Ben Brereton Diaz

[philipl]

Looking forward to seeing Ben today.

Hope I am not disappointed!

[Mattyblue]

I literally said it’s a good policy. But you still need to look after the financial well being of the club. There was a chance AA flopped too, but a £1.7m initial fee for a player that had already scored goals and provided a plethora of assists was much less of a risk than £7million on a teenager that had showed relatively little for Forest. 

And who says we get anywhere near £15/£20 million for AA anyway (to ensure break even or a profit overall from all 3 signings) in this new world?

Of course a club of our means can’t say ‘oh well’ if BB ends up being released or sold for a pittance. 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Mattyblue

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

People are very selective when being critical of our recruitment policy.

The £12 million for 2 forwards line gets trotted out pretty regularly, but this fails to include Armstrong as part of that analysis. I get the Brereton gamble, I didn't really get the Gallagher deal, and the Armstrong deal looks like a bargain - so overall I wouldn't say we've done terribly. 

The reality is that we've spent £15 million on 3 forwards and there is a good chance that we would get almost all of that back selling Armstrong alone (and maybe even more for just him if a couple of clubs got interested at the right time). 

That's not an awful recruitment policy.

Equally, Armstrong is a good example of why we need to show Brereton a bit of patience. Armstrong was a headless chicken for much of his early spell here (and elsewhere for that matter). Brereton needs more time to develop. More time in the side. And an opportunity to get some confidence. 

He may end up being a failure here. He may end up being a failure wherever he goes next. But we should at least get off his back enough to give him the chance to succeed. This time without a crowd could be just what he needs, but it does often feel as if many are hoping for him to fail so that they can say that they were right. I just don't get that. 

We're not talking about buying vintage cars to put in a garage or modern art to hang on a wall here. We're talking about buying footballers to come into the club and have an impact.on our ability to win games.  It's not solely about "investments " , it's more about scoring goals and putting in top performances. That has been lacking in 2 out of 3 cases.  As for getting £15 million for Armstrong,. he's not even guaranteed a starting place at Rovers.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Mattyblue said:

I literally said it’s a good policy. But you still need to look after the financial well being of the club. There was a chance AA flopped too, but a £1.7m initial fee for a player that had already scored goals and provided a plethora of assists was much less of a risk than £7million on a teenager that had showed relatively little for Forest. 

And who says we get anywhere near £15/£20 million for AA anyway (to ensure break even or a profit overall from all 3 signings) in this new world?

Of course a club of our means can’t say ‘oh well’ if BB ends up being released or sold for a pittance. 

It always fascinates me when people assume that a comment in a thread is entirely, and solely, directed at them. 

My posts so far have been a general reaction to the overall theme within this conversation. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, Eddie said:

It always fascinates me when people assume that a comment in a thread is entirely, and solely, directed at them. 

My posts so far have been a general reaction to the overall theme within this conversation. 

Let me put it this way - If you had control of the signings Rovers make and a time machine,  which ones of Armstrong, Brererton or Gallagher would you still go out and sign ?

I'd have signed Armstrong given the relatively modest fee we paid. I wouldn't have signed the other two. 

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

We're not talking about buying vintage cars to put in a garage or modern art to hang on a wall here. We're talking about buying footballers to come into the club and have an impact.on our ability to win games.  It's not solely about "investments " , it's more about scoring goals and putting in top performances. That has been lacking in 2 out of 3 cases.  As for getting £15 million for Armstrong,. he's not even guaranteed a starting place at Rovers.

You're right, but as a club that has always relied on turning a profit on our transfer dealings, we can't ignore the fact that one motivation for buying players is to hope that we sell them on for a higher sum.

This will undoubtedly be part of the logic behind the policy of signing young English players. A few will fail and not contribute on the pitch or to the bottom line, but if one or two turn into something quite good we will see improved performances on the pitch and the possibility of selling them for enough to repeat the process again. 

As for Armstrong's value, we will have to see how transfer fees adapt to the pandemic, but it would be a safe bet to assume that this will not be enough to stop the trend of transfer fees steadily rising.

The dot-com bubble bursting didn't stop that trend. The 2008 financial crisis didn't stop that trend. I very much doubt that this pandemic and possible recession will do so either. 

In that case, it is hard to imagine a world in which Armstrong would be sold for anything less than £8-10 million and I am sure that most supporters would be disappointed if he were sold for anything shy of 10 million. 

[Mattyblue]

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

It always fascinates me when people assume that a comment in a thread is entirely, and solely, directed at them. 

