Transfer Window - Success or Failure

[JBiz]

3 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

But weve not even seen Brereton start a game so how can you give him such a high mark? Surely on the pitch performance even at such an early stage is the key thing to judge our signings on. Otherwise Palmer is still a talent who has recent, previous promotion credentials and is the most successful signing of them all, and not a show pony? A disallowed goal, an assist and a dive for a penalty are definitely signs that Brereton has something about him but we knew that anyway. The discussion is centralised around how he is used (well not used), the flawed/stupid explanation as to why hes not playing his natural position, and whether we can afford such a luxury. I dont think Brereton himself is getting much if any stick recently. Do you think the criticism of Mowbray playing him wide, and his attempts at justifying it, are valid, or do you agree with what people have said.

What mark would you give our overall transfer recruitment then? In terms of both quality of signing and the shape of the squad following these signings. Balance is difficult but its not impossible and I do feel that our squad is too imbalanced in certain areas.

“Transfer window; Success or Failure”...

Would I count signing such obvious potential as a failure? 

Nope. 

Am I excited about the prospect and potential? Definitely, and he is our player which is a huge plus compared to KP.

Our recruitment has been fantastic for 3 windows but I’m under no illusions that it should be sorted/perfect by now - especially considering the squad 18 months ago.

Its a slow process of rebuilding our team. The depth and quality in the squad is testemant to the improvement, but obvious weaknesses in some areas point to this taking more time.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

“Transfer window; Success or Failure”...

Would I count signing such obvious potential as a failure? 

Nope. 

Am I excited about the prospect and potential? Definitely, and he is our player which is a huge plus compared to KP.

Our recruitment has been fantastic for 3 windows but I’m under no illusions that it should be sorted/perfect by now - especially considering the squad 18 months ago.

Its a slow process of rebuilding our team. The depth and quality in the squad is testemant to the improvement, but obvious weaknesses in some areas point to this taking more time.

Do you not think that considering Brereton an 8 out of 10 signing is not over the top considering that in a Rovers shirt, he is yet to start a league game, and we are very much clutching at straws based on cameos? 

Are you happy with the way Brereton has been used so far? Both in terms of the lack of starts and often wide where he looks uncomfortable.

Do you not acknowledge that Brereton made his name as a central striker, and that any doubts about his physicality (despite a season of playing as a central striker in this league already) become somewhat obsolete when he chooses to play Dack or Palmer there instead?

You mention that we need time to build a truly well balanced squad and I somewhat concur but he has contributed to the imbalanced selection of attackers. He signed 4 players who he clearly considers them to be wide men, at least short term. Surely it made far more sense to sacrifice signing one or two in favour of a central striker(s)?

No one is doubting that we have a set of attacking options far better than we did last time we was in this league. And I think there is little doubting that we have a player with potential in Brereton. But im struggling to see how we can possibly consider such a big money signing for us to solely be a project, and the fact that he has played at this level for over a season before surely vindicates that he should be playing more than he is, and he should be at least 2nd choice behind Graham.

I also dont agree that our recruitment has been "fantastic" under Mowbray. His main strength I have always maintained has been as mentioned by others the extra he has got from our existing players. 

[Oldgregg86]

41 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Do you not think that considering Brereton an 8 out of 10 signing is not over the top considering that in a Rovers shirt, he is yet to start a league game, and we are very much clutching at straws based on cameos? 

Are you happy with the way Brereton has been used so far? Both in terms of the lack of starts and often wide where he looks uncomfortable.

Do you not acknowledge that Brereton made his name as a central striker, and that any doubts about his physicality (despite a season of playing as a central striker in this league already) become somewhat obsolete when he chooses to play Dack or Palmer there instead?

You mention that we need time to build a truly well balanced squad and I somewhat concur but he has contributed to the imbalanced selection of attackers. He signed 4 players who he clearly considers them to be wide men, at least short term. Surely it made far more sense to sacrifice signing one or two in favour of a central striker(s)?

No one is doubting that we have a set of attacking options far better than we did last time we was in this league. And I think there is little doubting that we have a player with potential in Brereton. But im struggling to see how we can possibly consider such a big money signing for us to solely be a project, and the fact that he has played at this level for over a season before surely vindicates that he should be playing more than he is, and he should be at least 2nd choice behind Graham.

