I know a lot of people like Ryan Kent

[BRISTOL86]

7 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

The lad is not playing simple quick early and by hanging onto it unnecessarily he is closing down the space for his team mates. The opposition are given time to control and deny space because he is not releasing the ball.

He by dribbling moves slower than a pass. Much of his dribbling in/across field is not breaking lines so cannot create space or pull the opposition out. 

If he released the ball earlier and allowed players to support him in the final third to then add his complexity around the box he would be more effective. I hope to see it, but wonder if a very young loanee who is developing their game was a astute short term recruitment.

It’s a fair point. More out of necessity for making up numbers perhaps with COD injured and ETA unclear? Would we have signed him if COD wasnt injured? I’d guess probably not  

At least with the right back situation we had Pisano returning relatively soon after the window (and a more than capable deputy in Bailey). On that score I think LJ got it wrong by reshuffling too much after the loss of Baker. I hope we can get back to winning ways now he’s returning.

Guessing Kent was playing 23s at Liverpool? Used to more time on the ball maybe? Hopefully something he can rectify quickly. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

It’s a fair point. More out of necessity for making up numbers perhaps with COD injured and ETA unclear? Would we have signed him if COD wasnt injured? I’d guess probably not  

At least with the right back situation we had Pisano returning relatively soon after the window (and a more than capable deputy in Bailey). On that score I think LJ got it wrong by reshuffling too much after the loss of Baker. I hope we can get back to winning ways now he’s returning.

 

Why not use the opportunity to give our own player Eliasson (a player that LJ signed) the chance of stepping up, rather than giving a Liverpool player a chance to improve, it doesn't make sense to me.

[BRISTOL86]

19 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Why not use the opportunity to give our own player Eliasson (a player that LJ signed) the chance of stepping up, rather than giving a Liverpool player a chance to improve, it doesn't make sense to me.

That’s a good point. I’d genuinely forgotten about him which doesn’t bode particularly well!!

[Frenchay Red]

24 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Why not use the opportunity to give our own player Eliasson (a player that LJ signed) the chance of stepping up, rather than giving a Liverpool player a chance to improve, it doesn't make sense to me.

Agreed, but now that Kent is here, do we not, under the terms of the loan, we have to play him or suffer financial consequences?

[BristolIsRed]

This thread

Why can't we just support the lad? Too many people expecting him to come in and be Messi - let the lad play - even our senior pro's make mistakes. From the first game, there was people all around the ground creating an expectation.

He won us multiple good free kicks yesterday with his quick feet. Yes, he lost the ball a few times but who doesn't. 

[Jack Bailey]

10 minutes ago, Frenchay Red said:

Agreed, but now that Kent is here, do we not, under the terms of the loan, we have to play him or suffer financial consequences?

I don't think the management will care much about the financial consequences - it will hardly break the bank. I cant make my mind up about Ryan. He reminds me a little of a sparkling disco ball. All flash, razzle, dazzle on the outside (tricky runs etc) but not a great deal inside (no end product). Certainly worth giving him more time to prove himself. At least he runs at em!!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

13 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

That’s a good point. I’d genuinely forgotten about him which doesn’t bode particularly well!!

And brings the thread neatly around to recruitment, Taylor, Hegeler, Oneil, Woodrow and Engvall have never fitted in to the 'system', Magnússon is quite obviously never going to be an LJ first pick and Eliasson, Walsh and now Diony cast aside without being given a proper run.

The signing of Kent sort of makes a mockery of the 5 pillars and the signings we already have on our books, especially given that the priority was and should have been for a right back, a viable back up is something that we lack in our squad, the muddling through until Pisano is fit is a nonsense for me, what happens if he is injured first game back like last time?, the sending off of Baker given LJ's obvious ambivalence towards Magnússon is something that was always on the cards and further evidence of the folly of not signing a right back.

