A touch of reality on our signings

[LondonBristolian]

I think the point in the original post is valid but the framing is wrong. To me, the damaging cycle clubs get into and we have got into in the past is 

1) Manager joins

2) Manager makes multiple signings 

3) Manager gets sacked

4) new Manager appointed 

5) new guy jetissons previous signings and makes multiple signings of his own

6) previous signings rot in reserves on high wages and long contracts 

7) Manager gets sacked 

8) new manager gets appointed 

9) jettisons more signings 

10) who join others rotting in reserves 

11) club becomes utter mess.

Millen, McInnes, O’Driscoll and Cotterill in his first half season, whilst the first three undoubtedly made significant mistakes - were all hamstrung by signings previous managers made who did not suit their football eating into the wage bill.

 

What the club have done - and if we go back to the then-derided five pillars then we see it was by design and not an accident - is ensured there is a consistency of signings, brought in players of significant quality and who fit into a strategy and appointed a manger who buys into the strategy and will use those players rather than tossing very talented babies out with the bath water.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, only two (three at the most) of LJ’s signings can be classed as poor buys but nonetheless the club have succeeded in signing a core group of players who give a continuity to the club even if the manager changes and appointed a manager who will buy into and improve that core rather than rip it to shreds.

That is not an error or a coincidence and it is not a reflection of LJ’s transfer buys. It is instead proof of our success in doing something most clubs aspire to do but few actually achieve. From 2004 - 2012 Chelsea had the same basic core group despite a succession of mangers and won a shedload of silverware. That was no error or coincidence either.

[reformed_red]

13 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

For all the good things done I don’t think that’s correct

Id suggest ‘mixed’ , albeit I’d suggest better in the last 12 months (Possibly aided by change of recruitment staff / methods ?)

 

I understand your view of mixed in relation to signings; there will always be players who don't work (e.g. Ekstrand, Tomlin, Engvall). 

But I think in terms of recruitment i would say that it can't be criticised; we are signing from a wider and more diverse network, Scandinavia, Italy, France, Prem Clubs, Lower leagues. Whilst we have signed from some of those talent pools before, the choice and selection of players seems to have a purpose and plan. In years gone by I don't think that has always been the case. There also seems to be a real conveyor belt of development. Again, I think that's down to the overall recruitment strategy which in turn supplements the development set up within the club.   

[Angmering Red]

Agree with the above, also a sensible Manager/Head Coach would work out which players he has inherited he rates and wants to keep and then add to them with his own picks.

For example we will be playing Man City where Guardiola has had hundreds of millions to spend to improve his team since he joined in 16/17 season. Yet regulars like De Bruyne, Sterling and Silva as well as Aguero, Kompany, Delph, Otamendi, Fernandinho,  Mangala and Toure were all signed by the previous Managers.

[DaveF]

A touch of reality? A touch of absolute drivel more like.

[havanatopia]

Sean O'Driscoll deserves credit for picking up Fielding, Flint and Pack; Cotterill deserves credit for developing them into League 1 Champions and buying Smith along with nurturing Bryan; Johnson deserves credit for taking the raw talent of those league 1 players as well as finding an ideal position for Bobby. 

In other words it has been a process much like a jigsaw and a number of coaches have played their part.

While your point of 6 remaining in the first team is undoubtedly an interesting one how few of them would be there now had Johnson not come along, developed them and brought in players to compliment and help them?

7 hours ago, Redland said:

I don't know exactly how many signings LJ has made since he was appointed but it must be 20 -30. 

Surprising then that that the spine of our team is still very much the league one promotion team, namely Fielding, Bryan, Flint, Reid, Pack and Smith. We only avoided relegation last season when LJ stopped experimenting and reverted to these players. 

Therefore only one in five of recent signings gets a regular place in the first team.  

Just saying. 

 

[WayOutWest]

9 hours ago, Redland said:

I don't know exactly how many signings LJ has made since he was appointed but it must be 20 -30. 

Surprising then that that the spine of our team is still very much the league one promotion team, namely Fielding, Bryan, Flint, Reid, Pack and Smith. We only avoided relegation last season when LJ stopped experimenting and reverted to these players. 

Therefore only one in five of recent signings gets a regular place in the first team.  

Just saying. 

Credit Cotts for those players by all means. 

But my god credit Lee Johnson and his team for make those league 1 players into to great Championship players. 

Where the hell have you been for the last 6 months with a post like that??

[Judda]

8 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think the point in the original post is valid but the framing is wrong. To me, the damaging cycle clubs get into and we have got into in the past is 

1) Manager joins

2) Manager makes multiple signings 

3) Manager gets sacked

4) new Manager appointed 

5) new guy jetissons previous signings and makes multiple signings of his own

6) previous signings rot in reserves on high wages and long contracts 

7) Manager gets sacked 

8) new manager gets appointed 

9) jettisons more signings 

10) who join others rotting in reserves 

11) club becomes utter mess.

Millen, McInnes, O’Driscoll and Cotterill in his first half season, whilst the first three undoubtedly made significant mistakes - were all hamstrung by signings previous managers made who did not suit their football eating into the wage bill.

 

What the club have done - and if we go back to the then-derided five pillars then we see it was by design and not an accident - is ensured there is a consistency of signings, brought in players of significant quality and who fit into a strategy and appointed a manger who buys into the strategy and will use those players rather than tossing very talented babies out with the bath water.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, only two (three at the most) of LJ’s signings can be classed as poor buys but nonetheless the club have succeeded in signing a core group of players who give a continuity to the club even if the manager changes and appointed a manager who will buy into and improve that core rather than rip it to shreds.

That is not an error or a coincidence and it is not a reflection of LJ’s transfer buys. It is instead proof of our success in doing something most clubs aspire to do but few actually achieve. From 2004 - 2012 Chelsea had the same basic core group despite a succession of mangers and won a shedload of silverware. That was no error or coincidence either.

Well said. (Like!)