I also dont agree that our recruitment has been "fantastic" under Mowbray. His main strength I have always maintained has been as mentioned by others the extra he has got from our existing players. 

Superb post

[JBiz]

32 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

1. Do you not think that considering Brereton an 8 out of 10 signing is not over the top considering that in a Rovers shirt, he is yet to start a league game, and we are very much clutching at straws based on cameos? 

2. Are you happy with the way Brereton has been used so far? Both in terms of the lack of starts and often wide where he looks uncomfortable.

3. Do you not acknowledge that Brereton made his name as a central striker, and that any doubts about his physicality (despite a season of playing as a central striker in this league already) become somewhat obsolete when he chooses to play Dack or Palmer there instead?

4. You mention that we need time to build a truly well balanced squad and I somewhat concur but he has contributed to the imbalanced selection of attackers. He signed 4 players who he clearly considers them to be wide men, at least short term. Surely it made far more sense to sacrifice signing one or two in favour of a central striker(s)?

5. No one is doubting that we have a set of attacking options far better than we did last time we was in this league. And I think there is little doubting that we have a player with potential in Brereton. But im struggling to see how we can possibly consider such a big money signing for us to solely be a project, and the fact that he has played at this level for over a season before surely vindicates that he should be playing more than he is, and he should be at least 2nd choice behind Graham.

6. I also dont agree that our recruitment has been "fantastic" under Mowbray. His main strength I have always maintained has been as mentioned by others the extra he has got from our existing players. 

1. The rating of the signing is in relation to the thread, and the transfer window, only partially taking into account his performances (or lack of) so far, simply as a positive - since his cameo's are improving. If you'd told me in June, we'd sign a few decent frees, loans, Armstrong and sign some new contracts for better current players -  I would've said the window was good, satisfactory etc - If you'd told me we had invested a lot more, signed an promising, international, champ experienced player, with exciting attributes, pace, a finish - only 19 - I would've said "get real". Overall the signing really is a 15/10 on previous seasons activity. Rhodes being the last one of a "similar" fee, (although wages initially surely different) - and what has transpired since made me think we'd never invest as much ever again.

2. Slowly bringing him into the squad, then into the first team, and then regular cameos.... I don't have any complaints. If we changed shape entirely to accommodate him, I would be a lot more uneasy. I also think its a contradiction to suggest he looks uncomfortable, "very poor" etc in 20 minutes. It will take time, and I could only describe his previous three appearances as "impacting" if only 2/3 games led to points.

3. I don't acknowledge that he has even made his name if you consider his age. He has played in an up and down Forest team, I don't know much about the way he was utilised previously but I have read lots since his arrival, opinions etc. I also think Palmer and Dack are physical players, so I am not sure why you are suggesting that it makes no sense to use them centrally. Palmer has all the technical, physical traits to be a fantastic player. His ineffectual nature comes from lack of mental attributes, hence why he is on loan in the second tier.

4. I think (as TM said) AA is long term central striker/part of a two setup and I am happy that Graham, Brereton and AA all have different attributes, strengths etc. I can agree somewhat about someone to directly challenge the "Target man" role we use DG in, I also think we needed more width and options out wide. I perhaps am more cynical about the ease of which it is to sign these "square pegs" as they are called nowadays.

5. We play 1 upfront. We tried Dack up there pre season (Everton at home?), so I think TM already thought along those lines, in games/times we cannot use Graham. I personally am not going to get out my tree about BB not being 2nd choice to a DG in a 1 CF system, instead of what he is - regular impact player from the bench and backup for any of the forward positions.

6. You don't have to agree with me, that is the beauty of a message board, and I enjoyed answering your questions why. I often said this with Bowyer, "compared to what it was" etc - I think there is a certain element of that with TM for me - but the way he has overhauled the squad that he inherited from Coyle has been impressive for me. One of the key reasons for that is like you say, getting more and keeping the Mulgrews and Bennetts.

 

Now time to be a Boocastle fan for the evening...!

