Yep but he wanted him at Palace
Hobbs out
- Topic starter Aray
- Start date
Nutmegyeti
Member
- Country
England
I’d pay good money to see their post-match reports:
Tom Johnson – Head of Analysis / Chief Analyst: “We were crap.”
Bobby Shojai – Head of Data Insights: “They scored more than us.”
Deondré Dewar – Video Analyst: “We were crap in the replay too.”
Kieran Dowler – Match / Performance Analyst: “We were crap.”
Jamie Thompson – Match / Performance Analyst: “Can confirm. Crap.”
Michael MacNeill – Opponent Analyst: “They’re Brighton. Very good team. Probably don’t give them a three-goal head start in ten minutes.”
Uche Okolo – Performance Analyst: “We were s***.”
Dahir Jama – Academy Data Insights Analyst: “The academy could’ve done better.”
Tom Johnson – Head of Analysis / Chief Analyst: “We were crap.”
Bobby Shojai – Head of Data Insights: “They scored more than us.”
Deondré Dewar – Video Analyst: “We were crap in the replay too.”
Kieran Dowler – Match / Performance Analyst: “We were crap.”
Jamie Thompson – Match / Performance Analyst: “Can confirm. Crap.”
Michael MacNeill – Opponent Analyst: “They’re Brighton. Very good team. Probably don’t give them a three-goal head start in ten minutes.”
Uche Okolo – Performance Analyst: “We were s***.”
Dahir Jama – Academy Data Insights Analyst: “The academy could’ve done better.”
TheBigToePunt
Member
- Country
-
England
I find it hard to criticise Hobbs simply because we don't know his exact remit, how much final say he has, or the limitations he is working under.
We can all see that big money has been spent (wasted) on transfers. All the Eze and Guehi money went on Johnson and Larsen. Just think about that for a second. We could sell McNeill for £35m and still only break even on the first deal...
Anyway, point is, does Hobbs get to buy and sell who he wants? Does Parish stay out of it, have a veto, or lead from the front? What about the manager? Does he have a say? We just don't know.
Also, even if Hobbs has a free reign over transfer business, what has he been told to achieve? None of us know whether he had to bring in a certain amount to meet FFP, especially once we'd qualified for Europe again. Or, was he told to buy young and promising players in the main so we could develop sell them? Or told to focus on squad depth ahead of team quality?
What role do the Americans have in all this? They must have ideas on recruitment and value for money? They do run sports teams in the US, after all.
One thing's for sure, it hasn't gone well. I'm not really one to blame anyone for that. That's how football is. If I was looking to hold someone responsible for key transfer decisions, though, I'd struggle to pin it on Hobbs alone, or even in the main, just because there is so much we don't know.
We can all see that big money has been spent (wasted) on transfers. All the Eze and Guehi money went on Johnson and Larsen. Just think about that for a second. We could sell McNeill for £35m and still only break even on the first deal...
Anyway, point is, does Hobbs get to buy and sell who he wants? Does Parish stay out of it, have a veto, or lead from the front? What about the manager? Does he have a say? We just don't know.
Also, even if Hobbs has a free reign over transfer business, what has he been told to achieve? None of us know whether he had to bring in a certain amount to meet FFP, especially once we'd qualified for Europe again. Or, was he told to buy young and promising players in the main so we could develop sell them? Or told to focus on squad depth ahead of team quality?
What role do the Americans have in all this? They must have ideas on recruitment and value for money? They do run sports teams in the US, after all.
One thing's for sure, it hasn't gone well. I'm not really one to blame anyone for that. That's how football is. If I was looking to hold someone responsible for key transfer decisions, though, I'd struggle to pin it on Hobbs alone, or even in the main, just because there is so much we don't know.
NEILLO
Member
- Location
- Shoreham-by-Sea
- Country
-
England
I've expressed some similar sentiments re Hobbs on the Sage In/Out thread just now.
However, when people are of the view that player recruitment is not going well, then it's only natural that the head of that area of the club is going to come under fire. Parish apart, we have no real options in that regard.
I think the Americans entrust Parish in terms of the points you raise.
doombear
Member
- Location
- Too far from Selhurst Park
- Country
-
England
Not sure how much Woosnam actually knows but he ended his latest article in the Athletic (post Brighton) by saying:
"There is also uncertainty regarding any possible replacement should Palace decide to sack Sage. The club overhauled their squad in the summer transfer window with the intention of playing a more ambitious style and there would be a reluctance to shift away from that."
which, if true, says forget Dyche or a Hodgson type.
He started the article like this:
"Pierre Sage is set to be given more time to prove himself as Crystal Palace manager despite suffering a 5-0 defeat by Brighton & Hove Albion on Sunday.
Palace do not intend to make an immediate managerial change and the Frenchman is expected to take charge of Thursday’s Europa League tie at Besiktas and Sunday’s Premier League match at home to Newcastle United.
There remains concern among Palace executives over the defensive failings that have seen the team concede 17 goals in the opening seven Premier League games, but also an acknowledgement that they are not in freefall, given they have seven points and are in 14th place in the league.".
NEILLO
Member
- Location
- Shoreham-by-Sea
- Country
-
England
I think Kieran McKenna will be a prime candidate.
TheBigToePunt
Member
- Country
-
England
Well, I'm not sure I could detect that particular ambition in the recruitment! As you say, how much does the writer actually know?
