|
|
Post by stuartB on Sept 6, 2012 21:09:02 GMT
Surely not even Ling's naive enough to think that a raw 18 year old with virtually no professional experience would be a better player to have than a 170-match veteran, or someone that was good enough to be signed and play for a team that has more talent and depth than us. Let's examine the facts. An experienced and successful professional manager has a player down on trial, carefully observes him in training and in a match and decides that he is not what he wants. A university student, who has played a bit of Championship Manager, decides that the said player must be exactly what is wanted because he has read that the player has 170 appearances under his belt. And you are telling me that one of those views is naive?   Brucie likes to see conspiracy where there is none. Something to do with too much time on his hands ;D Where has all the money gone?? conspiracy or bollocks? |
|
Jon
Admin 
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Sept 6, 2012 21:17:51 GMT
Brucie likes to see conspiracy where there is none. Something to do with too much time on his hands ;D I blame the parents! |
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,227 
|
Post by rjdgull on Sept 6, 2012 21:33:20 GMT
I haven't seen MacKenzie play yet but considering that he kept Pope out for 90 minutes on Saturday and Anthony didn't exactly impress on Tuesday, I can well believe that the former is better or at least as good as the latter.
Wasn't Ellis 18 when he came here on loan to us?
Eunan's wages must still be knocking around in the budget waiting for Ling to spend something on?
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartB on Sept 6, 2012 21:33:54 GMT
Brucie likes to see conspiracy where there is none. Something to do with too much time on his hands ;D I blame the parents! lol but should be parent!! the mother is fine |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Sept 6, 2012 21:53:14 GMT
Surely not even Ling's naive enough to think that a raw 18 year old with virtually no professional experience would be a better player to have than a 170-match veteran, or someone that was good enough to be signed and play for a team that has more talent and depth than us. Let's examine the facts. An experienced and successful professional manager has a player down on trial, carefully observes him in training and in a match and decides that he is not what he wants. A university student, who has played a bit of Championship Manager, decides that the said player must be exactly what is wanted because he has read that the player has 170 appearances under his belt. And you are telling me that one of those views is naive? Given that by all accounts both players at least played relatively well in the match, and we are short of defensive cover, what are the only reasons other than money not to sign them? Byron Anthony was good enough to make 160-odd appearances for Rovers, including plenty in League One. He clearly has the ability and the experience to at least be an able back-up in the squad. And yet we've "sent him away". The only reason that could be is if we can't afford his wage demands, and I can't imagine they'd be that high considering he'll be pretty desperate to find a club by this stage I don't care if MacKenzie had 1 good game. I'm sure Habib Sissoko had 1 good game too. The fact is an 18 year old isn't going to be good enough back-up if Ling is serious about challenging for automatic promotion, because they are not experienced enough and will make errors, even if he's the new Baresi. For one, there's Downes' injury history which makes it likely he is going to be injured at some point this season. There is also the need to rotate the team at some point (unless Ling hasn't learned from last year). We need options - not just one inexperienced teenager I'm sure Ling knows all of this so the only conclusion I can draw is that we can't afford either him or Evans, a player that was good enough for Oxford at the start of the season. And I know we're not the biggest club in the world but a club at this level needs more than 3 centre-backs, especially one that is supposedly aiming to go up. The last time we went up, we had at least 4 centre-backs at any one time - Woods, Taylor, Hazell and Woozley plus Williamson on loan, and that was 8 years ago under Bateson with one of the tightest budgets we've had over the last decade If we've got a tight budget, I've no problem with that, but they should actually come out and admit that when they send good players away instead of insinuating they aren't good enough when all the people who went to the game said the exact opposite It would also explain why the players he has shown the most interest in include Baker and Luxton, both part-timers who probably aren't going to be asking for much - if Anthony "isn't what we're looking for", in what other terms apart from financial would a pub team winger or a midfielder from Bodmin be "what we're looking for"? |
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,227
|
Post by rjdgull on Sept 6, 2012 22:12:26 GMT
what are the only reasons other than money not to sign them? They have got to be good enough, i.e better than MacKenzie. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Sept 6, 2012 22:17:51 GMT
Given that by all accounts both players at least played relatively well in the match, and we are short of defensive cover, what are the only reasons other than money not to sign them? Even if I accept that "all accounts" reckon that Anthony played "relatively well" in a reserve team friendly, is that enough to clinch a contract? I hope not. What reasons are there not to sign him? The same reasons that we don't sign 99% of the players offered / recommended to us. admit that when they send good players away instead of insinuating they aren't good enough when all the people who went to the game said the exact opposite What a load of rubbish. Ling and Taylor were not sufficiently impressed so clearly "all the people who went to the game" did NOT think that Anthony's performance merited a contract - most importantly the best two qualified people to judge did not think so. So does the policy of not using youth players and not picking up development players from non-league but only signing Bristol Rovers rejects who must be good enough because they once played for Bristol Rovers work well on Championship Manager? |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Sept 6, 2012 22:20:00 GMT
what are the only reasons other than money not to sign them? They have got to be good enough, i.e better than MacKenzie. Championship Manager says he IS better, so that blows that theory out of the water! And he is older and he has played for Bristol Rovers!!! |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Sept 6, 2012 22:22:03 GMT
I find it very hard to believe that a player of Anthony's experience isn't better than an 18 year old who has played 1 match. Even if Anthony's game needs adapting to our style of football, that's not going to be anywhere near the amount of development that MacKenzie still requires to become a good centre-back for this level - consistency is the most important thing, and an experienced but still young head who has cut it at this level and above is going to be far more able to produce that than a first year youth team graduate. You don't need to have seen players in training to work that one out
I think it's bluster. Either Ling's not really in for a centre-back or Anthony asked for too much for the role Ling had in mind for him. And I'm sorry but if he's expecting to uncover a brilliant free agent ball-playing centre-back in September who's willing to play for sod all, he's being too fussy - either pay up or sign someone who's good but doesn't quite fit. Or stop talking about promotion
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Sept 6, 2012 22:34:22 GMT
Either Ling's not really in for a centre-back or Anthony asked for too much for the role Ling had in mind for him...... OR Ling thought he didn't fit the bill. Is it that hard to grasp? You cannot rush out and buy a player just because he has played a few games for Bristol Rovers. Buying players in desperation and panic is a recipe for disaster. Bring in the player that really fits the bill. You can't judge that sat behind a computer. |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Sept 6, 2012 22:58:17 GMT
Having not enough players is a recipe for disaster too, though
If Downes suffered another knee injury on Saturday and was ruled out for the season - a perfectly realistic scenario - Ling would have to bring someone in, because we'd have only 2 centre-backs, and yet he has already said that he doesn't want to loan someone in just to chuck straight in the first team, because that would be a bad idea. And yet, as it stands, he'd have no choice if this scenario was to happen. So why not sign someone now just in case, so that at least he can bed someone in?
