| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... 10:48 - Sep 4 with 4520 views | ITFCBlues |
So how would they have avoided that situation?
Waghorn
Webster
Garner
Hyam
Gleeson
McGoldrick
Carayol
Bru
Below loans ended
Connolly
Celina
CCV
Iorfa
Total of 12 players who have left the club since the end of the season. So which of these could/should we of kept on?
If I look at that list, the top three I’d of kept. However, they all wanted to leave - so how does that play out? Stopping players earning more money. I’ve seen comments the last couple of days about players questioning the new regim and PH. Would keeping these players of helped that squad harmony?
McGoldrick would’ve been nice. However, his injury situation over the last couple of years doesn’t justify a big contract. Would he even want to stay?
Of the loans, CCV & Connolly perhaps. CCV we appear to have tried to resign.
For me, when it’s all in black and white, I’m not sure how it could of been avoided - although interested in seeing what other people think could’ve been done to avoid it.
|  |
| |  |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 10:55 - Sep 4 with 3515 views | GeoffSentence |
You are bang on with this, I have questioned PH's revolutionary approach but when you look back at the situation there really was not much else that could be done.
Of those who have gone, Webster is about the only avoidable one, but at the time we had no inkling that Waggy and Garner would be off so the cash from his sale was necessary for PH to bring in a few new faces. |  |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 10:56 - Sep 4 with 3509 views | Dubtractor |
I agree with that pretty much word for word.
We have had a massive overhaul, but I'm not too sure that it could have panned out much differently.
The bigger question, to be answered over the next few months, is whether the players bought in are going to be good enough. |  |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 10:56 - Sep 4 with 3507 views | hype313 |
Good post, I for one have been saying the turnover has been too much too quick, but reading that, how could have it been avoided? |  |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:02 - Sep 4 with 3480 views | GeoffSentence |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 10:56 - Sep 4 by Dubtractor |
I agree with that pretty much word for word.
We have had a massive overhaul, but I'm not too sure that it could have panned out much differently.
The bigger question, to be answered over the next few months, is whether the players bought in are going to be good enough. |
Here is the Sentence assessment of the new signings, excluding loans (except JD)
Nsiala and Donacien seem decent enough
Edwards, he's definitely good enough
Nolan, jury's out, has shown some quality but let down by some poor decision making in the Nodge game.
Harrison, not impressed so far, have yet to see him win a header.
Jackson, looks lively enough, but in the first half of the Nodge game his first touch was terrible. | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:08 - Sep 4 with 3449 views | JimmyJazz |
By not having 3 players on loan last season who were a main part of the first team - i've left out Iorfa here - so with contracts running out and the loan players at least 9 players were always going to be leaving this summer. Hardly forward thinking from before PH even arrived.
This season I would say we have 3 loan players who will leave next summer - Chalobah, Edun and Pennington. The other 3 we can possibly retain (obviously Donacien will), while we seem to be avoiding the squad fillers (e.g. Gleeson) who would be leaving anyway in the summer |  |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:08 - Sep 4 with 3450 views | ITFCBlues |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 10:56 - Sep 4 by Dubtractor |
I agree with that pretty much word for word.
We have had a massive overhaul, but I'm not too sure that it could have panned out much differently.
The bigger question, to be answered over the next few months, is whether the players bought in are going to be good enough. |
Of course, it could be questioned about the involvement of Nydam. Edun is probably the better player at present - although I do get the arguments that he should be here and in and around the squad/18 each week. However, he’s 18 & played more games than he should/would’ve had Huws/Bishop of been fit.
Emmanuel - perhaps. But then PH clearly doesn’t rate him for whatever reason & from the hat Phil has said, MM would’ve sold him this summer if he’d of been in charge so somethings not right there.
Wolfy - he could’ve stayed here as a 4th choice CB or go to L2 and play 30-40 games. I think we all know what’s right for his development. Similar to Morris as well... | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:13 - Sep 4 with 3431 views | FrimleyBlue |
Realistically, Waghorn was always going to attract bids so for me, Webster is the first one that could have been avoided.