[blueboy3333]

3 hours ago, Biz said:

Our recruitment has been fantastic for 3 windows

[roversfan99]

Just now, Biz said:

1. The rating of the signing is in relation to the thread, and the transfer window, only partially taking into account his performances (or lack of) so far, simply as a positive - since his cameo's are improving. If you'd told me in June, we'd sign a few decent frees, loans, Armstrong and sign some new contracts for better current players -  I would've said the window was good, satisfactory etc - If you'd told me we had invested a lot more, signed an promising, international, champ experienced player, with exciting attributes, pace, a finish - only 19 - I would've said "get real". Overall the signing really is a 15/10 on previous seasons activity. Rhodes being the last one of a "similar" fee, (although wages initially surely different) - and what has transpired since made me think we'd never invest as much ever again.

2. Slowly bringing him into the squad, then into the first team, and then regular cameos.... I don't have any complaints. If we changed shape entirely to accommodate him, I would be a lot more uneasy. I also think its a contradiction to suggest he looks uncomfortable, "very poor" etc in 20 minutes. It will take time, and I could only describe his previous three appearances as "impacting" if only 2/3 games led to points.

3. I don't acknowledge that he has even made his name if you consider his age. He has played in an up and down Forest team, I don't know much about the way he was utilised previously but I have read lots since his arrival, opinions etc. I also think Palmer and Dack are physical players, so I am not sure why you are suggesting that it makes no sense to use them centrally. Palmer has all the technical, physical traits to be a fantastic player. His ineffectual nature comes from lack of mental attributes, hence why he is on loan in the second tier.

4. I think (as TM said) AA is long term central striker/part of a two setup and I am happy that Graham, Brereton and AA all have different attributes, strengths etc. I can agree somewhat about someone to directly challenge the "Target man" role we use DG in, I also think we needed more width and options out wide. I perhaps am more cynical about the ease of which it is to sign these "square pegs" as they are called nowadays.

5. We play 1 upfront. We tried Dack up there pre season (Everton at home?), so I think TM already thought along those lines, in games/times we cannot use Graham. I personally am not going to get out my tree about BB not being 2nd choice to a DG in a 1 CF system, instead of what he is - regular impact player from the bench and backup for any of the forward positions.

6. You don't have to agree with me, that is the beauty of a message board, and I enjoyed answering your questions why. I often said this with Bowyer, "compared to what it was" etc - I think there is a certain element of that with TM for me - but the way he has overhauled the squad that he inherited from Coyle has been impressive for me. One of the key reasons for that is like you say, getting more and keeping the Mulgrews and Bennetts.

 

Now time to be a Boocastle fan for the evening...!

1. My comment was more in relation to if we had signed a player deemed to be 8 out of 10 so soon, I would presume he had made an immediate and far more tangible impact. The whole Brereton debate seems to be centralised not around the fact that he has potential, but how he has been used and whether he is fit for purpose in terms of what we needed to sign, whether we can afford such a luxurious signing.  I do feel it is slightly ignorant to seemingly ignore all of these factors and cling to the glimmers of potential he has been able to show. The whole debate is more aimed around Mowbray than Brereton himself. And also to compare against previous disastrous summer windows in which we have sold key players and/or spent little to nothing in return is not fair, Mowbray hasnt had to deal with these restrictions this summer. 

2. The first bit I agree with, I don't think people realistically expected him to be thrown straight in the team with the form Graham has shown. Its where he has been used thats the issue, surely it would be more sensible to play him where he is most comfortable, where he plays naturally, admittedly around when Graham is fit enough to play.

3. The Forest side he was in was like us a mid table Championship side. Moving Dack is doubly detrimental in that it moves our best player to a position he is clearly not suited to, and I dont think he has scored in. (May be wrong on that) There may be occasions when Brereton wide may be a wise option, perhaps when we are chasing a game or whatever. But its Mowbrays quotes insistent that Brereton is not even considered as a striker, black and white, simple as that, despite having played there before, that confuse me. All of the positive aspects about him, England youth international, Championship experience etc he has achieved this blossoming reputation as a striker. He ripped Arsenal to pieces as a striker. And now he is beneath 2 midfielders who when they have played there, have not impressed or looked comfortable, and Breretons fleeting impressive contributions have all been within the width of the 18 yard box, his (wrongly offside) finish, his winning of a penalty, coming alive in the box to square for Dack. Surely its a least worth a consideration next time Graham isnt fit.

