None has big budgets but instead relied on good scouts and their own judgement (Curbs had watched Darren Bent 15 times) to bring in players with the right skills to fit into the side with the right CHARACTER.
More money = more success! Well, none of needed a chart to show a correlation there but the best managers buck that trend.
Fergie had great success at Aberdeen before United.
And a director of football is just as likely to get it wrong as a manager.
What is needed is a clear, medium term plan and a skilled team of scouts and coaches, who trust each other, to implement it. Could be a manager who has the final say or a DOF but there has to be a clear plan.
Hence why Wolves worked and Fulham didn't.
Gallen and Bowyer fit the bill. They don't need Driesen. He brings nothing.
Bowyer as manager doesn't do it all, as Driesen says. He works with people with the right skills and experience that he trusts. Gallen has his scouts, Avory and Euell know the kids, Lee has other contacts.
Seed had Angus Seed, his brother to scout in the north east. It is nothing new.
All the data in the world doesn't replace knowing what you are talking about.
Anthony Seed ran the scouting operation, not Angus. Angus helped out, as a lower league manager.
As I typed it I couldn't remember if it was Anthony or Angus and I would have got away with if it wasn't for you!
I was about to say that you must mean Anthony.
I was about to DM AFKA to say Herny has been hacked by Millwall because all Charlton know it was Tony
Yeah, good knows how Angus could've scouted at the Charlton when he was managing at the Aldershot. Not even a simple mistake....
In my view the final say should be managers. Particularly in saying "no I don't want that player" or between choosing between different players. However they can't be given free reign as some managers in the past (pardew/Dowie) seem to have done. Signing a new player needs to be given a tick by the manager, chief scout and CEO for us. The fact we haven't got the latter must cause issues eg the changing of goalposts in January in signing a striker.
Recruitment is so so important at our level. We are currently at a level were it should be quite easy but can also go badly wrong.
So if Bowyer wants a full back, has limited (ie zero) transfer funds but pays good wages for league one he still has loads of options from smaller league 1 clubs, the better players in league 2 and the national league, players not getting a game in the championship and Premier league kids. That's before you look abroad. So say for a left back he probably has 15-20 options?
If Man United want a left back they probably only have a choice of 1 or 2 every summer, it's unlikely that "someone you have never heard of" is good enough to be their 1st left, it's quite likely you won't of heard of the one we end up with.
What's intresting from a Charlton point of view is that the there were 2 TD players who started yesterday, 4 Jason Euall players and 5 Lee Bowyer signings. No Slade, no Robinson signings at all.
I would love to know how much we have paid in wages to Pearce, Novak, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves etc they all had good league 1 pedigree but apart from Reeves and Pearce have contributed nothing.
The type of player TD favoured would actually suit the way Bower plays. To have good recruitment, at this level, you need to have a range of options, that others don't. A good u23 set as a path way from the academy and other sources (Lookman and Aribo), good contacts that allow you an advantage in the loan market as we look to have with Arsenal, West ham and Chelsea, if you add in European scouting you have a massive advantage.
A TD type shouldn't be your only source of players but it should be part of the recruitment mix. BTW I am not saying it should be him, but it works for Brentford and is a nothing good example of good ideas badly executed by the SMT and the owner.
@NapaAddick In my opinion the following players have improved significantly during the course of this season:
Philips, Sarr ("significantly" probably isn't strong enough) Aribo, Lapslie. Grant of course, before that dickhead sold him for peanuts.
The following players would probably agree that they are playing and contributing better than last season, wherever they were playing:
Taylor, Reeves, Page, Bauer, Dijksteel, Vetokele, possibly Williams. Morgan, in the sense that he has made his debut and looks very ready.
The following players are fulfilling their expected levels of performance (which is more impressive than it might sound, if you look back on the last few seasons):
Bielik, Cullen, Purrington, Pearce. After yesterday, I might even add Parker, given all the circs. He isn't just making up the numbers any more. Pratley, in whom LB has faith even if people on here don't.
That only leaves Chris Solly, sadly, and that is probably a reflection of his fitness issues and enormous early years potential when West Ham seemed likely to sign him.
EDIT: I forgot Fosu!
Obviously these outcomes, this season, have nothing per se to do with either fees paid, or wages. They have everything to do with the work of this management team. And nothing at all to do with Duchatelet, or the CEO who of course does not exist. Nor do I believe these outcomes would have occurred if Karl Robinson, or indeed any of the other Duchatelet "managers" had been in charge at this time.
If any of us were asked to scout for talent, we would find a few gems based on the law of averages along with more duds. But the best scouts will find the players the manager wants and needs to improve the team within set perameters like price, how the manager wants to play etc... TD's biggest failing in my view, is he ignored this key component. He told Duchatelet that Kermogant and Stephens were not good enough FFS! He probably got carried away watching the film Moneyball! He even told Duchatelet how the team should play. The manager decides that and there are so many different approaches that can bring success, it is incredibly arrogant to impose your view on them
Recruitment is so so important at our level. We are currently at a level were it should be quite easy but can also go badly wrong.