With him sold, that's where Hurst needed to stand his ground abit firmer for me. As mentioned yesterday and which has been confirmed, neither Waghorn or Garner requested transfers. The Latter we know would have preferred a move back up north, but he still didn't stamp his feet and demand a move. Had we not taken the money, he'd still be here, same with Waghorn. Both are professionals and I don't see any reason why both players would have made things difficult.. I do feel though that Hurst felt Waghorn wouldn't suit his lone striker role, or the 10 role and he spent the majority of his first month trying his best to get the bids in. Every press conference, even when not asked about Waghorn he would bring him into the converstation, not once did he say firmly show a wish to keep Waghorn, it was all " for the right money" not Mcarthys Mcgoldrick showing a few years back.... Unless its a ridiculous amount, he's staying.. Bit more firm for me and a showing that MCG was seen as a key player for Mick. Waghorns bench time under Hurst showed me that he wasn't top of his priorities.
The others... Carayol.... really, if you're bringing in Graham, is there much difference? Both on their day can run at players. I bet Carayol costs a lot less than Graham will too.
Hyam...... Think his time had come, same with Bru, Gleeson, didn't do enough.
Loanees, CCV only appeared to be an option when we failed with others. was interesting that he wasn't linked at all In coming back until very very late in the window.
Celina, failed to flatter consistently so not sure it's a massive miss tbh
Same with the others.
However......... the issue has been the changes in team each game..... no consistency. We seemed to have moved on from Hurst's ideal football and reverted to type.
Loanees in... Very Mickesque in the risks that they're bringing... Graham.. how fit etc.
The signings he's made also.... A lot of longer term potential... but what about now?
Harrison, Jackson, Roberts.. haven't shown much as yet. Nolan has potential, but will he make the grade?
Then there's the lack of 'our' lads in the side. Not saying 90 minutes, but we've seen Morris, Woolfy, go out on loan. Dozzell, Folami, etc playing 23's and not getting any bench time or opportunities so far.
What happens when paperwork is complete and also if Collins comes in.... What happens to our backline. Do we see more changes....
To summarise. For me. The biggest killer is letting Waghorn go. But I also think Garner for his experience alone is also a blow . Didn't play that often towards end of season, but experience out on the training pitch would have been a great help for the newer youngsters brought in. Especially our defenders. Set pieces are talked about, we've conceded a lot from them.......... how are we supposed to train on them without any real experienced strikers in the box to test our defenders... Harrison and Jackson are raw.... Maybe Walters can add some much needed experience on this front. |  |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:18 - Sep 4 with 3420 views | ITFCBlues |
It’s also worth a mention that we do now have 5 loans this season, 6 for those who are more dramatic and consider Donacien a loan. We had 4 loans last season. For me, the ideal number is probably 3. However, I think the Garner situation meant that we had to get Walters in. You can’t really judge PH on his ideal squad until at least 3/4 transfer windows have passed. There is other areas that you can right be worried about, but I’m not sure that the turnaround of players is really one. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:20 - Sep 4 with 3411 views | JakeITFC |
We’ve lost close to half of all of the minutes played last season per this:
So whilst the overhaul wasn’t entirely of Hurst’s doing, I raise two points:
- Whilst all of the sales in isolation make sense, perhaps the bigger picture was lost
- Should we have been more savvy in finding Championship hardened players in replacing those ones we’ve lost.
I’d say the signing of Walters and the links with McAuley and Collins suggests that at least one of those points is pertinent. |  | | |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:27 - Sep 4 with 3394 views | itfcjoe |
I think the thing for me is that all the deals individually can be argued for and justified quite easily, but it's the whole bigger picture which is the issue int he overhaul.
Webster - £3.5m for an injury prone defender
Waghorn - £5m for a player we signed cheaply that could be reinvested
McG - Time here had come to an end
Garner - profit made and he wanted to move
Etc Etc.
But the big picture is our strike force has gone from Garner, Waghorn and McG to Jackson, Harrison and Walters. Walters just about salvages it, but it's still a decent size downgrade.
And I do think some of the transfers in don't make sense - we sold Webster early doors, lost CCV (who was Smith's replacement), lost Berra the summer before and we end up having to give a player their debut in the Norwich game with one training session - when at the other end of the pitch players like Nydam, Dozzell, Sears, Roberts can't even get in the matchday 18.
The squad is very unbalanced currently in my view - and I don't think Hurst intended to have such an overhaul. i think once he saw what could be achieved with the Webster money, he wanted Waghorn gone to try and shape the squad more. Will this prove to be a mistake only time will tell?
If we can stay up wioth any degree of comfort I'll be more than happy, especially if you can see what is being planned and we are heading in a specific direction. |  |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:28 - Sep 4 with 3384 views | ITFCBlues |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:13 - Sep 4 by FrimleyBlue |
Realistically, Waghorn was always going to attract bids so for me, Webster is the first one that could have been avoided.
