| Not buying the not able to buy argument 23:23 - Apr 10 with 6216 views | Myke |
Never felt really comfortable with the concept that we can't compete with Fulham, Bournemouth etc budget wise therefore cannot expect to compete with them on the pitch. For virtually every QPR fan the recent game with Fulham was a foregone conclusion because 'Mitrovic' cost 18 mill' etc etc - how can we compete with that? Then they get comfortably beaten by a team with a smaller budget than ours. The game was over inside 25 minutes. And it was not a once off. Barnsley went within four minutes of beating them. Blackpool (just up from League 1 after a torrid few years) fell behind to a Mitrovic strike even earlier than we did, but battled back for a creditable draw. Luton (one of the smallest budgets in the league but in the play-offs) also fell behind to a Mitrovic strike but equalised. With Bournemouth, there are numerous more examples.
On any given day, with the right effort, attitude and application any club can beat any other - even 'moneybags' Fulham. I have seen next season written off already as a foregone conclusion with Fulham, Burnley (or Everton) and Watford a shoe-in. They are not, as SU are showing this year. We have as much chance as anyone of we give it a real go - just as we were this season until the end of January. For weeks now we have not been brave enough or intense enough (for reasons speculated on to death) and the results reflect this. But I don't accept that our squad 'cannot compete' against the Fulham's of the world. In the transfer market maybe, but on the pitch, over 90 minutes, 11 men against 11- not having it. |  | | |  |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 20:42 - Apr 11 with 1483 views | ManinBlack |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 16:48 - Apr 11 by Myke |
I fully acknowledge the bigger budgets mean bigger squads, better able to handle injuries and achieve the consistency required over a 46 game marathon. But my argument is that on a game by game basis (and god knows, we always hear players and management banging on about 'taking one game at a time') we should be able to compete with ANYONE, including Fulham. Going into the game yesterday, Coventry were on a four game winless run (D2L2) and therefore confidence not at its highest one could suppose. We were in a similar position; no-one gave us a prayer and so it played out. One could assume the Coventry fans were not overly optimistic, but the players said 'f**k that' and turned the form book upside down. Where has that mental toughness gone from our game? Where has that resilience, that never-say-die attitude gone? We saw it briefly versus Blackpool and Luton, but it was completely absent elsewhere - most shockingly v Peterboro.
For me, the biggest anomaly to all the theories about our collapse - be it the goalkeeping theories or losing top players to injury theories- is the month of January. We had come off the back of two home defeats (first time all season we had failed to score) had lost our No1 keeper and one of our two chief play- makers . Began the month sluggishly, just squeezing past Rotherham in a penalty shoot-out. Yet ended the month unbeaten and on the cusp of 2nd place. Yet later, when we lose Dieng through injury and our other chief play-maker also through injury, suddenly we are bereft of ideas and hope. If, as I believe is true, you can beat anyone in this division with the right desire and intensity, regardless of the exact personnel you put out on the pitch, how do we square January with what has happened since? The only logical conclusion to my argument is that we lack the mental toughness, NOT the physical ability, to succeed. Do that make the manager exempt from blame? You can make players fitter, you can make players more aware, you can improve them technically - can you make them mentally stronger? |
You make some very good points. For years I have lamented about our losers mentality that seems to afflict this club no matter who the manager or players are. There always seems to be an air of self doubt around the club.
The slump we are on does not surprise me and was sadly half expected by myself. It was very simplistic in witnessing a bad first half to last season with a great second half that when we were going so well this season that it was nailed on we would revert to being rubbish in the second half going full circle. Even when things go well I always think it will end suddenly. Years of watching us has affected me this way. It might be expected but it is still a bitter pill to swallow.
With a bargain basement squad you can only go so far in a long season with games so quickly after the other. With old men running out of steam and injuries it is bound to affect a small squad if their replacements are not up to it. Clubs like Forest with better players can keep on going when the smaller squads start losing players as the season unfolds.
You have to have money to get long term success and as I said before, Fulham would still be drifting along in the lower leagues if Al Fayed had not arrived to wake them up. Newcastle fans are overjoyed with all the money coming their way as it has them dreaming they can do a Man City or Chelsea and buy success. They don't care whether it is blood money or not.
While I agree that we should be able to give Fulham a hard game, our record in derbies has been rank for some time. The fact is that Fulham will put more effort into beating us than Coventry or Blackpool as we are local rivals. Their better players on much better wages turn up against us as it is a bigger game for them and where they earn their corn. An away game in Coventry may not inspire them in the same way as facing us.
Same with Brentford who might lose to Barnsley, but they would always raise their game against us and, like Fulham, usually beat us comfortably. It comes from them having better players. In days gone by if a team was relegated they would lose their best players but with the parachute money Fulham can tell Mitrovic they will pay him Premier wages to stay with them to fire them back up. Gone are the days when a relegated club had to sell their best players as they can hope the wages gamble to keep the better players means they will only be out of the Premier league for one season.