So if Bowyer wants a full back, has limited (ie zero) transfer funds but pays good wages for league one he still has loads of options from smaller league 1 clubs, the better players in league 2 and the national league, players not getting a game in the championship and Premier league kids. That's before you look abroad. So say for a left back he probably has 15-20 options?
If Man United want a left back they probably only have a choice of 1 or 2 every summer, it's unlikely that "someone you have never heard of" is good enough to be their 1st left, it's quite likely you won't of heard of the one we end up with.
What's intresting from a Charlton point of view is that the there were 2 TD players who started yesterday, 4 Jason Euall players and 5 Lee Bowyer signings. No Slade, no Robinson signings at all.
I would love to know how much we have paid in wages to Pearce, Novak, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves etc they all had good league 1 pedigree but apart from Reeves and Pearce have contributed nothing.
The type of player TD favoured would actually suit the way Bower plays. To have good recruitment, at this level, you need to have a range of options, that others don't. A good u23 set as a path way from the academy and other sources (Lookman and Aribo), good contacts that allow you an advantage in the loan market as we look to have with Arsenal, West ham and Chelsea, if you add in European scouting you have a massive advantage.
A TD type shouldn't be your only source of players but it should be part of the recruitment mix. BTW I am not saying it should be him, but it works for Brentford and is a nothing good example of good ideas badly executed by the SMT and the owner.
An interesting stat, though partially down to the TD players being given long and well paid contracts, whereas subsequent signings have had shorter contracts or been loans. If Sarr had been on a 3 year deal, he would have left last summer without anyone caring.
The biggest problem I had with the TD style of recruitment was that it wasn't geared to what we needed at the time. The likes of Chelsea can gamble a couple of million on a talented youngster, knowing that a) it's small change to them b) the player won't be needed in the 1st team
4 summers ago we needed battle hardened players for a Championship campaign, and instead got "promising youngsters" some of which turned out to eventually come good, but after the damage had been done.
Recruitment is so so important at our level. We are currently at a level were it should be quite easy but can also go badly wrong.
So if Bowyer wants a full back, has limited (ie zero) transfer funds but pays good wages for league one he still has loads of options from smaller league 1 clubs, the better players in league 2 and the national league, players not getting a game in the championship and Premier league kids. That's before you look abroad. So say for a left back he probably has 15-20 options?
If Man United want a left back they probably only have a choice of 1 or 2 every summer, it's unlikely that "someone you have never heard of" is good enough to be their 1st left, it's quite likely you won't of heard of the one we end up with.
What's intresting from a Charlton point of view is that the there were 2 TD players who started yesterday, 4 Jason Euall players and 5 Lee Bowyer signings. No Slade, no Robinson signings at all.
I would love to know how much we have paid in wages to Pearce, Novak, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves etc they all had good league 1 pedigree but apart from Reeves and Pearce have contributed nothing.
The type of player TD favoured would actually suit the way Bower plays. To have good recruitment, at this level, you need to have a range of options, that others don't. A good u23 set as a path way from the academy and other sources (Lookman and Aribo), good contacts that allow you an advantage in the loan market as we look to have with Arsenal, West ham and Chelsea, if you add in European scouting you have a massive advantage.
A TD type shouldn't be your only source of players but it should be part of the recruitment mix. BTW I am not saying it should be him, but it works for Brentford and is a nothing good example of good ideas badly executed by the SMT and the owner.
An interesting stat, though partially down to the TD players being given long and well paid contracts, whereas subsequent signings have had shorter contracts or been loans. If Sarr had been on a 3 year deal, he would have left last summer without anyone caring.
The biggest problem I had with the TD style of recruitment was that it wasn't geared to what we needed at the time. The likes of Chelsea can gamble a couple of million on a talented youngster, knowing that a) it's small change to them b) the player won't be needed in the 1st team
4 summers ago we needed battle hardened players for a Championship campaign, and instead got "promising youngsters" some of which turned out to eventually come good, but after the damage had been done.
Couldn't agree more, however could players like Ba and George Tucudean have delevoped into good Charlton players given the time? How much effect on his development did Sarr's wasted year on loan have (of he played for our u23s for 6 months instead). Like you hint at the quality of the players wasn't the problem it was the lack of battle hardened pros, as soon as Kashi and BFG were injured the wheels came off big time, we actually started that season well.
Recruitment is so so important at our level. We are currently at a level were it should be quite easy but can also go badly wrong.
So if Bowyer wants a full back, has limited (ie zero) transfer funds but pays good wages for league one he still has loads of options from smaller league 1 clubs, the better players in league 2 and the national league, players not getting a game in the championship and Premier league kids. That's before you look abroad. So say for a left back he probably has 15-20 options?
