Ellis Simms

[Shukes]

4 hours ago, Palfy said:

Could we take the Rondon bollocks out of the Simms thread please  

Where else would we talk about Rondon if not here?

[StevO]

15 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Where else would we talk about Rondon if not here?

The Gana thread?

[Palfy]

18 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Where else would we talk about Rondon if not here?

I thought you were meant to be the thread police I shouldn’t have to be doing your job

[Cornish Steve]

37 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

Well it was 3 years ago, and for whatever the Chinese League is he performed well there also. 
 

I agree he’s not been good enough but he’s still our best CF option at the moment 

Sorry to give you a hard time. You are right that he wasn't always as bad, but what matters is having a capable striker today, and he's not that.

[SpartyBlue]

5 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Sorry to give you a hard time. You are right that he wasn't always as bad, but what matters is having a capable striker today, and he's not that.

No worries. I enjoy a good discussion. We agree that he’s not it, even at his best. Serviceable 3rd striker is the best we can hope for.

[Btay]

8 hours ago, StevO said:

If we kept him until the end of the window we may not have got a good loan for him. Clubs always want the players in early, even us apparently, so they may have picked up an alternative. 

Perhaps but we may have picked up an extra point or something by having him here. Clearly Rondon isn’t an option to start at the moment so we didn’t really have any cover for DCL, that’s the only point I’m trying to make.

I think Lampard and Thewell have done pretty well on this window for the record but the striker situation could have been a bit better.

[StevO]

20 minutes ago, Btay said:

Perhaps but we may have picked up an extra point or something by having him here. Clearly Rondon isn’t an option to start at the moment so we didn’t really have any cover for DCL, that’s the only point I’m trying to make.

I think Lampard and Thewell have done pretty well on this window for the record but the striker situation could have been a bit better.

I don’t think they predicted DCL getting injured just before the season started though, if he got injured earlier in preseason they may have made different choices. They may even have expected a deal to be done that could have fallen through. We’ll probably never know the reasons behind it all.  

[Btay]

8 minutes ago, StevO said:

I don’t think they predicted DCL getting injured just before the season started though, if he got injured earlier in preseason they may have made different choices. They may even have expected a deal to be done that could have fallen through. We’ll probably never know the reasons behind it all.  

I would be very surprised though if they hadn’t had discussions or plans for if any of team player was injured and who would replace them. DCL’s injury definitely wasn’t expected but if at the time a decision was made that Gordon/Gray could cover as striker until Rondon was deemed fit enough to start or another striker was bought in then I think that’s shown to be a mistake so far. 

Similar to the left back spot - clearly they felt an injury to Mykolenko would leave us short so they got in Ruben as cover. 

Regardless what’s happened as happened. If these couple of games highlights further we need to get another quality striker and do so, I will be happy. I hope Simms keeps banging them in on loan so worst case scenario we can sell him for a decent fee if he is deemed not good enough here!

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, StevO said:

I don’t think they predicted DCL getting injured just before the season started though, if he got injured earlier in preseason they may have made different choices. They may even have expected a deal to be done that could have fallen through. We’ll probably never know the reasons behind it all.  

It sounds like you are saying they were counting their chickens before they hatched, as a manager you have to plan for all eventualities they clearly never did.  

[StevO]

25 minutes ago, Palfy said:

It sounds like you are saying they were counting their chickens before they hatched, as a manager you have to plan for all eventualities they clearly never did.  

No, I’m saying they would have been preparing for DCL to start with Rondon as back up (once his suspension for the Chelsea game was served) and that the plan would have been to have Simms out on loan this season regardless. 

It’s not possible to plan for all eventualities, decisions have to be made along the way as things happen, there are outside influences that have to be considered.
You can’t plan for all eventualities in any business, it’s not cost effective and isn’t realistic, why should football be any different?

It’s not as black and white as we need to keep Simms in the squad in case someone gets injured or a transfer falls through, because the prospect of getting him a good loan also has to be taken into account as he’s clearly not deemed good enough yet. They clearly did not want to risk wasting a year of his development by waiting further into the transfer window. 

[Palfy]

5 hours ago, StevO said:

No, I’m saying they would have been preparing for DCL to start with Rondon as back up (once his suspension for the Chelsea game was served) and that the plan would have been to have Simms out on loan this season regardless. 

It’s not possible to plan for all eventualities, decisions have to be made along the way as things happen, there are outside influences that have to be considered.
You can’t plan for all eventualities in any business, it’s not cost effective and isn’t realistic, why should football be any different?

It’s not as black and white as we need to keep Simms in the squad in case someone gets injured or a transfer falls through, because the prospect of getting him a good loan also has to be taken into account as he’s clearly not deemed good enough yet. They clearly did not want to risk wasting a year of his development by waiting further into the transfer window. 

