Wilson's Approach

[Darren]

So are you saying we didn't have players on long Championship contracts that couldn't be changed ??? Quinn and Monty immediately spring to mind. The way Pompey are getting decent players in makes the system a joke at best.

I'm not saying anything. I'm suggesting a possibility. As you say, otherwise Portsmouth's situation makes no sense at all. Does anyone knows what the rules are?

 

[blade too long]

So are you saying we didn't have players on long Championship contracts that couldn't be changed ??? Quinn and Monty immediately spring to mind. The way Pompey are getting decent players in makes the system a joke at best.

again depends on the top and bottom lines of income v outlay
pompey can in theory pay 11 players a lot and 7/8 more squad players less have no paid youth team or academy and have a smaller total wage bill than us with say 24 squad , and a full academy
our under 21 team are not here on a charitable basis 20 25k a years is half a million

 

[Pinchy]

we were rumbling along nicely till we went up to the prem ,we were top 10 championship winning more than we lost , wage bill of 8 mill earning 9 -10 so paying for the odd improvement then we go up , bang,,, wage bill soars to 24.6 mill , unlucky , not brave enough , not spent just enough we go down , 34 million parachute payment over 3 years well 16 mill just covered first season in prem wages then we have to go back to 8-10 mill income with subsequent wages bills of 20 18 16 and 14 then 12 a total 38 million on top of the 14 million loss on wages in the prem meant we are 18 to 20 million down just over income so the parachute .
The outlay on players of 14 million in fees in the prem on top takes us to roughly the 34 mill we were at before this season
the 4 million we spent on beattie we lost 2 mill on and ched 2=3 mill is up the spout and some keep asking wheres the money gone, the 8 we got for the kyles , which we are getting in instalments is then 3, and theres loads more we lost money on
all in all the prem was the worst thing that happened to us, gave us a good kicking financially you need 2-3 years up there to make it start to work, but they now get nearly 50 million in parachute as the prem realises the financial mess it leaves any club in

the idiot on the radio saying we are being milked is so far off the mark its untrue
being in the prem is like someone handing you a rolex watch and smiling while they empty your bank account behind your back

Anyone who asks "where has the money gone?" need only reflect "where does my own money go?" and then multiply the conclusion to reflect running a relatively large loss-making business.

 

[Darren]

we were rumbling along nicely till we went up to the prem ,we were top 10 championship winning more than we lost , wage bill of 8 mill earning 9 -10 so paying for the odd improvement then we go up , bang,,, wage bill soars to 24.6 mill , unlucky , not brave enough , not spent just enough we go down , 34 million parachute payment over 3 years well 16 mill just covered first season in prem wages then we have to go back to 8-10 mill income with subsequent wages bills of 20 18 16 and 14 then 12 a total 38 million on top of the 14 million loss on wages in the prem meant we are 18 to 20 million down just over income so the parachute .
The outlay on players of 14 million in fees in the prem on top takes us to roughly the 34 mill we were at before this season
the 4 million we spent on beattie we lost 2 mill on and ched 2=3 mill is up the spout and some keep asking wheres the money gone, the 8 we got for the kyles , which we are getting in instalments is then 3, and theres loads more we lost money on
all in all the prem was the worst thing that happened to us, gave us a good kicking financially you need 2-3 years up there to make it start to work, but they now get nearly 50 million in parachute as the prem realises the financial mess it leaves any club in

the idiot on the radio saying we are being milked is so far off the mark its untrue
being in the prem is like someone handing you a rolex watch and smiling while they empty your bank account behind your back

Actually the wage bill didn't soar in the PL. There were some figures (can anyone find them?) that, as a % of turnover, we actually spent far less in the PL than we did the following season when McCabe gave tons of money to Robson in a case of closing the stable door after the horse had bolted.

 

[blader]

It's a matter of emphasis rather than disagreement, mate. Of course substitutes are a useful asset and should be used constructively. There are those, though, it seems to me, who get hugely carried away about the need for, and effect of, substitutions. It's as though substitution has some intrinsic merit of its own, regardless of circumstances. Why else would Danny be criticised for not making a substitution in games that we win? I certainly don't accept 'giving X a run' as a valid reason for a substitution. That, I'm afraid, is the stuff of the Sunday League.

P.S. I still ❤ you.

It's not about 'giving X a run', It's about changing your approach, adding some fresh legs, and giving the opposition something to think about. You must have played football before, it is very difficult at the start of a game to weigh up an opposition player, but over the course of the game, you familiarise with their style of play and can adjust accordingly. A substitution, therefore, means a defender has to start again with tired legs against (in Miller of Cofie's case) someone who will be much quicker.

