Jump to content
IGNORED

Players returning


JonDolman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rowe back in training now. Baker not too far away from being ready. Nagy and Vyner training but not heading a ball at the moment. Paterson tweeted with players saying not long till he is ready.

As long as we don't get any more bad injuries then we could have a very strong squad to pick from for most of the remaining fixtures.

It actually makes picking a team very difficult! Can't even imagine how hard it would be if Mawson, Dasilva, Williams, Weimann and Martin were to be back too.

It really shows how much depth we have when players are fit.

So if we can add Baker, Rowe, Vyner, Nagy and Paterson to the current squad, then there will nice problems for Nigel. Of course including O'Dowda, Walsh and Watkins who all came on and looked good in the weekend.

Interesting to see what Pearson will do if he has all those options. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By my calcs elsewhere, the following have missed at least 50% of the Season- talking League only:

Baker, Mawson, DaSilva, Williams, Walsh and Weimann. Sessegnon  missed just under half (22 League games).

Bit of an indictment tbh- needs to improve drastically next season. Law of averages suggests we're due a lot- ie some bad decisions falling our way but also a fairly clean bill of health injury wise.

Let's not rush Vyner and Nagy- better to get it right than to recur. I'd say a better target is Saturday rather than Wednesday.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That left side of defence has killed us. If we would have had DaSilva, Mawson and Baker fit things could have been very different.
With the players coming back it gives Pearson a good insight into what we have, and what we need.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we had most of these players available, we probably wouldn't have sacked Holden. But given the injuries, it exposed him for what he is. So it's better to know now, but maybe these players being available would have given him the time to work through some rookie errors. Sucks for him, better for us.

So while some might call it a shame, us changing who analyses talent and the recruitment hierarchy/structure/control is good for us long term IMO. The worst thing you can do carry on allowing someone who can't pick talent out, more time and more money to do so, especially with the amount of turnover that will happen this off season.

I don't want us to get too high with all the players back and a easier schedule though, we have to keep that in mind when we're judging Pearson. Strength of schedule matters, availability matter. We have to factor who he has available and what he does with them.

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

By my calcs elsewhere, the following have missed at least 50% of the Season- talking League only:

Baker, Mawson, DaSilva, Williams, Walsh and Weimann. Sessegnon  missed just under half (22 League games).

Bit of an indictment tbh- needs to improve drastically next season. Law of averages suggests we're due a lot- ie some bad decisions falling our way but also a fairly clean bill of health injury wise.

Also signing players who don't consistently get injured helps with this.

There has to be questions over Dasilva and his ability to stay healthy, Williams has gotten to the bottom of his issue allegedly, but that's two campaigns where he's been injured a big % of it, Baker can't play 40 games a season, and if you gamble your season on Alfie Mawson's knees, you're a fool. Don't forget Brunt as well.

There's bad luck (Weimann) but decision making (Rowe) + (I think Pato played 22 games straight) and the signings also lead to the problems we had.

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Prinny said:

If we had most of these players available, we probably wouldn't have sacked Holden. But given the injuries, it exposed him for what he is. So it's better to know now, but maybe these players being available would have given him the time to work through some rookie errors. Sucks for him, better for us.

So while some might call it a shame, us changing who analyses talent and the recruitment hierarchy/structure/control is good for us long term IMO. The worst thing you can do carry on allowing someone who can't pick talent out, more time and more money to do so, especially with the amount of turnover that will happen this off season.

I don't want us to get too high with all the players back and a easier schedule though, we have to keep that in mind when we're judging Pearson. Strength of schedule matters, availability matter. We have to factor who he has available and what he does with them.

Also signing players who don't consistently get injured helps with this.

There has to be questions over Dasilva and his ability to stay healthy, Williams has gotten to the bottom of his issue allegedly, but that's two campaigns where he's been injured a big % of it, Baker can't play 40 games a season, and if you gamble your season on Alfie Mawson's knees, you're a fool. Don't forget Brunt as well.

There's bad luck (Weimann) but decision making (Rowe) + (I think Pato played 22 games straight) and the signings also lead to the problems we had.

You can add Martin- we overplayed him. Even though it didn't cause an injury until later, you could see him becoming less effective by the week.