It is very hard for us to compete with these odds unless we get another injection of cash. It took Leeds a long time to go up as although a big club, they didn't have the parachute money to assist. If they do come back down in the coming years, as things stand the parachute money will get them straight back up. The championship is in danger of mimicking the Premier league where only a small band of relegated clubs get the auto places back to the Premier like only a handful can win the Premier league. Well apart from pesky Leicester... |  | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 21:46 - Apr 11 with 1381 views | davman |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 20:42 - Apr 11 by ManinBlack |
You make some very good points. For years I have lamented about our losers mentality that seems to afflict this club no matter who the manager or players are. There always seems to be an air of self doubt around the club.
The slump we are on does not surprise me and was sadly half expected by myself. It was very simplistic in witnessing a bad first half to last season with a great second half that when we were going so well this season that it was nailed on we would revert to being rubbish in the second half going full circle. Even when things go well I always think it will end suddenly. Years of watching us has affected me this way. It might be expected but it is still a bitter pill to swallow.
With a bargain basement squad you can only go so far in a long season with games so quickly after the other. With old men running out of steam and injuries it is bound to affect a small squad if their replacements are not up to it. Clubs like Forest with better players can keep on going when the smaller squads start losing players as the season unfolds.
You have to have money to get long term success and as I said before, Fulham would still be drifting along in the lower leagues if Al Fayed had not arrived to wake them up. Newcastle fans are overjoyed with all the money coming their way as it has them dreaming they can do a Man City or Chelsea and buy success. They don't care whether it is blood money or not.
While I agree that we should be able to give Fulham a hard game, our record in derbies has been rank for some time. The fact is that Fulham will put more effort into beating us than Coventry or Blackpool as we are local rivals. Their better players on much better wages turn up against us as it is a bigger game for them and where they earn their corn. An away game in Coventry may not inspire them in the same way as facing us.
Same with Brentford who might lose to Barnsley, but they would always raise their game against us and, like Fulham, usually beat us comfortably. It comes from them having better players. In days gone by if a team was relegated they would lose their best players but with the parachute money Fulham can tell Mitrovic they will pay him Premier wages to stay with them to fire them back up. Gone are the days when a relegated club had to sell their best players as they can hope the wages gamble to keep the better players means they will only be out of the Premier league for one season.
It is very hard for us to compete with these odds unless we get another injection of cash. It took Leeds a long time to go up as although a big club, they didn't have the parachute money to assist. If they do come back down in the coming years, as things stand the parachute money will get them straight back up. The championship is in danger of mimicking the Premier league where only a small band of relegated clubs get the auto places back to the Premier like only a handful can win the Premier league. Well apart from pesky Leicester... |
The difference now is that "injection of cash" won't happen as the rules dictate how much we can spend rather than the wealth of new owners. We have to strike it very, very lucky with a combination of 4-5 signings who fulfil their potential and stay injury free.
Unlikely. We are going to have to go some to have the opportunity we had at the end of January again... |  |
| |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 22:00 - Apr 11 with 1368 views | NorthantsHoop |
We can if we add some pace to the side, we are so slow in transition. Just watched Huddersfield v Luton and in comparison to us, who I watch every week they look faster and quicker to transition the ball forward. A couple of seasons ago thought we were too small as a team and were being done over by giants, but now it is how slow our team is trying to create chances. |  | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 23:21 - Apr 11 with 1276 views | NewBee |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 08:21 - Apr 11 by PlanetHonneywood |
Of all the inalienable truths out there, the one you can bank on 99.9% of the time is that the league table doesn’t lie.
Sure you might get a freakish Leicester City event, but the balance eventually restores the order to normal within a short space of time.
There is usually a causal effect between abundance of wealth off the pitch with that on it, subject to the amount of idiocy, incompetence and general careless managing those assets, positions in leagues and silverware are measured accordingly.
In simple terms: Manchester City and Chelsea were going nowhere until obscene cash flow in was able to pay and acquire some fabulous assets to play with. |
"Table doesn't lie" - I used to think so too, but I have come to agree with Matthew Benham's assertion that it very frequently does.
Not in the sense that the "best" team will finish twelfth, or the "worst" team will finish fourth, but you can still get anomalies which distort the true picture, since football is such a random sport (very low-scoring, basically), meaning that a few freak results can skew the table by two or three places.
Or does anyone really think eg Man Utd were the second best team in England last season? (Yes, really, look it up - five points ahead of Liverpool and seven ahead of Chelsea!).
According to Benham, you can really only judge a team properly over around 100 games. By which he means (I think) that it takes 30 or 35 games to assemble a good team and get them playing the way you want, then the same again for them to demonstrate it. While the final 30 to 35 games is taken up by re-building while at the top of your game e.g. adjusting tactics, refreshing your coaching team, and of course bringing in new players to replace those who have become stale or past their best.