Actually, yes Wilson does get criticised for not making subs whether we win lose or draw, and has been mentioned here every week it seems. He made one sub against Oldham, (Cresswell on for Cofie) and we concede in the last minute because we were tired and hanging on against a very poor side. Tuesday night another example, the one substitution signalled no attacking intent and changed the game in no way. Let's not forget they were a cock-hair away from scoring on several occasions on tuesday, just thinking more long-term subs can be used much more usefully.

 

[blade too long]

thats the official deloitte touche , prem accountants figure for our wage bill in 2006 24,6 million

percentages to income are unsafe as they add the total parachute which skews it badly, plus sundry incomes like kit and shop sales and prawn sandwich sales rocket when your in the prem they went as fast as they came

 

[Pinchy]

It's not about 'giving X a run', It's about changing your approach, adding some fresh legs, and giving the opposition something to think about. You must have played football before, it is very difficult at the start of a game to weigh up an opposition player, but over the course of the game, you familiarise with their style of play and can adjust accordingly. A substitution, therefore, means a defender has to start again with tired legs against (in Miller of Cofie's case) someone who will be much quicker.

Actually, yes Wilson does get criticised for not making subs whether we win lose or draw, and has been mentioned here every week it seems. He made one sub against Oldham, (Cresswell on for Cofie) and we concede in the last minute because we were tired and hanging on against a very poor side. Tuesday night another example, the one substitution signalled no attacking intent and changed the game in no way. Let's not forget they were a cock-hair away from scoring on several occasions on tuesday, just thinking more long-term subs can be used much more usefully.

What about the undoubted reality that the vast majority of substitutes have no positive impact whatsoever? For every game-changer there are a thousand passengers. I'm afraid your obsession, like Dr. Robert Oppenheimer's optimism, falls at the first hurdle.

 

[Balham]

It's a matter of emphasis rather than disagreement, mate. Of course substitutes are a useful asset and should be used constructively. There are those, though, it seems to me, who get hugely carried away about the need for, and effect of, substitutions. It's as though substitution has some intrinsic merit of its own, regardless of circumstances. Why else would Danny be criticised for not making a substitution in games that we win? I certainly don't accept 'giving X a run' as a valid reason for a substitution. That, I'm afraid, is the stuff of the Sunday League.

That I can agree on, with the caveat that there is a use in "giving X a run" when X is a young player with limited experience of first team football in front of large crowds.

PS I like the use of commas. A plumber trained in the legalese dialect of English. Who would have thought it?!

P.S. I still ❤ you.

The feeling is mutual. Where is the RAPFA sign up sheet?

 

[Sothall_Blade]

But then you hear that Swindon have an embargo placed on them because of signing players for fees that take them over their limit.

Except, Swindon have now had their transfer embargo lifted because "The owners have made additional equity funds available," chairman Sir William Patey told BBC Wiltshire:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20229134

As far as I can tell, nobody has actually left the club and the wage bill hasn't been reduced.
So apparently, all you need to do to avoid a transfer embargo is for the owner to make additional funds available!?
Are you listening Mr Mcabe?

 

[mpjacko]

I've had more than enough of this 'substitutions' bollocks. Substitutes are on the bench because they are not selected as part of the best XI on the day. Yet people are shouting for them to come on after ten minutes. If the same player had been selected from the outset there would be nothing like the same enthusiasm!

Across the world of football, thousands of substitutes are used each week. Their typical contribution is minimal to average. That's why it's headline news when a substitute scores but goes unmentioned when one drops a clanger or, much more often, does nothing remarkable whatsoever,

Personally I'm perfectly happy to finish a game with the same XI that started. If it was the best team at 3 O'Clock it's a fair assumption it's still the best team at quarter to five.

I think some of you read too many comics.

I would have to disagree with you. The point of substitutes is to replace a player(s) if he is injured or if the manager wants to try and change the outcome of the same. If you truly believe the players are in the same condition at 3 o'clock compared to 5 o'clock (and are the best team) you one very naive person. When you don't make any substitutes, it cries out that the team and manager has no plan B which is what is happening at United. Staying undefeated just wall papers the cracks in Wilson tactics.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I'm not saying anything. I'm suggesting a possibility. As you say, otherwise Portsmouth's situation makes no sense at all. Does anyone knows what the rules are?

As you alluded to in an earlier post, I believe there may be a season's grace in regard to FFP. I recall reading it somewhere but not 100% sure that is definatelty the case. It would appear so, given Portsmouth's ability to sign the likes of Buszaky!

