Ange in or out?

[thfcsteff]

He signs off on the players we do buy - so it's safe to assume he wanted the players that we have signed. More safe than it is to assume the players we were linked to that we didn't buy were also definitely wanted by him.

I have seen this sentiment expressed many times, specifically with Poch.
But it requires context. what scope of signing is he being offered? A fairly strict one I'd suggest i.e. well I'd like (say) Neto, no can do but we'll get you Odobert, you can have him if you like, here's the data...after looking, Ange agrees because hey, the data is decent and he'd rather have a packaged sandwich from the Knutsford services than nothing at all, given how his requested goiurmnet sandwich from the local fine delicatessen is deemed 'beyond budget'.

Poch put up with it for Stamboulis, Njie, Janssen, and Nkoudou, but finally -finally- he stood his ground and said no. Either get me that gourmnet sandwich or I'll starve.

I agree, no player has come through the door that he didn't want, but everyone needs to eat, whether it's great food or simply sustenance that occasionally delivers due to a special sauce of some kind.

(no apologies for the metaphors LOL - in fact, I'm going to make a sarnie using prime ingredients!!!!!)

 

[SteveAWOL]

August:
Leicester (A) - D 1-1
Everton (H) - W 4-0

September:
Saudi Sportswashing Machine (A) - L 1-2
Arsenal (H) - L 0-1
Brentford (H) - W 3-1
Man Utd (A) - W 3-0

October:
Brighton (A) - L 2-3
West Ham (H) - W 4-1
Palace (A) - L 0-1

November:
Villa (H) - W 4-1
Ipswich (H) - L 1-2
Emirates Marketing Project (A) - W 4-0

So don't know where you are getting 10 wins before November from. Unless you're counting atuff like stealing a win from Coventry in the cup and beating "Farmers-r-us" in Europa. It has been basically a 50/50 win and loss ratio from the start with our record up to your cut off bring:
P 9 W 4 D 1 L 4.

That's with a fresh and pretty much fully fit squad. Over the season that puts us on about 50 odd points....and probably about 10th. So like I said I think the injuries have turned an extremely poor season into a disastrous one, but he'd still have led us to one of our worst campaigns in years unless things picked up dramatically.

50 points and a top half finish would be an improvement upon our form over the past 38 PL games… Hopefully when the treatment room empties out we’ll finish this season as strongly as the first 3 months of Postecoglou’s tenure.

 

[billyiddo]

I have seen this sentiment expressed many times, specifically with Poch.
But it requires context. what scope of signing is he being offered? A fairly strict one I'd suggest i.e. well I'd like (say) Neto, no can do but we'll get you Odobert, you can have him if you like, here's the data...after looking, Ange agrees because hey, the data is decent and he'd rather have a packaged sandwich from the Knutsford services than nothing at all, given how his requested goiurmnet sandwich from the local fine delicatessen is deemed 'beyond budget'.

Poch put up with it for Stamboulis, Njie, Janssen, and Nkoudou, but finally -finally- he stood his ground and said no. Either get me that gourmnet sandwich or I'll starve.

I agree, no player has come through the door that he didn't want, but everyone needs to eat, whether it's great food or simply sustenance that occasionally delivers due to a special sauce of some kind.

(no apologies for the metaphors LOL - in fact, I'm going to make a sarnie using prime ingredients!!!!!)

My point regarding the players linked that were not signed was that we don't know that they were who Ange wanted any more than we know if the players signed are who he truly wanted, we don't even know if they were legitimate targets or not - the only only truth we have regarding transfers is what Ange has said publicly about the process (which is a fair bit) and the list of players signed. Everything else is rumour.

Ange has stated that he's heavily involved in the target selection process and that no one gets signed without his approval. He's also said & implied that he has a high bar for incoming players and their attitude towards joining the club - basically saying if the player isn't fully committed to joining or is weighing up multiple offers that he's not going to commit to them - which is very pertinent wrt Gallagher & Neto, both targets if *assumed* to be genuine were deals that rolled on a long time with other interested parties involved, so by his own words Ange is not the type of man to chase after either if they are in two minds over joining us over another club.

