| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? 17:46 - Sep 4 with 6103 views | WestbourneR |
Now he hasn't signed it seems he's gonna run down his contract and leave on a free - unless I've missed something. There doesn't seem to any suggestion he'll sign an extension.
So it means we're gonna get zero quid for him in a year.
Do you think that's sensible? I genuienly don't know. He will score lots of goals and if that gets us promoted it's worth more than £15 mill... |  |
| |  |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 10:46 - Sep 7 with 1357 views | ElHoop |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 09:52 - Sep 7 by QPR_Jim |
You're right, the weak links on the pitch can be improved by coaching or shielded through tactics, so there is stuff that can be done to improve the team without replacing the weak player. If the coach doesn't identify the weak areas and resolve them then perhaps he is the weak link as you suggest. |
Arguably a weak player might only be weak in the wrong formation.
If you take Harry's regime - particularly around a year ago now - he seemed to be set on one formation and built a squad to play it and then changed his mind afterwards, after the deadline had closed.
So was the weakest link:
1 .Harry himself full stop
2. Harry's tactics
3. The weakest player in the original system
4. The weakest player in the revised system
5. Beard because he didn't look properly at what Harry was doing
6. Fernandes because he didn't look properly at what anyone was doing.
I actually think that getting rid of Beard and moving Fernandes down the pecking order was removing the weakest links. Harry was pretty crap too but now they've all gone anyway. So I'd say that whoever the weakest link is at the moment, he's less fundamental to the whole operation. We've got better people at the top. [Post edited 7 Sep 2015 10:47]
|  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 11:20 - Sep 7 with 1310 views | QPR_Jim |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 10:46 - Sep 7 by ElHoop |
Arguably a weak player might only be weak in the wrong formation.
If you take Harry's regime - particularly around a year ago now - he seemed to be set on one formation and built a squad to play it and then changed his mind afterwards, after the deadline had closed.
So was the weakest link:
1 .Harry himself full stop
2. Harry's tactics
3. The weakest player in the original system
4. The weakest player in the revised system
5. Beard because he didn't look properly at what Harry was doing
6. Fernandes because he didn't look properly at what anyone was doing.
I actually think that getting rid of Beard and moving Fernandes down the pecking order was removing the weakest links. Harry was pretty crap too but now they've all gone anyway. So I'd say that whoever the weakest link is at the moment, he's less fundamental to the whole operation. We've got better people at the top. [Post edited 7 Sep 2015 10:47]
|
That's fair enough, I much prefer the current set up with a DoF and Coach overlooked by an experienced executive such as hoos. Before it was just a manager responsible for everything up to player recruitment and he probably had direct discussions with TF about budget too.
What the organisational structure can't improve is individual errors on the field which have a greater bearing on results. A defender losing his man at a corner for example to give the attacker a free header. It's not part of the coaches plan for that to happen, the defender has been caught out and you're a goal down. The same could be said of players who aren't doing what's asked of them by the coach in open play such as not tracking back or perhaps giving away fouls etc. Does that make the coaches tactics wrong? All he can do is try to improve the player, protect the player/change his role or substitute him.
I would agree that it didn't look like Harry was doing a lot to coach them to improve or adapt tactically, he was more of a sell and replace mindset. I don't think that would be allowed in the new set up and I think the current coach has created a better atmosphere where players may improve. It's not always a coach that improves a player, if the attitude of the co-workers are right they can learn from eachothers experience and skills as well. |  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 11:37 - Sep 7 with 1299 views | ElHoop |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 11:20 - Sep 7 by QPR_Jim |
That's fair enough, I much prefer the current set up with a DoF and Coach overlooked by an experienced executive such as hoos. Before it was just a manager responsible for everything up to player recruitment and he probably had direct discussions with TF about budget too.
What the organisational structure can't improve is individual errors on the field which have a greater bearing on results. A defender losing his man at a corner for example to give the attacker a free header. It's not part of the coaches plan for that to happen, the defender has been caught out and you're a goal down. The same could be said of players who aren't doing what's asked of them by the coach in open play such as not tracking back or perhaps giving away fouls etc. Does that make the coaches tactics wrong? All he can do is try to improve the player, protect the player/change his role or substitute him.
I would agree that it didn't look like Harry was doing a lot to coach them to improve or adapt tactically, he was more of a sell and replace mindset. I don't think that would be allowed in the new set up and I think the current coach has created a better atmosphere where players may improve. It's not always a coach that improves a player, if the attitude of the co-workers are right they can learn from eachothers experience and skills as well. |
Yeah that's all quite interesting thanks.
It does feel as if we are in a position to worry about things a bit further down the food chain as it were, which makes a welcome change. Hopefully we can continue down that road and genuinely worry about whether the ability of a single player is the most important marginal factor in our ability to consistently win games. | | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 13:32 - Sep 7 with 1256 views | TacticalR |
One area where having Austin for one season might backfire is if we got promoted by being heavily dependent on his goals, and then not having the player who got us the goals. This is effectively what happened with Taarabt, who somehow got lost on the way to the Premiership. |  |
| |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 13:36 - Sep 7 with 1250 views | Bluce_Ree |
What's better: lots of goals or some cash that will get sucked up by the general cost of running a football club badly for the last few years?
Hmmmmm.....
Hmmmmmmmmm.....
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
Even if we did spend the entire £15, it'd only be on shit. Whoever is this decade's version of Tony Hately, Ned Zelic and Simon Osborn. That's who we'd get. |  |
| Stefan Moore, Stefan Moore running down the wing. Stefan Moore, Stefan Moore running down the wing. He runs like a cheetah, his crosses couldn't be sweeter. Stefan Moore. Stefan Moore. Stefan Moore. |
| |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 13:47 - Sep 7 with 1234 views | TacticalR |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 13:36 - Sep 7 by Bluce_Ree |
What's better: lots of goals or some cash that will get sucked up by the general cost of running a football club badly for the last few years?
Hmmmmm.....
Hmmmmmmmmm.....
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
Even if we did spend the entire £15, it'd only be on shit. Whoever is this decade's version of Tony Hately, Ned Zelic and Simon Osborn. That's who we'd get. |
Give me goals or give me death! | |
| |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 20:47 - Sep 7 with 1172 views | DylanP |
So there is a couple of things in there. Firstly 15 million is the wrong top number. Obviously, the top number should be the amount that someone was willing to pay -- which appeared to be 12 million. Then from that 12 million, you have to deduct the amount that we would spend on his replacement. So, lets guess that would be around 5 million. So, truthfully the question should be: "What's better - £7 million or Austin for one season?"
Well, 7 million is nothing in football. That is probably what we are saving by getting SWP and Joey off the books (assuming that each was on around 60-80K a week (which is what people have said).
Of course, Sky believe that Norwich's win in the Play Off final earned them about 80 million That adds a bit of perspective. Sky reckons that promotion could be worth between 130-230 million next season. 7-15 million pales in comparison.
Obviously, one player does not guarantee anything. But a motivated Austin certainly gives us a much better chance. Throw in a motivated Phillips, a resurgent Faurlin and some positive looking signings and, well ...… and ….. and its the hope that bloody kills you. Innit?
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11688/9864478/how-much-is-premier-league- |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
