Can we get a refund for Sargent?

[kirku 1,332]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

Not a dig but I hate this argument.

Just because we were excited about them at the time doesn't mean they weren't bad signings- it isn't our job to scout players and make sure they're a fit for what we need, that is what the scouts and Webber are paid to do. 

Was about to post exactly the same thing.

It's their job to make sure the signings have the necessary impact. On paper it may appear that Gilmour and Kabak would contribute effectively given their pedigree, but that's the most rudimentary analysis you can imagine.

It's hard to defend Webber's record for loan signings in the PL. Williams has been good, Norman would've been good (but apparently had a patchy injury record at best) while the rest, across 2 PL seasons, have ranged from utterly pointless through to completely abject (unless I'm forgetting someone).

Everything is analysed in hindsight, that's when you understand whether a decision was the right one or not and, if you have a pattern emerging of poor decisions, saying "We only know that in hindsight" isn't going to get you very far..

Edited January 27, 2022 by kirku

[hogesar 9,615]

17 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

I accept the argument that Tzolis wasn't quite a purchase for the here and now, BUT...

...if you have a player who is potentially a world-class prospect who's torn it up in a weaker league and looked an intriguing prospect when putting on an international shirt in UEFA matches, and you've got an excellent manager of youth in there, why not speculate? And if he does develop quickly or all of a sudden (which Aarons and Cantwell certainly did), you've suddenly got a golden player for the team right there.

I think you've got that right.

Personally, I see very, very little in Tzolis but his performances away from Norwich suggest he's got real potential.

It may not have been the perfect time to spend money on him, but would it ever be? If you're confident he could turn into an excellent player (even if not this season) and this is your only chance to sign him (because you're in the Premier League right now) I think it's a well-intentioned gamble. And let's not pretend like the flipside was any less risky. We sign someone more experienced for the here and now, but they're a Naismith, or an Elmander. They don't really contribute. It's a fair argument that aiming for the here and now gave us a better chance of signing someone who would influence this season but it's far from guaranteed. 

And despite some OTT stuff directed at Webber this season, if we do go down, the likes of Sargent and Tzolis and Rashica still won't be bad financial purchases. Especially if they then perform in the division below.

[hertfordyellow 460]

32 minutes ago, king canary said:

Not a dig but I hate this argument.

Just because we were excited about them at the time doesn't mean they weren't bad signings- it isn't our job to scout players and make sure they're a fit for what we need, that is what the scouts and Webber are paid to do. 

You can’t guarantee a signing works out. You can make signings made on sound logic. The fans could see the logic at the time for all the signings. It is only with hindsight do we say the logic is unsound. Who didn’t watch England Scotland, see Gilmour go toe to toe with England and say ‘yes please’? Hardly a scouting miss IMO.

[king canary 7,577]

3 hours ago, hertfordyellow said:

You can’t guarantee a signing works out. You can make signings made on sound logic. The fans could see the logic at the time for all the signings. It is only with hindsight do we say the logic is unsound. Who didn’t watch England Scotland, see Gilmour go toe to toe with England and say ‘yes please’? Hardly a scouting miss IMO.

Totally disagree to be honest.

Yes you can look at Gilmour and say 'good little player' but the analysis by the scouting team should go well beyond that.

How does the team want to play? What does Gilmour need to get the best from him? What is going to prevent him from performing? I'd say looking at what we've seen so far and what we've seen for Scotland is that he needs a destroyer type next to him to do the dirty work and let him dictate play. For Scotland he's got McTominay doing that. To try and build a side around a player like that without giving him the support he quite clearly needs is a scouting fail. 

[hertfordyellow 460]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Totally disagree to be honest.

Yes you can look at Gilmour and say 'good little player' but the analysis by the scouting team should go well beyond that.

How does the team want to play? What does Gilmour need to get the best from him? What is going to prevent him from performing? I'd say looking at what we've seen so far and what we've seen for Scotland is that he needs a destroyer type next to him to do the dirty work and let him dictate play. For Scotland he's got McTominay doing that. To try and build a side around a player like that without giving him the support he quite clearly needs is a scouting fail. 

To a degree that makes sense. I would add that good players should be able to adapt and there was enough in that squad to compliment him to be a creative force. In some ways, to your point, if he was Skipp's replacement, then it was the wrong one. I don't agree thats what he was brought in to do. He was brought in as 'a' quality player to the squad and for Farke to put a team together with his talent at his disposal. I personally think he is a bit of an enigma, he looks very neat and precise without actually impacting. There is no pressure on him in the Chelsea side, if he doesn't thread a pass then there are 3 other world class players to do that, he just needs to keep play moving. At Norwich, he had to be that quality, no one else was going to help him out and I think it's beyond him. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Totally disagree to be honest.

Yes you can look at Gilmour and say 'good little player' but the analysis by the scouting team should go well beyond that.

How does the team want to play? What does Gilmour need to get the best from him? What is going to prevent him from performing? I'd say looking at what we've seen so far and what we've seen for Scotland is that he needs a destroyer type next to him to do the dirty work and let him dictate play. For Scotland he's got McTominay doing that. To try and build a side around a player like that without giving him the support he quite clearly needs is a scouting fail. 

