|
Post by milesfenton on Sept 17, 2024 8:42:44 GMT
This idea seems to have taken root that our pre-season was a mess but I'm not really sure why. We had a training camp, playing a local team & a L2 team who were in the same place; then Braintree, Ebbsfleet & WBA, all of which we won; before the kids + Stevens, Bennett, Morrison & Digby got pumped by Colchester a day later. Looks like a fairly standard one to me. Is it just recency bias because basically a youth team got minced by Colchester, despite the actual first team playing pretty well against WBA the day before? Should have spent the Portugal money on strikers etc We played our first choice XI for a total of 45 minutes of pre-season, the rest of the time we had a variety of youth players filling slots. The final weekend of the pre-season had our first XI (and a bench of kids) play against WBA kids. Smith was replaced by a youth player at half time. The next day, we fielded a team of half kids, half first teamers against Colchester's first XI. Aside from what losing 6-0 does to anyone's confidence, why didn't we at least reverse the selections and have our first XI play Colchester? Beating a WBA youth side doesn't mean it was good preparation.
|
|
joe77
On trial
Posts: 232
Member is Online
|
Post by joe77 on Sept 17, 2024 8:48:49 GMT
1) Money 2) Isn't that probably a good thing that we are not lumbered with bad players on League 1 contracts. Surely that's only a problem if we do well? I agree with you on the vision thing, I can't get my head around the Bonner Harris Monk movement. Utilising a small budget effectively to help us perform and improve on the pitch is part of their jobs here. It's not a task I envy them for, but I don't think you can shrug off questions by simply saying it's all down to money. If anything it raises questions on how the playing budget has been used on a short term and a long term basis? And if the football side of the club is doing its part in generating income(player sales etc.)? These aren't just ordinary people off the internet, they are being given alot of responsibility and being paid alot of money so to expect a higher standard is natural. I see Stevenage as a bit of a benchmark case for how good use can be made of what must be limited resources at this level. They almost certainly have a bigger budget than us but they have a smaller fan base, so seem a fair comparison with how we've done since promotion On the verge of slipping back into the Conference, they changed their manager and were able to significantly strengthen their squad and got promoted. Their form was very good for most of last season, although they fell away a little towards the end but finished closer to the playoff's than the bottom. They have had a decent start again this time around and currently sit ninth in the table when many expected them to struggle this season. They may yet fall away, but they appear to have made far better use of their resources than we have of ours. Yes, we've had relative success staying at this level for as long as we have, but their are other clubs on limited resources who seem to be able to make better use of them and kick on, rather than simply talking about wanting to kick on. The pre-season talk coming out of the club was very positive and probably a little too ambitious and that's added to my sense of disillusionment at the start we've made.
|
|
|
Post by El Goodo on Sept 17, 2024 8:57:15 GMT
This idea seems to have taken root that our pre-season was a mess but I'm not really sure why. We had a training camp, playing a local team & a L2 team who were in the same place; then Braintree, Ebbsfleet & WBA, all of which we won; before the kids + Stevens, Bennett, Morrison & Digby got pumped by Colchester a day later. Looks like a fairly standard one to me. Is it just recency bias because basically a youth team got minced by Colchester, despite the actual first team playing pretty well against WBA the day before? Should have spent the Portugal money on strikers etc We played our first choice XI for a total of 45 minutes of pre-season, the rest of the time we had a variety of youth players filling slots. The final weekend of the pre-season had our first XI (and a bench of kids) play against WBA kids. Smith was replaced by a youth player at half time. The next day, we fielded a team of half kids, half first teamers against Colchester's first XI. Aside from what losing 6-0 does to anyone's confidence, why didn't we at least reverse the selections and have our first XI play Colchester? Beating a WBA youth side doesn't mean it was good preparation. Pre-season is always going to be a bit of a mix of players. You rarely, if ever, play a full-strength team until the final fixture or two. And the team against Colchester was absolutely not half kids, half first teamers. Agree though that it would probably have been better to have played our "strongest" team against Colchester as the final prep game but equally if we come out of that having won 3-1 or whatever (or indeed losing still) & in the situation we are now you'd be saying it wasn't good enough prep either. It didn't look much different from pretty much any other pre-season to me is my point, & we've started the last few seasons pretty well. Perhaps that's a problem in itself given we were trying to quite radically transition the style we're playing & that might have been better served in another way, but Monk spoke about wanting to test ourselves up against strong, physical teams as that's the sort of challenge you need to deal with as a squad of smaller, (allegedly) more technical players.