Which is why no team ever wins the league every season, but the really good ones are there or threreabouts season-in, season-out (Man U under Fergie, Liverpool or City presently) until it eventually falls apart (Man U post-Fergie, or Arsenal under Wenger). I imagine Chelsea are in a state of constant re-building under successive managers, only from a very strong base.
Which takes us back to Leicester City, and that title. Were they really so bad in 2014/15 that they nearly got relegated, had it not been for a late revival which saw them finish 14th? And were they suddenly outstanding the following season to finish 10 points clear of (ahem) Arsenal in second? Or might 2015/16 just have been a rare season when all the other usual contenders were re-building?
And how come they only finished 12th in 2016/17? Seems to me to demonstrate a revertion to the mean during their third season i.e. a good-to-middling team which just got lucky in one glorious, but anomalous, period in the middle.
While subsequent seasons indicate that they've actually improved gradually upon that level i.e. 9th, 9th, 5th and 5th (plus an FA Cup).
Where does that leave QPR under Warburton? I think it may not quite be coincidence that he has now been in charge for 145 league games.
Meaning that he spent the most of that time (100-odd games?) building the team to one that was one of the best in the division by the end of last season.
While their underlying xG scores suggest that they were beginning to outperform their true level this season, before reverting to the mean since then. That is, perhaps you weren't quite ready to think of automatic, even if you're nowhere near so bad as your current (relegation) form suggests.
Which leaves the question, if Warburton was unwilling or unable to rebuild for this season, does he now recognise this and will he address this during next season (assuming hes given the chance)?
For if this is correct, then the club has a decision to make: give him another chance; or replace him and accept that his replacement could easily take a season or two to rebuild in the manner which he prefers before it begins to yield results. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 23:36 - Apr 11 with 1273 views | Myke |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 20:42 - Apr 11 by ManinBlack |
You make some very good points. For years I have lamented about our losers mentality that seems to afflict this club no matter who the manager or players are. There always seems to be an air of self doubt around the club.
The slump we are on does not surprise me and was sadly half expected by myself. It was very simplistic in witnessing a bad first half to last season with a great second half that when we were going so well this season that it was nailed on we would revert to being rubbish in the second half going full circle. Even when things go well I always think it will end suddenly. Years of watching us has affected me this way. It might be expected but it is still a bitter pill to swallow.
With a bargain basement squad you can only go so far in a long season with games so quickly after the other. With old men running out of steam and injuries it is bound to affect a small squad if their replacements are not up to it. Clubs like Forest with better players can keep on going when the smaller squads start losing players as the season unfolds.
You have to have money to get long term success and as I said before, Fulham would still be drifting along in the lower leagues if Al Fayed had not arrived to wake them up. Newcastle fans are overjoyed with all the money coming their way as it has them dreaming they can do a Man City or Chelsea and buy success. They don't care whether it is blood money or not.
While I agree that we should be able to give Fulham a hard game, our record in derbies has been rank for some time. The fact is that Fulham will put more effort into beating us than Coventry or Blackpool as we are local rivals. Their better players on much better wages turn up against us as it is a bigger game for them and where they earn their corn. An away game in Coventry may not inspire them in the same way as facing us.
Same with Brentford who might lose to Barnsley, but they would always raise their game against us and, like Fulham, usually beat us comfortably. It comes from them having better players. In days gone by if a team was relegated they would lose their best players but with the parachute money Fulham can tell Mitrovic they will pay him Premier wages to stay with them to fire them back up. Gone are the days when a relegated club had to sell their best players as they can hope the wages gamble to keep the better players means they will only be out of the Premier league for one season.
It is very hard for us to compete with these odds unless we get another injection of cash. It took Leeds a long time to go up as although a big club, they didn't have the parachute money to assist. If they do come back down in the coming years, as things stand the parachute money will get them straight back up. The championship is in danger of mimicking the Premier league where only a small band of relegated clubs get the auto places back to the Premier like only a handful can win the Premier league. Well apart from pesky Leicester... |
Good post Manninblack. Couple of flaws in your otherwise excellent points. Firstly, Fulham were at home to Coventry. Sounds a bit pedantic I know but you would expect any team (especially leaders) to put on a committed performance at home regardless of the oppo. That applies to us also at HOME to Fulham. But if you compare our two results at Craven Cottage there is 4-1 defeat (and capitulation after they went 2-1 up) by us, versus a 3-1 victory for Coventry.
Secondly, your argument that they 'up their game' because it is a local derby, surely should be negated by us 'upping our game' too. After all it's a local derby for us also.
I remember when Warburton first arrived he moved out virtually the entire squad and while it was largely for budgetary reasons, he also said at the time that their was a losing mentality around the place, which he needed to purge. Seems like it may be back | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 01:02 - Apr 12 with 1238 views | SydneyRs |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 23:21 - Apr 11 by NewBee |
"Table doesn't lie" - I used to think so too, but I have come to agree with Matthew Benham's assertion that it very frequently does.
