Bobby Duncan

[swaledale]

Wow...you must be approaching 3000 words now. You’re not Frank Lampard Snr or Uncle ‘arry in disguise are you?

You also seem to have developed the politicians’ strategy of deliberate misinterpretation to try and substantiate your argument and I really haven’t got the time to answer each and every point...it would mean writing as much as you and, frankly, life’s too short.

With that in mind I’ll just address your final four points, which I’m assuming is what you rest your case on.

1. Lampard was only a ‘marginal’ and questionable improvement on what went before. He finished in the same league position and with one less point than Rowett had twelve months earlier, but he took us to the final rather than the semi final. That, by anyone’s definition is a ‘marginal’ improvement.

2. How and at what point could the club start planning for life without the loanees? In the immediate aftermath of Wembley it wasn’t obvious that Lampard was going to leave and had he stayed it seems quite likely that Tomori at least, possibly Wilson too, would have returned. Who knows? His initially unforeseen but ultimately dragged out departure hardly helped out with the club’s ability to plan...that’s kind of the point.

3. See above. Yes it is possible that Lampard had to deal with a ‘difficult financial juggling act’ although that would presumably have been partially alleviated by the significant sale of Vydra. He may well have ‘done his best’ but he spent a lot of money and, as I’ve pointed out, his transfer purchases were not very impressive were they?

4. ‘Unfortunate’ and unhelpful? Hmmm...yet again I think that’s what I’ve been saying, albeit in rather fewer words than you.
Do I blame him for leaving to go to a bigger and ‘better’ club...no...it happens in all walks of life...but dress it up however you like, the way in which Lampard went left us in a mess, and that’s not ‘unsubstantiated assumption’...it’s just fact. The timing of his departure left us with huge wholes to fill and very little time to do it and the signings he actually made were, as I’ve already described, imo ‘mixed’ at best.

So basically your blaming Lampard based on your unverified assumptions, thats fine we are all entitled to a view, but it helps if there is evidence to back it up.

If the club hasn't got plans in place for transfers well before the end of the season, then frankly its a very badly run club! Irrespective of who the manager will be, or which loans might or might not return, the job of the scouting and player acquisition team is to have potential transfer targets identified early on - obviously things change as players not expected to leave get bids or whatever, though one would again hope there a variety of scenarios are planned for and the clubs management team have half an idea of who wants to go or who they would like to get rid of.

The idea that no targets were identified before Lampard decided to leave is naïve thinking - yes another manager might have different views, but he can only pick from the same pool of players plus whatever contacts he might have. For a club like Derby player acquisitions are governed by the potential fee, the likely wages and availability - Managers will have made it clear what players in what positions they need early on, thats why you have scouts!!

In Derby's case we lost 3 loans, we were always going to lose 3 loans, can't see given the existence of a plan that changes things one bit, other than in your assumption, which may be right but certainly isn't a verifiable fact!

I've already addressed the issue of incoming transfers, Lampard's were no worse or better than other manager's, again its likely that they were the players that could be bought that fitted what he wanted, on the other hand they could be what Mel or someone else had identified as targets before he came, who knows you or I certainly don't, so another assumption that they were Lampard's choice!

You bend over backwards to give Cocu the benefit of the doubt, but seem to do the opposite with Lampard. The only thing thats fact, is it was unfortunate and not a help that Derby changed managers again!

Mind you we have had the same manager this season as last, so on that basis we should be doing better?

[ramAnag]

So basically your blaming Lampard based on your unverified assumptions, thats fine we are all entitled to a view, but it helps if there is evidence to back it up.

If the club hasn't got plans in place for transfers well before the end of the season, then frankly its a very badly run club! Irrespective of who the manager will be, or which loans might or might not return, the job of the scouting and player acquisition team is to have potential transfer targets identified early on - obviously things change as players not expected to leave get bids or whatever, though one would again hope there a variety of scenarios are planned for and the clubs management team have half an idea of who wants to go or who they would like to get rid of.

The idea that no targets were identified before Lampard decided to leave is naïve thinking - yes another manager might have different views, but he can only pick from the same pool of players plus whatever contacts he might have. For a club like Derby player acquisitions are governed by the potential fee, the likely wages and availability - Managers will have made it clear what players in what positions they need early on, thats why you have scouts!!