|
|
|
Post by madmarvin on Sept 17, 2024 9:01:13 GMT
This idea seems to have taken root that our pre-season was a mess but I'm not really sure why. We had a training camp, playing a local team & a L2 team who were in the same place; then Braintree, Ebbsfleet & WBA, all of which we won; before the kids + Stevens, Bennett, Morrison & Digby got pumped by Colchester a day later. Looks like a fairly standard one to me. Is it just recency bias because basically a youth team got minced by Colchester, despite the actual first team playing pretty well against WBA the day before? Should have spent the Portugal money on strikers etc We played our first choice XI for a total of 45 minutes of pre-season, the rest of the time we had a variety of youth players filling slots. The final weekend of the pre-season had our first XI (and a bench of kids) play against WBA kids. Smith was replaced by a youth player at half time. The next day, we fielded a team of half kids, half first teamers against Colchester's first XI. Aside from what losing 6-0 does to anyone's confidence, why didn't we at least reverse the selections and have our first XI play Colchester? Beating a WBA youth side doesn't mean it was good preparation. I would question the decision to play Fri/Sat/Fri/Sat when we were clearly nowhere near finalising our recruitment and also had numerous fitness/injury issues. That sort of schedule means anyone playing on the Friday would not be able to play any part in the game the next day thus making the absolute hammering by a full strength Colchester side almost an inevitability. As already mentioned this did absolutely nothing for the confidence or development of all concerned in that match.
|
|
|
Post by El Goodo on Sept 17, 2024 9:03:45 GMT
I see Stevenage as a bit of a benchmark case for how good use can be made of what must be limited resources at this level. They almost certainly have a bigger budget than us but they have a smaller fan base, so seem a fair comparison with how we've done since promotion On the verge of slipping back into the Conference, they changed their manager and were able to significantly strengthen their squad and got promoted. Their form was very good for most of last season, although they fell away a little towards the end but finished closer to the playoff's than the bottom. They have had a decent start again this time around and currently sit ninth in the table when many expected them to struggle this season. They may yet fall away, but they appear to have made far better use of their resources than we have of ours. Yes, we've had relative success staying at this level for as long as we have, but their are other clubs on limited resource who seem to be able to make better use of them and kick on, rather than simply talking about wanting to kick on. The pre-season talk coming out of the club was very positive and probably a little too ambitious and that's added to my sense of disillusionment at the start we've made. Forget Stevenage – we can talk about them in another 2 seasons' time if they're still here – it's Wycombe, Shrewsbury & Exeter we should be looking at. Wycombe have a much different model to us but have gone up to the Championship & have very much stabilised at this level; Shrewsbury have been circling the drain for the past couple of seasons but have been here 10 years & were on the verge of the Championship 6 seasons ago; Exeter are probably the closest to us in terms of size, fanbase, budget & model & look to be making a decent fist of re-establishing themselves here, and basically do all of the things we aspire to in terms of a being decent to watch & producing players and selling them on.
|
|
cambsno
Youth team star
Posts: 1,183
|
Post by cambsno on Sept 17, 2024 9:06:50 GMT
As much as he's partly responsible, it feels that Strang is taking a lot of heat off Monk here. It's his squad right, he wanted to keep certain members of the previous squad and would have had a big say in the players that ended up here. I think they are both to blame and there seems a disconnect in what Monk wants to do and some of the players bought in. Monk decided to keeo the likes of Kachunga & KaiKai so that's down to him when I believe we could have got better value as neither will be on peanuts. He then decided to move on Lankester - which may have been right - but who could probably fit better into his system IMO than the 2 mentioned. He wanted to keep Mannion but he obviously took a better deal elsewhere. Contract extensions on the likes of Cousins and controversially maybe Morrison were out of his hands. The bigger recruitment issue - that has been highlighted on the Radio and Podcasts today - is the general stategy of signing injury prone elder players which then leads to huge turnover every summer. We have little in the way of Assets unless Barton, Jobe etc develop and are eventually sold. That is down to Strang as he is Sporting Director and the fact it has happened for a few seasons has to be questioned.