But this was a basic error in judgment, whether they thought he was good enough or not they had what was required for the team set out in front of them, which was they needed 3 striker’s to start the season, they had just sold Richarlison which effectively left them with 2 DCL and Rondon, they new first game of the season Rondon was suspended so no cover for DCL, they also believed Rondon is not fit enough for a full game hence only around 30 minutes against Villa, they should know that they need to start the season with a minimum of 3 striker’s all of these points are black and white and laid out in front of them and quite easily to see. 
But what happened next is called mismanagement they gambled that the basic requirements of 3 striker’s wasn’t required, they gambled that no one would get injured even though they new Rondon wasn’t fit for purpose, they gambled that they would have further back up before the season kicked off, that was catalogue of errors that can’t even be called calculated risk they had no plan be to cover the fact DCL got injured to cover the fact they didn’t and still haven’t got in a replacement for Richarlison unless you are going to get even sillier and say McNeil is that replacement. Now they could and you could and a few more on here say they had a plan B which was Gordon, and if that was the case then you would have to weigh up have they got what it takes to be in charge and take this team further, so let’s give them and possibly not most on here the benefit of the the doubt that they weren’t blind enough to think that Gordon would make a good option if their gamble’s didn’t come off, the only logical thing was to keep Simms in the team to let him go out on loan at this moment in time was terrible decision at this moment in time, and as Lampard said himself management is all about timings and he got his timings wrong on this one, and it’s quite easy to see and realise why to many incalculable gamble’s that didn’t come off, and putting what he may genuinely believe was in the best interest of Simms a head of the best interests of the team.

[Shukes]

We actually have Chelsea some real problems without a striker, so it was no surprise that Frank started with the same front three. 
It didn’t work and now we have to change and adapt.

[Palfy]

6 minutes ago, Shukes said:

We actually have Chelsea some real problems without a striker, so it was no surprise that Frank started with the same front three. 
It didn’t work and now we have to change and adapt.

But we never looked like we would score against Chelsea it was obvious to most we needed a striker for both games, Simms would have been a far better option than Gordon in that respect, and possibly Rondon who hasn’t got the leg’s at his age to play a full 90 minutes. Let’s say we don’t get anyone over the line for the forest game who do you play as your central striker and why do you think that person would get the job done. 

[Shukes]

We did, we almost equalised Palfy. Most thought we were unlucky not to grab a point. The manager was pretty vocal about it as well. 
 

I don’t think we have anyone else other than Rondon to play as a central striker. 
But Rondon was suspended for the first match, he couldn’t have played.

Look mate. I’ve watched Simms quite a bit and it’s just my opinion that’s all, but he does t hold the ball up well, he doesn’t play as a focal point, and wouldn’t make much difference for me.

Not getting much involved with this thread though as I don’t think many people have watched him play, other than his goal highlights. So I’m not going to change my mind mate.

[Palfy]

21 minutes ago, Shukes said:

We did, we almost equalised Palfy. Most thought we were unlucky not to grab a point. The manager was pretty vocal about it as well. 
 

I don’t think we have anyone else other than Rondon to play as a central striker. 
But Rondon was suspended for the first match, he couldn’t have played.

Look mate. I’ve watched Simms quite a bit and it’s just my opinion that’s all, but he does t hold the ball up well, he doesn’t play as a focal point, and wouldn’t make much difference for me.

Not getting much involved with this thread though as I don’t think many people have watched him play, other than his goal highlights. So I’m not going to change my mind mate.

I’m not asking you to change your opinion or beliefs mate, I watched him play against QPR and in that game he was most definitely the focal point of the attack and acquitted himself really well, he’s not going to do Cruyff turns or Ronaldo spins but what he can do really well his muscle out his marker and make space for a shot at goal which are generally hit with pace and on target, his goal against QPR was top draw it wasn’t a one off or a fluke it was what he is capable of doing on a regular basis, all I’m saying is if we hadn’t allowed him to go before we had signed Richarlison replacement we would have had a far better option up front than Gordon and 25 minutes a game Rondon. 

