

Yes it would put us in debt if we went down, but we could easily make up the deficit by selling 2 young players and obviously the bond wouldn't have to be paid back. I can't understand why we decided to sell our only real creative outlet by this levels standards instead of taking a risk elsewhere. 

If we kept Buendia we would have a way to score goals without having to do something exceptional, Pukki would still be getting service and wouldn't be ineffective, teams couldn't press us as much because Buendia could beat a man and play a superb through ball and we could've focused on improving our defense and lack of physicality and athleticism in midfield instead of signing 3 forwards to attempt replace his output.

 

Unless we genuinely believed that Rashica or Tzolis would terrorize PL defenses with their pace and dribbling skills like a Saint-Maximin or Zaha would then it was just plain stupid to sell our only player who can make goals out of nothing and replace him with admittedly good players but ones don't have anything special that the opposition don't have to worry about

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

8 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

Do we in fact know that such a trust was set up by D&M ?

No Til , I was responding to the specific mention of how Trusts work. I don’t know if there is / will be one . 
 

[Badger 2,405]

8 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I am sure somebody will be along shortly saying it is none of our business what thery do with the shares. 😜

I would have thought it was a valid interest of other shareholders. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that they would have had to have declared if their shares have been put in trust. Hopefully someone with knowledge of company law can clarify.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

14 minutes ago, Badger said:

Hopefully someone with knowledge of company law can clarify.

If only.

[Badger 2,405]

9 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The Suffolk Socialists using tax avoidance measures? 

Why on earth wouldn't they? It is legal and overwhelmingly supported by the British people at elections.

I consider myself a socialist and have made use of trusts for IHT purposes + use my full ISA; pension CGT allowances. I have at times also paid part of my wages via company tax as well. I have voted against such tax avoidance schemes (not ISA/ Pensions) but if the electorate believe in tax avoidance, I'm damned if I am just going to give it away as a gesture! (I learned that lesson when the govt was giving away state assets on the cheap to those that had spare money - all that happened was that I ended up poorer.)

I am pretty sure that D + M will hold their money in a tax efficient way and make charitable donations as they see fit. They may be socialists, but I doubt that they are naïve.

If they leave the shares to Tom, it is quite likely that this will via a trust, in which case their ownership will not be diluted (depending upon the terms of said trust + the trustees actions). I don't think such a trust exists yet, as I would have thought that they would have to declare it to other shareholders - but perhaps a solicitor or someone with knowledge of company law could clarify this?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Why on earth wouldn't they? It is legal and overwhelmingly supported by the British people at elections.

Badger my old bean.... I never said that tax avoidance is illegal. It isn't. 

Tax evasion is illegal. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

I consider myself a socialist and have made use of trusts for IHT purposes

You aren't a socialist. 

 

[Badger 2,405]

Just now, TeemuVanBasten said:

Badger my old bean.... I never said that tax avoidance is illegal. It isn't. 

Tax evasion is illegal. 

I know - so why wouldn't they use a Trust?

[Badger 2,405]

Just now, TeemuVanBasten said:

You aren't a socialist. 

 

I think that you will find I am! 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I think that you will find I am! 

If socialists these days believe in using measures to avoid inheritance taxes, then perhaps that is why they thousands of miles away from power and are losing all the red wall seats in the north. The socialists I used to know advocated for 100% inheritance tax. 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

I think that you will find I am! 

Nah mate, Teemu knows best, haven't you grasped that yet?

[Badger 2,405]

32 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

If socialists these days believe in using measures to avoid inheritance taxes, then perhaps that is why they thousands of miles away from power and are losing all the red wall seats in the north. The socialists I used to know advocated for 100% inheritance tax. 

I use them because they are there: I accept the will of the people.

Let's keep the thread on track. I can't see of any political reason why D + M would not use a Trust if they chose to. As I have said though, I don't think it exists yet and as you have said on the other thread, there is no guarantee that it could "protect" the club from rich owners, which I thought was what you wanted a la Venkey. Perhaps we should continue the discussion on the other thread, as this one has been very sensible and it would be a shame to spoil/ confuse it.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Badger
Inserted missing word - no

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

I use them because they are there: I accept the will of the people.

