I know it's going to sound a bit too basic, but it does seem logical that if you are a centre half (Chapple) then you will have no problem making good opinions on those..... Think Breaker and Parky were also defenders....
[cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]I know it's going to sound a bit too basic, but it does seem logical that if you are a centre half (Chapple) then you will have no problem making good opinions on those..... Think Breaker and Parky were also defenders....
Yes, it does sound too basic and not at all logical.
Peter Taylor (the older one) was the one who spotted all the players for Clough and he was a keeper.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]Dave, why arent you working in the football league or even Premier League at the moment? I know of course you managed a team in the FA Cup but your knowledge seems unbounded looking at your comments recently. Surely you could do a job somewhere in the Championship at least?
I don't know if I could have made the grade. I stopped at semi-pro level having concentrated on a different career path. More security and probably more worthwhile in truth. We all make our choices.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]And how do you know Chapple "dithered? He may have been urging Pardew to sign him and Pardew made the decision not to.
We made have made an offer but the player preferred Fulham to us. We just don't know.
I do know. But I choose not to divulge my source. If that devalues my statement (not opinion, but statement), then so be it.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]And how do you know Chapple "dithered? He may have been urging Pardew to sign him and Pardew made the decision not to.
We made have made an offer but the player preferred Fulham to us. We just don't know.
I do know. But I choose not to divulge my source. If that devalues my statement (not opinion, but statement), then so be it.
It not only devalues it but totally undermines it but so be it.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]The chief scout makes recommendations and gives advice. He doesn't make decisions about signings.
Since we'll never know what his advice may have been, what other players he may have recommended that weren't pursued and who that did sign was originally recommended by someone else, I don't know how we can have a valid opinion on his performance.
That's a hell of a job then. No way of measuring performance.
.
The key phrase in Airman's statement is "I don't know how WE (my emphasis) can have a valid opinion.."
Airman has not said that there is no way to measure performance or that his performance isn't indeed measured only that as WE FANS (my emphasis again) don't have all the facts and figures, as listed in his post, we don't have the data to make an informed judgement.
I submit that WE FANS can have an opinion based on the evidence (or lack of evidence) of success. Things don't always need to be based on hard facts and data, although they generally help. But just look at the bigger picture. Scoham's list of names are a nice example. Nothing to write home about there. And that's the overall pattern, I suggest. Not quantified, not illustrated with facts and data - just an assessment of the overall position.
I don't blame Chapple specifically. Merely that he is part of a team who don't seem to have done particularly well.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]And how do you know Chapple "dithered? He may have been urging Pardew to sign him and Pardew made the decision not to.
We made have made an offer but the player preferred Fulham to us. We just don't know.
I do know. But I choose not to divulge my source. If that devalues my statement (not opinion, but statement), then so be it.
It not only devalues it but totally undermines it but so be it.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]And how do you know Chapple "dithered? He may have been urging Pardew to sign him and Pardew made the decision not to.
We made have made an offer but the player preferred Fulham to us. We just don't know.
I do know. But I choose not to divulge my source. If that devalues my statement (not opinion, but statement), then so be it.
It not only devalues it but totally undermines it but so be it.
Bexley Dan mentioned Charlie Austin, I've said before he's not really a fair example. He was playing at county league level, where there are hundreds of strikers. Not many players have gone straight from that level to League One.
Morison is a better example. To be fair to Pardew he tried to bring through non league players in Dickson, Fleetwood, Dorian Smith and various trialists. He just didn't find the right ones.
Parky in comparison has taken a few on trial but only signed up one in Worner.
Weirdly I pondered this myself last night. I argued extensively with myself and came up with no concrete opinion.
The fact is we have not uncovered many huge talents in the past few seasons, compared with some other clubs. The fact is we cannot know how much the Chief Scout it not making good recommendations and how much they are not being taken up. My gut feeling is that is must in some way, be partly to do with the Chief Scout.
[cite]Posted By: Plaaayer[/cite]Is this the what does Steve Waggott do for his money thread?
No, it's the "what does Mervyn Day Do, I don't know but I'm going to blame him anyway" Thread
Twaddle. We're not blaming him. We do know what he does - he's chief scout. We are raising the fact that the scouting 'network' we have had in place over the last 4 years does not appear to be very successful. And to suggest that Phil chapple is less likely to be able to spot / assess a centre half than any other position is not illogical. It may be basic and not a definite fact but it is not illogical. Ex goalkeepers tend to become goalkeeping coaches. Ex defenders tend to get brought in to 'sort out the defence'. There is undeniable logic to it but it doiesn't necessarily mean that they cannot also spot other good players - of course.
Supposing Phil Chapple needs a network of scouts to be effective and the board won't allow him any on cost grounds. Suppose he identified three great prospects but the board wouldn''t deal with clubs x, y and z because of the way they wanted the deals structured. Or the clubs just wanted too much money for the risk attached.
