Aaron Pierre

[southvillekiddy]

9 hours ago, Oops said:

You'll have to ask BCFC about their policy and rationale mate, not the fans forum.

And have you recommended Aaron Pierre to Bristol City in your capacity as a UEFA class 1 coach? Or did the people who actually run the club decide that themselves? 

Either way, he didn't make it. And if you are a class 1 coach, you should have known that already.

And by the way, I'm a UEFA Ambassador, which means I can coach coaches. And the coaches coaches. Etc.

That's the problem on this Forum sometimes. Some people can't be bothered to read, let alone try and understand a point that has been carefully made. They just plough on with their own stuff regardless.

PS. I bet my Dad can beat up your Dad and he's got a bigger car.

[southvillekiddy]

1 hour ago, pongo88 said:

It's a bit ridiculous criticising people because they are probably not a UEFA class 1 coach as 99.9% of the people on the forum have no high level formal football qualifications. If posting was limited to those with formal coaching badges, we wouldn't have much content. This is a forum where everyone is entitled to express their opinions, regardless of whether they are good, bad or ugly. 

(I've got a couple of swimming certificates and was qualified to train cyclists) 

I've got a Cub's "House Orderly" badge (1958). Should be able to get on the Board with that?

[southvillekiddy]

Aaron Pierre’s trial at City has ended without the offer of a contract.

The 24-year-old defender spent a week at the Failand training ground and featured in two pre-season friendlies for the Robins.

Whilst head coach Lee Johnson liked what he saw, ultimately the club’s strength in depth in central defence put paid to any chance of the former Wycombe Wanderers man being offered a deal.

Johnson told BCTV: “We haven’t taken it any further, but I have to say he did very, very well.

“He’s an excellent player and an excellent lad, but when we sat down in the cold light of day we looked at the fact we’ve got four centre-halves in Jens (Hegeler), (Hordur) Magnusson, (Aden) Flinty and Bailey Wright.

“Behind that we’ve got three young players who can all play there in Zak Vyner, Taylor Moore and Lloyd Kelly, who have shown up really well in pre-season.

“We just didn’t feel there was a path there to the first team early enough for what he (Pierre) would want.

“But we’ll definitely keep an eye on him, because he’s a great lad who gives you that balance with the left foot and someone is going to get a great signing.”

 

So our genius Manager sat down and counted how many defenders we had already (surprised he didn't know this already before taking him on trial) and decided although Pierre was an excellent player who did very, very, very well in his trial, wasn't excellent enough. I'm amazed that Johnson has got this amount of time to waste. But he's going to continue keeping an eye on him in the future. Pretty sure all this has really chuffed Pierre. So I ask again (sensible answers only please from those posters who bother to read) why do City carry on with trialists in this way fairly regularly. 

In the context of what Johnson says about our strength in depth in defence it's interesting to mention that he has hardly played Magnusson and Hegeler . So in fact we have 2 not 7 CBs who have proper experience in English football. Flinty may be off it seems so we might actually only have 1. Also seems strange to me that the Club will spend millions on what turns out to be a gamble on foreign players who we suddenly discover aren't tough enough, or whatever, to play for Bristol City. Hardly any gamble at all to sign someone like Pierre who has experience in English football and on Johnson's own assessment is good enough (I'm assuming that his choice of the word "excellent" means just that).

[JamesBCFC]

13 hours ago, stephenkibby. said:

I take it then your not a fan?

get stuck in center half that the Preston fans loved. Looks a keeper to me.

You see it different, for me big as Flint is Reminds me of MCcombe  big massive guy, Wright is the one that takes no prisoners.

Puts it in where it hurts. Always loved City sides when we have one of them at the back for us.

 

Looks a defender to me

Opinions eh?

[JamesBCFC]

11 hours ago, southvillekiddy said:

You started it. And please explain what "the dense is all you mate" means.

And I didn't say I was pissed off just baffled by BCFC trialist policy over the years. A player asks if he can come for a trial, the Club doesn't have to waste his time. They could just say "No".

So club offers a player who looks promising a trial, he doesnt do enough to earn a contract, but let's hand him a 4 year deal on 10k a week so it wasnt a waste of time for him (which it wouldn't have been anyway)

[Bristol Rob]

So we won't be signing him.

Wonder what price I could get on him going to Preston and then being their player of the year?

#Cunningham

[southvillekiddy]

Just now, JamesBCFC said:

So club offers a player who looks promising a trial, he doesnt do enough to earn a contract, but let's hand him a 4 year deal on 10k a week so it wasnt a waste of time for him (which it wouldn't have been anyway)

Another one missing the point.

I'm questioning the whole business of offering players trials.

[JamesBCFC]

10 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

Aaron Pierre’s trial at City has ended without the offer of a contract.