 

[braineclipse]

Nice to see we learnt from that process by making absolutely sure we did not sign any opf the extra defenders we all knew we needed and that he wanted.

That's a bit one sided for me Steff.

We signed Dragusin last January. I'm only guessing here, but I think it was known within the club that he wasn't a perfect fit for the style of play (particularly on the ball), but getting someone more ready made and being willing to pay up because we needed that.

We then signed Gray in the summer who spent half of his impressive season in the Championship playing as a full back. Was used as a full back (and CB) in preseason, used as a full back from early on in the EL.

We then also brought Spence back into the fold because Ange rated him.

You can argue we didn't do enough, I'm fine with that argument. Though I did expect the summer to finish with holes in the squad because money and the number of issues to fix. But we did sign defenders.

 

[braineclipse]

The sample size which counts for me is evaluating exactly how often we have supported a manager at thius fudging football club with what THEY want versus what WE will give them. This past summer is a fine example. Were Gray and Bergvall great signings? Absolutely. Did he also want Gallagher, Eze, Neto among others? Yes. Did we get him even one of them? No. Whether you agree with the players he wanted or not, the fact remains that once again, a manager wanted to supplement club signings with a couple of instant difference makers, and we did not give him ONE of them. He got Solanke on the final day, wonderful. How many managers do we do this to? FWIW I am NOT a fan of Neto, but we either hite managers to both execute a strategy and support them in their work, or we hire managers to do what 'the project' wants solely until such a time as we wring them out. It appears to me we are on the latter course yet again. Let's see...

Neto is injury prone and would because of that have been a massive gamble we shouldn't take.

A mix between here and now and longer term was necessary. That's what we've been doing since he came. Going more here and now in the first two windows, then more skewed towards longer term in the summer.

I'm guessing it wasn't like we had 50-60m left unspent in the summer. So Gallagher or Eze, who wouldn't you have signed to get one (or both?) of those in?

I'm assuming Gray would have to be be one that wasn't signed. How then would you have wanted us to get the extra cover at the back he has provided (and that we so clearly needed)?

Or is your argument a spend more on top of what we spent argument?

Personally I think those are difficult decisions and I'm glad they're not made based on what the manager needs short term. Doing that is what got us into the mess of a squad we had in the first place.

 

[thfcsteff]

My point regarding the players linked that were not signed was that we don't know that they were who Ange wanted any more than we know if the players signed are who he truly wanted, we don't even know if they were legitimate targets or not - the only only truth we have regarding transfers is what Ange has said publicly about the process (which is a fair bit) and the list of players signed. Everything else is rumour.

Ange has stated that he's heavily involved in the target selection process and that no one gets signed without his approval. He's also said & implied that he has a high bar for incoming players and their attitude towards joining the club - basically saying if the player isn't fully committed to joining or is weighing up multiple offers that he's not going to commit to them - which is very pertinent wrt Gallagher & Neto, both targets if *assumed* to be genuine were deals that rolled on a long time with other interested parties involved, so by his own words Ange is not the type of man to chase after either if they are in two minds over joining us over another club.

I will only say that I admit a deal with Chelsea in any form for our club would never be easy, and that Neto's wages were too high for us. Whether you trust me on that is up to you, all good.

 

[billyiddo]

I will only say that I admit a deal with Chelsea in any form for our club would never be easy, and that Neto's wages were too high for us. Whether you trust me on that is up to you, all good.

If rumours are to be believed a deal with Neto was all but agreed until Chelsea came in - wasn't the rumour that the club representatives were with him &/or his team the day before he signed for Chelsea and were reeling at the late change of heart? I'd expect if those rumours were true then wages wouldn't have been a problem and the club just weren't prepared to jump through hoops to entice him back with a higher offer - that ties in with Ange and his commitment quotes. Again, if rumours are to be believed - we can all pick and choose what ones we want to believe, that's why it's better to deal in the facts.

 

[thfcsteff]

Neto is injury prone and would because of that have been a massive gamble we shouldn't take.

A mix between here and now and longer term was necessary. That's what we've been doing since he came. Going more here and now in the first two windows, then more skewed towards longer term in the summer.

