Trialists, Transfers & Speculation

[Phil LUFC]

We're clearly into "what if's" at this stage but Monk had a very similar squad all in, I think a lot of the increased wage spending we have now is on the youth levels but Monk had decent young players to call on too.

I'm sure Monk would rather have had 19/20 KP than the 16/17 version but I wouldn't have thought there's too much difference between this lot, in ability or wages:
Bartley, Pontus v White, Cooper
Ayling then v Ayling now
Pablo then v Pablo now
Berardi then v Berardi now
Green v Kiko (ok, we probably pay Kiko a lot more)
Bridcutt, O'Kane, KP, Grimes, Vieira v KP, Klich, Forshaw, Shackleton (current crop more experienced and likely higher paid all in).

Barrow, Pedraza, Dallas, Sacko, Roofe v Harrison, Costa, Alioski, Clarke, Dallas was wide options is much harder to judge, maybe Monk didn't use them well although the current crop aren't delivering many goals/assists right now. Current players probably more expensive.

Bamford earns more and cost more to bring in than Wood but I think that's systematic of how football finances haves changed in the last couple of years. Still bargains to be had (eg Pukki cost Norwich fuck all) but that's on Orta rather than Bielsa.

Taylor v Douglas, I'd rather have an interested Taylor (he wasn't most of that season) but Douglas must cost a lot more (and seems equally disinterested).

16-18 KP I would have happily swapped for virtually anyone. Under Bielsa he plays one poor game in 20.

As regards the midfield, I reckon a 3 of Klich, Forshaw and Shack would outplay a four of Bridcutt, O'Kane, KP (16/17) and Grimes.

In a similar fashion, any of the current wide players are a better option in my opinion the Barrow, Pedraza etc bunch and the improvement in Dallas since his increase in stamina and repositioning as full/wingback under Bielsa is another plus point.

More than anything, I take pleasure from Bielsa being our manager, which is not something I could say about Monk.

I think I might argue that Dallas of 16/17 and Harrison now might be more or less the same player - hard working rather than flashy wingers. Dallas came to us with a good season at Brentford immediately behind him and then underwhelmed - is that because he was actually shit or because the manager didn't get the best from him? He wasn't a young player, he was 25 and should have been in his prime.

[Bobbycollins]

We're clearly into "what if's" at this stage but Monk had a very similar squad all in, I think a lot of the increased wage spending we have now is on the youth levels but Monk had decent young players to call on too.

I'm sure Monk would rather have had 19/20 KP than the 16/17 version but I wouldn't have thought there's too much difference between this lot, in ability or wages:
Bartley, Pontus v White, Cooper
Ayling then v Ayling now
Pablo then v Pablo now
Berardi then v Berardi now
Green v Kiko (ok, we probably pay Kiko a lot more)
Bridcutt, O'Kane, KP, Grimes, Vieira v KP, Klich, Forshaw, Shackleton (current crop more experienced and likely higher paid all in).

Barrow, Pedraza, Dallas, Sacko, Roofe v Harrison, Costa, Alioski, Clarke, Dallas was wide options is much harder to judge, maybe Monk didn't use them well although the current crop aren't delivering many goals/assists right now. Current players probably more expensive.

Bamford earns more and cost more to bring in than Wood but I think that's systematic of how football finances haves changed in the last couple of years. Still bargains to be had (eg Pukki cost Norwich fuck all) but that's on Orta rather than Bielsa.

Taylor v Douglas, I'd rather have an interested Taylor (he wasn't most of that season) but Douglas must cost a lot more (and seems equally disinterested).

16-18 KP I would have happily swapped for virtually anyone. Under Bielsa he plays one poor game in 20.

As regards the midfield, I reckon a 3 of Klich, Forshaw and Shack would outplay a four of Bridcutt, O'Kane, KP (16/17) and Grimes.

In a similar fashion, any of the current wide players are a better option in my opinion the Barrow, Pedraza etc bunch and the improvement in Dallas since his increase in stamina and repositioning as full/wingback under Bielsa is another plus point.

More than anything, I take pleasure from Bielsa being our manager, which is not something I could say about Monk.

I think I might argue that Dallas of 16/17 and Harrison now might be more or less the same player - hard working rather than flashy wingers. Dallas came to us with a good season at Brentford immediately behind him and then underwhelmed - is that because he was actually shit or because the manager didn't get the best from him? He wasn't a young player, he was 25 and should have been in his prime.

Sorry Phil, I meant to say in my previous post that you'd produced an interesting comparison list and did well to remember Pedraza. On re-reading my post it read as though I was just shooting you down, which wasn't my intention.

[Phil LUFC]

I didn't particularly disagree with your comments, I'd take the current midfield too. That said, I didn't think any of Bielsa's preferred 3 were up to much under TC and Heckingbottom (by that I mean good enough for mid table and in need of at least 1 maybe 2 new quality options), I could easily imagine I'd still be underwhelmed if Monk was currently coaching them.

[Mr Reality]

It's almost as if you have to spend money to perform better in the league.

I think it depends where/how you spend it. Leicester when they won the title are a clear example of not spending loads to win it. Whereas the Scum have spent silly amounts and are getting worse. Spending is no guarantee but I agree it helps.

With Bielsa, he's an alleged coaching genius and yes he's done better than other managers. But any comparisons are unfair due to the uneven playing field.

I'm sure with just a little more investment managers like Monk, Grayson and Warnock would have achieved similar results

Of course it's not black and white.

All I know is this is easily the best team since Grayson was in charge and the city is behind it.

