Our signings are only 'poor' because we keep changing managers

[Mostyn6]

I find it both bemusing and amusing how easily people criticise our signings over the last few years, but the harsh reality is that they become bad signings once the manager they are bought for is sacked.

Maybe we should stop sacking managers, then we wouldn't end up with so many 'poor' signings.

Mel's scattergun approach to trying to find a winning formula is more to blame than anything.

[toddy]

Does a player really only become shiite because of managerial change?

Nope, possibly not.

I do agree with changing managers like he changes his underpants is not good for the club.

[Brighton Ram]

I think I've agreed with everything you've posted over the past 3 months @Mostyn6

[GermanRam]

28 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

I find it both bemusing and amusing how easily people criticise our signings over the last few years, but the harsh reality is that they become bad signings once the manager they are bought for is sacked.

Maybe we should stop sacking managers, then we wouldn't end up with so many 'poor' signings.

Mel's scattergun approach to trying to find a winning formula is more to blame than anything.

 

True. Just no ******* concept..

[Day]

I don't think it's necessarily the number of managers, it's the totally different styles of playing they have all wanted. 

With McClaren and Clement possession based it was perhaps a little easier to transition to but Pearson to McClaren to Rowett couldn't be any more different.

Now that you can argue isn't a bad thing, if something isn't working try a different approach but you have to give the players time to adapt.

Can take a while for a manager to get his ideas through to the players and on to the pitch. I'm sure Butterfield recently said it will take time to adjust to what Rowett wants.

Time is a luxury at Derby as it is at many clubs, you can rant at Mel all you like for being trigger happy, maybe they were the wrong appointments but at the same time, every manager in football knows you don't get much time now in a job.

They are equally responsible for their downfall in various ways. All knew the job what was expected of them as they signed the dotted line and all failed to produce what was expected.

[DRBee]

40 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

I find it both bemusing and amusing how easily people criticise our signings over the last few years, but the harsh reality is that they become bad signings once the manager they are bought for is sacked.

Maybe we should stop sacking managers, then we wouldn't end up with so many 'poor' signings.

Mel's scattergun approach to trying to find a winning formula is more to blame than anything.

Your hypothesis FAILS with Blackman.   End of  .  .. since there is little evidence  he was good enough when we signed him ,other than a short good scoring spree before we signed him. 

The real question is how he got signed and who was involved.Don't think anyone can answer that

[Carnero]

8 minutes ago, DRBee said:

The real question is how he got signed and who was involved.Don't think anyone can answer that

 

[RiddingsRam]

As @David mentioned . I don't think it's the ammount of managers we've had , it's the managers we've employed. Not that there necessarily bad managers in there own right just all very different . A lot of clubs change managers on a regular basis and still have success. The infrastructure  should be in the club for a certain manager to come in and just take the reigns making slight tweaks along the way. Not wholesale changes, personally I don't think wholesale changes are needed this summer. A few in a few out and a lot of hard work on the training pitch.

[Seth's left foot]

It's not the players fault that we have signed them to fit various managers tactics however some of them haven't turned up in key games over the past few seasons.

As GR has said, regardless of who was in charge we have ended up with an unbalanced squad with not enough nous or steel.

That is why I think GR will succeed, he has talked sense about what is required.

[FindernRam]

There are some good points here and maybe it is a combination of all of them, but the point we are overlooking is that the transition to Mac2 went well. The players liked it (apparently) and all was good albeit we had some luck. Then the wheels came off big time. Personally I think it was behind the scenes rather than on the pitch but I am not privy to the day to day stuff. From playing pretty well to being abysmal was a step change, more than just a run of difficult games like the Championship always throws up.

Now the transition from Mac to GR that @David thinks is potentially hard also seems to had gone fairly well. So who knows.

All I know is that I did renew for me and the missus and I look forward to the new season!!

[timmo]

I don't necessarily think the signings were poor I'm more concerned with the staggering contracts they were given 

[cannable]

I'd say that the only good signings Clement made were Carson and Butters. The rest were awful, none of them fit the system. He had Ince hugging the touchline (with the exception of his late switches to behind the striker), BJ in a passing team, Pearce in a passing team, Shacks in a passing team, he barely used Bent, he used Olsson once when it was clear SW was killing us, Weimann signed to play out wide, Blackman was signed and then played wide left and Camara (who was injured I think so gets the BoD).

None of those players fit Clement's system so why sign them? It's better to have an average squad that fits than a good one that doesn't. Honestly it truly baffles me how people don't think Clement's signings were poor. They were diabolical. The guy went on FIFA, sent his scouts out and signed as many 71s as he could.

The signings that are as a result of too many managerial changes are Vydra, Anya, Wilson and De Sart. You can see the theory behind all of them. The problem with the former three though is that they signified an unnecessary change. They may have fit Pearson's ultimate system but nobody else did. De Sart was McClaren trying to get us playing football again, sadly we don't have the players to break defences down anymore.