If Man United want a left back they probably only have a choice of 1 or 2 every summer, it's unlikely that "someone you have never heard of" is good enough to be their 1st left, it's quite likely you won't of heard of the one we end up with.
What's intresting from a Charlton point of view is that the there were 2 TD players who started yesterday, 4 Jason Euall players and 5 Lee Bowyer signings. No Slade, no Robinson signings at all.
I would love to know how much we have paid in wages to Pearce, Novak, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves etc they all had good league 1 pedigree but apart from Reeves and Pearce have contributed nothing.
The type of player TD favoured would actually suit the way Bower plays. To have good recruitment, at this level, you need to have a range of options, that others don't. A good u23 set as a path way from the academy and other sources (Lookman and Aribo), good contacts that allow you an advantage in the loan market as we look to have with Arsenal, West ham and Chelsea, if you add in European scouting you have a massive advantage.
A TD type shouldn't be your only source of players but it should be part of the recruitment mix. BTW I am not saying it should be him, but it works for Brentford and is a nothing good example of good ideas badly executed by the SMT and the owner.
An interesting stat, though partially down to the TD players being given long and well paid contracts, whereas subsequent signings have had shorter contracts or been loans. If Sarr had been on a 3 year deal, he would have left last summer without anyone caring.
The biggest problem I had with the TD style of recruitment was that it wasn't geared to what we needed at the time. The likes of Chelsea can gamble a couple of million on a talented youngster, knowing that a) it's small change to them b) the player won't be needed in the 1st team
4 summers ago we needed battle hardened players for a Championship campaign, and instead got "promising youngsters" some of which turned out to eventually come good, but after the damage had been done.
Couldn't agree more, however could players like Ba and George Tucudean have delevoped into good Charlton players given the time? How much effect on his development did Sarr's wasted year on loan have (of he played for our u23s for 6 months instead). Like you hint at the quality of the players wasn't the problem it was the lack of battle hardened pros, as soon as Kashi and BFG were injured the wheels came off big time, we actually started that season well.
I’ll give you Ba, maybe there was a player there but Tucudean? Must have missed something.
Recruitment is so so important at our level. We are currently at a level were it should be quite easy but can also go badly wrong.
So if Bowyer wants a full back, has limited (ie zero) transfer funds but pays good wages for league one he still has loads of options from smaller league 1 clubs, the better players in league 2 and the national league, players not getting a game in the championship and Premier league kids. That's before you look abroad. So say for a left back he probably has 15-20 options?
If Man United want a left back they probably only have a choice of 1 or 2 every summer, it's unlikely that "someone you have never heard of" is good enough to be their 1st left, it's quite likely you won't of heard of the one we end up with.
What's intresting from a Charlton point of view is that the there were 2 TD players who started yesterday, 4 Jason Euall players and 5 Lee Bowyer signings. No Slade, no Robinson signings at all.
I would love to know how much we have paid in wages to Pearce, Novak, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves etc they all had good league 1 pedigree but apart from Reeves and Pearce have contributed nothing.
The type of player TD favoured would actually suit the way Bower plays. To have good recruitment, at this level, you need to have a range of options, that others don't. A good u23 set as a path way from the academy and other sources (Lookman and Aribo), good contacts that allow you an advantage in the loan market as we look to have with Arsenal, West ham and Chelsea, if you add in European scouting you have a massive advantage.
A TD type shouldn't be your only source of players but it should be part of the recruitment mix. BTW I am not saying it should be him, but it works for Brentford and is a nothing good example of good ideas badly executed by the SMT and the owner.
An interesting stat, though partially down to the TD players being given long and well paid contracts, whereas subsequent signings have had shorter contracts or been loans. If Sarr had been on a 3 year deal, he would have left last summer without anyone caring.
The biggest problem I had with the TD style of recruitment was that it wasn't geared to what we needed at the time. The likes of Chelsea can gamble a couple of million on a talented youngster, knowing that a) it's small change to them b) the player won't be needed in the 1st team
4 summers ago we needed battle hardened players for a Championship campaign, and instead got "promising youngsters" some of which turned out to eventually come good, but after the damage had been done.
Couldn't agree more, however could players like Ba and George Tucudean have delevoped into good Charlton players given the time? How much effect on his development did Sarr's wasted year on loan have (of he played for our u23s for 6 months instead). Like you hint at the quality of the players wasn't the problem it was the lack of battle hardened pros, as soon as Kashi and BFG were injured the wheels came off big time, we actually started that season well.
I’ll give you Ba, maybe there was a player there but Tucudean? Must have missed something.
9 caps, 3 goals for Romania suggest there is a player there. 22 goals in 39 games shows he is hitting his peek, he has just turned 28.
I would fancy he is a better player than most of the strikers who we have had since he left.