Let's keep the thread on track. I can't see of any political reason why D + M would not use a Trust if they chose to. As I have said though, I don't think it exists yet and as you have said on the other thread, there is guarantee that it could "protect" the club from rich owners, which I thought was what you wanted a la Venkey. Perhaps we should continue the discussion on the other thread, as this one has been very sensible and it would be a shame to spoil/ confuse it.

Why on earth would anybody want to protect the club from rich owners.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I think they have all just got it badly wrong this season.

not so much the owners, their stance hasn’t changed but fundamentally it (and our lack of competitiveness financially) is the reason for selling Emi.

I agree we chose to sell Emi and it sent out a dreadful message. I think Webber wanted the big sale (if a gem we got cheaply) on his cv and also thought he could be clever in sourcing replacements but the strategy has ended up being scattergun, time wise out of sync with our needs at the start of the season and has resulted in too much upheaval.

But I also think Farke has struggled. He’s chopped and changed and caused all manner of disruption to the style of play and the formation rather than address basic defensive issues on the training ground as he should have done. 
 

in hindsight (or perhaps foresight as I think most favs could have told you this in May) it’s hard to see chow we would not have been better off keeping Emi and just signing two or three quality additions in the spine of the team to supplement last seasons squad. 

[Badger 2,405]

10 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

in hindsight (or perhaps foresight as I think most favs could have told you this in May) it’s hard to see chow we would not have been better off keeping Emi and just signing two or three quality additions in the spine of the team to supplement last seasons squad. 

I don't think that we will ever have unanimity on this Jim + ultimately it is futile and backwards-looking as he is gone. I think that the following is a fair summary:

1. He was under contract - we could have forced him to stay.

2. He may have stayed and (perhaps buoyed by a huge pay rise) been brilliant for us. He may have made the difference and kept us in the division. 

3. We may have forced him to stay, he may have refused a new contract and he might have "sulked;" been distracted or for any other reason not performed at his best and, at worst, been damaging to squad harmony.

4. He may have stayed, accepted a huge new contract and not been quite as good as we thought he was going to be, and we still got relegated.

There were risks on both sides of the argument. There were certainly risks with selling Emi, but there were equally risks in forcing him to stay. As I said, I don't think people will ever agree on this and ultimately, it is in the past, we can't change it anyway. The more important question is what do we do next?

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Following the ‘industrial accident’ metaphor, there is no great blame here and I am not trying to apportion any. 

‘Moving on’ is of course necessary, though in order to write a future risk assessment we must acknowledge what hasn’t worked in the here-and-now and what we can do about it. Sometimes - sadly - the answer may be not much at all. 

As @Christoph Stiepermann says any other club upon promotion would not have had to have made the Hobson’s choice Webber was faced with. For any other club upon promotion the answer would be ‘both’. Keep Buendia regardless and add a Skipp-role clone and maybe one or two more as @Jim Smith says. This was actually what was stated more-or-less as the aim ‘improving the first eleven’. Was there any fan crying out for someone slightly better than the recently-and-expensively bought Gibson and Giannoulis? Honestly?

I’m also afraid that the Premier League is very fine margins. This is why weapons: Crouch, Delap, Defoe or Ward-Prowse-like set piece deliverers are so key. They are not necessarily ‘good’ or great players, but they ask a tactical question that the opposition must answer. Coaching Gold. 
 

As for Buendia and the fine margins, let’s imagine in a parallel universe he scores a nice goal into the top corner in the early games - say before half time against Watford - the world is a different place. Let’s imagine he makes one nice pass assist in the first half against Arsenal. Just one. Pukki scores. We are in the top half and the model is liquid gold.

