Maybe That's Why Cotterill Didn't Put The U21s On The Bench Then?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I have no problem with the introduction of academy players and hopefully Zac will have learned more than it may have affected his confidence.

But it does bring up 2 points for me, firstly hopefully the coaching staff will be able to identify exactly what went wrong, bad technique, over confidence, being too casual or just poor play or a combination of some or all of these points and drill them into him, the word drill was roundly condemned on an earlier thread but it sounds as though defensive drills went awry last night.

And secondly this comment by LJ IMHO was probably ill judged in hindsight  “It’s a bit of a free game for us really and I always think Ashton Gate is at its best when Bristol City are the underdogs". I would have thought that message should be "on our day we can compete/beat anybody".

That said his post match interview clearly showed how unhappy he was by the performance, Saturday should go a long way to showing the fans the character of individual players and LJ himself.
 

[iamalagerdrinker]

Comparing his game at MK Dons to Brighton is laughable, of course he was going to get outclassed last night.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

12 minutes ago, iamalagerdrinker said:

Comparing his game at MK Dons to Brighton is laughable, of course he was going to get outclassed last night.

Then surely what is laughable is actually his selection at all?.

[LondonBristolian]

32 minutes ago, NickJ said:

This is what I think.

I think that the fans who wanted SC out seriously overplayed the significance of the not putting 7 subs on the bench thing, as it suited their agenda.

No criticism intended, I would have used the same and similar tactics if I had been in that camp.

You might have done but I don't think very many fans have agendas, consider themselves to be in any particular camp or use messageboards in a tactical way.  I think this very much puts you in a minority of fans as everyone else just states their opinion and tries to support the team.

 

Of course SC not putting seven players on pitch had no impact on our results on the pitch which is what SC was ultimately fired over and what has been the most obviously visible and indisputable evidence of improvement since he left.  I'd imagine that comes down to a formation that finally suits the players, some modest but capable new signings and perhaps a renewed sense of confidence among the players.  I find not filling the bench a bit odd, partly because a place on the bench is a valuable carrot to offer young players who do well but more so because I can't immediately think of many (perhaps any?) other managers who have made conscious choices not to fill the bench.  But, as you say, other factors were far more significant in our poor form under Cotts and his eventual sacking.

 

At the same time, what I really hope is we can move away from all the nonsense about tactics, camps and agendas that filled the last 6 months.  I don't want to have to choose whether to be on the manager's side or the board's side because I don't see any need for there to be sides at all.  I just wish everyone would pull together and remember we all support the same club.  If the board does well, it reflects well on the manager.  If the manager does well,it reflects well on the board.  Last season both manager and board got it spot-on and it was a great time to be a fan.  This season a spat between board and manager developed and it's been a difficult time to be a fan.  Personally I don't see that as a question of needing to find out if it was the manager's fault or to the board's fault because I don't think blame matters - the spat itself was the damaging thing.  If the board and LJ can work together in a way that the board and SC obviously weren't able to do this season, that will hopefully enable us to continue recent improvement on the pitch, the team will do well and we can all be happy without any need for any factional nonsense.

[Port Said Red]

29 minutes ago, NickJ said:

This is what I think.

I think that the fans who wanted SC out seriously overplayed the significance of the not putting 7 subs on the bench thing, as it suited their agenda.

No criticism intended, I would have used the same and similar tactics if I had been in that camp.

No agenda regarding this myself, just thought it was a strange thing to do. Perhaps if he had Vyner on the bench and had been able to give him 5 or 10 minutes here or there in other games, he wouldn't have had to be dropped in at the deep end this week?

[WolfOfWestStreet]

LJ will have his own ideas but playing an acadamy centre half out of position at right full back against a promotion pushing team on reflection was a bad one. 

Pearce should hold his hands up as well as he also played like it was his first team debut, was shocking. 

[Harry]

Perhaps young Vyner might've been more 'ready' for first team football had he been given the opportunity to play some proper 'men's' football out on loan instead of the tippy-tappy namby-pamby u21 non-competitive games. 

Perhaps our previous manager might've been good enough to not  refuse our u21's going out on loan. 

And that's not hearsay. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

52 minutes ago, Harry said:

Perhaps young Vyner might've been more 'ready' for first team football had he been given the opportunity to play some proper 'men's' football out on loan instead of the tippy-tappy namby-pamby u21 non-competitive games. 