Not in the sense that the "best" team will finish twelfth, or the "worst" team will finish fourth, but you can still get anomalies which distort the true picture, since football is such a random sport (very low-scoring, basically), meaning that a few freak results can skew the table by two or three places.
Or does anyone really think eg Man Utd were the second best team in England last season? (Yes, really, look it up - five points ahead of Liverpool and seven ahead of Chelsea!).
According to Benham, you can really only judge a team properly over around 100 games. By which he means (I think) that it takes 30 or 35 games to assemble a good team and get them playing the way you want, then the same again for them to demonstrate it. While the final 30 to 35 games is taken up by re-building while at the top of your game e.g. adjusting tactics, refreshing your coaching team, and of course bringing in new players to replace those who have become stale or past their best.
Which is why no team ever wins the league every season, but the really good ones are there or threreabouts season-in, season-out (Man U under Fergie, Liverpool or City presently) until it eventually falls apart (Man U post-Fergie, or Arsenal under Wenger). I imagine Chelsea are in a state of constant re-building under successive managers, only from a very strong base.
Which takes us back to Leicester City, and that title. Were they really so bad in 2014/15 that they nearly got relegated, had it not been for a late revival which saw them finish 14th? And were they suddenly outstanding the following season to finish 10 points clear of (ahem) Arsenal in second? Or might 2015/16 just have been a rare season when all the other usual contenders were re-building?
And how come they only finished 12th in 2016/17? Seems to me to demonstrate a revertion to the mean during their third season i.e. a good-to-middling team which just got lucky in one glorious, but anomalous, period in the middle.
While subsequent seasons indicate that they've actually improved gradually upon that level i.e. 9th, 9th, 5th and 5th (plus an FA Cup).
Where does that leave QPR under Warburton? I think it may not quite be coincidence that he has now been in charge for 145 league games.
Meaning that he spent the most of that time (100-odd games?) building the team to one that was one of the best in the division by the end of last season.
While their underlying xG scores suggest that they were beginning to outperform their true level this season, before reverting to the mean since then. That is, perhaps you weren't quite ready to think of automatic, even if you're nowhere near so bad as your current (relegation) form suggests.
Which leaves the question, if Warburton was unwilling or unable to rebuild for this season, does he now recognise this and will he address this during next season (assuming hes given the chance)?
For if this is correct, then the club has a decision to make: give him another chance; or replace him and accept that his replacement could easily take a season or two to rebuild in the manner which he prefers before it begins to yield results. |
I remember when Frank started at Brentford he had a terrible run, not unlike the one we're in now. They stuck by him and now are looking comfortable for at least one more season in the prem.
As has been said, it took them a number of seasons of building, tanking late in seasons, losing playoffs, before they made it. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 07:51 - Apr 12 with 1097 views | Wegerles_Stairs |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 23:21 - Apr 11 by NewBee |
"Table doesn't lie" - I used to think so too, but I have come to agree with Matthew Benham's assertion that it very frequently does.
Not in the sense that the "best" team will finish twelfth, or the "worst" team will finish fourth, but you can still get anomalies which distort the true picture, since football is such a random sport (very low-scoring, basically), meaning that a few freak results can skew the table by two or three places.
Or does anyone really think eg Man Utd were the second best team in England last season? (Yes, really, look it up - five points ahead of Liverpool and seven ahead of Chelsea!).
According to Benham, you can really only judge a team properly over around 100 games. By which he means (I think) that it takes 30 or 35 games to assemble a good team and get them playing the way you want, then the same again for them to demonstrate it. While the final 30 to 35 games is taken up by re-building while at the top of your game e.g. adjusting tactics, refreshing your coaching team, and of course bringing in new players to replace those who have become stale or past their best.
Which is why no team ever wins the league every season, but the really good ones are there or threreabouts season-in, season-out (Man U under Fergie, Liverpool or City presently) until it eventually falls apart (Man U post-Fergie, or Arsenal under Wenger). I imagine Chelsea are in a state of constant re-building under successive managers, only from a very strong base.
Which takes us back to Leicester City, and that title. Were they really so bad in 2014/15 that they nearly got relegated, had it not been for a late revival which saw them finish 14th? And were they suddenly outstanding the following season to finish 10 points clear of (ahem) Arsenal in second? Or might 2015/16 just have been a rare season when all the other usual contenders were re-building?
And how come they only finished 12th in 2016/17? Seems to me to demonstrate a revertion to the mean during their third season i.e. a good-to-middling team which just got lucky in one glorious, but anomalous, period in the middle.
While subsequent seasons indicate that they've actually improved gradually upon that level i.e. 9th, 9th, 5th and 5th (plus an FA Cup).
Where does that leave QPR under Warburton? I think it may not quite be coincidence that he has now been in charge for 145 league games.
Meaning that he spent the most of that time (100-odd games?) building the team to one that was one of the best in the division by the end of last season.
