Are our Scouts really to blame?

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

A lot of posters complain about our scouts and who they've brought to the club. Granted there have been some horrendous choices (Carillo!), but does the fault lie with them especially in recent times?

You see Charlie Alcaraz playing a blinder for Everton, Brooks a regular starter for Bournemouth. Yesterday Joe Rothwell played a big part in Leeds' comeback. Charles is Sheff Wed's best player. And then there's the players here like Sulemana who perhaps aren't as bad as we thought after all. Personally, I still think Archer will make a mark one day. So maybe it's more we aren't playing to the players' strengths than recruiting players who aren't capable.

[S-Clarke]

The recruitment certainly has to take it's fair share of blame in terms of where we are, this is not just a 2 year thing either - we've been signing crap for many years now.

Of course there will be the odd exception here and there, Fernandes, Tino, Lavia etc and you'll find certain players thrive better at other clubs. 

I'm still not entirely sure what the club saw in the likes of AMN, Diallo, Moussa, Hoedt, Armstrong, Ely, Aribo, Perraud, Stewart, Larios, Bazunu etc to suggest they'd be any good physically at the top level. That has been the big let down with our worst signings in my opinion and there have been a lot of them.

I'd also add that our confused philosophy will screw things, we're buying players suited to one approach and then changing tact and playing a different way with players who aren't physically capable. The club need to decide on an approach and recruit for that approach, we can't keep chopping and changing like we have as we'll end up with a squad full of dribs and drabs and no real consistent theme (as we see today).

[Saint Fan CaM]

3 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

The recruitment certainly has to take it's fair share of blame in terms of where we are, this is not just a 2 year thing either - we've been signing crap for many years now.

Of course there will be the odd exception here and there, Fernandes, Tino, Lavia etc and you'll find certain players thrive better at other clubs. 

I'm still not entirely sure what the club saw in the likes of AMN, Diallo, Moussa, Hoedt, Armstrong, Ely, Aribo, Perraud, Stewart, Larios, Bazunu etc to suggest they'd be any good physically at the top level. That has been the big let down with our worst signings in my opinion and there have been a lot of them.

I'd also add that our confused philosophy will screw things, we're buying players suited to one approach and then changing tact and playing a different way with players who aren't physically capable. The club need to decide on an approach and recruit for that approach, we can't keep chopping and changing like we have as we'll end up with a squad full of dribs and drabs and no real consistent theme (as we see today).

Absolutely spot on, plus it’s about the players we’ve not signed in a timely manner…e.g. a Romeu replacement, a decent quality striker….etc

[ally_uk]

Yes signing players such as Ross Stewart ans Larios...... 

Whole setup needs overhauling

[Saint Mikey]

There's no doubt that our whole recruitment process, whether that's scouting, or offering players the right money to sign - has not been fit for purpose for a (predominantly) PL club.

However, you make a good point that our development of said players has also been poor. Whether that's down to the manager's style and keep swapping as alluded above, or it's just poor coaching I don't know.

As an example, we signed a number of players that you thought 'ok, bit raw but there may be a player there in time'. Sulemana is one now, but Djenepo showed some initial promise. These players seem to go backwards, Djenepo was a worse player when he left than when he arrived!

If you look at Brighton and similar players who look a little rough around the edges, Bissouma, Baliba being two that jump out - they actually manage to progress them. 

As we'll always be in the business of mostly buying players that aren't out and out PL quality to begin with, we also have to get better at developing the players we do bring in. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 16:52 by Saint Mikey

[S-Clarke]

Just now, Saint Fan CaM said:

Absolutely spot on, plus it’s about the players we’ve not signed in a timely manner…e.g. a Romeu replacement, a decent quality striker….etc

We haven't even had the ability to sort succession planning for our better players because we keep chopping and changing our managers and then in turn - our style. We totally under appreciated Romeu's role as a club and blindly went into that season with a gaping hole which he used to occupy. 