[BRISTOL86]

16 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

And brings the thread neatly around to recruitment, Taylor, Hegeler, Oneil, Woodrow and Engvall have never fitted in to the 'system', Magnússon is quite obviously never going to be an LJ first pick and Eliasson, Walsh and now Diony cast aside without being given a proper run.

The signing of Kent sort of makes a mockery of the 5 pillars and the signings we already have on our books, especially given that the priority was and should have been for a right back, a viable back up is something that we lack in our squad, the muddling through until Pisano is fit is a nonsense for me, what happens if he is injured first game back like last time?, the sending off of Baker given LJ's obvious ambivalence towards Magnússon is something that was always on the cards and further evidence of the folly of not signing a right back.

Again, is there any actual evidence of us not making any enquiries into potential right back signing or are you just assuming? I would say just because we didn’t bring someone in does not automatically mean we didn’t want to. January recruitment is very difficult especially if you’re looking for genuine upgrades on what we have. Who in the Championship is going to sell you their first choice right back in Jan?

I think when your model is - in the main - to bring in youngsters with an eye on the years ahead, not just the here and now, there’s always going to be casualties. You can scout a player all you like but until they get into your city, your training, your setup...you don’t truly know. You’re more exposed to the risk when you’re looking for value overseas as we have been inclined to do.   

Not sure where Walsh and Diony being ‘cast aside’ has come from. Neither have been here 5 minutes and both were in the squad yesterday 

Woodrow was a clear ‘make up the numbers’ signing and Taylor/Hegeler we’re both ‘get us out of a hole’ type signings - neither good enough for the level we’re trying to sustain right now (and one unlucky with injury) 

Things have changed very quickly, expectation wise. 

Obviously you’ve deliberately only mentioned the misses, and none of the hits (thankfully many more of those).

Baker, Wright, Pisano, Pato, Diedhiou, Tammy, COD and Brownhill have all improved us and that before we consider the many players who have improved under the current regime. 

5 pillars? Wasn’t that from about 5 managers ago....is that still a thing?!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

9 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Again, is there any actual evidence of us not making any enquiries into potential right back signing or are you just assuming? I would say just because we didn’t bring someone in does not automatically mean we didn’t want to. January recruitment is very difficult especially if you’re looking for genuine upgrades on what we have. Who in the Championship is going to sell you their first choice right back in Jan?

I think when your model is - in the main - to bring in youngsters with an eye on the years ahead, not just the here and now, there’s always going to be casualties. You can scout a player all you like but until they get into your city, your training, your setup...you don’t truly know. You’re more exposed to the risk when you’re looking for value overseas as we have been inclined to do.   

Not sure where Walsh and Diony being ‘cast aside’ has come from. Neither have been here 5 minutes and both were in the squad yesterday 

Woodrow was a clear ‘make up the numbers’ signing and Taylor/Hegeler we’re both ‘get us out of a hole’ type signings - neither good enough for the level we’re trying to sustain right now (and one unlucky with injury) 

Things have changed very quickly, expectation wise. 

Obviously you’ve deliberately only mentioned the misses, and none of the hits (thankfully many more of those).

Baker, Wright, Pisano, Pato, Diedhiou, Tammy, COD and Brownhill have all improved us and that before we consider the many players who have improved under the current regime. 

5 pillars? Wasn’t that from about 5 managers ago....is that still a thing?!

The evidence is that we haven't signed one, that in itself is enough.

We are in the middle of our worst run since last seasons record breaking bad run and Walsh and Diony can't get a game, Eliasson has been cast aside in favour of Kent.

I haven't deliberately omitted anything, all of those are either playing or coming back from injury, although I am not personally a Paterson fan especially of late, my problem is that I believe the signing of Kent a waste when we have our own player who obviously needs game time and a striker who we need to see if he is a viable permanent signing and a midfielder who most Everton fans were purring about and none of them can get a game and to avoid confusion I applaud those signings, I even had my doubts about Diedhiou but he has IMHO returned a better stronger player since his injury.