Farke is blessed and damned with a great squad of 20. Such a tough choice every week…But is that really what he needed? Wonderful cover across the squad? Or a good eleven with (say) 3 or 4 utility players and some promising youngsters. Yes our fingers are crossed we don’t get injuries, but so are Steve Bruce’s or Vieira’s. You are lucky to have one and a half weapons. 

If I was feeling mischievous I might counterpoint it with McNally’s swing at Klose, Naismith and Pinto. He went for the here-and-now. He tried to reach. 

Maybe Tzolis, Sargent and Rashica all stay, try and succeed at the lower level. Maybe they retain their value far better, even increase it. Maybe Webber couldn’t buy or find the awkward or sharp weapons required and he defaulted to squad improvement (despite saying that it wasn’t the strategic aim)….Though something troubles me about it.…

…it has always troubled me. Success undermines the model. Sportspeople, players, Managers, Sporting Directors don’t love losing, they don’t like to be associated with failure..more than anything they hate (and are very sensitive to) the point where a sporting journey, career or model reaches its glass ceiling and that glass is shown to be impenetrable. Success was always the threat to the model. 

The spectrum is Auxerre-Ajax-Barcelona, it operates as we explained. Where we are on the spectrum and what we can do about it is the matter at hand though. It is certainly an elegant model for the parameters we have. If we accept the parameters are what they are (a perfectly reasonable thing to do), then that is fine. We must accept the outcomes with magnanimity and be mindful about it. This is top level sport though and the model does trade on that dream. What are Farke and Webber - both excellent - now thinking in private? Are they or their agents making any calls, having ‘what if’ chats? When does the religious promise of jam tomorrow get shown to be further out of reach than thought and turn sour?

Maybe we can get a better manager, a better sporting director and better players. Maybe. I suspect - as I stated in the op - that all are doing as well as they can with what they have.

The investigation report has said no one is to blame. It is what it is. No one could do much different. Are you satisfied?

Parma 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[robert choice 24]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

I think they have all just got it badly wrong this season.

not so much the owners, their stance hasn’t changed but fundamentally it (and our lack of competitiveness financially) is the reason for selling Emi.

I agree we chose to sell Emi and it sent out a dreadful message. I think Webber wanted the big sale (if a gem we got cheaply) on his cv and also thought he could be clever in sourcing replacements but the strategy has ended up being scattergun, time wise out of sync with our needs at the start of the season and has resulted in too much upheaval.

But I also think Farke has struggled. He’s chopped and changed and caused all manner of disruption to the style of play and the formation rather than address basic defensive issues on the training ground as he should have done. 
 

in hindsight (or perhaps foresight as I think most favs could have told you this in May) it’s hard to see chow we would not have been better off keeping Emi and just signing two or three quality additions in the spine of the team to supplement last seasons squad. 

Having heard Delia announce that Aarons would need to be somewhere else to become a star there was little or no chance of hanging on to Buendia. The same will apply to any future gem that comes through as we won't ever get to enjoy them for long.

 

The ring of the till is what gets the club excited these days.

[BigFish 1,986]

17 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Maybe we can get a better manager, a better sporting director and better players. Maybe. I suspect - as I stated in the op - that all are doing as well as they can with what they have.

The investigation report has said no one is to blame. It is what it is. No one could do much different. Are you satisfied?

Parma 

 

Last season most people were satisfied. This season most people are dissatisfied. That is football.

 

[king canary 7,580]

25 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

The investigation report has said no one is to blame. It is what it is. No one could do much different. Are you satisfied?

This is the only part I disagree with in all your posts- I thoroughly believe Farke could be doing more and better with what he has. 

Webber, as you said, had to make a tough choice- sell Buendia to have a competitive budget or keep him and try and improve on a shoestring again. He can be judged on that call sure but he was between the proverbial rock and hard place. 

The owners can't do much more outside of selling and that isn't a quick fix.

