| Now this annoys me 19:10 - Nov 24 with 8711 views | iamipswich |
Apologies but I’ve just realised how much this annoys me. Jack Marriott. We had one of the most gifted young footballers in the country for his time at the club. He scored goals for fun at youth level, went out on loan and did the same. But because he was smaller than 6ft, McCarthy refused to play him because his style didn’t accommodate someone small. Even Brett Pitman alone was a stretch.
We had one of the brightest young talents around and hoof ball deprived us of reaping the benefits of having him. This annoys me especially with our plight right now and seeing him bag goals in league 1 and now have a decent start with a good Derby side.
Apologies all I don’t know where this came from and what it brings to the table but I suppose that is what a forum is for. To vent one’s frustration. I think it was Ben Morris scoring today for Forest Green. I see similarities and hope he gets a chance.
Have a lovely weekend all. |  |
| |  |
| Now this annoys me on 21:47 - Nov 24 with 2779 views | Trequartista |
| Now this annoys me on 20:59 - Nov 24 by BloomBlue |
They had put him on a fitness program and he refused to stick to it, he even admits himself, which is why he came back overweight. What was MM to do then, push him onto the ground and kick the shlt out of him? |
Give him a chance to get fit? I'm sure he would have done this, had he rated him. |  |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 21:52 - Nov 24 with 2774 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Now this annoys me on 21:47 - Nov 24 by Trequartista |
Give him a chance to get fit? I'm sure he would have done this, had he rated him. |
And his successful loan spells were all in non-league. I don’t think he scored a goal in his league loans, so that combined with his fitness issues you can see why Mick made his decision
Hindsight wonderful thing etc |  | | |
| Now this annoys me on 22:00 - Nov 24 with 2768 views | Trequartista |
| Now this annoys me on 21:52 - Nov 24 by ElderGrizzly |
And his successful loan spells were all in non-league. I don’t think he scored a goal in his league loans, so that combined with his fitness issues you can see why Mick made his decision
Hindsight wonderful thing etc |
The level he had attained at the time is not really relevant, it's about potential. Obviously he had potential and the level he could achieve in the future was misjudged. This is not to say every decision was wrong, plenty of players were released who turned out to be not good enough, this decision however was proven wrong. | |
| |
| on 22:05 - Nov 24 with 2767 views | _ |
|  | | |
| Now this annoys me on 22:09 - Nov 24 with 2763 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Now this annoys me on 22:00 - Nov 24 by Trequartista |
The level he had attained at the time is not really relevant, it's about potential. Obviously he had potential and the level he could achieve in the future was misjudged. This is not to say every decision was wrong, plenty of players were released who turned out to be not good enough, this decision however was proven wrong. |
The level comment was aimed at the OP more than anything, saying he scored at every level. He didn’t.
In the clubs defence, not many have gone on to better things after being released. | | | |
| Now this annoys me on 22:19 - Nov 24 with 2751 views | Herbivore |
| Now this annoys me on 19:29 - Nov 24 by BackToRussia |
No, but people in this thread are willing to accept that if he was fat and sulky, that was enough to drop him. I think that's poor management. I think, like when we got rid of Rhodes, that the management team were thinking that he wasn't lined up for the first team in the next year, so he was expendable.
One young striker being let go who then went onto score goals and sell for big numbers could be passed off as bad luck, what does two strikers who then go on to be top scorers at other clubs being released by us look like? It certainly doesn't look like a team actually committed to relying on their Academy like Evans claims to want to do.
Think of the amount of goals Rhodes and Marriott have scored since they have left? Does that not irk you that we've struggled and had our worst spells of all time while they are banging them in? |
There's absolutely no guarantee that either of them would have scored goals for us had we kept them another year or two. Marriott managed something like 15 goals in League 2 the season after we sold him, so not like he was immediately tearing it up. They both ultimately benefited from building their careers by playing regularly at a lower level, there's nothing to say that them staying here and being in our reserves with the odd appearance from the bench would have enabled them to develop into the players they have since become. |  |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 23:49 - Nov 24 with 2728 views | Coastalblue |
It's a fact of life at the level we are now. We can't afford or at least won't afford to hang on to players with natural talent in the hope that they might come good.
When we trim things to the bone and any manager is working his budget to the pennies they're not going to invest too much of that into question marks.
