The most sensible system for finding players to play for the team.

[Rampage]

A number of Clubs seem to have systems for finding players and then negotiating their transfers with varying degrees of input from the Manager of their Club. Please do not refer to names of people at Derby County if you post on this thread as it is the principle of who should find players that I would like to discuss on here. It seems to be working very badly for some Clubs, yet other Clubs, like Southampton appear to have it working brilliantly. If you owned a Club, how would you set it up and why would you do it that way?.

[Chris Mills]

Simulate 5 seasons on Football manager > Find Championship top scorer and any other good players currently not worth much > Profit.

[Oxram]

From the outside it's hard to say what teams have systems that land their man and which teams don't.

Signing 10 players looks twice as successful as a team that lands 5 but one team could have only tried for 5 with 100% success while the other team failed to sign 20 players.

The quality of those signings is surely an issue of scouting separate from the negotiation of the deal.

My personal opinion is that landing a good player is more down to the quality of a plans execution rather than its set-up.

[sage]

One obvious advantage would be buying from a position of strength rather than weakness.

 

[Rev]

The system Derby have/had seems pretty sensible to me, scout a list of targets for both loan and perm, then ask the manager/coach who he'd prefer off that list.

It doesn't really matter whether that list is in one man's ownership, or a more collaborative effort between all the scouts, as long as the club recruitment ethos is drilled into all involved.

For me, the most important thing is the manager gets the final say, no point recruiting players the manager doesn't fancy, or as bad bringing in players who don't fit into the way he wants to set the team up.

Even clubs with a seemingly successful transfer record take false steps occasionally, didn't Southampton sign that Italian striker, who's name escapes me, for £10m who proceeded to headbutt a teammate in training and quickly was sent out on loan? 

[RodleyRam]

 

For me, the most important thing is the manager gets the final say, no point recruiting players the manager doesn't fancy, or as bad bringing in players who don't fit into the way he wants to set the team up.

This. All clubs have used scouts since the dawn of time. I tended to think that our model was pretty decent. Collaborative effort between senior management but as above its pointless getting players that aren't going to be used. Don't think we necessarily got to that level.

I would think that it's beneficial to have contracts and agents out of the manager's remit but that's a bit of a given. I wonder how much say the manager has on player valuation too. 

I think the model West Brom had set up seemed to be getting a lot of plaudits but not heard lately.

For me I'd like to see the club's recruitment focusing heavily on the academy level too. I want to see more young players from the academy coming through year on year.

[ollycutts1982]

The system Derby have/had seems pretty sensible to me, scout a list of targets for both loan and perm, then ask the manager/coach who he'd prefer off that list.

It doesn't really matter whether that list is in one man's ownership, or a more collaborative effort between all the scouts, as long as the club recruitment ethos is drilled into all involved.

For me, the most important thing is the manager gets the final say, no point recruiting players the manager doesn't fancy, or as bad bringing in players who don't fit into the way he wants to set the team up.

Even clubs with a seemingly successful transfer record take false steps occasionally, didn't Southampton sign that Italian striker, who's name escapes me, for £10m who proceeded to headbutt a teammate in training and quickly was sent out on loan? 

Dani Oswaldo? *sic. 

[Rev]

 

For me I'd like to see the club's recruitment focusing heavily on the academy level too. I want to see more young players from the academy coming through year on year.

Likewise, this. 

Having invested so heavily on getting cat 1 status, and having a decent recruitment budget for the academy, need to start seeing the fruits of Mel's labours coming into the academy.

1 a year into the 1st team seems mighty ambitious, but no point setting an easy target for progression.

For all the knocking Chelsea get for the amount of youngsters out on loan, it works for them from a financial perspective, and could work for us too, albeit on a smaller scale.

[Rev]

Dani Oswaldo? *sic. 

That's the one, couldn't get Pelle out my head, knew it wasn't him.

[Bris Vegas]

A club of our status should adopt a way of playing, and have all levels from youth up to the first-team playing in a similar manner making recruitment much easier.

Since the introduction of Chris Martin, we've had the basis of a 4-3-3 with each player knowing their own role.

A target man CF who can play, attacking wingers who can go on either side and provide goals, a midfield three consisting of a defensive midfield, a ball-playing CM to link between defensive and attack plus a runner to support the CF.

Successful clubs have a model of how they want to play, and recruitment should then be easy in identifying players for each position - preferably bettering the player in said position as you develop with time.

Look at Swansea City. They've had the same system for years and everytime a player has been sold, he's been replaced by arguably someone better or at least containing the same sort of abilities.

Their strikers went from Scott Dobbie back in the Championship, to the likes of Danny Graham, Michu, Wilfried Bony and now Bafetimbi Gomis. Wide forwards, three-man midfield.

Once you have a system in place, identifying players should be easy because you know what you're looking for. You should never just bring in players who don't fit the system just because they're available and good.

