2022-23 Season

For whatever reason we are shocking when we try t get players the next rung up, the ones at ~10 million in price. Maybe we should set ourselves a max player price of 5 million unless we get them on a loan to buy until we have figured out how to spend money.

 

The loan-to-buy approach seems smart, and worked to some degree with Gibson & Giannoulis, and at least stopped us buying Kabak, Normann, Amadou at the kind of price we bought Rashica for. But I can also see the argument to some degree that the loan fees spent on those three players probably comes close to £8-10m, for which we didn't acquire a long term asset at all.

I agree with the <£5m idea, Sargent and Sara feel like our only real successes above that price bracket.

I think our recruitment generally tailed off when we didn't have a specific profile we were recruiting for. Farke's final season, Smith's summer recruitment both seemed aimed at signing players who could do a bit of everything and be flexibly applied in different tactics/scenarios. I think under Farke we spent more on players who we hoped would fit Farke's system (or whatever the new system was meant to be) but also offer something extra (physicality, speed, height, etc), whilst Smith preferred flexible players in general. Those more rounded players have tended to be more expensive.

Hopefully this summer we have a clear blueprint which fits our key players*, and can be augmented by finding players with specific skillsets that have maybe been under appreciated where they are, and we have a recruitment team who have some track record of savvy recruitment when givent hat kind of specific task. Find a DM who is positionally excellent and can tackle, and don't worry about whether he's tall, aerially dominant, quick, makes progressive passes, etc.


*If Omobamidele and Aarons are sold, who actually qualifies as a key player moving forwards? Sargent, Sara, Gunn?

 

Perhaps the answer is that you can't get the quality of player needed to establish yourself on "the next rung up", if you only have £10M to spend on them? Two summers ago we tried to sign Ajer from Celtic, offering £10M. Brentford were prepared to pay Celtic's higher asking price (reportedly £3M more) and Ajer ended up there. That was a recurrent pattern, repeated several times as that summer transfer window wore on.
The implication is that you either accept your limitations and don't attempt to climb further up the ladder, or you sign players who you think could well have it in them to make the grade while recognising the gamble involved. IMO every signing we made in the summer of 2021 (loans included) fits that latter description. Initially Webber tried to sign players in the first category, but when none could be persuaded to come, was forced to settle for players in the second. The truth is that our current financial model means that ambition goes hand in hand with elevated risk.

 

What concerns me most is that our recruitment has lost those 'moneyball' principles focused on players who are undervalued, but have real potential to develop in the way that Maddison, Buendia and Godfrey did. Instead, having sold those players for big money, we simply turned to more expensive players like Rashica, Sargent and Tzolis and expensive loans for players who didn't really fit our needs like Normann and Kabak. Only Sargent has been anything close to a successful recruitment.

Gibbs was probably the last successful young player recruitment without paying out excessively. Like Tzolis, Gibbs was 'one for the future', but he has broken through far more quickly, in spite of having to play in a number of different positions (DM, CM & AM). What's also surprising is that Gibbs is over a year younger than Tzolis and cost far less than even Buendia.

 

Mumba also has the potential to be one of those names after we signed him for around £300k, I am sure we could get 10 times.
Sargent was bought as a young player that had high level experience that could hopefully bring something to the team straight away and develop further through future seasons. Tzolis was bought in pure potential, yes at a much higher price, but he also was being followed by top premier league teams for a while. Rashica was the biggest failure, he was supposed to be PL ready and had been doing well in Bundesliga but failed to adapt to the PL.

The likes of Mumba and Gibbs are our moneyball signings, they just haven’t reached the heights fully yet. Flynn Clarke, Kenny Coker and Regan Riley were bought with similar plans in mind but haven’t made it to the first team yet, they don’t all work out perfectly unfortunately.

 

So the only definition of failure is selling someone for less than you buy them for. On that bases Holt was a failure.

How do you define adding zero value. What about if you bring in a loanee and that pushes the player you already have to perform better or they are brought in as cover and aren't needed because the player they are covering never gets injured. Maybe we signed a loanee when he was injured in anticipation of him recovering quickly knowing that if we waited to he was fully someone with more money than us would have got him. A gamble yes, one that if it works everyone thinks is genius, but if not an idiotic decision.

