A question for Derby fans...

[R@M]

We were in the second leg of the Carling cup semi final with Clough in charge. 

[Anon]

7 minutes ago, R@M said:

We were in the second leg of the Carling cup semi final with Clough in charge. 

He was in charge of that one game, but none of the others that actually got us to that point.

[R@M]

1 minute ago, Anon said:

He was in charge of that one game, but none of the others that actually got us to that point.

 

10 minutes ago, R@M said:

We were in the second leg of the Carling cup semi final with Clough in charge. 

? ? so I was correct with my specific point?

He was in the stands having been appointed prior to the 1 - 0 win in the first leg,  and apparently

had a chat with them.....can take some credit for me.

[Anon]

12 hours ago, NorwichLad said:

Not really as it specifically relates to the former Derby Chief Scout and comments he made about Nigel Clough ignoring his 18 page opposition reports whilst Derby County manager, and its interesting to see that he had a pretty poor win record across his tenure. 

It's a mistake to fixate on his win record whilst he was here, at least it is without taking the relative resources he had into consideration. I'm not exactly a Clough fanboy. He can be appallingly negative at times and ridiculously stubborn, but overall he did a good job here with limited resources and built our best team in a decade on a shoestring.

[jimbobram]

Clough did a steady job. Got rid of the crap from the BD/PJ era. Signed some good players for the club, signed some crap players for the club. Acted like an idiot in interviews most of the time though, still does when you speak to Burton fans.

[G STAR RAM]

Let's not turn this into another NC thread. 

Instead can we grill the OP on his seemingly dodgy link and his apparent dislike for drinking sessions.

[CornwallRam]

14 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Wasn’t Simon his chief scout?

I was going to post something similar. Thinking about it though, there was no announcement made of Simon being appointed. I think members of the old DET forum got wind of it and a journalist asked Nigel and he confirmed it. I seem to remember him saying that he and Simon learned their footballing philosophy from their Dad, so shared almost identical ideas of what football was supposed to be like. Consequently, Simon was more likely than anyone to find the players that fitted with whet Nigel was trying to build.

From that it follows that the previous chief scout must have either left or been demoted, and that Nigel didn't share his views on players/tactics etc. If that scout was producing reports that Nigel thought were rubbish, why wouldn't he ignore them?

Going back to the OP, I don't think that there is a single formula for successfully managing a club. In absolute terms, Nigel, Rowett and McClaren  have all failed using a variety of methodological approaches. Clement employed an army of analysts - who knows if he would have achieved promotion if he'd have not been sacked. His subsequent performances would indicate not. I suspect that Jody Morris is the technical guy now, and I doubt he'd have been allowed to coach the kids at Chelsea without using the most modern analytical methods - but we're not in the top 2...yet. Maybe this will work, and great. But if it doesn't and our next manager doesn't bother with analysts and opposition scouting, but gets us up as Champions - will any of us care?

 

What I'm trying to say is that it is pointless judging a single aspect of management. You can only judge on results, but that has to be contextualised with where the club was when they took over, how long in tenure and resources available.

[Ambitious]

Ignoring the Nigel Clough chat, which is something that's been done to the death, it's quite an interesting question.

Scouting, in my opinion, is the easiest job in football. I mean it absolutely baffles me that these guys get paid to watch football, hours & hours of football, yet still end up plugging some of the crap we've signed through the years. I just don't get it. It's really not that hard. I get that some should be better than others, also I get that some club facilities are better than others, but I can't over emphasis this enough - if we, Derby County, had used Football Manager to scout players rather than our own paid for scouts then we would have been better off. I can't stress how badly I think the scouting has been at this club. We paid more in terms of a transfer fee and wages for Bradley Johnson than Leicester City did for N'golo Kante. We paid more than double the amount for Conor Sammon than Leicester did for Riyad Mahrez. 

How many times do we see players come from the lower leagues or abroad to be world beaters. They don't just change overnight. Kante may have improved and developed, but I'd like to think that anyone who made professional football scouting their job would have been able to see that he at least had enough about him not to be a complete flop. 

That's my very vocal opinion on scouting players for transfers, now as for scouting teams before we play them. I, personally, think it should take a backseat with regards to how much it impacts your tactics. The main reason being that if you're constantly changing your methodology it will inevitably impact on the team's development going forward. It's the Lampard/Rowett argument. Rowett set out to disrupt the opposition, so much so that he didn't even need excellent players to play his game, just functional % type players - Pulis style. Lampard certainly seems to be more centred on development, putting much more focus on refining our game and playing the best we can play. Let the other team worry about stopping us, not vice versa. I much more prefer it. Now, I am not naive enough to think that we can have no scouting, that's not what I am suggesting, but I would focus it purely on: set pieces, opposition players strengths and weaknesses & behaviour patterns in games, for example If you're playing a team that starts games quickly and gets the first goal 70% of the time, use the first quarter of the game to frustrate them. If they've got a Joey Barton type mardy rick in their team, get him wound up. If they've got a clumsy CB who grapples, use it to your advantage to win free kicks around the area. 