The reason why teams like Liverpool and Spurs have failed in recent years is because of a scattergun approach to signings. No system, just getting in players because they're available.

I mean - look at Liverpool. They have no wide players, yet they've signed Benteke who is arguably the best CF in the air in the PL. Markovic, Lallana, Balotelli, Origi - more than 50m worth of players who didn't fit their system under Brendan Rodgers.

Going back to Derby. We made some signings earlier on in this window which didn't make any sense and now we're struggling to find them a place. That's poor recruitment, and the fault of those not identifying what we need.

It still grates me that we don't have a Chris Martin alternative. If he's injured, we're going to play someone out of positon or end up changing our entire formation which will hinder a number of other players.

Even the best clubs make mistakes though. Ever wonder why Barcelona signed Ibrahimovic? When they played such fast football and need movement up top to get the best out of Messi, they went and bought a relatively static CF. They soon learned though, and got David Villa a season later.

[sage]

A club of our status should adopt a way of playing, and have all levels from youth up to the first-team playing in a similar manner making recruitment much easier.

Since the introduction of Chris Martin, we've had the basis of a 4-3-3 with each player knowing their own role.

A target man CF who can play, attacking wingers who can go on either side and provide goals, a midfield three consisting of a defensive midfield, a ball-playing CM to link between defensive and attack plus a runner to support the CF.

Successful clubs have a model of how they want to play, and recruitment should then be easy in identifying players for each position - preferably bettering the player in said position as you develop with time.

Look at Swansea City. They've had the same system for years and everytime a player has been sold, he's been replaced by arguably someone better or at least containing the same sort of abilities.

Their strikers went from Scott Dobbie back in the Championship, to the likes of Danny Graham, Michu, Wilfried Bony and now Bafetimbi Gomis. Wide forwards, three-man midfield.

Once you have a system in place, identifying players should be easy because you know what you're looking for. You should never just bring in players who don't fit the system just because they're available and good.

The reason why teams like Liverpool and Spurs have failed in recent years is because of a scattergun approach to signings. No system, just getting in players because they're available.

I mean - look at Liverpool. They have no wide players, yet they've signed Benteke who is arguably the best CF in the air in the PL. Markovic, Lallana, Balotelli, Origi - more than 50m worth of players who didn't fit their system under Brendan Rodgers.

Going back to Derby. We made some signings earlier on in this window which didn't make any sense and now we're struggling to find them a place. That's poor recruitment, and the fault of those not identifying what we need.

It still grates me that we don't have a Chris Martin alternative. If he's injured, we're going to play someone out of positon or end up changing our entire formation which will hinder a number of other players.

Even the best clubs make mistakes though. Ever wonder why Barcelona signed Ibrahimovic? When they played such fast football and need movement up top to get the best out of Messi, they went and bought a relatively static CF. They soon learned though, and got David Villa a season later.

The U21 team played with a 4-4-2 diamond v Fulham last week, which puzzled me a little.

[WorksopRam]

What came first, the DOF or the sack?

I'm not sure how it's been abroad over the years, but all this head of director of operations of football etc. in England seemed to get going around the same time as the sacking culture, that if a few bad results came, the manager was quickly dismissed. 

I'm not saying that these head of operation types never get the boot, but in a day and age where Chairmen don't seem too bothered about a change in coach/manager/head coach/boss man, having a stable agenda and process in the back room and recruitment department certainly allows for a bit of long term continuity in the direction of the club, whereas a change in head coach might not necessarily cause the direction of the club to veer too much off course in its morals and focus on football models, youth, recruitment, etc. 

[Rev]

For all the posts on a Chris Martin alternative,  I've yet to read one sensible suggestion stating who that could be.

I've not seen one amongst the opposition we've played since Martins arrival, even to knowingly play second fiddle.

There must be someone, either lower league or abroad, but if there isn't surely it makes sense to have a squad who can play a different way in his absence, even if it's not quite as effective, it'll be better than what happened last season from Bournemouth on.

[Bris Vegas]

Crystal Palace also have a brilliant approach.

You only need to look at their side to see how they're developing and to be honest they have exactly the sort of side I'd like us to go for when we make the Premier League.

Strong, tall CBs who are good on the ball.

A midfield three consisting of a DM (McArthur), a ball-playing link-man (Cabaye) and a runner/supporting striker (Puncheon) and quality options on the wing in Sako, Zaha and Bolasie plus other options like Campbell Chung-Yong.

And they had a target CF in Glenn Murray (who I think is brilliant) though they sold him as I assume they think Connor Wickham is better, plus they have Dwight Gayle  as a CF option too.

For Palace, they now have a system and a way of playing. Recruitment should be easy. Look at the side, and try and bring in players better than they have in each position.

The signing Bamford on loan was baffling though. Where does he fit in with that? 

