I've always been a bit lenient about the Yann sale, because while it was a terrible loss for us, we were competing against a club which was found guilty of breaking EFL financial rules around that period. If Bournemouth hadn't offered such a big contract, I'm sure he would have stayed with us, as it wasn't as if bigger clubs were competing with us for his signature.
We're very binary these days, in this country and as a set of fans.
The truth is that Thomas is neither the devil nor the messiah. If we consider him an arrogant young man (which of us wasn't?), too inexperienced for his role, then regardless of the veracity of that the responsibility is still Duchatelet's.
Others have pointed out that Thomas was relatively junior analyst when he came in, and he quickly found his opinion was elevated by Duchatelet above those of people who had been in the pro game in England all their lives, and in Powell's case had played at the very highest level possible.
Thomas is an easy target, not least because he does engage on social media, but I think we should have a greater issue with Duchatelet than the person asked to carry the level of responsibility TD ended up with.
The Trust AGM with Gallen was interesting. @Pico described it as a masterclass in tact, and it was that, but he did go out of his way to say that Thomas was alright and he and Bow had learned how to make it work with him. What he didn't say was more revealing, i.e. whether they felt they should have to run everything past a twenty-something analyst early in his career.
Personally I like that Thomas stands up for himself. The screenshot of the scout report on Yann says everything about the lack of diligence put into understanding the players, the club, and English football. Kermorgant was central to the team, our talisman, and those intangibles such as how other players responded to him were well known by Powell and others Duchatelet decided not to trust.
I suspect Thomas had little say back then, and even if he did put another view I doubt a young analyst in his early days would stand up to two experienced scouts. He may even have adopted their views, watched it all go pear shaped and wished he'd shouted more loudly. Or he may have felt corrected and embraced it, until it was convenient to do otherwise of course. I'm not sure personally I can blame Thomas for Yann's departure, certainly not give him the full responsibility.
Anyway, my point is really that I think Thomas and his role needs to be put into the context of that regime. He's not the devil - in many ways his online persona is quite likeable, even if he can be quick to gloat and slow to accept where things went wrong. He's had some successes and some failures, like any scout. McGinn came good at Villa, but there's no guarantee he would have at another club - so many variables, but then that's why it's important to let a manager decide on the people he wants in his team. Those variables can make or break both players and teams.
Thomas is not the enemy. A dose of humility would help him enormously. I remember talking with Jimmy whilst he was putting his podcast together, and he went to great lengths to ensure everything was well-sourced or evidenced. There's no doubt ths the facts presented are just that - facts. There may be more explanation behind them than was available, and undoubtedly there are different experiences of the same situations.
For example, the email Duchatelet sent to Powell. Undoubtedly it was Thomas's views and a cut and paste from an email he'd sent to Duchatelet. Them's the facts, and therefore Thomas clearly has had a role in Powell being told who to play in what shape.
But is it possible that Thomas had expected Duchatelet to allow him to chat it through with Powell, make suggestions supported by his analysis, rather than for him to instruct Powell as baldly as he did? I'm not saying that's the case, but I don't know - and it is possible that not everyone associated with the Duchatelet regime is as batshit as Duchatelet!
As always the truth is often dependent on your frame of vision and how time has reshaped it. It doesn't surprise me that Thomas has different views about his role, and he may have had a very different attitude to the role than, say, Duchatelet or the managers.
Personally I welcome his contribution here, and I'm grateful for what he's said. It's a shame it got abusive. There's a difference between that and robust exhanges of views. I do wish we'd stick to the latter.
Comments
Coincidence??? I think not. I demand an investigation. :-)
The truth is that Thomas is neither the devil nor the messiah. If we consider him an arrogant young man (which of us wasn't?), too inexperienced for his role, then regardless of the veracity of that the responsibility is still Duchatelet's.
Others have pointed out that Thomas was relatively junior analyst when he came in, and he quickly found his opinion was elevated by Duchatelet above those of people who had been in the pro game in England all their lives, and in Powell's case had played at the very highest level possible.
Thomas is an easy target, not least because he does engage on social media, but I think we should have a greater issue with Duchatelet than the person asked to carry the level of responsibility TD ended up with.
The Trust AGM with Gallen was interesting. @Pico described it as a masterclass in tact, and it was that, but he did go out of his way to say that Thomas was alright and he and Bow had learned how to make it work with him. What he didn't say was more revealing, i.e. whether they felt they should have to run everything past a twenty-something analyst early in his career.
Personally I like that Thomas stands up for himself. The screenshot of the scout report on Yann says everything about the lack of diligence put into understanding the players, the club, and English football. Kermorgant was central to the team, our talisman, and those intangibles such as how other players responded to him were well known by Powell and others Duchatelet decided not to trust.
I suspect Thomas had little say back then, and even if he did put another view I doubt a young analyst in his early days would stand up to two experienced scouts. He may even have adopted their views, watched it all go pear shaped and wished he'd shouted more loudly. Or he may have felt corrected and embraced it, until it was convenient to do otherwise of course. I'm not sure personally I can blame Thomas for Yann's departure, certainly not give him the full responsibility.
Anyway, my point is really that I think Thomas and his role needs to be put into the context of that regime. He's not the devil - in many ways his online persona is quite likeable, even if he can be quick to gloat and slow to accept where things went wrong. He's had some successes and some failures, like any scout. McGinn came good at Villa, but there's no guarantee he would have at another club - so many variables, but then that's why it's important to let a manager decide on the people he wants in his team. Those variables can make or break both players and teams.
Thomas is not the enemy. A dose of humility would help him enormously. I remember talking with Jimmy whilst he was putting his podcast together, and he went to great lengths to ensure everything was well-sourced or evidenced. There's no doubt ths the facts presented are just that - facts. There may be more explanation behind them than was available, and undoubtedly there are different experiences of the same situations.
For example, the email Duchatelet sent to Powell. Undoubtedly it was Thomas's views and a cut and paste from an email he'd sent to Duchatelet. Them's the facts, and therefore Thomas clearly has had a role in Powell being told who to play in what shape.
But is it possible that Thomas had expected Duchatelet to allow him to chat it through with Powell, make suggestions supported by his analysis, rather than for him to instruct Powell as baldly as he did? I'm not saying that's the case, but I don't know - and it is possible that not everyone associated with the Duchatelet regime is as batshit as Duchatelet!
As always the truth is often dependent on your frame of vision and how time has reshaped it. It doesn't surprise me that Thomas has different views about his role, and he may have had a very different attitude to the role than, say, Duchatelet or the managers.
Personally I welcome his contribution here, and I'm grateful for what he's said. It's a shame it got abusive. There's a difference between that and robust exhanges of views. I do wish we'd stick to the latter.