With him sold, that's where Hurst needed to stand his ground abit firmer for me. As mentioned yesterday and which has been confirmed, neither Waghorn or Garner requested transfers. The Latter we know would have preferred a move back up north, but he still didn't stamp his feet and demand a move. Had we not taken the money, he'd still be here, same with Waghorn. Both are professionals and I don't see any reason why both players would have made things difficult.. I do feel though that Hurst felt Waghorn wouldn't suit his lone striker role, or the 10 role and he spent the majority of his first month trying his best to get the bids in. Every press conference, even when not asked about Waghorn he would bring him into the converstation, not once did he say firmly show a wish to keep Waghorn, it was all " for the right money" not Mcarthys Mcgoldrick showing a few years back.... Unless its a ridiculous amount, he's staying.. Bit more firm for me and a showing that MCG was seen as a key player for Mick. Waghorns bench time under Hurst showed me that he wasn't top of his priorities.
The others... Carayol.... really, if you're bringing in Graham, is there much difference? Both on their day can run at players. I bet Carayol costs a lot less than Graham will too.
Hyam...... Think his time had come, same with Bru, Gleeson, didn't do enough.
Loanees, CCV only appeared to be an option when we failed with others. was interesting that he wasn't linked at all In coming back until very very late in the window.
Celina, failed to flatter consistently so not sure it's a massive miss tbh
Same with the others.
However......... the issue has been the changes in team each game..... no consistency. We seemed to have moved on from Hurst's ideal football and reverted to type.
Loanees in... Very Mickesque in the risks that they're bringing... Graham.. how fit etc.
The signings he's made also.... A lot of longer term potential... but what about now?
Harrison, Jackson, Roberts.. haven't shown much as yet. Nolan has potential, but will he make the grade?
Then there's the lack of 'our' lads in the side. Not saying 90 minutes, but we've seen Morris, Woolfy, go out on loan. Dozzell, Folami, etc playing 23's and not getting any bench time or opportunities so far.
What happens when paperwork is complete and also if Collins comes in.... What happens to our backline. Do we see more changes....
To summarise. For me. The biggest killer is letting Waghorn go. But I also think Garner for his experience alone is also a blow . Didn't play that often towards end of season, but experience out on the training pitch would have been a great help for the newer youngsters brought in. Especially our defenders. Set pieces are talked about, we've conceded a lot from them.......... how are we supposed to train on them without any real experienced strikers in the box to test our defenders... Harrison and Jackson are raw.... Maybe Walters can add some much needed experience on this front. |
Waghorn told Hurst that he wanted to leave. He has the chance to possibly double his money. So how does that play out keeping him? He might well be a professional but he’s shown a desire to leave, should we keep him?
Webster I see your point perhaps. But we’ve got a great fee for a player that was injured a lot & never really showed the potential that he was supposed to have. Again, he wanted to go.
Garner we just know he wanted a move back up north.
CCV only became available towards the end of the window as Spurs wanted him for pre-season. You’d presume to check on if they wanted him to play a part this season.
His signings can be questioned of course. My point was on people banging on about the amount of change without providing any other solutions | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:31 - Sep 4 with 3366 views | JimmyJazz |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:20 - Sep 4 by JakeITFC |
We’ve lost close to half of all of the minutes played last season per this:
So whilst the overhaul wasn’t entirely of Hurst’s doing, I raise two points:
- Whilst all of the sales in isolation make sense, perhaps the bigger picture was lost
- Should we have been more savvy in finding Championship hardened players in replacing those ones we’ve lost.
I’d say the signing of Walters and the links with McAuley and Collins suggests that at least one of those points is pertinent. |
Bolton have a lower figure than us, and they are doing very nicely. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:32 - Sep 4 with 3361 views | ITFCBlues |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:20 - Sep 4 by JakeITFC |
We’ve lost close to half of all of the minutes played last season per this:
So whilst the overhaul wasn’t entirely of Hurst’s doing, I raise two points:
- Whilst all of the sales in isolation make sense, perhaps the bigger picture was lost
- Should we have been more savvy in finding Championship hardened players in replacing those ones we’ve lost.
I’d say the signing of Walters and the links with McAuley and Collins suggests that at least one of those points is pertinent. |
I agree - his signings are perhaps not entirely what was needed. But we shall see. As you say, he’s certainly trying to sign some more experience.