In Derby's case we lost 3 loans, we were always going to lose 3 loans, can't see given the existence of a plan that changes things one bit, other than in your assumption, which may be right but certainly isn't a verifiable fact!

I've already addressed the issue of incoming transfers, Lampard's were no worse or better than other manager's, again its likely that they were the players that could be bought that fitted what he wanted, on the other hand they could be what Mel or someone else had identified as targets before he came, who knows you or I certainly don't, so another assumption that they were Lampard's choice!

You bend over backwards to give Cocu the benefit of the doubt, but seem to do the opposite with Lampard. The only thing thats fact, is it was unfortunate and not a help that Derby changed managers again!

Mind you we have had the same manager this season as last, so on that basis we should be doing better?

3500!!!

I’m not sure how the club could have had ‘plans in place for transfers well before the end of the season’ given that, by definition, we didn’t know which ‘division’ we’d be in or, as it transpired, who the manager would be.

Might be interesting to work out four or five criteria by which one judges effective management...something like, off the top of my head - League position...Quality of signings...Quality of loans...Rapport with fans...Man management...Legacy for the future - and judge the managers of the last ten years accordingly.

Fairly sure Lampard wouldn’t come top. Marking each out of 5 I’d give him 4, 2/3, 5, 4, 2, 1 which is 18.5/30 but I’m sure we’ll have to agree to differ..

Will we win tomorrow? Not sure...seems to all come down to Florida and Pennsylvania, but as someone’s already mentioned...if Bobby Duncan wasn’t already confused he surely must be now.

[mistaram]

3500!!!

I’m not sure how the club could have had ‘plans in place for transfers well before the end of the season’ given that, by definition, we didn’t know which ‘division’ we’d be in or, as it transpired, who the manager would be.

Might be interesting to work out four or five criteria by which one judges effective management...something like, off the top of my head - League position...Quality of signings...Quality of loans...Rapport with fans...Man management...Legacy for the future - and judge the managers of the last ten years accordingly.

Fairly sure Lampard wouldn’t come top. Marking each out of 5 I’d give him 4, 2/3, 5, 4, 2, 1 which is 18.5/30 but I’m sure we’ll have to agree to differ..

Will we win tomorrow? Not sure...seems to all come down to Florida and Pennsylvania, but as someone’s already mentioned...if Bobby Duncan wasn’t already confused he surely must be now.

RA using your criteria Cocu wouldn't even get 1 😀😀

[swaledale]

3500!!!

I’m not sure how the club could have had ‘plans in place for transfers well before the end of the season’ given that, by definition, we didn’t know which ‘division’ we’d be in or, as it transpired, who the manager would be.

Might be interesting to work out four or five criteria by which one judges effective management...something like, off the top of my head - League position...Quality of signings...Quality of loans...Rapport with fans...Man management...Legacy for the future - and judge the managers of the last ten years accordingly.

Fairly sure Lampard wouldn’t come top. Marking each out of 5 I’d give him 4, 2/3, 5, 4, 2, 1 which is 18.5/30 but I’m sure we’ll have to agree to differ..

Will we win tomorrow? Not sure...seems to all come down to Florida and Pennsylvania, but as someone’s already mentioned...if Bobby Duncan wasn’t already confused he surely must be now.

It might be interesting for you, but its all opinions which is fine, BUT a manager is judged purely and simply on performance, which when it boils down to it, in the championship is league position, on that basis being a losing play off finalist makes Lampard equally successful as McClaren!

The only other thing that fans would judge is the quality of the football, McClaren's being better. Beyond that its all subjective - man management, how the **** can you judge that? You know nothing about what goes on in a club, how can you tell whether its the manager or a players thats at fault.

Giving Lampard a 1 for that is ludicrous - at least he didn't have a drinkgate!


OMG, you can tell you've not had to run a private organisation! One prepares for various scenarios, what do you think happens? That after the play off final on 31 May or whenever, they start looking at players to bring in?

Of course they have identified possible players, who might be available, what positions the manager needs to fill, what the budget for transfers and wages is, a team involved in promotion to the death would clearly have a plan if promotion was achieved and another if it wasn't. Often those plans can be dependent upon whether say player x can be sold which would then free up wages and possibly bring in funds to enable players a and f to be bought. Of course a player may be bought by another club or ask for more wages than the club can afford, then attention gets switched to another target. Or a player becomes available that previously wasn't, so its got be flexible but any well run club has a very good idea as to who they want to bring in and who they want to move on well before the end of a season.

