Jump to content

Dimmu

Member
  • Content Count

    7,849
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Dimmu reacted to enachops in How will Coronavirus affect football?   
    I’m afraid he’s correct though, isn’t he? (That was tough to say!) 
    Footballers/clubs have dealt with all of this in a disgraceful way. The PFA too are just as bad, if not worse. Why can’t a footballer just say I’ll take a 10% hit? Why wait for the PFA? It’s a shambles. Ordinary folk are suffering potentially life changing damages financially, whilst footballers still get there 60-100 grand a WEEK. I’m sure the PFA will put something in place, but it will look like a reaction to the crisis due to the backlash. Football clubs certainly shouldn’t be able to use the 80-20% scheme, not in the premier league. Not with the money clubs turnover. Disgraceful.
    Football is broken I’m afraid, this is further proof. A sorry state of affairs. Shame on you Levy, Ashley and co.
  2. Like
    Dimmu reacted to Pastinaak in How will Coronavirus affect football?   
    Ouch. If this dude is calling you out for being morally corrupt then you're probably morally corrupt.
     
  3. Like
    Dimmu reacted to Ellafella in Design your own Rams Shirt. . .   
    Whilst I totally agree with @IslandExile about the white shirts, I strongly believe we should glance back to our earliest history once in a while. Derby County was the youngest Founder Member of the Footbsll League at just 4 years old and did wonders to mature so quickly against the opposition of Midland, Junction, Sawley, Staveley et Alia. The amber, chocolate and blue needs to be celebrated. Think how proud it would make the likes of Amos “Jammer” Smith, Ben Spilsbury,  William Monk Jarvis, Old Etonian gloriously named John Barrington Trapnell Chevallier, and not least William Morley, to know that their part  in the early battles were not in vain. So I’d like to see us do something like: 

  4. Cheers
    Dimmu got a reaction from Carl Sagan in 132 years ago today. . .   
    I prefer the original one. This new colour is too boring.

  5. Like
    Dimmu reacted to rsmini in Derby Junction FC   
    'The English Game' is a program on Netflix  basically about the FA Cup way back in the 1870's The Old Etonians were always expected to win it but then northern teams owned by mill owners started to get results. Most of the Old Etonians ran the FA at the time and basically made the rules. Suddenly the mill owners were bringing in highly rated Scottish players and paying them to play. It was strictly an amature game in the late 1800's 
    It's a bit of a tough watch to be fair as it's more about the people than football 
  6. Clap
    Dimmu got a reaction from IslandExile in 132 years ago today. . .   
    I prefer the original one. This new colour is too boring.

  7. Like
    Dimmu reacted to Ellafella in 132 years ago today. . .   
    Yes indeed. I really think the Club should do what Arsenal did a few seasons back and have those colours as the Home shirt for a season. Maybe for the 140th year? Or something. 
     
    Anybody good at mocking up a modern retro shirt? 
  8. Like
    Dimmu got a reaction from Ellafella in 132 years ago today. . .   
    I prefer the original one. This new colour is too boring.

  9. Like
    Dimmu reacted to uttoxram75 in 1970s Iconic Goals   
    That free kick from Rioch would still be moving if it had missed.
  10. Like
    Dimmu reacted to Boycie in Jack Grealish   
    Apparently the parked cars said they never touched him?
  11. Like
    Dimmu reacted to angieram in Worst signing ever   
    Exactly.  Two factors at play here - rose-tinted memories of long ago rendering previous heroes as infallible; over-analysis of every little mistake of current players by various media with access to multiple angled instant replays.
    If no goal keeper ever made a mistake and no forward ever made a mistake and no midfielder ever made a mistake we'd have nothing to talk about.
    Or maybe we'd talk more about that brilliant save by the goalkeeper, that fantastic pass from the midfielder,  that stunning finish from the forward instead.
  12. Like
    Dimmu reacted to DCFC_Sloth in Worst Rams Manager Ever   
    After reading through this thread over the last couple of days I thought I’d weigh in with my views on this topic. 
    The first question that is import to sort out is, what defines a ‘bad manager’ is it win ratio, quality of football, signings, lasting damage? 
    Before I start to tackle this question, I am only going to judge managers who I’ve had the (dis)pleasure of seeing in person (The Doc is safe in this reply), and only permanent appointments count. This leaves me with the list of Jim Smith, Colin Todd, John Gregory, George Burley, Phil Brown, Billy Davies, Paul Jewell, Nigel Clough, Steve McClaren, Paul Clement, Nigel Pearson, Gary Rowett, Frank Lampard and Phillip Cocu. From this list it’s fairly safe to say that Smith, Burley, Clough, McClaren, Rowett, Lampard and Cocu are out of the running, I’m also going to count out Todd and Gregory, because despite having an abysmal record and a relegation respectively, I just don’t remember enough about them to judge them fairly. This leaves us with Brown, Davies, Jewel, Clement and Pearson.
    If these are looked at in terms of raw win percentage, then the worst is Phil Brown at 21.21% followed by Pearson at 21.43%. Jewel follows closely behind at 22.41%, then Clement (42.42%) and Davies (44.93%). 
    But that’s not the full story. These five managers all inherited squads in different situations. So let’s look at each manager individually. 
    Brown: Phil came into a job after Burley resigned following defeat to Billy Davies’s Preston in the play offs and the sale of Tom Huddlestone to Tottenham. Brown also lost Rasiak at the end of the transfer window. The loss of these two players shouldn’t have led to such trudged football that saw Derby win only 2 games away from home all season and end in 20th place. Brown was sacked in January after defeats to Coventry (6-1) and Colchester (3-1). Brown also took the steps to criticise the fan base after they booed his decision to sub off Peschisolido instead of Stern John and play Kevin Poole and Dean Holdsworth who were both parts of the coaching staff. 
