Jump to content

Chris Evans


blackNwhites

Recommended Posts

Couple of weeks ago we were putting in bids for Butterfield, Stephens & Antonio so decent moneys obviously there.

 

Now he's saying prob loans?

 

Have the board looked at money spent on people like Weimann (who I think would be good if not played out of position!)

And decided not to let the manager risk wasting any more money till January were if things don't improve and they get rid of Clement. A new manager would then have some funds?

I think its more that the club may have money but arent going to pay over their valuation for a player. (as per the Clement interview where he says probably loans)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think its more that the club may have money but arent going to pay over their valuation for a player. (as per the Clement interview where he says probably loans)

maybe or is it Clement just deflecting from the truth I mean he can't really say the board have changed there minds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weimann (who I think would be good if not played out of position!)

This is half the problem though.  The squad isn't built to play 2 up front.  All of our midfielders are either dedicated holding midfielders (not mobile enough to play in a 2) or much better with the freedom to roam around or get forward.  We don't have any traditional wingers either, they're all 'inside forward' types.  So why on earth have we gone and signed 2 players who can apparently only play as part of a front 2?

Ince is the same - he needs people around him to create space or to link up with, yet we've signed a very defensive fullback and are playing with a very deep midfield, so there's no support from there either.  It's no coincidence that Ince's best game was against Brum, with Christie bombing on.  This is exactly why Martin is struggling a bit as well - all of our forwards get very isolated.

The lack of cohesion between the signings, the current squad and the tactics being used are very very worrying to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is half the problem though.  The squad isn't built to play 2 up front.  All of our midfielders are either dedicated holding midfielders (not mobile enough to play in a 2) or much better with the freedom to roam around or get forward.  We don't have any traditional wingers either, they're all 'inside forward' types.  So why on earth have we gone and signed 2 players who can apparently only play as part of a front 2?

Ince is the same - he needs people around him to create space or to link up with, yet we've signed a very defensive fullback and are playing with a very deep midfield, so there's no support from there either.  It's no coincidence that Ince's best game was against Brum, with Christie bombing on.  This is exactly why Martin is struggling a bit as well - all of our forwards get very isolated.

The lack of cohesion between the signings, the current squad and the tactics being used are very very worrying to me.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Have the board lost trust in Clement already to give him more money to waste hence the change in stance and back tracking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are plenty of things we could criticise Paul Clement for already but I am not sure that the signings can be included in that list.

I would very much doubt that Clement was in Madrid last year following the progress of the likes of Baird, Carson and Pearce in case he got a job in the UK.  The signings happened too quickly for him to have had anything to do with it.

It has to be the DoF and his approach has been badly planned.  To go into the season with Forsyth as the first choice LB is criminal.  Some of the signings I like Carson (massive improvement on Grant), Shackell (tightened us up at the back but whoever told him he could pass a ball needs the sack), Baird (decent but shouldn't be captain) and Ince (there would have been uproar if we had not signed him after last season).  Weimman I think is a good player and has probably suffered through Russell's decentish start to the season - he needs to be starting games supporting Martin from just out wide.

I assume Pearce was signed before we realised we could get Shackell and it is possible he will play no more than a handful of games.  Bent I assume was signed by someone who looked at his goalscoring record rather than what he added to the team last season.

 

Have I missed anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of things on this link.

One all 3 of them say promotion doesn't have to be immediate, that he's got the full 3 years. So I change my mind a little bit on that, my view was that they'd been clear promotion was the aim this season. I was wrong, it seems they will give him time, which makes me feel a little bit better. Even though I'm not convinced, time is a valuable commodity in football.

Two, Clement is very clear to state that he's in early and he's got a lot of time to assess, research the players strengths and qualities, plan, build and coach, and to get his ideas through to the players during the 6 weeks of pre- season.

There's no way anyone can claim he came in unprepared. He's struggled to hit the ground running and I can only assume that's down to mis-judging how different the Championsip would be to what he's experienced previously.

Fingers crossed he's learning quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if they were in process PC could still say wait and let me judge, and as all the siginings are at least a week after Clement joined and there was speculation of Bent going elsewhere thats probably what happened.

Just because they dont make sense to you doesnt mean that they werent the choice of PC and the criticism for thier signing is due to Evans. I think you are just wanting to deflect from PC possible weaknesses and inexperience. I was vcalon my doubts of PC due to inexperience, I still hold those views but I will not call for his ehad yet because I appreciate the effect of given managers time and being stable. We have changed managers twice in two seasons and have appeared to go backwards, I dont think change is necessarily to right thing but possibly unfounded criticism for any body is wrong.

Someone must take responsibility for these signings though. They so obviously lack any depth of thought, it's pretty much broken the team. We look so shambolic in comparison to when we play at our best. The evidence of the squads togetherness is there, that they know how to play with each other but it always breaks down at the forward end.