Perhaps our previous manager might've been good enough to not  refuse our u21's going out on loan. 

And that's not hearsay. 

it hasn't exactly worked very well for others sent out on loan, maybe he had another point?.

PS:- Have sent you several emails, have you received them?.

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Perhaps young Vyner might've been more 'ready' for first team football had he been given the opportunity to play some proper 'men's' football out on loan instead of the tippy-tappy namby-pamby u21 non-competitive games. 

Perhaps our previous manager might've been good enough to not  refuse our u21's going out on loan. 

And that's not hearsay. 

Good point and absolutely true

[BobBobSuperBob]

I can see a few of our U21s getting game time at Yeovil and Cheltenham next year which is ideal - L2 (Hopefully for both) and not having to move to the other end of the country

[spudski]

9 hours ago, Jack Dawe said:

Perhaps Cotts simply decided they are not good enough yet?

How do you get players to be good enough Jack?

If you take SC's view, that no academy player is good enough and that there are no players in league 1 or 2 good enough...then what's the point of an academy or loaning players out to lower league teams?

All eyes will be on any young academy player when they make their first few games.

Vyner has been forced into this position because of injuries...Ayling and Little are not fit enough...Little can hardly move.

Plus Baker was out...and Goldbourne is also new...we were effectively playing with 3 new defenders last night.

Any mistakes by a defender or GK go more noticed as they are easily punished. Do it as a forward and you often get away with it.

By all accounts Pearce had a worse game...but hardly any mention.

Goals 1 and 3 being put down as Vyners mistake are way off.

Poor kick to Vyner by the keeper putting him under unneeded pressure...good pressing by Brighton.

As for the third goal...where else should Vyner have been positioned? He was in the right spot...just a clever pass that unbalanced Vyner...could have happened to any seasoned pro in that position. Had he got his toe to it...no one would be saying he had a bad game.

 

[Frenchay Red]

4 hours ago, NickJ said:

Is it possible same formation with better players would have been more successful?

We will never know for sure as SC wasn't given that opportunity, but logic says it would have been.

Didn't we give them a much better game at their place under Cotts playing his system? And unlucky to lose to a late Zamora winner?

[NickJ]

3 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

You might have done but I don't think very many fans have agendas, consider themselves to be in any particular camp or use messageboards in a tactical way.  I think this very much puts you in a minority of fans as everyone else just states their opinion and tries to support the team.

 

Of course SC not putting seven players on pitch had no impact on our results on the pitch which is what SC was ultimately fired over and what has been the most obviously visible and indisputable evidence of improvement since he left.  I'd imagine that comes down to a formation that finally suits the players, some modest but capable new signings and perhaps a renewed sense of confidence among the players.  I find not filling the bench a bit odd, partly because a place on the bench is a valuable carrot to offer young players who do well but more so because I can't immediately think of many (perhaps any?) other managers who have made conscious choices not to fill the bench.  But, as you say, other factors were far more significant in our poor form under Cotts and his eventual sacking.

 

At the same time, what I really hope is we can move away from all the nonsense about tactics, camps and agendas that filled the last 6 months.  I don't want to have to choose whether to be on the manager's side or the board's side because I don't see any need for there to be sides at all.  I just wish everyone would pull together and remember we all support the same club.  If the board does well, it reflects well on the manager.  If the manager does well,it reflects well on the board.  Last season both manager and board got it spot-on and it was a great time to be a fan.  This season a spat between board and manager developed and it's been a difficult time to be a fan.  Personally I don't see that as a question of needing to find out if it was the manager's fault or to the board's fault because I don't think blame matters - the spat itself was the damaging thing.  If the board and LJ can work together in a way that the board and SC obviously weren't able to do this season, that will hopefully enable us to continue recent improvement on the pitch, the team will do well and we can all be happy without any need for any factional nonsense.

Nice post, except the first sentence, particularly, "everyone else just states their opinion and tries to support the team".

Are you trying to insinuate I don't have an opinion and I don't support my team?

I didn't say many fans have agendas, but in my opinion there are quite a few posters on here who had an agenda about getting SC out.