I'll say it again - it really isn't that difficult. I don't understand how we've got it so wrong on so many occasions. I can understand one or two falling through, especially if there is personal issues, but how many signings over the past decade have actually gone on to better things? I'd guess at less than 20% 

[cannable]

43 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I'll say it again - it really isn't that difficult. I don't understand how we've got it so wrong on so many occasions. I can understand one or two falling through, especially if there is personal issues, but how many signings over the past decade have actually gone on to better things? I'd guess at less than 20% 

We signed Alex Pearce, Andi Weimann, Bradley Johnson, Jason Shackell and Abdoul Camara - all for a team that wanted to played football.

They shouldn’t have even been on the radar, let alone had the best part of £15,000,000 spunked on them.

Utterly shambolic.

[NorwichLad]

23 hours ago, 86 points said:

Look matey, you're just on here for a bit of passive / aggressive gloating as your lot are taking a turn at the top. Let's be honest, that's the sum of it. 

I stumbled an old interview with one of your scouts - The Guardian I think it was, and that's what led to me starting this thread. 

Or whatever your latest conspiracy theory is.... I'm here because of the Russians perhaps? 

I'm doing scouting courses and volunteering as a scout for a Cat 1 so hence my interest in the subject. 

[NorwichLad]

22 hours ago, 86 points said:

Ignore it Ronnie. It's all bolarks as you well know.

 

22 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

So Nigel Clough had him compiling reports that he didn't read? Sounds plausible. 

 

22 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

If it is who I think it is then I know a little bit about why he wasn't overly  popular, he certainly liked a half time bovril and a toll bridge claim at the clubs expense. 

 

Blimey, I dunno.... just read it in The Guardian guys....

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/aug/08/football-scout-walsall-fc

No idea if he was a good scout or not, but seemed to pluck Antonio Valencia out of nowhere for Wigan and Jimmy Bullard for £250k so probably a fair bit better than some bloke down the pub I should suspect. 

[NorwichLad]

6 hours ago, Ambitious said:

Ignoring the Nigel Clough chat, which is something that's been done to the death, it's quite an interesting question.

Scouting, in my opinion, is the easiest job in football. I mean it absolutely baffles me that these guys get paid to watch football, hours & hours of football, yet still end up plugging some of the crap we've signed through the years. I just don't get it. It's really not that hard. I get that some should be better than others, also I get that some club facilities are better than others, but I can't over emphasis this enough - if we, Derby County, had used Football Manager to scout players rather than our own paid for scouts then we would have been better off. I can't stress how badly I think the scouting has been at this club. We paid more in terms of a transfer fee and wages for Bradley Johnson than Leicester City did for N'golo Kante. We paid more than double the amount for Conor Sammon than Leicester did for Riyad Mahrez. 

How many times do we see players come from the lower leagues or abroad to be world beaters. They don't just change overnight. Kante may have improved and developed, but I'd like to think that anyone who made professional football scouting their job would have been able to see that he at least had enough about him not to be a complete flop. 

That's my very vocal opinion on scouting players for transfers, now as for scouting teams before we play them. I, personally, think it should take a backseat with regards to how much it impacts your tactics. The main reason being that if you're constantly changing your methodology it will inevitably impact on the team's development going forward. It's the Lampard/Rowett argument. Rowett set out to disrupt the opposition, so much so that he didn't even need excellent players to play his game, just functional % type players - Pulis style. Lampard certainly seems to be more centred on development, putting much more focus on refining our game and playing the best we can play. Let the other team worry about stopping us, not vice versa. I much more prefer it. Now, I am not naive enough to think that we can have no scouting, that's not what I am suggesting, but I would focus it purely on: set pieces, opposition players strengths and weaknesses & behaviour patterns in games, for example If you're playing a team that starts games quickly and gets the first goal 70% of the time, use the first quarter of the game to frustrate them. If they've got a Joey Barton type mardy rick in their team, get him wound up. If they've got a clumsy CB who grapples, use it to your advantage to win free kicks around the area. 

I'll say it again - it really isn't that difficult. I don't understand how we've got it so wrong on so many occasions. I can understand one or two falling through, especially if there is personal issues, but how many signings over the past decade have actually gone on to better things? I'd guess at less than 20% 

 

I'm afraid your post becomes worthless on the second line when you consider that the vast majority of scouts are volunteers who are lucky if they get reimbursed for mileage and stand outside in the wind and rain trying to find the next Will Hughes out of nothing other than passion for the game..... I know a volunteer scout at Bournemouth who gets 40p a mile and £50 if he recommends a player who passes a trial and gets signed for their academy. Fifty ducking quid..... bare in mind that these clubs insist on Level 2 quals now, which costs £200 + hotel accommodation + travel...... and I think we can ascertain immediately discard your entire post as one made out of sheer ignorance.

Very few scouts make a full time wage, most don't even make a part time one..... but don't worry, they don't ask to feel appreciated by Joe Bloggs ?

[Philmycock]

2 minutes ago, NorwichLad said:

 

 

 

Blimey, I dunno.... just read it in The Guardian guys....