While their underlying xG scores suggest that they were beginning to outperform their true level this season, before reverting to the mean since then. That is, perhaps you weren't quite ready to think of automatic, even if you're nowhere near so bad as your current (relegation) form suggests.
Which leaves the question, if Warburton was unwilling or unable to rebuild for this season, does he now recognise this and will he address this during next season (assuming hes given the chance)?
For if this is correct, then the club has a decision to make: give him another chance; or replace him and accept that his replacement could easily take a season or two to rebuild in the manner which he prefers before it begins to yield results. |
Benham is a statistician so clearly wants a larger sample of matches to judge a team's performance on. While there's some merit in that, ultimately an Olympic champion is judged on one race, not the preceding four years. Our form was great from January to January but that counts for nothing.
The original poster is absolutely correct that, while it's far more difficult to succeed in modern English football without money, it's not impossible. For example, Huddersfield are third; they've already been up to the Premier League since we came down. We bemoan the fact that other clubs have parachute payments yet ignore the fact that we had them for several seasons under the current regime and couldn't even come in the top half of the table. Excuses, excuses. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 7:52]
| | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 08:20 - Apr 12 with 1086 views | ParkRoyalR |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 01:02 - Apr 12 by SydneyRs |
I remember when Frank started at Brentford he had a terrible run, not unlike the one we're in now. They stuck by him and now are looking comfortable for at least one more season in the prem.
As has been said, it took them a number of seasons of building, tanking late in seasons, losing playoffs, before they made it. |
For all the years of building and stats, Brentford have been very fortunate that none of the big clubs took a punt on Erickson as relegation was looming until he single-handedly turned their dire run + dire performances around with 4 wins and 12 points.
Frank has been very fortunate in benefiting from Erickson's unfortunate health-scare and the Danish connection, as all the stats were suggesting he didn't have an answer and the team were playing terribly.
With Johansen's injuries and loss of form, the exact opposite has applied to the R's. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 08:46 - Apr 12 with 1053 views | swisscottage |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 16:48 - Apr 11 by Myke |
I fully acknowledge the bigger budgets mean bigger squads, better able to handle injuries and achieve the consistency required over a 46 game marathon. But my argument is that on a game by game basis (and god knows, we always hear players and management banging on about 'taking one game at a time') we should be able to compete with ANYONE, including Fulham. Going into the game yesterday, Coventry were on a four game winless run (D2L2) and therefore confidence not at its highest one could suppose. We were in a similar position; no-one gave us a prayer and so it played out. One could assume the Coventry fans were not overly optimistic, but the players said 'f**k that' and turned the form book upside down. Where has that mental toughness gone from our game? Where has that resilience, that never-say-die attitude gone? We saw it briefly versus Blackpool and Luton, but it was completely absent elsewhere - most shockingly v Peterboro.
For me, the biggest anomaly to all the theories about our collapse - be it the goalkeeping theories or losing top players to injury theories- is the month of January. We had come off the back of two home defeats (first time all season we had failed to score) had lost our No1 keeper and one of our two chief play- makers . Began the month sluggishly, just squeezing past Rotherham in a penalty shoot-out. Yet ended the month unbeaten and on the cusp of 2nd place. Yet later, when we lose Dieng through injury and our other chief play-maker also through injury, suddenly we are bereft of ideas and hope. If, as I believe is true, you can beat anyone in this division with the right desire and intensity, regardless of the exact personnel you put out on the pitch, how do we square January with what has happened since? The only logical conclusion to my argument is that we lack the mental toughness, NOT the physical ability, to succeed. Do that make the manager exempt from blame? You can make players fitter, you can make players more aware, you can improve them technically - can you make them mentally stronger? |
To beat Fulham, we need a full strength team including Willock, play close to our best, and for Fulham to be below par.
The only reason we had the January we did was Willock and the defence. Our performances on the whole were poor and we were extremely fortunate in several of those games and it was just a matter of time before the wheels came off. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 09:36 - Apr 12 with 1005 views | switchingcode |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 08:20 - Apr 12 by ParkRoyalR |
For all the years of building and stats, Brentford have been very fortunate that none of the big clubs took a punt on Erickson as relegation was looming until he single-handedly turned their dire run + dire performances around with 4 wins and 12 points.
Frank has been very fortunate in benefiting from Erickson's unfortunate health-scare and the Danish connection, as all the stats were suggesting he didn't have an answer and the team were playing terribly.
With Johansen's injuries and loss of form, the exact opposite has applied to the R's. |
Just another example of a small club getting its recruitment right.The big clubs had the resources to outbid us for Eriksen also the fact that our manager has known him from his youth football days for Denmark would have helped.Not sure what stats you have seen that had us being relegated as we have never been in the bottom 3 and all the predictions sites I saw had us finishing around 13 th even during our losing run that was against most of the top 6 clubs.
Eriksen has been a massive plus but he has come in at a time when our injured players are back including our record signing Ajer and most importantly our keeper Raya.Hopefully he will sign permanently at the end of the season having 5 danish players on the pitch Sunday along with our head coach and assistant being Danes could help and his family want to stay in the area where they now live.
