Judgement of signings (2 Viewers)

fernandopartridge · Apr 10, 2016

stupot07 said:
I think it would be better to separate loans from perms

Perms

Success:
Vincelot
Stokes

So so:
Ricketts - started well but has really gone down hill in the last 18-20 games and has been at fault for a lot of goals
Rose - think he will be a solid signing.
Lamieres

Failure:
Fortune
Henderson
Ramage
Cole
Elford-Alliyu
Hunt
Lorentzson
Re-signing Reda
Re-signing Tudguy

loans

Success:
Armstrong (season long) - but with big question marks about his effectiveness away from home
Murphy (season long) - but with caveats
Kent (short term) - ditto
Stephens (short term)
Jones (short term)

So so:
Cargill (short term)

Failure:
Bigi (long term)
Morris (season long loan cancelled)
Turner (short term)

Left the Bulgarian and the young lad out as its too early to tell.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Turner a failure? Because he got injured?

Tip for future managers, never sign any players who have previously been injured. Never sign any players.

stupot07 · Apr 10, 2016

CCFC said:
And Chuba, Ecclestone, Delfouneso, Donelly, Mcgeouch, Seaborne, Dagnall, Mcquoid, Coulibaly, Alsop, Pugh, Manset, Urqhart, Slager, Marshall, Loza, Swanson, Tudgay, Miller, Turgott, Hines, Odelusi, Nouble, Williams, Madine, Reda, Jackson

Pressley signing players was like drawing names out of a hat, Mowbray don't get them all right but at least there seems to be some sort of thought and planning behind them.

Never said he didn't sign duffers, 90% of them were dire, it was more that someone said he didn't make 1 decent signing. No manager gets it 100% right, even fergie signed the odd duffer.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 10, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
Turner a failure? Because he got injured?

Tip for future managers, never sign any players who have previously been injured. Never sign any players.

But Turner was allowed to come to us specifically because he *was* fragile, having just come back from a serious injury, and because Cardiff would rather he was risked in a first team other than their own.

steve82 · Apr 10, 2016

I'd agree with a few comments on here that the signing of Joe Cole was not quite the positive impact the team needed. Can understand the reason for signing him up, but it's not panned out to be the success it could of been. Even Joe Cole day didn't go to plan! Poor lameires has been really short changed out of it.
The turner loan for me was a coup, yes he was here to gain fitness but it helped us too, was bad luck that his injury was his other ankle, not his repaired one.
Henderson deal didn't work due to the lack of wingers within the club, he's not a no 9 in a 4231 system.
Bigi, I'm not a fan, just don't see anything but stray balls from him.
Hunt, the least said about him the better.
Ramage, was only ever a dire emergency signing.
Problem is with these players is I'm sure it looks like they can still cut it on the training pitch but in match day game tempo the legs cannot do it.

stupot07 · Apr 10, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
Turner a failure? Because he got injured?

Tip for future managers, never sign any players who have previously been injured. Never sign any players.

I had him originally as a success, but as NW rightly points out, he was here only to get fit but then got injured, he was going to get recalled anyway due to an injury to Sean Morrison. We then struggled to replace him.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Apr 10, 2016

stupot07 said:
Never said he didn't sign duffers, 90% of them were dire, it was more that someone said he didn't make 1 decent signing. No manager gets it 100% right, even fergie signed the odd duffer.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Fair enough, there just seems to be the slight reaction that because of our form at the moment that maybe Pressley wasn't that bad. As exampled by Northern Wisdom suggesting his loan signings were arguably as good as Mowbrays, they clearly weren't as he only picked out 2 players out of a possible 17/18 players?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Apr 10, 2016

stupot07 said:
I had him originally as a success, but as NW rightly points out, he was here only to get fit but then got injured, he was going to get recalled anyway due to an injury to Sean Morrison. We then struggled to replace him.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Not sure I agree with your logic though, if he was going back anyway why would it then matter that he got injured? Sure it matters to Turner that he got injured, but from a selfish ccfc point why does it matter that he got injured if he was going back after that game anyway?

steve82 · Apr 10, 2016

I'll throw a name forward who could of done well under Presley if again we had the right wide players and a AA type striker to play off him. Gary madine. Won 80% of his headers and dangerous from crosses. Just had no decent service that season.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 10, 2016

CCFC said:
Fair enough, there just seems to be the slight reaction that because of our form at the moment that maybe Pressley wasn't that bad. As exampled by Northern Wisdom suggesting his loan signings were arguably as good as Mowbrays, they clearly weren't as he only picked out 2 players out of a possible 17/18 players?