This is bull s**t with respect - I have no idea why so many fans bang on about us buying injured players all the time, I don't think we do. Posted this on FB: Lavery played 106 games for Balckpool in 3 seasons, so 35 a season which does not suggest an injury prone player. Smith 162 in 4 seasons, Gardner has been solid up to last 2 seasons (was that injury or not being picked?), Loft 79 in 2 seasons, we know Andrew, Digby & Brophy are rarely out, Morro is pretty good for an oldie, Kachunga 89 in 2 seasons. So overall I think our record is pretty good. Rossi has been out a lot but as a player with limited experience, hard to read / judge. Fejiri was a known gamble and did well when fit. Dunk struggled last season but lots of good years, and Haunstrup was a disaster. Don't think we are much better or worse than other teams, they all get injuries. But as we do have a low budget we will sign players on way down who could be slightly more prone to injury, but we can't do much about that.
|
|
|
Post by El Goodo on Sept 17, 2024 9:07:30 GMT
We played our first choice XI for a total of 45 minutes of pre-season, the rest of the time we had a variety of youth players filling slots. The final weekend of the pre-season had our first XI (and a bench of kids) play against WBA kids. Smith was replaced by a youth player at half time. The next day, we fielded a team of half kids, half first teamers against Colchester's first XI. Aside from what losing 6-0 does to anyone's confidence, why didn't we at least reverse the selections and have our first XI play Colchester? Beating a WBA youth side doesn't mean it was good preparation. I would question the decision to play Fri/Sat/Fri/Sat when we were clearly nowhere near finalising our recruitment and also had numerous fitness/injury issues. That sort of schedule means anyone playing on the Friday would not be able to play any part in the game the next day thus making the absolute hammering by a full strength Colchester side almost an inevitability. As already mentioned this did absolutely nothing for the confidence or development of all concerned in that match. Yeah probably fair but these games have to be arranged a long way in advance. It's difficult to predict when transfers are going to happen & who's going to be available 2 months in advance. I really don't think the Colchester game is worth making too much of, is my feeling. It probably didn't do much good for Stevens, that much is true, but do we really think it had a big effect on Bennett, Morrison or Digby? Barton & Njoku don't seem to have been adversely affected by it & MccConnell's been out injured since anyway.
|
|
joe77
On trial
Posts: 232
Member is Online
|
Post by joe77 on Sept 17, 2024 9:10:24 GMT
Didn't seem to impact us too much playing the two Conference sides back to back within 24 hours but possibly wasn't such a good idea doing the same with two EFL sides with better quality squads. Should probably have played one EFL side midweek and then the other at the weekend, but I don't think it had a massive impact on preparations for the season, or shouldn't have done, anyway.
|
|
cambsno
Youth team star
Posts: 1,183
|
Post by cambsno on Sept 17, 2024 9:13:44 GMT
As much as he's partly responsible, it feels that Strang is taking a lot of heat off Monk here. It's his squad right, he wanted to keep certain members of the previous squad and would have had a big say in the players that ended up here. Neither are blameless. Monk has been here a matter of months and there's already calls for him to be sacked, so he's getting plenty of stick already to be honest. Suffering similar issues repeatedly season after season under different managers suggests the issue is bigger than the Head Coach role. Strang as Sporting Director oversees the whole football operation, that includes recruitment and planning, presumably as well as involvement in the hiring of the head coach. If Monk's tenure ends in failure either due to tactics, planning or recruitment, then bigger questions also have to be raised. If Strang isn't involved, then what's he getting paid for? Time and time again, when these topics are raised, they get shut down because of our low budget and small financial capabilities. But that's part of the job the Sporting Director has to deal with and overcome, playing russian roulette with relegation on the last day each season isn't progress. If our goal is a couple