Hypothetical

[Lrrr]

34 minutes ago, Olé said:

If the current side is man for man "easily better" and with a better manager why is the average league position of players in the older side higher than our current side (of 8 of the 11 older players now at new clubs, 7 of 8 are above us in the league).

Words like "stroll" and "easily" are a little generous in the circumstances! If they're so much better players than ones above them in the league, it can't be "a better manager to boot" or he's having a shocker. If he is better, clearly the players aren't.

That may be, but playing together under Cotts they were firmly in the relegation zone with what looked like little hope of surviving so I don't think you can count where they are in the table with other teams.

[Bristol Rob]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

15/16 Cotterill

Fielding

Ayling Flint Williams (Baker)

Bennett Pack Smith Bryan

Freeman

Kodjia Wilbraham

versus

18/19 Johnson

Maenpaa

Hunt Webster Kalas Kelly

Weimann Pack Brownhill Eliasson

Paterson

Diedhiou

Who would win?  Not an easy answer. Please give it some thought though.

 

Can I answer this with 15 minutes to go, just so I can wait for JET to come on?

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 hours ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

Cotts won the league one and football league trophies with a squad made up entirely of British and Irish players. 

Without trying to come across as gamon, has bringing in foreign players been a bad thing for the club and should we try and avoid it in future? 

Yep, foreign players so badly suited to the Championship...oh.

Heard a stat on Football League Show when watching highlights Saturday that Norwich's academy products who scored 2 between them- first English scores of the season. That would be Norwich who average 2 pts per game and nearly 2 goals a game?

It's not about foreign players, or UK players but the right players IMO.

FWIW, I think our foreign recruitment has been a mixed bag- like our recruitment generally. We've signed some duds, but also some useful squad players- then a decent number affected with injuries. Overall recruitment in the LJ era between 5-6 out of 10.

[Bar BS3]

3 hours ago, BCFC Grim said:

The fact this is even up for debate after all the money Johnson has spent shows what a ******* shambles our transfer policy has been.

What has our net spend been..?

[RedJim]

10 hours ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

Cotts won the league one and football league trophies with a squad made up entirely of British and Irish players. 

Without trying to come across as gamon, has bringing in foreign players been a bad thing for the club and should we try and avoid it in future? 

Has nothing to do with it. Plenty of decent coaches in this league get consistent performances out of overseas players. If we had a decent manager it wouldn't be up for debate.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

10 hours ago, Aaron-Bcfc said:

At this point in 15-16 we’d just been smashed 3-0 on a grim day at Rotherham so I’d say current side wins. Think people in this thread are forgetting that we were crap that season (worse than we are now) and it was Johnson who ultimately came in, got some huge results and kept us up.

People are not forgetting they being plain naughty, On paper that Cott's team is good, however regardless of the players the manager had lost the plot big style and it was reflected on the pitch.   The current side vs that side I think would scrape a win, not because the players were shit, but because the manager had disappeared up his own ass-hole and I was gutted to see him sacked but it was the right thing retrospectively. 

[Offside]

Interesting question.

The 15/16 team was struggling big time whereas the 18/19 side has accrued enough points to currently be mid-table, so would be more likely to win - although our performances have been uninspiring for a while so it would probably end up as a draw.

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for the teams.

Looking back, our 15/16 squad until January window was weaker arguably than our 14/15- which takes some doing!

We gained Kodjia, but we also lost Tavernier, Cunningham and JET (depth and something different if nothing else) and I think Elliott retired? That season or the first 6 months anyway was a complete debacle, and I think Cotts is great- he may well have had the rug pulled from under him with recruitment, but looking at other promoted sides in recent years from League One to the Championship and those who have done quite well or better than quite well, ours was the one with the most potential, room for growth etc. Amazing how it went wrong that first season after promotion considering we had gained 99 points, winning JPT with an excellent style of play too, quite a lot of young players- keeping Tavernier and Cunningham would have given continuity and a Plan B, Kodjia buzzing around up front with maybe a different partner or someone else behind him in a 3-5-1-1 perhaps...Freeman behind Kodjia which would have been more viable had we replaced Elliott properly.

Hard to say who would win though- that first half of the season under Cotterill, little went for us and we were struggling badly.

[WolfOfWestStreet]

55 minutes ago, RedJim said:

Has nothing to do with it. Plenty of decent coaches in this league get consistent performances out of overseas players. If we had a decent manager it wouldn't be up for debate.