Nope, you can pick out Maguire, Petrasso, Dagnall, Seaborne from the Sixfields season, all of whom were decent loanees in some shape or form.

Beyond Armstrong and Murphy (and many would not have Murphy in the success category), I'd suggest the huge influx of loanees this season has handicapped us as much as loanees have a tendency to do so, that we've got a revolving cast where no bugger knows who they're passing to. Beyond Kent (a bit meh) and Stephens (not really played many games yet either) then we've hardly been blessed with quality loanees from Mowbray...

stupot07 · Apr 10, 2016

CCFC said:
Not sure I agree with your logic though, if he was going back anyway why would it then matter that he got injured? Sure it matters to Turner that he got injured, but from a selfish ccfc point why does it matter that he got injured if he was going back after that game anyway?

Tbh I don't really care how we class it. It was a pleasure to see him in a cov shirt again. I would happily place him in the success criteria, makes no odds. I stand by the rest of the players though

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 10, 2016

CCFC said:
Not sure I agree with your logic though, if he was going back anyway why would it then matter that he got injured? Sure it matters to Turner that he got injured, but from a selfish ccfc point why does it matter that he got injured if he was going back after that game anyway?

The poin being that, full-stop, we'd have been better off signing a slightly lesser skilled defender who was less prone to breaking down, and having them for longer.

Reda's halted two seasons now by crashing and burning, both times the managers have been coloured by what he can bring when fit. For Mowbray to replace like with like was a case of fool me once...

Where Mowbray *has* been unlucky is the injuries to Martin (a Pressley signing) and Willis (a player blooded by Pressley) - they're of a level where you can probably put them down to bad luck. Reda and Turner though? More a case of hoping that this is the season you land on red.

fernandopartridge · Apr 10, 2016

stupot07 said:
Never said he didn't sign duffers, 90% of them were dire, it was more that someone said he didn't make 1 decent signing. No manager gets it 100% right, even fergie signed the odd duffer.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Fergie's record in his last 10 years was as many duffers as gems. No offence, duffer if you're reading this.

WestEndAgro · Apr 10, 2016

The season has been a disaster, Mowbray successes can be counted on one hand AA, Vincelot and Murphy the rest are shocking, we are absolute rubbish, how anyone can spin it differently is beyond me?

fernandopartridge · Apr 10, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
But Turner was allowed to come to us specifically because he *was* fragile, having just come back from a serious injury, and because Cardiff would rather he was risked in a first team other than their own.

Wasn't it the other ankle?

shmmeee · Apr 10, 2016

stupot07 said:
I think it would be better to separate loans from perms

Problem with that is many of our loans had longer contracts than the "permanent" signings. Armstrong and Murphy will have been a CCFC player longer than Hunt, Cole, Ramage, Henderson, Eliford-Alyou, etc.

On topic: my issue with Mowbray's signings has been less about their quality than about their position. We've needed several types of player all season, yet have ended up with loads of Hendersons and Fortunes and Coles and Hunts. There's been a few signings that seem to have been made just because rather than with any cohesive plan in place. Which is weird because after the summer it looked like we'd been buying in to build a team. then come Christmas all that went out the window and we were signing players who couldn't play for 3 months or who played where we had lots of other players.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Apr 10, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
Nope, you can pick out Maguire, Petrasso, Dagnall, Seaborne from the Sixfields season, all of whom were decent loanees in some shape or form.

Beyond Armstrong and Murphy (and many would not have Murphy in the success category), I'd suggest the huge influx of loanees this season has handicapped us as much as loanees have a tendency to do so, that we've got a revolving cast where no bugger knows who they're passing to. Beyond Kent (a bit meh) and Stephens (not really played many games yet either) then we've hardly been blessed with quality loanees from Mowbray...