Recruitment is so so important at our level. We are currently at a level were it should be quite easy but can also go badly wrong.
So if Bowyer wants a full back, has limited (ie zero) transfer funds but pays good wages for league one he still has loads of options from smaller league 1 clubs, the better players in league 2 and the national league, players not getting a game in the championship and Premier league kids. That's before you look abroad. So say for a left back he probably has 15-20 options?
If Man United want a left back they probably only have a choice of 1 or 2 every summer, it's unlikely that "someone you have never heard of" is good enough to be their 1st left, it's quite likely you won't of heard of the one we end up with.
What's intresting from a Charlton point of view is that the there were 2 TD players who started yesterday, 4 Jason Euall players and 5 Lee Bowyer signings. No Slade, no Robinson signings at all.
I would love to know how much we have paid in wages to Pearce, Novak, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves etc they all had good league 1 pedigree but apart from Reeves and Pearce have contributed nothing.
The type of player TD favoured would actually suit the way Bower plays. To have good recruitment, at this level, you need to have a range of options, that others don't. A good u23 set as a path way from the academy and other sources (Lookman and Aribo), good contacts that allow you an advantage in the loan market as we look to have with Arsenal, West ham and Chelsea, if you add in European scouting you have a massive advantage.
A TD type shouldn't be your only source of players but it should be part of the recruitment mix. BTW I am not saying it should be him, but it works for Brentford and is a nothing good example of good ideas badly executed by the SMT and the owner.
An interesting stat, though partially down to the TD players being given long and well paid contracts, whereas subsequent signings have had shorter contracts or been loans. If Sarr had been on a 3 year deal, he would have left last summer without anyone caring.
The biggest problem I had with the TD style of recruitment was that it wasn't geared to what we needed at the time. The likes of Chelsea can gamble a couple of million on a talented youngster, knowing that a) it's small change to them b) the player won't be needed in the 1st team
4 summers ago we needed battle hardened players for a Championship campaign, and instead got "promising youngsters" some of which turned out to eventually come good, but after the damage had been done.
Couldn't agree more, however could players like Ba and George Tucudean have delevoped into good Charlton players given the time? How much effect on his development did Sarr's wasted year on loan have (of he played for our u23s for 6 months instead). Like you hint at the quality of the players wasn't the problem it was the lack of battle hardened pros, as soon as Kashi and BFG were injured the wheels came off big time, we actually started that season well.
I’ll give you Ba, maybe there was a player there but Tucudean? Must have missed something.
9 caps, 3 goals for Romania suggest there is a player there. 22 goals in 39 games shows he is hitting his peek, he has just turned 28.
I would fancy he is a better player than most of the strikers who we have had since he left.
Key point is that Tucudean didn't join us because he had potential to be a good player for us.
He joined us because he'd flopped at Standard and was going spare so, like a few others, was dumped on Powell to try and recoup the money wasted on him. He wasn't right for us at the time, which is what matters.
Yes, he's done OK and you could see he had some ability when he played for us but he only proves that such decisions should be taken by football people not by a data base.
Recruitment is so so important at our level. We are currently at a level were it should be quite easy but can also go badly wrong.
So if Bowyer wants a full back, has limited (ie zero) transfer funds but pays good wages for league one he still has loads of options from smaller league 1 clubs, the better players in league 2 and the national league, players not getting a game in the championship and Premier league kids. That's before you look abroad. So say for a left back he probably has 15-20 options?
If Man United want a left back they probably only have a choice of 1 or 2 every summer, it's unlikely that "someone you have never heard of" is good enough to be their 1st left, it's quite likely you won't of heard of the one we end up with.
What's intresting from a Charlton point of view is that the there were 2 TD players who started yesterday, 4 Jason Euall players and 5 Lee Bowyer signings. No Slade, no Robinson signings at all.
I would love to know how much we have paid in wages to Pearce, Novak, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves etc they all had good league 1 pedigree but apart from Reeves and Pearce have contributed nothing.
The type of player TD favoured would actually suit the way Bower plays. To have good recruitment, at this level, you need to have a range of options, that others don't. A good u23 set as a path way from the academy and other sources (Lookman and Aribo), good contacts that allow you an advantage in the loan market as we look to have with Arsenal, West ham and Chelsea, if you add in European scouting you have a massive advantage.
A TD type shouldn't be your only source of players but it should be part of the recruitment mix. BTW I am not saying it should be him, but it works for Brentford and is a nothing good example of good ideas badly executed by the SMT and the owner.
An interesting stat, though partially down to the TD players being given long and well paid contracts, whereas subsequent signings have had shorter contracts or been loans. If Sarr had been on a 3 year deal, he would have left last summer without anyone caring.