If those are indeed the rules I dont agree with it. It should be imposed on all divisions in one go with a period of notice to allow all clubs to get their houses in order prior to it commencing. That's how I would go about it anyway but what would I know!

 

[KenMcnaughtsNuts]

golf forum is that way ---->

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

So apparently, all you need to do to avoid a transfer embargo is for the owner to make additional funds available!?

Something else to make a mockery of it then. Seems to me that FFP is just a load of hot air to satisfy the concerns surrounding football finance.

If it's that easy to get around the rules why bother making them in the first place?

 

[Pinchy]

I would have to disagree with you. The point of substitutes is to replace a player(s) if he is injured or if the manager wants to try and change the outcome of the same. If you truly believe the players are in the same condition at 3 o'clock compared to 5 o'clock (and are the best team) you one very naive person. When you don't make any substitutes, it cries out that the team and manager has no plan B which is what is happening at United. Staying undefeated just wall papers the cracks in Wilson tactics.

I have many faults but I doubt even my biggest critic would include naivety amongst them.

Naivety is thinking Tranmere will achieve a 20 point lead over The Blades

 

[Pinchy]

golf forum is that way ---->

Where? I'll have some of that! Hugely preferable to this footy nonsense.

 

[Darren]

As you alluded to in an earlier post, I believe there may be a season's grace in regard to FFP. I recall reading it somewhere but not 100% sure that is definatelty the case. It would appear so, given Portsmouth's ability to sign the likes of Buszaky!

If those are indeed the rules I dont agree with it. It should be imposed on all divisions in one go with a period of notice to allow all clubs to get their houses in order prior to it commencing. That's how I would go about it anyway but what would I know!

To be honest, I can see the point of it. If you were running a reasoanble ship in the 2nd tier with 2nd tier wages and 2nd tier crowds and then unxpectedly find yourself in the 3rd tier having to continue to pay those second tier contracts on 3rd tier crowds, I don't think its unreasonable to give you a season's grace. Thats more or less Coventry's situation this season and ours last season.

 

[metalblade]

The difference being some players can be on 3yr deals and Pompey are still in administration

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

To be honest, I can see the point of it. If you were running a reasoanble ship in the 2nd tier with 2nd tier wages and 2nd tier crowds and then unxpectedly find yourself in the 3rd tier having to continue to pay those second tier contracts on 3rd tier crowds, I don't think its unreasonable to give you a season's grace. Thats more or less Coventry's situation this season and ours last season.

I undertsand your argument but just doesnt sit right with me. It creates a financial gap between those coming down and those already in the division. In most cases (as with the PL parachute payments) teams will try to outspend everyone else in the first season to bounce back immediately.

 

[Maidenhead]

I would have to disagree with you. The point of substitutes is to replace a player(s) if he is injured or if the manager wants to try and change the outcome of the same. If you truly believe the players are in the same condition at 3 o'clock compared to 5 o'clock (and are the best team) you one very naive person. When you don't make any substitutes, it cries out that the team and manager has no plan B which is what is happening at United. Staying undefeated just wall papers the cracks in Wilson tactics.

Can I get some of that paper at B & Q?

I quite like it

 

[Bergen Blade]

I don't want to make this mine and your hobby horse Bergs, but what if the other options aren't good enough?

Remember that it's the loss of a few players that's made this shift in style. It thus only takes the gain of a few players to regain the style.

UTB

I just want it to be clear that Wilson has had choices within the current squad. A different manager may have done things very differently, maybe with less success, maybe with more.


Some managers have a preferred formation, playing style and definition of player roles within their team. They will make signings based on their ability to fulfill certain roles in the team.

Other managers like to assess the squad they inherit and add the highest quality players that they can get. They'll pick the eleven players that they think are their best, and then choose the formation, team composition and playing style that they think suit them best.


Let's say the England manager appreciates the pace and dribbling ability of Aaron Lennon on the right wing, but loses him to injury

He may decide to call Theo Walcott into the squad and even use him from the start, knowing that his attributes, similar to Lennon's, are what complements the rest of his first eleven, and vital for his playing style to work. If Walcott is also out he may even turn to the unproven Nathan Dyer to find a similar type.

Or he may perhaps look at who else was already in his squad and replace Lennon with James Milner, who he thinks is a better quality player than both Walcott and Dyer. Or Glen Johnson, who he also rates very highly, and who he knows will make the team more solid defensively, maybe needed against the tricky left winger of England's next opposition.


The options are there, and the manager's choice will be determined by his football philosophy.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

An important point to note is that Wilson made it very clear he didn't want to fill the vacant wide position with a rookie central midfielder (McAllister), rookie centre forward (Cofie/Miller) or a defensive-minded left back (Williams).