4. If Armstrong and Brereton are both being groomed to play wide and slowly end up as central strikers. Surely one of such an experiment is enough, and it goes back to the balance of the squad that we discussed earlier?

5. I believe it was Liverpool at home when Dack played up front, if I recall it was at a point in pre-season when Graham was injured, and Mowbray was demanding for patience in his hunt in signing a new striker believe it or not!

6. I dont want to lose sight of the fact that I (and almost every single fan) appreciate that Mowbray has done a lot more right than he has done wrong here. Notably the whole change of atmosphere at the club. And that the signings he made in the summer are on paper, almost exclusively ones that if utilised correctly, can improve us.

And on Newcastle, agreed!

[Oldgregg86]

The fact Tony has said he sees Ben and Adam playing centrally in the future makes it all the more baffling when he doesn't use them when we need a striker. Armstrong has played up front for a few seasons and he is in his twenties. What is he waiting for. Surly the only way to improve is by regularly playing there and learning your trade. If anything it's stifling his progress. 

He says he expects us to get to the premiership. Then is he going to unleash him upfront, after years of playing on the wing in the lower leagues,  against the best defenders in the world.

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Oldgregg86

[roversfan99]

23 minutes ago, Oldgregg86 said:

The fact Tony has said he sees Ben and Adam playing centrally in the future makes it all the more baffling when he doesn't use them when we need a striker. Armstrong has played up front for a few seasons and he is in his twenties. What is he waiting for. Surly the only way to improve is by regularly playing there and learning your trade. If anything it's stifling his progress. 

He says he expects us to get to the premiership. Then is he going to unleash him upfront, after years of playing on the wing in the lower leagues,  against the best defenders in the world.

 

Agreed. Its when Graham is not on the pitch that the main confusion comes for me. If Mowbray thinks that Graham is our best striker in terms of acting as a focal point, I dont think many would disagree. Resorting to playing midfielders as "false 9s" is a tactical experiment that doesnt even have any logic to it. Moving our best player from his natural position, as an alternative to someone in Brereton deemed not physical enough despite being far smaller. The false 9 formation was made popular by Spain and their passing football. We play the most long balls in the division, we cant go from one extreme to another like that.

With Armstrong, I think he does have more of a skillset and more historical evidence to suggest that playing wide suits him. Brereton on the other hand certainly doesnt and I suspect that barring a sudden realisation from Mowbray, he is going to be the subject of continious debate for quite some time.

[RevidgeBlue]

My gut feeling after the end of the transfer window was that it was a poor window but  with the benefit of hindsight I'm not sure whether it was a poor window as I initially thought or a decent window but with the manager for some unknown reason refusing to show any faith in the signings he made.

For me only Reed so far can be considered an unqualified success. And he isn't our player.

Of the rest:

Palmer:

I like the look of him (in midfield) but seemingly the manager doesn't.

Rothwell:

As above but with the proviso that the manager seems even less inclined to pick him than Palmer.

Davenport:

What the hell has happened to him?

Rodwell:

Somewhat predictably has barely featured

Brereton:

Paid £7m for him and TM refuses to give the poor lad a start or play him in his natural position.

Armstrong:

Very disappointing this season but again like Brereton probably needs to be playing down the middle.

I do think all of the above players have talent, however at the moment we're not getting much out of any of them bar Reed so unless that changes it has to go down as a poor window for me.

 

[philipl]

On 26/11/2018 at 21:13, blueboy3333 said:

So you agree with Biz 100%

[Exiled in Toronto]

Whether or not the manager plays them in their best positions (as judged by us amateurs) is somewhat tangential to the topic. If Mowbray left tomorrow, we’d still have all these players, and that shouldn’t change whether we view them as being good signings or not.

I think we can all agree that Reed has made us a better team no matter what position he plays. 

Palmer I think is the wrong player for this squad, not a grafter.

