Critiquing our Recruitment under MA and LJ

[BobBobSuperBob]

6 minutes ago, RedDave said:

What I really struggle with is how many fans class Taylor Moore as a poor signing.  He cannot be judged as either a good or bad signing for at least another couple of years.

Fans seem to struggle with this type of signing most of all

Hell of a lot of money to ‘gamble’ on a player that might or not make it , in by your own suggestion may take a minimum 4 years !!!! To assess or decide on

[And Its Smith]

22 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Hell of a lot of money to ‘gamble’ on a player that might or not make it , in by your own suggestion may take a minimum 4 years !!!! To assess or decide on

If it pays off then a £1.5m could be worth £6/7/8m a few years later.  If it doesnt then we have wasted £1.5m.

You cannot go making these signings all the time but signing a well scouted 18/19 year old for over £1m isnt exactly madness.

I am hoping that Dijksteel plays for Charlton tonight.  only 19 I think and only played 10 games for Charlton but I would be buying him for £1.5m this summer if not a bit more. 

[DaveF]

5 minutes ago, RedDave said:

If it pays off then a £1.5m could be worth £6/7/8m a few years later.  If it doesnt then we have wasted £1.5m.

You cannot go making these signings all the time but signing a well scouted 18/19 year old for over £1m isnt exactly madness.

I am hoping that Dijksteel plays for Charlton tonight.  only 19 I think and only played 10 games for Charlton but I would be buying him for £1.5m this summer if not a bit more. 

He's 21.

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 minute ago, RedDave said:

If it pays off then a £1.5m could be worth £6/7/8m a few years later.  If it doesnt then we have wasted £1.5m.

You cannot go making these signings all the time but signing a well scouted 18/19 year old for over £1m isnt exactly madness.

I am hoping that Dijksteel plays for Charlton tonight.  only 19 I think and only played 10 games for Charlton but I would be buying him for £1.5m this summer if not a bit more. 

Think we all get that Dave

The problem is add Engvall , possibly Eliasson (Def too early to Judge in his case) and that’s £6m plus their wages whilst here

Im just not sure we can make those mistakes regularly or are a club that can have too many punts at £1m , £2m (Especially if it takes four or five years to fully asses them) without getting our recruiting much improved

The acid test will be when these players leave and the profit or loss , plus their contribution whilst here

What may work in our favour is like the housing market all transfer fees seemed to have gone bonkers , but I will be surprised if we get our money back on any of the three I mentioned (Or Hörður) (Eliasson Tbf could suddenly find his feet and become a hit)

Thanks for the heads up about Djiksteel - Will keep an eye on him

 

[upthebracket]

Can somebody (preferably the original poster) explain to me what Bailey Wright has done inexplicably wrong to be classed as a bad signing? 

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, billywedlock said:

An interesting exercise. What concerns me falls into three areas. 

Firstly what players are we signing  and for what system.

If our plan was high press football, why did we sign Tomlin , GON, Fama, Duric ? What exactly is the role of Hegeler , in what system ? Are we playing with wingers  O'Dowda, Elliason and Leko suggest we do, but then our best football was played with one up front and a fluid midfield. I do not see firstly a clarity on how we want to play, and then players we sign seem to be a random collection with no plan.

Secondly, the signing for the future policy, namely Moore, Engval and Elliason (all 3 still some way from first team starters). Paying such fees, when you are Bristol City and already complaining about budget limitations is folly. The fees are too high, and the risk of success factor still very very high. We cannot afford that level of risk yet, and should look more at lower league younger players coming through with league experience, Prem discards or our own academy products. 

For all that is said about our pathway and youth development, after Bobby and Joe, none of the others are yet first team regulars. It looks like Vyner and Kelly have potential to do exactly that, but it still is a looks a like not a fact. Much was said about SC not using youth, he was clear, talent was not there. He was right, 2.5 years later, we still only have bit part roles , only Kelly having a handful of games. At some point we are going to have to play consistently our Academy players, it is not a pathway getting a 20 minute cameo appearance. We have to really believe in it. It would help if first team played the same football as the youth teams too . 

I do not feel we spent well the Kodja windfall , have missed other targets within our budget, and have not created a balanced squad for the style of football we want to play (but that changes...) or the characters needed ,or pushed hard enough our youth players. 

After all of these signings we are no closer, indeed when the players who want out get away (if they can) this summer, we are going to be back to less than square one. 

If they raise lets say 20M from player sales, would I trust the current regime and process to spend well ? Never ever, they sign all these players then spend all of the time telling us who they are missing , they cannot compete wit the budget, yet have millions spent on  players who are out on loan. 

Two very untrendy, apparent prehistoric managers, Warnock and Cotterill turned relegation threatened sides into promotion winners in 18 months. Look beyond what you find unfashionable and understand first and foremost how they did it. They created a team, a team with clear objectives and a bond between the players, with specific roles within that team and a blend of characters and abilities. 

