Liam Pre Rotherham

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Don’t disagree overall but I think what’s generally being pitched is a bit of a “like for like” - two major “ins” just equalises the two major “outs”.

In which case no, I don't think two will be enough. 

We've suffered twice this season, once when shifting manager and style, and once where we had an injury crisis.

That second lull (which chronologically was first) can be protected against somewhat by having a broader squad. I think that's what we need to take us up from the band in 8-14th to that in 5th-10th.

[Silvio Dante]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Silv - I think the 9 and 10 come in regardless of whether Tommy leaves.  If Tommy leaves we may bring in another forward, but might be one more for the future (see my Max Dean thread).

So Twine goes back - we are one down.  The new no10 (might be Twine) comes in, numbers back up.

New no9 - an extra squad member

I think King goes - one down, but replaced by Bird, numbers back up

And I think we keep one of James or Williams, so one down, but with Knight moving deeper that accommodates the duo of Stokes and Murphy as squad options.

Of course if both go, then I think we will add a player, but I think that will take budget from elsewhere if it requires a fee, hence why I think we will try to retain one, likely Williams.

So, in LM’s eyes:

- the 9 improves us

- the 10 improves us (Twine or whoever)

- Bird improves us

Everything else is a reaction to who leaves if anyone.  I know it’s not as black and white as I paint it, but if those 3 players improve this squad / 2 players if you count Twine as already here, then I do think that can be enough of a difference-maker.  The margins ARE fine.

I don’t think LM thinks he’s getting 5-6 players on top of the scenario I set out above, nor is he getting oodles spent, but he he does exoect his squad for next season to have 2 to 3 (see above) players that improve the base he has now.

Hope that makes sense.

Where this changes is with the possibility that certain players leave, e.g. Conway, Naismith, Pring, etc, who might all have suitors for different reasons.

 

 

I don’t think we’re miles off in our reading - I think in practical terms Bird is a James as opposed to King replacement (as the latter isn’t really playing). I’d see Bird as a like for like there on which basis. So not necessarily a squad improvement from where we are now - get what you’re saying about Knight but he’s already here.

Twine/ the other 10 improves us “permanently” (debate whether that should be Twine elsewhere)

So for me from what is in the building today the key question is the Tommy one. If we bring in a 9 in addition to him it’s a definite squad enhancement. If we get a 9 and a “one for the future” it isn’t.

I’d find it hard to argue it’s three players up (plus Stokes etc) from what’s here. At most it looks like one. The key, as ever, will be what quality that new 10 and 9 are.

[ExiledAjax]

@Silvio Dante and @Davefevs I think we'd also need to allow for failed transfers. Although we've maybe been a little better over the last few windows, generally I'd guess that at least 1 in 3 transfers are "failures" or don't succeed to the extent hoped. For every Dickie and Sykes there's a Mehmeti* or Mebude.

Therefore really, to give us a hope that two work out, I'd say we'd need net 3 incoming.

Unless of course Tinman has absolutely nailed this window already and the shortlist is absolutely infallible.

*he might have had a couple of good games recently, but this summer we need immediate success, not a season and a half of getting used to the idea of actually passing the ball every now and then.

[johnbytheriver]

13 hours ago, Unan said:

No need. Most of us could get through a Pearson presser without falling asleep.

In terms of zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...........................

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, ExiledAjax said:

@Silvio Dante and @Davefevs I think we'd also need to allow for failed transfers. Although we've maybe been a little better over the last few windows, generally I'd guess that at least 1 in 3 transfers are "failures" or don't succeed to the extent hoped. For every Dickie and Sykes there's a Mehmeti* or Mebude.

Therefore really, to give us a hope that two work out, I'd say we'd need net 3 incoming.

Unless of course Tinman has absolutely nailed this window already and the shortlist is absolutely infallible.

*he might have had a couple of good games recently, but this summer we need immediate success, not a season and a half of getting used to the idea of actually passing the ball every now and then.

You know I’m going to agree with you about Mehmeti!!

Very good point, and to slightly link to another thread, although I think recruitment has been much improved in recent years the January “in the building” business for that month (Twine. Medube, Murphy) was poor for various reasons.

A part of me wonders how much of that was due to having to recruit a different “profile” of player from under Pearson - we can talk all we like about club identity but Liam inherently wants - ideally - different players from Nige.

I wonder how much teething problems in recruitment arose from that, and it’s hopeful to assume that’s resolved in the summer - the chance of a “miss” increases with change in manager as it’s setting different exams for the recruitment team.