The biggest problem I had with the TD style of recruitment was that it wasn't geared to what we needed at the time. The likes of Chelsea can gamble a couple of million on a talented youngster, knowing that a) it's small change to them b) the player won't be needed in the 1st team
4 summers ago we needed battle hardened players for a Championship campaign, and instead got "promising youngsters" some of which turned out to eventually come good, but after the damage had been done.
Couldn't agree more, however could players like Ba and George Tucudean have delevoped into good Charlton players given the time? How much effect on his development did Sarr's wasted year on loan have (of he played for our u23s for 6 months instead). Like you hint at the quality of the players wasn't the problem it was the lack of battle hardened pros, as soon as Kashi and BFG were injured the wheels came off big time, we actually started that season well.
I’ll give you Ba, maybe there was a player there but Tucudean? Must have missed something.
9 caps, 3 goals for Romania suggest there is a player there. 22 goals in 39 games shows he is hitting his peek, he has just turned 28.
I would fancy he is a better player than most of the strikers who we have had since he left.
Key point is that Tucudean didn't join us because he had potential to be a good player for us.
He joined us because he'd flopped at Standard and was going spare so, like a few others, was dumped on Powell to try and recoup the money wasted on him. He wasn't right for us at the time, which is what matters.
Yes, he's done OK and you could see he had some ability when he played for us but he only proves that such decisions should be taken by football people not by a data base.
But my point is he didn't fail because he didn't have the ability. He failed because he was thrown in the first team, struggled then at the 1st opportunity was dumped out on a 2 year loan, then released.
He wasn't given the time or opportunity to adapt to the English game. If someone would have taken Sarr off our hands after one season he would have been dumped as well. If your going to "farm" players, which is what we have actually done for over 50 years, you need to coach and develop them as well.
The biggest problem has been the managment of the players signed by TD, not the players them selves. I know some people will never agree which is fair enough.
Recruitment is so so important at our level. We are currently at a level were it should be quite easy but can also go badly wrong.
So if Bowyer wants a full back, has limited (ie zero) transfer funds but pays good wages for league one he still has loads of options from smaller league 1 clubs, the better players in league 2 and the national league, players not getting a game in the championship and Premier league kids. That's before you look abroad. So say for a left back he probably has 15-20 options?
If Man United want a left back they probably only have a choice of 1 or 2 every summer, it's unlikely that "someone you have never heard of" is good enough to be their 1st left, it's quite likely you won't of heard of the one we end up with.
What's intresting from a Charlton point of view is that the there were 2 TD players who started yesterday, 4 Jason Euall players and 5 Lee Bowyer signings. No Slade, no Robinson signings at all.
I would love to know how much we have paid in wages to Pearce, Novak, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves etc they all had good league 1 pedigree but apart from Reeves and Pearce have contributed nothing.
The type of player TD favoured would actually suit the way Bower plays. To have good recruitment, at this level, you need to have a range of options, that others don't. A good u23 set as a path way from the academy and other sources (Lookman and Aribo), good contacts that allow you an advantage in the loan market as we look to have with Arsenal, West ham and Chelsea, if you add in European scouting you have a massive advantage.
A TD type shouldn't be your only source of players but it should be part of the recruitment mix. BTW I am not saying it should be him, but it works for Brentford and is a nothing good example of good ideas badly executed by the SMT and the owner.
An interesting stat, though partially down to the TD players being given long and well paid contracts, whereas subsequent signings have had shorter contracts or been loans. If Sarr had been on a 3 year deal, he would have left last summer without anyone caring.
The biggest problem I had with the TD style of recruitment was that it wasn't geared to what we needed at the time. The likes of Chelsea can gamble a couple of million on a talented youngster, knowing that a) it's small change to them b) the player won't be needed in the 1st team
4 summers ago we needed battle hardened players for a Championship campaign, and instead got "promising youngsters" some of which turned out to eventually come good, but after the damage had been done.
Couldn't agree more, however could players like Ba and George Tucudean have delevoped into good Charlton players given the time? How much effect on his development did Sarr's wasted year on loan have (of he played for our u23s for 6 months instead). Like you hint at the quality of the players wasn't the problem it was the lack of battle hardened pros, as soon as Kashi and BFG were injured the wheels came off big time, we actually started that season well.
I’ll give you Ba, maybe there was a player there but Tucudean? Must have missed something.
9 caps, 3 goals for Romania suggest there is a player there. 22 goals in 39 games shows he is hitting his peek, he has just turned 28.
I would fancy he is a better player than most of the strikers who we have had since he left.
Key point is that Tucudean didn't join us because he had potential to be a good player for us.
He joined us because he'd flopped at Standard and was going spare so, like a few others, was dumped on Powell to try and recoup the money wasted on him. He wasn't right for us at the time, which is what matters.
Yes, he's done OK and you could see he had some ability when he played for us but he only proves that such decisions should be taken by football people not by a data base.