I'm guessing it wasn't like we had 50-60m left unspent in the summer. So Gallagher or Eze, who wouldn't you have signed to get one (or both?) of those in?

I'm assuming Gray would have to be be one that wasn't signed. How then would you have wanted us to get the extra cover at the back he has provided (and that we so clearly needed)?

Or is your argument a spend more on top of what we spent argument?

Personally I think those are difficult decisions and I'm glad they're not made based on what the manager needs short term. Doing that is what got us into the mess of a squad we had in the first place.

I don't know how many times in how many other posts about this I have said that I personally do not like Neto for those reasons, and did not rate him as worth the cash. Again, this is about what the manager wanted.

Your next question. I would unequivocvally have signed Eze at the start of the window when we had the chance before Olise left. I've said it many times.

I would've signed Gray, yes.
I would've spent the extra money on Eze, yes. I would not have taken up Werner's option. Odobert? Possibly. I'd have kept Soloman if I needed a gamble there.

I am at a loss as to understand how signing, say, Eze would've been what the manager needs 'shrt term'. He can play as an AM/Maddison role and off the left. He'd have absolutely improved our squad.

That last bit is something you'll have to explain to me. Which manager (including Poch) has got a bunch of players specifically for them? If you're going to say Ndombele and Lo Celso, we've had that discussion a few times over and suffice to say, I don't think it fits that particular parameter. For me, what got our squad into this mess was not rebuilding gradually and not moving players on at the right time if at all.

 

[thfcsteff]

If rumours are to be believed a deal with Neto was all but agreed until Chelsea came in - wasn't the rumour that the club representatives were with him &/or his team the day before he signed for Chelsea and were reeling at the late change of heart? I'd expect if those rumours were true then wages wouldn't have been a problem and the club just weren't prepared to jump through hoops to entice him back with a higher offer - that ties in with Ange and his commitment quotes. Again, if rumours are to be believed - we can all pick and choose what ones we want to believe, that's why it's better to deal in the facts.

Yes. Partially true. Wages were the issue. Yes, perhaps his committment could've been a factor, but I'll go out on a limb and say I don't think so in this situation. The only people who ever know 'the facts' on these deals are the actual people directly involved, that is true. I would say it is absolutely ideal to only deal in facts. In which case let's stop listening tom whomever some of us hear from sometimes, and let's not bother saying anything on forums. I am pretty quiet when it comes to dealing in non-facts, however there are occasionally times when some 'non-facts' feel OK to discuss from my perspective. Again, as you said, you pick and choose what you want to believe. It is clear tom me that you have no interest in any thing which might suggest our club is not doing everything physically, and fiscally, possible to support Ange. All good.

 

[thfcsteff]

That's a bit one sided for me Steff.

We signed Dragusin last January. I'm only guessing here, but I think it was known within the club that he wasn't a perfect fit for the style of play (particularly on the ball), but getting someone more ready made and being willing to pay up because we needed that.

We then signed Gray in the summer who spent half of his impressive season in the Championship playing as a full back. Was used as a full back (and CB) in preseason, used as a full back from early on in the EL.

We then also brought Spence back into the fold because Ange rated him.

You can argue we didn't do enough, I'm fine with that argument. Though I did expect the summer to finish with holes in the squad because money and the number of issues to fix. But we did sign defenders.

That's fine.
It isnt for me.
We got one back-up CB in. If Archie Gray was signed as a back up CB and FB as well as midfielder all at 18 after a great season in the Championship, then you'll excuse me for considering it a massive massive mistake on the club's part, not to mention wildly unfair on the player.
So yes, we signed a defender. One. Which was not enough for me, and I suspect others.

 

[thfcsteff]

@billyiddo @braineclipse ...chaps...the only real truth I suppose, is that it is now January 23rd and we don't have what we need in the squad. We can all have perspectives on how we've arrived at this morning, but I realize that none of it changes the fact that it 'is'. Personally, I find the juxtapose of 'support', 'trying our best but it isn't easy', and 'non-action' to be both exceedingly vague and highly suspicious. I sadly have liottle optimism for tonight's game, yet already know that most of the players on that pitch will have given their absolute best regardless, and deserve more. IMO.