I agree you can’t really control injuries and that’s where luck comes into play. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 09:36 - Apr 12 with 1006 views | themodfather |
whether we can afford big fees and wages is one side, but many loan deals were out there , goals win games and we dried up soon into january , then injuries piled up, loss of form.
the other side is, you bring in players who could be disruptive and cause dressing room chaos!
does anyone have a converted DeLorean for sale?? i'd love to go back to that build up to barnsley away and change things.... | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 09:50 - Apr 12 with 980 views | francisbowles |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 18:41 - Apr 11 by switchingcode |
No way was I calling Brentford a top club in fact it was the opposite.The point was that you don’t have to be a big club with money to get promoted and stay up be it possibly for just one season.We spent more money on players in our promotion season than we did in the summer when we got promoted and one more season in the PL would be fine by me as I still prefer the championship. |
Your attacking play is very good lately. How big an impact has Christian Erickson made?
Is his arrival the main reason you have pulled away from the strugglers to probable survival? | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 10:39 - Apr 12 with 946 views | ParkRoyalR |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 09:36 - Apr 12 by switchingcode |
Just another example of a small club getting its recruitment right.The big clubs had the resources to outbid us for Eriksen also the fact that our manager has known him from his youth football days for Denmark would have helped.Not sure what stats you have seen that had us being relegated as we have never been in the bottom 3 and all the predictions sites I saw had us finishing around 13 th even during our losing run that was against most of the top 6 clubs.
Eriksen has been a massive plus but he has come in at a time when our injured players are back including our record signing Ajer and most importantly our keeper Raya.Hopefully he will sign permanently at the end of the season having 5 danish players on the pitch Sunday along with our head coach and assistant being Danes could help and his family want to stay in the area where they now live.
I agree you can’t really control injuries and that’s where luck comes into play. |
Ajer and Raya were'nt the reason the team could'nt buy a goal, the team and Frank were unravelling as he was making ever more bizarre comments.
I'm not sure what the stats are on my buying a winning lottery ticket but reckon they'd be fairly similar to Erikkson's unexpectedly having to curtail his career at Inter Milan and ending up at Brentford.
For all the stat sites in the world, I'm not sure you'd find a single proper Brentford fan who thought Brentford would finish up 13th in the weeks before Erikkson miraculously signed. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 10:53 - Apr 12 with 921 views | daveB |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 07:51 - Apr 12 by Wegerles_Stairs |
Benham is a statistician so clearly wants a larger sample of matches to judge a team's performance on. While there's some merit in that, ultimately an Olympic champion is judged on one race, not the preceding four years. Our form was great from January to January but that counts for nothing.
The original poster is absolutely correct that, while it's far more difficult to succeed in modern English football without money, it's not impossible. For example, Huddersfield are third; they've already been up to the Premier League since we came down. We bemoan the fact that other clubs have parachute payments yet ignore the fact that we had them for several seasons under the current regime and couldn't even come in the top half of the table. Excuses, excuses. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 7:52]
|
The issue we had with parachute payments was the club completely changed when we came down, the ethos was now we are going to develop players but they were still having to pay the big contracts of players from the prem days which took all the parachute money and more. We made such a mess of the premier league that the advantage it should have given us was completely taken away. The bulk of the premier league team on big money stayed for at least a season, some even longer. Sandro was still here when Holloway was manager. It didn't help that we continued to make poor signings and by the time we got our house in order the money had run out.
I think if you come down with that extra money you should have a massive advantage, doesn't always work like that of course and shouldn't stop you from competing. Ourselves, Luton and Huddersfield have shown this season you can compete at the top end, obviously we've fallen apart at the end but we are still in theory at least a good weekend away from being back in it. Before the men in white coats arrive I'm not for a second suggesting that will happen.
This season needs to be the beginning for us not the end. |  | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 10:54 - Apr 12 with 919 views | daveB |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 10:39 - Apr 12 by ParkRoyalR |
Ajer and Raya were'nt the reason the team could'nt buy a goal, the team and Frank were unravelling as he was making ever more bizarre comments.
I'm not sure what the stats are on my buying a winning lottery ticket but reckon they'd be fairly similar to Erikkson's unexpectedly having to curtail his career at Inter Milan and ending up at Brentford.
For all the stat sites in the world, I'm not sure you'd find a single proper Brentford fan who thought Brentford would finish up 13th in the weeks before Erikkson miraculously signed. |
The bottom 3 are so bad I don't think any of them were going to catch Brentford even without the recent run. Erikson has made a massive difference but always thought they'd have enough to stay up. The likes of Toney and Ajer have now found their feet in the prem and they look a good side. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 12:12 - Apr 12 with 845 views | switchingcode |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 09:50 - Apr 12 by francisbowles |
Your attacking play is very good lately. How big an impact has Christian Erickson made?