Even so, the issue of our playing style has come up time and again. Parish had spoken openly over the years about how he doubted we could survive playing anti-football, and been especially concerned about our historically poor home record where, as a conservative, counterattacking team, we struggle to create when given the initiative. That is what led to De Boer. He also has a history of fairly ambitious attempts to appoint higher-calibre managers than we are likely to get, which I think goes in the same direction.
Thing is, Parish also reaches or the comfort blanket of a Pulis, Roy, Allardyce etc when the going gets rough. I'd be surprised if he felt prohibited from doing so now.
On a related point: It is easy to say now that we should have foreseen the effects of a weaker squad and opted for a conservative manager, but imagine we had gone for Dyche (or whoever) on the back of three trophies in two years, and going into our first ever season in the Europa League. We would all have decried the lack of ambition.
You can see why Parish thought a more front-foot manager might keep the momentum going a bit. Easy in hindsight to shake our heads at that, but at the time...
doombear
Member
- Location
- Too far from Selhurst Park
- Country
-
England
Re your first comment, I suggest that the buying of a plethora of no 10s (albeit unproven ones in major European league terms) and two attacking wing backs point in the direction of a more front foot style of play.
I've mentioned previously that it's my belief our summer window business was driven by UEFA concerns, an din an article this week on the Beeb, Mokbel wrote:
"As mitigation, it is understood Palace have encountered major difficulty in complying with Uefa's financial rules, leaving them hampered in the transfer market.
Trying to stay within Uefa's guidelines was among the reasons why the club sold Munoz to Nottingham Forest for £22m.
But those financial difficulties do not make the situation Sage finds himself any less critical."
Those January purchases have really stymied us. The club seem to have asked Sage to get the team to play more on the front foot but not given him the tools to achieve it especially in failing to provide solid defensive options so as to allow the wing backs and at least one midfielder to play higher up the pitch.
Aray
Member
- Location
- South London
- Country
-
England
Great insight. And hindsight is 20/20 but do you think 3 is enough? Given how tricky it is to get played across the line?
Why not have 5 lined up? Or even 7? We needed to replace 2 players not one.
TheBigToePunt
Member
- Country
-
England
Perhaps, although I'm not sure either wingback we signed is more attack-minded that Munoz was, or that Chillwell is a wingback. More a full back.
I'm also not sure a back three of Guehi, La Croix and Richards could handle being as exposed as our various back three's have been so far. I take your point about not having the tools, but for me that just places more question marks over the approach Sage has taken.
One thing for sure, if we knew (as seems increasingly to be the case) that we were going to have to sell key players this summer, then there seems even less tangible connection between the economic backdrop and the summer strategy, including the managerial appointment.
But did it on the cheap. We desperately needed a qualty DM and a quick ball playing CB. Think Sage got dealt a poor hand
Yep I suspect Brighton have players lined up for when they sell for mega money. Also they will know the replacement for Hurzeler
park the bus
Member
- Country
-
England
I've always thought that Parish wants a more "refined" form of attacking football and probably watched too many Barcelona games for his own good in comparison to the amount in expenditure he had to make his dream a reality. Hence Roy and Big Sam putting things straight. But Parish still dreams that with a bunch of cheap buys, frees, and sick notes Palace can play sweeping all encompassing front foot football that is easy on the eye. Hence Sage. But Sage doesn't have the players to make it a reality, and doesn't have a director of football who can unearth them.
This is spot on. It’s not as simple as signing a better centre half. A back three being constantly exposed will be in trouble no matter how good they are. Might having Guehi and Lacroix have meant we conceded one or two goals fewer against Brighton? Maybe but we’d still have lost the game comfortably.
Palacesince64
Member
- Location
- Edinburgh
- Country
Scotland
By any metric Hobbs hasn’t covered himself in glory. We’ve spent bigger than ever before since his arrival on players who haven’t delivered. Whatever the reason the three centre back deals he identified in the summer fell through, it’s his job to recruit those players and to ensure we don’t sell the likes of Lacroix without signing a decent replacement. His performance thus far is not a patch on his predecessor. We’ve stopped bringing in talent from the championship and gone for more experienced and expensive options and so far it hasn’t worked.
For me his report card gets a 5/10 at best.
For me his report card gets a 5/10 at best.
doombear
Member
- Location
- Too far from Selhurst Park
- Country
-
England
That High??
We did, hence the players we ended up with. Honest was a target too. In the end Chelsea jumped in and got him but were happy to let us loan him for a year. I'm glad we haven't signed him permanently. Not impressed with him at all.
Then there's Disasi. Never wanted him and dont rate him. He had a couple of decent months in a relegated team, before that he was on loan at Villa and did terrible, before that he was training with the kids at Chelsea because even they dont rate him.
If Parish decides to sell Lacroix before we have a replacement in place thats on him. No one else.
The Lacroix departure came unexpectedly for Palace. Chelsea showed an interest but I think Palace felt he was happy where he was. Sadly (even when still in the USA with France) he made it very clear he wants out of Palace and wants to join Chelsea. There were even murmerings he would refuse to return to Palace at the end of his holiday. This kind of forced Palace's hand. Sadly no one else wanted him so we couldn't even drive up the fee. Chelsea were the only show in town.
Sometimes you have to make the best of the hand you're dealt