I simply cannot see how MA and LJ can create that. Next season should be the season where our previous hard work, transfer policy , comes together and we start to reap the rewards. If I were SL I would be concerned as the answers to his (for the first time in a few years) decent questions are not going to be forthcoming anytime soon unless he raises the quality. He needs a Pat Lam for the football club. 

 

Your first paragraph articulates clearly what I was posting about the season before last in an effort to explain the teams frailties , and again started posting about this theme post January. An inconsistency in playing approach x recruitment from those supposed to be following a cogent project and  philosophy (identity).

Within BCFC I can see a clear potential. A obvious route to follow - a high tempo possession based fluid style. The squad does have many players to fit this style. At academy level teams clearly are attempting to play out through thirds to feet, this identity progresses into teams above, but the XI? The teams approach is again in a state of flux.

There is a unevenness to this. It also is not a modern approach at all. The modern approach is to define what you are, how you play, recruit to the principles ever moving the team via its academy and recruitment towards that bigger picture ... Lee Johnson is not defining what BCFC are, is not defining in approach how City play and the recruitment appears to be provide variety for muddled thinking.

One week he wants to be Pep the next its playing more like Cardiff and the result in results is there to see in the nosedives his team goes through.

He is not the modern methodical progressive at this point the rhetoric makes him out to be.

A positive is that his teams have here played very well, beautifully this season before his own changes. His signings in the near future may indicate the path to that clear defined style. 

[Fuber]

34 minutes ago, upthebracket said:

Can somebody (preferably the original poster) explain to me what Bailey Wright has done inexplicably wrong to be classed as a bad signing? 

I probably will update it, as I can understand people's view with regards to Bailey, the worrying thing is that he's all but disappeared from the side, was last seen booed off the pitch by some of our fans, and now can't get in the team ahead of Smith, Pisano, Flint, Magnússon, and Kelly.

He's regressed over the course of the season, so at the time of writing it out I went with red (which does no necessarily mean) as he simply hasn't proven himself in his preferred position. Per Eliasson, how can we know whether we've gotten value with regards to signing him if he can't break back into a team that have won 4 in 24 at RB or CB?

When we signed him, he was a "leader", and since that quote, has still not been in the team to date. I wonder if he could be one of the 'surprise' departures.

Unfortunately my Excel (Office) subscription ran out yesterday. so I'm now waiting on a renewal code before I can do anything. I will be changing Walsh and Wright up to Yellow - having potential, if they play more games in their preferred positions.

Wright gets the upgrade as many have pointed out that despite playing at RB, he has played quite well. Walsh simply hasn't been here long enough (5 months). Eliasson will however remain red - he's been here for almost a year and started just three times, and is also being played out of position. If we need a right mid, why sign a left midfielder?

 

[Fuber]

4 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

 

There is a unevenness to this. It also is not a modern approach at all. The modern approach is to define what you are, how you play, recruit to the principles ever moving the team via its academy and recruitment towards that bigger picture ... Lee Johnson is not defining what BCFC are, is not defining in approach how City play and the recruitment appears to be provide variety for muddled approaches rather than a defined style and its bigger picture. 

 

The issue Cowshed; is how much of that is down to LJ and how much of it is down to the recruitment? LJ stipulates he wants an experienced Target-Man, does that means he want's a 6"8 Bosnian who can head a ball? Or possibly he wanted someone a bit more dynamic? What if they assure him he's good with his feet for his height?

[cidered abroad]

I believe that we should look at signings like Moore, Engvall, Bakinson, Engvall, in a different light. 

Our Academy production line had been poorly managed for a long time with only two coming through, Bryan and Reid, in the last ten years. Without going through the records, were they the first since Dave Cotterell and Cole Skuse? 

To wait for ten year old to progress will take too long, so we've been buying in some sixteen to twenty year old to give us a chance of getting Academy boys through in the next two/three years. 

The cost of their transfer fees should be seen as a one off payment to kick-start the change from a non productive part of the club into one which can give us at least one first teamer per season. 

[Cowshed]

2 minutes ago, Fuber said:

The issue Cowshed; is how much of that is down to LJ and how much of it is down to the recruitment? LJ stipulates he wants an experienced Target-Man, does that means he want's a 6"8 Bosnian who can head a ball? Or possibly he wanted someone a bit more dynamic? What if they assure him he's good with his feet for his height?

Lee Johnson brought in Jamie McAllister so he can also spend more time looking at recruitment. Mr Johnson is at the core of bringing players in with the right dna to for the project. Lee Johnson is involved in identifying these targets I think without sarcasm he should have the skill set to establish what he wants clearly. 

[JoeAman08]

Again the sheet used here is an as of now. Classing players as failing or regressing based on what exactly. About 90% of those signings were during a time we were in a relegation battle or predicted to be. Does that not effect the quality of signings? Also, if a player was signed and featured during a relegation scrap and now classed as a failure or degreasing, is that because we moved on this season as a club? Good enough for a bottom half championship club(which we were)but not for a top half(which we are now). 