Comparisons to the previous managers require the caveat of having owners who are essentially scum running the club. But unlike the first others bielsa has a philosophy he believes in he doesn't spout buzz words to build his reputation unlike others in recent years.

[Yeboah]

It's almost as if you have to spend money to perform better in the league.

I think it depends where/how you spend it. Leicester when they won the title are a clear example of not spending loads to win it. Whereas the Scum have spent silly amounts and are getting worse. Spending is no guarantee but I agree it helps.

With Bielsa, he's an alleged coaching genius and yes he's done better than other managers. But any comparisons are unfair due to the uneven playing field.

I'm sure with just a little more investment managers like Monk, Grayson and Warnock would have achieved similar results

Of course it's not black and white.

All I know is this is easily the best team since Grayson was in charge and the city is behind it.

Comparisons to the previous managers require the caveat of having owners who are essentially scum running the club. But unlike the first others bielsa has a philosophy he believes in he doesn't spout buzz words to build his reputation unlike others in recent years.

Fair points....

I think you need to factor in the cost of Bielsa and his team as well.

I'd also argue that his belief in his philosophy and lack of pragmatism is as often a weakness as a strength.

[Oheddieeddie]

I've thought about this "lack of pragmatism" thing a lot

The question always returns to this: why wouldn't you continue to play your best players playing in their best formation, to their most efficient style when it's got you ahead? If you're the best team in this league as I believe we are (with Bielsa, were mid table fodder without him) why wouldn't you impose your strengths?

[Yeboah]

I've thought about this "lack of pragmatism" thing a lot

The question always returns to this: why wouldn't you continue to play your best players playing in their best formation, to their most efficient style when it's got you ahead? If you're the best team in this league as I believe we are (with Bielsa, were mid table fodder without him) why wouldn't you impose your strengths?

Because results, tables and the real world tell a different story

[Oheddieeddie]

No they don't, we have the best defensive record in the entirity of the English leagues,

[Yeboah]

No they don't, we have the best defensive record in the entirity of the English leagues,

The best defensive record in the league won't get us promoted.

[Professor Weeto]

In four of the last five Championship seasons the team with the best defensive record has finished in the top two.

EDIT: make that eight of the last 10 seasons.

[Yeboah]

In four of the last five Championship seasons the team with the best defensive record has finished in the top two.

EDIT: make that eight of the last 10 seasons.

Allied with significant goal scoring prowess I assume?

[Mr Reality]

I think it depends where/how you spend it. Leicester when they won the title are a clear example of not spending loads to win it. Whereas the Scum have spent silly amounts and are getting worse. Spending is no guarantee but I agree it helps.

With Bielsa, he's an alleged coaching genius and yes he's done better than other managers. But any comparisons are unfair due to the uneven playing field.

I'm sure with just a little more investment managers like Monk, Grayson and Warnock would have achieved similar results

Of course it's not black and white.

All I know is this is easily the best team since Grayson was in charge and the city is behind it.

Comparisons to the previous managers require the caveat of having owners who are essentially scum running the club. But unlike the first others bielsa has a philosophy he believes in he doesn't spout buzz words to build his reputation unlike others in recent years.

Fair points....

I think you need to factor in the cost of Bielsa and his team as well.

I'd also argue that his belief in his philosophy and lack of pragmatism is as often a weakness as a strength.

You get what you pay for. For all the financial problems the club has endured over the past 20 years the amount money which has been wasted due to a lack of direction and planning has been a joke.

As we have spoken about before. The revenue of the club has increased while he has been here and it could be argued he is a large factor in that happening.

Any way we won't agree on this.

So agree to disagree.

[MightyWhite]

No they don't, we have the best defensive record in the entirity of the English leagues,

The best defensive record in the league won't get us promoted.

“Offense sells tickets, Defence wins Championships” - Paul ‘Bear’ Bryant

Yes, a 10-20% uptick in attacking output is vital if we want to sweep the league but where we are is a very handy base to start from, and could win us promotion ‘as is’ with a bit of luck

[Andymac-47]

[Phil LUFC]

https://twitter.com/LUFC/status/1193123567069564929?s=2

Good news but feels a year too long to me.

[jackos]

Good news but feels a year too long to me.

Agree. 4.5 years sounds too long for a 29 year old, but I suppose it depends a bit how the deal is structured and what he's earning.

[Professor Weeto]

Good news but feels a year too long to me.

Agree. 4.5 years sounds too long for a 29 year old, but I suppose it depends a bit how the deal is structured and what he's earning.

Yeah, you'd hope he's only been given a modest increase on his previous wages, but with a large rise if we get promoted.

[AndyPaul]

In four of the last five Championship seasons the team with the best defensive record has finished in the top two.

EDIT: make that eight of the last 10 seasons.

So what your saying is we're nailed on for promotion

[Yeboah]

Well, he's not a Premiership player.... And when we don't go up this year he will be shown to be not good enough to get us up.

Plus Bielsa will have gone.

Why waste any money on him, just let him walk.

Another bizarre decision.

[Yeboah]

No they don't, we have the best defensive record in the entirity of the English leagues,

The best defensive record in the league won't get us promoted.

“Offense sells tickets, Defence wins Championships” - Paul ‘Bear’ Bryant

Yes, a 10-20% uptick in attacking output is vital if we want to sweep the league but where we are is a very handy base to start from, and could win us promotion ‘as is’ with a bit of luck

Wrong sport... Wrong era, didn't even coach professionals

What changes between now and May to get that 20% uplift?