 

[braineclipse]

I don't know how many times in how many other posts about this I have said that I personally do not like Neto for those reasons, and did not rate him as worth the cash. Again, this is about what the manager wanted.

Your next question. I would unequivocvally have signed Eze at the start of the window when we had the chance before Olise left. I've said it many times.

I would've signed Gray, yes.
I would've spent the extra money on Eze, yes. I would not have taken up Werner's option. Odobert? Possibly. I'd have kept Soloman if I needed a gamble there.

I am at a loss as to understand how signing, say, Eze would've been what the manager needs 'shrt term'. He can play as an AM/Maddison role and off the left. He'd have absolutely improved our squad.

That last bit is something you'll have to explain to me. Which manager (including Poch) has got a bunch of players specifically for them? If you're going to say Ndombele and Lo Celso, we've had that discussion a few times over and suffice to say, I don't think it fits that particular parameter. For me, what got our squad into this mess was not rebuilding gradually and not moving players on at the right time if at all.

So in part your argument is a "spend more money" argument it seems to me at least? Nothing wrong with that, I'm not sure it was possible, but how could I know.

Eze probably would have cost close to twice what Odobert cost (+higher wages). So if not signing Odobert spending another 30m ish? If also signing Odobert spend another 60m ish (+wages).

For me the question is could we afford what you're suggesting. If we couldn't it would have to be Eze at the cost of some of those we did sign. Like Gray (that's where the short/long term thing comes from). Not that Eze wouldn't be good now and for several years.

Eze would be a very good 60-65m player that we paid 60-65m for. Gray, Odobert and Bergvall can imo become 200m worth of players that we paid 80m for (excuse my shoddy maths, I think you get my point). That really helps long term. Adding to the benefit we're seeing for similar deals for Spence, Udogie, Sarr. Long term deals that in time become players worth more to us (as footballers, not resale value) than we paid for them.

Under Poch we stopped signing the excellent young players that were such good signings for us early on under him. (Not assigning blame). That continued to not happen until Paratici came in. That's imo the main failure, the main thing that caused this mess. Other factors too, as you point out. But to me that's the main one.

It's not like Mourinho and Conte got all the players they wanted, obviously. But it was a clear short term focus. Probably players the weren't (always) their first choices. But still. Here and now signings. The exception being "club signings" under Paratici like Sarr and Spence that Conte then didn't use or barely used.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Interesting perhaps that all of Eze, Neto and Gallagher have had pretty underwhelming seasons and maybe had peaked as big fish in their small ponds

 

[braineclipse]

That's fine.
It isnt for me.
We got one back-up CB in. If Archie Gray was signed as a back up CB and FB as well as midfielder all at 18 after a great season in the Championship, then you'll excuse me for considering it a massive massive mistake on the club's part, not to mention wildly unfair on the player.
So yes, we signed a defender. One. Which was not enough for me, and I suspect others.

I don't think Gray was signed as a backup CB. But in part as a backup full back (who turns out can also be an emergency CB).

That left us with 8 defenders for 4 positions. Porro, Romero, VdV, Udogie, Spence, Dragusin, Davies and Gray.

A bit light, yes. Particularly considering Gray is also a midfielder and given the lack of experience at this level for both him and Spence.

But, again a decent part of your argument is a "spend more money" argument. Sign Gray, sign Eze too, and sign another good enough here and now defender.


My argument is we probably didn't have enough money to plug all the gaps. We had to gamble on not having "enough" in some roles. Or spread our money thinner getting lesser players, but more of them. Or forego signings who are mostly signed for their potential for here and now ready made players.

Thr latter two options are not mistakes I want to see repeated. And I don't think we had much more money to spend.

 

[thfcsteff]

So in part your argument is a "spend more money" argument it seems to me at least? Nothing wrong with that, I'm not sure it was possible, but how could I know.

Eze probably would have cost close to twice what Odobert cost (+higher wages). So if not signing Odobert spending another 30m ish? If also signing Odobert spend another 60m ish (+wages).