That is the problem with things like this. It leaves it open to too much intepretation. But show it to someone misinformed or someone who doesn’t follow that closely it looks horrible. Show each signing individually and calculate their role since they arrived here in getting us to where we are. 

Examples

Matty Taylor- doesn’t score much but helped last season turn our form around which kept us up. 300k that helped us avoid relegation. Plus a certain pass to a Smith in a big cup game. 

Bailey Wright- we were a porous defense that was often too soft down the centre in the pitch. Not his biggest fan but he helped organise and steady the defense which improved enough to keep us up. Been a starter for 80% of his time here. 500-750k for a steady and versatile international player. 

Even Golbourne was relatively cheap at 300k and helped steady us the relegation battle before. 

Just because some young players got better and others found form or we bought other players does not make them bad signings or mean they are regressing. If anything, it is proof that te club keep moving forward. Now it is time to try and move some on and push our current starters forward so we can have this conversation again in 2 years about Fam and Nathan Baker how they can’t get into the team and are wasting wages

[Fuber]

2 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Lee Johnson brought in Jamie McAllister so he can also spend more time looking at recruitment. Mr Johnson is at the core of bringing players in with the right dna to for the project. Lee Johnson is involved in identifying these targets I think without sarcasm he should have the skill set to establish what he wants clearly. 

But we can't tell how much he's dependant upon the scouting setup. If we overspend, surely then that's Ashton negotiating that's also an issue.

I can see why LJ should be criticised but don't think he's going anywhere. So I think it's better to look at ways we can build the setup around him to incorporate preventative measures for more mistakes in the future.

And he has signed players that in some cases simply don't fit the system - I can agree with that.

No point having a go at LJ however, he won't be going anywhere.

[And Its Smith]

46 minutes ago, upthebracket said:

Can somebody (preferably the original poster) explain to me what Bailey Wright has done inexplicably wrong to be classed as a bad signing? 

Had two bad games in a row.  

Very short memories on OTIB

['Orns]

Glad that Scott Golbourne is getting a bit of love on this thread

When he and Matthews signed we were crying out for experience at full back. Both came in and more than played their part in keeping us up that season. The fat that LJ then decided that JB is a PL / international left back in the making does not make SG a bad signing. Matthews was awful when he came back, but for this role in the previous season then I can't complain too much. Same with Tomlin, was excellent then that all went south

If they were all bad signings from day 1 then we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be back in Div 3 moaning about 12,000 crowds in a shiny stadium

[BigTone]

12 hours ago, Fuber said:

I realise there are bits about this in different threads and a discussion thread involving who of our current squad will be sold.

This is not an attack on LJ, despite me questioning his man-management but I've stated my opinion on that already and won't repeat it here.

I've seen members of this forum defend our recruitment or say 'it's not that bad', so I've compiled a breakdown, if it's found unfair in your opinion then fine, that's your opinion. I've based the parameters on certain requirements to be structured and equal to all players listed.

The image attached is an excel spreadsheet detailing every signing bar a few development signings such as Shabazz Omofe (who is currently at Leatherhead) who nobody will know who never played in the first team or seemingly got close to it.

The criteria I utilised is that Players Highlighted;

• Red - Either have not proven themselves i.e. not played enough, or we haven't seen enough from (Eliasson, Engvall, Hegeler), have regressed (Wright, Moore), or are no longer at the club (Lucic).
• Yellow - Have shown quality/potential but either haven't been consistent, or have been injured.
• Green - Have been successful, breaking into the first and performing to a high standard on a regular basis and have showed some consistency.
• Black - Were not scouted by MA, were signing originally by another manager, or worked with the current manager at another club.

This is only using the criteria highlighted above, no outside factors, and I've tried avoiding personal bias, but this is a critique written by myself, so apologise if it seems as if there is bias.

So in total, since the 28th Jan 2018 - MA was 2 weeks into his role at this point, City have made a total of 35 signings, both permanent and loan.

Of those, by the end of this season, 19 look like they will be at the club at the beginning of next season taking into account public statements, contracts, and loans, ignoring development signings, and signings that were not Ashton jurisdiction - it's 12; Magnússon, O'Dowda, Moore, Paterson, Djuric, Hegeler, Wright, Taylor, Diedhiou, Pisano, Eliasson, Walsh, of which 2 are consistantly in the team.

• Per the breakdown criteria, the signings of Tammy, Brownhill, and Baker will be ignored in the context of judging Ashton, as we know that LJ knew, convinced, or did not originally sign those players respectively with the latter applying to MA as well.
• Some of the players dismissed as poor signings are harsh, in the cases of Walsh, Eliasson, Hegeler, Moore, and Pisano, but per the criteria I set out, players who haven't proven themselves simply fall into that category, we don't know if they have that potential - especially when they can't break into a team doing as poorly as ours the second half of the season, if LJ can't trust them they don't play.
• Players in yellow have shown potential but have gone MIA over the course of the season, due to form, suspension, injury, or lack of selection.
• Greens are what could in hindsight be the successful signings, that broke into the first team and proved themselves.