[Bazooka Joe]

17 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

- Medube - looked decent in training and might get an opportunity (I think that’s the second lie)

You're being far too kind,

This could easily be two porky pies wrapped into one statement.

We will soon find out on Saturday whether it's one, two or (and I wouldn't stake money on this) none.

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

You know I’m going to agree with you about Mehmeti!!

Very good point, and to slightly link to another thread, although I think recruitment has been much improved in recent years the January “in the building” business for that month (Twine. Medube, Murphy) was poor for various reasons.

A part of me wonders how much of that was due to having to recruit a different “profile” of player from under Pearson - we can talk all we like about club identity but Liam inherently wants - ideally - different players from Nige.

I wonder how much teething problems in recruitment arose from that, and it’s hopeful to assume that’s resolved in the summer - the chance of a “miss” increases with change in manager as it’s setting different exams for the recruitment team.

It's a pretty profligate strategy from me though. 

I go back to Afobe for an example. We signed a very good player, an ambitious signing, hell maybe even the fabled "marquee" signing. He started brilliantly scoring and even seemingly rejuvenating another expensive yet failing signing (Palmer)...then injured.

Now, I'd not suggest we should have signed a "spare" Afobe, but that's the kind of transfer disaster we at least need to think about trying to mitigate.

Ps. I mentioned Mehmeti especially for you.

Edited April 25 by ExiledAjax

[Bazooka Joe]

Surprised Manning didn't mention how he intends to counteract Rotherham's own unique brand of tiki-taka.

I think they call it Toomi-Tooyou.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Silvio Dante said:

You know I’m going to agree with you about Mehmeti!!

Very good point, and to slightly link to another thread, although I think recruitment has been much improved in recent years the January “in the building” business for that month (Twine. Medube, Murphy) was poor for various reasons.

A part of me wonders how much of that was due to having to recruit a different “profile” of player from under Pearson - we can talk all we like about club identity but Liam inherently wants - ideally - different players from Nige.

I wonder how much teething problems in recruitment arose from that, and it’s hopeful to assume that’s resolved in the summer - the chance of a “miss” increases with change in manager as it’s setting different exams for the recruitment team.

Firstly, agree with your earlier post, as I said not black and white, more a generic thought process on ins and outs.  If Tommy goes, and we bring in Dean, then that also gives scope to improve elsewhere, so not necessarily just one out / one in.  There’s too many moving parts really to be categoric.

Re @ExiledAjax, we can’t afford for our no9 or no10 to fail.  They are the key signings.  If we get them wrong, then I think opportunity to kick on becomes so much harder.

Back to you Silv.  I’m just gonna ignore Mebude’s loan, opportunistic and poorly sold.  So we signed 4:

- Bird

- Stokes

- Murphy

- Twine

plus TGH made perm.  4 out of those 5 were on the radar before LM signed.  So I think we have to wait to see who the no9 is before deciding whether the profiling has changed under LM or not.  I also think that Stokes and Murphy have more of BT’s influence than LM’s due to their age.  So we are really left with Bird, TGH and Twine as players to go through what I’d call the “first team recruitment process”.  Add to that the number 9, and any others we sign as others depart.  LM does make a strong play about physicality, runners, etc, so interested to see who comes in.  Good to hear Knight describe Bird yesterday too.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

we can’t afford for our no9 or no10 to fail

Well. Shit.

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Good to hear Knight describe Bird yesterday too.

I am pretty keen to see these two reunited in our midfield. 

[Silvio Dante]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Firstly, agree with your earlier post, as I said not black and white, more a generic thought process on ins and outs.  If Tommy goes, and we bring in Dean, then that also gives scope to improve elsewhere, so not necessarily just one out / one in.  There’s too many moving parts really to be categoric.

Re @ExiledAjax, we can’t afford for our no9 or no10 to fail.  They are the key signings.  If we get them wrong, then I think opportunity to kick on becomes so much harder.

Back to you Silv.  I’m just gonna ignore Mebude’s loan, opportunistic and poorly sold.  So we signed 4:

- Bird

- Stokes

- Murphy

- Twine

plus TGH made perm.  4 out of those 5 were on the radar before LM signed.  So I think we have to wait to see who the no9 is before deciding whether the profiling has changed under LM or not.  I also think that Stokes and Murphy have more of BT’s influence than LM’s due to their age.  So we are really left with Bird, TGH and Twine as players to go through what I’d call the “first team recruitment process”.  Add to that the number 9, and any others we sign as others depart.  LM does make a strong play about physicality, runners, etc, so interested to see who comes in.  Good to hear Knight describe Bird yesterday too.