Clubs will have peaks and troughs when it comes to recruitment success, but to still be as bad over 8 years is pretty scathing and that alone should be a reason to scrap whatever department we have and start again - but it's imperative that the strategy aligns with clarity from the top down, otherwise it will just continue to be a disjointed mess.

[Doctoroncall]

The trouble is for a club of our size, getting recruitment wrong too frequently has a major impact on the club. 
 

A real mixed bag of players recruited, too many brought in along with too many managers with their own list of ‘ideal’ players certainly have contributed to the club’s decline. 
 

The scouting process has not changed much, only that there is the addition of plenty of data on various ability scores. One aspect I’d like to know is if someone can get to know a player - know how they tick - as that seems to be something the club don’t do as mental fortitude is missing in most of the players. 

[die Mannyschaft]

Half the responsibility  is down to scoutes. I can't belive players we have signed have said they came to Saints as they like the style of play the manager wants. If that's the case then you can't put the other half if blame on manager tactics. Do scoutes really look for forwards who don't want to shoot and prefer back to the goal and pass to side or keeper. A lot of our deals look like some financial cooking of the books or mates recommended 

[spyinthesky]

I always remember speaking to an ex Manager who said that if the recruitment of new player was at least 70% successful, as a Manager you had a very good chance of making a decent team, as seems to be the case with the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth and Forest atm.
Below that figure there were likely to be problems.
Of course Saints arent the only team with recruitment problems but the club doesnt have deep pockets so the minimum 70% success rate in the transfer market is particularly important.
I understand that when Ted Bates was Manager he personally watched players when they played at home and away to make sure they were consistent in their performances.
Nowadays that really isnt possible as so many players play matches outside this country.

[Teamsaint1]

Mediocre players can play a big part in a decent team. Mediocre teams can compete with more talented squads, even if they lose more often than not.

Recruitment has been flawed , and most especially the search for decent strikers, but what has happened this season is that we have failed to do, far too often, the things that mediocre ( or poor) squads need to do. Keep as solid as possible. Stay in games as long as possible ( last match being a classic example), put in absolute maximum effort, give the players their best chance of performing well in their best positions, and learning quickly from bad days and mistakes.

The players should accept some responsibility, but management is where the buck stops . Martin got too much wrong,( should have gone after bompey away,  ) and Juric hasn’t t really improved things. And as for the board, one can only hope that the new DoF is a big step forward, because that is what we need, with a really tough Championship campaign ahead. The  word “Luton” should on the boardroom walls in very big letters. 

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

1 hour ago, S-Clarke said:

I'm still not entirely sure what the club saw in the likes of AMN, Diallo, Moussa, Hoedt, Armstrong, Ely, Aribo, Perraud, Stewart, Larios, Bazunu

Now you mention it, the list of players recruited that have been way off the mark is a lot greater than those that could have turned out to be good for us.

It's also noticeable how we've recruited for a particular style (ie Tall Paul) then dropped that style and recruited a different manager.

[saintant]

A good scout is worth his weight in gold and here I'm talking about the ability to spot ability plus potential to improve. It's clearly not just about ability as they need to be considering core strength, power, speed and stamina. I believe decent scouts have the ability and instinct to unearth hidden gems but there are too many earning a living without having the necessary qualities as we have often found to our cost. It is no surprise that our recruitment has been so poor for a long time compared with others and a lot of that is down to poor scouting. I guess good scouts are as hard to identify as good players so maybe there's no hope for us 🙂

[StrangelyBrown]

2 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

The recruitment certainly has to take it's fair share of blame in terms of where we are, this is not just a 2 year thing either - we've been signing crap for many years now.

Of course there will be the odd exception here and there, Fernandes, Tino, Lavia etc and you'll find certain players thrive better at other clubs. 

I'm still not entirely sure what the club saw in the likes of AMN, Diallo, Moussa, Hoedt, Armstrong, Ely, Aribo, Perraud, Stewart, Larios, Bazunu etc to suggest they'd be any good physically at the top level. That has been the big let down with our worst signings in my opinion and there have been a lot of them.