I'm not really trying to deflect from Paul Clement, I think he's the most exposed of the lot of course and he's made his own mistakes what with shaking up the formation and philosophy and giving Baird the captaincy. These are all his own mistakes. Add to that, he is totally unconvincing in his interviews to me, and probably some of the players as well. But Paul Clement has his own thread, and I couldn't find one for Chris Evans and I think he definitely warrants one as his position at the club is seemingly useless.

Chris Evans is in the background possibly picking up a wage for having a job title. What is he doing? All the gossip before he signed was that he was here to help Steve Mac with the signings because his history of signings was so poor.

Evans arrives, and the poor signings were made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Chris Evans is in the background possibly picking up a wage for having a job title. What is he doing? All the gossip before he signed was that he was here to help Steve Mac with the signings because his history of signings was so poor.

Evans arrives, and the poor signings were made.

Exactly GOSSIP, not anything official from the club.

His role is to sit underneath the CEO and deal with the footballing side of the club - handle transfer negotiations etc.... Its a sharing of workload. His job isnt to identify and signplayers without recourse to what the manager wants. It is unfaur to criticise him because we sign Bent, not his fault if the manager wanted him. If they are poor signings, but signed because the amnager requested them how is that a criticism of Evans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon Clough back in?

From what I remember his signings were in the main quite good and very economical. 

He got the names from the newspaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bent and Baird were both free. Bent showed last season he is still capable of scoring goals. Baird is far more reliable at RB than what we had there for 2/3 of last season. Imagine If Wisdom was back now. Those tossers would be booing him too. The signings we have made have been very good. The problem is that we went silent in the transfer market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the signings that have been made. I think they all have quality on what I've seen, most seem to have been sold a dead horse, mind. 

I've just said this in another thread, but Ince and Bent were in good form under McClaren and he knew what to do in order to get the best out of them. 

I just think a lot of our players, especially the forward players, have taken huge strides backwards under Clement. It's criminal when you consider what we have there too. 

Ince and Bent, for me, are two players you should look to build around. Martin and Bent looked good against Birmingham, so why change? 

I liked the look of the 4-4-2 system, with two very attacking wingers either side. Yet, as soon as he played the hand he then took it away. I've never seen a player cite inconsistency as a trait they like in a manager, but I've seen many say they don't like it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weimann was a strange signing looking back at it.

We got him from Aston Villa because he wasn't really being used and when he was, he was out of position (out wide). So we sign him, and so far use him off the bench... out wide.

If we wanted a left winger, we should have got a left winger. To sign a £2mil striker and then put him out wide is strange. He played centrally with Martin v Villarreal and looked very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until last Feb/March when injuries and suspension hit hard the basis and strength of the side was based on a hard core of Clough's signings plus perm any right back....and Dawkins/Ibe or Ward. Macca got them playing fantastic football. Fair play to both. We then signed a shed load of players over the months who haven't really added anything at all during which time we have played some awful football. If we are to blame anybody it is those responsible for the signings and that ain't Clement. Evans, Rush, the software bloke,Uncle Tom..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the signings that have been made. I think they all have quality on what I've seen, most seem to have been sold a dead horse, mind. 

I've just said this in another thread, but Ince and Bent were in good form under McClaren and he knew what to do in order to get the best out of them. 

I just think a lot of our players, especially the forward players, have taken huge strides backwards under Clement. It's criminal when you consider what we have there too. 

Ince and Bent, for me, are two players you should look to build around. Martin and Bent looked good against Birmingham, so why change? 

I liked the look of the 4-4-2 system, with two very attacking wingers either side. Yet, as soon as he played the hand he then took it away. I've never seen a player cite inconsistency as a trait they like in a manager, but I've seen many say they don't like it. 

4-4-2 ruined us yesterday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly GOSSIP, not anything official from the club.

His role is to sit underneath the CEO and deal with the footballing side of the club - handle transfer negotiations etc.... Its a sharing of workload. His job isnt to identify and signplayers without recourse to what the manager wants. It is unfaur to criticise him because we sign Bent, not his fault if the manager wanted him. If they are poor signings, but signed because the amnager requested them how is that a criticism of Evans?

Yes it is. HE has a list of ten possible players for each position. The guy is a genius. 

 

PC did not request those players, he probably got the scout report and told those are the players we are getting on.

PC himself said he is a pragmatic coach and will go with what he's got.

Anyways, out best players are still Nigel Clough players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is. HE has a list of ten possible players for each position. The guy is a genius. 

 

PC did not request those players, he probably got the scout report and told those are the players we are getting on.

PC himself said he is a pragmatic coach and will go with what he's got.

Anyways, out best players are still Nigel Clough players. 

you got anything to back you assertions? They are just your view on what may have happened. PC hasn't had time to assess his squad but had time to list 10 players for the positions he want players in - a bit contradictory. Even if it were true if they are on his list he has said he'd want them in the squad.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...