My posts so far have been a general reaction to the overall theme within this conversation. 

You are obviously easily fascinated!

Didn’t think it was just about my post, but I disagreed with your analysis, so said so. Kind of the point of this place, no?

[Eddie]

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Let me put it this way - If you had control of the signings Rovers make and a time machine,  which ones of Armstrong, Brererton or Gallagher would you still go out and sign ?

I'd have signed Armstrong given the relatively modest fee we paid. I wouldn't have signed the other two. 

I'd resign Armstrong in a heartbeat on the basis that his current contribution on the pitch is at a level far above the average £3 million player and knowing that I could certainly sell him for a profit. 

I wouldn't sign Brereton for the fee that we paid for him, but I wouldn't be opposed to gambling on him as I think there is a degree of potential there. 

I was against signing Gallagher as I just think that we didn't need that type of player and that his style is actually not that easy to fit into modern football. 

My point isn't that I would do everything that Mowbray does, it is more that if 1/3 signings are good to very good we will have to view that as a success. That's football. Even the best manager or director of football would take a 33% strike rate on their signings - especially when you aren't at a top club and any signing comes with additional risk.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, Eddie said:

I'd resign Armstrong in a heartbeat on the basis that his current contribution on the pitch is at a level far above the average £3 million player and knowing that I could certainly sell him for a profit. 

I wouldn't sign Brereton for the fee that we paid for him, but I wouldn't be opposed to gambling on him as I think there is a degree of potential there. 

I was against signing Gallagher as I just think that we didn't need that type of player and that his style is actually not that easy to fit into modern football. 

My point isn't that I would do everything that Mowbray does, it is more that if 1/3 signings are good to very good we will have to view that as a success. That's football. Even the best manager or director of football would take a 33% strike rate on their signings - especially when you aren't at a top club and any signing comes with additional risk.

Your views on the signing of the three players mentioned mirror mine, Armstong - good. Brererton - not good given the fee involved. Gallagher - why, especially when he 'd done next to nothing since leaving Rovers.

However I've just been reading a very good article in today's " Guardian " regarding Klopp at Liverpool. His strike rate regarding signings is a lot better than 1 out of 3. We all know you live or die by your signings as a manager. I'd expect the average Joe Bloggs to get as many right as they get wrong. The Klopps of this world will be up around 75% if not more. I would suggest that a strike rate of 1 success in 3 signings would get you the sack at most normal clubs.

[Eddie]

 

 

 

1

1 minute ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

However I've just been reading a very good article in today's " Guardian " regarding Klopp at Liverpool. His strike rate regarding signings is a lot better than 1 out of 3. We all know you live or die by your signings as a manager. I'd expect the average Joe Bloggs to get as many right as they get wrong. The Klopps of this world will be up around 75% if not more. I would suggest that a strike rate of 1 success in 3 signings would get you the sack at most normal clubs.

It's a lot easier to do good transfer business when you are at a huge club spending huge money. There are generally not as many unknowns when signing a player for 20m+ as there are when signing a player for 10m or less. 

As for Klopp's record, it's pretty good, but there are still some duds in there.

How many would pay £50m for Keita now? Even £35m for Oxlade-Chamberlain is questionable. £30m for Benteke? 

He's done well and he's had some key moves work out really well, but, for the most part, they haven't been cheap. 

Again, it's all balanced out by the fact that he could sell Salah, Robertson, Mane, etc. for far more than he paid for them - even given some of their relatively high transfer fees, but you'd have to expect that there will be a lot of failures in there. 

The reality is that 1 star player is worth failing on 2/3 other transfers. 

Mowbray has hit on just enough of his transfers to call his approach a success. Dack is an overwhelming success. Armstrong a very good signing. Downing very good (although there won't be a profit there). There are then a number of players who may develop into being seen as good signings (the likes of Holtby, Rothwell, and Samuel, for example). And even Tosin justifies our approach in the loan market. 

[Tugay-is-God]

2 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

We're not talking about buying vintage cars to put in a garage or modern art to hang on a wall here. We're talking about buying footballers to come into the club and have an impact.on our ability to win games.  It's not solely about "investments " , it's more about scoring goals and putting in top performances. That has been lacking in 2 out of 3 cases.  As for getting £15 million for Armstrong,. he's not even guaranteed a starting place at Rovers.

Eh?

He's been involved in 103 of Rovers last 104 games.

[47er]

34 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I'd resign Armstrong in a heartbeat on the basis that his current contribution on the pitch is at a level far above the average £3 million player and knowing that I could certainly sell him for a profit. 

I wouldn't sign Brereton for the fee that we paid for him, but I wouldn't be opposed to gambling on him as I think there is a degree of potential there. 

I was against signing Gallagher as I just think that we didn't need that type of player and that his style is actually not that easy to fit into modern football. 

My point isn't that I would do everything that Mowbray does, it is more that if 1/3 signings are good to very good we will have to view that as a success. That's football. Even the best manager or director of football would take a 33% strike rate on their signings - especially when you aren't at a top club and any signing comes with additional risk.

His 2 biggest signings are Brereton and Gallagher and they are both flops.

We sold a keeper who was our's we now rely on a loan keeper who leaves end of season and the £3M quid we got for him has disappeared. We also have a loan centre-back whom we expect to leave also .2 key positions!

I don't agree with you about Mowbray's  transfer dealings.

[Blue blood]

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The reality is that 1 star player is worth failing on 2/3 other transfers. 

Well that depend on the transfer fees of the players involved doesn't it? You need to factor in the opportunity costs involved for example the fee of Gally or Bereton could have seen us strengthen in several positions instead. 

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Mowbray has hit on just enough of his transfers to call his approach a success. Dack is an overwhelming success. Armstrong a very good signing. Downing very good (although there won't be a profit there). There are then a number of players who may develop into being seen as good signings (the likes of Holtby, Rothwell, and Samuel, for example). And even Tosin justifies our approach in the loan market. 

Disagree TMs transfers can be only considered a success if you consider 1 in 3 a good rate which I really don't think is the case. Given most players at a club will be transfers into the club suggesting two thirds of those can be duds/failing doesnt seem at all right. Rough figures for sure but if we say our squad of 18 has 6 youth players within it then that means 12 signings which by your logic 8 can be failures. I don't see how that works. It needs to be a much higher success rate then 1 in 3.

TM doesn't have that high a success rate. Of the latest crop Gally and Johnson haven't worked out, they're at best ok but don't add to us, Walton has been very mixed, Tosin Holtby and Downing good. 3 out of 6 isn't great and that's his best years record. That would still result in the team carrying 6 players by my calculations. And that's before transfer fees are involved in the calculations. 

 

 

[Eddie]

3 out of 6 isn't great? Please name a manager with over a 50% strike rate on signings.

And I'm not implying that two thirds can be duds, just simply not signings that you would classify as good. Johnson hasn't been a dud, but I wouldn't call him a good signing yet. Big difference between a good signing and a failure. 

To use your squad analysis approach. If we assume that our squad of 23 players can be supplemented by about 6 homegrown players, say 2 of which are good enough to start (basically the position that we are in now), it then requires that we have 17 other players, 9 of whom are good enough to start. 

Now, you can't do a perfect analysis of squad building as you're not starting from scratch at any point, but I would be perfectly happy with any manager who signed 3 players, one of who was considered a good starter, one a good squad player, and the other a player who will not make it. That's not fantastic, but as a general rule of thumb, I'm fine with that. 

The challenge then becomes applying another 1/3 rule to those starters and squad players. I'd want to see a further 1/3 of the players that are good enough to start developing into 'star' players and a further 1/3 of those squad players developing into players who genuinely challenge for places in the first team.

We're not able to go out and sign £50m finished products, but if I wouldn't be overly critical of any manager who hit that sort of ratio over a longterm basis. You might have the odd window where everything is great or where everything is awful, but you have to view things over an extended period of time. 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Eddie

[Stuart]

55 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

You are obviously easily fascinated!

Didn’t think it was just about my post, but I disagreed with your analysis, so said so. Kind of the point of this place, no?

Haven’t you worked it out yet Matty? You must comply with the thought police!

[Admiral Nelsen]

12 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

 

However I've just been reading a very good article in today's " Guardian " regarding Klopp at Liverpool. His strike rate regarding signings is a lot better than 1 out of 3. We all know you live or die by your signings as a manager. I'd expect the average Joe Bloggs to get as many right as they get wrong. The Klopps of this world will be up around 75% if not more. I would suggest that a strike rate of 1 success in 3 signings would get you the sack at most normal clubs.

This is fair, but equally Klopp has an unbelievably well resourced recruitment department, and even putting aside how easily Liverpool can attract players, he's got the depth and richness of scouting data which is well beyond that of most clubs, including ours.

I think Mowbray's transfer record is mixed, but certainly not poor. The big bucks spent on Brereton and Gally will rightly be talked about until they start living up to their price tags, but profits from Dack, Rothwell and Armstrong offset that for me. We won't make any money off the loans or players signed on a free, but there are loads of examples of players signed this season and last which have meant that we're continuing to improve. I think the first team has continued to improve, which is a pretty good measure of success of the manager's performance. 

Last thing I'd say too is that our targets have changed pretty substantially in a short period of time. We're rightly looking to get in the top flight now, but that doesn't mean that the signings we made to get us in the shape we are now like Smallwood, Samuel, P. Downing, Nuttall etc were the wrong calls, just that we've outgrown their usefulness. 

[roversfan99]

5 hours ago, Eddie said:

People are very selective when being critical of our recruitment policy.

The £12 million for 2 forwards line gets trotted out pretty regularly, but this fails to include Armstrong as part of that analysis. I get the Brereton gamble, I didn't really get the Gallagher deal, and the Armstrong deal looks like a bargain - so overall I wouldn't say we've done terribly. 

The reality is that we've spent £15 million on 3 forwards and there is a good chance that we would get almost all of that back selling Armstrong alone (and maybe even more for just him if a couple of clubs got interested at the right time). 

That's not an awful recruitment policy.

Equally, Armstrong is a good example of why we need to show Brereton a bit of patience. Armstrong was a headless chicken for much of his early spell here (and elsewhere for that matter). Brereton needs more time to develop. More time in the side. And an opportunity to get some confidence. 

He may end up being a failure here. He may end up being a failure wherever he goes next. But we should at least get off his back enough to give him the chance to succeed. This time without a crowd could be just what he needs, but it does often feel as if many are hoping for him to fail so that they can say that they were right. I just don't get that. 

Theres no need to trot out this repeated nonsense about people being constantly on the players backs. Presumably you are just reading online and not going to games.

Armstrong, Dack etc are really good signings and are addressed as such. Gallagher and Brereton are overpriced failures at this stage and are addressed as such.

No one is hoping the players fail nor do they get any abuse etc games. Really rankles when people suggest otherwise. Their underperforming to date is down to themselves and Mowbray who made the signing. 

[Stuart]

.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Stuart

[philipl]

Another serious step forward from Ben today.

[G Somerset Rover]

Just now, philipl said:

Another serious step forward from Ben today.

Played well. I just don’t think he’ll ever score goals. He doesn’t have that knack about him (hope I’m proved wrong). Gallagher makes him look like Messi too!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

4 hours ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

This is fair, but equally Klopp has an unbelievably well resourced recruitment department, and even putting aside how easily Liverpool can attract players, he's got the depth and richness of scouting data which is well beyond that of most clubs, including ours.

I think Mowbray's transfer record is mixed, but certainly not poor. The big bucks spent on Brereton and Gally will rightly be talked about until they start living up to their price tags, but profits from Dack, Rothwell and Armstrong offset that for me. We won't make any money off the loans or players signed on a free, but there are loads of examples of players signed this season and last which have meant that we're continuing to improve. I think the first team has continued to improve, which is a pretty good measure of success of the manager's performance. 

Last thing I'd say too is that our targets have changed pretty substantially in a short period of time. We're rightly looking to get in the top flight now, but that doesn't mean that the signings we made to get us in the shape we are now like Smallwood, Samuel, P. Downing, Nuttall etc were the wrong calls, just that we've outgrown their usefulness. 

How much do you reckon Rothwell is worth ?

[Mr. E]

1 minute ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

How much do you reckon Rothwell is worth ?

Good question. How much is an attacking midfielder with 0 assists and 0 goals worth.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

5 hours ago, Tugay-is-God said:

Eh?

He's been involved in 103 of Rovers last 104 games.

How many of those games has he started in ?

[DE.]

6 minutes ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

Played well. I just don’t think he’ll ever score goals. He doesn’t have that knack about him (hope I’m proved wrong). 

Have to agree, at most I think he'll be a 6-10 goals a season striker, which means we'll need more goals from the rest of the team. 

[DE.]

2 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

How much do you reckon Rothwell is worth ?

It's sad to see how Rothwell has regressed this season. Being relegated to the bench seemed to knock his confidence at the start of the season and he doesn't seem to have ever really recovered. Either that or his performances at the end of the previous season were just a purple patch and what we're seeing now is his actual ability. Either way it's been a very disappointing season for Rothwell.