The 24-year-old defender spent a week at the Failand training ground and featured in two pre-season friendlies for the Robins.

Whilst head coach Lee Johnson liked what he saw, ultimately the club’s strength in depth in central defence put paid to any chance of the former Wycombe Wanderers man being offered a deal.

Johnson told BCTV: “We haven’t taken it any further, but I have to say he did very, very well.

“He’s an excellent player and an excellent lad, but when we sat down in the cold light of day we looked at the fact we’ve got four centre-halves in Jens (Hegeler), (Hordur) Magnusson, (Aden) Flinty and Bailey Wright.

“Behind that we’ve got three young players who can all play there in Zak Vyner, Taylor Moore and Lloyd Kelly, who have shown up really well in pre-season.

“We just didn’t feel there was a path there to the first team early enough for what he (Pierre) would want.

“But we’ll definitely keep an eye on him, because he’s a great lad who gives you that balance with the left foot and someone is going to get a great signing.”

 

So our genius Manager sat down and counted how many defenders we had already (surprised he didn't know this already before taking him on trial) and decided although Pierre was an excellent player who did very, very, very well in his trial, wasn't excellent enough. I'm amazed that Johnson has got this amount of time to waste. But he's going to continue keeping an eye on him in the future. Pretty sure all this has really chuffed Pierre. So I ask again (sensible answers only please from those posters who bother to read) why do City carry on with trialists in this way fairly regularly. 

In the context of what Johnson says about our strength in depth in defence it's interesting to mention that he has hardly played Magnusson and Hegeler . So in fact we have 3 not 7 CBs who have proper experience in English football. Flinty may be off it seems so we might actually only have 2. Also seems strange to me that the Club will spend millions on what turns out to be a gamble on foreign players who we suddenly discover aren't tough enough, or whatever, to play for Bristol City. Hardly any gamble at all to sign someone like Pierre who has experience in English football and on Johnson's own assessment is good enough (I'm assuming that his choice of the word "excellent" means just that).

Perhaps Johnson thought Pierre could have been better than Hegeler/Wright/Magnusson/Flint

 

The talking bollocks award for the week is yours already, no need to carry on

[JamesBCFC]

1 minute ago, southvillekiddy said:

Another one missing the point.

I'm questioning the whole business of offering players trials.

You literally do not have a point here.

A trial is the absolute best way a club can see how a player fits into a particular side and their ability compared to other at the club.

You can scout all you want, but with a trial you can actually see how he performs partnered with players already at the club.

[southvillekiddy]

1 minute ago, JamesBCFC said:

Perhaps Johnson thought Pierre could have been better than Hegeler/Wright/Magnusson/Flint

 

The talking bollocks award for the week is yours already, no need to carry on

Lovely coming on here and being sworn at gratuitously for offering an honest opinion.

in Johnson's book you would assume Pierre as a player experienced and "excellent" is better than Hegeler and Magnusson. He's hardly ever played them. To top it off Johnson quotes them as the reason for not signing Pierre!

[Buckeyed]

5 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

Another one missing the point.

I'm questioning the whole business of offering players trials.

I thought it was quite simple.. this player has become available for free and we do not know enough about him to know whether or not he will be an improvement on the current players. He comes in on trial and shows that while talented, he is no better than the current players and therefore we do not offer him a contract.

[southvillekiddy]

4 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

You literally do not have a point here.

A trial is the absolute best way a club can see how a player fits into a particular side and their ability compared to other at the club.

You can scout all you want, but with a trial you can actually see how he performs partnered with players already at the club.

If it's the best way then please explain to me why the Club don't do it more frequently and in a more organised way. Because as far as I am concerned the Club do not take this method of recruiting players seriously enough. I'm saying this because we very rarely sign players using this method.

[JamesBCFC]

7 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

Lovely coming on here and being sworn at gratuitously for offering an honest opinion.

in Johnson's book you would assume Pierre as a player experienced and "excellent" is better than Hegeler and Magnusson. He's hardly ever played them. To top it off Johnson quotes them as the reason for not signing Pierre!

"Sworn at gratuitously" 

Really, what you are doing is looking at any chance to have a thinly veiled swipe at Johnson, but lack the conviction to actually say it so hide behind this "trials" non-argument.

That alone is enough of a reason to call it out for what it is, talking bollocks.

2 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

If it's the best way then please explain to me why the Club don't do it more frequently and in a more organised way. Because as far as I am concerned the Club do not take this method of recruiting players seriously enough. I'm saying this because we very rarely sign players using this method.

1) The club doesn't announce every trialist- pretty sure Garita wasn't announced until signed and he was on trial.

2) Trials of some description are likely to be held at least every summer, with other players invited at other points a la Garita.

3) Trials tend to be with players in the first half of their careers, weighted towards the beginning. Most young players do not make it.