My Conclusion

What we find is that MA (and consequentially Lee) have spent an estimated £25,450,000, an estimated £29,350,000 including Baker - over the course of two years. Making overall confirmed losses on those transfers of £1,500,000. Only sustainable due to the sale of a player neither were responsible for developing or scouting.

So then, my question to the forum. Is this successful? If you were SL, and you saw these numbers, what would you're thoughts be? Personally, I'd question the point of a lot of them (the signings) when the academy is doing so well. By bogging the squad as much as we have and the high turnover of players it doesn't promote stability and you could argue denies promising youth players a chance to develop i.e. Kelly since his league cup appearances.

This time last years we were 5th in terms of minutes played by academy graduates within the championship https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/revealed-championships-most-successful-academies-9671300 so we have a good academy. Reid and Kelly will have added to that this season, on top of Bryan again this season.

Plus according to the latest figures (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/championship-spending-revealed-wolves-cardiff-1428254), our squad is now the 13th most expensive in the division, so we're just about getting value for money, but bear in mind our league position you could argue was down to Bobby and Joe, who would not count towards that cost but could be worth £20m between the two of them. Unfortunately it really puts are run into perspective also.

This transfer record is simply unacceptable, barring players Lee convinced, already knew, or already knew the club themselves - we haven't spent wisely.

What I would do:

Critically evaluate Ashton's role at the club, and the way LJ signs off on transfers, make him more involved in the deliberation process, he's not using these players and that cannot continue. Same with the scouting staff, it requires a full review, we signed much better players and had much better success during Cotts tenure no matter what anyone says.

Instead of taking the risk abroad, which bar a couple of signings has never gone well, focus more on the lower as we did with Cotts signings with Freeman, Ayling, Smith, Wagstaff, Agard, and back them up with experience i.e. Nosworthy, Wilbraham, Elliott, the latter don't have to be near the first team and could be used in rotation but can help keep younger players heads on straight. Leading through example and experience. Having one older players is not enough.

Examples of possible targets could be Dean Henderson, Max Clark, Josh Clarke, Harlee Dean, Sean McConville, Emyr Huws, Criag Bryson, Possibly Umut Bozok from Nimes. A bit of flair, players with potential, and a few proven and experienced thrown in. Add in a marquee signing like Jarrod Bowen, and I'd be pretty happy.

What do you all think? Should the club get rid of Ashton, try something else? Is LJ more responsible in your eyes? Should we review our transfer policy?

 

 

 

Condensed Version

A bit naff

[RedRock]

5 hours ago, myol'man said:

Very harsh assessment of some of our current squad, looks like another club bashing thread to me;

 

COD defo into green (unlucky to get injured at crucial stage of the season)

Jamie Patterson defo into green, early season form almost unplayable, not surprising he couldn't keep that pace up.

Jens Heggeler into yellow, has done the job when called upon.

Bailey Wright into yellow, done a fine job playing half a season out of position at right back.

Matty Taylor, defo yellow , natural goal poacher when given the chance . Worth the fee just for the pass to Korey Smith.

Eros Pisano, yellow, done ok when not injured.

Luke Steel, yellow, good keeper in the cup run, brought in for nothing.

 

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH SOME OF YOU? It seems like you are crying out for Ashton and Johnson to fail  

 

 

 

Think it’s more a case of getting LJ/MA to raise their games and stopping the bullshit. Until they admit to themselves they’re crap at talent spotting and DNA testing they’ll repeat the same mistakes. Demonstrated by the January window... two utter duds and yet another ‘one for the future’ punt to add to the multitude of ‘ones for the future’ posted around soccer’s outposts. 

We can argue about individual ratings but even the most ardent of LJ/MA supporters must concede their transfer dealings overall are well below par. 

As others have mentioned, I cringe at the prospect of selling our established pre-LJ core first team players and handing the money over to this pair to squander. 

On the ratings, not sure how anyone can argue that Pato is a green - since his illness he has contributed little. The best he can do over the Summer is sign up to that fitness club Joe and Bobby attend and get some strength and muscle developed. He could be revelation if he did that as he has the skills and ability,  but at the moment judged on the last few months he’s not worthy of a first team place. 

[Harry]

Recruitment is the main responsibility of Mark Ashton. He is in charge of all “off the field matters”. 

Yes, LJ has to buy into what MA and his teams of scouts and analysts are doing, but LJ is not the head which should be on the block for the current recruitment strategy. 

Mark Ashton commands a highly sizeable wage for which he is yet to prove his worth. As the stats say, the volume and quality of players incoming has not been a success to date. Plus, the outgoing fees gained were nothing to do with MA’s recruitment but those of previous regimes. 