seasons in League 1 and then back to League 2 then everyone is doing enough, but it's not. Our ambition on the pitch has to match our ambition off it, signing Loft on a 3 year deal, leaving our squad imbalanced and light (AGAIN) isn't matching what we are striving to achieve off the pitch. If Monk's job is being questioned, then I think it's fair to ask whether Strang is the man to help improve us long term too.I'm not calling for him to be sacked tomorrow, but depending on how the season goes, it's something that should be reviewed. Thats it, blame Strang. The manager will dictate what type of player we go for or want, or give contracts to Kaikai etc... The fact is we are low on budget and it's very difficult to overcome, what is he supposed to do, bribe, print his own money?? If you had said to us 6 years ago we would have a promotion, beat Newcastle away and be starting our 4th consecutive L1 campaign, people would have bitten your hand off! Strang also helped us get that promotion and signed the likes of Wes, Smith, Knobs, Mitov, Jones, Iredale etc who led us to mid table in first season. He gets criticised for giving 3 year deals while criticised for 1 year deals!! Monk would have identified him as a player he wanted (Loft)
|
|
|
Post by milesfenton on Sept 17, 2024 9:20:30 GMT
We played our first choice XI for a total of 45 minutes of pre-season, the rest of the time we had a variety of youth players filling slots. The final weekend of the pre-season had our first XI (and a bench of kids) play against WBA kids. Smith was replaced by a youth player at half time. The next day, we fielded a team of half kids, half first teamers against Colchester's first XI. Aside from what losing 6-0 does to anyone's confidence, why didn't we at least reverse the selections and have our first XI play Colchester? Beating a WBA youth side doesn't mean it was good preparation. Pre-season is always going to be a bit of a mix of players. You rarely, if ever, play a full-strength team until the final fixture or two. I'm not going to go further back than last season, but in 2023 our pre-season was: v Cardiff - mixed 1st team/youth v St Albans - 1st team v Ipswich - 1st team, only 2 players different from St Albans v Gillingham - 1st team, more changes made during the game than v Ipswich though v Barnet - 1st team To me, looking back at our line ups for those games, it was an entirely different sort of pre-season to this time round. We only played our 1st team once this year, against a youth side, and even then Smith came off after 45 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by El Goodo on Sept 17, 2024 9:21:44 GMT
I'm not going to go further back than last season, but in 2023 our pre-season was: v Cardiff - mixed 1st team/youth v St Albans - 1st team v Ipswich - 1st team, only 2 players different from St Albans v Gillingham - 1st team, more changes made during the game than v Ipswich though v Barnet - 1st team To me, looking back at our line ups for those games, it was an entirely different sort of pre-season to this time round. We only played our 1st team once this year, against a youth side, and even then Smith came off after 45 minutes. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Shaw's Fist of Rage on Sept 17, 2024 9:21:49 GMT
1) Money 2) Isn't that probably a good thing that we are not lumbered with bad players on League 1 contracts. Surely that's only a problem if we do well? I agree with you on the vision thing, I can't get my head around the Bonner Harris Monk movement. Utilising a small budget effectively to help us perform and improve on the pitch is part of their jobs here. It's not a task I envy them for, but I don't think you can shrug off questions by simply saying it's all down to money. If anything it raises questions on how the playing budget has been used on a short term and a long term basis? And if the football side of the club is doing its part in generating income(player sales etc.)? These aren't just ordinary people off the internet, they are being given alot of responsibility and being paid alot of money so to expect a higher standard is natural. Not saying it's all down to money, but the question was about other teams gazumping us last minute. We'd done all the hard work, getting them a contract they were happy to sign, bought into the club, the area, all other factors - can't see that to do with anything other than money.