What he actually wanted to do was sign an experienced attacking wide player (Gallagher) for another couple of months, probably with a view to making him a permanent signing. He wasn't allowed to do that, so can hardly be blamed when he's having to try various different options to plug the gap. None of which are ideal or anything like his preferred first choice.

 

[alcoblade]

I just want it to be clear that Wilson has had choices within the current squad. A different manager may have done things very differently, maybe with less success, maybe with more.


Some managers have a preferred formation, playing style and definition of player roles within their team. They will make signings based on their ability to fulfill certain roles in the team.

Other managers like to assess the squad they inherit and add the highest quality players that they can get. They'll pick the eleven players that they think are their best, and then choose the formation, team composition and playing style that they think suit them best.


Let's say the England manager appreciates the pace and dribbling ability of Aaron Lennon on the right wing, but loses him to injury

He may decide to call Theo Walcott into the squad and even use him from the start, knowing that his attributes, similar to Lennon's, are what complements the rest of his first eleven, and vital for his playing style to work. If Walcott is also out he may even turn to the unproven Nathan Dyer to find a similar type.

Or he may perhaps look at who else was already in his squad and replace Lennon with James Milner, who he thinks is a better quality player than both Walcott and Dyer. Or Glen Johnson, who he also rates very highly, and who he knows will make the team more solid defensively, maybe needed against the tricky left winger of England's next opposition.


The options are there, and the manager's choice will be determined by his football philosophy.

And I suppose this is where the debate lies. You believe we'll only really know who's good enough based on first team opportunity. I don't think it's necessary to determine if players are up to it (yet?) or not. Either way we shouldn't be making big changes to the current way of doing things.

Whatever anyone thinks, Wilson'd say of doing things has us in an automatic spot. I think we'd all agree that nothing's in the bag though.

UTB

 

[Putney Blade]

His tactics, substitutions and team selections are conservative with a capital 'C'. I'm all for consistency but I think DW needs to be slightly more adventurous in his approach. Whilst he's the right man to get us out of this division and is doing a great job despite with his hands tied, I think one of the key contributing factors is the awful, awful standard of opposition in the league rather than any outstanding tactical nous or inspired signings on his part. Coventry and Pompey have come down and, unusually for relegated sides, have offered very little and the teams which have been promoted look reasonable but nothing more. The division is as poor as it has been for years.

My concern is that we're grinding out results now and not really giving the youngsters any game time, even in the cup competitions. If we do get promoted, I really can't see us investing significantly and so we have to hope that a couple more youngsters can emerge this season and make the step up next year. It's great Long has broken through, but I think this is more reflective of our complete lack of transfer clout rather than a commitment to pushing through the youngsters (we were even looking at Darren Ward!). Having endured the relegation season, I have serious doubts that Doyle and Collins are any where near the standard we'll need if we get up (despite our determination to offer them long-term contracts). Whitehouse, Kennedy, McFadzean etc need to be getting 5-10 minute substitute appearances right NOW in order to bring them on. These three are good prospects and should be making the bench, fitness permitting.

To reiterate, I'm 100% behind Wilson and this is as much an observation rather than a critique. But having recently watched a match between a couple of middling Championship sides, we really are light years away from that level.

UTB

His tactics, substitutions and team selections are conservative with a capital 'C'. I'm all for consistency but I think DW needs to be slightly more adventurous in his approach. Whilst he's the right man to get us out of this division and is doing a great job despite with his hands tied, I think one of the key contributing factors is the awful, awful standard of opposition in the league rather than any outstanding tactical nous or inspired signings on his part. Coventry and Pompey have come down and, unusually for relegated sides, have offered very little and the teams which have been promoted look reasonable but nothing more. The division is as poor as it has been for years.

My concern is that we're grinding out results now and not really giving the youngsters any game time, even in the cup competitions. If we do get promoted, I really can't see us investing significantly and so we have to hope that a couple more youngsters can emerge this season and make the step up next year. It's great Long has broken through, but I think this is more reflective of our complete lack of transfer clout rather than a commitment to pushing through the youngsters (we were even looking at Darren Ward!). Having endured the relegation season, I have serious doubts that Doyle and Collins are any where near the standard we'll need if we get up (despite our determination to offer them long-term contracts). Whitehouse, Kennedy, McFadzean etc need to be getting 5-10 minute substitute appearances right NOW in order to bring them on. These three are good prospects and should be making the bench, fitness permitting.