Check how Derby utilised him last season- we did it our own way...I think if players are a bit susceptible that is where rotation can come in, where selective resting etc- with respect to Williams, he was a virtual ever present last season. Quick search suggests 96 starts and 6 sub appearances at Championship level in 3 seasons across 3 clubs- in fact 3 seasons 3 4 games as he joined Bolton on loan 4 games into the season. Pretty good- and yet...a start ratio of about 71.6% to this!

Williams and Martin aside, inability to correctly utilise or manage players- especially if you have some with a sketchy record- is amplified and exacerbated in a season like this.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Prinny said:

If we had most of these players available, we probably wouldn't have sacked Holden. But given the injuries, it exposed him for what he is.

which is what exactly?

So it's better to know now, but maybe these players being available would have given him the time to work through some rookie errors. Sucks for him, better for us.

playing devils advocate, maybe the rookie errors might’ve manifested differently, and results / performances stayed decent.  Probably not, but just trying to gauge your feelings!  And what if he did get over those rookie mistakes quickly?

So while some might call it a shame, us changing who analyses talent and the recruitment hierarchy/structure/control is good for us long term IMO.

I’ve not heard of any changes in this area....what changes have you seen / heard of?

The worst thing you can do carry on allowing someone who can't pick talent out, more time and more money to do so, especially with the amount of turnover that will happen this off season.

For info, NP says he has no interest in scouting players, so what changes are you expecting?

I don't want us to get too high with all the players back and a easier schedule though, we have to keep that in mind when we're judging Pearson. Strength of schedule matters, availability matter. We have to factor who he has available and what he does with them.

Also signing players who don't consistently get injured helps with this.

consistently get injured or get injured once but long-term....or both?

There has to be questions over Dasilva and his ability to stay healthy, Williams has gotten to the bottom of his issue allegedly, but that's two campaigns where he's been injured a big % of it, Baker can't play 40 games a season, and if you gamble your season on Alfie Mawson's knees, you're a fool. Don't forget Brunt as well.

There's bad luck (Weimann) but decision making (Rowe) + (I think Pato played 22 games straight) and the signings also lead to the problems we had.

Are you saying this all down to Holden?  Or is this aimed at other employees too?  

⬆️⬆️⬆️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JonDolman said:

Rowe back in training now. Baker not too far away from being ready. Nagy and Vyner training but not heading a ball at the moment. Paterson tweeted with players saying not long till he is ready.

As long as we don't get any more bad injuries then we could have a very strong squad to pick from for most of the remaining fixtures.

It actually makes picking a team very difficult! Can't even imagine how hard it would be if Mawson, Dasilva, Williams, Weimann and Martin were to be back too.

It really shows how much depth we have when players are fit.

So if we can add Baker, Rowe, Vyner, Nagy and Paterson to the current squad, then there will nice problems for Nigel. Of course including O'Dowda, Walsh and Watkins who all came on and looked good in the weekend.

Interesting to see what Pearson will do if he has all those options. 

Lots of depth yes, concerns over quality... absolutely!

Big clear out this summer hopefully.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You can add Martin- we overplayed him. Even though it didn't cause an injury until later, you could see him becoming less effective by the week.

Check how Derby utilised him last season- we did it our own way...I think if players are a bit susceptible that is where rotation can come in, where selective resting etc- with respect to Williams, he was a virtual ever present last season. Quick search suggests 96 starts and 6 sub appearances at Championship level in 3 seasons across 3 clubs- in fact 3 seasons 3 4 games as he joined Bolton on loan 4 games into the season. Pretty good- and yet...a start ratio of about 71.6% to this!

Williams and Martin aside, inability to correctly utilise or manage players- especially if you have some with a sketchy record- is amplified and exacerbated in a season like this.

I am wondering what will happen with Martin under Pearson. Clearly Holden liked him. Pearson loaned him out before at Derby I think? 

Might not mean too much though, who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else think that we will have a full fit squad available the minute it is mathematically impossible to reach the top 6 and that half a dozen players will break down with hamstring injuries the first week back into pre-season training?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Banned User said:

Any update on Jay? Hope his injuries have been due to our mismanagement rather than him being made of glass, a real talent.