    Davies: The inclusion of Billy on this list may initially seem unfair, he took over from Brown and achieved what no other manager since Jim Smith has been able to and got Derby promoted. Davies’s reign can be separated into three phases. The first, from when he took over to the end of January. This period saw Derby grind out 18 league wins (15 of them by a single goal) and took Derby 6 points clear at the top of the table. By the end of the season Derby were four points off the top. This is where the second part of Davies’s tenure at Derby begins. In January he took the decision to overhaul the squad, bringing in a large number of players who were worse than those they were replacing. Fagan, Pearson, Macken, Currie, McCeverly, Mears and Gary Teale all came in. This had the effect of destabilising the team and Derby only went on to win a further 7 games and slipped into the playoffs. Outclassed in all three games, Derby managed to scrape through the playoffs and were promoted to the premier league. Davies stood on the pitch and complained about how it wasn’t Preston and how he didn’t know if he wanted to stay. With that, the third phase began. Davies signed a new deal and proceeded to bring in players who again were worse than what was there. Miller, Earnshaw,  Griffin, Lewis, Todd and the disastrous Claude Davies were brought in to form the basis for the worst team in premier league history. With one win Davies was gone by the end of November. His legacy will be two transfer windows which took the club years to recover from, and not the impressive first 6 months of his reign where he got a close knit team punching well above its weight. 
    Jewell: the sacking of Davies brought with it the appointment of Paul Jewell. Jewell had high stock following his job at Wigan, and tried his best to turn the tide, but the damage was done and he was unable to achieve this and Derby failed to win another game all season. Jewell then looked to oversee a rebuild at Derby, but after signing 10 players permanently and a further 6 on loan, whilst selling 12 and loaning out 13 (including Liam Dickinson who Jewell had signed in the summer), Jewell left in December after poor form. The problem for Jewel was he was taking over a team already in a tail spin that would have taken a miracle to get out of, and although a large number of his signings were poor, he had to deal with the hangover of the premier league season which made his rebuild more difficult. 
    Clement: Paul Clement was brought in to be Derby’s Sir Alex, but was sacked in January after failing to play the Derby way. He, like Davies, spent huge sums of money on players who were worse than what we had. The club are still suffering for the money spent in this period, £35m was spent on players with only Tom Ince turning a profit. Clement’s time at the club damaged it for years to come and although results weren’t, on the whole, too bad, the style of play was boring. Perhaps not Derby’s worst ever manager, but he was at the helm for one of, if not the most, financially damaging time at the club. 
    Pearson: The man who decided the tool need to fine tune an engine was a sledge hammer. Taking onboard the team which finished fifth the season before, but with a fully fit Will Hughes and Craig Bryson, Pearson decided to change the formation, loan out the best centre forward, play players out of position and fight the owner. The football became directionless, Vydra and Wilson were brought in to play upfront together and both looked lost, Butterfield, a central midfielder, was deployed on the left wing and nick Blackman, a centre forward, the right of what was supposed to be (I think) a quick counter attacking midfield. I was at Barnsley away for the second game of the season, and the writing was already on the wall. 
    to answer the question I asked at the start, ‘what makes a bad manager?’ The answer is simply, a combination of all of the mentioned factors. So who was the worst? The prize is to be contested by Phil Brown and Nigel Pearson, with an honourable mention going to Billy Davies. Let’s start with Davies. His reign was so damaging the club took 4 years to show signs of recovery and his approach to the January and summer windows led to the worst season in premier league history. Although his win percentage is amongst the best in the history of the club, the lasting damage he inflicted cannot be overlooked and anyone suggesting he was a good manager because of the promotion needs to view his reign in a wider context. The wheels had begun to fall off by the end of January and he was never able to recover them. Instead, he threw a tantrum at Wembley to get a pay rise and then went on holiday. The signings he made set us up for the eleven points and this needs to be considered. His win percentage and promotion stops him claiming the award, but he is definitely one of the most damaging characters to be connected to the club. 
    The worst manager though has to be Nigel Pearson. He inherited a team that was capable of getting promoted without needing to sign a single player, but he began the process of dismantling the team rather than pushing it on. Whilst brown was working under the three amigos who were looking to sell anything that wasn’t nailed down, Pearson managed to win 3 games out of the 14 he managed with a team containing Carson, Keogh, Bryson, Hughes and Ince. Truly an awful manager, who may have achieved elsewhere, but had Derby on a collision course with League One. 
  13. Like
    Dimmu got a reaction from I know nothing in Scouting   
    A while back there seemed to be some interest in how the scouting works so I thought now is a good time to write a bit about it. First of all, I’m writing from my own experiences and observations so this post has nothing to do with Derby’s jeered recruiting team. Secondly, I’ll only write about one example, in reality, there are about as many strategies and models in use as there are teams. Thirdly, I’d want people to understand that recruiting is maybe the most challenging job in the whole business; if there’s a good player available for one team, he is most likely been touted to at least dozen of other clubs. And we are certainly not at the top of the food chain so that doesn’t help. The term “scout” is quite belittling as the member of recruiting is doing much more nowadays than watching games but I’ll use the term as well as it makes my English more understandable…
    So, in the modern model, which used widely around Europe, the recruiting, data and development units are separated even though working closely with each other. The role of the scouts depends on how many scouts/money to spend the team has. Normally their responsibility is shared geographically, but different categories, e.g. age, can be used as well. On the other end of the scale are the top teams who can have specific scouts. For example, defensive midfield players in Italy could be one scout’s job. This kind of special situation usually is based on common history between the scout and the club, one being a former player from Italy and a defensive midfielder.
    Also, team strategy can focus the scouting in a very specific manner. Some examples of putting a lot of effort into a single geographical direction instead of spreading it around could be Internazionale and South America & Heerenveen and Scandinavia. Then there is Ajax who mostly signs very young players (but some experienced ones as well) and Monaco who aim to sign those who still young but have shown their ability already. Different approaches, all working well.
    The first step in recruiting is based on the strategy the club is following: we seem to copy the so-called Ajax-way, emphasizing strongly to young and potential players and with Rooney coming in, it’s very Ajax like at the moment. Brentford has their way, Real Madrid and Galacticos their own. Reflecting on the club’s strategy, the team’s deep analysis is the starting point. This deeper analysis includes the youngsters, so the planning can go ahead quite a few years. I’d be surprised if our loan midfielders this season were here just to make sure that our potential new players were certainly ready to play in the Championship. If they had not developed like they’ve had, we might still have Dowell and Paterson in and around the team.
    The second step is to fill the “ability gaps” the analysis have shown through academy players or players in the same league, who know the league and the demands of it and wouldn’t need time to adapt. In these cases, the club would know what you get at least personality- or ability-wise and how those fit the manager’s view of how football should be played. The demands of the player’s attributes come from the manager and his team, but even so, the recruiting is not that easy. We have lots of bad examples of this in our past, even quite currently. You can argue that our approach with Johnson, Butterfield, and Blackman, etc was based on opportunism, not on the current strategy. Maybe at the time spending big was the strategy though, at least it looked like it. If the player is not found from academy or close-by, the next step is recruiting from abroad which something many on this forum seems to be very much into. It’s the riskiest of the approaches and therefore, less used.
    Scouting from abroad is nowadays usually based on data and watching videos. Before the player’s physical attributes are examined, it will take 5-6 people to watch at least 3-5 matches from the player. You might have to go through huge numbers of players to find one, so intelligibly, there are way more cost-effective ways to recruit as in the end, you’ll only know a limited amount about the player and need to go to watch him live and get to know him anyway. Also, worth noting that the levels of leagues differ so much that even though the leagues are categorized in tiers, it still always a risk how players can adapt. To those football managers out there, yes, different kinds of graphs are commonly used. Especially when agents promote their players. An example of this could be Morales, who was I think 19 or 20 when he moved to Rangers. He came from the league two tiers lower but being so young he was still expected to adapt quickly to the Scottish league. His stats in Finland were quite a lot better than at the time best striker (Dembele) in Scotland so the risk was smaller for these two reasons.  
    If the player(s), who fits the “ability gap” demand and expectations of the manager, is found, usually the manager joins the process at this point. If the recruiting team works in this “strainer” way, the manager can concentrate on coaching and is not disturbed by the bombarding of messages from agents, etc. At this point, there are usually 3-5 players on the table and then starts the inquiries and other formal communication between the clubs and agents and so on. Most likely the press knows a bit as well and if they got 20-25% of the rumours correct, they might be spot on with their knowledge of club’s interests. If everything goes well, the club has got their player staying in the budget.
    Also worth mentioning that many transfers don’t go through the scouting process. There is transfer list, players talk about former teammates, managers talk to each other and everyone in the football is talking to each other. So sometimes the names and player's availability are surprises, then it’s all about the decision making and pondering is the opportunist risk worth making. A great example of this was Rafael van der Vaart moving from Madrid to Spurs for peanuts. Or that Morales’ move to Rangers. He wasn’t scouted, he was offered to them by the agent who scouted the player. So yes, you all love agents, and they even can mess up scouting as well. Ask from Raiola if you don’t believe me…
    That was the short version of one way to manage the player recruitment. Three "simple"  steps with lot's of noise around it. I have to say, I like our current approach as I think seeing young ones to develop is way more intriguing than getting excited about big transfers. Then again, I still watch the game quite often as a manager, not a full-blooded fan.
  14. Like
    Dimmu got a reaction from metalsheep02 in Scouting   
    A while back there seemed to be some interest in how the scouting works so I thought now is a good time to write a bit about it. First of all, I’m writing from my own experiences and observations so this post has nothing to do with Derby’s jeered recruiting team. Secondly, I’ll only write about one example, in reality, there are about as many strategies and models in use as there are teams. Thirdly, I’d want people to understand that recruiting is maybe the most challenging job in the whole business; if there’s a good player available for one team, he is most likely been touted to at least dozen of other clubs. And we are certainly not at the top of the food chain so that doesn’t help. The term “scout” is quite belittling as the member of recruiting is doing much more nowadays than watching games but I’ll use the term as well as it makes my English more understandable…
    So, in the modern model, which used widely around Europe, the recruiting, data and development units are separated even though working closely with each other. The role of the scouts depends on how many scouts/money to spend the team has. Normally their responsibility is shared geographically, but different categories, e.g. age, can be used as well. On the other end of the scale are the top teams who can have specific scouts. For example, defensive midfield players in Italy could be one scout’s job. This kind of special situation usually is based on common history between the scout and the club, one being a former player from Italy and a defensive midfielder.
    Also, team strategy can focus the scouting in a very specific manner. Some examples of putting a lot of effort into a single geographical direction instead of spreading it around could be Internazionale and South America & Heerenveen and Scandinavia. Then there is Ajax who mostly signs very young players (but some experienced ones as well) and Monaco who aim to sign those who still young but have shown their ability already. Different approaches, all working well.
    The first step in recruiting is based on the strategy the club is following: we seem to copy the so-called Ajax-way, emphasizing strongly to young and potential players and with Rooney coming in, it’s very Ajax like at the moment. Brentford has their way, Real Madrid and Galacticos their own. Reflecting on the club’s strategy, the team’s deep analysis is the starting point. This deeper analysis includes the youngsters, so the planning can go ahead quite a few years. I’d be surprised if our loan midfielders this season were here just to make sure that our potential new players were certainly ready to play in the Championship. If they had not developed like they’ve had, we might still have Dowell and Paterson in and around the team.
    The second step is to fill the “ability gaps” the analysis have shown through academy players or players in the same league, who know the league and the demands of it and wouldn’t need time to adapt. In these cases, the club would know what you get at least personality- or ability-wise and how those fit the manager’s view of how football should be played. The demands of the player’s attributes come from the manager and his team, but even so, the recruiting is not that easy. We have lots of bad examples of this in our past, even quite currently. You can argue that our approach with Johnson, Butterfield, and Blackman, etc was based on opportunism, not on the current strategy. Maybe at the time spending big was the strategy though, at least it looked like it. If the player is not found from academy or close-by, the next step is recruiting from abroad which something many on this forum seems to be very much into. It’s the riskiest of the approaches and therefore, less used.
    Scouting from abroad is nowadays usually based on data and watching videos. Before the player’s physical attributes are examined, it will take 5-6 people to watch at least 3-5 matches from the player. You might have to go through huge numbers of players to find one, so intelligibly, there are way more cost-effective ways to recruit as in the end, you’ll only know a limited amount about the player and need to go to watch him live and get to know him anyway. Also, worth noting that the levels of leagues differ so much that even though the leagues are categorized in tiers, it still always a risk how players can adapt. To those football managers out there, yes, different kinds of graphs are commonly used. Especially when agents promote their players. An example of this could be Morales, who was I think 19 or 20 when he moved to Rangers. He came from the league two tiers lower but being so young he was still expected to adapt quickly to the Scottish league. His stats in Finland were quite a lot better than at the time best striker (Dembele) in Scotland so the risk was smaller for these two reasons.  
    If the player(s), who fits the “ability gap” demand and expectations of the manager, is found, usually the manager joins the process at this point. If the recruiting team works in this “strainer” way, the manager can concentrate on coaching and is not disturbed by the bombarding of messages from agents, etc. At this point, there are usually 3-5 players on the table and then starts the inquiries and other formal communication between the clubs and agents and so on. Most likely the press knows a bit as well and if they got 20-25% of the rumours correct, they might be spot on with their knowledge of club’s interests. If everything goes well, the club has got their player staying in the budget.
    Also worth mentioning that many transfers don’t go through the scouting process. There is transfer list, players talk about former teammates, managers talk to each other and everyone in the football is talking to each other. So sometimes the names and player's availability are surprises, then it’s all about the decision making and pondering is the opportunist risk worth making. A great example of this was Rafael van der Vaart moving from Madrid to Spurs for peanuts. Or that Morales’ move to Rangers. He wasn’t scouted, he was offered to them by the agent who scouted the player. So yes, you all love agents, and they even can mess up scouting as well. Ask from Raiola if you don’t believe me…
    That was the short version of one way to manage the player recruitment. Three "simple"  steps with lot's of noise around it. I have to say, I like our current approach as I think seeing young ones to develop is way more intriguing than getting excited about big transfers. Then again, I still watch the game quite often as a manager, not a full-blooded fan.
  15. Haha
    Dimmu reacted to Van Cone De Head in > DCFC Lockdown <   
    That’s mine...I’m driving.
  16. Haha
    Dimmu got a reaction from REDCAR in > DCFC Lockdown <   
    Rowett and Russell. 
    This should be interesting: a) Maybe I'd find out the root cause why beforementioned sold the latter and b) how long can you listen that guttural voice without mental breakdown?
  17. Like
    Dimmu got a reaction from mr_rams in Pick a Team. Volume 3.   
    You meant Sylvain Distin? The French? That's a good one as well as Arteta.
    Jose Enrique should make to every team.
  18. Like
    Dimmu got a reaction from EtoileSportiveDeDerby in Scouting   
    Actually, I've never been a scout and I'm not sure has Clare either 😄 
  19. Like
    Dimmu got a reaction from Andicis in Scouting   
    A while back there seemed to be some interest in how the scouting works so I thought now is a good time to write a bit about it. First of all, I’m writing from my own experiences and observations so this post has nothing to do with Derby’s jeered recruiting team. Secondly, I’ll only write about one example, in reality, there are about as many strategies and models in use as there are teams. Thirdly, I’d want people to understand that recruiting is maybe the most challenging job in the whole business; if there’s a good player available for one team, he is most likely been touted to at least dozen of other clubs. And we are certainly not at the top of the food chain so that doesn’t help. The term “scout” is quite belittling as the member of recruiting is doing much more nowadays than watching games but I’ll use the term as well as it makes my English more understandable…
    So, in the modern model, which used widely around Europe, the recruiting, data and development units are separated even though working closely with each other. The role of the scouts depends on how many scouts/money to spend the team has. Normally their responsibility is shared geographically, but different categories, e.g. age, can be used as well. On the other end of the scale are the top teams who can have specific scouts. For example, defensive midfield players in Italy could be one scout’s job. This kind of special situation usually is based on common history between the scout and the club, one being a former player from Italy and a defensive midfielder.
    Also, team strategy can focus the scouting in a very specific manner. Some examples of putting a lot of effort into a single geographical direction instead of spreading it around could be Internazionale and South America & Heerenveen and Scandinavia. Then there is Ajax who mostly signs very young players (but some experienced ones as well) and Monaco who aim to sign those who still young but have shown their ability already. Different approaches, all working well.
    The first step in recruiting is based on the strategy the club is following: we seem to copy the so-called Ajax-way, emphasizing strongly to young and potential players and with Rooney coming in, it’s very Ajax like at the moment. Brentford has their way, Real Madrid and Galacticos their own. Reflecting on the club’s strategy, the team’s deep analysis is the starting point. This deeper analysis includes the youngsters, so the planning can go ahead quite a few years. I’d be surprised if our loan midfielders this season were here just to make sure that our potential new players were certainly ready to play in the Championship. If they had not developed like they’ve had, we might still have Dowell and Paterson in and around the team.
    The second step is to fill the “ability gaps” the analysis have shown through academy players or players in the same league, who know the league and the demands of it and wouldn’t need time to adapt. In these cases, the club would know what you get at least personality- or ability-wise and how those fit the manager’s view of how football should be played. The demands of the player’s attributes come from the manager and his team, but even so, the recruiting is not that easy. We have lots of bad examples of this in our past, even quite currently. You can argue that our approach with Johnson, Butterfield, and Blackman, etc was based on opportunism, not on the current strategy. Maybe at the time spending big was the strategy though, at least it looked like it. If the player is not found from academy or close-by, the next step is recruiting from abroad which something many on this forum seems to be very much into. It’s the riskiest of the approaches and therefore, less used.
    Scouting from abroad is nowadays usually based on data and watching videos. Before the player’s physical attributes are examined, it will take 5-6 people to watch at least 3-5 matches from the player. You might have to go through huge numbers of players to find one, so intelligibly, there are way more cost-effective ways to recruit as in the end, you’ll only know a limited amount about the player and need to go to watch him live and get to know him anyway. Also, worth noting that the levels of leagues differ so much that even though the leagues are categorized in tiers, it still always a risk how players can adapt. To those football managers out there, yes, different kinds of graphs are commonly used. Especially when agents promote their players. An example of this could be Morales, who was I think 19 or 20 when he moved to Rangers. He came from the league two tiers lower but being so young he was still expected to adapt quickly to the Scottish league. His stats in Finland were quite a lot better than at the time best striker (Dembele) in Scotland so the risk was smaller for these two reasons.  
    If the player(s), who fits the “ability gap” demand and expectations of the manager, is found, usually the manager joins the process at this point. If the recruiting team works in this “strainer” way, the manager can concentrate on coaching and is not disturbed by the bombarding of messages from agents, etc. At this point, there are usually 3-5 players on the table and then starts the inquiries and other formal communication between the clubs and agents and so on. Most likely the press knows a bit as well and if they got 20-25% of the rumours correct, they might be spot on with their knowledge of club’s interests. If everything goes well, the club has got their player staying in the budget.
    Also worth mentioning that many transfers don’t go through the scouting process. There is transfer list, players talk about former teammates, managers talk to each other and everyone in the football is talking to each other. So sometimes the names and player's availability are surprises, then it’s all about the decision making and pondering is the opportunist risk worth making. A great example of this was Rafael van der Vaart moving from Madrid to Spurs for peanuts. Or that Morales’ move to Rangers. He wasn’t scouted, he was offered to them by the agent who scouted the player. So yes, you all love agents, and they even can mess up scouting as well. Ask from Raiola if you don’t believe me…
    That was the short version of one way to manage the player recruitment. Three "simple"  steps with lot's of noise around it. I have to say, I like our current approach as I think seeing young ones to develop is way more intriguing than getting excited about big transfers. Then again, I still watch the game quite often as a manager, not a full-blooded fan.
  20. Like
    Dimmu got a reaction from i-Ram in Scouting   
    A while back there seemed to be some interest in how the scouting works so I thought now is a good time to write a bit about it. First of all, I’m writing from my own experiences and observations so this post has nothing to do with Derby’s jeered recruiting team. Secondly, I’ll only write about one example, in reality, there are about as many strategies and models in use as there are teams. Thirdly, I’d want people to understand that recruiting is maybe the most challenging job in the whole business; if there’s a good player available for one team, he is most likely been touted to at least dozen of other clubs. And we are certainly not at the top of the food chain so that doesn’t help. The term “scout” is quite belittling as the member of recruiting is doing much more nowadays than watching games but I’ll use the term as well as it makes my English more understandable…
    So, in the modern model, which used widely around Europe, the recruiting, data and development units are separated even though working closely with each other. The role of the scouts depends on how many scouts/money to spend the team has. Normally their responsibility is shared geographically, but different categories, e.g. age, can be used as well. On the other end of the scale are the top teams who can have specific scouts. For example, defensive midfield players in Italy could be one scout’s job. This kind of special situation usually is based on common history between the scout and the club, one being a former player from Italy and a defensive midfielder.
    Also, team strategy can focus the scouting in a very specific manner. Some examples of putting a lot of effort into a single geographical direction instead of spreading it around could be Internazionale and South America & Heerenveen and Scandinavia. Then there is Ajax who mostly signs very young players (but some experienced ones as well) and Monaco who aim to sign those who still young but have shown their ability already. Different approaches, all working well.
    The first step in recruiting is based on the strategy the club is following: we seem to copy the so-called Ajax-way, emphasizing strongly to young and potential players and with Rooney coming in, it’s very Ajax like at the moment. Brentford has their way, Real Madrid and Galacticos their own. Reflecting on the club’s strategy, the team’s deep analysis is the starting point. This deeper analysis includes the youngsters, so the planning can go ahead quite a few years. I’d be surprised if our loan midfielders this season were here just to make sure that our potential new players were certainly ready to play in the Championship. If they had not developed like they’ve had, we might still have Dowell and Paterson in and around the team.
    The second step is to fill the “ability gaps” the analysis have shown through academy players or players in the same league, who know the league and the demands of it and wouldn’t need time to adapt. In these cases, the club would know what you get at least personality- or ability-wise and how those fit the manager’s view of how football should be played. The demands of the player’s attributes come from the manager and his team, but even so, the recruiting is not that easy. We have lots of bad examples of this in our past, even quite currently. You can argue that our approach with Johnson, Butterfield, and Blackman, etc was based on opportunism, not on the current strategy. Maybe at the time spending big was the strategy though, at least it looked like it. If the player is not found from academy or close-by, the next step is recruiting from abroad which something many on this forum seems to be very much into. It’s the riskiest of the approaches and therefore, less used.
    Scouting from abroad is nowadays usually based on data and watching videos. Before the player’s physical attributes are examined, it will take 5-6 people to watch at least 3-5 matches from the player. You might have to go through huge numbers of players to find one, so intelligibly, there are way more cost-effective ways to recruit as in the end, you’ll only know a limited amount about the player and need to go to watch him live and get to know him anyway. Also, worth noting that the levels of leagues differ so much that even though the leagues are categorized in tiers, it still always a risk how players can adapt. To those football managers out there, yes, different kinds of graphs are commonly used. Especially when agents promote their players. An example of this could be Morales, who was I think 19 or 20 when he moved to Rangers. He came from the league two tiers lower but being so young he was still expected to adapt quickly to the Scottish league. His stats in Finland were quite a lot better than at the time best striker (Dembele) in Scotland so the risk was smaller for these two reasons.  
    If the player(s), who fits the “ability gap” demand and expectations of the manager, is found, usually the manager joins the process at this point. If the recruiting team works in this “strainer” way, the manager can concentrate on coaching and is not disturbed by the bombarding of messages from agents, etc. At this point, there are usually 3-5 players on the table and then starts the inquiries and other formal communication between the clubs and agents and so on. Most likely the press knows a bit as well and if they got 20-25% of the rumours correct, they might be spot on with their knowledge of club’s interests. If everything goes well, the club has got their player staying in the budget.
    Also worth mentioning that many transfers don’t go through the scouting process. There is transfer list, players talk about former teammates, managers talk to each other and everyone in the football is talking to each other. So sometimes the names and player's availability are surprises, then it’s all about the decision making and pondering is the opportunist risk worth making. A great example of this was Rafael van der Vaart moving from Madrid to Spurs for peanuts. Or that Morales’ move to Rangers. He wasn’t scouted, he was offered to them by the agent who scouted the player. So yes, you all love agents, and they even can mess up scouting as well. Ask from Raiola if you don’t believe me…
    That was the short version of one way to manage the player recruitment. Three "simple"  steps with lot's of noise around it. I have to say, I like our current approach as I think seeing young ones to develop is way more intriguing than getting excited about big transfers. Then again, I still watch the game quite often as a manager, not a full-blooded fan.
  21. Haha
    Dimmu reacted to EtoileSportiveDeDerby in Scouting   
    Very interesting, thx. Do you scout for anyone ? 
    Random question, do you know Clare Ince ?
     
     
  22. Like
    Dimmu got a reaction from therealhantsram in Scouting   
    A while back there seemed to be some interest in how the scouting works so I thought now is a good time to write a bit about it. First of all, I’m writing from my own experiences and observations so this post has nothing to do with Derby’s jeered recruiting team. Secondly, I’ll only write about one example, in reality, there are about as many strategies and models in use as there are teams. Thirdly, I’d want people to understand that recruiting is maybe the most challenging job in the whole business; if there’s a good player available for one team, he is most likely been touted to at least dozen of other clubs. And we are certainly not at the top of the food chain so that doesn’t help. The term “scout” is quite belittling as the member of recruiting is doing much more nowadays than watching games but I’ll use the term as well as it makes my English more understandable…
    So, in the modern model, which used widely around Europe, the recruiting, data and development units are separated even though working closely with each other. The role of the scouts depends on how many scouts/money to spend the team has. Normally their responsibility is shared geographically, but different categories, e.g. age, can be used as well. On the other end of the scale are the top teams who can have specific scouts. For example, defensive midfield players in Italy could be one scout’s job. This kind of special situation usually is based on common history between the scout and the club, one being a former player from Italy and a defensive midfielder.
    Also, team strategy can focus the scouting in a very specific manner. Some examples of putting a lot of effort into a single geographical direction instead of spreading it around could be Internazionale and South America & Heerenveen and Scandinavia. Then there is Ajax who mostly signs very young players (but some experienced ones as well) and Monaco who aim to sign those who still young but have shown their ability already. Different approaches, all working well.
    The first step in recruiting is based on the strategy the club is following: we seem to copy the so-called Ajax-way, emphasizing strongly to young and potential players and with Rooney coming in, it’s very Ajax like at the moment. Brentford has their way, Real Madrid and Galacticos their own. Reflecting on the club’s strategy, the team’s deep analysis is the starting point. This deeper analysis includes the youngsters, so the planning can go ahead quite a few years. I’d be surprised if our loan midfielders this season were here just to make sure that our potential new players were certainly ready to play in the Championship. If they had not developed like they’ve had, we might still have Dowell and Paterson in and around the team.
    The second step is to fill the “ability gaps” the analysis have shown through academy players or players in the same league, who know the league and the demands of it and wouldn’t need time to adapt. In these cases, the club would know what you get at least personality- or ability-wise and how those fit the manager’s view of how football should be played. The demands of the player’s attributes come from the manager and his team, but even so, the recruiting is not that easy. We have lots of bad examples of this in our past, even quite currently. You can argue that our approach with Johnson, Butterfield, and Blackman, etc was based on opportunism, not on the current strategy. Maybe at the time spending big was the strategy though, at least it looked like it. If the player is not found from academy or close-by, the next step is recruiting from abroad which something many on this forum seems to be very much into. It’s the riskiest of the approaches and therefore, less used.
    Scouting from abroad is nowadays usually based on data and watching videos. Before the player’s physical attributes are examined, it will take 5-6 people to watch at least 3-5 matches from the player. You might have to go through huge numbers of players to find one, so intelligibly, there are way more cost-effective ways to recruit as in the end, you’ll only know a limited amount about the player and need to go to watch him live and get to know him anyway. Also, worth noting that the levels of leagues differ so much that even though the leagues are categorized in tiers, it still always a risk how players can adapt. To those football managers out there, yes, different kinds of graphs are commonly used. Especially when agents promote their players. An example of this could be Morales, who was I think 19 or 20 when he moved to Rangers. He came from the league two tiers lower but being so young he was still expected to adapt quickly to the Scottish league. His stats in Finland were quite a lot better than at the time best striker (Dembele) in Scotland so the risk was smaller for these two reasons.  
    If the player(s), who fits the “ability gap” demand and expectations of the manager, is found, usually the manager joins the process at this point. If the recruiting team works in this “strainer” way, the manager can concentrate on coaching and is not disturbed by the bombarding of messages from agents, etc. At this point, there are usually 3-5 players on the table and then starts the inquiries and other formal communication between the clubs and agents and so on. Most likely the press knows a bit as well and if they got 20-25% of the rumours correct, they might be spot on with their knowledge of club’s interests. If everything goes well, the club has got their player staying in the budget.
    Also worth mentioning that many transfers don’t go through the scouting process. There is transfer list, players talk about former teammates, managers talk to each other and everyone in the football is talking to each other. So sometimes the names and player's availability are surprises, then it’s all about the decision making and pondering is the opportunist risk worth making. A great example of this was Rafael van der Vaart moving from Madrid to Spurs for peanuts. Or that Morales’ move to Rangers. He wasn’t scouted, he was offered to them by the agent who scouted the player. So yes, you all love agents, and they even can mess up scouting as well. Ask from Raiola if you don’t believe me…
    That was the short version of one way to manage the player recruitment. Three "simple"  steps with lot's of noise around it. I have to say, I like our current approach as I think seeing young ones to develop is way more intriguing than getting excited about big transfers. Then again, I still watch the game quite often as a manager, not a full-blooded fan.
  23. Clap
    Dimmu got a reaction from EtoileSportiveDeDerby in Scouting   
    A while back there seemed to be some interest in how the scouting works so I thought now is a good time to write a bit about it. First of all, I’m writing from my own experiences and observations so this post has nothing to do with Derby’s jeered recruiting team. Secondly, I’ll only write about one example, in reality, there are about as many strategies and models in use as there are teams. Thirdly, I’d want people to understand that recruiting is maybe the most challenging job in the whole business; if there’s a good player available for one team, he is most likely been touted to at least dozen of other clubs. And we are certainly not at the top of the food chain so that doesn’t help. The term “scout” is quite belittling as the member of recruiting is doing much more nowadays than watching games but I’ll use the term as well as it makes my English more understandable…
    So, in the modern model, which used widely around Europe, the recruiting, data and development units are separated even though working closely with each other. The role of the scouts depends on how many scouts/money to spend the team has. Normally their responsibility is shared geographically, but different categories, e.g. age, can be used as well. On the other end of the scale are the top teams who can have specific scouts. For example, defensive midfield players in Italy could be one scout’s job. This kind of special situation usually is based on common history between the scout and the club, one being a former player from Italy and a defensive midfielder.
    Also, team strategy can focus the scouting in a very specific manner. Some examples of putting a lot of effort into a single geographical direction instead of spreading it around could be Internazionale and South America & Heerenveen and Scandinavia. Then there is Ajax who mostly signs very young players (but some experienced ones as well) and Monaco who aim to sign those who still young but have shown their ability already. Different approaches, all working well.
    The first step in recruiting is based on the strategy the club is following: we seem to copy the so-called Ajax-way, emphasizing strongly to young and potential players and with Rooney coming in, it’s very Ajax like at the moment. Brentford has their way, Real Madrid and Galacticos their own. Reflecting on the club’s strategy, the team’s deep analysis is the starting point. This deeper analysis includes the youngsters, so the planning can go ahead quite a few years. I’d be surprised if our loan midfielders this season were here just to make sure that our potential new players were certainly ready to play in the Championship. If they had not developed like they’ve had, we might still have Dowell and Paterson in and around the team.
    The second step is to fill the “ability gaps” the analysis have shown through academy players or players in the same league, who know the league and the demands of it and wouldn’t need time to adapt. In these cases, the club would know what you get at least personality- or ability-wise and how those fit the manager’s view of how football should be played. The demands of the player’s attributes come from the manager and his team, but even so, the recruiting is not that easy. We have lots of bad examples of this in our past, even quite currently. You can argue that our approach with Johnson, Butterfield, and Blackman, etc was based on opportunism, not on the current strategy. Maybe at the time spending big was the strategy though, at least it looked like it. If the player is not found from academy or close-by, the next step is recruiting from abroad which something many on this forum seems to be very much into. It’s the riskiest of the approaches and therefore, less used.
    Scouting from abroad is nowadays usually based on data and watching videos. Before the player’s physical attributes are examined, it will take 5-6 people to watch at least 3-5 matches from the player. You might have to go through huge numbers of players to find one, so intelligibly, there are way more cost-effective ways to recruit as in the end, you’ll only know a limited amount about the player and need to go to watch him live and get to know him anyway. Also, worth noting that the levels of leagues differ so much that even though the leagues are categorized in tiers, it still always a risk how players can adapt. To those football managers out there, yes, different kinds of graphs are commonly used. Especially when agents promote their players. An example of this could be Morales, who was I think 19 or 20 when he moved to Rangers. He came from the league two tiers lower but being so young he was still expected to adapt quickly to the Scottish league. His stats in Finland were quite a lot better than at the time best striker (Dembele) in Scotland so the risk was smaller for these two reasons.  
    If the player(s), who fits the “ability gap” demand and expectations of the manager, is found, usually the manager joins the process at this point. If the recruiting team works in this “strainer” way, the manager can concentrate on coaching and is not disturbed by the bombarding of messages from agents, etc. At this point, there are usually 3-5 players on the table and then starts the inquiries and other formal communication between the clubs and agents and so on. Most likely the press knows a bit as well and if they got 20-25% of the rumours correct, they might be spot on with their knowledge of club’s interests. If everything goes well, the club has got their player staying in the budget.
    Also worth mentioning that many transfers don’t go through the scouting process. There is transfer list, players talk about former teammates, managers talk to each other and everyone in the football is talking to each other. So sometimes the names and player's availability are surprises, then it’s all about the decision making and pondering is the opportunist risk worth making. A great example of this was Rafael van der Vaart moving from Madrid to Spurs for peanuts. Or that Morales’ move to Rangers. He wasn’t scouted, he was offered to them by the agent who scouted the player. So yes, you all love agents, and they even can mess up scouting as well. Ask from Raiola if you don’t believe me…
    That was the short version of one way to manage the player recruitment. Three "simple"  steps with lot's of noise around it. I have to say, I like our current approach as I think seeing young ones to develop is way more intriguing than getting excited about big transfers. Then again, I still watch the game quite often as a manager, not a full-blooded fan.
  24. Clap
    Dimmu got a reaction from archram in Scouting   
    A while back there seemed to be some interest in how the scouting works so I thought now is a good time to write a bit about it. First of all, I’m writing from my own experiences and observations so this post has nothing to do with Derby’s jeered recruiting team. Secondly, I’ll only write about one example, in reality, there are about as many strategies and models in use as there are teams. Thirdly, I’d want people to understand that recruiting is maybe the most challenging job in the whole business; if there’s a good player available for one team, he is most likely been touted to at least dozen of other clubs. And we are certainly not at the top of the food chain so that doesn’t help. The term “scout” is quite belittling as the member of recruiting is doing much more nowadays than watching games but I’ll use the term as well as it makes my English more understandable…
    So, in the modern model, which used widely around Europe, the recruiting, data and development units are separated even though working closely with each other. The role of the scouts depends on how many scouts/money to spend the team has. Normally their responsibility is shared geographically, but different categories, e.g. age, can be used as well. On the other end of the scale are the top teams who can have specific scouts. For example, defensive midfield players in Italy could be one scout’s job. This kind of special situation usually is based on common history between the scout and the club, one being a former player from Italy and a defensive midfielder.
    Also, team strategy can focus the scouting in a very specific manner. Some examples of putting a lot of effort into a single geographical direction instead of spreading it around could be Internazionale and South America & Heerenveen and Scandinavia. Then there is Ajax who mostly signs very young players (but some experienced ones as well) and Monaco who aim to sign those who still young but have shown their ability already. Different approaches, all working well.
    The first step in recruiting is based on the strategy the club is following: we seem to copy the so-called Ajax-way, emphasizing strongly to young and potential players and with Rooney coming in, it’s very Ajax like at the moment. Brentford has their way, Real Madrid and Galacticos their own. Reflecting on the club’s strategy, the team’s deep analysis is the starting point. This deeper analysis includes the youngsters, so the planning can go ahead quite a few years. I’d be surprised if our loan midfielders this season were here just to make sure that our potential new players were certainly ready to play in the Championship. If they had not developed like they’ve had, we might still have Dowell and Paterson in and around the team.
    The second step is to fill the “ability gaps” the analysis have shown through academy players or players in the same league, who know the league and the demands of it and wouldn’t need time to adapt. In these cases, the club would know what you get at least personality- or ability-wise and how those fit the manager’s view of how football should be played. The demands of the player’s attributes come from the manager and his team, but even so, the recruiting is not that easy. We have lots of bad examples of this in our past, even quite currently. You can argue that our approach with Johnson, Butterfield, and Blackman, etc was based on opportunism, not on the current strategy. Maybe at the time spending big was the strategy though, at least it looked like it. If the player is not found from academy or close-by, the next step is recruiting from abroad which something many on this forum seems to be very much into. It’s the riskiest of the approaches and therefore, less used.
    Scouting from abroad is nowadays usually based on data and watching videos. Before the player’s physical attributes are examined, it will take 5-6 people to watch at least 3-5 matches from the player. You might have to go through huge numbers of players to find one, so intelligibly, there are way more cost-effective ways to recruit as in the end, you’ll only know a limited amount about the player and need to go to watch him live and get to know him anyway. Also, worth noting that the levels of leagues differ so much that even though the leagues are categorized in tiers, it still always a risk how players can adapt. To those football managers out there, yes, different kinds of graphs are commonly used. Especially when agents promote their players. An example of this could be Morales, who was I think 19 or 20 when he moved to Rangers. He came from the league two tiers lower but being so young he was still expected to adapt quickly to the Scottish league. His stats in Finland were quite a lot better than at the time best striker (Dembele) in Scotland so the risk was smaller for these two reasons.  
    If the player(s), who fits the “ability gap” demand and expectations of the manager, is found, usually the manager joins the process at this point. If the recruiting team works in this “strainer” way, the manager can concentrate on coaching and is not disturbed by the bombarding of messages from agents, etc. At this point, there are usually 3-5 players on the table and then starts the inquiries and other formal communication between the clubs and agents and so on. Most likely the press knows a bit as well and if they got 20-25% of the rumours correct, they might be spot on with their knowledge of club’s interests. If everything goes well, the club has got their player staying in the budget.
    Also worth mentioning that many transfers don’t go through the scouting process. There is transfer list, players talk about former teammates, managers talk to each other and everyone in the football is talking to each other. So sometimes the names and player's availability are surprises, then it’s all about the decision making and pondering is the opportunist risk worth making. A great example of this was Rafael van der Vaart moving from Madrid to Spurs for peanuts. Or that Morales’ move to Rangers. He wasn’t scouted, he was offered to them by the agent who scouted the player. So yes, you all love agents, and they even can mess up scouting as well. Ask from Raiola if you don’t believe me…
    That was the short version of one way to manage the player recruitment. Three "simple"  steps with lot's of noise around it. I have to say, I like our current approach as I think seeing young ones to develop is way more intriguing than getting excited about big transfers. Then again, I still watch the game quite often as a manager, not a full-blooded fan.
  25. Like
    Dimmu got a reaction from europia in Best Ever Signing   
    If the money would've been same as it is today, loaning Taribo would've been worth about £150 million.
    Not bad for a loan.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.