To reiterate, I'm 100% behind Wilson and this is as much an observation rather than a critique. But having recently watched a match between a couple of middling Championship sides, we really are light years away from that level.

UTB

 

[Putney Blade]

No cutting edge. Keeping the central defenders & midfielders from last season has helped our defensive qualities. Offensively we are very poor. This will come to bite us. Can't go through a season by relying on the defence. Worryingly DW appears to be in denial. Doesn't seem too concerned with our lack of creativity. Can't keep riding our luck by winning 1-0. There is no plan B for when we go one-nil down in a game or bounce back from a defeat.
DW has not addressed the loss of the creative players in the summer. Not replaced albeit cheaper ones, or loaned such players.

Hoping he is not in denial and will address the issue in January!

UTB

 

[Hodgyman]

Does anyone think that having a rookie keeper to protect as had an influence on team selection and structure? It has been noticeable that we are having players who can provide defensive cover as their main role, such as Williams, McCallister, Doyle and even Flyn has played deeper.

Now that George Long is gaining in confidence, could we afford to be a little more adventuous going forward?

I do agree that substitutions bringing on fresh legs earlier than has been the case would probably help the cause. Bothe Millar and Cofie would have more impact on tired legged opposition.

 

[Selly]

To be honest, I can see the point of it. If you were running a reasoanble ship in the 2nd tier with 2nd tier wages and 2nd tier crowds and then unxpectedly find yourself in the 3rd tier having to continue to pay those second tier contracts on 3rd tier crowds, I don't think its unreasonable to give you a season's grace. Thats more or less Coventry's situation this season and ours last season.

Or, you make it clear that you get no grace period, and thus force teams to ensure that all contracts contain relegation reduction clauses.

There are ways around this if the football authorities really want to find a way...

 

[blade too long]

No cutting edge. Keeping the central defenders & midfielders from last season has helped our defensive qualities. Offensively we are very poor. This will come to bite us. Can't go through a season by relying on the defence.

UTB

au contraire
there are numerous titles been won by mean defences in fact , without one its unlikely you'll win owt
2 points per game is the perfect prescription for promotion , win your homes and draw away
16 played 8 wins 8 draws, 2 points per game to make sure our cutting edge is just that bit better than our opponents on ny given day

no cutting edge ? we are outscoring the opponents we play , even if its 1-0 thats the idea
weve made a cut , they havent
another 23 1-0 wins wouldnt bother me a jot, as wed get 100 points scoring 42 goals
its about collecting points

 

[Selly]

au contraire
there are numerous titles been won by mean defences in fact , without one its unlikely you'll win owt
2 points per game is the perfect prescription for promotion , win your homes and draw away
16 played 8 wins 8 draws, 2 points per game to make sure our cutting edge is just that bit better than our opponents on ny given day

no cutting edge ? we are outscoring the opponents we play , even if its 1-0 thats the idea
weve made a cut , they havent
another 23 1-0 wins wouldnt bother me a jot, as wed get 100 points scoring 42 goals
its about collecting points

Spot on.

If you are winning games 2-1, 3-2 every week, you are in serious trouble if the goals dry up, as you are going to lose games, and heavily.

Whereas if you are winning games 1-0, you have a solid foundation (and yes you can start leaking goals but this is actually less likely than getting a series of games where you dont score). you dont need to score a lot, as you dont concede many...

 

[super_pig]

Spot on.

If you are winning games 2-1, 3-2 every week, you are in serious trouble if the goals dry up, as you are going to lose games, and heavily.

Whereas if you are winning games 1-0, you have a solid foundation (and yes you can start leaking goals but this is actually less likely than getting a series of games where you dont score). you dont need to score a lot, as you dont concede many...

alternatively.. if you are winning 3-2 it means you are making lots of chances.. if you win games 1-0 it means you don't venture out of your own half
as i mentioned a couple of weeks ago, this is blackwell esqe.. we aren't trying to win one nil. we are going for a 'nil nil and might nick it with a set piece'.. this approach only works if you are winning or top of the league or unbeaten or whatever. otherwise the fans will turn on you because they have no positives other wise

 

[Selly]

alternatively.. if you are winning 3-2 it means you are making lots of chances.. if you win games 1-0 it means you don't venture out of your own half
as i mentioned a couple of weeks ago, this is blackwell esqe.. we aren't trying to win one nil. we are going for a 'nil nil and might nick it with a set piece'.. this approach only works if you are winning or top of the league or unbeaten or whatever. otherwise the fans will turn on you because they have no positives other wise

I don`t buy that. The fans will turn on any team if they aren`t meeting their expectations in terms of results.