Silvio Dante

True. I’m sure I read it but equally I may be talking bollocks. Wouldn’t be the first time!

I’m sure I’ve seen something before that, somewhat counter intuitively, clubs prefer to play teams that are a fair way away in midweek, in part because they know that the away following may not have been great because of the distance in any case. Take this season - Ipswich and Blackburn were both home and away in midweek.

It depends. You say Manningball but equally we could play with more of the intent shown against Leicester, Blackburn etc. If it’s also a game where we play Knight-Lebel, Meerholz etc then I’m less concerned about a loss. If we lose to Rotherham I’m honestly not that bothered and don’t see that potential result as a reason for SL to pipe up. It depends, in the unlikely event of if we did lose, how we lost that game - both in respect of personnel and performance. Put it this way - we’re not talking about “how did we only draw with Huddersfield” - we’re talking about “How we drew with Huddersfield”. Big difference.

What’s interesting about the Twine discussion is that it’s not really split on “factions” - whether people are more pro LM or LM doubters, this thread has mainly the same conclusion - that he’s not really worth the likely fee and, other than Lez doing his normal stuff, pretty much everyone is on a scale of doubting the signing to straight out not wanting to do it. There is no question LM knows more about Twine than any of us, and he may see him as a puzzle piece that is only fully effective with the rest of the puzzle, but it’d be an odd scenario when we’ve all seen him that the majority of this thread is totally wrong.

Jesus. Swansea then that. Irrespective of results I’m not sure if I’d come back if I was him!

Fair challenge. For everyone it’ll be a bit different and it really comes down to your definition of “bringing them through” or more broadly, what constitutes an academy player once they’ve hit the first team. For example, nobody would class Sam Bell as an academy player that Liam has brought through on the basis of Sam’s status when he arrived. On the other side of the coin, it’s difficult to argue he’s brought JKL through despite his time on the bench as he’s not really got on the pitch. My definition of “bringing a player through” (and this will be arbitrary) is that you’ve given them their debut (or brought them back in after they may have had a sporadic game prior) and then they’ve gone on to be established in the first team squad under you, regularly playing minutes - cutoff for me is 5-10 games played as that is a sign you’re in the squad and playing regularly, but again that’s arbitrary. That means I don’t really class Joseph James as an academy player Nige brought through for example - he was a needed injury crisis game. On the names above, O’Donkor and Goodrham had been established in Oxfords first team squad before LM got there. Negru there is an argument for - I think he pretty much hit the first team squad as soon as he signed (which was pre LM), but LM did give him his debut and he meets the threshold above. It’s a question of if he’s considered academy there. MK Dons - Ilunga was one league game (5 EFL trophy) and farmed out to Conference South (which looks the right decision as not played a league game for Dons for over a year and on loan, so wouldn’t knock LMs judgement there). Tripp was one EFL trophy game. O’Hara was a Martin signing and had played a fair bit before LM arrived. Dennis I agree was a signing and then played straight away so it’s similar to Negru. Again, it’ll all be a bit arbitrary (and people will have different definitions), and it’s also true - not just with us but generally that fans tend to expect a 19 year old signing to more immediately be in the first team than a 19 year old academy. But the only “academy” player I think you can make a case for here is probably Ilunga, and that was EFL trophy. Neghru though looks a success story and hopefully Murphy can do similar for us.

The only way it’s in any way likely to happen is after next Tuesday the numbers renewing season tickets are way down on the clubs expectations (and I think they will expect/accept a dropoff of 5% ish from this year - that can be hidden behind cost of living, new TV deal etc) If, however, they see a 10% plus drop in ST sales then I could see Steve emerging to try and do a communication. Dont forget that the last time he was at a home game was the rattling around the stadium at Swansea. That was explained away as mother’s day(!) - if he then sees ST sales down markedly a bit of protecting his investment income kicks in…

I really hope someone makes the Bob Marley gag soon, it’s the major thing missing from this thread.