I was just throwing the question out there for debate, I didn't give my view on it. I agree with you on the whole. 

[WolfOfWestStreet]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yep, foreign players so badly suited to the Championship...oh.

Heard a stat on Football League Show when watching highlights Saturday that Norwich's academy products who scored 2 between them- first English scores of the season. That would be Norwich who average 2 pts per game and nearly 2 goals a game?

It's not about foreign players, or UK players but the right players IMO.

FWIW, I think our foreign recruitment has been a mixed bag- like our recruitment generally. We've signed some duds, but also some useful squad players- then a decent number affected with injuries. Overall recruitment in the LJ era between 5-6 out of 10.

I asked has it been a good thing for our club, not others. Norwich have a foreign coach which probably helps.

I was just throwing out the question, has it been disruptive for us as a team? We had a very strong team spirit under cotts all the players looked and played like good mates. I don't really see that in this squad. 

Being from overseas probably has nothing to do with it at all, poor coaching is the most likely answer I just wonder if it had an effect.

[Red-Robbo]

11 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

In a one off game

With the respective managers in charge of their teams

Definitely 14/15 for me

 

LJ would spend weeks on intricate tactical plans for his side

SC would get a performance out of his

 

Whereas Cotts would spend zero seconds on tactical plans, but just play the same formation he always put out.

I have to say Johnson's team and the proof is in the pudding in that we never achieved as high as 14th in the Championship under SC.

[Mr Popodopolous]

44 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

I asked has it been a good thing for our club, not others. Norwich have a foreign coach which probably helps.

 I was just throwing out the question, has it been disruptive for us as a team? We had a very strong team spirit under cotts all the players looked and played like good mates. I don't really see that in this squad. 

 Being from overseas probably has nothing to do with it at all, poor coaching is the most likely answer I just wonder if it had an effect.

Could be that we don't help them to settle in the best- Norwich e.g. as a yoyo club and with a foreign manager likely have more experience of it- we don't. Probably quite a lot of reasons tbh- maybe for midrange clubs there could be something in it, Preston and Sheffield United buy British and Irish a lot of the time and I know the former have had a bad start but are a solid Championship club IMO.

[JamesBCFC]

11 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

You may be right, but there has been quite a few who weren’t....off the top of my head....Djuric, O’Dowda, Hegeler, Kalas, Maenpaa, Engvall, Elliason, Pisano, Wright, De Girolamo, Begovic, Magnússon, Lucic, Ekstrand, Plavotic, Diédhiou, Weimann, Eisa, Diony, Leko, Giefer...

De Girolamo, the one born in Chesterfield to a British mother?

[BobBobSuperBob]

39 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Whereas Cotts would spend zero seconds on tactical plans, but just play the same formation he always put out.

I have to say Johnson's team and the proof is in the pudding in that we never achieved as high as 14th in the Championship under SC.

We are talking a one off game

Nit much between the two sides themselves , pros and cons

Look how pumped up SC got us against Swindon

SC lost the plot for sure , but he would go in front foot and Lee would tinker to try and combat him

I’d back SC in a one off game 

[Vincent Vega]

4 hours ago, reformed_red said:

By the same people who on here a few years ago were saying “I’d personally drive him to QPR”.

Watch, we will sell Pato in Jan to Rotherham for 200k then in the summer OTIB will declare he is worth more than Mbappe.

So nobody said he's worth that much then, Just as I thought tbh.

[Alessandro]

Interesting debate: Interested by the short memories people have that are so convinced 15/16 would win. 

So the fairest comparison is right now? 20 games in to the season (which actually does SC a favour as it got much worse from then onwards)

15/16:

Won 4 : Drawn 7 : Lost 9 : GF 20 : GA 33 : GD -13 : Points 19.

vs.

18/19:

Won 7 : Drawn 5: Lost 8 : GF 24 : GA 24 : GD 0 : Points 26. 

 

18/19 is the superior team on paper and SC has had 20 plus games to get his ‘player for player superior’ team going and up for the fight, and wasn’t able. 

Despite us struggling for goals, the current team have more and a far superior goal difference. 

SC’s 15/16 would also be lower in the league this year than there were back then.

Perhaps memories are skewed by the L1 team - but despite the fact as @Olé pointed out, many of that team has moved on to better things, he couldn’t get them going.

I wonder how SC would have faired in the current set up of losing your best players every season and blooding youth?