I'm also far from convinced you can judge the players, particularly the younger players on what happens in one season, particularly if they are playing in a team lacking confidence or not being effectively managed. I think most Villa fans would judge Buendia to be a failure on the bases of his first season with them.

Everyone seems to expect every player to be an instant success. I don't see it as a precise science that guarantee's you success, instant or otherwise, provide you do your homework. I think it's much more nuanced than that.

 

Yes Suffolk, Mumba is another, but at 21, he arrived a year before Gibbs and went out on loan which worked out very well, especially if Aarons leaves. He came from Sunderland when they were in League One, whereas Gibbs came from Ipswich down there as well, but breaking into the first team at 19 is a real feat, much like Aarons and Rowe. More of those please.

 

When you compare our squad & budget Luton & Coventry did better than us with less resources.

I can see young Carlton getting the goals that send them up .

He was the star of our youth cup winning side , of course it's easy to look back at mistakes & judge as a fan but Norwich aren't paying me to recruit that's Webber.

Not sure why you are coming across so stroppy because I hold an opinion .

 

The Athletic interview with Webber has some interesting points, but the man really can't help shoot himself in the foot sometimes. He spends so much time talking about growing the business in all areas, but then ****s on women's football from a great height. What can he possibly gain from doing that?

 

Nothing stroppy about my post, just an alternative view.

 

Yeah but they are both good first team prospect. I think we probably kept Gibbs as cover for the first few games after which we expected Hayden to come back in the side. If Hayden had remained fit then I find it unlikely we would have seen much of Gibbs at all. Mumba had a mainstay in front of him at RB on Aaron’s and Gianoulis and McCallum ahead of him for the LB spot. McCallum had already done his year on loan and impressed - he could possibly be another to throw in the mix now I think of it

 

the club interview

 

yes keep banging on about Morris, when a young player is coming through timing is everything. He was the wrong player at the wrong time, he's now doing well, great for him!

 

Many of the same people banging on about Morris are the ones slating Idah and not giving him a chance. Wierd one!

 

https://norwichcity.myfootballwrite...he-one-where-webber-emerged-from-the-shadows/

The Week That Was: The one where Webber emerged from the shadows

 

Most people that say Morris is having a terrific season at Luton are probably not giving Idah the same adulation, weird that .
At least we gave him a 5 year deal.

Since that memorable hat trick In the F.A cup against Preston in January 2020, most of us have been willing Idah to make that number 9 shirt his own by scoring goals .

Ireland clearly see promise in him too , he's taken the 9 shirt from Shane Long & starts every game if fit , despite not scoring in 23 games .

Nobody can say that Idah isn't being given a chance.

 

I think you can say that, DD. Ten minutes at the end of games doesn't help any player to develop. At that stage, the match has its rhythm and pace and it's generally a struggle to get into it. An 'impact player' like Onel, perhaps, because you can just give him the ball and hope he manages a bit of trickery, but players whose work depends on fitting into the whole (i.e. the vast majority of players) tend to find that the game passes them by for those ten or fifteen minutes. IMO, Idah needs either to go out on loan or to be given a run of games.

(I say this as someone who has strong doubts that Idah will ever make the grade.)

 

In actual fact, only one of Idah's last 10 appearances was for less than 24 minutes:


Those appearances are of a reasonable length for a number 3 striker, so Wagner obviously has some faith in him. I doubt that we can afford to send him out on loan unless we're going to prioritise bringing in another striker.

 

Pretty sure Idah started quite a few .
Since the World Cup Sargent didn't look like scoring either , neither did Pukki for that matter .
Hugill out scored all 3 since moving to Rotherham

 

I stand corrected, Rick. I should have looked at the stats and not just gone on my memory or general impression. However, I disagree that we can't afford to send him out on loan. He has hardly snatched the opportunities he has been given and if he stays, I think he'll never get the chance to show that he's up to the job (unless there is an injury crisis).

I get the feeling that Wagner always had one eye on next season and was testing out some of his players to see what they could do. Even Tzolis got a bit more than a few minutes at times, and IMO achieved more than Idah with far less time on the pitch (although I recognise this comment is contentious).