For me the question is could we afford what you're suggesting. If we couldn't it would have to be Eze at the cost of some of those we did sign. Like Gray (that's where the short/long term thing comes from). Not that Eze wouldn't be good now and for several years.

Eze would be a very good 60-65m player that we paid 60-65m for. Gray, Odobert and Bergvall can imo become 200m worth of players that we paid 80m for (excuse my shoddy maths, I think you get my point). That really helps long term. Adding to the benefit we're seeing for similar deals for Spence, Udogie, Sarr. Long term deals that in time become players worth more to us (as footballers, not resale value) than we paid for them.

Under Poch we stopped signing the excellent young players that were such good signings for us early on under him. (Not assigning blame). That continued to not happen until Paratici came in. That's imo the main failure, the main thing that caused this mess. Other factors too, as you point out. But to me that's the main one.

It's not like Mourinho and Conte got all the players they wanted, obviously. But it was a clear short term focus. Probably players the weren't (always) their first choices. But still. Here and now signings. The exception being "club signings" under Paratici like Sarr and Spence that Conte then didn't use or barely used.

Yes, that is the question.

Exactly, I obviously understand that model of thinking.

Under Poch, we stopped signing anyone worth anything really. Davo might've been the last 'bigger' signing we made? Let's not rehash that history (albeit I am happy to!!!!)...

I agree, it was part of the problem, and in fairness, covid helped no-one.

I am genuinely trying to think of which 'here and now' signings of any quality that Mourinho or Conte got? PEH? Does he count?


My argument is that when rebuilding a swuad, you have to do it with some degree of graduation. And this past summer, we went one way and left ourselves short of necessary experience. Personally? Despite not loving eoither of them, I'd have kept one of Skipp or PEH simply for their experience and player-type. I think it was clear PEH didn't want to stick around, and word is we'd sort of fudged Skippy over the season prior so let him leave in good faith (and for a frankly very decent fee).

I am no economist. And I also understand running our books properly. But given the revenue we supposedly generate, I find it hard to believe that we couldn't have made the decision to not keep Werner and instead spend extra money ontop of Gray and Bergvall to sign (say) an Eze. Personally? I believe it comes down to wages. But that is a personal belief based on how I have evaluated what we do and don't do these days...

 

[Bishop]

By that logic very few players have improved at clubs all over the world, it is all just natural progression.

When Willian had that really good season at Fulham after the really bad one at Arsenal, it was nothing to do with Silva, Willian had just got back to the level he was at before Arsenal when at Chelsea.

Yes most of the time the role a coach has in making improvements is overstated when you actually look at the real detail of their careers.

Your Willian example is actually a really good example. Silva didn't develop Willian at all, Arteta just used him poorly. Performing back a level that you've already previously established yourself is not development.

 

[thfcsteff]

Interesting perhaps that all of Eze, Neto and Gallagher have had pretty underwhelming seasons and maybe had peaked as big fish in their small ponds

Mbappe had a pretty underwhelming season at RM and is only now spluttering into some sort of life. I am no hiuge fan of Gallagher, but can understand why Ange likes him. I am not sure you could say he has had an 'underwhelming' season? Still, it's all just friendly chat as here we are!

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...drid-la-liga-diego-simeone-english-midfielder

 

[Muttley]

I did not say he should've got them all. I am saying he didn't get one of them.
Moore would absolutely have got minutes here and there, but yes, he would not have become a player we are relying upon to bail us out (at 17 years old and having not even played U-21s). Bergvall would absolutely have got minutes, and possibly ended up being loaned out in January, except he took a quantum leap in development over a month before Xmas, and as such has suddenly found himself in the 'bail us out please' category too; I am grateful for sure, he's been great, but he still has a ways to go and I would rather he was able to develop rather than be thrust into the court of instant delivery.

What do you mean by that line? Are you referencing Son and Lankshear? I think that's a tenuous line to walk. We have no idea what he and the staff see with Lankshear every day, suffice to say it seems to be enoiugh for them to not want to gamble. I could offer suggestions as to why, but they'd be nothing more than speculation. We don't know.