You can’t ignore Mebudes loan, there’s a 9 page thread on it

With the recruitment I’m kind of spitballing to a degree. I do think there is potential things could be more “difficult” in (any) change of manager for a recruitment team as they’re ripping up plan A - or at best tweaking it - and mastery takes time. But OTOH, it is literally their job. I do take the point of players on radar pre Liam though - ironically the two I think he would have had significant input in are ST and DM and I don’t think they can be classed as “hits”.

Bottom line for me is that if we come out of summer with Williams re-signed, Twine signed permanently & James gone in addition to the other known deals, then I don’t think we’ll have enough if it’s Tommy out and #9 + younger player in. Ideally I’d like to see us do better than Twine in that #10 and get a 9 to augment Tommy as opposed to replace.

[mozo]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

The broader question is that if it’s two signings whether that gives us enough to make a dent in the top six. If we assume we retain Williams but not James/King, and also assume we lose Conway, then we’re pretty much at a zero sum game (Bird for James, new 10 for Twine or Twine, new 9 for Conway).

Yes, we then have SPH and Stokes as young players to augment the squad but there aren’t any others obviously coming through.

As Bird for James can be argued as like for like, Twine for Twine is obviously like for like and the new 9 for Conway is going to be like for like broadly, then the question really is - are the current squad (as it’s not going to be markedly improved) good enough to give us what we want, and sub question, how does that play to the “his players” narrative

(For avoidance of doubt if Liam gets success without “his players” but adjusting to the squad he has then it takes away a major concern).

I think these are good points and we'll have loads of threads over the summer about this.

I think the overall quality of the squad will only see marginal gains or losses if we only change two players.

We will also have the marginal gain, in theory, of our young squad being one year more experienced and mature than this time last year.

We will be hoping and praying for the marginal gain of better luck with injuries.

So if we are marginally strengthened in each of those areas, we could conceivably be 10 points better off.

But the two big caveats are that number one, football isn't an exact science and the wind blows which way it wants.

And secondly, it's too early to say because of all the uncertainty around Conway, Williams, James and who the forward will be.

An extra 10 points would keep us in the mix for 6th and I think fans would largely be happy.

But hey, this is Bristol City, and we know how to balls things up!

Edited April 25 by mozo

[George Rs]

 

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Bottom line for me is that if we come out of summer with Williams re-signed, Twine signed permanently & James gone in addition to the other known deals, then I don’t think we’ll have enough if it’s Tommy out and #9 + younger player in. Ideally I’d like to see us do better than Twine in that #10 and get a 9 to augment Tommy as opposed to replace.

Is a very interesting situation , I agree and most, including the club, probably do as well that a #10 and #9 are most important for the summer. 

Sadly wanting someone to augment tommy is just out of the clubs hands now, down to TC. And tbh I would be very disappointed if we bring in two if TC leaves, would harshly limit SPHs opportunity to prove himself at this level which I feel he’s deserved after this campaign. 

 

Another interesting situation with Twine as well, certainly hasn’t set the place on fire like some thought he would, but has he been given much of an opportunity to do so? As it is, we’ve yet to lose a game he’s started, and whilst his in game play can be a bit physically weak at times, I’d be tempted to sign him based off his set piece ability alone. Not worth £4m but if we could get him for £2-2.5m? I’d go for it personally. 

Edited April 25 by George Rs

[KegCity]

13 minutes ago, George Rs said:

 

Is a very interesting situation , I agree and most, including the club, probably do as well that a #10 and #9 are most important for the summer. 

Sadly wanting someone to augment tommy is just out of the clubs hands now, down to TC. And tbh I would be very disappointed if we bring in two if TC leaves, would harshly limit SPHs opportunity to prove himself at this level which I feel he’s deserved after this campaign. 

 

Another interesting situation with Twine as well, certainly hasn’t set the place on fire like some thought he would, but has he been given much of an opportunity to do so? As it is, we’ve yet to lose a game he’s started, and whilst his in game play can be a bit physically weak at times, I’d be tempted to sign him based off his set piece ability alone. Not worth £4m but if we could get him for £2-2.5m? I’d go for it personally. 