I cannot understand how Ling thought he wouldn't fit in based on one game where he reportedly played OK. He's not tall, but that clearly hasn't hindered him in his career so far (scored against us with his head), and in any case, given the style of football we play, we'd not be looking for someone especially physical anyway. He can comfortably play right-back and left-back as well which suggests he has a certain amount of technical ability too
The guy clearly has ability, and good players usually find a way of fitting in. I find it unlikely that someone so experienced and highly-regarded at Rovers would struggle to fit in - it's not like he's a Branston, a player who has limited technical ability and a hit-and-miss record at various clubs. He's proven at this level
Ling can't just wait for the right player to drop out of the sky, because it's highly unlikely to happen at this stage, and I'm sure he realises that
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Sept 6, 2012 23:19:52 GMT
If Downes suffered another knee injury on Saturday and was ruled out for the season - a perfectly realistic scenario - Ling would have to bring someone in Of course he would have to - and of course he would. Can you not see that that would be an entirely different scenario to the current one? We would have a vacancy for a player likely to start every match rather than one unlikely to dislodge Downes or Saah. That scenario would attract the interest of a totally different calibre of player. We have established that you believe that Anthony is the perfect fit for TUFC and that Martin Ling and Shaun Taylor believe that he isn't. Let's just leave it at that! |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Sept 6, 2012 23:25:38 GMT
If Downes suffered another knee injury on Saturday and was ruled out for the season - a perfectly realistic scenario - Ling would have to bring someone in Of course he would have to - and of course he would. Can you not see that that would be an entirely different scenario to the current one? We would have a vacancy for a player likely to start every match rather than one unlikely to dislodge Downes or Saah. That scenario would attract the interest of a totally different calibre of player. If it was to happen this weekend, it wouldn't make that much of a difference because we're between transfer windows, so the choice would still be between loanees (which Ling has already said he doesn't want) and free agents And ultimately we have to bear squad rotation in mind. We have to have more than 3 centre-backs to be able to do that safely and effectively. Ideally you'd need 2 players for every position, and that means 4 centre-backs. If any manager went into a season (2012-13, to be specific) and said "I'm going to play the same 2 centre-backs for every game possible with an 18 year old youth graduate as back-up if one is injured or suspended", he would be laughed out of the room |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Sept 6, 2012 23:31:29 GMT
loanees (which Ling has already said he doesn't want) Has he really said that he would not want to bring in a loanee to cover a long-term injury? Or did he say that he did not want to bring in a loanee to cover Downes' one match suspension. Two entirely different kettles of fish. |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Sept 7, 2012 0:06:59 GMT
loanees (which Ling has already said he doesn't want) Has he really said that he would not want to bring in a loanee to cover a long-term injury? Or did he say that he did not want to bring in a loanee to cover Downes' one match suspension. Two entirely different kettles of fish. He said he didn't want to bring a loanee to throw straight into the first team. I don't think he was specifically talking about just covering Downes' suspension. He seems to be contradicting himself in places, though - at one point he said he'd definitely do it if numbers got low, and then he said he'd give his own players a chance ahead of the loan market, and that he'd do it if he could get someone in on a 6 month loan but they're not offering, and so on. It's an inconsistent line. The general point is that he's very reluctant to loan someone in I don't think leaving it until an injury is the right way to go about it, though. A reactionary approach seems at odds with Ling's mantra of having a settled squad - surely the best way would be to get a player in well in advance of any problems so that he's settled. He has already said he doesn't want to throw a player straight in the first team and yet at the same time has said he won't loan someone in until he is desperate, thereby throwing him straight in the first team - that's a contradiction, if you ask me One of the questions must surely be why this wasn't sorted in the summer - his quick conclusion that Cruise could play centre-back was an unusual mistake (he had already said he wanted 4 players who could play at centre-back, one of whom as left-back cover too, and implied Cruise would be ahead of MacKenzie in the pecking order), and yet he is seemingly just as quick to dismiss Anthony, even quicker than he released Ifil who's not supposed to be as good Is he rushing things? I don't know, but it seems like an odd way to go about it if it's all purely on ability, which leads me to believe money must be playing a part here. On the one hand, we don't seem to be desperate, but on the other, they're making decisions fairly rapidly and have already made at least one mistake from doing so However, it hadn't occurred to me that the loan market was actually shut until today (Friday), although from his general comments I think he'd still be reluctant to do it. But we shall see |
|
