Rather they replace the recruitment team first though.

[hairpie 7]

craig downs said on radio norfolk about the  recruitment team , "but did anyone see him play?!?!!!"  .  Stats can be useful to confirm views on players. But using data as the key to finding players is stupid.    Requirement is so key these days why don't we have ex footballers in the recruitment team.  I remember a scout told me many years ago it's easy to find the best player in any team just ask a few fans, they know who is good. To prove the point when did a bad player win the norwich player of the year award, compared to how many bad players we have had.  With so much money in the game, then it brings such BS i.e. recruitment teams locked in a room crunching numbers. sack the recruitment team.

[shefcanary 2,444]

4 minutes ago, hairpie said:

To prove the point when did a bad player win the norwich player of the year award, compared to how many bad players we have had.

Lee Croft? A couple of worldies, including one against the Binners, but otherwise absolute dog****.

Oh and did you mean GREG Downs? 

[repman 635]

Pretty much all of the recruitment this summer goes against what an analyst would recommend, and it was all built around intangibles like experience, leadership and how to do the nasty stuff. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked Greg Downs what he thought of our signings this summer before the season he would've been pretty effusive in his praise.

[lake district canary 4,544]

Buendia was earmarked purely through stats.......

I do agree though that stats are not everything. Sure the stats can highlight players - but the real truth about a player can only be seen by watching him play.

 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,790]

3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Buendia was earmarked purely through stats.......

I do agree though that stats are not everything. Sure the stats can highlight players - but the real truth about a player can only be seen by watching him play.

 

Was it not said a while back the main reason we signed Placheta was down to him having some of the best "physical stats" we had seen? And I mean, yeah they were right. He can run fast but.. Yeah, that's about it

[Yobocop 1,105]

18 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Was it not said a while back the main reason we signed Placheta was down to him having some of the best "physical stats" we had seen? And I mean, yeah they were right. He can run fast but.. Yeah, that's about it

He can also put a better cross in than your idol 

[Petriix 2,852]

The stats are absolutely essential. However, figuring out the right combination of attributes to focus on is far from straightforward; hence signing Placheta. We've lost sight of the bigger picture ever since the summer of 2021. Letting our best players leave, to be replaced by more athletic, less skillful runners has incrementally made us worse, culminating in the mess we see today.

We could absolutely do with returning to the successful system of seeking out those 'rough diamonds' and actually giving them the opportunity to develop rather than wasting time giving minutes to geriatrics and/or loanees. I'm growing tired of the delusion of tinkering with the current setup hoping to somehow make it come good. It's time to rebuild for the future. 

 

[Capt. Pants 4,275]

Stats will mean different things for different players according to the position they play and what role you intend for them. Emi was an inspirational signing because he gelled so well with Pukki. Placheta was signed when Pukki was here but was never going to supply the ammo that Pukki needed, but is better suited to when Sargent and Idah plays.

Also the data means nothing when individual players make stupid mistakes, which is the issue causing us problems at the moment.

 

[Captain Holt 522]

36 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Buendia was earmarked purely through stats.......

I do agree though that stats are not everything. Sure the stats can highlight players - but the real truth about a player can only be seen by watching him play.

 

I swear we watched for six months or so? 

[repman 635]

1 hour ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Was it not said a while back the main reason we signed Placheta was down to him having some of the best "physical stats" we had seen? And I mean, yeah they were right. He can run fast but.. Yeah, that's about it

The other thing about Placheta (and Sorensen for that matter) is that this was the last window before the new brexit rules were going to kick in. This meant we weren't going to be able to sign players from a lot of leagues where we had previously. Pukki, Buendia and Hernandez wouldn't have been signable and we'd never had been able to get Farke in as manager too.

Placheta had had a really good back end of the prior season, it was clear then he was a raw talent but I think the club gambled that with Cantwell, Onel and Buendia all still around he wouldn't have to be a vital contributor right away.

As it turns out he didn't really pan out (also not helped by not going on loan during the prem season and him missing all of last year through injurt) but it was basically a punt, not cheap but possibly one worth making.

[hogesar 9,725]

Greg Downs is a really good example of an ex-footballer who's stuck in the past and refuses to get on-board with evolution in sport.

He wouldn't have supported the Pukki or Buendia signings and he would walk into Man City's training ground and tell Pep that everything he's doing is a waste of time.

I wouldn't rely on what he has to say, as nice a bloke he may be.

[hogesar 9,725]

2 hours ago, Captain Holt said:

I swear we watched for six months or so? 

Buendia was initially identified because he had pretty special xA (expected assist) stats. *nerd glasses on*

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

Does anyone have any evidence that we have  signed a player without watching him ?

I get that some of our players might look that way. ...but really?

We look at computers instead of at players? 

Edited November 3, 2023 by wcorkcanary

[Old Shuck 188]

Have the days well and truly gone when you'd send one of your network of part time scouts to a game (Alan Durban and Asa Hartford were amongst the many ex-pros we employed to do that) to watch a player or even just go to games to ser if anyone stood out and was worth looking at specifically?