[Buckeyed]

Just now, southvillekiddy said:

If it's the best way then please explain to me why the Club don't do it more frequently and in a more organised way. Because as far as I am concerned the Club do not take this method of recruiting players seriously enough. I'm saying this because we very rarely sign players using this method.

Why was the way we gave Pierre a trial not handled in an organised way? I don't understand why the club doing some due diligence on a player prior to signing them is a negative thing for which you seem insistent on finding abhorrent. 

[Major Isewater]

30 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

Aaron Pierre’s trial at City has ended without the offer of a contract.

The 24-year-old defender spent a week at the Failand training ground and featured in two pre-season friendlies for the Robins.

Whilst head coach Lee Johnson liked what he saw, ultimately the club’s strength in depth in central defence put paid to any chance of the former Wycombe Wanderers man being offered a deal.

Johnson told BCTV: “We haven’t taken it any further, but I have to say he did very, very well.

“He’s an excellent player and an excellent lad, but when we sat down in the cold light of day we looked at the fact we’ve got four centre-halves in Jens (Hegeler), (Hordur) Magnusson, (Aden) Flinty and Bailey Wright.

“Behind that we’ve got three young players who can all play there in Zak Vyner, Taylor Moore and Lloyd Kelly, who have shown up really well in pre-season.

“We just didn’t feel there was a path there to the first team early enough for what he (Pierre) would want.

“But we’ll definitely keep an eye on him, because he’s a great lad who gives you that balance with the left foot and someone is going to get a great signing.”

 

So our genius Manager sat down and counted how many defenders we had already (surprised he didn't know this already before taking him on trial) and decided although Pierre was an excellent player who did very, very, very well in his trial, wasn't excellent enough. I'm amazed that Johnson has got this amount of time to waste. But he's going to continue keeping an eye on him in the future. Pretty sure all this has really chuffed Pierre. So I ask again (sensible answers only please from those posters who bother to read) why do City carry on with trialists in this way fairly regularly. 

In the context of what Johnson says about our strength in depth in defence it's interesting to mention that he has hardly played Magnusson and Hegeler . So in fact we have 2 not 7 CBs who have proper experience in English football. Flinty may be off it seems so we might actually only have 1. Also seems strange to me that the Club will spend millions on what turns out to be a gamble on foreign players who we suddenly discover aren't tough enough, or whatever, to play for Bristol City. Hardly any gamble at all to sign someone like Pierre who has experience in English football and on Johnson's own assessment is good enough (I'm assuming that his choice of the word "excellent" means just that).

We don't know anything. We are not party to all the ongoing situations at BCFC so how the hell  can you criticise LJ for incompetence ?

We are ' fed ' information that the club want us and others to hear.

We can only guess why the offer of a contract was not forthcoming so just maybe it has nothing to do with LJ or the player's ability or character ? 

Still go ahead have a go at our head coach if it makes you feel better but know that you decredibilise yourself with these types of posts .

 

[southvillekiddy]

Just now, JamesBCFC said:

"Sworn at gratuitously" 

Really, what you are doing is looking at any chance to have a thinly veiled swipe at Johnson, but lack the conviction to actually say it so hide behind this "trials" non-argument.

That alone is enough of a reason to call it out for what it is, talking bollocks.

1) The club doesn't anno

No it's not a swipe at Johnson particularly, although he does put his foot in his mouth when explaining why he isn't signing Pierre. Johnson is not the first City manager to muck about like this.

No, I started off my comments thinking about City offering trials to players over the decades I've followed the Club and wondering why we carry on giving trials to players without hardly ever signing them.

In this particular example I feel it's even more baffling because the trialist is not some over the hill or injury-prone character without a Club. He made 47 appearances for Wycombe last season and apparently did 'very, very well" in his trial with us and was"excellent".

PS. Why do you need to swear twice??

[JamesBCFC]

18 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

No it's not a swipe at Johnson particularly, although he does put his foot in his mouth when explaining why he isn't signing Pierre. Johnson is not the first City manager to muck about like this.

No, I started off my comments thinking about City offering trials to players over the decades I've followed the Club and wondering why we carry on giving trials to players without hardly ever signing them.

In this particular example I feel it's even more baffling because the trialist is not some over the hill or injury-prone character without a Club. He made 47 appearances for Wycombe last season and apparently did 'very, very well" in his trial with us and was"excellent".

PS. Why do you need to swear twice??

The second was a quote of myself, I had literally just explained that I stood by those words.

I've also explained why your view on the trials was perfectly summed up by the two word phrase. that you take such offense at 

[southvillekiddy]

29 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

We don't know anything. We are not party to all the ongoing situations at BCFC so how the hell  can you criticise LJ for incompetence ?

We are ' fed ' information that the club want us and others to hear.