But Farke...there is plenty I believe he could be doing differently. These defenders aren't incompetent but we play like we are. Farke is a coaching ideologue and at times seems to lack even the slightest shred of pragmatism in how he approaches the game, rendering us incredibly easy to play against. Press us high, force the defenders into errors and you'll get the ball back, if we beat the press we'll likely spend too long on nice build up play so you can get back into position and our midfield is easily bullied. These things aren't inevitable but Farke makes them so. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

@king canary that is an entirely fair standpoint. 

This part of my post - along with much that I write - is not actually my personal opinion. It is envisioning such a report saying such a thing (quite plausibly) and asking how we feel about it. 

9 hours ago, king canary said:

  1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

The investigation report has said no one is to blame. It is what it is. No one could do much different. Are you satisfied?

Defining a model, analysing a game, unpicking a strategic direction, evaluating tactical tendencies or weaknesses…explaining the intention, assessing the benefits and drawbacks proctor hoc, asking the question is what is interesting to me, what people then make of it is for them. 

I generally state very clearly if something is my personal opinion, which is typically when there is a ‘l like yellow, you like blue’ scenario, when right is not really the focus. 

To address your point directly, I hope you are not right about Farke, though I cannot say you are not. 

His desire and philosophy to dominate and be better is wonderful, his controlled possession and positional-play adherence progressive - both in a defensive and offensive sense, though my examples tend to be meaningful. I chose Steve Bruce and Allan Saint-Maximin deliberately. If you are inferior - and we are and always were going to be at this level- then you must accept some compromises. You must keep and build around your rare weapons (which does make the Buendia decision key). You must do this pragmatically and accept that if you are weaker you will defend more. If you defend more you will likely see more individual errors as negative scenarios repeat more often against you. 

Nobody needed massive foresight to see that. It was not an accident waiting to happen, it was the nature of the job in question. H&S - surprisingly to some - is not about avoiding every accident as my previous client used to stress. You simply must state, present and acknowledge the inherent dangers to what you are about to do. Did we really do that? Are we really acknowledging what we are (inferior) and what we are about to do (play a lot of teams better, stronger and more streetwise than us)? Or did we simply do a better version of what didn’t work last time - which was certainly the only option we had then - which actually wasn’t quite what we had to do this time. 
 

Parma 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

A small follow up: it is not a wild stretch to imagine that we keep Buendia, he scores one great goal and creates one key assist and our world is different as highlighted above. 

Players love you again when they’re playing and doing well. Every sin, fight, punch, agent, headline is forgotten (Hoolahan?).

Imagine our back 4 (Aa-Ha-Gib-Gia) with a Skipp deep splitter, two defensive-minded players either side of him in a tight 3 (Normann on loan and PLM doesn’t seem a crazy stretch), then Buendia at 10 (negating his weaknesses, letting him play as a roaming fantasista, his defensive contribution an added bonus, his daft turnovers higher and less hurtful to us), plus 1 other midfielder in a sort of 4321, 451 or 4411 (dress it up how you like), it could be McLean (or even Cantwell)  though I’d say a diligent runner and free kick specialist (not a ‘great’ player, a functional one).

No buying lots of others, keeping Rupps and McLeans and Sorensons that can be utility. Saving money. Justifying the lack of ambition by stating that - eventually - we are formally looking at ground expansion. 

There you go. Nobody’s thrilled. We haven’t changed the world. We haven’t made crazy promises or spent crazy money. My feeling is that most fans would have expected that, gone with it and ridden it out. 

Now it looks like the Shakespearean fulcrum we feared. It looks more like an all-or-nothing strategy than it was supposed to be. It looks more cruelly like concrete system failure (which it didn’t have to be). It risks losing key parts that may not be to blame. Our risk assessment may have identified the wrong dangers I’m afraid.

Parma

Edited September 27, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Petriix 2,834]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Following the ‘industrial accident’ metaphor, there is no great blame here and I am not trying to apportion any. 

‘Moving on’ is of course necessary, though in order to write a future risk assessment we must acknowledge what hadn’t worked in the here-and-now and what we can do about it. Sometimes - sadly - the answer may be not much at all. 

