Current Player Kyle Edwards

[Chippy]

Plus whatever people think -what reputation there is of looking after players has to be worth something

The problem is I’d rather we had a reputation for what we achieve on the pitch and players wanting to sign for that reason and working hard in training with a hunger and desire to be in the starting 11, rather than signing for us because we have a reputation of being a soft touch and top notch at looking after injury prone players and being close to several hospitals near by.

Moving forward we’ve simply got to stop this risk taking, no matter how cheap the terms are. Our cheap options and expensive ones just simply don’t pay off. Browne, Edwards, re-signing Gorrin, Matete, and even Goodwin so far, just prove that players with a repeated history of problems are not worth chancing. Some of these may have been cheap, others certainly aren’t.

Of course all players can pick up long term problems at any time, but those with a past history of it, repeated time out, constant niggles and strains etc… just need to be avoided, they are passengers for far too much of the time, and rarely can play at 100% on the pitch even when supposedly fit.

 

[tatabanya]

Amazing how we run at a £6 million a year loss with the club telling a few people that our players are not on as much as believed, should be making a profit.

I wasn't aware anyone thought he was on 'much'

 

[Sheik djibouti]

So what's the ideal strategy to recruit for a successful League 1 team?

Has anyone done an in depth analysis of promotion winning squads over the last few years and the ratio of Lg 1 journeymen to high quality , but possibly injury prone gambles?

How many injury problems does the average promotion winning team have in a season?

I wonder how the likes of Derby and Portsmouth, Ipswich and Plymouth squads have stacked up in the last couple of seasons in terms of injury gambles, and what have their overall wage bills and squad sizes been by comparison?

I can see why there's a desire to play it safe and go for proven league 1 performers, but equally, I can see why you might take a gamble on someone who might have a bit of an injury history (or at least a recent injury layoff), but could provide the x factor for just enough of the season to make a real impact on the overall outcome.

Robinson was the extreme end of that kind of philosophy and not only thought he could resurrect the careers of the injury prone, but also turn players with attitude into effective assets in a promotion winning squad. We're still reaping those "rewards" now.

That said, every one in a while it does come good.

12 months ago, Josh Murphy was an injury prone persona non grata with bad attitude according to some. Waste of a wage, hamstrings of glass etc, etc.

Fast forward to now and he has almost single-handedly kept us in the playoff race with his consistent contributions over the last couple of months. We're now talking about when he will be offered a new contract, not if.

Gambles can and do pay off. It looks like a masterstroke when they do and a stupid waste of money when they don't and I would argue that to some extent it is all part and parcel for a club with ambitions for promotion.

 

[foghorn]

Dave Langan.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Yes, gambles can come off. The problem comes when you have a whole raft of them in one team - not only players with a history of recurring injuries, but also first time loanees.

To take a specific - I would say Murphy is potentially a gamble if we sign him for next season - he has shown that he can be unavailable for selection for extended periods. A gamble worth taking, based on his current form? Probably. But then you have to *assume* he will not be available all the time. If the others in similar positions include Edwards and Browne and a young loanee, then you are in serious danger of having very few fit wide players - and if they are crucial to the style you want the team to play (and we are told they are) then you have absolutely hamstrung yourself.

I'd say the gambles have to be sparing and not all in one position on the pitch! You have to cater for the fact that they won't play every (or in some cases, many!) matches.

 

[Victor1986]

Good luck to Kyle Edwards for the future - but that must not be with OUFC.

 

[captainox]

Yes I would ,he is still costing a small monthly salary .The club isn't a holiday camp for sick players to rehabilitate.
I would be running an internal review of the sports science medical department .With the injuries we have seen and signing players that are nowhere near match fit something isn't right .

Already done and resulted in Harry Routledge leaving prior to Christmas and Luke Taylor being appointed as replacement at the back end of February.

 

[Up The Manor]

Seriously, why would you even bother to type that?

It's called an opinion, that's what a forum is for .

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Yes, gambles can come off. The problem comes when you have a whole raft of them in one team - not only players with a history of recurring injuries, but also first time loanees.

To take a specific - I would say Murphy is potentially a gamble if we sign him for next season - he has shown that he can be unavailable for selection for extended periods. A gamble worth taking, based on his current form? Probably. But then you have to *assume* he will not be available all the time. If the others in similar positions include Edwards and Browne and a young loanee, then you are in serious danger of having very few fit wide players - and if they are crucial to the style you want the team to play (and we are told they are) then you have absolutely hamstrung yourself.

I'd say the gambles have to be sparing and not all in one position on the pitch! You have to cater for the fact that they won't play every (or in some cases, many!) matches.

We're still paying the price of Robinsons extreme approach to this. His "strategy" was all over the shop and it often felt like he was simply a kid in a sweetshop - he saw something he liked and there was nobody at the club with the authority to stand up to him or reason with him. We are also led to believe that latterly, he simply bypassed the recruitment team and ignored advice of this around him, resulting in several leaving the club.