As would I. Not seen any names that offer better value at that price point but am happy to be shown otherwise.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

17 hours ago, eardun said:

I particularly liked the bit where he said that we can talk about being ambitious (which is why he joined us) but we have to show that in terms of our actions re the squad in the summer. Over to you SL. 

So agree. Ambition cost money in the modern game. What really worries me is between LM  and SL is BT & crayon boy. 

Sh1t sandwich comes to mind

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

 

Bottom line for me is that if we come out of summer with Williams re-signed, Twine signed permanently & James gone in addition to the other known deals, then I don’t think we’ll have enough if it’s Tommy out and #9 + younger player in. Ideally I’d like to see us do better than Twine in that #10 and get a 9 to augment Tommy as opposed to replace.

Think it is highly likely that’s exactly what will happen.

Williams stays, James goes, Bird replaces him. Twine signs & we add a number 9 from Europe.

If Conway goes then we add a second striker, though I’d think that player would be another viable starter, not “one for the future”.

Beyond this if Bajic gets fed up with being on the bench every week & returns to France then a back up keeper joins.

Cornick & Naismith would be 2 wild cards to depart, in either case if they did then because we must run on the second lowest squad numbers in the division we would have to replace them.

[LondonBristolian]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

In which case no, I don't think two will be enough. 

We've suffered twice this season, once when shifting manager and style, and once where we had an injury crisis.

That second lull (which chronologically was first) can be protected against somewhat by having a broader squad. I think that's what we need to take us up from the band in 8-14th to that in 5th-10th.

I think the problem is that, however many players you sign, there's always a risk of an injury crisis. Admittedly we are quite prone to them though!

For me, a lot depends on some other questions

1) Are Murphy and Stokes part of the squad next season?

2) Is Knight-Lebel seen as a long-term squad option rather than a short-term bench filler?

3) Is Backwell, Seb Palmer-Houlden, Yeboah or anyone else going to be becoming part of the squad?

4) Can we get Naismith, Atkinson and Benarous fit and playing regularly?

5) Will Conway stay?

 

In theory two new additions could take us to around 27 players and that could be enough. Certainly many more than 28 and the squad starts to be over-filled with players who aren't playing if there isn't an injury crisis and that can be a bad thing. 

I think two players is enough if there are no departures beyond James and King, we're confident on Atkinson and Naismith's fitness and four of JKL, Murphy, Stokes, SPH, Benarous, Backwell and Yeboah (or others) are ready to be squad players. But if we're not able to get the numbers up through those players who are missing or not ready, two won't be enough. 

Edited April 25 by LondonBristolian

[Red Skin]

18 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

It’s a dance. We know he’s fibbing. He knows we know he’s fibbing

This is nearer the mark that calling it lies.

You just can't be totally transparent about everything.  Sometime information can only be shared when it's right to. 

I'm with LM on the emotional control stuff.   Others on here took that to mean emotionless, and I couldn't be arsed to counter, but this is what I took LM to mean. 

It irks me when players get so irate with a perceived error by the ref to, say, 'incorrectly' give a free kick to the opposition, that they lose all control and prefer to continue arguing with referee rather than retreating and getting on with their job marking their man etc.  The opposing team then have a chance or worse score as a result.

Or when a defender gets beaten by a winger their ego is so crushed they feel they have to make a suicidal tackle in the penalty area to try and regain their pride, and give away a needless penalty.

Both cases where unchecked emotions get in the way of doing their job and the whole team - and we as fans - suffer as a consequence.

A City classic was Orr's headbutt.  Obviously Bradley was troubled by his impending court case at the time, so his overreaction was understandable to some degree. (Love the lad for coming on camera and fronting up that he was out of order.  Massive respect for that).

[ExiledAjax]

18 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think the problem is that, however many players you sign, there's always a risk of an injury crisis. Admittedly we are quite prone to them though!

For me, a lot depends on some other questions

1) Are Murphy and Stokes part of the squad next season?

2) Is Knight-Lebel seen as a long-term squad option rather than a short-term bench filler?

3) Is Backwell, Seb Palmer-Houlden, Yeboah or anyone else going to be becoming part of the squad?

4) Can we get Naismith, Atkinson and Benarous fit and playing regularly?

5) Will Conway stay?

 

In theory two new additions could take us to around 27 players and that could be enough. Certainly many more than 28 and the squad starts to be over-filled with players who aren't playing if there isn't an injury crisis and that can be a bad thing. 