|
|
Brophypants
Reserve team star
What are you doing with my badge? :(
Posts: 4,391
Favourite CUFC player: Harrison Dunk
|
Post by Brophypants on Sept 17, 2024 9:32:01 GMT
Utilising a small budget effectively to help us perform and improve on the pitch is part of their jobs here. It's not a task I envy them for, but I don't think you can shrug off questions by simply saying it's all down to money. If anything it raises questions on how the playing budget has been used on a short term and a long term basis? And if the football side of the club is doing its part in generating income(player sales etc.)? These aren't just ordinary people off the internet, they are being given alot of responsibility and being paid alot of money so to expect a higher standard is natural. I see Stevenage as a bit of a benchmark case for how good use can be made of what must be limited resources at this level. They almost certainly have a bigger budget than us but they have a smaller fan base, so seem a fair comparison with how we've done since promotion On the verge of slipping back into the Conference, they changed their manager and were able to significantly strengthen their squad and got promoted. Their form was very good for most of last season, although they fell away a little towards the end but finished closer to the playoff's than the bottom. They have had a decent start again this time around and currently sit ninth in the table when many expected them to struggle this season. They may yet fall away, but they appear to have made far better use of their resources than we have of ours. Yes, we've had relative success staying at this level for as long as we have, but their are other clubs on limited resources who seem to be able to make better use of them and kick on, rather than simply talking about wanting to kick on. The pre-season talk coming out of the club was very positive and probably a little too ambitious and that's added to my sense of disillusionment at the start we've made. Before deciding we're absolutely atrocious because a few smaller clubs with more money are doing okay, it's worth looking at all of the other clubs that aren't. Carlisle are 22nd in League 2. Grimsby 21st. MK Dons 20th. Swindon 18th. Tranmere 14th. We're doing quite a bit better than them, in spite of their advantages, aren't we? Never mind the Bradfords, Notts, Chesterfields, actual Dons, and Donnies that are in League 2 but have higher average attendances than we can even fit in our stadium. Southend, Hartlepool, Oldham, York, all proper clubs, around our size or bigger, slumming it in the conference. There are a lot more bigger and more moneyed clubs doing worse than us, than there are smaller clubs doing better than us. If we outperformed every single club on every single metric weighted to means, I suspect there'd still be sections of the fanbase complaining we weren't doing enough.
|
|
|
Post by El Goodo on Sept 17, 2024 9:38:21 GMT
Not saying it's all down to money, but the question was about other teams gazumping us last minute. We'd done all the hard work, getting them a contract they were happy to sign, bought into the club, the area, all other factors - can't see that to do with anything other than money. It's hard to say without knowing who the players were and where they went (& of course their contract situations), but if Jack Sparkes was indeed one then it's not particularly difficult to work out why he'd elect to go to Peterborough late on rather than us: if a team that finished in the play-offs last season & is renowned for playing good football & often acting as a stepping stone for players comes in offering more money in broadly the same location... it's not really much of a choice is it? I suspect if this season turns out to be a relative success in terms of a comfortable mid-table finish while playing decent football, we might find it a little easier next year to a) get deals in place earlier seeing as we'd know which division we'd be in before May and b) get them over the line. Success begets success & attracting players to a club when you have a smaller budget is an easier sell when you haven't struggled the previous season. Or two. Of course this all comes back to "why can't we develop a reputation for finessing players & selling them on?" & the answer is... well, we've been trying with the likes of Mitov, Dallas, Knibbs, Smith, Ibsen Rossi, Okedina, Lankester, Simper, Worman, arguably May. Just haven't done particularly well at it so far, although we have sold 2 of those players. If it's true we turned down offers for Bennett in the summer because they didn't meet our valuation then... what are we supposed to do? It's a rock and a hard place between the club being criticised for selling our best players for peanuts & losing players on a free. People say we only offer short contracts but that's not true either – over the past few years all of Ibsen Rossi, May, Okedina, Lankester, Worman, Simper, Jobe, Bennett, Brophy, McConnell & Loft have had deals in place that cover terms of 2.5-3 years (4 in the case of Loft). We need to get better at it but identifying young talent that's going to reach it's potential isn't as easy as some people seem to think. There's always pointing at Peterborough but there are plenty of those types of signings that don't work out there either. Also by virtue of the fact that we look to develop our own players & where we are in the food chain, we often don't see the fruits of that labour either. There have apparently been plenty of players that have been sold upwards from our youth pathway years before they would even get to the scholar or young pro set-up. We need to get better at this side of things – again, Exeter are the ones we should be looking to emulate – but from the way some people talk you'd think the club aren't even bothering to try, which simply isn't true.
|
|
squeeze.
Reserve team substitute
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,013
|
Post by squeeze. on Sept 17, 2024 10:01:14 GMT
I was given a protective boot yesterday - nothing too major - weirdest thing was, Ben Strang was outside the waiting room waiting to offer me a years contract.
|
|