Please go now, Artell

[Furberstreet]

I have been a critic, but I am happy to give him credit for lifting us away from the spectre of relegation despite the various injuries and little cash available - Green was a good signing. I just hope that he can build on this season and avoid us having to think about relegation next season. I just hope the three players holding out decide to opt for at least another season.

Not sure who we should let go at the end of the season. I would be happy for Green to sign a one year deal. Not sure about Miller.

[AlexLeicester]

I remain sceptical. The team have been playing invigorating football, but we have still looked dire at times. The management team seem to have hit on a formula that encourages team spirit. Excellent.
We have (and I hope this doesn't bite me back) escaped relegation from the League, which I fear would have been catastrophic, but it was the management team that took us so close. Dave Artell spent far too many games screaming and swearing at the players, then turning on the 4th official, and realised - or maybe he was told - that he'd be better off in the stands for most of the game.
If, as I hope, this has been a season of education for him and his management team, then with a strong squad (and he gets to choose) we fight for at least a play-off spot all next season, then I'll happily swallow my negativity. Events off the pitch have not favoured Artell or Steve Davis, so that must be tough, but that is history. From August I want to see football that excites fans, brings points and includes passion tempered with responsibility.
We are stuck with Dave Artell, as we were with Steve Davis - so he will, as with all managers, get my support.

[MikeSB]

I remain sceptical. The team have been playing invigorating football, but we have still looked dire at times. The management team seem to have hit on a formula that encourages team spirit. Excellent.
We have (and I hope this doesn't bite me back) escaped relegation from the League, which I fear would have been catastrophic, but it was the management team that took us so close. Dave Artell spent far too many games screaming and swearing at the players, then turning on the 4th official, and realised - or maybe he was told - that he'd be better off in the stands for most of the game.
If, as I hope, this has been a season of education for him and his management team, then with a strong squad (and he gets to choose) we fight for at least a play-off spot all next season, then I'll happily swallow my negativity. Events off the pitch have not favoured Artell or Steve Davis, so that must be tough, but that is history. From August I want to see football that excites fans, brings points and includes passion tempered with responsibility.
We are stuck with Dave Artell, as we were with Steve Davis - so he will, as with all managers, get my support.

Good post that if I may say so..

Re the 3 players out of contract? I didn't know Kirk was one too?

I think it all depends on their agents first, parents second or equal and the club comes last only because signing contract extensions doesn't always mean a rise in their pay unless we break the guidelines we have and if agents have clubs lined up with a good size sign on fee, then we can say goodbye to them signing.... but how come we allowed players to get to this situation or have they just refused to sign them anyway even at the last season close? And if the going rate is around 300K in a tribunal that in some ways is not a bad return but falls far short of the millions required to keep a Cat 2 academy going. Put in perspective, if all three go, that doesn't cover even ONE year's finance required! That surely means a rethink which they should have thought about when the new rules came in...

Of course the benefits could come later in sell on clauses but not sure the tribunals can include or enforce that like they can when under contract?

[Timmy58]

[QUOTE=MikeSB;38856595]Good post that if I may say so..

Re the 3 players out of contract? I didn't know Kirk was one too?

I think it all depends on their agents first, parents second or equal and the club comes last only because signing contract extensions doesn't always mean a rise in their pay unless we break the guidelines we have and if agents have clubs lined up with a good size sign on fee, then we can say goodbye to them signing.... but how come we allowed players to get to this situation or have they just refused to sign them anyway even at the last season close? And if the going rate is around 300K in a tribunal that in some ways is not a bad return but falls far short of the millions required to keep a Cat 2 academy going. Put in perspective, if all three go, that doesn't cover even ONE year's finance required! That surely means a rethink which they should have thought about when the new rules came in...