Not saying that's the case at all, just that it's unfair to make a judgement on him in isolation without knowing a great deal more about what's going on.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]Supposing Phil Chapple needs a network of scouts to be effective and the board won't allow him any on cost grounds. Suppose he identified three great prospects but the board wouldn''t deal with clubs x, y and z because of the way they wanted the deals structured. Or the clubs just wanted too much money for the risk attached.
Not saying that's the case at all, just that it's unfair to make a judgement on him in isolation without knowing a great deal more about what's going on.
Never let facts (or the lack thereof) get in the way of a good online debate! Let's face it, if message boards dealt only in facts, there would be very little on them.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]Supposing Phil Chapple needs a network of scouts to be effective and the board won't allow him any on cost grounds. Suppose he identified three great prospects but the board wouldn''t deal with clubs x, y and z because of the way they wanted the deals structured. Or the clubs just wanted too much money for the risk attached.
Not saying that's the case at all, just that it's unfair to make a judgement on him in isolation without knowing a great deal more about what's going on.
Never let facts (or the lack thereof) get in the way of a good online debate! Let's face it, if message boards dealt only in facts, there would be very little on them.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]Supposing Phil Chapple needs a network of scouts to be effective and the board won't allow him any on cost grounds. Suppose he identified three great prospects but the board wouldn''t deal with clubs x, y and z because of the way they wanted the deals structured. Or the clubs just wanted too much money for the risk attached.
Not saying that's the case at all, just that it's unfair to make a judgement on him in isolation without knowing a great deal more about what's going on.
Valid points but if Phil Chapple doesn't have what he needs in place to be effective, mabe we should try somebody else? Not trying to put anybody out of work but i would say that a chief scouts most important asset would be his network of scouts.
at the end of the day you have to look at the clubs performances since he has been chief scout.No he doesn't pick the team but he recommends players and since he has been chief scout we have been shite.COINCEDENCE or a contributing factor? I know what I think.I mentioned it some time ago.He wasn't a great player and sure aint a good scout.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]Supposing Phil Chapple needs a network of scouts to be effective and the board won't allow him any on cost grounds. Suppose he identified three great prospects but the board wouldn''t deal with clubs x, y and z because of the way they wanted the deals structured. Or the clubs just wanted too much money for the risk attached.
Not saying that's the case at all, just that it's unfair to make a judgement on him in isolation without knowing a great deal more about what's going on.
Valid points but if Phil Chapple doesn't have what he needs in place to be effective, mabe we should try somebody else? Not trying to put anybody out of work but i would say that a chief scouts most important asset would be his network of scouts.
But any other chief scout would face the same issue ie the club not being willing or able to fund their network of scouts no matter how good or bad it was (accepting that AB not saying that that is the case)
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]Supposing Phil Chapple needs a network of scouts to be effective and the board won't allow him any on cost grounds. Suppose he identified three great prospects but the board wouldn''t deal with clubs x, y and z because of the way they wanted the deals structured. Or the clubs just wanted too much money for the risk attached.
Not saying that's the case at all, just that it's unfair to make a judgement on him in isolation without knowing a great deal more about what's going on.
Valid points but if Phil Chapple doesn't have what he needs in place to be effective, mabe we should try somebody else? Not trying to put anybody out of work but i would say that a chief scouts most important asset would be his network of scouts.
Maybe we should, but how would we ever know about what specific players he's recommended to Parky (and Pardew previously)? For all we know Chapple may have suggested some of these players we've spoke about that turned about to be gems (Morison, Austin), but the manager had the final call, and didn't think they were good enough.
phil chapple is not a good scout and therefore he should be relieved of his duties we need someone to find talent not bring mediocre players to our club .
[cite]Posted By: boogica[/cite]phil chapple is not a good scout and therefore he should be relieved of his duties we need someone to find talent not bring mediocre players to our club .
How do you judge whether or not he's a good scout, for all the reasons above? How do you know he didn't recommend all our good signings and someone else, say Mark Kinsella recommended all the poor ones?
Obviously the players we are signing has something to do with Chapple, but I don't see how any of us can judge his performance as there is so much we don't know about, as Airman said.
[cite]Posted By: boogica[/cite]phil chapple is not a good scout and therefore he should be relieved of his duties we need someone to find talent not bring mediocre players to our club .
How do you judge whether or not he's a good scout, for all the reasons above? How do you know he didn't recommend all our good signings and someone else, say Mark Kinsella recommended all the poor ones?