I agree that not filling a bench was a bit odd, but on the other hand, as not putting under 21's on the bench was not a major issue in the grand scheme of things, it does seem to me that this was just used as another thing to beat SC with.

Did anyone ask SC his reasons for this?

2 hours ago, Harry said:

Perhaps young Vyner might've been more 'ready' for first team football had he been given the opportunity to play some proper 'men's' football out on loan instead of the tippy-tappy namby-pamby u21 non-competitive games. 

Perhaps our previous manager might've been good enough to not  refuse our u21's going out on loan. 

And that's not hearsay. 

I know that's not hearsay Harry.

Did anyone ask SC his reasons for this?

[cityexile]

No one is suggesting he is a first choice right now. He has been called up due to injuries.

Given that, and it could have happened to any manager, the question is not so much is he ready, but what would have increased the chances of him being more ready. Certainly when we had spaces on the bench, why not have given him the chance to soak it up? Maybe the odd cameo in a game which was lost or won? 

Sometimes it's just about making the best of what you have!

[Jack Dawe]

27 minutes ago, spudski said:

How do you get players to be good enough Jack?

If you take SC's view, that no academy player is good enough and that there are no players in league 1 or 2 good enough...then what's the point of an academy or loaning players out to lower league teams?

All eyes will be on any young academy player when they make their first few games.

Vyner has been forced into this position because of injuries...Ayling and Little are not fit enough...Little can hardly move.

Plus Baker was out...and Goldbourne is also new...we were effectively playing with 3 new defenders last night.

Any mistakes by a defender or GK go more noticed as they are easily punished. Do it as a forward and you often get away with it.

By all accounts Pearce had a worse game...but hardly any mention.

Goals 1 and 3 being put down as Vyners mistake are way off.

Poor kick to Vyner by the keeper putting him under unneeded pressure...good pressing by Brighton.

As for the third goal...where else should Vyner have been positioned? He was in the right spot...just a clever pass that unbalanced Vyner...could have happened to any seasoned pro in that position. Had he got his toe to it...no one would be saying he had a bad game.

 

I don't know, spud. I don't have the answers. I'm just being a little mischievous and provoking a bit of debate. Playing devil's advocate. Hoping some answers and interesting opinions come up. That's what this forum is all about, aint it?

[spudski]

Fair play Jack ;-)

 

[BigAl&Toby]

5 hours ago, NickJ said:

This is what I think.

I think that the fans who wanted SC out seriously overplayed the significance of the not putting 7 subs on the bench thing, as it suited their agenda.

No criticism intended, I would have used the same and similar tactics if I had been in that camp.

I think that's absolute nonsense. The only reason I wanted SC out was that we were rapidly heading back to Division 1. The man had little idea at this level and wasn't able to see his way out of that. The results and league position show that.

Since he was sacked and since Pemberton, Wade and now Johnson have been in charge things have been different in many respects.

I've seen a significant improvement - I'd even go as far as saying that last night was, at times, a lot better than I saw when SC was there. 

Even if ZV didn't have the best of home debuts. First half at MK Dons he looked accomplished.

[bristolcitysweden]

I don't understand why people are so harsh on Vyner. First goal was O*Donnells fault. Why the hell did he pass Wyner when the whole team more or less was far up the pitch? Vyners first touch was Championship level. No better no worse. As far as I can see Vyner had nothing to do with the second goal. A left foot would have helped for the third goal but again this is Championship level  

[italian dave]

8 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

You might have done but I don't think very many fans have agendas, consider themselves to be in any particular camp or use messageboards in a tactical way.  I think this very much puts you in a minority of fans as everyone else just states their opinion and tries to support the team.

 

Of course SC not putting seven players on pitch had no impact on our results on the pitch which is what SC was ultimately fired over and what has been the most obviously visible and indisputable evidence of improvement since he left.  I'd imagine that comes down to a formation that finally suits the players, some modest but capable new signings and perhaps a renewed sense of confidence among the players.  I find not filling the bench a bit odd, partly because a place on the bench is a valuable carrot to offer young players who do well but more so because I can't immediately think of many (perhaps any?) other managers who have made conscious choices not to fill the bench.  But, as you say, other factors were far more significant in our poor form under Cotts and his eventual sacking.