Your last sentence is a a little pedantic, firstly it has nothing to do with managers, it is (whatever it might be called these days) the vision of how the club should be run and one that the owner wants and his appointed manager/coach needs to embrace from day one, bringing in and or nurturing the best young talent available and the signing of Kent IMHO undermines that system, whereas the even short term bringing in of a loan right back would have been what was actually needed, whatever it is called now in recent weeks SL, MA and LJ have alluded to the fact that it is the future of our club.

[BRISTOL86]

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

The evidence is that we haven't signed one, that in itself is enough.

We are in the middle of our worst run since last seasons record breaking bad run and Walsh and Diony can't get a game, Eliasson has been cast aside in favour of Kent.

I haven't deliberately omitted anything, all of those are either playing or coming back from injury, although I am not personally a Paterson fan especially of late, my problem is that I believe the signing of Kent a waste when we have our own player who obviously needs game time and a striker who we need to see if he is a viable permanent signing and a midfielder who most Everton fans were purring about and none of them can get a game and to avoid confusion I applaud those signings, I even had my doubts about Diedhiou but he has IMHO returned a better stronger player since his injury.

Your last sentence is a a little pedantic, firstly it has nothing to do with managers, it is (whatever it might be called these days) the vision of how the club should be run and one that the owner wants and his appointed manager/coach needs to embrace from day one, bringing in and or nurturing the best young talent available and the signing of Kent IMHO undermines that system, whereas the even short term bringing in of a loan right back would have been what was actually needed, whatever it is called now in recent weeks SL, MA and LJ have alluded to the fact that it is the future of our club.

That’s not ‘evidence’ of anything, as you no doubt know. Not having a new right back is NOT evidence of not wanting/trying to acquire one. 

It’s been said many times that they will only bring players to the club who they genuinely feel will improve us. 

But at least you’ve finally (albeit indirectly) answered he question - you’re just making an assumption. That’s fine. 

Perhaps no suitable right back was found who the recruitment staff felt would improve us? Perhaps one was found and we were priced out? Perhaps we were never in for one at all but the reality is that you don’t know any more than rhe rest of us on that front  

It also has absolutely nothing to do with the signing of Kent - completely unrelated.  

During the bad run last year Johnson took a lot of flak (rightly at times) for tinkering too much. This run we are on now is nothing like that one and he’s showing more patience/faith with the selections he’s making, in the main. 

Down to the crux - I don’t think poor team selection or January’s transfer business is what stopped us getting six points instead of two in the last two games. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

4 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

That’s not ‘evidence’ of anything, as you no doubt know. Not having a new right back is NOT evidence of not wanting/trying to acquire one. 

It’s been said many times that they will only bring players to the club who they genuinely feel will improve us. 

But at least you’ve finally (albeit indirectly) answered he question - you’re just making an assumption. That’s fine. 

Perhaps no suitable right back was found who the recruitment staff felt would improve us? Perhaps one was found and we were priced out? Perhaps we were never in for one at all but the reality is that you don’t know any more than rhe rest of us on that front  

It also has absolutely nothing to do with the signing of Kent - completely unrelated.  

During the bad run last year Johnson took a lot of flak (rightly at times) for tinkering too much. This run we are on now is nothing like that one and he’s showing more patience/faith with the selections he’s making, in the main. 

Down to the crux - I don’t think poor team selection or January’s transfer business is what stopped us getting six points instead of two in the last two games. 

My evidence is as good as yours in fact probably stronger, who was the last player that we signed that hadn't been endlessly reported?.

The right back was never about improving us, it was all about having a viable option.

But still tinkering because of lack of viable right back options, Magnússon in to partner Flint and Wright pushed to right back again, Magnússon dropped and Smith pushed to right back, Brownhill pushed to right back and back to Magnússon in for Wright to pushed back into the right back position.

Agree to disagree with your last sentence.

[BRISTOL86]

1 minute ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

My evidence is as good as yours in fact probably stronger, who was the last player that we signed that hadn't been endlessly reported?.

The right back was never about improving us, it was all about having a viable option.