Personally, I hope its because of misfortune than anything else.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I checked my own records earlier and I think that with Marley and Liam making their first appearances on Saturday we’ve used more players this season than any in the 21st century.  In fact I wonder if we have ever used so many players before - I think it’s 38 now.

38 players and still I got nowhere near the squad. Think it’s time to consider giving up on the dream. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

If we had most of these players available, we probably wouldn't have sacked Holden. But given the injuries, it exposed him for what he is.

which is what exactly?

Someone whose planning was flawed, had real problems identifying what he had, and didn't stick to his own values when things got tough. The CB situation perfectly shows this. You have 5 CBs for a 3 CB system, one is out until Xmas, One has Alfie Mawson's knees. Planning. He judged that Moore and Rowe could play LCB after being with them for a long period of time. Talent ID. Refused to use Kalas at LCB. Talent ID, and then changed the system away from what he'd been drilling because of it. Then started throwing stuff at the wall. How an authority figure acts when things are bad really changes my view on someone. 

So it's better to know now, but maybe these players being available would have given him the time to work through some rookie errors. Sucks for him, better for us.

playing devils advocate, maybe the rookie errors might’ve manifested differently, and results / performances stayed decent.  Probably not, but just trying to gauge your feelings!  And what if he did get over those rookie mistakes quickly?

So let's say that he did well enough to get to the off season. You still have the gigantic and for me sackable/non employable flaw which would continue to cause us problems going forwards. The inability to judge the talent in front of you, that you have all the data on, and have seen for a long period of time. Those errors in judging talent show that even if we do well under him, we're still not going to perform as well as we could. We can say it's subjective of course, but having Nagy under HNM and Brunt as the 6, or Moore and Rowe over Kalas at LCB, I don't think are close defendable decisions. If you beleive he had some involvement in transfer process it's worse because he affects that too.

So while some might call it a shame, us changing who analyses talent and the recruitment hierarchy/structure/control is good for us long term IMO.

I’ve not heard of any changes in this area....what changes have you seen / heard of?

Dean Holden being fired. Unless you're saying he had no involvement in it at all. See below if you think that. ⏭️ Second bit is worded badly. Whichever changes, whether it's the hierarchy/structure/control of recruitment, it changing is good for us (obv if positive change...) because what was happening wasn't working IMO.

The worst thing you can do carry on allowing someone who can't pick talent out, more time and more money to do so, especially with the amount of turnover that will happen this off season.

For info, NP says he has no interest in scouting players, so what changes are you expecting?

⚠️ Can you link that quote? I didn't see/hear that. Thanks! ⚠️

▶️ Well we saw the change in process to hire Pearson, no 5 week wait, so I'd expect a loss of confidence in the overall processes directed by specifically Ashton and it least being examined. If you claim that Ashton has complete control (or more specifically the sole ability to implement changes to the collaborative process) of transfers, then his error in selecting Holden would lessen his standing/trust/reputation inside the building with the actual decision maker which you'd hope would lead to changes.

If you couple that with the injuries, that's two either investigations or changing of major processes that have happened recently and that should ring alarm bells. Does Steve L think transfers were great and the only problem was selecting a manager? I kinda hope not!

Also signing players who don't consistently get injured helps with this.

consistently get injured or get injured once but long-term....or both?

Both of course. Depends on the medical data especially for a long term. What injury, has it fully healed, reoccurrence rate, etc.

Going back to planning, if they tend to miss game time, have a backup plan. If Dasilva is your starting LWB, then Rowe and Pring should have been kept in. If you think O'Dowda is it there (I think that would be a bad use of his skills personally!), then where's the cover for the 8 position? And Weimann is cover for up front. It was messy.

Are you saying this all down to Holden?  Or is this aimed at other employees too?  

It's a group effort, and a group blame. Just like coaching you can only really talk from what you're told and what you see. 

Let's take one where I do blame Holden and that's Rowe. Rowe had a knock from the previous game. You need him desperately because he's the only real viable player in a position. We can say there are possibilities, like Rowe lying to him about his fitness, it purely being dumb luck, medical staff messing up etc etc. But Holden had the ability to have all the data, know that Rowe needed to be protected for his and the teams long term benefit, saw the terrible pitch and chose to play him. There had to be chances for him to go to everyone else involved, "We really need this player long term, is it absolutely safe to play him?"