 

At the same time, what I really hope is we can move away from all the nonsense about tactics, camps and agendas that filled the last 6 months.  I don't want to have to choose whether to be on the manager's side or the board's side because I don't see any need for there to be sides at all.  I just wish everyone would pull together and remember we all support the same club.  If the board does well, it reflects well on the manager.  If the manager does well,it reflects well on the board.  Last season both manager and board got it spot-on and it was a great time to be a fan.  This season a spat between board and manager developed and it's been a difficult time to be a fan.  Personally I don't see that as a question of needing to find out if it was the manager's fault or to the board's fault because I don't think blame matters - the spat itself was the damaging thing.  If the board and LJ can work together in a way that the board and SC obviously weren't able to do this season, that will hopefully enable us to continue recent improvement on the pitch, the team will do well and we can all be happy without any need for any factional nonsense.

If I could give this two 'likes' I would! Well said sir!

[Davefevs]

6 hours ago, spudski said:

How do you get players to be good enough Jack?

If you take SC's view, that no academy player is good enough and that there are no players in league 1 or 2 good enough...then what's the point of an academy or loaning players out to lower league teams?

All eyes will be on any young academy player when they make their first few games.

Vyner has been forced into this position because of injuries...Ayling and Little are not fit enough...Little can hardly move.

Plus Baker was out...and Goldbourne is also new...we were effectively playing with 3 new defenders last night.

Any mistakes by a defender or GK go more noticed as they are easily punished. Do it as a forward and you often get away with it.

By all accounts Pearce had a worse game...but hardly any mention.

Goals 1 and 3 being put down as Vyners mistake are way off.

Poor kick to Vyner by the keeper putting him under unneeded pressure...good pressing by Brighton.

As for the third goal...where else should Vyner have been positioned? He was in the right spot...just a clever pass that unbalanced Vyner...could have happened to any seasoned pro in that position. Had he got his toe to it...no one would be saying he had a bad game.

 

Re third goal, had a perfect view of it....it was just one of those unfortunate things where he really just couldn't get his stride pattern right to get that extra stretch.  Looks really bad to the onlooker, but not a lot you can do about it.

Brighton were clever first half in closing him down on the outside, making him play passes inside, where they then pressed very quickly.  When he could get it down the line to Freeman, we had potential to create.

Second half, Freeman put a lovely ball in on the run with his right foot.  It might be little more than a swinger most times, but the element of doubt if whether you're gonna go inside or down the line, is what creates the half yard for a cross or the cut inside for a shot.  Think Powell of MK Dons at our place!

[LondonBristolian]

5 hours ago, NickJ said:

Nice post, except the first sentence, particularly, "everyone else just states their opinion and tries to support the team".

Are you trying to insinuate I don't have an opinion and I don't support my team?

I didn't say many fans have agendas, but in my opinion there are quite a few posters on here who had an agenda about getting SC out.

I agree that not filling a bench was a bit odd, but on the other hand, as not putting under 21's on the bench was not a major issue in the grand scheme of things, it does seem to me that this was just used as another thing to beat SC with.

Did anyone ask SC his reasons for this?

 

I was not trying to insinuate that at all.  I  was using the word "just" in the context of "they only do that and don't go in for agendas, strategies and factionalism" rather than "they do that whereas other posters don't do that".  At the same time, I don't buy at all into the idea that "quite a few posters" had an agenda about getting SC out and, to be honest, I find talk of 'agendas' to be rather silly.  I'm always suspicious that, when says that someone has an agenda, what they really mean is "that person disagrees with me, I don't like that they disagree with me and I don't feel I can confidently explain why they're wrong so instead I'm going to attack them for having an opinion in the first place."

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I was not trying to insinuate that at all.  I  was using the word "just" in the context of "they only do that and don't go in for agendas, strategies and factionalism" rather than "they do that whereas other posters don't do that".  At the same time, I don't buy at all into the idea that "quite a few posters" had an agenda about getting SC out and, to be honest, I find talk of 'agendas' to be rather silly.  I'm always suspicious that, when says that someone has an agenda, what they really mean is "that person disagrees with me, I don't like that they disagree with me and I don't feel I can confidently explain why they're wrong so instead I'm going to attack them for having an opinion in the first place."

Well said fella...exactly how I feel about it on here too.

