[Archived] Andy Taylor

[den]

Taylor is a left back.

[American]

Sorry was thinking Kane, either way Taylor wouldn't have done worse out of position!!

[brian_gallagher85]

Taylor is a left back.

Your point being?

[den]

Your point being?

You think Andy Taylor is a better right back than Steven Reid?

[cue, - he couldn't be worse].

[American]

I was just thinking that I should have saved myself by saying that this was part of my point!!

[American]

I'd like to know how playing Taylor today would have been worse than playing Reid....

Replacing Kane for Taylor, still waiting for an answer from some of our R6 bashers....

[stuwilky]

I'd like to know how playing Taylor today would have been worse than playing Reid....

Can I borrow some of your hindsight American!

[American]

It's not hindsight Stu, it's having seen Reid play at RB!

[rover6]

Berner's gone and was shown up as a mediocre player.

Which begs the question, why did he get the first team chance that Andy Taylor didn't? It all comes down to the prejudice that is seemingly indelibly engrained in football management - the mediocre experienced player is always a better option than the promising youngster. Never mind Berner's experience, caps et al, he was rubbish. If we've got, under our noses, academy graduate "rubbish" that have youth on their side to potential upgrade to "so so" - why do we sign - with money - foreign rubbish that have peaked and will never reach "so so"?

No youngster would ever get the chance to make the number of mistakes for the first team that Mokoena has. EVER. It's not right.

(Den, are you up for round 1233349013910293102930123?)

[1864roverite]

Rover6, lets get this straight. If Hughes and Co thought he was good enough he would have played, there is NO doubt about that. Clearly, they thought the opposite and let Berner out of the stiffs to see if he could cope and very clearyl he COULDNT and that is why he is leaving.

I now await the released list for the reserves and academy.

[Mozzer]

what i want to know..is how this loser has got 11 pages to his name lol

let me guess-its a rover6 debate-youngsters arent getting chances etc etc etc..

[bellamy11]

Berner's gone and was shown up as a mediocre player.

Which begs the question, why did he get the first team chance that Andy Taylor didn't? It all comes down to the prejudice that is seemingly indelibly engrained in football management - the mediocre experienced player is always a better option than the promising youngster. Never mind Berner's experience, caps et al, he was rubbish. If we've got, under our noses, academy graduate "rubbish" that have youth on their side to potential upgrade to "so so" - why do we sign - with money - foreign rubbish that have peaked and will never reach "so so"?

No youngster would ever get the chance to make the number of mistakes for the first team that Mokoena has. EVER. It's not right.

(Den, are you up for round 1233349013910293102930123?)

Let me have a go.

First of all, apologies to everybody for this. I know full well it's a bunch of clap-trap. Feel free to stop reading now (if you carry on then get annoyed, I warned you). I know football doesn't work like this, and that not everything can be number crunched. However, I can't help but read R6's sig and wonder how differently he watches the game - with players and situations being given almost quantitative values. It's certainly different from the 'norm' (for better or worse).

Forgive me if I'm wrong R6, but I'm going to have to make certain assumptions about your logic (I know you rationalise everything anyway so it should fit).

You seem to categorise players into brackets, but I don't think there are enough definition of a player under your rationale. Let's say you think a player is either a world beater; excellent; very good; functional; sub-par; awful; Aaron Mokoena. I think under your reasoning both Taylor and Berner were 'awful' (in the context of regular Premiership football). Berner, at 29, is never going to get back to 'sub-par' (he must have been at some point to play for his country) but Taylor has a chance of moving up to that next level, we'll say a chance between one in 5 and one in 10.

I think, stupidly hypothetical as this all is, in my definition we'd need to go further. Let's say there are ten sub-divisions within 'awful'. We'll just give them numbers, with 10 being the highest (btw taking that to its logical conclusion, each player is marked out of 70 - imagine being at the bottom of the Mokoena ladder!)