[Bris Vegas]

For all the posts on a Chris Martin alternative,  I've yet to read one sensible suggestion stating who that could be.

I've not seen one amongst the opposition we've played since Martins arrival, even to knowingly play second fiddle.

There must be someone, either lower league or abroad, but if there isn't surely it makes sense to have a squad who can play a different way in his absence, even if it's not quite as effective, it'll be better than what happened last season from Bournemouth on.

Bournemouth had Kermorgant, Pittman, Kenweyne Jones on loan and now they've signed Glenn Murray.

Pittman, who went to Ipswich, would have been a good option. As would Kermorgant if he's not going to get games at Bournemouth. There are other options out there. We were interested in Nuhiu, though Sheff Wed didn't want to sell.

 

[Rev]

Murray is the one you mention above most able to replace Martin imo, but he'd never have come this season to sit on our bench.

Jones doesn't strike me as much like Martin, more a pace and power merchant who goes missing for large chunks of games, Nuhiu behave, a great big donkey who's nowhere near Martin's all round game, Kermorgant is an interesting one and the most feasible one from that list.

[Bris Vegas]

Murray is the one you mention above most able to replace Martin imo, but he'd never have come this season to sit on our bench.

Jones doesn't strike me as much like Martin, more a pace and power merchant who goes missing for large chunks of games, Nuhiu behave, a great big donkey who's nowhere near Martin's all round game, Kermorgant is an interesting one and the most feasible one from that list.

You will never get an exact like for like, so it's pretty pointless dismissing one for being stronger, faster, smaller or whatever...

As for Nuhiu. I assume you don't watch Sheffield Wednesday much. He might not be the best finisher, but his presence in the side counts for a lot more than just goals and they play far better with him.

He started the past few games, and it coincides with their back-to-back wins.

I'll leave you with the gentle reminder of Shefti Kuqi. Not a patch on Luke Moore from a technical perspective, but he was battering ram and despite scoring only two goals in 11 games, we won 8 of those matches as he was the perfect foil for the rest of the team.

Nuhiu would be a solid Martin alternative as a lone striker. Far better than Darren Bent or Andres Weimann.

[Rev]

You will never get an exact like for like, so it's pretty pointless dismissing one for being stronger, faster, smaller or whatever...

As for Nuhiu. I assume you don't watch Sheffield Wednesday much. He might not be the best finisher, but his presence in the side counts for a lot more than just goals and they play far better with him.

He started the past few games, and it coincides with their back-to-back wins.

I'll leave you with the gentle reminder of Shefti Kuqi. Not a patch on Luke Moore from a technical perspective, but he was battering ram and despite scoring only two goals in 11 games, we won 8 of those matches as he was the perfect foil for the rest of the team.

Nuhiu would be a solid Martin alternative as a lone striker. Far better than Darren Bent or Andres Weimann.

I think we'd get more success changing formation and going Wiemann and Bent up front than bringing in the caveman, let's hope we never find out and Martin stays fit and we'll both be happy!

[jagerbob]

In My opinion Martin is suiting us less in the last few games than he has ever done.

i think its down to our style changing a little bit. We dont play tippy tappy slow posession football where the opposition gets 11 behind the ball, and our only chance of getting in behind them is martin holding the ball off and the runners feeding off him.

The minute we had no hughes bryson or hendrick in the midfield, the likes of Butterfield and Johnson were playing into the channels which an overwight martin couldnt run on to. its not his game. Perhaps the changes to our team, were used to playing with forwards who like to make runs. I think bent might have been a good option this season once we changed the team a little bit, particularly the midfield 3.

Secondly I like our new style Shackell, Thorne, hanson, and Bradley Johnson are all fairly happy switching the play and playing the longer pass. the same could not be said for Bryson Hughes and hendrick who are afraid to switch the play.

I also find this much more exciting to watch, I argued with many rams fans who thought our slow posession football was good to watch. I didnt find it good to watch, it was too slow, too easy to defend against and a bit of Directness or pace in our game makes it much harder to defend against.

[Rampage]

Crystal Palace also have a brilliant approach.

You only need to look at their side to see how they're developing and to be honest they have exactly the sort of side I'd like us to go for when we make the Premier League.

Strong, tall CBs who are good on the ball.

A midfield three consisting of a DM (McArthur), a ball-playing link-man (Cabaye) and a runner/supporting striker (Puncheon) and quality options on the wing in Sako, Zaha and Bolasie plus other options like Campbell Chung-Yong.

And they had a target CF in Glenn Murray (who I think is brilliant) though they sold him as I assume they think Connor Wickham is better, plus they have Dwight Gayle  as a CF option too.

For Palace, they now have a system and a way of playing. Recruitment should be easy. Look at the side, and try and bring in players better than they have in each position.

The signing Bamford on loan was baffling though. Where does he fit in with that? 

You have hit the nail on the head mentioning Crystal Palace, Bris Vegas