But my point is he didn't fail because he didn't have the ability. He failed because he was thrown in the first team, struggled then at the 1st opportunity was dumped out on a 2 year loan, then released.
He wasn't given the time or opportunity to adapt to the English game. If someone would have taken Sarr off our hands after one season he would have been dumped as well. If your going to "farm" players, which is what we have actually done for over 50 years, you need to coach and develop them as well.
The biggest problem has been the managment of the players signed by TD, not the players them selves. I know some people will never agree which is fair enough.
I disagree.
The biggest problem with the players signed by TD has been TD.
Powell and the other managers weren't given the option of coaching and developing players, it was play the new signings or be sacked (See Riga's first spell).
As I said above there was no medium term plan, no attempt to fit round pegs into round holes, no consideration for what the team needed or thought about how to integrate the player or how long that would take. Players who had flopped elsewhere were just moved to another network club to fail again because TD couldn't understand that it was his selection methods that were at fault.
Sarr and Bauer are doing well this season but they were bought 3 or 4 years ago on high wages for big fees in a higher division as assets to be developed and sold. Even they can't be considered successes on that basis. They have turned out useful now at this level years later. Even by TD criteria of selling them on at a profit their signings have failed as have nearly all his signings. JBG is maybe the one success out of dozens.
The model doesn't work because of TD, KM and RD but some of the players have been OK and could maybe have done better under different circumstances but most just weren't good enough or weren't right for us.
Recruitment is so so important at our level. We are currently at a level were it should be quite easy but can also go badly wrong.
So if Bowyer wants a full back, has limited (ie zero) transfer funds but pays good wages for league one he still has loads of options from smaller league 1 clubs, the better players in league 2 and the national league, players not getting a game in the championship and Premier league kids. That's before you look abroad. So say for a left back he probably has 15-20 options?
If Man United want a left back they probably only have a choice of 1 or 2 every summer, it's unlikely that "someone you have never heard of" is good enough to be their 1st left, it's quite likely you won't of heard of the one we end up with.
What's intresting from a Charlton point of view is that the there were 2 TD players who started yesterday, 4 Jason Euall players and 5 Lee Bowyer signings. No Slade, no Robinson signings at all.
I would love to know how much we have paid in wages to Pearce, Novak, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves etc they all had good league 1 pedigree but apart from Reeves and Pearce have contributed nothing.
The type of player TD favoured would actually suit the way Bower plays. To have good recruitment, at this level, you need to have a range of options, that others don't. A good u23 set as a path way from the academy and other sources (Lookman and Aribo), good contacts that allow you an advantage in the loan market as we look to have with Arsenal, West ham and Chelsea, if you add in European scouting you have a massive advantage.
A TD type shouldn't be your only source of players but it should be part of the recruitment mix. BTW I am not saying it should be him, but it works for Brentford and is a nothing good example of good ideas badly executed by the SMT and the owner.
An interesting stat, though partially down to the TD players being given long and well paid contracts, whereas subsequent signings have had shorter contracts or been loans. If Sarr had been on a 3 year deal, he would have left last summer without anyone caring.
The biggest problem I had with the TD style of recruitment was that it wasn't geared to what we needed at the time. The likes of Chelsea can gamble a couple of million on a talented youngster, knowing that a) it's small change to them b) the player won't be needed in the 1st team
4 summers ago we needed battle hardened players for a Championship campaign, and instead got "promising youngsters" some of which turned out to eventually come good, but after the damage had been done.
Couldn't agree more, however could players like Ba and George Tucudean have delevoped into good Charlton players given the time? How much effect on his development did Sarr's wasted year on loan have (of he played for our u23s for 6 months instead). Like you hint at the quality of the players wasn't the problem it was the lack of battle hardened pros, as soon as Kashi and BFG were injured the wheels came off big time, we actually started that season well.
I’ll give you Ba, maybe there was a player there but Tucudean? Must have missed something.
44 in 91 in last three seasons, ok poor leagues but 3 in 9 for Romania. Was always a decent player there.
@NapaAddick In my opinion the following players have improved significantly during the course of this season:
Philips, Sarr ("significantly" probably isn't strong enough) Aribo, Lapslie. Grant of course, before that dickhead sold him for peanuts.
The following players would probably agree that they are playing and contributing better than last season, wherever they were playing:
Taylor, Reeves, Page, Bauer, Dijksteel, Vetokele, possibly Williams. Morgan, in the sense that he has made his debut and looks very ready.
The following players are fulfilling their expected levels of performance (which is more impressive than it might sound, if you look back on the last few seasons):
Bielik, Cullen, Purrington, Pearce. After yesterday, I might even add Parker, given all the circs. He isn't just making up the numbers any more. Pratley, in whom LB has faith even if people on here don't.
That only leaves Chris Solly, sadly, and that is probably a reflection of his fitness issues and enormous early years potential when West Ham seemed likely to sign him.