You can’t think differently, you have to defend me no matter what, remember?? My take is that three things can be true: - Liam is his own man - We don’t have a “golden generation” waiting and there aren’t reams of people ready to make the first team - Even if there were, based on prior history and here (and Fevs knows I disagree with him on the JKL decision), Liam is reluctant to play them. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong in terms of immediate results, but I do see from evidence to date (both elsewhere and here), Liam has a reticence to play youth. Debate/discuss how that fits with the clubs stated philosophy and if he’s a blagger based on the presser quotes

One thing I’ve been consistent on - in support of Liam - is that he’s not Tinnions puppet. I don’t think you make the hard nosed moves he has without pure single mindedness, and his time with us has proven he feels his way is the right way. If that includes not playing academy he sure as hell won’t do it. I think Tinnion probably thought a young coach would be malleable. I don’t think that’s the case here.

Nein.

Just to say that I do think this is a very fair point - and I agree that you don’t give “minutes for minutes sake” - the players have to be the required standard. The counterpoint is twofold - he had the opportunity to play Jamie KL yesterday and didn’t despite him being around the first team squad regularly, but probably more pertinently over 3 years of management now he hasn’t brought one academy player through. It’s possible that MK Dons, Oxford and ourselves all don’t have any academy products of the required standard, but at some point that record goes on the coach and his willingness/ability to bring through academy players as opposed to the quality of the academy players themselves. And three years, across multiple clubs, is a pretty strong sample size overall.

Related to this subject, but also to Vyner being injured, a titbit from Weston yesterday; Raph Araoye has had his loan spell ended one week early by City. Possible he’s coming into first team contention in view of the injuries; equally likely that there is an U23s game which if we win we go 6th and are able to have a mass celebration that he’s needed for. Edit @petehinton - posting the same at the same time

To have not said how many have sold to date if they are going well is beyond bizarre. On Tuesday it’s one week until renewal date and if that’s not met with a campaign of “Join the xxx who have renewed already”, I think it’s safe to say we’re a long way down from what the club hoped.

I’m saying nothing… (Over 6 games 11 points is playoff form)

Liams first press conference at Oxford: “You look to academies first, why wouldn’t you” Liams first press conference here: ”I understand the importance of players to see the pathway, and the most rewarding thing for academy staff is where you see someone make a debut. But also from a pure business perspective you invest huge sums in the academy, why wouldn’t you look there first? That doesn’t mean you take everyone from there but it’s the first place you look…..we’ll definitely look there first then go external after that” Just leaving those here. And guess how many he brought through at Oxford.

Agreed. The fact is that Twine isn’t the only player out there that can do the job - this is why I hold no stock in the argument that him being in has allowed Knight to drop back. Any player being played in that position allows the Knight move and I’d think there are better options, based on what we’ve seen, than Twine.

That reminds me somewhat of the Post article when LM came in initially. They asked Dons and Oxford fans for views on him and one standout comment was the one below. The correlation here is that if you’re struggling to create chances beyond the two points mentioned, naturally you’re going to have a lower xG. And because the “cutback” goals are better chances (higher individual xG), they’re more likely to be scored. Basically your analysis correlates with what we’ve seen under Liam - a real struggle to create good chances. Against Blackburn our xG was ramped up by two penalties and one on ones they gave us - we actually created very little off our own steam (but the press equally forced the mistakes). People may point to shots of x per game, but a lot of time they’ve been shots that aren’t real chances. The lack of “good chances” has been a real thematic So, if the secret to outperforming xG is not to create much, I’m not sure it’s a formula for long term success - and if you look at the implications of the below quote, it suggests Oxford were getting by on worldies, which is unsustainable and plays to the theory we employed a coach on a “good streak” as opposed to one who’s cracked it.

Six. Watford, Leicester, Plymouth, Sunderland, Blackburn, Huddersfield. I can understand getting it wrong by a game but being 100% out is a bit disturbing..! And I know that we are undefeated in those six, so I’ll tap my “correlation doesn’t equal causation” sign again.