No idea how true this is, but someone told me that Alex Ferguson hired ex-special services to investigate potential signings when he was at Man Utd and that he deployed them to look into one Chris Sutton and chose to stay away. That's how in depth his scouting allegedly went.

[kirku 1,332]

1 hour ago, hertfordyellow said:

To a degree that makes sense. I would add that good players should be able to adapt and there was enough in that squad to compliment him to be a creative force. In some ways, to your point, if he was Skipp's replacement, then it was the wrong one. I don't agree thats what he was brought in to do. He was brought in as 'a' quality player to the squad and for Farke to put a team together with his talent at his disposal. I personally think he is a bit of an enigma, he looks very neat and precise without actually impacting. There is no pressure on him in the Chelsea side, if he doesn't thread a pass then there are 3 other world class players to do that, he just needs to keep play moving. At Norwich, he had to be that quality, no one else was going to help him out and I think it's beyond him. 

He wasn't brought in to replace Skipp, that wasn't the point being made.

It's clear that he needs physically imposing or defensively excellent players around him in order to make the best use of his talents - and it's hard to argue that we have those attributes in the squad.

They seemed to earmark him for the center of a 4-3-3, presumably with PLM and Normann either side. 

[hertfordyellow 460]

6 minutes ago, kirku said:

He wasn't brought in to replace Skipp, that wasn't the point being made.

It's clear that he needs physically imposing or defensively excellent players around him in order to make the best use of his talents - and it's hard to argue that we have those attributes in the squad.

They seemed to earmark him for the center of a 4-3-3, presumably with PLM and Normann either side. 

But you can’t sign all the players you need in one go. I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out that Gilmour was signed relatively easily and that Webber was frustrated in his attempts to find that defensive player to sit next to him.

[kirku 1,332]

7 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

But you can’t sign all the players you need in one go. I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out that Gilmour was signed relatively easily and that Webber was frustrated in his attempts to find that defensive player to sit next to him.

All in one go in this instance means a whole window - that's what's being judged.

Gilmour is looking increasingly like a wasted domestic loan spot for a system that was quickly discarded.

Not great.

[hertfordyellow 460]

2 hours ago, kirku said:

All in one go in this instance means a whole window - that's what's being judged.

Gilmour is looking increasingly like a wasted domestic loan spot for a system that was quickly discarded.

Not great.

‘Looking increasingly like’ is hindsight, which is my whole point.

[kirku 1,332]

53 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

‘Looking increasingly like’ is hindsight, which is my whole point.

Which makes no sense at all because every decision is judged in hindsight - it's kind of the linear nature of time..

[hertfordyellow 460]

1 hour ago, kirku said:

Which makes no sense at all because every decision is judged in hindsight - it's kind of the linear nature of time..

Not if you are mature enough to understand that the committee making these decisions are making them as a snapshot in time. They have to evaluate the player and make decision there and then. A signing might not work out, but the logic behind the decision can be sound.

You’ve just made the argument for every snotty pundit who uses 23 camera angles and slowed down var evidence to chastise a referee. The referee is making a decision as a snapshot in time with only one angle and in real time. 

[kirku 1,332]

1 hour ago, hertfordyellow said:

Not if you are mature enough to understand that the committee making these decisions are making them as a snapshot in time. They have to evaluate the player and make decision there and then. A signing might not work out, but the logic behind the decision can be sound.

You’ve just made the argument for every snotty pundit who uses 23 camera angles and slowed down var evidence to chastise a referee. The referee is making a decision as a snapshot in time with only one angle and in real time. 

It's a rather odd tale that you're trying to weave here - and I find the referee analogy quite bizarre (although maybe we'd have more success with our PL loans if Webber only had about 5 seconds to make the call? It'd certainly add to the excitement)

It is not a "snapshot in time" and nor are decisions made "there and then" (although I'm not too sure what that means in this context), they are protected decisions that take many months of planning and involve large amounts of cap ex - any business would expect a certain level of reassurance that these deals would be of benefit. 

Here's a list (off the top of my head) of Webber's PL loan deals, let's see if we can spot the pattern (because this isn't about one deal as much as it is about the trend):

• Fahrmann
• Amadou
• Duda
• Roberts
• Kabak
• Gilmour
• Normann
• Williams

How many of those decisions have been good ones? 

Could you elaborate on how "the signing might not work out, but the logic behind the decision can be sound" relates to Gilmour?

Because it seems to me that trying to build a midfield around a small and physically weak playmaker isn't a recipe for success when you're scrapping at the bottom of the PL - especially when your other midfielders can't compensate for his stature. Which would make both the signing a bad one and the logic fundamentally flawed.

Edited January 28, 2022 by kirku

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Nicked this from social media

 

[hertfordyellow 460]

7 hours ago, kirku said:

It's a rather odd tale that you're trying to weave here - and I find the referee analogy quite bizarre (although maybe we'd have more success with our PL loans if Webber only had about 5 seconds to make the call? It'd certainly add to the excitement)

It is not a "snapshot in time" and nor are decisions made "there and then" (although I'm not too sure what that means in this context), they are protected decisions that take many months of planning and involve large amounts of cap ex - any business would expect a certain level of reassurance that these deals would be of benefit. 