EDIT: I forgot Fosu!
Obviously these outcomes, this season, have nothing per se to do with either fees paid, or wages. They have everything to do with the work of this management team. And nothing at all to do with Duchatelet, or the CEO who of course does not exist. Nor do I believe these outcomes would have occurred if Karl Robinson, or indeed any of the other Duchatelet "managers" had been in charge at this time.
Selection bias. No one team or one season is statistically significant. CAFC is top 4 in wages in L1 and finished top 4. It was top 4 last year and was top 6. CAFC is just doing what the data indicates it should be doing. Yes, Bowyer has overcome a lot of issues with the club management but the players are still among the better ones in L1 and they are performing at the level and quality they are being paid to. Any year CAFC is not top 6 is a ridiculous failure.
Would love to know which players he recommended that have been rubbish - All very convienent that every one of his tweets mention players that have come good
@NapaAddick In my opinion the following players have improved significantly during the course of this season:
Philips, Sarr ("significantly" probably isn't strong enough) Aribo, Lapslie. Grant of course, before that dickhead sold him for peanuts.
The following players would probably agree that they are playing and contributing better than last season, wherever they were playing:
Taylor, Reeves, Page, Bauer, Dijksteel, Vetokele, possibly Williams. Morgan, in the sense that he has made his debut and looks very ready.
The following players are fulfilling their expected levels of performance (which is more impressive than it might sound, if you look back on the last few seasons):
Bielik, Cullen, Purrington, Pearce. After yesterday, I might even add Parker, given all the circs. He isn't just making up the numbers any more. Pratley, in whom LB has faith even if people on here don't.
That only leaves Chris Solly, sadly, and that is probably a reflection of his fitness issues and enormous early years potential when West Ham seemed likely to sign him.
EDIT: I forgot Fosu!
Obviously these outcomes, this season, have nothing per se to do with either fees paid, or wages. They have everything to do with the work of this management team. And nothing at all to do with Duchatelet, or the CEO who of course does not exist. Nor do I believe these outcomes would have occurred if Karl Robinson, or indeed any of the other Duchatelet "managers" had been in charge at this time.
Selection bias. No one team or one season is statistically significant. CAFC is top 4 in wages in L1 and finished top 4. It was top 4 last year and was top 6. CAFC is just doing what the data indicates it should be doing. Yes, Bowyer has overcome a lot of issues with the club management but the players are still among the better ones in L1 and they are performing at the level and quality they are being paid to. Any year CAFC is not top 6 is a ridiculous failure.
I think that stat is misleading. We have some very highly paid players as a legacy from the championship which distort the budget.
@NapaAddick In my opinion the following players have improved significantly during the course of this season:
Philips, Sarr ("significantly" probably isn't strong enough) Aribo, Lapslie. Grant of course, before that dickhead sold him for peanuts.
The following players would probably agree that they are playing and contributing better than last season, wherever they were playing:
Taylor, Reeves, Page, Bauer, Dijksteel, Vetokele, possibly Williams. Morgan, in the sense that he has made his debut and looks very ready.
The following players are fulfilling their expected levels of performance (which is more impressive than it might sound, if you look back on the last few seasons):
Bielik, Cullen, Purrington, Pearce. After yesterday, I might even add Parker, given all the circs. He isn't just making up the numbers any more. Pratley, in whom LB has faith even if people on here don't.
That only leaves Chris Solly, sadly, and that is probably a reflection of his fitness issues and enormous early years potential when West Ham seemed likely to sign him.
EDIT: I forgot Fosu!
Obviously these outcomes, this season, have nothing per se to do with either fees paid, or wages. They have everything to do with the work of this management team. And nothing at all to do with Duchatelet, or the CEO who of course does not exist. Nor do I believe these outcomes would have occurred if Karl Robinson, or indeed any of the other Duchatelet "managers" had been in charge at this time.
Selection bias. No one team or one season is statistically significant. CAFC is top 4 in wages in L1 and finished top 4. It was top 4 last year and was top 6. CAFC is just doing what the data indicates it should be doing. Yes, Bowyer has overcome a lot of issues with the club management but the players are still among the better ones in L1 and they are performing at the level and quality they are being paid to. Any year CAFC is not top 6 is a ridiculous failure.
I think that stat is misleading. We have some very highly paid players as a legacy from the championship which distort the budget.
That's true but we have also signed Pearce, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves and Taylor, of our current squad, while in league 1 and I doubt they all came for peanuts. I also doubt Cullen, Beilk, Williams and Parker actually cost nothing to have either.
Comments
So if Bowyer wants a full back, has limited (ie zero) transfer funds but pays good wages for league one he still has loads of options from smaller league 1 clubs, the better players in league 2 and the national league, players not getting a game in the championship and Premier league kids. That's before you look abroad. So say for a left back he probably has 15-20 options?