No one has an agenda...and even if they did...how are they going to affect anything that happens to a manager at a Club? Total codswallop I agree.

People have opinions...and some find it hard to deal with others they disagree with.

It gets to a point where they actually hunt the same people down to disagree with them...even if other fans are saying the same things.

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.

[ashton_fan]

I think it shows our Academy players can't go straight from U-21's football into Championship games, they must get experience in the lower leagues on loan first. When Vyner made his debut at MK it was against a struggling team and he had the advantage of being an unknown quantity. Once 90 minutes of video was available on him the Brighton coaching staff could pick out his weaknesses and exploit them. Remember LJ is a rookie at this level too and he has to realise it's not only the players that are better in the Championship but the coaching staff as well. I also noticed how Brighton hit nearly all their shots hard and low to make things difficult for O'Donnell as a tall keeper, and that they had 2 men on the posts for corners so Flint couldn't repeat his heroics against Ipswich. I'm sure LJ will have learnt from the experience and won't make the same mistake again.

[spudski]

1 hour ago, ashton_fan said:

I think it shows our Academy players can't go straight from U-21's football into Championship games, they must get experience in the lower leagues on loan first. When Vyner made his debut at MK it was against a struggling team and he had the advantage of being an unknown quantity. Once 90 minutes of video was available on him the Brighton coaching staff could pick out his weaknesses and exploit them. Remember LJ is a rookie at this level too and he has to realise it's not only the players that are better in the Championship but the coaching staff as well. I also noticed how Brighton hit nearly all their shots hard and low to make things difficult for O'Donnell as a tall keeper, and that they had 2 men on the posts for corners so Flint couldn't repeat his heroics against Ipswich. I'm sure LJ will have learnt from the experience and won't make the same mistake again.

Sorry fella...but i'm going to disagree with your comment.

What 'weaknesses' does Vyner have, that showed up so much over his past game, that Brighton would have seen...apart from them knowing he was young and it was only his second game?

A miscontrol on the chest from a poor pass from the keeper, and a perfectly timed through ball that would have had any seasoned pro struggling led to two goals...what else was wrong with his performance that said he wasn't ready?

I'll take that bet, that Vyner and others from the Academy aren't pushed through quicker. I can see LJ blooding more than any other manager we've had. He'll have the Academy training and getting closer to the first team....you just watch ;-)

[LondonBristolian]

1 hour ago, ashton_fan said:

I think it shows our Academy players can't go straight from U-21's football into Championship games, they must get experience in the lower leagues on loan first. When Vyner made his debut at MK it was against a struggling team and he had the advantage of being an unknown quantity. Once 90 minutes of video was available on him the Brighton coaching staff could pick out his weaknesses and exploit them. Remember LJ is a rookie at this level too and he has to realise it's not only the players that are better in the Championship but the coaching staff as well. I also noticed how Brighton hit nearly all their shots hard and low to make things difficult for O'Donnell as a tall keeper, and that they had 2 men on the posts for corners so Flint couldn't repeat his heroics against Ipswich. I'm sure LJ will have learnt from the experience and won't make the same mistake again.

Loans are important for sure but I'm not sure it's as simple as to say players can't go straight from u-21s into the Championship.  They can do and have at other clubs.  I think what's more significant is the club have to prepare U-21 players for playing with senior players.  One of the reasons I like the "best performing youth player trains with the seniors" approach LJ is instilling is that it not only gives young players an incentive to do well but then puts them in a position where they are the only youth player playing with a bunch of older senior players.  That should help prepare the younger lads to be used to that environment and mean, if they find themselves in the team, they feel ready.  That's not to say it isn't a great idea to let young players get loan experience first - just that it isn't the only possible option.

[NickJ]

11 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

I was not trying to insinuate that at all.  I  was using the word "just" in the context of "they only do that and don't go in for agendas, strategies and factionalism" rather than "they do that whereas other posters don't do that".  At the same time, I don't buy at all into the idea that "quite a few posters" had an agenda about getting SC out and, to be honest, I find talk of 'agendas' to be rather silly.  I'm always suspicious that, when says that someone has an agenda, what they really mean is "that person disagrees with me, I don't like that they disagree with me and I don't feel I can confidently explain why they're wrong so instead I'm going to attack them for having an opinion in the first place."