Obviously the players we are signing has something to do with Chapple, but I don't see how any of us can judge his performance as there is so much we don't know about, as Airman said.[/quote
behind the scenes people at the club know that our scouting system is not what it used to be phil chapple has been chief scout for numerous years now whether this is coincidence with our slide down the table i dont know but the players who have come in just aint good enough hence look at our league position maybe a change of head scout is needed.]
[cite]Posted By: Harveys Trainer[/cite]Clutching at straws.
so do u think the players we have brought to the club the last couple of years have been good additions.
In the last two years I think we'd done alright with the resources at our disposal. And as has been pointed out many times above, how can any of us possibly know who exactly Chapple recommended? Maybe he did put forward the likes of Austin and Morison, but Parky thought they weren't good enough. Without knowing that sort of information, it's a bit ridiculous to start suggesting we should sack our chief scout.
[cite]Posted By: Harveys Trainer[/cite]Clutching at straws.
so do u think the players we have brought to the club the last couple of years have been good additions.
In the last two years I think we'd done alright with the resources at our disposal. And as has been pointed out many times above, how can any of us possibly know who exactly Chapple recommended? Maybe he did put forward the likes of Austin and Morison, but Parky thought they weren't good enough. Without knowing that sort of information, it's a bit ridiculous to start suggesting we should sack our chief scout.
so who do u blame inside sources say our scouting system isnt what it used to be and at the moment it shows.
Comments
Yes, it does sound too basic and not at all logical.
Peter Taylor (the older one) was the one who spotted all the players for Clough and he was a keeper.
I don't know if I could have made the grade. I stopped at semi-pro level having concentrated on a different career path. More security and probably more worthwhile in truth. We all make our choices.
I do know. But I choose not to divulge my source. If that devalues my statement (not opinion, but statement), then so be it.
It not only devalues it but totally undermines it but so be it.
I submit that WE FANS can have an opinion based on the evidence (or lack of evidence) of success. Things don't always need to be based on hard facts and data, although they generally help. But just look at the bigger picture. Scoham's list of names are a nice example. Nothing to write home about there. And that's the overall pattern, I suggest. Not quantified, not illustrated with facts and data - just an assessment of the overall position.
I don't blame Chapple specifically. Merely that he is part of a team who don't seem to have done particularly well.
In your opinion.
No, my statement.
No, it's the "what does Mervyn Day Do, I don't know but I'm going to blame him anyway" Thread
Morison is a better example. To be fair to Pardew he tried to bring through non league players in Dickson, Fleetwood, Dorian Smith and various trialists. He just didn't find the right ones.
Parky in comparison has taken a few on trial but only signed up one in Worner.
The fact is we have not uncovered many huge talents in the past few seasons, compared with some other clubs.
The fact is we cannot know how much the Chief Scout it not making good recommendations and how much they are not being taken up.
My gut feeling is that is must in some way, be partly to do with the Chief Scout.
I hope that clears it up!
Twaddle. We're not blaming him. We do know what he does - he's chief scout. We are raising the fact that the scouting 'network' we have had in place over the last 4 years does not appear to be very successful. And to suggest that Phil chapple is less likely to be able to spot / assess a centre half than any other position is not illogical. It may be basic and not a definite fact but it is not illogical. Ex goalkeepers tend to become goalkeeping coaches. Ex defenders tend to get brought in to 'sort out the defence'. There is undeniable logic to it but it doiesn't necessarily mean that they cannot also spot other good players - of course.
Not saying that's the case at all, just that it's unfair to make a judgement on him in isolation without knowing a great deal more about what's going on.
Never let facts (or the lack thereof) get in the way of a good online debate! Let's face it, if message boards dealt only in facts, there would be very little on them.
Quite so.
Agreed FACT
Valid points but if Phil Chapple doesn't have what he needs in place to be effective, mabe we should try somebody else? Not trying to put anybody out of work but i would say that a chief scouts most important asset would be his network of scouts.
But any other chief scout would face the same issue ie the club not being willing or able to fund their network of scouts no matter how good or bad it was (accepting that AB not saying that that is the case)
Maybe we should, but how would we ever know about what specific players he's recommended to Parky (and Pardew previously)? For all we know Chapple may have suggested some of these players we've spoke about that turned about to be gems (Morison, Austin), but the manager had the final call, and didn't think they were good enough.
Obviously the players we are signing has something to do with Chapple, but I don't see how any of us can judge his performance as there is so much we don't know about, as Airman said.
so do u think the players we have brought to the club the last couple of years have been good additions.
In the last two years I think we'd done alright with the resources at our disposal. And as has been pointed out many times above, how can any of us possibly know who exactly Chapple recommended? Maybe he did put forward the likes of Austin and Morison, but Parky thought they weren't good enough. Without knowing that sort of information, it's a bit ridiculous to start suggesting we should sack our chief scout.
so who do u blame inside sources say our scouting system isnt what it used to be and at the moment it shows.