For Pearson, he says there's no temptation at all to risk a players long term health. We'll see of course. But that's a human being quality decision. A decision, that IMO, probably got Holden fired.

⬆️

Edited by Prinny
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prinny said:

If we had most of these players available, we probably wouldn't have sacked Holden. But given the injuries, it exposed him for what he is. So it's better to know now, but maybe these players being available would have given him the time to work through some rookie errors. Sucks for him, better for us.

So while some might call it a shame, us changing who analyses talent and the recruitment hierarchy/structure/control is good for us long term IMO. The worst thing you can do carry on allowing someone who can't pick talent out, more time and more money to do so, especially with the amount of turnover that will happen this off season.

I don't want us to get too high with all the players back and a easier schedule though, we have to keep that in mind when we're judging Pearson. Strength of schedule matters, availability matter. We have to factor who he has available and what he does with them.

Also signing players who don't consistently get injured helps with this.

There has to be questions over Dasilva and his ability to stay healthy, Williams has gotten to the bottom of his issue allegedly, but that's two campaigns where he's been injured a big % of it, Baker can't play 40 games a season, and if you gamble your season on Alfie Mawson's knees, you're a fool. Don't forget Brunt as well.

There's bad luck (Weimann) but decision making (Rowe) + (I think Pato played 22 games straight) and the signings also lead to the problems we had.

How many people can and do play 40 games a season? Only 2 last year (plus Fam with a third from the bench) and Baker was 4th highest. He can play 40 games, only reason he didn't is he was dropped, you can blame him or manager for that but it wasn't lack of fitness

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

How many people can and do play 40 games a season? Only 2 last year (plus Fam with a third from the bench) and Baker was 4th highest. He can play 40 games, only reason he didn't is he was dropped, you can blame him or manager for that but it wasn't lack of fitness

Ok, if I could edit I'd change can't to hasn't, fair enough.

You can't know his form wasn't related to fitness though. Add in the times he gets taken off, and the point is correct if not the wording,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we had most of these players available, we probably wouldn't have sacked Holden. But given the injuries, it exposed him for what he is.

which is what exactly?

Someone whose planning was flawed, had real problems identifying what he had, and didn't stick to his own values when things got tough. The CB situation perfectly shows this. You have 5 CBs for a 3 CB system, one is out until Xmas, One has Alfie Mawson's knees. Planning. He judged that Moore and Rowe could play LCB after being with them for a long period of time. Talent ID. Refused to use Kalas at LCB. Talent ID, and then changed the system away from what he'd been drilling because of it. Then started throwing stuff at the wall. How an authority figure acts when things are bad really changes my view on someone.

Yep, it all unraveled a bit didn’t it.  It’s where he really needed more support from someone above him, who understands the football side of football.  Perhaps he thought he’d get that from his assistants, but your assistants don’t save your arse when you’re under pressure.  

So it's better to know now, but maybe these players being available would have given him the time to work through some rookie errors. Sucks for him, better for us.

playing devils advocate, maybe the rookie errors might’ve manifested differently, and results / performances stayed decent.  Probably not, but just trying to gauge your feelings!  And what if he did get over those rookie mistakes quickly?

So let's say that he did well enough to get to the off season. You still have the gigantic and for me sackable/non employable flaw which would continue to cause us problems going forwards. The inability to judge the talent in front of you, that you have all the data on, and have seen for a long period of time. Those errors in judging talent show that even if we do well under him, we're still not going to perform as well as we could. We can say it's subjective of course, but having Nagy under HNM and Brunt as the 6, or Moore and Rowe over Kalas at LCB, I don't think are close defendable decisions. If you beleive he had some involvement in transfer process it's worse because he affects that too.

Sackable a bit harsh, but this is football.  But I was trying to give a scenario where he had learned, and therefore perhaps he might do better in future.  As it stands though, I agree, he lost the plot.

So while some might call it a shame, us changing who analyses talent and the recruitment hierarchy/structure/control is good for us long term IMO.