My opinion, Dagnall and Seaborne were crap. Petrasso had potential (supposedly but I never seen him play) but delivered nothing and was part of the team which nosedived in the second half of the season, so would say he was ok/average. Maguire did score those two cracking free kicks but only played 2 or 3 games before being recalled, so I guess you could say he was good for one game (which seems pretty desperate when your saying Turner was a failure because he wasn't here long enough)

The rest of his 20 loans over his time here were crap apart from Samuel.

skybluegod · Apr 10, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
Webster was what stopped us leaking even more goals first half of the season! He was about the only one who looked half-solid.

If we can count Turner, then we can count Maguire!

Mark Marshall was alright for us too.

And the success of Pressley early on was he didn't sign players for the hell of it, he got who he had (Thomas etc.) playing well.

The problem was much as now, once the manager openly stopped having faith in the group who was there originally, by signing their replacements!

Again disagree, it was often Clarke that covered for Webster imo, as whenever he attempted to head the ball it skimmed off his head. He had some good games, but he wasn't solid.

Did he stop having faith? Or was he trying to add competition once Kent and JOB were leaving? And with so many injuries in defence?

skybluegod · Apr 10, 2016

stupot07 said:
Never said he didn't sign duffers, 90% of them were dire, it was more that someone said he didn't make 1 decent signing. No manager gets it 100% right, even fergie signed the odd duffer.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I didn't literally mean ALL of his signings but compared to TM the majority were?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Apr 10, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
The poin being that, full-stop, we'd have been better off signing a slightly lesser skilled defender who was less prone to breaking down, and having them for longer.

Reda's halted two seasons now by crashing and burning, both times the managers have been coloured by what he can bring when fit. For Mowbray to replace like with like was a case of fool me once...

Where Mowbray *has* been unlucky is the injuries to Martin (a Pressley signing) and Willis (a player blooded by Pressley) - they're of a level where you can probably put them down to bad luck. Reda and Turner though? More a case of hoping that this is the season you land on red.

But from our point of view, why does it matter if he broke down if he was going back and it would have been his last game anyway? Its not like we had him on a season long loan and he was injured a month into it.

skybluegod · Apr 10, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
Nope, you can pick out Maguire, Petrasso, Dagnall, Seaborne from the Sixfields season, all of whom were decent loanees in some shape or form.

Beyond Armstrong and Murphy (and many would not have Murphy in the success category), I'd suggest the huge influx of loanees this season has handicapped us as much as loanees have a tendency to do so, that we've got a revolving cast where no bugger knows who they're passing to. Beyond Kent (a bit meh) and Stephens (not really played many games yet either) then we've hardly been blessed with quality loanees from Mowbray...

How can you say Stephens not played that many games when he played more than: Dagnall, Maguire and Petrasso for us?

Hobo · Apr 10, 2016

The club policy is to play really green inexperienced home grown talent, alongside promising young talent on loan, supplemented by has been experience from where ever on the cheap.

It's a bit like playing a fruit machine....most of the time it disappoints.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 10, 2016

skybluegod said:
How can you say Stephens not played that many games when he played more than: Dagnall, Maguire and Petrasso for us?

Because I'm pointing out that when it's unfair to dismiss some of Pressley's loan signings, then you have to dismiss most of Mowbray's too.

Mowbray's transfer record with us ain't great. Nor was Pressley's.

But surely the fact there are constants points to structural issus, rather than the figurehead.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 10, 2016

CCFC said:
But from our point of view, why does it matter if he broke down if he was going back and it would have been his last game anyway? Its not like we had him on a season long loan and he was injured a month into it.

It matters because he left a big hole in the defence.

If he was going back anyway, us having got him fit... then that still left a big hole in the defence!

skybluegod · Apr 10, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
Because I'm pointing out that when it's unfair to dismiss some of Pressley's loan signings, then you have to dismiss most of Mowbray's too.

Mowbray's transfer record with us ain't great. Nor was Pressley's.

But surely the fact there are constants points to structural issus, rather than the figurehead.

TM has a better success ratio than SP imo, by some distance. Don't take that as me disliking SP, because i actually do, think he has the potential to be a decent manager.
However would also point out, SP used part of his playing budget to sort out the structural side of the club?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Apr 10, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
It matters because he left a big hole in the defence.