We were 'scouting' Colin Irwin when whoever had been watching him noted Dave Watson and decided he was the better option.

The methodology worked. It seems old fashioned now but an experienced ex-pro can usually tell if an up and coming younger pro is worth a proper look and that's when they'd upgrade the whole project to ensure the manager came along to take a look for himself, based on their recommendation.

Gunny senior arrived via that method, ditto Kevin Reeves who barely anyone had heard of.

Many many others. Ian Culverhouse is another. No stats, just a bloke sat anonymously in the stand with a pen and notebook.

Data is king now. But that doesn't, or shouldn't mean the old fashioned way had no merits.

[Badger 2,412]

14 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Was it not said a while back the main reason we signed Placheta was down to him having some of the best "physical stats" we had seen? And I mean, yeah they were right. He can run fast but.. Yeah, that's about it

If I remember correctly, it was a point made by Webber himself on the dangers of being too reliant on data alone and the need for other methods - observation etc. He didn't specify Placheta though - that was an inference made by some on here + presumably Twitter. 

I think that there is scant evidence for an assertion that we don't observe players. They have speoken previously of the huge amount of games that are watched via specialist TV platforms + we are always told about our scouting network in South America.

My guess is that Greg Downes is as behind in his knowledge of our scouting system as he is generally about modern football - but he was a good fullback in his day though.

[hertfordyellow 460]

On a board full of weird gripes, this one tops the bill. No data, no Buendia. No data, no Sara.

[Davidlingfield 63]

16 hours ago, repman said:

Pretty much all of the recruitment this summer goes against what an analyst would recommend, and it was all built around intangibles like experience, leadership and how to do the nasty stuff. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked Greg Downs what he thought of our signings this summer before the season he would've been pretty effusive in his praise.

It was actually built around the tangible of us not being able to afford to pay a transfer fee.

[hogesar 9,725]

2 hours ago, Old Shuck said:

Have the days well and truly gone when you'd send one of your network of part time scouts to a game (Alan Durban and Asa Hartford were amongst the many ex-pros we employed to do that) to watch a player or even just go to games to ser if anyone stood out and was worth looking at specifically?

We were 'scouting' Colin Irwin when whoever had been watching him noted Dave Watson and decided he was the better option.

The methodology worked. It seems old fashioned now but an experienced ex-pro can usually tell if an up and coming younger pro is worth a proper look and that's when they'd upgrade the whole project to ensure the manager came along to take a look for himself, based on their recommendation.

Gunny senior arrived via that method, ditto Kevin Reeves who barely anyone had heard of.

Many many others. Ian Culverhouse is another. No stats, just a bloke sat anonymously in the stand with a pen and notebook.

Data is king now. But that doesn't, or shouldn't mean the old fashioned way had no merits.

This still happens, but because we can't send 500 scouts out across the world we'll use data to identify specifically in different countries players we think may be worth looking at - then we'll send a scout out to assess.

[king canary 7,655]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

This still happens, but because we can't send 500 scouts out across the world we'll use data to identify specifically in different countries players we think may be worth looking at - then we'll send a scout out to assess.

Exactly. It is a huge pet peeve of mine that people seem to wilfully misunderstand what 'data-driven' recruitment means.

Relying on just physical scouts was more viable when you were largely recruiting from within the British Isles. Make sure you're guys have watched each team a couple of times, get some whispers from your network about who was looking good then send a delegation. 

It would patently be impossible for us to have scouts casting an eye over every single team in Chile or Belgium to pick out who looks good so you need have a method to pick out who is worth watching. In part that might be based on which clubs have successfully produced young players who've stepped up before. For others you might have some personal links to a member of the coaching team. But it makes total sense to look at data to understand where we should be sending people.

I doubt we've ever signed a player without watching them first. I'm also sure there have been plenty of players the data team have said 'this one would be worth a look' that we've watched a decided aren't up for it.

I'd certainly prefer this method than hiring whoever the manager has previously worked with (Tony Andreu anyone?) or who a friendly agent is representing. 

[repman 635]

3 hours ago, Davidlingfield said:

It was actually built around the tangible of us not being able to afford to pay a transfer fee.

We certainly weren't flush with cash but we supposedly spent a couple of million on Fassnacht and even then the signing bonuses + wage packages for players like Barnes, Duffy and Stacey will probably not be too different from if you'd signed younger players on cheaper contracts.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

The scouts are often not the problem ,

i have personal friends who are scouts some were at Norwich some other places 

the ones at Norwich have told me they found players who they recommended but manager did not fancy them etc 

i posted on here that RVW should not be signed as not suited to English football ( the scout told me that and i posted it on here ) 

yet Manager wanted him in 

it is not the scouting it is the person who decides who to sign .

Alex Neil when he came here wanted to make his own mind up on signings maybe not used to such a big scouting network ,

the scouts can recommend a LB in spain for example  who they think is magic say  who they rate 9 /10 but if the manager had worked with a LB say  rated at  7 /10 at Notts county and trusted him because he knew he would know his style of play he would sign him ,