Its been well discussed on here that the best XI City would currently field are very very little to do with MA and his recruitment. 

Fielding, Flint, Pack - Burt/Sod

Smith - Burt/Cotterill

Baker - Burt

Bryan, Reid - Youth

Brownhill - LJ (prior connection/management) 

Wright, Paterson, Diedhou - MA/LJ

As pointed out, not much ‘evolution’ in that first team since Ashton took control of recruitment. 

My main point on this thread is going to be this though : Ashton has previous!! We seem to overlook the fact he was also at City for a brief period in 2012 when McInnes was manager. His role at that time was also recruitment. Never has a worse set of players been signed during his brief stint here as back in 2012 under DMC. 

Anyone care to remember Howard, Bates, McManus, Briggs, Danns, Wilson. A collection of loans and freebies that all provided nothing to the first team and went a long way to seeing us feebly depart the championship 4 months after Ashton left us. 

I’m frankly stunned that this bloke has managed to con Lansdown twice into employing him on large wedge. 

We need to find a better system than is currently operated by this ‘man of flannel’. We need to employ a true and proper ‘Head of Scouting’. 

I’ve been involved in scouting for professional football clubs, and I have a very good idea of the players which City have been alerted to but have refused to take an interest in whilst trying to adopt a more ‘unique’ philosophy to recruitment. It’s all a load of tosh that this man has put in place. He’s not up to this job and is winging it in a massive way. 

Whilst I feel LJ needs to buck up his ideas, I am also largely of the opinion that he is being dealt a duff hand by Ashton. 

If there is one head that needs to roll, I am very confident in my opinion of who they should be. 

[bcfcnick]

The problem with signing players such as Taylor Moore and Engvall for large fees for the future is that by the time they might be ready then their contracts will be due to expire.   I'm all in favour of signing young, promising players but the size of the fees and the disappointing progress so  far of the ones selected far is an issue  The cumulative cost of fees and wages aren't showing signs of making it would have bought two quality players for the here and now first team. 

The positive is that our emerging academy players such as Zak Vyner and Lloyd Kelly look like doing well. Also, some of the less expensive young recruits (probably where Brian Tinnion has had an influence) such as Jonny Smith and Shawn McCoulsky look much closer to being emerging squad members next season than the costly 'ones for the future' recruits.  The point being in the context of this thread is that Mark Ashton and LJ probably weren't part of the talent identification but were for the big money recruits . 

[BCFC_Dan]

3 hours ago, billywedlock said:

 

If our plan was high press football, why did we sign Tomlin , GON, Fama, Duric ? What exactly is the role of Hegeler , in what system ? Are we playing with wingers  O'Dowda, Elliason and Leko suggest we do, but then our best football was played with one up front and a fluid midfield. I do not see firstly a clarity on how we want to play, and then players we sign seem to be a random collection with no plan.

 

Our plan, and LJ has said this, was to transition the team from the direct, counter-attacking team that Cotterill built into one that dictates the game more. The aim is, I believe, a Guardiola-esque team that presses high to win the ball but then keeps hold of it for long spells.

The first part of that is in place but in many respects that's the easy part. When it's worked this season the pressing has been virtually unplayable.

The difficulty has been getting the second part right, which is trickier. Without the ability to keep possession an unsustainable amount of pressing is required which, as we've seen, leads to fatigue and the inability to do anything at all during games.

Hegeler, I think, was signed to help with the second part of the plan, and so was Gary O'Neill. I don't think anyone can say that either has worked out well. I don't know the full story with either but I think if it had worked we'd have seen Hegeler deep in the midfield, controlling the play and lowering the tempo in a way that, good as they are, Pack and Smith just can't do.

He's had a lot of injuries and perhaps never been fully fit but it also seems clear that Johnson doesn't trust him in the midfield. That could be because he's got limitations that they hoped wouldn't be a problem (you have to ask how a Bundesliga standard player ends up at a bottom 3 Championship side, which we were at the time), or it could be because Johnson is asking him to do something but then not actually liking the result (if you ask a player to hold the ball and slow the play there will be times when he misses the quick pass to set up an attack).

As for the others, I think they are options. Djuric is the big lad who comes in handy for nearly every team. Diedhiou might have been the main striker had he not been injured this season and nobody can have expected Reid to be quite the success that he was.

You will know as well as anyone that circumstances change and sometimes plans have to change also. I don't believe that things have gone entirely to plan during the season but they almost never do. Maybe a few things could have been executed better. I do think there was a plan though.

 

 

[Cowshed]

8 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

Our plan, and LJ has said this, was to transition the team from the direct, counter-attacking team that Cotterill built into one that dictates the game more. The aim is, I believe, a Guardiola-esque team that presses high to win the ball but then keeps hold of it for long spells.

 

 

 

Djuric and Famara will, would and do struggle to fulfil the necessary physical challenges.

Diony likewise and went beyond struggling.

The team with these players in the XI keeps the ball less.