But how is the overhaul of the squad avoided? I’m not talking about his signings. I’ve seen in one of your threads that this was a concern of yours, but I still don’t see a solution/alternative! | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:37 - Sep 4 with 3324 views | FrimleyBlue |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:28 - Sep 4 by ITFCBlues |
Waghorn told Hurst that he wanted to leave. He has the chance to possibly double his money. So how does that play out keeping him? He might well be a professional but he’s shown a desire to leave, should we keep him?
Webster I see your point perhaps. But we’ve got a great fee for a player that was injured a lot & never really showed the potential that he was supposed to have. Again, he wanted to go.
Garner we just know he wanted a move back up north.
CCV only became available towards the end of the window as Spurs wanted him for pre-season. You’d presume to check on if they wanted him to play a part this season.
His signings can be questioned of course. My point was on people banging on about the amount of change without providing any other solutions |
There are solutions
Say all players turned round and said I wanna go......... you've signed a contract. Deal with it.
What's the point in showing you're a tough manager and call out the Barts, or the knudsens etc yet you give in when a player says he wants to go.
Waghorn, Webster, Garner.......... not 1 put in a transfer request. not 1. That alone tells you that they were not going to make things difficult if they didn't get a move.
Look at the 2 from shrews.... If I were a manager, i'd be questioning their personalities and loyalty myself. 2 players who threw in transfer requests immediately. same going to happen here?.........
Everyone keeps bringing up the 'they wanted to go' card to justify their sales........Even when who is closer than a lot of us to PR, has confirmed that neither of them actually declared their utmost wish was to leave the club. | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:37 - Sep 4 with 3325 views | ITFCBlues |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:27 - Sep 4 by itfcjoe |
I think the thing for me is that all the deals individually can be argued for and justified quite easily, but it's the whole bigger picture which is the issue int he overhaul.
Webster - £3.5m for an injury prone defender
Waghorn - £5m for a player we signed cheaply that could be reinvested
McG - Time here had come to an end
Garner - profit made and he wanted to move
Etc Etc.
But the big picture is our strike force has gone from Garner, Waghorn and McG to Jackson, Harrison and Walters. Walters just about salvages it, but it's still a decent size downgrade.
And I do think some of the transfers in don't make sense - we sold Webster early doors, lost CCV (who was Smith's replacement), lost Berra the summer before and we end up having to give a player their debut in the Norwich game with one training session - when at the other end of the pitch players like Nydam, Dozzell, Sears, Roberts can't even get in the matchday 18.
The squad is very unbalanced currently in my view - and I don't think Hurst intended to have such an overhaul. i think once he saw what could be achieved with the Webster money, he wanted Waghorn gone to try and shape the squad more. Will this prove to be a mistake only time will tell?
If we can stay up wioth any degree of comfort I'll be more than happy, especially if you can see what is being planned and we are heading in a specific direction. |
I’m not trying to justify his recruitment & I think time will tell how that plays out. 6 games isn’t anywhere near enough to tell if it’ll be a success or not. There’s been a lot of talk about the overhaul not being needed & I still don’t see a single argument that provides any realistic solution for it not happening | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:40 - Sep 4 with 3307 views | ITFCBlues |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:37 - Sep 4 by FrimleyBlue |
There are solutions
Say all players turned round and said I wanna go......... you've signed a contract. Deal with it.
What's the point in showing you're a tough manager and call out the Barts, or the knudsens etc yet you give in when a player says he wants to go.
Waghorn, Webster, Garner.......... not 1 put in a transfer request. not 1. That alone tells you that they were not going to make things difficult if they didn't get a move.
Look at the 2 from shrews.... If I were a manager, i'd be questioning their personalities and loyalty myself. 2 players who threw in transfer requests immediately. same going to happen here?.........
Everyone keeps bringing up the 'they wanted to go' card to justify their sales........Even when who is closer than a lot of us to PR, has confirmed that neither of them actually declared their utmost wish was to leave the club. |
So your solution is to keep three players who will be unhappy?
We know that Waghorn specifically told Hurst he wanted to leave - if he put in a formal request or not, what difference does it make? | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:41 - Sep 4 with 3303 views | itfcjoe |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:37 - Sep 4 by ITFCBlues |
I’m not trying to justify his recruitment & I think time will tell how that plays out. 6 games isn’t anywhere near enough to tell if it’ll be a success or not. There’s been a lot of talk about the overhaul not being needed & I still don’t see a single argument that provides any realistic solution for it not happening |
There's an overhaul and then there is just 2-3 starters from last years team starting games - getting more bodies in isn't necessary a bad thing but changing the XI too much is something else.