To be fair, you highlight Cardiff there and one of the two losses was under Nige. We were on fumes that game so saying we could have been plus 3 points without investment from that game is bonkers - the exact problem is we didn’t have resource. Start of the season I thought keep or adequately replace Scott we had a chance of top six - a punchers chance, but a chance. Not doing so made mid table my expectation. It’s a broader problem that I think we’ve regressed under Liam (and how that bodes for trajectory), but dispassionately he’s going to achieve what I pretty much expected without investment day one. The fault in performance as ever lies with the board - both for not investing in the summer and for the statements/actions in October. Liam in no way gets a pass but I’d say he’s delivered (positionally) on realistic minimum expectations. Debate/discuss how likely it is he can progress (regress) us further or how he’s got us to those points - and that’s where his issues lie.

Just another quick thing to add into the mix - the accepted wisdom appears to be that Burnley will want to retain him if they go down. I’d suggest that performance this season in particular would mean that isn’t a sure thing - if we’re doubting if he’s good enough for us as a middling table team, then he certainly won’t be good enough for a top six side. I think likelihood is that he’s available come what may in the summer. And that makes it all the more important, from evidence to date, that we don’t jump into a deal.

It’s interesting you bring the Watford game up. What sticks out for me from that game was twofold - the dead ball entry being superb but the open play being shocking (it was about 50% pass completion). At the time I put it down to not being on the same wavelength as the team but he’s still not a massive creative force. And at this level, you can’t have a “special teams” player As I’ve said a few times, correlation doesn’t equal causation. Leicester sticks out - we were better when Sykes came on for Twine and Sykes set the goal up. And in respect of best position, I think Liam rejigged the side to deliver that. Remember he was wide left at Hull, and that Liam only likes one up top. I’m not sure him playing behind the striker isn’t his “best position” - which only adds to my doubts!

I don’t overly disagree, but if you think we’ve been “fortuitous” in the games post Easter (and I’d add to your analysis above the four Vardy chances pre our goal Vs Leicester) then the balance has to be whether in the six games post Southampton we were unlucky to only pick up three points. (NB - avoidance of doubt I’ll say in the three wins post Easter I have liked our intent and that helps deserve points) Those games were (in chronological order): QPR (H), Weds (A), Cardiff (H), Ipswich (A), Swansea (H), WBA (A) If you (or anyone) thinks we were unlucky to only get three points from those games the argument is that it’s luck balancing out. However, if the stance is that we got pretty much what we deserved from that batch, then people with that view should be concerned about the performances that continue - if not the results.

Rider to your last sentence….at league one level You have to remember that Hull were Ok with letting him go at this level, and that Burnley he wasn’t fantastic for. At this level, across three teams, he’s been nothing more than “OK”. I’d absolutely trust Liams judgement in him at league one level. But if we take Mehmeti as a case in point, a player that Liam (correctly) thinks can do it at league one has been sketchy at best at the higher level. It might be that how he’s played is just how good he is at this level. It happens.

As I said on another thread, it’d be madness if he was and would have serious vibes of Kasey Palmer. We’ve seen what he can do and he’s gone from peripheral in prior games to today being uninterested in putting any work in. Palmer was signed despite a poor loan spell at great expense because LJ overestimated both Kaseys importance and Lees own ability to get stuff out of him. If you’re charitable, it could be argued that he had the Afobe linkup in mind but that was more happy accident. It seems to me (and I don’t think LM is LJ as some do), in this case for Lee read Liam and for Kasey read Scott To reiterate the point, we’re looking at a player who had a fantastic season at a lower level 2 years ago and has not proven himself at this level, in addition to having two injury spells. We’ve seen him for us and not one person thinks he’s a must buy. Even at £2m, with the takeover of Burnley wages, it’s not a cheap deal and I’m not convinced he’s worth that. Not a deal we should do and would smack of a vanity project based on the evidence to date.