We can only guess why the offer of a contract was not forthcoming so just maybe it has nothing to do with LJ or the player's ability or character ? 

Still go ahead have a go at our head coach if it makes you feel better but know that you decredibilise yourself with these types of posts .

 

No. If you read through my comments carefully you will see that they have been of a general nature about, what are in my opinion, BCFC's baffling use of the Trial over the decades .We're supposed to be setting up the Club for Premiership football. I've not set out to bash Johnson as you suggest. 

We'll soon find out if our defence is up to it this season.

PS. self-inflicted decredibilisation sounds like a nasty thing to do to yourself.

[View from the Dolman]

3 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

No. If you read through my comments carefully you will see that they have been of a general nature about, what are in my opinion, BCFC's baffling use of the Trial over the decades . I've not set out to bash Johnson as you suggest. 

We'll soon find out if our defence is up to it this season.

PS. self-inflicted decredibilisation sounds like a nasty thing to do to yourself.

Which clubs use trials in a non-baffling way?

[southvillekiddy]

1 minute ago, View from the Dolman said:

Which clubs use trials in a non-baffling way?

Top 4 Premiership?

[View from the Dolman]

1 minute ago, southvillekiddy said:

Top 4 Premiership?

Examples of their fine use of trials?

[Phileas Fogg]

Just now, southvillekiddy said:

Top 4 Premiership?

They don't really do trials though. At that level there's a much smaller pool of players to choose from that will improve your side. It's rare that a top 4 standard player will require a trial as they'll have loads of offers.

Clubs like us, the pool is much bigger. There's less video and statistical information on these players and thus it's harder to gauge how they'll cope at the level. They may not have many offers either, so we have the luxury of taking them on to see how they cope. 

We take players on trial throughout the season too, we just don't always hear that we've done it.

[Nibor]

14 hours ago, Harry said:

As for the Bailey Wright vs Magnusson comments, I appear to be in a minority but from what I saw last season, Wright used the ball far more effectively and far more accurately than Magnusson did.
I also feel that the signing of Wright played a big part in securing our place in this division.

Tend to agree and I'd be interested to see how Wright does on the other side of Flint.  He's always seemed to me to be about twice as successful with his right as with his left.

[JoeAman08]

Surely the biggest news from all this is that LJ told us Hegeler is a CB. Could we see a Flint and Hegeler pairing this year? 

[Mendip City]

4 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Surely the biggest news from all this is that LJ told us Hegeler is a CB. Could we see a Flint and Hegeler pairing this year? 

He looked good in a back three.... but LJ wants to play a back 4 is my understanding 

[JoeAman08]

Just now, Mendip City said:

He looked good in a back three.... but LJ wants to play a back 4 is my understanding 

Yes that's why I thought it was interesting when LJ said we had four CBs with Wright, Hegeler, Mags and Flint while naming Kelly, Vyner and Moore as young players at that position. Part of me thinks it's a shame Taylor Moore isn't considered as the fourth and Hegeler as a midfielder. 

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, southvillekiddy said:

No. If you read through my comments carefully you will see that they have been of a general nature about, what are in my opinion, BCFC's baffling use of the Trial over the decades .We're supposed to be setting up the Club for Premiership football. I've not set out to bash Johnson as you suggest. 

We'll soon find out if our defence is up to it this season.

PS. self-inflicted decredibilisation sounds like a nasty thing to do to yourself.

You couldn't ' self inflict ' to somebody else. 

Sorry I like you as a poster but your post did come over as a bit of LJ. bashing however you dress it up .

[Mendip City]

32 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Yes that's why I thought it was interesting when LJ said we had four CBs with Wright, Hegeler, Mags and Flint while naming Kelly, Vyner and Moore as young players at that position. Part of me thinks it's a shame Taylor Moore isn't considered as the fourth and Hegeler as a midfielder. 

Yes I agree... the other thing reading the list of centre backs is that if Flint got injured (or sold) I don't see any of them as particularly commanding. They all seem to me better suited to playing alongside a bigger "stopper". 

[Buckeyed]

57 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Yes that's why I thought it was interesting when LJ said we had four CBs with Wright, Hegeler, Mags and Flint while naming Kelly, Vyner and Moore as young players at that position. Part of me thinks it's a shame Taylor Moore isn't considered as the fourth and Hegeler as a midfielder. 

He may well see Moore as a right back - I remember him playing there last season and I think he did too whilst out on loan.

[Jerseybean]

While appreciating the genuine benefits of offering a player a trial (benefits that is both for the club and player) the stated reasoning (our strength in numbers in his position) for not taking this any further, in this particular case, does seem somewhat odd.

I am not knocking LJ, or anybody else, everyone knows who we already have within the club so offering a trial to a player who plays where we already have five, six or seven established players (reflecting the points made above about existing players strongest positions) does seem to me to be strange.