Of course the benefits could come later in sell on clauses but not sure the tribunals can include or enforce that like they can when under contract

I am not sure if add ons can be built into the sale either. Artell has been manager for a little over a year so his (or the clubs) new policy of trying to tie players down on longer contracts has only really just begun. I am not expecting Ainley or Jones to be here next season. However, Kirk has a long way to go and there shouldn't be too much doubt that he will sign up again.
I think the old chestnut about "should we have an Academy" or "should it be down graded" can be put to bed once and for all because without the level of coaching (and I know Mike doesn't believe in coaching, but I suspect he is in a minority of one on that topic) that these players who have dug us out of the hole we were heading towards have been receiving over the last 10 years or so we might be in a spot more bother than we were.

[out0lunch]

I believe at youth level we have to offer more money than they were on with their last contract, otherwise they can leave for free.

I think there are possible 2 answers, either give them a 2 year contract and after 1 year ask them to sign another 2 year contract and it if they won't put them on the transfer list or a 3 year contract and after 2 years ask them to sign again or put on the transfer list.

It's all about agents influencing parents and youngsters saying they will get them more money (ie more for the agent and a quick percentage cut.) The agent is not bothered about their players future careers.
We are going to have the same problem with NG in a years time so he should be given a new contract this Summer.

Of course all this depends on the coffers

[MikeSB]

[QUOTE=Timmy58;38856715]

Good post that if I may say so..

Re the 3 players out of contract? I didn't know Kirk was one too?

I think it all depends on their agents first, parents second or equal and the club comes last only because signing contract extensions doesn't always mean a rise in their pay unless we break the guidelines we have and if agents have clubs lined up with a good size sign on fee, then we can say goodbye to them signing.... but how come we allowed players to get to this situation or have they just refused to sign them anyway even at the last season close? And if the going rate is around 300K in a tribunal that in some ways is not a bad return but falls far short of the millions required to keep a Cat 2 academy going. Put in perspective, if all three go, that doesn't cover even ONE year's finance required! That surely means a rethink which they should have thought about when the new rules came in...

Of course the benefits could come later in sell on clauses but not sure the tribunals can include or enforce that like they can when under contract

I am not sure if add ons can be built into the sale either. Artell has been manager for a little over a year so his (or the clubs) new policy of trying to tie players down on longer contracts has only really just begun. I am not expecting Ainley or Jones to be here next season. However, Kirk has a long way to go and there shouldn't be too much doubt that he will sign up again.
I think the old chestnut about "should we have an Academy" or "should it be down graded" can be put to bed once and for all because without the level of coaching (and I know Mike doesn't believe in coaching, but I suspect he is in a minority of one on that topic) that these players who have dug us out of the hole we were heading towards have been receiving over the last 10 years or so we might be in a spot more bother than we were.

Timmy. Its not that I'm against 'coaching' per se but the evidence can be twisted to suit opinions. In my day there was none and so how did we produce a world cup winning team? How did we produce a Frank Lord or thousands of others? It was because they had talent or natural ability. The PL have hundreds of youngsters in academies and the evidence so far is what was it less than 1% reach the required level? That is my evidence. Others will say that years of coaching will produce the goods and 'our' academy proves it...doesn't it? Well, you would need to check how many youngsters made the grade over the years vs the cost of the coaching and how many Dario brought in like Ashton, Jack and Brammer that brought us success? Platt was another and that was BEFORE the academy idea of 'coaching' kids from 5 years old.

I prefer to use the term 'development' of players that WILL take place irrespective of coaching because I know, I was a better player at 21 than I was at 18 and better than I was at 15 as I developed physically and played more competitive games with better players and that is all our players do and why most are not up to league standard until they get to those ages with games under their belt. How much did it cost the club in those early days and how many coaches did we employ compared with now? We have had the EPPP 5 years and we have struggled for the last few years irrespective and so doesn't that tell us something? I keep providing the same evidence over and over that most kids almost all kids will go to their local academy irrespective of how good they think they are. NONE of ours have gone to PL academies being that Cat1 is better than Cat2 etc. Some move on when they are 16 like one has just done with Chelsea. But most won't as working parents can't afford the time to take them 3 times a week to Liverpool or Manchester at peak times and how many have gone up the road to Stoke even? So my case is kids will go local no matter the level of the academy as indeed they do in the Conference too...Ours could be cat4 at it won't make any difference. All it is is having say one coach per 15 kids instead of one in ten or one in eight or even less...

