Doom merchants anonymous

Obviously I'm chuffed with the position we're in so I don't know if I'd be classed as a whinging moaner to say I'd rather have Hourihane Bree and Winnall in the squad than the players brought in . We can't stop players leaving but if Hecky has said we have a stronger team now than at the beginning of January he's must have been joking

 

So we should never sign any players, because what if they turn out to be *****? It's an innovative idea, but I'm not sure it's viable. We're going to have to recruit in the summer, the advantage of five extra months together is undeniable. Then if any of the signings did turn out to be garbage we could recruit and replace in June.

 

The problem with not recruiting in January is that by summer in addition to the 6/7 players we are short we will lose Scowen and Watkins possibly Angus and Yiadom both in the last year of their contracts so you need to recruit 8/10 players and of course some will fail so to recruit that 8/10 you will need to sign 12/14 (including loans). That's a massive task and should have been addressed at least in part in January. Not signing Cameron Mcgeehan because of haggling over a sell on clause seems fairly ridiculous from our point of view. We need to get sharper with contracts and at least try to balance power instead of giving it away with poor contract negotiations at the start.

 

I do not think that we have a stronger group of players now than we did in December. In fact, I do not think that we have a stronger group of players now than we did last May. But I am, if nothing else, a realist. If I was a dreamer, I would believe that my team could play regularly in the Premier League, build a new ground, and fill it every week with 40,000 die hard fans. But I'm not. I'm a realist, and I know that we are never going to compete with that sort of business plan. We have to have a different business plan, one that allows us to compete with fewer fans. The club has identified that business plan, and has stated one numerous occasions what it is. It is not new. Buying players cheap, improving them and selling them on has been the business plan since Joe Richards time as Chairman. The trading conditions have changed in favour of the players, and there is a more secure fall back position now, but it is the same plan. Many posters comment like they are supporters of some sleeping giant that is about to reawaken and assume its rightful position in the hierarchy of football. They need to accept the reality of our situation, and that is that we are a small club from a post industrial northern town that has seen better days. We punch above our weight. All this talk about lack of ambition on the board is just that.... TALK.

The club has voiced its business plan on numerous occasions. If you do not understand it, then you are just not trying. Once again, the business plan is to buy cheap, improve and sell on. The income that this provides is there to supplement the lack of revenue through the turn styles. If you want to campaign effectively to improve the club, it would perhaps be more relevant to try to improve that turnover by persuading more fans to attend. Because at the end of the day, we cannot keep players against their will, and we cannot keep players unless we can afford to pay competitive wages, and we cannot afford to pay competitive wages because we do not have the income to do so. Short term windfalls from transfer fees cannot, and should not, be used to pay long term costs, because when the money from those windfalls inevitably runs out, a fire sale results, and we all know how damaging those are. So stop winging about things that you know little about (how to run a football club that is punching above its weight), and concentrate on the things that you do know about (telling your non-attending mates how well they are playing).

 

A punchy view for this time of a morning my Lord!

I felt losing Conor would be the tipping point, but 8 points from 15 since his departure - including two very difficult away fixtures - cannot be argued with. It is a brilliant plan, and it is working brilliantly. Championship football is oceans better than League One. Anything else would just be a bonus. The difference from Joe Richards' day is the quality of our recruitment, coaching and sports science staff, which are very high class. That seems to mean that when we lose players (12 of the promotion winning side, or Conor, Bree or Winnowl for instance) there seem to be a supply of new recruits in the pipeline. This will take some maintaining, but we have lots of money to invest small amounts for new seedcorn. The revolving door is something we'll just have to get used to. But whilever the current squad (whoever they may be) buy into the new ethos, it will continue to be great fun. Which is what we go for. Brilliant!

 

Good thread nice to read different opinions without folk falling out

were all in the same camp "why did we have to let them go"

were all in the same camp " were doing brilliant"

keep progressing year on year and instead of being a #teamlikebarnsley
we could move to the next level #teamlikeburnley

 

My thoughts on Connor are as follows:

When Connor came to the club, he was an attacking midfielder who supported the front two, made passes and scored spectacular goals. He had a good left foot but no right foot and not a lot of pace. He had promise, but that was all it was, because his game had its faults. He was not great when we did not have the ball, and he did not even get back into his defensive position quickly enough. Whilst his pluses were what the fans saw, the minuses were what the coaches saw. The much derided Lee Johnson was sufficiently worried about his defensive frailty that he tried to cover it by using a fifth player in midfield whilst they worked on Connor's game. They improved him, but the cost was that the system had to become more important than the individual players. We played with a big gap between our two central midfield players and the front two and tried to bridge that gap using the two wide players. Connor became a cog in a midfield system that dictated how we played. Being a home only fan, you cannot fail to have read my views of how ineffective I believe that system is in home games. It is a fact that we have won more away from Oakwell, than we have at home. I am not particularly happy about that, but I put up with it for the sake of the team. The system works better when the opposition commits to an attacking game, than it does when they are content to play a containing one. The problem is that our players, including Connor, were not of a standard to play otherwise. So that is what we do.