Keeping one of Waghorn or Garner would have been a good idea in my view, that would have made a big difference, and may have negated the need to sign Walters | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:42 - Sep 4 with 3290 views | FrimleyBlue |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:40 - Sep 4 by ITFCBlues |
So your solution is to keep three players who will be unhappy?
We know that Waghorn specifically told Hurst he wanted to leave - if he put in a formal request or not, what difference does it make? |
once again, there's nothing to suggest anywhere that 3 players would have been unhappy
You've got to manage players. not give in. [Post edited 4 Sep 2018 11:43]
| |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:43 - Sep 4 with 3290 views | itfcjoe |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:40 - Sep 4 by ITFCBlues |
So your solution is to keep three players who will be unhappy?
We know that Waghorn specifically told Hurst he wanted to leave - if he put in a formal request or not, what difference does it make? |
McGoldrick wanted to go to Leicester, Mings wanted to go to palace, Murphy wanted to go to Boro.
I've heard that by the end of the Waghorn deal, it was more Hurst wanting him gone than Waghorn wanting to go. He'd have been happy enough with an improved contract.
Any player 'wants' to go if someone is spending big money on them, but there is adifference in how much though, and plenty do go. | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:49 - Sep 4 with 3248 views | JakeITFC |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:32 - Sep 4 by ITFCBlues |
I agree - his signings are perhaps not entirely what was needed. But we shall see. As you say, he’s certainly trying to sign some more experience.
But how is the overhaul of the squad avoided? I’m not talking about his signings. I’ve seen in one of your threads that this was a concern of yours, but I still don’t see a solution/alternative! |
My feeling from the get go has been that Hurst has underestimated the gap in quality between League One and here, and his transfer dealings have reflected that.
I think the majority of the bodies that have left the club would have done so anyway, but I think it would have been sensible to arrest the slide of experience and first team minutes/goals leaving the club - be that through stopping sales or replacing it.
I genuinely think Hurst thought (and probably will thinks) his way is better and so we could cope with it, but the recent transfers and links suggest either he has changed his mind (or somebody else in the club is changing his mind for him). | | | |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:52 - Sep 4 with 3223 views | ITFCBlues |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:41 - Sep 4 by itfcjoe |
There's an overhaul and then there is just 2-3 starters from last years team starting games - getting more bodies in isn't necessary a bad thing but changing the XI too much is something else.
Keeping one of Waghorn or Garner would have been a good idea in my view, that would have made a big difference, and may have negated the need to sign Walters |
So keeping just one would mean another 9-10 coming in? Still a massive overhaul.
How would that not transfer to the starting lineup? You’re basically changing half your squad compared to what you had last season. You’d expect at least 5-6 new players in that lineup. | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 12:02 - Sep 4 with 3187 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:40 - Sep 4 by ITFCBlues |
So your solution is to keep three players who will be unhappy?
We know that Waghorn specifically told Hurst he wanted to leave - if he put in a formal request or not, what difference does it make? |
It’s Hursts job to keep the playing staff happy and motivate them to play at their best for the club... |  |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 12:05 - Sep 4 with 3172 views | FrimleyBlue |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 12:02 - Sep 4 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
It’s Hursts job to keep the playing staff happy and motivate them to play at their best for the club... |
It's interesting how before hurst arrived it went from
" Can't wait to get started"
to
Waghorn wants to leave | |
| |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 12:06 - Sep 4 with 3166 views | Vaughan8 |
There is always some kind of overhaul when a club changes manager.
I have to say, I didn't think as many would go but when you list it, you could have imagined them all going (maybe not Garner).
The real question is are the new players good enough. Not a great start but lets hope the improvements continue. |  | | |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 12:08 - Sep 4 with 3155 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| I keep seeing people questioning the turnover in players... on 11:52 - Sep 4 by ITFCBlues |
So keeping just one would mean another 9-10 coming in? Still a massive overhaul.
How would that not transfer to the starting lineup? You’re basically changing half your squad compared to what you had last season. You’d expect at least 5-6 new players in that lineup. |
Allowing the filler to leave we could feasibly have fielded a lineup along the lines of the following - pretty much all of whom played a decent number of games last season:
Bialkowski
Spence
Knudsen
Webster
Chambers
Skuse
Downes/Nydam
Ward
Sears
Waghorn
Garner
That’s without factoring in the likes of Huws/Dozzell/Adeyemi who aren’t currently available
Obviously there are some areas there that need upgrading but it does show that Hurst didn’t HAVE to overhaul the starting lineup, it’s the route he’s chosen to go down. Whether that was the correct route is up for debate | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