Is his arrival the main reason you have pulled away from the strugglers to probable survival? |
The fact we have now won the 4 games he started suggests yes however I think there are other reasons for our improvement with players coming back after injury like Raya.We have also had some fortune along the way like Saturday playing West Ham when they had played a tough game midweek and one eye on this Thursdays game.Eriksen has fitted in very well and is by far the best player I’ve seen in a bees shirt in my 60 odd years as a fan. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 12:15 - Apr 12 with 843 views | switchingcode |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 10:54 - Apr 12 by daveB |
The bottom 3 are so bad I don't think any of them were going to catch Brentford even without the recent run. Erikson has made a massive difference but always thought they'd have enough to stay up. The likes of Toney and Ajer have now found their feet in the prem and they look a good side. |
I agree as I have already posted I thought we would end 4 th from bottom for the reasons you gave. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 12:15 - Apr 12 with 840 views | davman |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 10:54 - Apr 12 by daveB |
The bottom 3 are so bad I don't think any of them were going to catch Brentford even without the recent run. Erikson has made a massive difference but always thought they'd have enough to stay up. The likes of Toney and Ajer have now found their feet in the prem and they look a good side. |
The bottom three ARE "so bad" but are still miles ahead of anything in the Championship and unlikely to shed many players over the summer, or if they do, will supplement their available transfer budget tenfold.
If we thought Forest's ability to gazump any of our signings was legendary, you just wait until this lot get going... | |
| |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 12:48 - Apr 12 with 770 views | NewBee |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 07:51 - Apr 12 by Wegerles_Stairs |
Benham is a statistician so clearly wants a larger sample of matches to judge a team's performance on. While there's some merit in that, ultimately an Olympic champion is judged on one race, not the preceding four years. Our form was great from January to January but that counts for nothing.
The original poster is absolutely correct that, while it's far more difficult to succeed in modern English football without money, it's not impossible. For example, Huddersfield are third; they've already been up to the Premier League since we came down. We bemoan the fact that other clubs have parachute payments yet ignore the fact that we had them for several seasons under the current regime and couldn't even come in the top half of the table. Excuses, excuses. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 7:52]
|
Winning the 100m Olympics tells you who was fastest on the day in that particular race, but it doesn't necessarily tell you the fastest runner in the world was - that person might simply have run an uncharacterisitcally bad race, or have been injured and so unable to compete.
By the same token, winning a football league tells you who gained the most points over that particular sequence of matches, but doesn't necessarily reflect the "best" team, all things considered.
Last season, Brentford reckoned that they were the "best" team in the Championship, as measured by their own "Justice League". Naturally enough, this led to much hilarity and mockery, if not outright scorn, from fans of other teams - fair enough.
But with hindisght we can see that it was only a sequence of draws in March and April against teams whom they had beaten comfortably earlier in the season meant they had to go up via the playoffs. Meaning that after finally getting into the PL, they've proven to be a "better" team than Norwich and Watford, the two teams which beat them to automatic promotion.
Re your second paragraph, of course it's not impossible to overturn the financial inequalitiy in the Championship, but it is nonetheless so much harder.
So that if you have two teams which are broadly equally well managed and run, but one also has access to dounble ot treble the money of the other, then the wealthier team will prevail more often than not.
Meaning that it is only making "excuses" if the poorer team is not also matching its rivals in other aspects of running their affairs. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 12:51 - Apr 12 with 766 views | daveB |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 12:15 - Apr 12 by davman |
The bottom three ARE "so bad" but are still miles ahead of anything in the Championship and unlikely to shed many players over the summer, or if they do, will supplement their available transfer budget tenfold.
If we thought Forest's ability to gazump any of our signings was legendary, you just wait until this lot get going... |
I don't think we should be shopping in the same market as them, they will be looking to sign the best ready made players, for me we should still be looking to find the next Willock, Dickie and Dunne who need development and will become some of the best in the league if we get it right. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 13:08 - Apr 12 with 731 views | paulparker |
Great post by the OP
Fed up of the excuses that some on here spout about not being able to compete with Fulham & sheff Utd as they have a bigger budget
We may not beat them but the least we should be able to do is have some shots on goal and have an attacking intent, we have international players in our squad and some of them have played premier league football, the excuses are not justified imo when you look at the likes of Luton, Millwall & Coventry, we have a better squad than them , we have run out of ideas and look like we have given up completely |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 13:09 - Apr 12 with 724 views | switchingcode |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 08:20 - Apr 12 by ParkRoyalR |
For all the years of building and stats, Brentford have been very fortunate that none of the big clubs took a punt on Erickson as relegation was looming until he single-handedly turned their dire run + dire performances around with 4 wins and 12 points.
Frank has been very fortunate in benefiting from Erickson's unfortunate health-scare and the Danish connection, as all the stats were suggesting he didn't have an answer and the team were playing terribly.