He may well have had a different approach to recruitment, he did look to spend big to be fair, so we never saw how he’d get on with looking for the bargains home and abroad.

[RobintheRed Red]

6 hours ago, Vincent Vega said:

By who ? I know Blackburn bid 6mill last summer.

No the offer was more than six mate which Rangers turned down im not saying hes worth that but a lot more than patterson

[Frenchay Red]

Not exactly the hypothetical question being asked but on the 7th May this year we had , LJ V Cotts (not sure how much input Harry actually had tbh.

Result, BCFC 0 - BCFC 1

Rubbish game, but fantastic and fitting reception for SC at the end.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

What has our net spend been..?

You can do the maths of 3 scenarios:

1) players bought minus players sold since LJ arrived, irrespective of whether they were here already

2) players bought by LJ minus the same players sold by LJ, e.g. Tomlin, Djuric etc - the answer is he’s lost £2.75m

3) same as 2) but you can add in Reid because LJ must take some credit even though Reid was here. 

None of the above include loan fees / fines, free transfers. 

Net spend takes no account of why they were bought, e.g. for the future (COD vs Brownhill) where you’d expect to make money anyway.

[Bar BS3]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You can do the maths of 3 scenarios:

1) players bought minus players sold since LJ arrived, irrespective of whether they were here already

2) players bought by LJ minus the same players sold by LJ, e.g. Tomlin, Djuric etc - the answer is he’s lost £2.75m

3) same as 2) but you can add in Reid because LJ must take some credit even though Reid was here. 

None of the above include loan fees / fines, free transfers. 

Net spend takes no account of why they were bought, e.g. for the future (COD vs Brownhill) where you’d expect to make money anyway.

Of course it makes a difference. People can’t play the “no manager has spent the money he’s spent” card, without taking into account that no manager has also lost the value/quality of players that he’s had to try and replace to keep us competitive. 

[Nbafc]

36 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Interesting debate: Interested by the short memories people have that are so convinced 15/16 would win. 

So the fairest comparison is right now? 20 games in to the season (which actually does SC a favour as it got much worse from then onwards)

15/16:

Won 4 : Drawn 7 : Lost 9 : GF 20 : GA 33 : GD -13 : Points 19.

vs.

18/19:

Won 7 : Drawn 5: Lost 8 : GF 24 : GA 24 : GD 0 : Points 26. 

 

18/19 is the superior team on paper and SC has had 20 plus games to get his ‘player for player superior’ team going and up for the fight, and wasn’t able. 

Despite us struggling for goals, the current team have more and a far superior goal difference. 

SC’s 15/16 would also be lower in the league this year than there were back then.

Perhaps memories are skewed by the L1 team - but despite the fact as @Olé pointed out, many of that team has moved on to better things, he couldn’t get them going.

I wonder how SC would have faired in the current set up of losing your best players every season and blooding youth?

He may well have had a different approach to recruitment, he did look to spend big to be fair, so we never saw how he’d get on with looking for the bargains home and abroad.

For balance, SC did have the rug pulled out from under him on 2 signings that would have proved immensely profitable on the pitch and being sold after. 

Although it was initiated in Dubai, he saw Wilbraham as a 20+ goal striker even though his record said otherwise. Elliott was a quality addition too. 

Agree he showed reluctance toward younger players. 

Agree he couldn't get his side going in the championship but I feel his reign ended during his summer holidays, what happened after was just a "lose lose" situation for all involved. 

What might have been? A question more pertinent now given what action we've seen transfer wise now. 

Tbf, probably wouldn't have seen  Bobby Reid is his full glory

[Busterrimes]

13 hours ago, Frenchay Red said:

Probably still favour Cott's line up, though Pack's going to be overworked and confused

At least Pack is guaranteed to find a City player

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Of course it makes a difference. People can’t play the “no manager has spent the money he’s spent” card, without taking into account that no manager has also lost the value/quality of players that he’s had to try and replace to keep us competitive. 

Why not do the three scenarios, it gives a rounded view of his transfer activity. I haven’t formed any opinion against your first post, just asking you to look at something more than basic net spend which you’ll find 2) and 3) help support 1) more critically. 

Mick McCarthys net spend is fantastic when looked at in isolation 

Warnock paid zero for Hollett and could sell him for £15m. The fact that he paid him £2m signing on fee and £60k per week skew your judgement. 