If he was going back anyway, us having got him fit... then that still left a big hole in the defence!

So even if he hadn't got injured you would still consider his signing a failure? Which then sort of goes against what you've been arguing for the last hour.

I get what you're saying but he was always intended to be a short term solution, signing Turner wasn't the failure, it was actually a success to get a player of such quality. The failure/bad luck was not being able to replace him after he left and Martin got injured, followed by Cargill who could have been the man to fill the gap also picking up an injury.

Hobo · Apr 10, 2016

People overlook how Pressley improved once he took control of the transfers...Donnelly only went back to Swansea on day one because they sacked their manager and he thought he had a chance of first team football (source: Donnelly).

On here it was because he didn't like Pressleys training methods. Truth is he never trained with the city.

Was he a potential good signing: see Gillingham
Also see Samuel, Pennington and Stokes

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Apr 10, 2016

skybluegod said:
TM has a better success ratio than SP imo, by some distance. Don't take that as me disliking SP, because i actually do, think he has the potential to be a decent manager.
However would also point out, SP used part of his playing budget to sort out the structural side of the club?

Of course he does, NorthenWisdom is just talking nonsense I'm afraid. A normally rational, sensible poster but seems to have a soft spot for Pressley.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Apr 10, 2016

Hobo said:
People overlook how Pressley improved once he took control of the transfers...Donnelly only went back to Swansea on day one because they sacked their manager and he thought he had a chance of first team football (source: Donnelly).

On here it was because he didn't like Pressleys training methods. Truth is he never trained with the city.

Was he a potential good signing: see Gillingham
Also see Samuel, Pennington and Stokes

I think you have half a point here, I don't think Pressley ever had the control of signings taken away from him. But you are right, towards the end it did look like he was getting marginally better with his signings but too little, too late,

skybluegod · Apr 10, 2016

Hobo said:
People overlook how Pressley improved once he took control of the transfers...Donnelly only went back to Swansea on day one because they sacked their manager and he thought he had a chance of first team football (source: Donnelly).

On here it was because he didn't like Pressleys training methods. Truth is he never trained with the city.

Was he a potential good signing: see Gillingham
Also see Samuel, Pennington and Stokes

Stokes was a Hockaday signing as previously pointed out in the thread?
I may be wrong but wasn't Donnelly brought in, in January 2014? So it wan't towards the end of his time at the club?
Pennington signed in November 2014? From which time we signed: Madine, Turgott, Proschwitz and Odelusi?

Agree on Samuel though

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 10, 2016

CCFC said:
Of course he does, NorthenWisdom is just talking nonsense I'm afraid. A normally rational, sensible poster but seems to have a soft spot for Pressley.

Erm, not talking nonsense at all. It's just on this issue I disagree with you, so you decide because I disagree it must be nonsensical. The sure sign of a losing argument that, btw.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 10, 2016

skybluegod said:
From which time we signed: Madine, Turgott, Proschwitz and Odelusi?

Remembering that Mowbray wanted to keep Proschwitz on!

Then again, we always seem to have a need for a useless tub of lard to lumber around ineffectually up front.

skybluegod · Apr 10, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
Erm, not talking nonsense at all. It's just on this issue I disagree with you, so you decide because I disagree it must be nonsensical. The sure sign of a losing argument that, btw.

Not sure anybody is losing an argument, it's just discussing ones opinions is it not?

skybluegod · Apr 10, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
Remembering that Mowbray wanted to keep Proschwitz on!

Then again, we always seem to have a need for a useless tub of lard to lumber around ineffectually up front.

I rated Proshwitz tbf, i thought he looked a good player, but i know a lot didn't like him, and it seems like you didn't? haha

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 10, 2016

skybluegod said:
I rated Proshwitz tbf, i thought he looked a good player, but i know a lot didn't like him, and it seems like you didn't? haha

tbf, after a season of Fortune, I'm starting to recant!

skybluegod · Apr 10, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
tbf, after a season of Fortune, I'm starting to recant!

Now that is something everyone on the forum can agree on... 3 good performances from him all season.

Judgement of signings (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency