by P!ssed Off » 19 Mar 2016 19:14
by trueroyal1871 » 21 Mar 2016 16:26
The Royal Forester But, how much would we have to spend to be trying in your eyes? You would not get much in the way of a striker on a permanent signing would you?
It was a gamble that didn't work out, but the Thai's did TRY to sort out the striker situation. If we had paid 2.5 million on a permanent signing, would that have trying? What if he did not work out either, still being paid, but not playing next season?
by Vision » 22 Mar 2016 09:18
trueroyal1871The Royal Forester But, how much would we have to spend to be trying in your eyes? You would not get much in the way of a striker on a permanent signing would you?
It was a gamble that didn't work out, but the Thai's did TRY to sort out the striker situation. If we had paid 2.5 million on a permanent signing, would that have trying? What if he did not work out either, still being paid, but not playing next season?
Decent quality strikers in this division cost around £3 - £5 million at least so that is what they should expect to spend. Obviously it depends on them actually having the money to spend and also being willing to spend it. I thought all of the loans we had were a very short sighted way of making progress as you're not actually building a squad, you're just trying to plug holes and hope because they've got a bit of quality you'll get promoted and then you can worry about making permanent signings if you go up.
It would have been much better to bring in a few quality permanent signings with the plan to add more in each of the next few windows with the long term plan of building a squad capable of challenging for promotion. I would have been a lot happier if we spent that money on a permanent signing at least then if it didn't work out you have some sort of resale value. I'm prepared to be patient and give the manager time to build the squad he wants with players that actually want to be at the club because they've committed themselves to permanent contracts.
by Maneki Neko » 22 Mar 2016 09:21
by The Sum of the Parts » 22 Mar 2016 09:27
royalp-we Sorry, when I said shaking things up I was more referring to a match day; let's face it most weeks we can basically predict what the management are going to pick for any match day squad; and the opposition can see it too.
by Maneki Neko » 22 Mar 2016 09:28
by The Sum of the Parts » 22 Mar 2016 09:39
trueroyal1871The Royal Forester But, how much would we have to spend to be trying in your eyes? You would not get much in the way of a striker on a permanent signing would you?
It was a gamble that didn't work out, but the Thai's did TRY to sort out the striker situation. If we had paid 2.5 million on a permanent signing, would that have trying? What if he did not work out either, still being paid, but not playing next season?
Decent quality strikers in this division cost around £3 - £5 million at least so that is what they should expect to spend. Obviously it depends on them actually having the money to spend and also being willing to spend it. I thought all of the loans we had were a very short sighted way of making progress as you're not actually building a squad, you're just trying to plug holes and hope because they've got a bit of quality you'll get promoted and then you can worry about making permanent signings if you go up.
It would have been much better to bring in a few quality permanent signings with the plan to add more in each of the next few windows with the long term plan of building a squad capable of challenging for promotion. I would have been a lot happier if we spent that money on a permanent signing at least then if it didn't work out you have some sort of resale value. I'm prepared to be patient and give the manager time to build the squad he wants with players that actually want to be at the club because they've committed themselves to permanent contracts.
by Vision » 22 Mar 2016 09:55
The Sum of the Partsroyalp-we Sorry, when I said shaking things up I was more referring to a match day; let's face it most weeks we can basically predict what the management are going to pick for any match day squad; and the opposition can see it too.
So the words "settled team" mean nothing to you?
Everyone, absolutely everyone, knew who would start for Coppell's 106-point team every week. Do you reckon they'd have been even more successful if he'd swapped things around every game to keep the opposition guessing, then?
by Hoop Blah » 22 Mar 2016 11:38
by Victor Meldrew » 22 Mar 2016 12:08
Visiontrueroyal1871The Royal Forester But, how much would we have to spend to be trying in your eyes? You would not get much in the way of a striker on a permanent signing would you?
It was a gamble that didn't work out, but the Thai's did TRY to sort out the striker situation. If we had paid 2.5 million on a permanent signing, would that have trying? What if he did not work out either, still being paid, but not playing next season?
Decent quality strikers in this division cost around £3 - £5 million at least so that is what they should expect to spend. Obviously it depends on them actually having the money to spend and also being willing to spend it. I thought all of the loans we had were a very short sighted way of making progress as you're not actually building a squad, you're just trying to plug holes and hope because they've got a bit of quality you'll get promoted and then you can worry about making permanent signings if you go up.
It would have been much better to bring in a few quality permanent signings with the plan to add more in each of the next few windows with the long term plan of building a squad capable of challenging for promotion. I would have been a lot happier if we spent that money on a permanent signing at least then if it didn't work out you have some sort of resale value. I'm prepared to be patient and give the manager time to build the squad he wants with players that actually want to be at the club because they've committed themselves to permanent contracts.
I just think we went about it the wrong way round. I think McShane, Quinn and Sa would qualify as permanent quality signings and few would argue against the fact that 2 of them have been very good signings. A couple more of that ilk supplemented by a couple of loans would have been more sensible.
I think it was a case of the club in the summer looking at the 3 promoted teams and what their strategies were last season. We don't have Bournemouth's money (or the intention to risk busting FFP). We also didn't have the existing Premier League squad pedigree that Norwich had. So we went with Watford's more short term approach. Sadly though I'm not sure having more loan players than actual places available for them is condusive to success 99% of the time regardless of Watford being the exception that proves the rule.
In the end , even though of course it would be foolish not to pay attention to what other clubs do, any success Reading have had in my lifetime has been from through blazing our own trail. From Branfoot (out), to Pardew, Coppell and McDermott we've always done it our way and it's rarely been simply a case of saying X amount of £'s will get you a 20 goal a season striker or a keeper/defender that will guarantee a substantial number of clean sheets.
Generally it's been our way to nurture, produce and develop multi million pound players rather than go out and buy them. In the end of course that may not prove to be a recipe for success at the Top Table, (although to a higher degree it's what Southampton do)
From my personal point of view, and I realise it's probably not a popular view, if that makes us "tight old Reading" then so be it. I can easily live with and support that.
by Vision » 22 Mar 2016 12:40
Victor MeldrewVisiontrueroyal1871
Decent quality strikers in this division cost around £3 - £5 million at least so that is what they should expect to spend. Obviously it depends on them actually having the money to spend and also being willing to spend it. I thought all of the loans we had were a very short sighted way of making progress as you're not actually building a squad, you're just trying to plug holes and hope because they've got a bit of quality you'll get promoted and then you can worry about making permanent signings if you go up.
It would have been much better to bring in a few quality permanent signings with the plan to add more in each of the next few windows with the long term plan of building a squad capable of challenging for promotion. I would have been a lot happier if we spent that money on a permanent signing at least then if it didn't work out you have some sort of resale value. I'm prepared to be patient and give the manager time to build the squad he wants with players that actually want to be at the club because they've committed themselves to permanent contracts.
I just think we went about it the wrong way round. I think McShane, Quinn and Sa would qualify as permanent quality signings and few would argue against the fact that 2 of them have been very good signings. A couple more of that ilk supplemented by a couple of loans would have been more sensible.
I think it was a case of the club in the summer looking at the 3 promoted teams and what their strategies were last season. We don't have Bournemouth's money (or the intention to risk busting FFP). We also didn't have the existing Premier League squad pedigree that Norwich had. So we went with Watford's more short term approach. Sadly though I'm not sure having more loan players than actual places available for them is condusive to success 99% of the time regardless of Watford being the exception that proves the rule.
In the end , even though of course it would be foolish not to pay attention to what other clubs do, any success Reading have had in my lifetime has been from through blazing our own trail. From Branfoot (out), to Pardew, Coppell and McDermott we've always done it our way and it's rarely been simply a case of saying X amount of £'s will get you a 20 goal a season striker or a keeper/defender that will guarantee a substantial number of clean sheets.
Generally it's been our way to nurture, produce and develop multi million pound players rather than go out and buy them. In the end of course that may not prove to be a recipe for success at the Top Table, (although to a higher degree it's what Southampton do)
From my personal point of view, and I realise it's probably not a popular view, if that makes us "tight old Reading" then so be it. I can easily live with and support that.
I agree with nearly all of that apart from Pardew in what is now Div1.
He had a hefty cheque-book to go out and buy the top goalscorers at our level or below-Cureton and Butler come to mind.
It worked and to some extent it worked similarly with Blackman both (eventually) on the pitch and very profitable when it came to selling and it has worked for Peterborough and to a lesser extent Brentford but those sides aren't now competitive because, have bought from lower down, they then sell.
Nobody knows what approach the Thais will take in the Summer.
Incidentally Watford (Deeney and Ighalo) and Bournemouth (King, Afobe and Wilson) have been successful with their striker signings and of course a good striker or two will score more goals to get you out of a hole (or even promoted) whereas this season Sa, Kermorgant, Rekkels, Vydra and Cox have hardly set the world on fire. nor has Brian's favourite Kanu when played (wrongly IMHO) through the middle.
If Samuel were not our player he is the type I would want us to be going for and both he and Tish (barring injuries) look as though they could play a big part for us next season.
by Maneki Neko » 22 Mar 2016 13:40
by Victor Meldrew » 22 Mar 2016 13:49
by Vision » 22 Mar 2016 14:51
Victor Meldrew Just on that point about sports science I wonder why every team doesn't adopt the fast , closing down type of game.
Allardyce for all of his apparently old-fashioned approach to the game is fanatical about a scientific approach.
Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Dortmund ,Spurs, Leicester and Juventus et al all play a pressing game (which we did under Coppell and McD) with considerable success but presumably you need super-fit players who are also very talented players to make it work.
Liverpool are trying to play that way but it seems as though they can only keep it up for half a game.
When Brian does get his own squad we will see which way he goes-for the moment it all seems a bit of a mess and I'm not sure that for most of our games we really need to play a holding midfielder, especially one who is a strong tackler but so far lacks vision and dexterity in his passing.
BTW Rougier cost £325,000 before Pardew "eschewed".
by Extended-Phenotype » 22 Mar 2016 15:32
by stealthpapes » 22 Mar 2016 15:39
Victor Meldrew Just on that point about sports science I wonder why every team doesn't adopt the fast , closing down type of game.
Allardyce for all of his apparently old-fashioned approach to the game is fanatical about a scientific approach.
Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Dortmund ,Spurs, Leicester and Juventus et al all play a pressing game (which we did under Coppell and McD) with considerable success but presumably you need super-fit players who are also very talented players to make it work.
Liverpool are trying to play that way but it seems as though they can only keep it up for half a game.
When Brian does get his own squad we will see which way he goes-for the moment it all seems a bit of a mess and I'm not sure that for most of our games we really need to play a holding midfielder, especially one who is a strong tackler but so far lacks vision and dexterity in his passing.
BTW Rougier cost £325,000 before Pardew "eschewed".
by Vision » 22 Mar 2016 16:04
Extended-Phenotype Boo Leicester for direct football boooooo rubbish
by SCIAG » 22 Mar 2016 23:19
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Royals and Racers and 376 guests