I’ve not heard of any changes in this area....what changes have you seen / heard of?

Dean Holden being fired. Unless you're saying he had no involvement in it at all. See below if you think that.  Second bit is worded badly. Whichever changes, whether it's the hierarchy/structure/control of recruitment, it changing is good for us (obv if positive change...) because what was happening wasn't working IMO.

No, I don’t believe he had no hand in it (double negative).  He was definitely (imho) a key cog in the recruitment process, just like LJ was.  I’m quite intrigued to see what happens with recruitment.  NP might be quite happy to work in the process.  I don’t necessarily buy that Steve Walsh will come in.  But I will assume that NP will be very clear what the approach is and will soon be at Ashton’s door if he feels that the process and personnel needs a change.  See screenshot below which talks about his relationship / delegation with Walsh....and part-answers your next question.

The worst thing you can do carry on allowing someone who can't pick talent out, more time and more money to do so, especially with the amount of turnover that will happen this off season.

For info, NP says he has no interest in scouting players, so what changes are you expecting?

 Can you link that quote? I didn't see/hear that. Thanks!

I cant find it, the video I posted was in one of the lengthy Pearson threads....but here is the post I was looking for the other day (@jondolman).  I don’t think it was this interview but another...but I listened / watched several.

51FF9ADD-22E5-4CEE-B90E-D49A18A4C56A.thumb.jpeg.62a593fe133b83139b2670db9c00b04b.jpeg

 Well we saw the change in process to hire Pearson, no 5 week wait, so I'd expect a loss of confidence in the overall processes directed by specifically Ashton and it least being examined. If you claim that Ashton has complete control (or more specifically the sole ability to implement changes to the collaborative process) of transfers, then his error in selecting Holden would lessen his standing/trust/reputation inside the building with the actual decision maker which you'd hope would lead to changes.

If you couple that with the injuries, that's two either investigations or changing of major processes that have happened recently and that should ring alarm bells. Does Steve L think transfers were great and the only problem was selecting a manager? I kinda hope not!

Also signing players who don't consistently get injured helps with this.

consistently get injured or get injured once but long-term....or both?

Both of course. Depends on the medical data especially for a long term. What injury, has it fully healed, reoccurrence rate, etc.

Agree....just I hear so many people over-simplify and over-generalise.

Going back to planning, if they tend to miss game time, have a backup plan. If Dasilva is your starting LWB, then Rowe and Pring should have been kept in. If you think O'Dowda is it there (I think that would be a bad use of his skills personally!), then where's the cover for the 8 position? And Weimann is cover for up front. It was messy.

Are you saying this all down to Holden?  Or is this aimed at other employees too?  

It's a group effort, and a group blame. Just like coaching you can only really talk from what you're told and what you see.

Yep, I agree, although like your earlier para, I think it showed flawed thinking / inexperience.  I remember saying similar to what you said about the CBs, about the WBs...in that you almost need 3, because if 1 gets injured (let alone 5!!) you’re putting a lot of emphasis of the 1 left in a high intensity position.

Let's take one where I do blame Holden and that's Rowe. Rowe had a knock from the previous game. You need him desperately because he's the only real viable player in a position. We can say there are possibilities, like Rowe lying to him about his fitness, it purely being dumb luck, medical staff messing up etc etc. But Holden had the ability to have all the data, know that Rowe needed to be protected for his and the teams long term benefit, saw the terrible pitch and chose to play him. There had to be chances for him to go to everyone else involved, "We really need this player long term, is it absolutely safe to play him?"

I agree.  As you say resting him for a game or two might’ve saved him for the remainder of the season.

For Pearson, he says there's no temptation at all to risk a players long term health. We'll see of course. But that's a human being quality decision. A decision, that IMO, probably got Holden fired.

Yep, although a slight luxury of players coming back

⬆️⬆️⬆️

arghhhh, cant re-quote you....copy and paste above....your latest comments underlined.  My responses in bold.

I’m pretty much in agreement with all you put, was seeking more clarity than being awkward.  Tough job being a head-coach.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Sure is. Which is why it beggars belief that, if your stated aim is to get promoted from the most competitive division in the world, you go and appoint a complete novice.