If Man United want a left back they probably only have a choice of 1 or 2 every summer, it's unlikely that "someone you have never heard of" is good enough to be their 1st left, it's quite likely you won't of heard of the one we end up with.
What's intresting from a Charlton point of view is that the there were 2 TD players who started yesterday, 4 Jason Euall players and 5 Lee Bowyer signings. No Slade, no Robinson signings at all.
I would love to know how much we have paid in wages to Pearce, Novak, Ajose, Marshall, Reeves etc they all had good league 1 pedigree but apart from Reeves and Pearce have contributed nothing.
The type of player TD favoured would actually suit the way Bower plays. To have good recruitment, at this level, you need to have a range of options, that others don't. A good u23 set as a path way from the academy and other sources (Lookman and Aribo), good contacts that allow you an advantage in the loan market as we look to have with Arsenal, West ham and Chelsea, if you add in European scouting you have a massive advantage.
A TD type shouldn't be your only source of players but it should be part of the recruitment mix. BTW I am not saying it should be him, but it works for Brentford and is a nothing good example of good ideas badly executed by the SMT and the owner.
Philips, Sarr ("significantly" probably isn't strong enough) Aribo, Lapslie. Grant of course, before that dickhead sold him for peanuts.
The following players would probably agree that they are playing and contributing better than last season, wherever they were playing:
Taylor, Reeves, Page, Bauer, Dijksteel, Vetokele, possibly Williams. Morgan, in the sense that he has made his debut and looks very ready.
The following players are fulfilling their expected levels of performance (which is more impressive than it might sound, if you look back on the last few seasons):
Bielik, Cullen, Purrington, Pearce. After yesterday, I might even add Parker, given all the circs. He isn't just making up the numbers any more. Pratley, in whom LB has faith even if people on here don't.
That only leaves Chris Solly, sadly, and that is probably a reflection of his fitness issues and enormous early years potential when West Ham seemed likely to sign him.
EDIT: I forgot Fosu!
Obviously these outcomes, this season, have nothing per se to do with either fees paid, or wages. They have everything to do with the work of this management team. And nothing at all to do with Duchatelet, or the CEO who of course does not exist. Nor do I believe these outcomes would have occurred if Karl Robinson, or indeed any of the other Duchatelet "managers" had been in charge at this time.
The biggest problem I had with the TD style of recruitment was that it wasn't geared to what we needed at the time. The likes of Chelsea can gamble a couple of million on a talented youngster, knowing that
a) it's small change to them
b) the player won't be needed in the 1st team
4 summers ago we needed battle hardened players for a Championship campaign, and instead got "promising youngsters" some of which turned out to eventually come good, but after the damage had been done.
I wonder if Driesen has a graph that has lunatic owners in the legend.
Or failing that a graph of his boss/uncles success rate owning a club while simultaneously kicking it in the knackers at every available opportunity.
I would fancy he is a better player than most of the strikers who we have had since he left.
The footballing power houses of Accrington Stanley, Rochdale and Gillingham?
He joined us because he'd flopped at Standard and was going spare so, like a few others, was dumped on Powell to try and recoup the money wasted on him. He wasn't right for us at the time, which is what matters.
Yes, he's done OK and you could see he had some ability when he played for us but he only proves that such decisions should be taken by football people not by a data base.
He wasn't given the time or opportunity to adapt to the English game. If someone would have taken Sarr off our hands after one season he would have been dumped as well. If your going to "farm" players, which is what we have actually done for over 50 years, you need to coach and develop them as well.
The biggest problem has been the managment of the players signed by TD, not the players them selves. I know some people will never agree which is fair enough.
The biggest problem with the players signed by TD has been TD.
Powell and the other managers weren't given the option of coaching and developing players, it was play the new signings or be sacked (See Riga's first spell).
As I said above there was no medium term plan, no attempt to fit round pegs into round holes, no consideration for what the team needed or thought about how to integrate the player or how long that would take. Players who had flopped elsewhere were just moved to another network club to fail again because TD couldn't understand that it was his selection methods that were at fault.
Sarr and Bauer are doing well this season but they were bought 3 or 4 years ago on high wages for big fees in a higher division as assets to be developed and sold. Even they can't be considered successes on that basis. They have turned out useful now at this level years later. Even by TD criteria of selling them on at a profit their signings have failed as have nearly all his signings. JBG is maybe the one success out of dozens.
The model doesn't work because of TD, KM and RD but some of the players have been OK and could maybe have done better under different circumstances but most just weren't good enough or weren't right for us.
How do you coach a player when the owner only keeps you on as Head Coach for half a season?
Wanted to sign Mcginn so bad when he was still in 2nd division with Hibs. Looks like he developed into a decent player.
The big wage earners must be the championship player:
Vetokele
Bauer
Sarr
Solly (maybe)
After that aren’t most people on league one wages?