I think two players is enough if there are no departures beyond James and King, we're confident on Atkinson and Naismith's fitness and four of JKL, Murphy, Stokes, SPH, Benarous, Backwell and Yeboah (or others) are ready to be squad players. But if we're not able to get the numbers up through those players who are missing or not ready, two won't be enough. 

I think what I am trying to say is that I think we need to concentrate on raising the average ability of the squad, or perhaps better to say shrink the gap between our best players and our worst (importantly by raising the floor rather than dropping the ceiling).

Essentially trying to have it so that if we do get injured the players that come in are of a similar ability to those that are injured.

Hopefully that reduces the drop off in performance as much as possible, so ideally giving a smoother season.

Very theoretical, and obviously hard to actually deliver, but it's where I'd focus on depth and quality rather than raw number of bodies.

Edited April 25 by ExiledAjax

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

7 minutes ago, Red Skin said:

A City classic was Orr's headbutt.  Obviously Bradley was troubled by his impending court case at the time, so his overreaction was understandable to some degree. (Love the lad for coming on camera and fronting up that he was out of order.  Massive respect for that).

To be fair, Gary Johnson made him do it (not the headbutt, the interview).

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

If Conway goes then we add a second striker, though I’d think that player would be another viable starter, not “one for the future”.

Just to be clear, when I used that term earlier, I didn’t mean one not to challenge straightaway, but one who’d be a bit more willing to not start every game.  As per my other thread, I think someone like Max Dean could come in play off the bat, but he’s probably not gonna start 30-40, that will be the premise of the main no9 signing.  So yes a viable starter (nice term), but younger…and cheaper.

Will be interesting to see where Bell fits in when he is back from injury, especially if we persist with 3421.

[Jeez]

5 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

The irony there is that I’d envisage we’d have to pay a minimum of £3m for Twine and at least £15k a week, and whoever is buying Conway would expect to pay a minimum of £3m and £15k a week.

So, on those sums, it’s back to the squad being as it is broadly.

(Don’t disagree with the general thrust of argument but two quality signings that markedly improve us will be a bit more than that IMO)

No point selling Conway anywhere near for 3m - surely we’d get closer to 1m in compensation at the end of his contract? 

if he’s kept here next year, it’s in his own interest to pull out all stops & not sulk as his appeal as a free agent will increase or decline in line with his form.

Only sell if it’s an offer that can’t be refused as it will cost more than 3m to replace like for like.

[Davefevs]

Just now, Jeez said:

No point selling Conway anywhere near for 3m - surely we’d get closer to 1m in compensation at the end of his contract? 

if he’s kept here next year, it’s in his own interest to pull out all stops & not sulk as his appeal as a free agent will increase or decline in line with his form.

Only sell if it’s an offer that can’t be refused as it will cost more than 3m to replace like for like.

Kinda with you there Jeez

[mozo]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Kinda with you there Jeez

If you had to guess do you think he'll leave on free next year?

[Red Skin]

2 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

To be fair, Gary Johnson made him do it (not the headbutt, the interview).

Didn't know that, but he was very genuine in what he said.  

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, mozo said:

If you had to guess do you think he'll leave on free next year?

No, because I think he’ll go this summer

[Robbored]

20 minutes ago, Jeez said:

No point selling Conway anywhere near for 3m - surely we’d get closer to 1m in compensation at the end of his contract? 

if he’s kept here next year, it’s in his own interest to pull out all stops & not sulk as his appeal as a free agent will increase or decline in line with his form.

Only sell if it’s an offer that can’t be refused as it will cost more than 3m to replace like for like.

I’m probably a lone voice when it comes to Conway - I wouldn’t remotely bothered if he moved on. He misses too many one on ones, isn’t a poacher as Tony ‘tap in’ Thorpe was and doesn’t have strength or power to hassle and bully defenders as Semenyo did. He’s too lightweight and wouldn’t get into any of the top Championship clubs.

He’s overrated on here by many posters.

If an offer came in for £1m - bite their hand off!

[mozo]

23 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, because I think he’ll go this summer

Really?! I actually would guess next year. I'm hoping you don't have any intel there!!

[Davefevs]

24 minutes ago, mozo said:

Really?! I actually would guess next year. I'm hoping you don't have any intel there!!

No, he hasn’t signed a contract, that’s all I know.

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, mozo said:

If you had to guess do you think he'll leave on free next year?

Wouldn’t we still be able to get compensation in a year because of his age?