Hopefully we've seen the end of that deluded nonsense. 

There were several contradictions at the time, much as I was comfortable with his appointment.....but when you then quickly appoint Pearson after sacking him, it’s an admission your gamble effed up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Holden's decision to pick Rowe after the player had finished the previous game saying he couldn't feel his foot is something I still can't get my head round. 

Did the same thing with Hunt after he went off when Akinfenwa stood on his ankle & also started Williams twice in 4 days (2nd time in the FA Cup, FFS) after 7 months out.

Absolutely brainless.

I think we effectively have 10 games now for Pearson to take a look at who he wants to keep who is out of contract.

We won’t get relegated & haven’t a prayer of the playoffs so a great opportunity to do some planning for next season.

Wish I could see this quality some are talking about, just looks like a lot of a very similar standard to me.

Edited by GrahamC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Banned User said:

Any update on Jay? Hope his injuries have been due to our mismanagement rather than him being made of glass, a real talent.

Wasn't it mentioned that he had an operation, the suggestion being he had some metal inserted to strengthen the bone? 

Hope that works out and he comes back as good as new next season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Did the same thing with Hunt after he went off when Akinfenwa stood on his ankle & also started Williams twice in 4 days (2nd time in the FA Cup, FFS) after 7 months out.

Absolutely brainless.

I think we effectively have 10 games now for Pearson to take a look at who he wants to keep who is out of contract.

We won’t get relegated & haven’t a prayer of the playoffs so a great opportunity to do some planning for next season.

Wish I could see this quality some are talking about, just looks like a lot of a very similar standard to me.

Is there anyone out of contract worth keeping? Can't imagine Pearson taking more than 5 minutes to answer "no" to that one.

And it creates an opportunity for a serious rebuild - a good thing imo given the fact, like you say, we have a lot of samey players at the moment.

Only worry is who's actually in charge of that rebuild. If it's Ashton providing player x, y or z for Pearson to choose from, I'm not confident we'll make the most of the opportunity to take a big step forward (like you, I'm confident Pearson already wants to stay, it just needs the suits above him not to piss him off now)

In an ideal word, Ashton would be neutered so far as player identification is concerned and the role given to someone Pearson chooses. But that person would still need to hit the ground running in the summer as virtually every position in the team bar goalkeeper needs addressing - we need full backs, centre halves, centre mids and wide players.

I know you think we may have enough strikers even if Fam leaves but it wouldn't surprise me if Pearson wanted to address this position too - Semenyo and Weimann are hardly prolific and, given Pearson shipped him out at Derby, it wouldn't completely surprise me if he tried to move Martin on as well. 

Much work to be done but an exciting prospect if Pearson is allowed to mould his squad, not one a chief exec with a laptop fancies.   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Is there anyone out of contract worth keeping? Can't imagine Pearson taking more than 5 minutes to answer "no" to that one.

And it creates an opportunity for a serious rebuild - a good thing imo given the fact, like you say, we have a lot of samey players at the moment.

Only worry is who's actually in charge of that rebuild. If it's Ashton providing player x, y or z for Pearson to choose from, I'm not confident we'll make the most of the opportunity to take a big step forward (like you, I'm confident Pearson already wants to stay, it just needs the suits above him not to piss him off now)

In an ideal word, Ashton would be neutered so far as player identification is concerned and the role given to someone Pearson chooses. But that person would still need to hit the ground running in the summer as virtually every position in the team bar goalkeeper needs addressing - we need full backs, centre halves, centre mids and wide players.

I know you think we may have enough strikers even if Fam leaves but it wouldn't surprise me if Pearson wanted to address this position too - Semenyo and Weimann are hardly prolific and, given Pearson shipped him out at Derby, it wouldn't completely surprise me if he tried to move Martin on as well. 

Much work to be done but an exciting prospect if Pearson is allowed to mould his squad, not one a chief exec with a laptop fancies.   

As I see it, Pearson will be trying to get up to speed with how the Talent ID team work and how various people interact with it, from MA to the likes of Brian Tinnion.  I think he’ll quickly get an idea as to whether it’s fit for purpose.