As @Christoph Stiepermann says any other club upon promotion would have not have to have made the Hobson’s choice Webber was faced with. For any other club upon promotion the answer would be ‘both’. Keep Buendia regardless and add a Skipp-role clone and maybe one or two more as @Jim Smith says. This was actually what was stated more-or-less as the aim ‘improving the first eleven’. Was there any fan crying out for someone slightly better than the recently-and-expensively bought Gibson and Giannoulis? Honestly?

I’m also afraid that the Premier League is very fine margins. This is why weapons: Crouch, Delap, Defoe or Ward-Prowse-like set piece deliverers are so key. They are not necessarily ‘good’ or great players, but they ask a tactical question that the opposition must answer. Coaching Gold. 
 

As for Buendia and the fine margins, let’s imagine in a parallel universe he scores a nice goal into the top corner in the early games - say before half time against Watford - the world is a different place. Let’s imagine he makes one nice pass assist in the first half against Arsenal. Just one. Pukki scores. We are in the top half and the model is liquid gold.

Farke is blessed and damned with a great squad of 20. Such a tough choice every week…But is that really what he needed? Wonderful cover across the squad? Or a good eleven with (say) 3 or 4 utility players and some promising youngsters. Yes our fingers are crossed we don’t get injuries, but so are Steve Bruce’s or Vieira’s. You are lucky to have one and a half weapons. 

If I was feeling mischievous I might counterpoint it with McNally’s swing at Klose, Naismith and Pinto. He went for the here-and-now. He tried to reach. 

Maybe Tzolis, Sargent and Rashica all stay, try and succeed at the lower level. Maybe they retain their value far better, even increase it. Maybe Webber couldn’t buy or find the awkward or sharp weapons required and he defaulted to squad improvement (despite saying that it wasn’t the strategic aim)….Though something troubles me about it.…

…it has always troubled me. Success undermines the model. Sportspeople, players, Managers, Sporting Directors don’t love losing, they don’t like to be associated with failure..more than anything they hate (and are very sensitive to) the point where a sporting journey, career or model reaches its glass ceiling and that glass is shown to be impenetrable. Success was always the threat to the model. 

The spectrum is Auxerre-Ajax-Barcelona, it operates as we explained. Where we are in the spectrum and what we can do about it is the matter at hand though. It is certainly an elegant model for the parameters we have. If we accept the parameters are what they are (a perfectly reasonable thing to do), then that is fine. We must accept the outcomes with magnanimity and be mindful about it. This is top level sport though and the model does trade on that dream. What are Farke and Webber - both excellent - now thinking in private? Are they or their agents making any calls, having ‘what if’ chats? When does the religious promise of jam tomorrow get shown to be further out of reach than thought and turn sour?

Maybe we can get a better manager, a better sporting director and better players. Maybe. I suspect - as I stated in the op - that all are doing as well as they can with what they have.

The investigation report has said no one is to blame. It is what it is. No one could do much different. Are you satisfied?

Parma 

I'd still counter this with a couple of points:

1. The overall conveyer belt of signing and developing young talent is, as Webber said, entirely dependent on the final step of selling them. Players know that they can come here to progress and realise their dreams.
2. The money raised from selling such players should be sufficient to keep improving the team.

While you suggest that perhaps no-one is to blame, I'd say that both Webber and Farke have got it badly wrong with the squad management. There has simply been too much change attempted in too short a space of time. I stated at the time that the Buendia sale should be judged on the quality of the replacements. It's blindingly clear that the recruitment has been poor.

It seems to me that we've put all our eggs in the Gilmour basket by attempting to build the team around him: switching to 3 in midfield, signing versatile midfielders rather than specialist DMs. Switching to two AMs and abandoning the dynamic attacking trio behind Pukki. But, while excellent at passing the ball, Gilmour is an absolute liability when out of possession.