[Ram59]

Nice to see Duncan get a few minutes for the U23s on Monday, hopefully another one on the way to match fitness.


Well, I can keep trying, can't I?

[MadAmster]

Head, brick and wall '59

[ramAnag]

It might be interesting for you, but its all opinions which is fine, BUT a manager is judged purely and simply on performance, which when it boils down to it, in the championship is league position, on that basis being a losing play off finalist makes Lampard equally successful as McClaren!

The only other thing that fans would judge is the quality of the football, McClaren's being better. Beyond that its all subjective - man management, how the **** can you judge that? You know nothing about what goes on in a club, how can you tell whether its the manager or a players thats at fault.

Giving Lampard a 1 for that is ludicrous - at least he didn't have a drinkgate!


OMG, you can tell you've not had to run a private organisation! One prepares for various scenarios, what do you think happens? That after the play off final on 31 May or whenever, they start looking at players to bring in?

Of course they have identified possible players, who might be available, what positions the manager needs to fill, what the budget for transfers and wages is, a team involved in promotion to the death would clearly have a plan if promotion was achieved and another if it wasn't. Often those plans can be dependent upon whether say player x can be sold which would then free up wages and possibly bring in funds to enable players a and f to be bought. Of course a player may be bought by another club or ask for more wages than the club can afford, then attention gets switched to another target. Or a player becomes available that previously wasn't, so its got be flexible but any well run club has a very good idea as to who they want to bring in and who they want to move on well before the end of a season.

Do calm down, dear.

So...everything comes down to league position and that makes Lampard ‘equally as successful as McClaren’...and to think you called my view ‘simplistic’. Do you not think that such factors as starting position, available resources, and the quality of the opposition i.e. of the Championship in those relevant seasons might also be factors when measuring ‘success’?

How do I judge his man-management? In the same way as we all do on here, based on the limited knowledge we have to hand...and my limited knowledge suggests that his handling of, for example, Bradley Johnson after the Stoke incident, Marriott after the initial honeymoon period, and Alex Pearce when he must have known Tomori was leaving, wasn’t very good or beneficial for DCFC.
Perhaps I have jumped to conclusions but no more than you repeatedly do blaming Cocu for ‘drinkgate’ when actually it seems highly unlikely to me that the Joiners incident was something new to the club. More likely, imo, this wasn’t the first alcohol related incident - remember the publication of the bar bills after the Elland Road win - I’d never known that before.
Perhaps the only difference was that this time they got caught and there were consequences...and before you jump in and accuse me of blaming Lampard, I’m not...I wouldn’t know...but I’d be astonished if such behaviour coincided with the timing of Cocu’s appointment.

Of course people make plans and try to prepare for ‘different scenarios’ but you can’t expect players, or other clubs, to hang around saying, ‘oh wait a minute, let’s see who Derby might want once they know which ‘division’ they’ll be in or who the manager might be’. It’s a competition...dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, and Lampard’s prolonged departure didn’t help us at all in that area regardless of whether it was he or Chelsea who were more to blame...that’s one of the points I’ve been making.

Swale...we see things differently on this one. I believe Lampard let us down and you obviously hold him in high regard. Those opinions aren’t going to change so I’ll say nothing more. We’ve gone way off topic, others are understandably bored, so you have the last word if you wish but I won’t respond further.

[AdiSalisbury]

Nice to see Duncan get a few minutes for the U23s on Monday, hopefully another one on the way to match fitness.


Well, I can keep trying, can't I?

Any good?

[ramAnag]

Any good?

We’d better hope so!

[swaledale]

Do calm down, dear.

So...everything comes down to league position and that makes Lampard ‘equally as successful as McClaren’...and to think you called my view ‘simplistic’. Do you not think that such factors as starting position, available resources, and the quality of the opposition i.e. of the Championship in those relevant seasons might also be factors when measuring ‘success’?