Our money will go on those with a clear path to the first team or those that can offer something to the first team. I don't think Marriot was either at the the time, don't blame Mick. |  |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 23:53 - Nov 24 with 2726 views | Garv |
But he came back a bit overweight one summer.
We didn't even sell this one, just let him walk.
Agreed, insane. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Now this annoys me on 00:10 - Nov 25 with 2718 views | Terry_Nutkins |
| Now this annoys me on 23:53 - Nov 24 by Garv |
But he came back a bit overweight one summer.
We didn't even sell this one, just let him walk.
Agreed, insane. |
This and the original oost are completely misrepresenting the situation. He was down to last chance saloon for gettting in our side and he came back unfit and completely not prepared for that last chance.
He didnt score bucket loads everywhere he went. He had s uperb youth team record (more still fail in the game from this point then not). He had a good stint at Woking at a very low level and then never hit the heights again at any league club or even back at Woking. We had good strikers at the time and he was miles away, with a poor attitude and overweight, the decision was correct really.As Marriot has said it was a decision that was right for every party and sometimes that is the only way a successful outcome can come about. If he stayed with us frankly we probably still would not have reeped the rewards. Let it go.
This was completely different to the Rhodes madness. Rhodes was on upward trajectory and good attitude to boot. | |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 01:36 - Nov 25 with 2694 views | patrickswell |
Just to add to the thread, but I was at Marriott’s last game for us - the loss at Crawley in the League Cup - which was also the last appearance for both Paul Taylor (who was never in Mick’s plans) and Frank Nouble (who had one of the most traumatic games I’ve ever seen in any one player have. By the end of the game, he could barely kick the ball in any direction, let alone pass it accurately.) |  | | |
| on 09:12 - Nov 25 with 2649 views | _ |
| Now this annoys me on 23:53 - Nov 24 by Garv |
But he came back a bit overweight one summer.
We didn't even sell this one, just let him walk.
Agreed, insane. |
| | | |
| Now this annoys me on 09:17 - Nov 25 with 2631 views | Herbivore |
I make you right. | |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 09:20 - Nov 25 with 2635 views | SomethingBlue |
| Now this annoys me on 09:17 - Nov 25 by Herbivore |
I make you right. |
The OP (along with several others) is pure fantasy run with as incontrovertible truth and morphed, by the end, into something so far from reality that it's genuinely both sad and worrying. So easy to see how we voted Brexit. | |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 09:25 - Nov 25 with 2624 views | chicoazul |
Mcik didnt not play him because he was small but in fact quite the opposite. |  |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 09:26 - Nov 25 with 2621 views | chicoazul |
| Now this annoys me on 23:53 - Nov 24 by Garv |
But he came back a bit overweight one summer.
We didn't even sell this one, just let him walk.
Agreed, insane. |
You're acting like the club under Evans hasnt constantly either undersold players or let them go for free many many times. | |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 09:28 - Nov 25 with 2619 views | shamboy |
| Now this annoys me on 00:10 - Nov 25 by Terry_Nutkins |
This and the original oost are completely misrepresenting the situation. He was down to last chance saloon for gettting in our side and he came back unfit and completely not prepared for that last chance.
He didnt score bucket loads everywhere he went. He had s uperb youth team record (more still fail in the game from this point then not). He had a good stint at Woking at a very low level and then never hit the heights again at any league club or even back at Woking. We had good strikers at the time and he was miles away, with a poor attitude and overweight, the decision was correct really.As Marriot has said it was a decision that was right for every party and sometimes that is the only way a successful outcome can come about. If he stayed with us frankly we probably still would not have reeped the rewards. Let it go.
This was completely different to the Rhodes madness. Rhodes was on upward trajectory and good attitude to boot. |
It is also true that RK didn't like the constant pressure he was getting from Andy Rhodes to play Jordan. His solution was to bomb them both out. | | | |
| Now this annoys me on 14:28 - Nov 25 with 2553 views | Charlie_pl_baxter |
Of course it's frustrating to see a former youth player to on to fulfil their potential elsewhere. However it seems like being let go was the trigger that made JM realise he needed to work harder to get where he wanted to. |  |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 14:48 - Nov 25 with 2537 views | braveblue |
| Now this annoys me on 19:17 - Nov 24 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
Exactly.