But still tinkering because of lack of viable right back options, Magnússon in to partner Flint and Wright pushed to right back again, Magnússon dropped and Smith pushed to right back, Brownhill pushed to right back and back to Magnússon in for Wright to pushed back into the right back position.

Agree to disagree with your last sentence.

The team selection was good enough to be 5-0 up across the two games and thus can’t see how you can say the selection cost us the wins. 

I’m not defending the right back selection vs Bolton/Sunderland as it’s not the way I’d have gone. 

I’ve never claimed to have evidence of anything - what I’m saying is you are basing your entire argument around an assumption ‘we didn’t want a right back’ when there’s nothing to suggest that’s true. I’m sure we’d have liked a striker who will score 25 goals at this level too but it doesn’t mean one was available.

You can only bring in a player who’s available and if no one was available that met the criteria I’d rather we managed with what we had. It has, after all, put us on course for our highest league position in a decade so its not far wrong is it? 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

The team selection was good enough to be 5-0 up across the two games and thus can’t see how you can say the selection cost us the wins. 

I’m not defending the right back selection vs Bolton/Sunderland as it’s not the way I’d have gone. 

I’ve never claimed to have evidence of anything - what I’m saying is you are basing your entire argument around an assumption ‘we didn’t want a right back’ when there’s nothing to suggest that’s true. I’m sure we’d have liked a striker who will score 25 goals at this level too but it doesn’t mean one was available.

You can only bring in a player who’s available and if no one was available that met the criteria I’d rather we managed with what we had. It has, after all, put us on course for our highest league position in a decade so its not far wrong is it? 

And poor enough to ship in 5 goals pretty tout suite, by playing the 2nd 45 minutes differently to the first 45 minutes, that is either players changing their instructions or LJ changing the 2nd half instructions and the only constant for me is Kent playing differently in the 2nd half of both games.

 

[BRISTOL86]

3 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

And poor enough to ship in 5 goals pretty tout suite, by playing the 2nd 45 minutes differently to the first 45 minutes, that is either players changing their instructions or LJ changing the 2nd half instructions and the only constant for me is Kent playing differently in the 2nd half of both games.

 

You could basically say that about every single outfield player - all much poorer second half vs first in both games. Like I said we were poor as a team for both second halves. 

Johnson got it very wrong vs Sunderland in terms of when he reacted to what was unfolding on the pitch and same again yesterday. Unfair to lay the blame at Kent’s feet in either game. 

[aa_bcfc]

I don’t get the financial penalties if he doesn’t play an agreed number of games. 

What incentive is there for the player when he feels he’s always likely to play?

How do the other players react if they see a player who might only be playing because of the signing on clause?

All in all a ridiculous situation. 

[Trueredsupporter]

2 hours ago, BristolIsRed said:

This thread

Why can't we just support the lad? Too many people expecting him to come in and be Messi - let the lad play - even our senior pro's make mistakes. From the first game, there was people all around the ground creating an expectation.

He won us multiple good free kicks yesterday with his quick feet. Yes, he lost the ball a few times but who doesn't. 

Don't see posts expecting him to be Neymar or Messi. Just posts wanting the lad to be less selfish and fit in with the team style. 

[MattWSM]

On 19/02/2018 at 12:40, Steve Watts said:

I agree about Kent.  He's going to be some player in a couple of years, but too much running into blind alleys for me at the moment.  Yes, he's learning, but I'm not sure we can afford to carry his development with where we currently are in the table.

As for the rest of the post, I struggle to understand where you're coming from at all with some of it.

You don't believe Diedhou, who has scored in the first half in at least three matches since he returned from injury shouldn't be playing in the first half?  And he loses the ball regularly?  Are you even watching the same player?  His hold up play is excellent!  It's no coincidence that Bobby is back in form now Famara is back in the team.

Djuric I don't believe has done anything since he's been here that would suggest to me that he won't make it at this level.  Considering he has been carrying an injury I'd say he's been excellent for us.  A threat in the area, strong, rarely if ever loses an aerial challenge, and can finish.  I'm not sure what else you want from him?  Eliasson  hasn't been given enough of a chance to show if he can make it yet.  I think he could, but his time isn't now.