We need to stop thinking net spend, it’s all amortisation these days. They drive the real figures. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Let's say we had replaced Elliott adequately and held onto/signed the full backs we should have done. Even notwithstanding the Maguire and Gray deals the full truth of which we'll never know probably.

            Fielding

      Ayling Flint Williams

Tavernier Elliott Replacement Pack Smith Bryan

            Freeman

            Kodjia

Under Cotts, firing them up- could it have won a game? Definitely. Reserve full backs of Little and Cunningham look pretty competitive too and if we kept JET, then him, Agard and Wilbraham all offer something different- still can't believe we actually managed to weaken our excellent promotion winning side.

@Davefevs Spot on- Amortisation is what it's all about now.

[EmissionImpossible]

2 hours ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

I asked has it been a good thing for our club, not others. Norwich have a foreign coach which probably helps.

I was just throwing out the question, has it been disruptive for us as a team? We had a very strong team spirit under cotts all the players looked and played like good mates. I don't really see that in this squad. 

Being from overseas probably has nothing to do with it at all, poor coaching is the most likely answer I just wonder if it had an effect.

No, no effect whatsoever. To me that’s a lazy view that people from outside of Britain would be disruptive to the team with no facts to back it up.  Not sure what made you bring it up initially as no one had suggested it. It may well to be with the standard of players we have brought in but nationality or place of birth wouldn’t have impact. Curious to know why you thought it could be the case?

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 minutes ago, EmissionImpossible said:

No, no effect whatsoever. To me that’s a lazy view that people from outside of Britain would be disruptive to the team with no facts to back it up.  Not sure what made you bring it up initially as no one had suggested it. It may well to be with the standard of players we have brought in but nationality or place of birth wouldn’t have impact. Curious to know why you thought it could be the case?

I think it’s very naive to simply announce ‘ no effect whatsoever’

Players coming from foreign leagues need to adapt to the style of football and physicality here

Potential Language issues (This has been discussed before)

Potential additional welfare problems

……………

How much  those additional potential hurdles impact will obviously vary but to just say ‘ no affect whatsoever’ is I’d suggest incorrect 

Hiw much , and worth the efforts etc etc are a different debate

[Nbafc]

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Let's say we had replaced Elliott adequately and held onto/signed the full backs we should have done. Even notwithstanding the Maguire and Gray deals the full truth of which we'll never know probably.

            Fielding

      Ayling Flint Williams

Tavernier Elliott Replacement Pack Smith Bryan

            Freeman

            Kodjia

Under Cotts, firing them up- could it have won a game? Definitely. Reserve full backs of Little and Cunningham look pretty competitive too and if we kept JET, then him, Agard and Wilbraham all offer something different- still can't believe we actually managed to weaken our excellent promotion winning side.

@Davefevs Spot on- Amortisation is what it's all about now.

Good Post. Was a shame we couldn't keep hold of Tavernier, and Saville also I thought. 

Going to have to look up amortisation also! To be a football fan these days seems you have to have a rudimentary grasp of business and finance! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Nbafc said:

Good Post. Was a shame we couldn't keep hold of Tavernier, and Saville also I thought. 

Going to have to look up amortisation also! To be a football fan these days seems you have to have a rudimentary grasp of business and finance! 

Forgot about Saville! Our squad weakened even slightly more than I thought then.

Agreed with that @BobBobSuperBob it's a big adjustment for all concerned- how great we are at facilitating it, I'd question.

[Nbafc]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Forgot about Saville! Our squad weakened even slightly more than I thought then.

And didn't we have a Chelsea youngster Kane/O'kane also for a bit? He looked promising, rwb, rm? 

[Bar BS3]

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Why not do the three scenarios, it gives a rounded view of his transfer activity. I haven’t formed any opinion against your first post, just asking you to look at something more than basic net spend which you’ll find 2) and 3) help support 1) more critically. 

Mick McCarthys net spend is fantastic when looked at in isolation 

Warnock paid zero for Hollett and could sell him for £15m. The fact that he paid him £2m signing on fee and £60k per week skew your judgement. 

We need to stop thinking net spend, it’s all amortisation these days. They drive the real figures. 

Yes, you are correct. 

My post wasn’t as in-depth as the very valid points you make. I was just shooting down the argument that LJ has had more money to spend than any other previous manager. It’s true, he has, but he’s also had to sell a hell of a lot more worth of talent too, and this has needed replacing.