[StevO]

1 hour ago, Palfy said:

But this was a basic error in judgment, whether they thought he was good enough or not they had what was required for the team set out in front of them, which was they needed 3 striker’s to start the season, they had just sold Richarlison which effectively left them with 2 DCL and Rondon, they new first game of the season Rondon was suspended so no cover for DCL, they also believed Rondon is not fit enough for a full game hence only around 30 minutes against Villa, they should know that they need to start the season with a minimum of 3 striker’s all of these points are black and white and laid out in front of them and quite easily to see. 
But what happened next is called mismanagement they gambled that the basic requirements of 3 striker’s wasn’t required, they gambled that no one would get injured even though they new Rondon wasn’t fit for purpose, they gambled that they would have further back up before the season kicked off, that was catalogue of errors that can’t even be called calculated risk they had no plan be to cover the fact DCL got injured to cover the fact they didn’t and still haven’t got in a replacement for Richarlison unless you are going to get even sillier and say McNeil is that replacement. Now they could and you could and a few more on here say they had a plan B which was Gordon, and if that was the case then you would have to weigh up have they got what it takes to be in charge and take this team further, so let’s give them and possibly not most on here the benefit of the the doubt that they weren’t blind enough to think that Gordon would make a good option if their gamble’s didn’t come off, the only logical thing was to keep Simms in the team to let him go out on loan at this moment in time was terrible decision at this moment in time, and as Lampard said himself management is all about timings and he got his timings wrong on this one, and it’s quite easy to see and realise why to many incalculable gamble’s that didn’t come off, and putting what he may genuinely believe was in the best interest of Simms a head of the best interests of the team.

Nope, I still disagree. 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, StevO said:

Nope, I still disagree. 

Of course you do Steve I wouldn’t expect anything different, I’m not posting to change your mind or opinion I’m putting a cross some imo very valid points that mistake’s have been made, but maybe this isn’t the place to discuss calculated risks in management, but because that’s what I pretty much deal with on a day to day basis I feel I can not overlook basic mistakes, but that’s what’s been ingrained in me for over 40 years of running my own businesses, trust me when you’re doing it for yourself it’s a lot different from working for someone else and not having responsibility for the whole business. 

[Cornish Steve]

7 hours ago, Palfy said:

But we never looked like we would score against Chelsea it was obvious to most we needed a striker for both games, Simms would have been a far better option than Gordon in that respect, and possibly Rondon who hasn’t got the leg’s at his age to play a full 90 minutes. Let’s say we don’t get anyone over the line for the forest game who do you play as your central striker and why do you think that person would get the job done. 

Manchester City didn't do too badly in a season when they played no recognized striker. 

[Matt]

3 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Manchester City didn't do too badly in a season when they played no recognized striker. 

There's a slight, really marginal, level of quality difference though...

[Romey 1878]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

There's a slight, really marginal, level of quality difference though...

Yeah, barely a knats knacker between Bernardo Silva, De Bruyne, Gundogan and Gray, McNeil and Gordon.

[Matt]

7 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

Yeah, barely a knats knackers between Bernardo Silva, De Bruyne, Gundogan and Gray, McNeil and Gordon.

Sunday league mate

[Cornish Steve]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

There's a slight, really marginal, level of quality difference though...

Oh ye of little faith. The point is that, while we may not be set up for it right now, there are other effective styles of play when goals may still be scored in abundance.

[Romey 1878]

2 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Oh ye of little faith. The point is that, while we may not be set up for it right now, there are other effective styles of play when goals may still be scored in abundance.

Our midfield does not have goals in it. It's a huge problem for us and is why DCL being out for so long has been catastrophic for us. 

[Palfy]

2 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Manchester City didn't do too badly in a season when they played no recognized striker. 

that beat’s me Steve you win mate. 

[Matt]

47 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Oh ye of little faith. The point is that, while we may not be set up for it right now, there are other effective styles of play when goals may still be scored in abundance.

Except our midfield have proven that they can't. We had a couple from Demari and Andros, but otherwise it was CB from set pieces, Richie or DCL. 

[StevO]

8 hours ago, Palfy said:

Of course you do Steve I wouldn’t expect anything different, I’m not posting to change your mind or opinion I’m putting a cross some imo very valid points that mistake’s have been made, but maybe this isn’t the place to discuss calculated risks in management, but because that’s what I pretty much deal with on a day to day basis I feel I can not overlook basic mistakes, but that’s what’s been ingrained in me for over 40 years of running my own businesses, trust me when you’re doing it for yourself it’s a lot different from working for someone else and not having responsibility for the whole business. 

I have been in that position, I am fully aware. Hence why I know it’s not possible to be prepared for all eventualities. As many as possible yes, within financial reason, but not all. Calculated risks have to be taken when faced with opportunities. 

[Matt]

1 minute ago, StevO said:

I have been in that position, I am fully aware. Hence why I know it’s not possible to be prepared for all eventualities. As many as possible yes, within financial reason, but not all. Calculated risks have to be taken when faced with opportunities. 

Mike is going to revoke your mod status for that second sentence. 

[MikeO]

41 minutes ago, Matt said:

Mike is going to revoke your mod status for that second sentence. 

[Romey 1878]

Comma chameleon.

[Cornish Steve]

2 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

Comma chameleon.

Comma, comma, comma, comma,
Comma chameleon.