With Johansen's injuries and loss of form, the exact opposite has applied to the R's. |
If you honestly believe our success in recruitment is down to luck I’m afraid you are going to end up unlucky.It’s like saying we were lucky no big club came in for Toney when he signed from Peterborough or when we signed Watkins from Exeter.The facts are we get that right more times than wrong in our stats strategy that has been ridiculed over the years by many including your present manager. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 13:12 - Apr 12 with 716 views | NewBee |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 08:20 - Apr 12 by ParkRoyalR |
For all the years of building and stats, Brentford have been very fortunate that none of the big clubs took a punt on Erickson as relegation was looming until he single-handedly turned their dire run + dire performances around with 4 wins and 12 points.
Frank has been very fortunate in benefiting from Erickson's unfortunate health-scare and the Danish connection, as all the stats were suggesting he didn't have an answer and the team were playing terribly.
With Johansen's injuries and loss of form, the exact opposite has applied to the R's. |
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.
Brentford weren't "fortunate" that they signed Eriksen, for as an Agent closely involved in his case pointed out, several big clubs were very interested in signing him, but then backed off when they saw how complex it was. Whereas Brentford, who had been pursuing him since early November, were prepared to go the extra mile - and then some - to get their man. (To give an example, every time CE goes to the gym, or takes to the training pitch, there are medically qualified cardio specialists on hand, even though they have nothing to do).
As for his impact on the team, if you look closer at their progress during the season, early results were actually pretty good - eg beating Arsenal (H), WHU (A) and drawing 3-3 with Liverpool (H) when even Klopp acknowledged how well they'd played.
They then had a run of four defeats, but these oncluded being mugged 1-0 at home by Chelsea and losing 2-1 at Leicester to two absolute worldies.
Results then picked up a bit leading up to Xmas, before a real bad run, including some very bad performances, from the New Year. But taking those 27 pre-Eriksen games in the round, if Bees weren't as good as some of the victories might have suggested, neither were they as bad as some of the defeats - in other words the club was simply getting used to the PL.
Meaning that while Eriksen has undoubtedly given a HUGE boost to the team - any world class player would - nonetheless he's the icing on the cake, not the whole cake itself.
We'll never know, but without Eriksen, I still reckon BFC would have survived, but it would have been a lot closer, and not decided until the last game or two. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 13:29 - Apr 12 with 688 views | ParkRoyalR |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 13:12 - Apr 12 by NewBee |
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.
Brentford weren't "fortunate" that they signed Eriksen, for as an Agent closely involved in his case pointed out, several big clubs were very interested in signing him, but then backed off when they saw how complex it was. Whereas Brentford, who had been pursuing him since early November, were prepared to go the extra mile - and then some - to get their man. (To give an example, every time CE goes to the gym, or takes to the training pitch, there are medically qualified cardio specialists on hand, even though they have nothing to do).
As for his impact on the team, if you look closer at their progress during the season, early results were actually pretty good - eg beating Arsenal (H), WHU (A) and drawing 3-3 with Liverpool (H) when even Klopp acknowledged how well they'd played.
They then had a run of four defeats, but these oncluded being mugged 1-0 at home by Chelsea and losing 2-1 at Leicester to two absolute worldies.
Results then picked up a bit leading up to Xmas, before a real bad run, including some very bad performances, from the New Year. But taking those 27 pre-Eriksen games in the round, if Bees weren't as good as some of the victories might have suggested, neither were they as bad as some of the defeats - in other words the club was simply getting used to the PL.
Meaning that while Eriksen has undoubtedly given a HUGE boost to the team - any world class player would - nonetheless he's the icing on the cake, not the whole cake itself.
We'll never know, but without Eriksen, I still reckon BFC would have survived, but it would have been a lot closer, and not decided until the last game or two. |
Fortunate he became available was my point,
Frank had run out of ideas (but not excuses), the team were playing hoofball, Toney had scored maybe 3 or 4 goals from open play, Mbeumo was short on confidence, Burnley had taken Brentford apart in one of the most one-sided halves of premiership football I've seen (Raya out admittedly), the early season under-dog bounce had long gone,
Fortunately one of the world's best creative midfielders of the same nationality became available, that's fortunate in my opinion. | | | |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 14:13 - Apr 12 with 639 views | switchingcode |
| Not buying the not able to buy argument on 13:29 - Apr 12 by ParkRoyalR |
Fortunate he became available was my point,
Frank had run out of ideas (but not excuses), the team were playing hoofball, Toney had scored maybe 3 or 4 goals from open play, Mbeumo was short on confidence, Burnley had taken Brentford apart in one of the most one-sided halves of premiership football I've seen (Raya out admittedly), the early season under-dog bounce had long gone,
Fortunately one of the world's best creative midfielders of the same nationality became available, that's fortunate in my opinion. |
Ok but I’ve watched all games bar 2 home and away and wouldn’t say we were playing hoof ball.We have gone more direct this season as we weren’t good enough to pass around teams like City Liverpool ect. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.