I'd also add that our confused philosophy will screw things, we're buying players suited to one approach and then changing tact and playing a different way with players who aren't physically capable. The club need to decide on an approach and recruit for that approach, we can't keep chopping and changing like we have as we'll end up with a squad full of dribs and drabs and no real consistent theme (as we see today).

It's the last bit that really resonates with me. No matter how good our scouting is without a coherent strategy we'll still struggle. Unfortunately Spors seems to be a recruitment guy rather than a club strategy guy so I'm not sure we'll be much better off even if he is better than I expect him to be.

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

A lot of posters complain about our scouts and who they've brought to the club. Granted there have been some horrendous choices (Carillo!), but does the fault lie with them especially in recent times?

You see Charlie Alcaraz playing a blinder for Everton, Brooks a regular starter for Bournemouth. Yesterday Joe Rothwell played a big part in Leeds' comeback. Charles is Sheff Wed's best player. And then there's the players here like Sulemana who perhaps aren't as bad as we thought after all. Personally, I still think Archer will make a mark one day. So maybe it's more we aren't playing to the players' strengths than recruiting players who aren't capable.

Alcaraz has one game where he scored and got an assist, that doesn’t necessarily mean he played a blinder and the jury is still very much out. If we couldn’t get a tune out of him, neither could Juve and they know a thing or two about decent footballers. Brooks came to us to try and rebuild match fitness after 18 months out being treated for lukemia, so hardly a surprise he’s showing improvement a year later. Rothwell scored a handful of decent enough goals for us and was generally okay, whereas I’ve yet to hear pundits raving about him at Leeds. Charles is the best player at a midtable team, last year he struggled to make an impact at one chasing promotion, seems logical enough to me. Sully has done very little for three different managers now (four if you include Jones), it’ll take more than his first league goal in 18 months to change my mind. Archer scored four goals for United last season, which is pretty much on par with his record this year.

So overall, no I don’t agree that it’s our fault for not playing to the players strengths. I think they’re generally speaking playing as well for us as they have at any other club in their careers. That being said, I don’t think the scouting is the issue either, it’s more the recruitment strategy. It’d be a hell of a coincidence if all the players our scouts identify just happen to be cheap bargains who fall into our very low target price range. I think it’s more likely that they’re identifying far better talent but are being left frustrated by the actual decision makers looking at their work and saying, "yeah we’ll get that £7m bloke who just went down with Sheff Utd."

[James G]

3 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

A lot of posters complain about our scouts and who they've brought to the club. Granted there have been some horrendous choices (Carillo!), but does the fault lie with them especially in recent times?

You see Charlie Alcaraz playing a blinder for Everton, Brooks a regular starter for Bournemouth. Yesterday Joe Rothwell played a big part in Leeds' comeback. Charles is Sheff Wed's best player. And then there's the players here like Sulemana who perhaps aren't as bad as we thought after all. Personally, I still think Archer will make a mark one day. So maybe it's more we aren't playing to the players' strengths than recruiting players who aren't capable.

It's a really good question. Someone explained to me Man Utd the other day. Amorims way of playing with the right midfield is like 12 against 11, with the wrong players, it's like 10 against 11, hence their current issues.

The players we have are a mix of good players for different systems because of several managers, but not good for one. It takes a manager to stay and filter out players. Russ played a brand of old Pep that teams were wise to, but Pep moves on every year so Russ' brand ended up being vulnerable.  

Plus, we just also have some players not suited to the Premier League.

I don't think we are far away, it just needs a period of consistency and common sense 

 

 

 

 

[bugenhagen]

A good question, indeed.

I agree with Lighthouse that it may be more to do with the strategy and the decision makers above the actual scouts/scouting department.

I don't know exactly how they work between departments, but this sums it up pretty good for me:

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I don’t think the scouting is the issue either, it’s more the recruitment strategy. It’d be a hell of a coincidence if all the players our scouts identify just happen to be cheap bargains who fall into our very low target price range. I think it’s more likely that they’re identifying far better talent but are being left frustrated by the actual decision makers looking at their work and saying, "yeah we’ll get that £7m bloke who just went down with Sheff Utd."