Rothwell seems to do one thing well - surging runs - but that doth not a central midfielder make. Looks like he came from a Div 1 club to me.

Rodwell is clearly a gamble, but one with a lot of upside.

Brereton - too early to say. The alleged fee is irrelevant to me; we couldn’t have spent it on three proven Championship players as we can’t afford their wages, which would’ve doubled the cost vs Brereton over the life of their contracts.

Armstrong seems to be replicating his Bolton form at this level, which makes it a bit more worrying.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Exiled in Toronto

[blueboy3333]

9 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Whether or not the manager plays them in their best positions (as judged by us amateurs) is somewhat tangential to the topic.

Disagree entirely. It is the main point. He has signed players who have talent but he is playing them in ways that negates their talent. He would have been better off signing players that were specialists in the areas he is shoehorning these lads into, unsuccessfully. 

 

9 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

If Mowbray left tomorrow, we’d still have all these players, and that shouldn’t change whether we view them as being good signings or not.

If Mowbray stays for 4 years and those players never play in their correct positions and end up leaving for nowt because no-one wants them,  then they would still be poor signings. 

[philipl]

Do we know how close to fitness Davenport is?

[blueboy3333]

Just now, philipl said:

Do we know how close to fitness Davenport is?

I thought he played for the U23's a few weeks ago, I think he scored?

No idea what's happened to him since. 

[47er]

If I were Rothwell I would be wondering what I had to do to get a regular game. He'll leave if this continues before he's forgotten and he's nowhere to go.

[Exiled in Toronto]

3 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

Disagree entirely. It is the main point. He has signed players who have talent but he is playing them in ways that negates their talent. He would have been better off signing players that were specialists in the areas he is shoehorning these lads into, unsuccessfully. 

 

If Mowbray stays for 4 years and those players never play in their correct positions and end up leaving for nowt because no-one wants them,  then they would still be poor signings. 

So you are judging the manager, not the players.

There have been plenty of instances in our history when a signed player has been misused or ignored by one manager then flourished under another, which still made them good signings. Furphy hardly played Don Martin for three seasons but he was subsequently crucial to Lee’s promotion team.

[blueboy3333]

19 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

So you are judging the manager, not the players.

There have been plenty of instances in our history when a signed player has been misused or ignored by one manager then flourished under another, which still made them good signings. Furphy hardly played Don Martin for three seasons but he was subsequently crucial to Lee’s promotion team.

The topic is transfer window - success or failure. Of course the manager is being judged. He signed them …. and now plays them out of position. 

[Exiled in Toronto]

3 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

The topic is transfer window - success or failure. Of course the manager is being judged. He signed them …. and now plays them out of position. 

Yes, you also mentioned that in the Venkys thread, every match thread and no doubt many others.

Personally I’ll stick to rating the attributes of the new players, as those aren’t likely to change very much while at the club. Which position they play, and who picks them, are much more likely to change.

 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Exiled in Toronto said:

Yes, you also mentioned that in the Venkys thread, every match thread and no doubt many others.

tut tut, playing the man and not the ball.

 

Just now, Exiled in Toronto said:

Personally I’ll stick to rating the attributes of the new players, as those aren’t likely to change very much while at the club. Which position they play, and who picks them, are much more likely to change.

Attributes? They are contributing very little. If they have attributes why is the manager not utilising them?

[Exiled in Toronto]

9 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

tut tut, playing the man and not the ball.

 

Attributes? They are contributing very little. If they have attributes why is the manager not utilising them?

I’m not sure Rothwell’s, Palmer’s and Armstrong’s attributes are enough at this level, and it seems neither does he so far.

I think we can all agree that for there only to be one of this year’s signings in the team today - a team most of us would’ve picked - is a disappointing outcome from the summer signings.

[tomphil]

He signed back up players though as he wanted to give the others a chance so that's how he's using them it seems whether they do well or not they are back ups to the others in the pecking order he's created.

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

I thought Rothwell looked decent yesterday, but he had my heart in my mouth on a couple of occasions. It was a positive sub replacing Smallwood with him, but I can certainly see why Smallwood starts ahead of him.