Progress comes with games, not coaching! I don't mind being in a minority and against the flavour of the month. The evidence is with me and not the majority and no coach is going to vote for Christmas are they...We may get some decent talent coming through but over ten years that costs ten million and selling three in one season who are the cream isn't good business or sensible forward planning and why I still believe our academy will be downgraded sooner rarther than later. It also allows us to look at more non league players when that is difficult if we have so many of our own to look after...Needing loan players is another nail in academy structures and coaching philosophy.

Managers and tactics for winning matches has NOTHING to do with coaching kids and why ours need time and experience to win matches.

[AstonAlex]

I think you’ll find that coaching young footballers, or sportsmen of any other discipline come to that, is less flavour of the month than the result of what is generally called progress. So we won the World Cup (over 60 years ago let’s not forget) with allegedly uncoached players - I suspect the truth is we won it with less coached players than today but, nevertheless, players similarly coached to the rest of the world. Home advantage, a dodgy Kazakh linesman and a favourable draw may also have played a small part!

Football moves on. In the 50s England thought they were the best in the world, then along came Puskas and his mates and showed us how far from the truth that was. One could quote numerous other examples (I won’t bore you with them) but there is little doubt that football may, on the surface, be the same game, but in reality it has radically changed. When watching the documentary about Bobby Charlton on the occasion of his 80th birthday I was taken by his skill and shot, but gobsmacked at the amount of time he and the other players had. This was not down to ability but the fact that players were not as fit and did not have the level of stamina as today’s players. If Sir Bobby was playing today he would still be a great player, but only if he was fitter, faster and better coached.

[MikeSB]

I think you’ll find that coaching young footballers, or sportsmen of any other discipline come to that, is less flavour of the month than the result of what is generally called progress. So we won the World Cup (over 60 years ago let’s not forget) with allegedly uncoached players - I suspect the truth is we won it with less coached players than today but, nevertheless, players similarly coached to the rest of the world. Home advantage, a dodgy Kazakh linesman and a favourable draw may also have played a small part!

Football moves on. In the 50s England thought they were the best in the world, then along came Puskas and his mates and showed us how far from the truth that was. One could quote numerous other examples (I won’t bore you with them) but there is little doubt that football may, on the surface, be the same game, but in reality it has radically changed. When watching the documentary about Bobby Charlton on the occasion of his 80th birthday I was taken by his skill and shot, but gobsmacked at the amount of time he and the other players had. This was not down to ability but the fact that players were not as fit and did not have the level of stamina as today’s players. If Sir Bobby was playing today he would still be a great player, but only if he was fitter, faster and better coached.

Football has moved on but for the worse imo and I agree that fitness levels have improved as the football/caseball has as well as the training facilities and pitches and so to me it's even more remarkable that we saw great games at ALL levels back then. We held the best team in the country ie Spurs to a 2-2 draw in the FA cup in 1961 and beat Chelsea at Stamford bridge in the cup that despite the so called moving on argument. Nobody could head a ball like Frank Lord, in that time or anytime that I know and so the quality of the player like Charlton and Best has never been surpassed. I don't think there is ONE Crewe player in the past, I don't know, say 30 years that were much better quality than what I saw over many seasons that is. And having five forwards back then as opposed to one or two now is just senseless and backward looking and if that is progress, then you can keep it...I doubt any academy player could play on those quagmire pitches back then and so they must have had one hell of a stamina to be able to play 90 mins without subs by the way...and without gyms mostly. Is there any greater Boxer than Muhammad Ali?