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/aug/08/football-scout-walsall-fc

No idea if he was a good scout or not, but seemed to pluck Antonio Valencia out of nowhere for Wigan and Jimmy Bullard for £250k so probably a fair bit better than some bloke down the pub I should suspect. 

Really dull story, but thanks for letting us know here, now I must go, I've must get cracking on trawling through 9 year old stories about Norwich City's nondescript backroom staff that I can post on a Canaries forum ?

[cannable]

4 hours ago, NorwichLad said:

 

I'm afraid your post becomes worthless on the second line when you consider that the vast majority of scouts are volunteers who are lucky if they get reimbursed for mileage and stand outside in the wind and rain trying to find the next Will Hughes out of nothing other than passion for the game..... I know a volunteer scout at Bournemouth who gets 40p a mile and £50 if he recommends a player who passes a trial and gets signed for their academy. Fifty ducking quid..... bare in mind that these clubs insist on Level 2 quals now, which costs £200 + hotel accommodation + travel...... and I think we can ascertain immediately discard your entire post as one made out of sheer ignorance.

Very few scouts make a full time wage, most don't even make a part time one..... but don't worry, they don't ask to feel appreciated by Joe Bloggs ?

I think you have to take into consideration that is posted with Rams Tinted glasses on and that it’s with regards to first team player scouting rather than youth teams.

It still rankles with many that we spent £25,000,000 in 15/16 and in doing so managed to make the first XI worse, weakened the squad and ballooned the wage bill.

Some of the players were blatantly not ‘footballers’ in the purest sense of the word and yet that’s what we wanted to play. 

You can accept Butters being a flop, he’s a good footballer and perhaps we thought he could be coached into the ‘Kroos role’. You can accept Baird ‘initially’, because he could play, but didn’t bring the right balance to the side. You can even accept Blackman because he always looked sound enough on the ball and looked to combine play but never really had the circumstance to flourish.

But how in the world is anybody thinking Bradley Johnson can play as a linking #8? He wasn’t even anywhere near technical enough to play as the midfield runner in that system. 

We knew from his first spell here, let alone through any thorough scouting, that Shackell couldn’t play so why did we spend £2,500,000 on him for a side that wanted to do this? 

Perhaps it wasn’t even the scouts who were picking these players, perhaps we were going for names… but somebody at the club, at that time, hadn’t a clue how to pick a player.

[Chester40]

@NorwichLad you seem to be getting a lot of hammer without any really doing anything wrong. The fact Norwich are top does smack of gloating but nothing in the tone of what you say does. Seems a genuine attempt to start a fairly sensible debate. Not one that is massively surprising to be fair though. Slighted ex-employee says boss didn't listen to them when they knew best... 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Chester40 said:

@NorwichLad you seem to be getting a lot of hammer without any really doing anything wrong. The fact Norwich are top does smack of gloating but nothing in the tone of what you say does. Seems a genuine attempt to start a fairly sensible debate. Not one that is massively surprising to be fair though. Slighted ex-employee says boss didn't listen to them when they knew best... 

Think the manner of the opening post may have rubbed people up the wrong way.

Why not just come on, post the link and ask peoples thoughts, rather than trying to make it look like the poster had some secret inside information? 

We all know that opinion on NC is split and always leads to the same arguments.

Not even sure the post belongs in here, if it was just a general debate about whether managers should use scouting reports. 

[Chester40]

30 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Think the manner of the opening post may have rubbed people up the wrong way.

Why not just come on, post the link and ask peoples thoughts, rather than trying to make it look like the poster had some secret inside information? 

We all know that opinion on NC is split and always leads to the same arguments.

Not even sure the post belongs in here, if it was just a general debate about whether managers should use scouting reports. 

Fair point. The lad likes a bit of drama and the big reveal was a bit of a letdown, still no harm done for me.

[Yojimbo]

On 19/11/2018 at 01:21, NorwichLad said:

I was just extremely surprised that according to a former Derby chief scout, Nigel Clough did not read these opposition reports at Derby so went into games completely blind. 

He seems to be held in high esteem by Derby fans despite not really achieving anything...

I think this is a questionable statement. I’d say there’s a good percentage of Derby fans who didn’t rate Clough. Just bringing his name up is pretty much the most divisible thing you can do even 5 years after he’s gone.

[RadioactiveWaste]

To be fair Norwich lad is usually an interesting visiting poster, especially in matters concerning Norwich, think he wished braders well and gave us an insight on Jerome.

We had five years of getting used to Nigel clough stubbornly doing things his way and I don't think any of are surprised to here he wasn't fussed on scouting reports he didn't think told him very much of use. To an outsider you might think "wow".

Add in a few agenders like not getting on with him etc....does anyone here take a Billy Davies comment as being straightforward and not loaded when he pops up?

[McRamFan]

Is this what the forest forum reads like?

It's the past, he came in, cut the wage bill, stopped us from possible relegation.  For that I am grateful.  Could he have taken us further? No one can honestly answer that as he was replaced.  It's all in the past now and we move on.