I think you take my use of the word agenda too literally. The essence of my point is it is a fact that many people wanted SC out, and used as many points as possible to justify that view, no matter how inconsequential, in the grand scheme of things, they were.

Moving on from that, I would be interested to know the answer to the question, ie did anyone ever ask, and did SC ever explain, why he did not always fill the bench?

[Nogbad the Bad]

41 minutes ago, spudski said:

Sorry fella...but i'm going to disagree with your comment.

What 'weaknesses' does Vyner have, that showed up so much over his past game, that Brighton would have seen...apart from them knowing he was young and it was only his second game?

A miscontrol on the chest from a poor pass from the keeper, and a perfectly timed through ball that would have had any seasoned pro struggling led to two goals...what else was wrong with his performance that said he wasn't ready?

I'll take that bet, that Vyner and others from the Academy aren't pushed through quicker. I can see LJ blooding more than any other manager we've had. He'll have the Academy training and getting closer to the first team....you just watch ;-)

I'm sure you're right because doing so is part of his remit.

But they have to be ready, not blooded just so that LJ and the club can reel off an ever longer list of how many Academy players have played first team football.

If they're not ready, why not? Not good enough, or is playing comparatively uncompetitive u.21 football insufficient grounding for the Championship?

I saw half an hour of Man. City v. Man. Utd u.21's on TV recently. Terrible game, no quality, no outstanding individuals, nobody willing to run at their opponents, everyone endlessly passing responsibility (sideways) very little tackling or physical contact, no passion, and a terrible advert for what are meant to be some of the best young players in the country playing in a local derby.

Why do Academy's seem to train their youngsters to play so unadventurously? I'd like to think City's doesn't because it hardly prepares them for 1st team football.

And if such a dull spectacle is seen to be the future such tedious, passionless, and uneventful football at first team level would empty grounds.

[Red Army 87]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

Sorry fella...but i'm going to disagree with your comment.

What 'weaknesses' does Vyner have, that showed up so much over his past game, that Brighton would have seen...apart from them knowing he was young and it was only his second game?

A miscontrol on the chest from a poor pass from the keeper, and a perfectly timed through ball that would have had any seasoned pro struggling led to two goals...what else was wrong with his performance that said he wasn't ready?

I'll take that bet, that Vyner and others from the Academy aren't pushed through quicker. I can see LJ blooding more than any other manager we've had. He'll have the Academy training and getting closer to the first team....you just watch ;-)

I agree, Brighton targeted all of our back four and not just Vyner, he stood out to us because all eyes were on him as the new guy. Golbourne was almost caught out on more than one occasion as was Pearce. Flint dealt with the issue by hoofing it up the pitch.

[EnderMB]

These are only my opinions.

SC didn't use youth enough in League 1, and when it was all that was left for him in the Championship they simply weren't good enough. I don't think any of them are good enough for the Championship just yet, but that's to be expected. None of them have had a proper chance.

LJ is on the right path with giving the kids a chance, but it should be sparingly. Our squad is still quite small, so it'll be a good idea to rotate for the sake of form. If a player has a bad couple of games, give someone in the academy a chance to take their place. The academy players should be there to keep the first-team on their toes, and to let players know that if they don't perform they'll lose their place in the team.

The board will want to see the academy used, because it's what they've invested in. It's also why I think SC didn't play them. When SC joined he tore down the five pillars and built his own foundation, and unsurprisingly we went from a mid-table League 1 side to a dominant one. If we had another Yes Man like SOD I reckon the likes of Freeman, Flint and co wouldn't have been bought and we'd be picking from the academy (and probably still in League 1).

So, a happy medium is obviously needed. My main worry is that LJ is going to pick academy players because the board wants him to, and because the board won't pay the wages for a loan player to come in. The ideal scenario is for the academy players to be told that they'll have a chance, and that if a first-team player dips in form the academy will get their opportunity.

[redsquirrel]

ive already said i think  brighton were too well prepared for us. their manager would have worked extra hard to overturn the cardiff result.unfortunately for us,we were on the receiving end of a well set up team who knew what to do better than we did. from the ateyo,i thought vyner did aswell as could be expected under the circumstances,having said that,although not a rb,waggy might have been ok there given his experience