Berner, as bad as he probably was, is probably a lot closer to 'sub-par' than he was to 'Mokoena'. I think we're looking at 8 or 9 within his division. Taylor is looking at the arse end of 1 or 2. He never set the reserves alight, and I bet he could never play for Switzerland, if that were somehow possible. Football is more subtle than "he's great" or "he's awful", hence our sub-divisions. Everything is relative. Berner has actual international experience. He wouldn't need "showing the ropes" like Taylor would. Even if we gave Taylor 10 games what is his absolute maximum potential? Probably about the same level Berner is now. But with Berner you don't have the time lag of waiting for him to get up to scratch.

I think under your logic, and feel free to correct me, we wasted money bringing in a very mediocre player when a youngster might be able to get up to that level for peanuts? I think, realistically, the best we could have hoped for with Taylor was that he became as good as Berner. And that wasn't guarenteed, and that would have taken time in important Premiership matches. I don't think Andy's potential was any better than Berner's level of ability because Hughes simply hasn't used him. He's used Olsson, but never Taylor.

Is the economic trade-off worth it in this specific example? I don't think so. In a mini-league as tight as the Premiership's UEFA race is, giving away little advantages, even over ten games, could be the difference between winning one game a season and drawing it. Is 2 Premiership points worth potentially making our own Berner when we can get the real thing in guarenteed for practically nothing?

Edited May 19, 2008 by bellamy11

[Parsonblue]

Berner's gone and was shown up as a mediocre player.

Which begs the question, why did he get the first team chance that Andy Taylor didn't? It all comes down to the prejudice that is seemingly indelibly engrained in football management - the mediocre experienced player is always a better option than the promising youngster. Never mind Berner's experience, caps et al, he was rubbish. If we've got, under our noses, academy graduate "rubbish" that have youth on their side to potential upgrade to "so so" - why do we sign - with money - foreign rubbish that have peaked and will never reach "so so"?

No youngster would ever get the chance to make the number of mistakes for the first team that Mokoena has. EVER. It's not right.

Berner was signed on a short term contract - 18 months - to give the manager the option of an experienced international full-back if he needed it. He was bought for a small fee, was probably on reasonable wages and despite what rover6 may think, did the job for which he was signed. Andy Taylor has never given the impression that he could play in the Premiership. I've watched him for the Academy and the Reserves and fully support the decision to allow him to ply his trade in the lower leagues - where he will no doubt carve out a decent career.

Mokoena is an experienced international who helped the club avoid relegation and who performed superbly when Savage was injured. Rover6 do you really believe the likes Hodge, O'Keefe, Keita etc would do a better job? If so, I doubt you watch the reserves on a regular basis.

[Hughesy]

I think Berner was also brought in as back up to warnock who didnt have the best injury record pre Rovers.

Berner was brought in as back up, Olsson was brought in as 'one for the future', Berner has gone, MH and his staff now obviously think Olsson is of a better standard and therefore capable to cover for Warnock if necessary.

[rover6]

Just thought I'd congratulate Andy Taylor on his move to Sheffield United. He turned down Champ clubs before to secure first team footy with Tranmere and now he's trying his hand at the second tier.

I personally think that Mark Hughes dealt with him very badly for a number of reasons. However, he seems to have bounced back. Tranmere won't be to disappointed because they knew other clubs were circling and I believe that they have a youngster, Jennings, who they have high hopes for.

I wonder if Rovers had a sell-on fee attached.

[broadsword]

I personally think that Mark Hughes dealt with him very badly for a number of reasons.

None of which you can personally justify having only ever seen Taylor play u-19 football for England on the telly.

In fact, I'm not even sure what these reasons are. Presumably because he was a youth player for us that should mean he gets special treatment?

[Blue blood]

I'll add my congratulations too, never thought he was good enough to cut the mustard at a big championship team like sheff utd.

[rover6]

None of which you can personally justify having only ever seen Taylor play u-19 football for England on the telly.

In fact, I'm not even sure what these reasons are. Presumably because he was a youth player for us that should mean he gets special treatment?

Bryan, if you are not sure of the reasons, why are you arguing? Surely, you need to comprehend my reasons before being so dismissive - or is it just a case of putting me down - to hell with his reasons?