Mick was right to let Jack go. He was fat when he came back for pre-season. That is not good enough for a professional footballer |
MM was the manager. He should have managed him as others have. | | | |
| Now this annoys me on 12:45 - Nov 26 with 2476 views | Garv |
I see where you're coming from and I appreciate this type of this does 'happen' but it was pretty clear Marriot had ability. Why we didn't persist with him or even send him out on loan again to get more experience was a bad decision, and that's not just in hindsight. Rhodes went on loan loads of times before he eventually got in the team /was sold. | |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 12:48 - Nov 26 with 2472 views | Herbivore |
| Now this annoys me on 12:45 - Nov 26 by Garv |
I see where you're coming from and I appreciate this type of this does 'happen' but it was pretty clear Marriot had ability. Why we didn't persist with him or even send him out on loan again to get more experience was a bad decision, and that's not just in hindsight. Rhodes went on loan loads of times before he eventually got in the team /was sold. |
Marriott also went on loan loads of times. When on loan to Football League clubs he often wasn't even getting a game. He had one good spell at Woking followed by a succession of disappointing spells. At the time the decision was made to let him go he was, at best, 5th choice here and all indications were that he wasn't going to make it for us. Had we kept him there is zero guarantee he'd be playing at this level now given the trajectory he was on. | |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 12:52 - Nov 26 with 2471 views | NoBru |
Isn't this a slight stretching of the truth?
MM got rid of JM because he was over weight and not 100% fit, this has been said by both parties too...
Let's just count our lucky stars that we seem to now have someone who has their eye on our youth players and wants to give them opportunities to prove themselves. |  | | |
| Now this annoys me on 13:29 - Nov 26 with 2451 views | rickw |
| Now this annoys me on 22:00 - Nov 24 by Trequartista |
The level he had attained at the time is not really relevant, it's about potential. Obviously he had potential and the level he could achieve in the future was misjudged. This is not to say every decision was wrong, plenty of players were released who turned out to be not good enough, this decision however was proven wrong. |
There are far more players with good potential who don't fulfil that potential than those that do.
He'd done pretty well in loans in the conference but had 3 failed loans to league 1 + 2 clubs, since releasing him it's taken him 3 years to get up to Championship standard. Some players don't reach their level until they're mid-20's and he's said that being released was the kick he needed to push on.
He isn't like Rhodes who was instantly successful after being sold |  |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 13:39 - Nov 26 with 2443 views | itfcjoe |
It's a shame he wasn't a couple of years younger - because Mick, and the clubs, approach to youth players changed over his time here.
It's totally wrong that Marriott never got a chance, he did more than any youth player I can remember without getting one - it was a mistake by the club to not give him an opportunity.
By the time he was released it was the right decision, but he should've had an opportuniity before then rather being sent back time and time to the lottery that is the loan system |  |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 13:42 - Nov 26 with 2434 views | Herbivore |
| Now this annoys me on 13:29 - Nov 26 by rickw |
There are far more players with good potential who don't fulfil that potential than those that do.
He'd done pretty well in loans in the conference but had 3 failed loans to league 1 + 2 clubs, since releasing him it's taken him 3 years to get up to Championship standard. Some players don't reach their level until they're mid-20's and he's said that being released was the kick he needed to push on.
He isn't like Rhodes who was instantly successful after being sold |
And it seems doubtful he'd have become a Championship striker by staying here in the reserves or going out on loan rather than by dropping down a couple of leagues on a permanent contract and working his way back up. The route he took worked for him, we can't assume that the Marriott now playing for Derby would have developed in anything like the same way with 3-4 years in our reserves or out on loan. That wasn't working for him for the 18 months prior to his departure. | |
| |
| Now this annoys me on 16:22 - Nov 26 with 2403 views | Garv |
| Now this annoys me on 12:48 - Nov 26 by Herbivore |
Marriott also went on loan loads of times. When on loan to Football League clubs he often wasn't even getting a game. He had one good spell at Woking followed by a succession of disappointing spells. At the time the decision was made to let him go he was, at best, 5th choice here and all indications were that he wasn't going to make it for us. Had we kept him there is zero guarantee he'd be playing at this level now given the trajectory he was on. |
All that would stack up if he'd been given a chance with us. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