Nevertheless, when our players are sold, their new employer wants value for the investment. He is not happy, in Connor's case, that he has bought a defensive midfield player who stays on the defensive side of the ball because he does not have the pace to recover his position when the opposition counter attack. They want him closer to the front two. And therein lies the problem for Connor. A small club such as Barnsley is happy to devise a system that uses a star player in a way that makes best use of the good parts of his game, but which will also protects his known faults. But a new employer wants Connor to play in a system with different drivers and in a team with different mixes of good and bad points, forcing the team to play in different ways. Now it my well be that Steve Bruce will find a new happy medium, a new way that all his new players can fit together, and be better than the sum of its parts. Integration of a team almost never happens quickly. And it may be that he will not find that happy medium, and that Connor becomes redundant as a result. Football teams with access to too much cash, and not enough patience seem to have a throw away mentality. Who knows? I am simply making the point that Connor stood out in the Barnsley team because it was designed that way, and not necessarily because his talent shines out like a beacon.

 

We are a "small club from a post industrial northern town that has seen better days", says Red Rain: just like Burnley sitting comfortably in 12th place in the premier league.

 

Ludicrous

 

Mostly agree with all of that.
'Short term contracts'.........I don't think the solution is long term contracts.
IMO there needs to be a way found that's fair to both player and club regarding contracts.
I really believe it's the one area that's undermining the success of the club.

Recruitment - great
Coaching - great
Fair player contracts - missing

 

Very interesting and plausible analysis Red Rain. I wonder what you think about Winnall? To be fair, he did OK in the televised game last week, but I did have my doubts previously about whether he'd fit into Wednesday's way of playing. Perhaps they are changing it around him and Rhodes?

 

I heard Winnall say after their last game that he and Rhodes were a good fit, because Rhodes likes to play on the shoulder of the last defender, but he likes to drop deeper and take part in the build up play. To me, his contribution to build up play was always Winnall's weakness. He took a fair proportion of chances, and even though he is not tall, he scored with his head from a lot of crosses. If Wednesday are relying on him to link play, they are going to be disappointed I feel, and the fact that Forestieri has been asked to play wide suggests to me that their manager has not yet decided on his best combination and is trying to give them all a chance to impress. The worst scenario for Winnall is that Wednesday get promoted, because he is definitely not Premier League quality.

I think Winnall is very fortunate to get the opportunity to earn a large amount of money in a short time. He could not really pass on the chance, given the short career of the average player (in both senses).

It is nice that someone will read me, but I am not the sole analyst on here. How about you. What are your thoughts on Winnall and Hourihane.

 

Your last para is the perfect summary in my opinion.
Said it before and will say it again.....patience and perspective. You've added time and faith to the mix. Rightly so.
The one man we do need to tie down with an attractive contract is the manager. The best in my lifetime. For me that's the primary imperative. It will demonstrate appreciation and recognition for what he's done and it would say to him that we trust him with our future. I'd use some of the wonga from Alfie, Conor and breezy and Sammy snake to fund that contract.

 

To be fair, I've blethered on about Winnall and Hourihane many times on here, and my views have changed with their levels of performance. Two thoughts though. I now think Winnall will prosper at Hillsborough provided that Carlos has resolved that he and Rhodes will start together going forward. I agree with you that he would not be a Premiership player. There again, I had my doubts whether he'd cut in the Championship - and I was wrong!

With Hourihane, I believed when he left us that he would captain Ireland one day. I still think that's possible, but I suspect that Villa will have to ditch Lansbury (who cost even more) for Conor to reach his potential. It will also need Bruce to look at the system he played in at Oakwell and adopt something similar. It has worked for us, but Villa's current system has not for them. Will Bruce get the time?

 

This ^^^^

Both players are more polished players than when they came to us. By January they were ripe for a move.

I think it's easy for people to underestimate Winnall because we pretty much gave him away, but his value is reflected in what he's earning.

We've pretty much done what we intend to do, which is polish em up, and move em out!. . . Albeit more cheaply than we would have liked. But just look at where we are, and what they've contributed to our current status.

Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk

 

I suspect that our system works for us because we are operating beneath the horizon. Villa is different. They are a bid name, a scalp if you will. Teams automatically operate a safety first policy against them, as did we, defend first and attack on the break and do not worry about possession statistics. Our system does not work well when that happens (Preston NE home). However, their fan base has higher expectations. They will expect their team to dominate possession and win games in this league easily. That is not so easy when most opposition teams will be playing the percentages. What is easy for us to get away with is not an option when fans have high expectations.

They will get it right eventually, but the style that they are forced to adopt may not suit Connor as well as our style has done. At the price, Connor is almost throw away. If he does not work out, they move on to a bigger name, a higher profile, a player with a more overt skill set.

 

People complain about loan players as if the alternative, equally good if not better signing, was just waiting to join for the right fee and wages. We had 5 loans in the squad vs. Millwall at Wembley too. Nobody complained that day, right?

 

We cannot keep him long term I'm afraid if he keeps on doing as well as he is