I can see how it was supposed to work: Gilmour would sit in the centre as a deep lying playmaker, pulling the strings while the two other CMs would operate box-to-box, covering the wide areas, mopping up the danger and getting forward to support the attacks. The trouble is that they are simply not good enough to do this multi-facetted role and they keep failing in both attack and defence, and particularly the transitions between. They are constantly caught out of position and we are conceding goals as a direct result.

Rather than missing Buendia in particular, we are missing the system that he worked so well as a part of. Without a number 10, there is exponentially less space for the other three attacking players to work in. Defenders have far fewer problems and can concentrate on keeping Pukki quiet. Where the 3 AMs and Pukki would press, having one fewer attacker means it's impossible to pen the opposition in and force a mistake. And when we do get the ball forward quickly, there are so few options that we keep ending up crossing from wide areas, which is our lowest percentage play.

Rashica is a very poor direct replacement because he's so one-dimensional. Where Buendia would tenaciously hunt the ball when out of possession then quickly release it, Rashica doesn't press, doesn't track back effectively and doesn't release the ball nearly fast enough.

And, without the (hugely successful) double pivot, we are ill-disciplined in midfield and keep conceding avoidable goals. Maybe Normann might prove an excellent CDM but, without the support of another dedicated DM, he could never keep it tight enough on his own. I'm afraid that any combination of PLM, McLean, Gilmour and Rupp as part of a midfield 3 will never work. One of those alongside Normann with a very strict tactical role might just about be good enough.

So, in summary: selling Buendia could (and should) have been fine. Ripping up the successful system was never going to work. We should have signed half as many players and focussed more on individual quality rather than squad depth.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

@Petriix I think I might have just said something very similar….

9 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

A small follow up: it is not a wild stretch to imagine that we keep Buendia, he scores one great goal and created one key assist and our world is different as highlighted above. 

Players love you again when they’re playing and doing well. Every sin, fight, punch, agent, headline is forgotten (Hoolahan?).

Imagine our back 4 (Aa-Ha-Gib-Gia) with a Skipp deep splitter, two defensive-minded players either side of him in a tight 3 (Normann on loan and PLM doesn’t seem a crazy stretch), then Buendia at 10 (negating his weaknesses, letting him play as a roaming fantasista, his defensive contribution an added bonus, his daft turnovers higher and less hurtful to us), plus 1 other midfielder in a sort of 4321 or 4411 (dress it up how you like), it could be McLean (or even Cantwell)  though I’d say a diligent runner and free kick specialist (not a ‘great’ player, a functional one).

No buying lots of others, keeping Rupps and McLeans and Sorensons that can be utility. Saving money. Justifying the lack of ambition by stating that - eventually - we are formally looking at ground expansion. 

There you go. Nobody’s thrilled. We haven’t changed the world. We haven’t made crazy promises or spent crazy money. My feeling is that most fans would have expected that, gone with it and ridden it out. 

Now it looks like the Shakespearean fulcrum we feared. It looks more like an all-or-nothing strategy than it was supposed to be. It looks more cruelly like concrete system failure (which it didn’t have to be). It risks losing key parts that may not be to blame. Our risk assessment may have identified the wrong dangers I’m afraid.

Parma

Parma 

[Petriix 2,834]

1 minute ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

@Petriix I think I might have just said something very similar….

Parma 

Yes, posts crossed while I was composing my essay!

[Petriix 2,834]

13 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

A small follow up: it is not a wild stretch to imagine that we keep Buendia, he scores one great goal and created one key assist and our world is different as highlighted above. 

Players love you again when they’re playing and doing well. Every sin, fight, punch, agent, headline is forgotten (Hoolahan?).

Imagine our back 4 (Aa-Ha-Gib-Gia) with a Skipp deep splitter, two defensive-minded players either side of him in a tight 3 (Normann on loan and PLM doesn’t seem a crazy stretch), then Buendia at 10 (negating his weaknesses, letting him play as a roaming fantasista, his defensive contribution an added bonus, his daft turnovers higher and less hurtful to us), plus 1 other midfielder in a sort of 4321 or 4411 (dress it up how you like), it could be McLean (or even Cantwell)  though I’d say a diligent runner and free kick specialist (not a ‘great’ player, a functional one).