As for the last line, well I really don't know where to begin.
Kinsky, Gray, Berghall, Moore. Dragusin is 22. How many kids do you want out there at once? Bar Kinsky, all have played for the last 8 weeks non-stop (Dragusin finally gave into his own body having played with an injury for a while before finally getting the brick knocked out of him by DCL's flying elbow). If your metric for that comment remains Ange's continual deployment of Son, I'd remember he is the club captain, the team captain, and despite his poor form and fatigue has 8 goals and 7 assists in all competitions (6 and 6 in 19 PL games). He has the most assists this season, and is 2 goals behiond our leading scorer this season.
In a poor season, and with him in poor form, he is still one of our current most productive players (staggeringly)...

I did pick up on something Ange said in this pre-match presser. It is about 5 mins 30.

The words were "we don't really have many options apart from throwing untried youngsters in but I don't want to do that TO THEM"

It's an interesting thing to say. Ange is leaving his own 1st teamers in the red zone late in second halves and not relieving them by using his chosen bench to protect them. That is knowing that Ange along with his U21/U18 coaches have agreed a very young profile of bench. As an example, we didn't even put Max Robson 22 in the EL squad. We have a full-back who can play centre half Tyrell Ashcroft 20 who has played well against the men in the national league cup. Cassanova 20 is another. Core U21 players.

I think what we might be seeing is that Wayne Burnett has the normal group that statistically won't ever be 1st team. That means they become important to him in the current situation the U21s find themselves in. They don't therefore logically fill in during a 1st team crisis. That opportunity falls to the younger group because they might eventually be 1st team. However, they are mostly there to make up the numbers in training only as the 1st team manager won't even give them time from the bench. That, in turn, adds to the workload on the available, fit seniors.

I just wonder whether the club has its strategy right here. There is something that doesn't feel optimal.

 

[braineclipse]

@billyiddo @braineclipse ...chaps...the only real truth I suppose, is that it is now January 23rd and we don't have what we need in the squad. We can all have perspectives on how we've arrived at this morning, but I realize that none of it changes the fact that it 'is'. Personally, I find the juxtapose of 'support', 'trying our best but it isn't easy', and 'non-action' to be both exceedingly vague and highly suspicious. I sadly have liottle optimism for tonight's game, yet already know that most of the players on that pitch will have given their absolute best regardless, and deserve more. IMO.

Just to be clear Steff, always a pleasure "talking" to you. If talking to me becomes exhausting or repetitive I'm sorry.

Fully agree on where we are today. There are reasons why we ended up here, we may disagree on what they are.

Us being short and fatigued after almost two months of severe injury issues was going to be the case no matter what happened in the summer (within reason) imo. Or at any time since Ange came in.

I maintain that our actual squad is better than it's been for years and years. Spence, Gray and Bergvall stepping up has added to an already good squad and plugged holes. I think Odobert will too. Kinsky has too. There are more holes to fill, but they're getting fewer window by window.

 

[thfcsteff]

I don't think Gray was signed as a backup CB. But in part as a backup full back (who turns out can also be an emergency CB).

That left us with 8 defenders for 4 positions. Porro, Romero, VdV, Udogie, Spence, Dragusin, Davies and Gray.

A bit light, yes. Particularly considering Gray is also a midfielder and given the lack of experience at this level for both him and Spence.

But, again a decent part of your argument is a "spend more money" argument. Sign Gray, sign Eze too, and sign another good enough here and now defender.


My argument is we probably didn't have enough money to plug all the gaps. We had to gamble on not having "enough" in some roles. Or spread our money thinner getting lesser players, but more of them. Or forego signings who are mostly signed for their potential for here and now ready made players.

Thr latter two options are not mistakes I want to see repeated. And I don't think we had much more money to spend.

We can include the keeper situation in that. I think that far from getting hammered for not using Spence earlier, Ange deserves respect for bringing him on pre-season and giving him a chance once he realised that he likely was not getting anyone else in those positions in.

Yes, this is Milo's 'floor/ceiling' theory.

He says we had to first raise the floor in the last two windows before working on raising the ceiling now and in the summer (I might be slightly off with timings but essentially you get it). My argument was that if you don't work on both proportionately, you end up repeatedly hitting your head on the ceiling. Which I believe is what we're doing right now.