I have spent many years (literally!) putting forward my arguments - as you well know. If you persist in argument without getting a grasp of my arguments, are you not simply perpetuating a pointless and petty game?

I know that I am too ready on this subject but - when people like yourself come along and post a critical/derogatory retort without bothering to try to understand my side, what am I to do? Well - before I would reiterate my argument - and then people, like yourself, complain that I repeat myself. I am repeating myself, partly, because you are repeating yourself.

As for Taylor, with my paltry knowledge, last year, I predicted that he would be playing at a higher level than Bruno Berner and Jay McEveley in a few seasons - and at the moment, that prediction is on course. I don't want credit - anyone can be right a few times if they make enough predictions. However, I think that Taylor and Nolan's relative successes should be respected - and to respect them (without bitterness or prejudice) is to question why we let them go in favour of Berner, Simpson and McEveley.

I realise that I am still mired into this debate - but try to forgive me - it's the only thing that interests me in football these days.

[Parsonblue]

As for Taylor, with my paltry knowledge, last year, I predicted that he would be playing at a higher level than Bruno Berner and Jay McEveley in a few seasons - and at the moment, that prediction is on course. I don't want credit - anyone can be right a few times if they make enough predictions. However, I think that Taylor and Nolan's relative successes should be respected - and to respect them (without bitterness or prejudice) is to question why we let them go in favour of Berner, Simpson and McEveley.

They are all playing in the Championship as far as I am aware rover6 - all at the same level. You can't compare Taylor, McEveley and Nolan with Berner and Simpson. The first three were products of the Academy who failed to make the grade. McEveley was undoubtedly the most outstanding prospect until injuries began to set him back. Both Nolan and Taylor looked fairly unimpressive in the reserves and never really threatened to break into the first team. In fairness to Nolan there seemed to be some confusion as to what was his best position. He spent much of his time at right-back in the reserves rather than at centre-back.

Berner was brought in to provide experienced cover at left-back and left midfield. He also played at centre-back and centre-midfield with the reserves. With their job dependent on results, managers really can't be faulted for opting to use experienced players as back-up rather than a youngster who has not really impressed in the reserves.

Again, Simpson was brought in on loan with a view to becoming the first choice right-back. It was a gamble that didn't work. However, there was no other option as we had nobody in the reserves who looked anywhere near good enough to play right-back. Ultimately, Ooijer did an impressive job for the majority of the season.

To answer your question as to why we let them go - it's quite simple. Neither Taylor nor Nolan looked good enough in reserve matches to suggest that they would make the breakthrough. Better that they dropped down the leagues and try to rebuild their careers elsewhere - which both have done and good luck to them.

[broadsword]

OK, for the avoidance of doubt rover6, can you please explicitly detail why Taylor was treated badly by Hughes.

I'm genuinely intrigued.

[T4E]

According to the local paper down here, Swindon Town had a "5 figure fee" accepted for Taylor but he opted to go to Sheffield United. 5 figures? Are Tranmere really that hard up? I though Taylor was one of their better players.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Tugay4England

[American]

Berner was brought in to provide experienced cover at left-back and left midfield. He also played at centre-back and centre-midfield with the reserves. With their job dependent on results, managers really can't be faulted for opting to use experienced players as back-up rather than a youngster who has not really impressed in the reserves.

The point is that they can. These players help cause our vastly over inflated wage bill, and don't provide anything more than a youngster would. Just because a player has experience doesn't mean they are any good.

Look at 2-3 seasons ago when Reid was AWFUL at right back when trying to come back from one of his injuries. Would Nolan have done any worse? But hey, we played the experienced player, so I guess it wasn't too bad.

Unfortunately, with the high cost of relegation, and the lack of patience in managers, playing the more experienced player and having their higher wages on the books will always be the safe move. People talk about how a lot of the youth players bigged up by 6 haven't gone on to do anything, but fail to mention that a lot of the higher wage players who were playing instead haven't gone on to do anything either.