No buying lots of others, keeping Rupps and McLeans and Sorensons that can be utility. Saving money. Justifying the lack of ambition by stating that - eventually - we are formally looking at ground expansion. 

There you go. Nobody’s thrilled. We haven’t changed the world. We haven’t made crazy promises or spent crazy money. My feeling is that most fans would have expected that, gone with it and ridden it out. 

Now it looks like the Shakespearean fulcrum we feared. It looks more like an all-or-nothing strategy than it was supposed to be. It looks more cruelly like concrete system failure (which it didn’t have to be). It risks losing key parts that may not be to blame. Our risk assessment may have identified the wrong dangers I’m afraid.

Parma

I still fundamentally disagree about the midfield 3. We adjusted to the double pivot system last season and I recall your excellent post about how it was clearly done with the Premier League in mind. I am pretty distraught that we've completely abandoned it in favour of what is proving to be entirely ineffective in both attack and defence. With a 'Skipp deep splitter', we don't need two other CMs. The attack is castrated without that dynamic AM trio and the whole team ends up on the back foot. And we need the defensive responsibility in the wide areas to sit with the faster wide men rather than the CMs.

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

I can criticise the board and management for many things, especially lately, but I don't think selling Emi is one of them. We're all seeing with Kane how useless to a club a player who desperately wants out is. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

19 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I still fundamentally disagree about the midfield 3. We adjusted to the double pivot system last season and I recall your excellent post about how it was clearly done with the Premier League in mind.

It was just an example @Petriix..I am not wedded at all to particular systems or formations.

The personnel within systems, their psychology, movement tendencies, fears, defaults under pressure, playing muscle memory and grooved neural pathways have much more to do with how tactics play out on grass than any nominal formation.

It is harnessing these elements that is key. Indeed the system, tactics and formation should be constructed around those underlying tendencies rather than vice-versa in my view. 

Parma 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

Parma, you are ignoring one fact in your premise that we didn't have to sell Buendia.  Our model is based on the idea of attracting the best young talent in Europe by having an excellent coaching system for young players, combined with the knowledge that you will be picked for the first team squad if you are deemed good enough despite your age and that the club will not stand in your way if a suitable big club makes an offer for you.  

On that basis we are able to attract talent such as Tzolis and Sargant. With Buendia we were at the last stage of that process. If we stand in his way then younger players can claim we are not true to the model sold to us. If we are deceitful then the model doesn't work and young players won't sign for us. 

Our model actually creates a rod to beat us with. We may be able to get a couple of years usage from a really good talent, three if we are lucky. But the model means that we will lose our weapons eventually. 

[king canary 7,580]

37 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Parma, you are ignoring one fact in your premise that we didn't have to sell Buendia.  Our model is based on the idea of attracting the best young talent in Europe by having an excellent coaching system for young players, combined with the knowledge that you will be picked for the first team squad if you are deemed good enough despite your age and that the club will not stand in your way if a suitable big club makes an offer for you.  

On that basis we are able to attract talent such as Tzolis and Sargant. With Buendia we were at the last stage of that process. If we stand in his way then younger players can claim we are not true to the model sold to us. If we are deceitful then the model doesn't work and young players won't sign for us. 

Our model actually creates a rod to beat us with. We may be able to get a couple of years usage from a really good talent, three if we are lucky. But the model means that we will lose our weapons eventually. 

I can't speak for Parma but I've always believed the part in bold is massively overstated by some on here.

[komakino 272]

1 hour ago, Ken Hairy said:

I can criticise the board and management for many things, especially lately, but I don't think selling Emi is one of them. We're all seeing with Kane how useless to a club a player who desperately wants out is. 

While we could have kept Emi in theory, the reality is that it was never really on and he went with my best wishes. What gripes me is that it was known for a very long time that he would not be with us for this season, yet the club did not replace him. Instead, it went down the road of trying to change too much and it hasn't (yet) worked.