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, cannable said:

I'd say that the only good signings Clement made were Carson and Butters. The rest were awful, none of them fit the system. He had Ince hugging the touchline (with the exception of his late switches to behind the striker), BJ in a passing team, Pearce in a passing team, Shacks in a passing team, he barely used Bent, he used Olsson once when it was clear SW was killing us, Weimann signed to play out wide, Blackman was signed and then played wide left and Camara (who was injured I think so gets the BoD).

None of those players fit Clement's system so why sign them? It's better to have an average squad that fits than a good one that doesn't. Honestly it truly baffles me how people don't think Clement's signings were poor. They were diabolical. The guy went on FIFA, sent his scouts out and signed as many 71s as he could.

The signings that are as a result of too many managerial changes are Vydra, Anya, Wilson and De Sart. You can see the theory behind all of them. The problem with the former three though is that they signified an unnecessary change. They may have fit Pearson's ultimate system but nobody else did. De Sart was McClaren trying to get us playing football again, sadly we don't have the players to break defences down anymore.

the aim is to use recruitment to improve the squad, nobody can get every one right but we should be expecting an overall improvement

[cannable]

26 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

Then the wheels came off big time. Personally I think it was behind the scenes rather than on the pitch but I am not privy to the day to day stuff. From playing pretty well to being abysmal was a step change, more than just a run of difficult games like the Championship always throws up.

He tried to change the system in January. He tried to get us playing 'The Derby Way' again. This is none more evident in the signings of a link-up man and a controlling midfielder. What killed us was that we didn't have players to break teams down and Pearce was being slaughtered defending in a high line and with BJ screening.

This is why I think sacking him was harsh. Getting us playing football again is specifically what he was brought in to do, not reaching the play-offs.

We had about two good halves up to January. We weren't playing well at all, even after QPR made 7 he was still saying he wanted to see more. 

[sage]

4 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

I find it both bemusing and amusing how easily people criticise our signings over the last few years, but the harsh reality is that they become bad signings once the manager they are bought for is sacked.

Maybe we should stop sacking managers, then we wouldn't end up with so many 'poor' signings.

Mel's scattergun approach to trying to find a winning formula is more to blame than anything.

There is an element of truth in that but SM signed Bent and Ince when they didn't suit SM style.

Blackman and Camara have been poor full stop. 

The Vydra signing and Martin loan i agree are a case of one man's meat is another man's poison.

 

[May Contain Nuts]

57 minutes ago, cannable said:

He used Olsson once when it was clear Warnock was killing us,

The way Warnock played that season was pretty much identical to how Baird has played this, just Warnock didn't have someone like Ince to pass to, and was under instruction not to take any risks.

The balance between attack and defence was all wrong, but individually Warnock really wasn't a problem. 

Baird and Warnock will be remembered completely differently by some of our fans despite being cut from the same cloth, mainly down to circumstances beyond their control!

[cannable]

1 minute ago, Coconut said:

The way Warnock played that season was pretty much identical to how Baird has played this, just Warnock didn't have someone like Ince to pass to, and was under instruction not to take any risks.

The balance between attack and defence was all wrong, but individually Warnock really wasn't a problem. 

Rewatch our game against Preston, that's the best example of how he was killing us. You'll revise your opinion.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, cannable said:

He tried to change the system in January. He tried to get us playing 'The Derby Way' again. This is none more evident in the signings of a link-up man and a controlling midfielder. What killed us was that we didn't have players to break teams down and Pearce was being slaughtered defending in a high line and with BJ screening.

This is why I think sacking him was harsh. Getting us playing football again is specifically what he was brought in to do, not reaching the play-offs.

We had about two good halves up to January. We weren't playing well at all, even after QPR made 7 he was still saying he wanted to see more. 

Saved me a post!

[G STAR RAM]

12 minutes ago, cannable said:

Rewatch our game against Preston, that's the best example of how he was killing us. You'll revise your opinion.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Warnock actually.

My over riding memory of him being in the team would be him getting the ball, looking down the line for a pass, seeing nobody, cutting inside and giving the ball to a centre half.

[EnigmaRam]

1 hour ago, sage said:

There is an element of truth in that but SM signed Bent and Ince when they didn't suit SM style.

Blackman and Camara have been poor full stop. 

The Vydra signing and Martin loan i agree are a case of one man's meat is another man's poison.

 

Depends how you look at it. You could argue that When we were screaming out for a plan B we signed Bent and Ince.

you could also argue that when we wasn't scoring under clement we signed an in form striker in Blackman and a fast winger to get past and behind defences that we weren't currently doing. 

Vydra and Martin was an opportunity and change of style of play for more counter attacking football. 

All reasonable signings that just didn't work as hoped.