How do I judge his man-management? In the same way as we all do on here, based on the limited knowledge we have to hand...and my limited knowledge suggests that his handling of, for example, Bradley Johnson after the Stoke incident, Marriott after the initial honeymoon period, and Alex Pearce when he must have known Tomori was leaving, wasn’t very good or beneficial for DCFC.
Perhaps I have jumped to conclusions but no more than you repeatedly do blaming Cocu for ‘drinkgate’ when actually it seems highly unlikely to me that the Joiners incident was something new to the club. More likely, imo, this wasn’t the first alcohol related incident - remember the publication of the bar bills after the Elland Road win - I’d never known that before.
Perhaps the only difference was that this time they got caught and there were consequences...and before you jump in and accuse me of blaming Lampard, I’m not...I wouldn’t know...but I’d be astonished if such behaviour coincided with the timing of Cocu’s appointment.

Of course people make plans and try to prepare for ‘different scenarios’ but you can’t expect players, or other clubs, to hang around saying, ‘oh wait a minute, let’s see who Derby might want once they know which ‘division’ they’ll be in or who the manager might be’. It’s a competition...dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, and Lampard’s prolonged departure didn’t help us at all in that area regardless of whether it was he or Chelsea who were more to blame...that’s one of the points I’ve been making.

Swale...we see things differently on this one. I believe Lampard let us down and you obviously hold him in high regard. Those opinions aren’t going to change so I’ll say nothing more. We’ve gone way off topic, others are understandably bored, so you have the last word if you wish but I won’t respond further.

I'm perfectly calm thanks, in fact I'm well chilled and amused by your desperate attempts to justify your assumptions and contradictory prejudice.

Because in the end the measurement of a manager is what the team achieves, the record books don't allude to any of those other so called measures you have made up in your own mind, I mean if thats what floats your boat, thats fine, but your average football fan and most observers of the game will measure a manager by what a team he has managed achieves on the field.

Some may slate Guardiola for winning trophies at Barcelona and Man City simply because he had the most money, but he is still luaded as a great manager for his achievements. Others might say Pochettino is a great manager, for taking Tottenham to a European cup final with less resources, but he hasn't actually won a trophy!

I do love the way you desperately try to factor in more elements to bolster your fading case, but go on enlighten me as to how you would calculate the relative quality of the opposition from season to season?

So what your saying is that you think there might have been a "drinking culture" at the club before Cocu arrived and he either failed to spot it or did nothing about it? As Cocu was in charge at the time it happened, responsibility rests with him, thats not an assumption, its a fact. If he had tried to tackle it and failed, then his man management skills are clearly lacking.

You do not know what was behind the decision to let Pearce go, so thats another assumption with no evidence and why must he have known Tomori was leaving when that decision was made? Didn't Chelski recall him for some reason? Again you weren't party to the decision making process and therefore have no idea of the reasons or whose decision it was.

You can analyse and make deductions based on media reports and rumours, how factual these reports are is anyone's guess, but an intelligent person would perhaps be somewhat sceptical, but in the end your making an assumption with little firm evidence to back it up. heres me thinking you were someone who based their views on evidence rather than personal prejudice, but clearly I was wrong on that score.


Ah so now you've changed from "I don't see how a club can make plans for transfers when they don't know which division they will be in or even who the manager is," to accepting that there would be plans but the delay may have prevented players being brought in. OK thats a fair point, we may have missed targets because of this, though again thats an assumption but a reasonable one, but wasn't the point you originally made.

finally, I don't think Lampard let us down and I don't see how you can believe that - if he hadn't have left then things may have been very different and If he'd won promotion with Derby in the next season, none of your assumptions would have been made.

Its not that I hold Lampard in such high regard, he was successful in getting Derby to a play off final, unfortunately he left. The point I'm making is that your feeling of being "let down" by him is purely on the basis that he left us, all the other criticism's of him stem from that event.

Your initial case was on a false premise, that he should either have stayed or he should have gone quickly. You've accepted that it wasn't unreasonable for him to leave have been offered the Chelsea job, you've also accepted that neither you nor I have any idea why it took longer than is usual for him to go, you have just chosen to blame that on him. I on the other hand am reluctant to apportion blame where there is no firm evidence to justify it. Its as simple as that.

As for other being bored, well **** them, its a forum its for debate, if a topic or thread is of no interest, just ignore and go to another, thats really simple to do! There are threads on here that bore me rigid, or are full of *******s, I don't comment because they bore me!