Here's a list (off the top of my head) of Webber's PL loan deals, let's see if we can spot the pattern (because this isn't about one deal as much as it is about the trend):

• Fahrmann
• Amadou
• Duda
• Roberts
• Kabak
• Gilmour
• Normann
• Williams

How many of those decisions have been good ones? 

Could you elaborate on how "the signing might not work out, but the logic behind the decision can be sound" relates to Gilmour?

Because it seems to me that trying to build a midfield around a small and physically weak playmaker isn't a recipe for success when you're scrapping at the bottom of the PL - especially when your other midfielders can't compensate for his stature. Which would make both the signing a bad one and the logic fundamentally flawed.

You can spend a month scouting a player but making the final group decision to make an offer and sign a contract is a snapshot in time. You use the data created over time to make that decision. It’s not a strange observation. Nothing I say is bizarre. You are simply trying to deflect from the points made.

I know end of financial year is coming up and we are all going account crazy but your CAPEX rant was truly odd.

The logic for Gilmour is that he was available to us, has undoubted Premiership quality, something we don’t have. He wants to breakthrough now and will be motivated to succeed. Cheap, so he won’t dominate our budget. He has creativity which we need. He has friends and team mates in our squad from Scotland which will make the move here easier.

The whole balance of the midfield wasn’t right and a more athletic player was needed with him.  I don’t think for one second this player wasn’t desperately sought by Webber and team but were frustrated 

[hogesar 9,615]

17 hours ago, king canary said:

Totally disagree to be honest.

Yes you can look at Gilmour and say 'good little player' but the analysis by the scouting team should go well beyond that.

How does the team want to play? What does Gilmour need to get the best from him? What is going to prevent him from performing? I'd say looking at what we've seen so far and what we've seen for Scotland is that he needs a destroyer type next to him to do the dirty work and let him dictate play. For Scotland he's got McTominay doing that. To try and build a side around a player like that without giving him the support he quite clearly needs is a scouting fail. 

Well, it's not necessarily a scouting fail. Especially when we've changed manager and now our playing style has changed. He may well have suited a Farke system, or how Farke wanted to play. Who knows.

[kirku 1,332]

36 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

You can spend a month scouting a player but making the final group decision to make an offer and sign a contract is a snapshot in time. You use the data created over time to make that decision. It’s not a strange observation. Nothing I say is bizarre. You are simply trying to deflect from the points made.

I know end of financial year is coming up and we are all going account crazy but your CAPEX rant was truly odd.

The logic for Gilmour is that he was available to us, has undoubted Premiership quality, something we don’t have. He wants to breakthrough now and will be motivated to succeed. Cheap, so he won’t dominate our budget. He has creativity which we need. He has friends and team mates in our squad from Scotland which will make the move here easier.

The whole balance of the midfield wasn’t right and a more athletic player was needed with him.  I don’t think for one second this player wasn’t desperately sought by Webber and team but were frustrated 

I'm not deflecting from the points you're making, I'm disagreeing with them directly.

Perhaps you could do the same and make a decision on how many of Webber's PL loans have been successful? I know you don't believe in evaluating decisions based on "hindsight" but it's a fairly common practice, so indulge me.

The point about the cap ex "rant" (two lines, and financial years aren't uniform..) is that those who make the decisions are accountable for their performance. 

You accept that Gilmour needed a "more athletic player with him".

What a huge amount of risk (50pc of our domestic loan capability) to deploy on a wholly unproven player with a profile that's fundamentally unsuited to our position and who requires a further signing to maybe have an impact. The logic behind the signing was deeply flawed as was the decision to sign Gilmour in particular.

Lastly, you mention Gilmour has "undoubted Premiership quality" - why? What evidence do we have for this?

[kirku 1,332]

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Well, it's not necessarily a scouting fail. Especially when we've changed manager and now our playing style has changed. He may well have suited a Farke system, or how Farke wanted to play. Who knows.

Farke started him in 4 of the opening 5 and then never played him again in the league.

So it looks like Farke decided he didn't "suit a Farke system, or how Farke wanted to play"

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

The problem with Norwich - YouTube

Interesting comments from Bailey here on player recruitment, specifically on Tzolis on around 13 minutes.

''It feels like a signing they should've made after they've survived to develop the squad, rather than pinning it on him helping to survive their first season''

Couldn't agree more. 

Also great timing on this debate as it was recorded before the Everton game, we can certainly talk a little more positively about the team since then. The intro 'Norwich are ****ed' was a nice reminder of where we were 3 games ago 😄 but not sure about the Scottish co-hosts takes on our 'premier league quality' players... a disproportionate amount of Scottish players included me thinks...

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

On 24/01/2022 at 14:46, canarydan23 said:

And they are just 10 points ahead of us for all that outlay. And people think our owners are doing a bad job?

To be fair 10 points is a huge number in this league, last season it was the difference between 4th and 10th.