 

[dsrdorset]

It's all down to the manager to get the very best out of each player he has at his disposal. End of. We've had a string of crap managers. 

[Andrew Watson]

The above post is spot on,if you look at what Iraola has done at Bournemouth. I doubt whether any manager since RH would have got so much out of an untried  in the premier league bunch of signings at Bournemouth. Jones,Martin and Selles did not improve one player in their time at Saints.

[trousers]

5 hours ago, saintant said:

I guess good scouts are as hard to identify as good players so maybe there's no hope for us 🙂

Indeed... Who scouts the scouts....? 🙂

[Osvaldorama]

All I know is, if I was Dragan, i’d sack the fucking lot and start again

[Toussaint]

10 hours ago, dsrdorset said:

It's all down to the manager to get the very best out of each player he has at his disposal. End of. We've had a string of crap managers. 

We have, and when you talk about the development of players we have had a series of managers who weren't anywhere near top level players or managers themselves.  How is a championship clogger like Martin going to develop flair players, or Selles who didn't even play, Jones the lower league nobody. What I'd give for a manager like Koeman, not only his record as a footballer but his gravitas, his ability to sell the club to ambitious players. I know people will come back with Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney as examples of where this principle doesn't work, but in the main players need to respect what the manager has achieved on and off the field.

[Saint Fan CaM]

10 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

We have, and when you talk about the development of players we have had a series of managers who weren't anywhere near top level players or managers themselves.  How is a championship clogger like Martin going to develop flair players, or Selles who didn't even play, Jones the lower league nobody. What I'd give for a manager like Koeman, not only his record as a footballer but his gravitas, his ability to sell the club to ambitious players. I know people will come back with Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney as examples of where this principle doesn't work, but in the main players need to respect what the manager has achieved on and off the field.

Yes we seem to have had a succession of unsuitable managers, but then how many could claim to have had any knowledge of Bournemouth or Brightons managers? Would you honestly have taken a punt on them if they were available 2-3 years ago? Even if they came here there’s no guarantee they’d have achieved the same level of results, especially given the terrible player recruitment we’ve seen over a long period. It’s a convincing argument to say that better recruitment would have seen Ralph achieve much more success with the club, which would negate our current situation entirely.

[Wade Garrett]

16 hours ago, spyinthesky said:

I always remember speaking to an ex Manager who said that if the recruitment of new player was at least 70% successful, as a Manager you had a very good chance of making a decent team, as seems to be the case with the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth and Forest atm.
Below that figure there were likely to be problems.
Of course Saints arent the only team with recruitment problems but the club doesnt have deep pockets so the minimum 70% success rate in the transfer market is particularly important.
I understand that when Ted Bates was Manager he personally watched players when they played at home and away to make sure they were consistent in their performances.
Nowadays that really isnt possible as so many players play matches outside this country.

They still play home and away matches in whatever country.  Not sure why you don’t think it’s possible to watch both.

[Wade Garrett]

The idea that players can only play a certain type of football is absolute bullshit.

Peak fitness is a pre-requisite for any decent modern pro, as is the ability to control the ball and pass, for forwards shoot, for wingers beat a man and cross the ball and for defenders win headers and tackles.

The idea that all of Martin’s team were brought up on uber-possession football is a load of bollocks.

Pro footballers adapt.

[Wade Garrett]

29 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

We have, and when you talk about the development of players we have had a series of managers who weren't anywhere near top level players or managers themselves.  How is a championship clogger like Martin going to develop flair players, or Selles who didn't even play, Jones the lower league nobody. What I'd give for a manager like Koeman, not only his record as a footballer but his gravitas, his ability to sell the club to ambitious players. I know people will come back with Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney as examples of where this principle doesn't work, but in the main players need to respect what the manager has achieved on and off the field.

To be fair, Lampard is pulling up trees at Coventry.

[Roboze]

I think the days of "get out there and fecking play,lad" are unfortunately gone, finding good players is only half the job now, you almost have to be a psychologist as well, because if the little darlings don't like each other some ones feelings may get hurt! 🤷‍♀️