Keeping the ball less and playing it longer both will affect the way the team presses.

That aim does not bear scrutiny. 

[BobBobSuperBob]

14 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

Our plan, and LJ has said this, was to transition the team from the direct, counter-attacking team that Cotterill built into one that dictates the game more. The aim is, I believe, a Guardiola-esque team that presses high to win the ball but then keeps hold of it for long spells.

 

Could  you explain then the signing of Diedhiou as his No 1 striker as a starter

 

The first part of that is in place but in many respects that's the easy part. When it's worked this season the pressing has been virtually unplayable.

The difficulty has been getting the second part right, which is trickier. Without the ability to keep possession an unsustainable amount of pressing is required which, as we've seen, leads to fatigue and the inability to do anything at all during games.

Hegeler, I think, was signed to help with the second part of the plan, and so was Gary O'Neill. I don't think anyone can say that either has worked out well. I don't know the full story with either but I think if it had worked we'd have seen Hegeler deep in the midfield, controlling the play and lowering the tempo in a way that, good as they are, Pack and Smith just can't do.

He's had a lot of injuries and perhaps never been fully fit but it also seems clear that Johnson doesn't trust him in the midfield. That could be because he's got limitations that they hoped wouldn't be a problem (you have to ask how a Bundesliga standard player ends up at a bottom 3 Championship side, which we were at the time), or it could be because Johnson is asking him to do something but then not actually liking the result (if you ask a player to hold the ball and slow the play there will be times when he misses the quick pass to set up an attack).

As for the others, I think they are options. Djuric is the big lad who comes in handy for nearly every team. Diedhiou might have been the main striker had he not been injured this season and nobody can have expected Reid to be quite the success that he was.

You will know as well as anyone that circumstances change and sometimes plans have to change also. I don't believe that things have gone entirely to plan during the season but they almost never do. Maybe a few things could have been executed better.

I do think there was a plan though.

What do you think tha5 plan

a) was 

B) is

 

 

[ZiderEyed]

35 minutes ago, Harry said:

Recruitment is the main responsibility of Mark Ashton. He is in charge of all “off the field matters”. 

Yes, LJ has to buy into what MA and his teams of scouts and analysts are doing, but LJ is not the head which should be on the block for the current recruitment strategy. 

Mark Ashton commands a highly sizeable wage for which he is yet to prove his worth. As the stats say, the volume and quality of players incoming has not been a success to date. Plus, the outgoing fees gained were nothing to do with MA’s recruitment but those of previous regimes. 

Its been well discussed on here that the best XI City would currently field are very very little to do with MA and his recruitment. 

Fielding, Flint, Pack - Burt/Sod

Smith - Burt/Cotterill

Baker - Burt

Bryan, Reid - Youth

Brownhill - LJ (prior connection/management) 

Wright, Paterson, Diedhou - MA/LJ

As pointed out, not much ‘evolution’ in that first team since Ashton took control of recruitment. 

My main point on this thread is going to be this though : Ashton has previous!! We seem to overlook the fact he was also at City for a brief period in 2012 when McInnes was manager. His role at that time was also recruitment. Never has a worse set of players been signed during his brief stint here as back in 2012 under DMC. 

Anyone care to remember Howard, Bates, McManus, Briggs, Danns, Wilson. A collection of loans and freebies that all provided nothing to the first team and went a long way to seeing us feebly depart the championship 4 months after Ashton left us. 

I’m frankly stunned that this bloke has managed to con Lansdown twice into employing him on large wedge. 

We need to find a better system than is currently operated by this ‘man of flannel’. We need to employ a true and proper ‘Head of Scouting’. 

I’ve been involved in scouting for professional football clubs, and I have a very good idea of the players which City have been alerted to but have refused to take an interest in whilst trying to adopt a more ‘unique’ philosophy to recruitment. It’s all a load of tosh that this man has put in place. He’s not up to this job and is winging it in a massive way. 

Whilst I feel LJ needs to buck up his ideas, I am also largely of the opinion that he is being dealt a duff hand by Ashton. 

If there is one head that needs to roll, I am very confident in my opinion of who they should be. 

Welcome back son 

[BCFC_Dan]

9 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Djuric and Famara will, would and do struggle to fulfil the necessary physical challenges.

Diony likewise and went beyond struggling.

The team with these players in the XI keeps the ball less.

Keeping the ball less and playing it longer both will affect the way the team presses.

That aim does not bear scrutiny. 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I certainly don't understand what physical challenges Djuric can't fulfil, other than staying fit for more than a month at a time.

There is an aim, which is a side that plays like Man City. There is reality, which was the squad left by Cotterill. There is the transition between the two which is long, difficult and must be achieved without too much negative impact on results. This requires a certain degree of pragmatism and using players who don't necessarily fit with the end goal.

Try to transition too quickly and you end up like Crystal Palace at the start of the season.