He will need to feel that they are capable of understanding his playing identity and then execute against it (from another interview):

6E3939A4-F2BF-45AC-8B80-EB646BC1851B.thumb.jpeg.e8e3a01740cb3e87cc5152cb0c8cd357.jpeg

I do think that MA and Talent ID will need to up their game, but I also think NP will articulate his needs better and I will be more than happy to say “no - that’s not what we need” if he’s not presented with the right quality.  I can imagine him saying “how the **** does this player fit the brief”.

We might get some feel for what he wants if we see certain players getting new deals.

All my thoughts btw.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As I see it, Pearson will be trying to get up to speed with how the Talent ID team work and how various people interact with it, from MA to the likes of Brian Tinnion.  I think he’ll quickly get an idea as to whether it’s fit for purpose.

He will need to feel that they are capable of understanding his playing identity and then execute against it (from another interview):

6E3939A4-F2BF-45AC-8B80-EB646BC1851B.thumb.jpeg.e8e3a01740cb3e87cc5152cb0c8cd357.jpeg

I do think that MA and Talent ID will need to up their game, but I also think NP will articulate his needs better and I will be more than happy to say “no - that’s not what we need” if he’s not presented with the right quality.  I can imagine him saying “how the **** does this player fit the brief”.

We might get some feel for what he wants if we see certain players getting new deals.

All my thoughts btw.

Personally, I'd be more than surprised if a Chief Scout (Steve Walsh or whoever) is appointed in the summer. I'd love to see it, but consider it unlikely. 

My gut feeling is the current set up will continue (assuming the Ashton to Ipswich rumour is just that - a rumour). In which case, I can only pray Pearson finds a way to work with Ashton and is strong enough and clever enough to make the current set up work for him - like you, I can imagine him saying "how the **** does that fit the brief" but if that kept happening I think Pearson's the type who would, unfortunately but understandably, just get up and walk. Pray god that doesn't happen. 

Lansdown must know that appointing Pearson gives us our best ever chance of being successful in tis division (Coppell was a busted flush) and as such, if I was him, I'd be making it crystal clear to Ashton there can be no break down in his working relationship with Pearson.         

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Is there anyone out of contract worth keeping? Can't imagine Pearson taking more than 5 minutes to answer "no" to that one.

And it creates an opportunity for a serious rebuild - a good thing imo given the fact, like you say, we have a lot of samey players at the moment.

Only worry is who's actually in charge of that rebuild. If it's Ashton providing player x, y or z for Pearson to choose from, I'm not confident we'll make the most of the opportunity to take a big step forward (like you, I'm confident Pearson already wants to stay, it just needs the suits above him not to piss him off now)

In an ideal word, Ashton would be neutered so far as player identification is concerned and the role given to someone Pearson chooses. But that person would still need to hit the ground running in the summer as virtually every position in the team bar goalkeeper needs addressing - we need full backs, centre halves, centre mids and wide players.

I know you think we may have enough strikers even if Fam leaves but it wouldn't surprise me if Pearson wanted to address this position too - Semenyo and Weimann are hardly prolific and, given Pearson shipped him out at Derby, it wouldn't completely surprise me if he tried to move Martin on as well. 

Much work to be done but an exciting prospect if Pearson is allowed to mould his squad, not one a chief exec with a laptop fancies.   

Strangely I think the most likely to stay is Mariappa.

Rumoured to be on very low wages, known to Pearson from his time at Watford, great availability record & clearly seen as a good in the dressing room, reliable squad type who could also fill in at RB for a few games.

Walsh presumably is another but I’d like to see a bit more evidence before he is proclaimed the next big thing.

Beyond that I’m not sure, Baker, Hunt, Paterson, Watkins, Rowe, Adelakun, Famara, Gilmartin, Wollacott, Lansbury & the 2 Fullham loans, that is a hell of a lot of wages (wouldn’t be shocked if we looked at borrowing Sessegnon for another year though). Can see Weimann being his sort & the additional year in his deal activated.

Martin would be tough to shift & I guess we might just keep him as back up.

We are in a good place, the season is effectively over, we think Pearson wants to stick around & we have loads of room for manoeuvre in the squad, I do appreciate no one gets every transfer right but surely conversations about specific players in specific positions need to start?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...