And this is precisely why many thought it would take at least 3 windows to redress that balance. I am pretty sure this was what Manning had in mind (lest we forget that he recruited Edwards in the first place and would've known he was a gamble)... but we all know what happened there. Not only that, but it wasn't just as simple as back to square one for Buckingham, it almost felt like minus one.

Squad recruitment this summer is going to be very interesting indeed.

 

[OUFC OX3]

What a waste of money. It could have been better spent elsewhere. Someone that can actually play on the pitch.

We never learn!

And whom is 'lazy' too and got issues with 'attitude' ?

Sort of the same type, making the same suggestive comments here. Interesting... Yawn....

 

[bazzer9461]

We're still paying the price of Robinsons extreme approach to this. His "strategy" was all over the shop and it often felt like he was simply a kid in a sweetshop - he saw something he liked and there was nobody at the club with the authority to stand up to him or reason with him. We are also led to believe that latterly, he simply bypassed the recruitment team and ignored advice of this around him, resulting in several leaving the club.

And this is precisely why many thought it would take at least 3 windows to redress that balance. I am pretty sure this was what Manning had in mind (lest we forget that he recruited Edwards in the first place and would've known he was a gamble)... but we all know what happened there. Not only that, but it wasn't just as simple as back to square one for Buckingham, it almost felt like minus one.

Squad recruitment this summer is going to be very interesting indeed.

And if Buckingham survives and gets the transfer window and doesn’t survive after that, then what? Start All over again

 

[SirAndyOfCrosby]

So what's the ideal strategy to recruit for a successful League 1 team?

Quality, consistent performers from smaller clubs at this level (or below), topped up with loan signings from higher up the chain that have, wherever possible, already shown the relevant qualities on loan elsewhere.

As an example of the former, back in December I suggested Sorenson at (a then struggling) Lincoln as a sensible January recruit (out of contract this Summer). Unfortunately, his stock will have risen considerably. On the latter, obviously Joe Taylor was suggested too - how Lincoln got the jump on us or any other promotion challenger remains a mystery!

We need to be ahead of the curve on all of it.

So who are the best players, ideally aged 25/26 and under, who've played 30+ games this season, at Stevenage, at Northampton, at Orient, at Exeter?

Which PL kids have had their first loans and excelled in L2/L1 this season?

We have the considerable benefit of a top end budget at this level. As seen by signing the likes of Rodrigues, we can attract the sought-after candidates. For me, it's all about not trying to be too clever.

We don't need to revitalise a career, or be a loanee's first foray into mens football. Yes, these can pay off - but they won't provide the spine of a successful side. That will come from the above (as evidenced by both Plymouth - Houghton, Butcher, Edwards, Mayor, Scarr, Azaz, Mumba, and by Portsmouth - Bishop, Raggett, Shaugnessy, Lane, Sparkes, Moxon).

 

[Oufcrealist]

The problem is I’d rather we had a reputation for what we achieve on the pitch and players wanting to sign for that reason and working hard in training with a hunger and desire to be in the starting 11, rather than signing for us because we have a reputation of being a soft touch and top notch at looking after injury prone players and being close to several hospitals near by.

Moving forward we’ve simply got to stop this risk taking, no matter how cheap the terms are. Our cheap options and expensive ones just simply don’t pay off. Browne, Edwards, re-signing Gorrin, Matete, and even Goodwin so far, just prove that players with a repeated history of problems are not worth chancing. Some of these may have been cheap, others certainly aren’t.

Of course all players can pick up long term problems at any time, but those with a past history of it, repeated time out, constant niggles and strains etc… just need to be avoided, they are passengers for far too much of the time, and rarely can play at 100% on the pitch even when supposedly fit.

I would still add Murphy to the 'gamble' list. For a season and a half he was a 'gamble' that hadn't paid off for various reasons, some will likely remain unknown.
Fast forward to now and what a player we have and I love watching him. But could he have given us this level of performance sooner?
Believe me, I'm not trying to be cynical but he's out of contract soon and he presumably wants a new one whether it's here or somewhere else. I hope it's here but with clauses that suits the club going forward.
And on Edwards, not for me just too much of a gamble.

 

[forevayella]

I would still add Murphy to the 'gamble' list. For a season and a half he was a 'gamble' that hadn't paid off for various reasons, some will likely remain unknown.
Fast forward to now and what a player we have and I love watching him. But could he have given us this level of performance sooner?
Believe me, I'm not trying to be cynical but he's out of contract soon and he presumably wants a new one whether it's here or somewhere else. I hope it's here but with clauses that suits the club going forward.
And on Edwards, not for me just too much of a gamble.

Do you think the making of Murphy is him becoming a Dad and realising there’s more to life than worrying about football?

I’ve heard that when Manning was in charge he was in his office most days such was his fragile mental state.