[JoeAman08]

48 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

As for sustainability, getting to the Premiership asap is a damn good first step. Others with less money have done it in 18 months. That is a fact, and very few in the last 10 years have done it with a manager that has been at the respective club for more than 2 seasons. The long haul approach has almost no examples of success in getting to the Premiership. Why ? Who knows, but it is true. Just go and check if you don't believe it. 

The single biggest difference is that promoted teams know what they want, create the team to deliver, maximise their strengths (again, you use what you have not what you don't) and create a depth of team spirit that gets you through the foggy night away from home in January. We saw it 3 seasons ago, we know what it looks like. 

I still remain confused as to what LJ is actually trying to achieve, apart from creating multiple excuses for his inability to get the basics of a leader right. 

Others have done it but problem is at least 20 other sides will be vying for the same thing come start of next season. Just because others have done it does not make it easy for us to do it. Have to stop comparing us with other clubs. Every clubs has a different situation. Who do we compare to? Huddersfield? They took a massive gamble on a bunch of upper Bundesliga 2 and lower Bundesliga players. 

Bournemouth? Who massively went over ffp budget which is a gamble and did it? 

Burnley? Who have had 3 or so promotions before starting to establish themselves a league higher? Who started their journey 6-7 years ago in a different championship? 

Brighton probably the closest comparison but I can’t imagine they were paying the likes of Murray, Knockaert, Sidwell, Dunk and Duffy peanuts. 

Think you can question LJ and some of his tactics but I do not think you can question why we are doing business the way we are. SL pumps his money into this club every year. I don’t blame him for wanting to cut that down some. Over time it will allow him to spend big when needed. Until then it is a mix of pushing for top 6 and building around a young squad. Now I’ll concede some of the stuff MA and SL contradicts that at times but what they say and what they do are two different things. I will take the evidence of what is happening at the club by the actions taken. 

[JoeAman08]

41 minutes ago, bcfcnick said:

The problem with signing players such as Taylor Moore and Engvall for large fees for the future is that by the time they might be ready then their contracts will be due to expire.   I'm all in favour of signing young, promising players but the size of the fees and the disappointing progress so  far of the ones selected far is an issue  The cumulative cost of fees and wages aren't showing signs of making it would have bought two quality players for the here and now first team. 

The positive is that our emerging academy players such as Zak Vyner and Lloyd Kelly look like doing well. Also, some of the less expensive young recruits (probably where Brian Tinnion has had an influence) such as Jonny Smith and Shawn McCoulsky look much closer to being emerging squad members next season than the costly 'ones for the future' recruits.  The point being in the context of this thread is that Mark Ashton and LJ probably weren't part of the talent identification but were for the big money recruits . 

I agree with this. The hope would be that those signings were all made to help beef up the academy a bit so when players like Flint, Smith, Reid and Bryan go there are players ready to step in. New contracts need to be signed like Smith, Moore, McCoulskey, Morrell etc. I am sure they will. Also another upside is their fees will stop counting towards ffp from the last few seasons soon. Again it is a long term plan that is barely out of its infancy. We will still be seeing the effects of the LJ era after he leaves. Even 5-10 years from now that extra care that has been put into the setup will be pumping out new talents. 

[Cowshed]

10 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I certainly don't understand what physical challenges Djuric can't fulfil, other than staying fit for more than a month at a time.

There is an aim, which is a side that plays like Man City. There is reality, which was the squad left by Cotterill. There is the transition between the two which is long, difficult and must be achieved without too much negative impact on results. This requires a certain degree of pragmatism and using players who don't necessarily fit with the end goal.

Try to transition too quickly and you end up like Crystal Palace at the start of the season.

Bristol City frequently do not press high with Famara and Djuric in the team. Famara physically cannot get around the pitch easily enough to constantly press. The team cannot be thus pressing in units as Man City do. Man City pressing style is linked to the way they pass the football. Bristol City do not pass the ball short enough to be in close enough proximity to do that. 

Bristol City frequently screen opposition possession, then work off Reid as a trigger (if not in midfield) that is not pressing in the manner of Man City either..

For Bristol City to be working towards the style you mention Famara and Djuric would not be signed. 

This theme can be done in reverse. For Bristol City to be working towards Man City like football Pisano should not be signed, Fielding is out ... You are correct about transition but each recruited player for you to be correct about the aim would be a linear progression towards, not away from that aim.

[Phileas Fogg]

15 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Bristol City frequently do not press high with Famara and Djuric in the team. Famara physically cannot get around the pitch easily enough to constantly press. The team cannot be thus pressing in units as Man City do. Man City pressing style is linked to the way they pass the football. Bristol City do not pass the ball short enough to be in close enough proximity to do that. 

Bristol City frequently screen opposition possession, then work off Reid as a trigger (if not in midfield) that is not pressing in the manner of Man City either..

For Bristol City to be working towards the style you mention Famara and Djuric would not be signed. 