Hegeler has flattered to deceive, but hasn't really been given much of a chance to show that he can make it at this level.  Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but I'm not convinced enough to throw him straight back in.  A fully fit C'OD however would be a massive boost for us.

I do agree about Taylor....not sure he's good enough at this level from what he's seen so far.

O'Neill the jury is very much out on.  If it's true that we've not seen him fully fit since he joined then we could be about to see the real O'Neill and a judgement can be made then, but as for Pisano....I can only imagine you've not seen us a lot before he got injured.  For me he's been possibly our biggest miss.  Great energy, hard (but clean) tackle, covers his position extremely well, whilst offering good support to whoever has played in front of him. 

For me, the returns of Diedhou, Djuric, Pisano and O'Dowda are crucial to our push for the play-offs.  One down, three to go.

Fair enough.

 

I have only seen Pisano in a couple if games. I know my diedhou comment wouldn't be popular but I got the same reaction when I said the same about Taylor after 3 games. My instinct is he isn't good for City not is durij. They both encourage a style of football which I believe doesn't allow City to perform to their maximum. The crisp play and fast movement we have seen in recent weeks does not involve the hold up play from a big man upfront.

 

 

[ZiderEyed]

1 minute ago, MattWSM said:

Fair enough.

 

I have only seen Pisano in a couple if games. I know my diedhou comment wouldn't be popular but I got the same reaction when I said the same about Taylor after 3 games. My instinct is he isn't good for City not is durij. They both encourage a style of football which I believe doesn't allow City to perform to their maximum. The crisp play and fast movement we have seen in recent weeks does not involve the hold up play from a big man upfront.

 

 

The crisp play and fast movement was synonymous with a City strike partnership of Diedhiou and Reid, though, wasn't it? Can think of 2 occasions where Djuric playing has encouraged us to lump the ball up and LJ made changes to stop that.

[MattWSM]

1 minute ago, ZiderEyed said:

The crisp play and fast movement was synonymous with a City strike partnership of Diedhiou and Reid, though, wasn't it? Can think of 2 occasions where Djuric playing has encouraged us to lump the ball up and LJ made changes to stop that.

Ok, let's see how it pans out.

 

I just don't think he is good enough. Bit clumsy. A Wayne Allison type which will score goals and create problems for defences but the rest of the team will need to adapt to that style. It may take a while as sure they haven't since he has been back even though he has scored goals. I think we have some natural ball players and don't need this target man. It's not just about going forward that I'm talking about its the all round play

[Davefevs]

On 19/02/2018 at 10:14, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I would have thought within our own academy we have a player with similar ability to beat opponents who on the odd occasion when it all comes together is brilliant but in the main has little or no end product.

Personally I find it a strange signing, he is 21 years old and apparently still learning the game, well let him learn elsewhere as far as i'm concerned, I agree with you, my prediction is within the next year he will end up the way of most Liverpool/Chelsea/Manc academy players either playing for a championship club or in a lower premiership team, personally a right back signing would and should have been the January priority.

I am so far not impressed, but I am sure like most wingers before the end of the season he will have one great game which will elevate him to legend status.

Funny thing is (not funny really) is that I think LJ’s 442/4411 is based on wide midfielders rather than wingers, yet he’s signed Kent and Eliasson.  O’Dowda has had to remodel his game (fair play to him) from being a winger to a hard-working wide man (somewhere between winger and wide midfielder).

I think he bought Eliasson because of Djúric.  He’s even said that we don’t play to Diedhiou’s strengths of getting crosses in.

Its a bit like Liverpool when Carroll was signed (winter window) and in the summer they bought Downing and Maxi.  I’m there thinking Downing crossing from left wing, Maxi from right, perfect.  But they played on the opposite side, condensed the space and hit the wrong crosses to Carroll, when fit.