I don't think you should underestimate our world cup victory and Greaves couldn't even get into the final team either.

I really loved the game back then and wouldn't go for free to a PL game and just to finish. We have some of the finest academies in the world in the UK and yet our world cup performances over the last 8 years have been dire. So I rest my case m'lord! Rooney would not have got in the top teams back then. They say the PL is the best in the world but rarely win the Champions final and so does that tell you what we need to know? ie natural ability and not coaching M'lord....

Oh BTW, Football was a much more physical game back then and another reason why academies would not have succeeded at all. Who knows how an 8 year old would develop over the next ten years and another reason why our academy players struggle in L1 and L2 to some extent.

[bigroof]

I think you’ll find that coaching young footballers, or sportsmen of any other discipline come to that, is less flavour of the month than the result of what is generally called progress. So we won the World Cup (over 60 years ago let’s not forget) with allegedly uncoached players - I suspect the truth is we won it with less coached players than today but, nevertheless, players similarly coached to the rest of the world. Home advantage, a dodgy Kazakh linesman and a favourable draw may also have played a small part!

Football moves on. In the 50s England thought they were the best in the world, then along came Puskas and his mates and showed us how far from the truth that was. One could quote numerous other examples (I won’t bore you with them) but there is little doubt that football may, on the surface, be the same game, but in reality it has radically changed. When watching the documentary about Bobby Charlton on the occasion of his 80th birthday I was taken by his skill and shot, but gobsmacked at the amount of time he and the other players had. This was not down to ability but the fact that players were not as fit and did not have the level of stamina as today’s players. If Sir Bobby was playing today he would still be a great player, but only if he was fitter, faster and better coached.

Agreed Aston, and good luck with the ensuing debate with Mike. Would just - pedantically perhaps! - point out that that linesman was Azerbaijani, not a Kazakh, and even has a stadium named after him in Baku.

[MikeSB]

I think you’ll find that coaching young footballers, or sportsmen of any other discipline come to that, is less flavour of the month than the result of what is generally called progress. So we won the World Cup (over 60 years ago let’s not forget) with allegedly uncoached players - I suspect the truth is we won it with less coached players than today but, nevertheless, players similarly coached to the rest of the world. Home advantage, a dodgy Kazakh linesman and a favourable draw may also have played a small part!

Football moves on. In the 50s England thought they were the best in the world, then along came Puskas and his mates and showed us how far from the truth that was. One could quote numerous other examples (I won’t bore you with them) but there is little doubt that football may, on the surface, be the same game, but in reality it has radically changed. When watching the documentary about Bobby Charlton on the occasion of his 80th birthday I was taken by his skill and shot, but gobsmacked at the amount of time he and the other players had. This was not down to ability but the fact that players were not as fit and did not have the level of stamina as today’s players. If Sir Bobby was playing today he would still be a great player, but only if he was fitter, faster and better coached.

Sir Bobby needed no coaching then or now. Instinct, awareness and natural ability and confidence is all he needed. That cannot ever be 'coached' and people that believe in all this stuff will believe in Fools Gold as well or *******!

In actual fact I don't think modern players have the same level of skill as they did and so in that sense, football has gone backwards. I saw Greaves and White and Blanchflower personally and Charlton and Best...so I can compare players of today. if we are so good an the game has moved on...How come we fail so miserably at throw ins and corners. Does it not make sense to have two or three players up at the half way line that means they have to too and that gives the GK more room to get the ball? It does seem as though football managers are not the brightest people around...

Dario hated players shooting from distance and wanted the ball walking into the net and one academy lad scored a goal from midfield by doing just that and got *******ed by Dario for not passing the ball earlier. The lad and his Dad thought that was stupid and he left the academy soon after...His Dad told me that story..Coaching means do as we tell you son or you don't get picked for the next game..we know that happens..That can destroy natural ability and confidence and why so many passes go astray...