This theme can be done in reverse. For Bristol City to be working towards Man City like football Pisano should not be signed, Fielding is out ... You are correct about transition but each recruited player for you to be correct about the aim would be a linear progression towards, not away from that aim.

@Cowshed, if you were in charge - which players would you look to sign?

Also, who would you look to sell?

[chipdawg]

I think there are some unnecessarily harsh assessments there. Baker is just a green. O'Dowda is just green. Full stop. You can't blame Ashton for a 21 year old player with no injury history getting injured. Same for Pisano and (to a lesser extent) Djuric. Djuric had a spotty injury record before he joined iirc, so I  guess the risk was apparent.

De Girolamo certainly, but probably Moore and Lucic should be blue; I don't think they were ever discussed as anything other than ones for the future.

Steele has been a perfectly adequate free signing. He was brought in as a back up keeper and that's what he's done.

Similarly, Ekstrand was a punt; if he'd recovered his fitness he would have been an asset. As it happened, he didn't. I doubt he'd have been on a massive wedge.

O'Neill is precisely the player everyone is now clamouring for; an experienced midfielder with a bit of edge to his game. It didn't work out and I think the powers that be need to take some responsibility, but it's also a note of caution for those who want a 'name' now

I think the broader point to make is that we as a fantastic got very excited about many of those signings. Eliasson (who may still work out), Moore, Geiffer, Hegeler, Leko were all widely lauded on here. So I'm not sure we're collectively in the best postion to criticise a transfer strategy that most people agreed with at the time. Then again, we're not paid the big bucks to figure these things out. And I do agree that there are some notable flops in there that perhaps need to have some accountability attached to them. I just think your assessment is unduly harsh and not a true reflection of the success of the players when viewed across the whole season

[BCFC_Dan]

38 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Bristol City frequently do not press high with Famara and Djuric in the team. Famara physically cannot get around the pitch easily enough to constantly press. The team cannot be thus pressing in units as Man City do. Man City pressing style is linked to the way they pass the football. Bristol City do not pass the ball short enough to be in close enough proximity to do that. 

Bristol City frequently screen opposition possession, then work off Reid as a trigger (if not in midfield) that is not pressing in the manner of Man City either..

For Bristol City to be working towards the style you mention Famara and Djuric would not be signed. 

This theme can be done in reverse. For Bristol City to be working towards Man City like football Pisano should not be signed, Fielding is out ... You are correct about transition but each recruited player for you to be correct about the aim would be a linear progression towards, not away from that aim.

I think what you have identified there is the gap between the ideal and the reality. Which is the point of my argument. A linear progression is right in theory but seldom occurs in reality where other constraints apply, such as the availability of players, budgets, and the balance of the rest of the squad.

Some of the signings were made with the plan in mind. Others, such as the ones you've highlighted, were more likely to be signed to manage the transition. Some, I suspect, were made with the plan in mind but didn't work out, such as Hegeler.

Pisano can't bomb down the flank and contribute to the attack like Kyle Walker can, but he can generally be relied upon to keep a cool head and defend solidly. In the absence of a player who can do both things it's probably preferable to have the latter and not the former, even if it doesn't fit the long-term plan, because it's less likely to lose you games. Same holds true for Diedhiou and Djuric. Fielding, I think probably does need to be replaced but only by the right player at the right time. Again it needs to be someone with the outfield abilities for the ultimate style of play but a reliable enough keeper not to cause immediate problems.

 

[Olé]

3 hours ago, RedDave said:

What I really struggle with is how many fans class Taylor Moore as a poor signing.  He cannot be judged as either a good or bad signing for at least another couple of years.

I do agree in principle, certainly you couldn't authoritatively describe him as a bad player already, but in the context of other teams in our division, how many of them have spent £1m on a player that would get nowhere near their first team inside 2 years? None to my knowledge. We've done it 3-4 times.

Yes the player is not a failure but the club's judgement is certainly in question. As @billywedlock points out, it's completely disingenuous to say on the one hand we're limited financially in our recruitment, yet on the other hand are regularly spending this sort of sum on a player for that far into the future.

Perhaps I really am behind the times, but spending £1m+ for a "youth team" player to my mind is big 5 territory, not Bristol City. We don't have the luxury to put so much of our transfer budget into recruiting a development squad. For one thing our strike rate on recruitment makes it a lot of money at risk.

Signing Bakinson for £500,000 as the best player out of a highly rated Luton youth academy, with the potential to develop him over a few years, makes sense to me. To me that's a proportionate, risk/reward investment on future development, that represents value for money against our overall budget.

But spending c. £5m across three c. 21 year olds is getting (expensively) caught in no mans land between players that are solely for development, and players that are ready for the first team, i.e. either over-spending on development or under-spending for first team &  getting value for money on neither.

Taylor Moore seems like a good honest professional but there is no way we spent £1m for a 3 year development cycle. We know that because he was involved in games early on in his City career. He's just yet another one LJ and MA got a hard on for, and then realised/decided weren't actually up to it.