'The Plan' - Is it still viable?

When Patrick Cryne switched to a version of 'Moneyball' and the incoming owners embraced it the club was considered as ground-breaking, and the strategy was reported in The Times and other national newspapers. Now, when variants of that strategy are mentioned Brentford are the club most likely to be identified with it. And it seems likely that a large number of other clubs are also likely to be utilising a variant of it at different levels. Given that clubs in our division - and possibly the higher reaches of League One - are probably fishing in the same pools, any competitive advantage we enjoyed has probably now largely eroded. It also seems that the current crop of players are some way from the halcyon days of Stones, Holgate, Mawson and Hourihane. There are far more players that have been brought in that appear to have been 'written off' over the last couple of years. The upshot of that is that while the new owners' stated aim was stability in the Championship, we appear to be staring down the barrel of a second relegation in their three-year tenure. It's probably fair to assume that our reputation for being a stepping-stone to further career progression has declined amongst younger players and their agents. So is 'the plan' still viable? I asked this question after Daniel Stendel's departure, and it looks just as pressing now.

 

Its definitely gone stale. New ideas are needed

 

I'd say more depressing.

 

The alternative is a very rich sugar daddy who is going to plough tens, maybe a hundred plus million into the club in the hope, of securing a place in the Championship year on year. It's by no means guaranteed however and then if they want to walk away when it fails they're left with a club with no real value and a bag full of debt.

At that point we're no different to all those other clubs people on here hate and sit about waiting to fail so we can talk about them 'returning to their natural level'.

The current system is the only game in town. Mistakes have been made but throwing the baby out with the bath water is a ridiculous idea.

 

We need to get true value for our players and surely more to be brought in from the academy?

 

I was talking more about the specific player recruitment plan, not the whole question of ownership. I think we are stuck with these owners. They will sell up only once they have achieved some return, I presume. At any rate, I don't see Jim Ratcliffe jumping in to add us to his portfolio. If their player turnover model doesn't work then I can only think they will sit tight waiting for something in the football world to turn to their advantage. BFC may represent a small initial investment to them, and interest rates are low at the moment.

In terms of where we go with recruitment, it seems that our best sides in the past (those managed by Clarke, Hunter and Danny Wilson v.1.0) blended some younger players with other older heads. Could not the statistical model be tweaked to identify more experienced players who are still effective and are rated at under-value? One advantage of that would be that recruitment would be focused more on success on the field and less on player turnover.

 

Recently it worked when we were signing the best talent available at clubs below us. Winnall from Scunthorpe. Scowen from Wycombe. Hourihane from Plymouth and Watkins from Inverness. We were mixing this with up and coming talent from the Premier League via the loan market. George Waring from Stoke, Pearson from Manchester United, Williams from Everton. I think that aspect of the plan worked. I don't think Moncur and Bradshaw were good additions but that was less the plan and more bad recruitment.

Why the club deviated from that I don't know.

 

In the championship.....totally out if its depth.
As all succesful business will promote, they need to learn to listen and the plan needs to be 50% more flexible.
"The plan" as an idea, is still a good fit for us but has been done very badly this season.

 

Nothing wrong with the plan in principal. But it needs tweaking to be reflective of which league we are in.
In the cost column on the spreadsheet, this needs increasing to be competitive at Championship level.

 

The original “moneyball” has nothing to do with age or resale value - it was about acquiring players that had talent(s) to help the team and were overlooked by the wider market. To suggest that buying random 18-year olds low (and selling high) has anything to do with moneyball is incorrect, we are not following that model, spreadsheet or otherwise.

 

They aren't following the plan properly so it's hard to judge.I say this because of four glaring faults that I can see:
1. They underspend when they sell. eg. Moore/pinnock should have been replaced with £2 million each solid prospects and/or funded an established player/prospect mix
2. I get an impression they are buying players just because they perceive they are cheap, as opposed to what the team needs. Hence we have one defensive midfielder and any number of (for want of a better description) number 10 type players, Woodrow (used in that role), Bahre, Styles, Ritzcracker, Thomas etc.
3. I made a point of watching moneyball and they always had an old pro on the pitch to help the youngsters. A decent old head of a centre half and defensive midfielder would have made a considerable difference this season, not only for their own contribution but what they would have imparted to the younger players
4. In very recent times the scouting has become tunnel visioned. Austria is hardly a powerhouse of world football and it is difficult to recall a player from there who has achieved anything beyond its shores (yes I know it is landlocked). I find it bizarre we are solely focusing our recruitment there

 

its the quality of raw material that really is the key.

We tried to improve the raw material by getting players from Leeds U23, Derby and comparable 2nd tier leagues this season rather than league 2 or non league as was the case in the past for instance, these players would hopefully be far more technically adept and have a far better chance of a higher re sale value once they had been given the required 50 or games of senior football. is this a plan? it definitely was started by brentford who are 5 years further along than us or is this just the economic way of our world, where younger players will play for us for less wages? this second option may be where the majorityo f clubs are who operate " a plan" without actually shouting it as loudly as us.

the stated aim of stability in the championship seems to be the misnomer here. the owners dont care about league position to an extent, obviously a higher league position may increase the value of players which is their only aim, however success on the pitch is pot luck, the improvement of enough players to turn a profit isn't and it doesn't matter which league you do it in. that improvement of players carries a by product of possible success on the pitch as we saw last year, i dont know how we can look to build on that without paying the wages required of the championship. despite what players say about moving it is always wages that will matter and has been proven to be the major factor in a teams ability.

 

The approach is only gonna work if the calculations in the spreadsheet account for the standard of a particular league. For example, Andersen and Diaby's stats may be great but if there's no weighting for the standard they are playing at then it's a flawed process. Is anyone really able to quantify the standard of the Danish Superliga, a league with 14 teams who only play 26 games in a season between Mid July and end of March (37 weeks) but they have a winter break from mid December until today!!!

What chance has anyone got of adjusting to the power, pace and intensity of 46 games, no break and 2 games a week.

That's where the spreadsheet is failing, and that's just one example.

Mental fatigue is, IMO the biggest factor on our season

 

My plan - sign the best players possible regardless of age including loans from prem
Don’t sell unless we really really have to or premiership team offers silly money

 

Maybe works in division 1 , where we are one of the bigger clubs and bigger budget . And can compete to sign the better quality players

 

That's why I'll be disappointed when we're relegated but after I calm down cautiously optimistic. Woodrow, Mowatt, Chaplin and Brown might depart but if last summers recruitment is anything to go by they will be replaced and it's a damn site easier to replace players in League 1.

 

Hopefully we can bounce back like it looks Rotherham will do

 

I think we can. They thought the world had collapsed because they lost Ryan Williams. It didn't.

 

I’m very doubtful after our best English players are sold in the summer.

We’ll be left with a squad filled with euro-dross and probably more on the way to replace the only truly decent players we’ve had and probably sold (Woodrow, Mowatt, brown, oduor, Chaplin).

Could see a second relegation struggle on the cards rather than a promotion chase tbh.