We offered both of them new contracts on bigger wages. They both turned them down. Not really sure what else the club was supposed to do with those two. Sarr also has history here
Sage in or out
- Topic starter DANGERCLOSE
- Start date
eritheagle
Member
- Location
- Erith
- Country
England
DANGERCLOSE
Member
- Location
- London
- Country
-
England
doombear
Member
- Location
- Too far from Selhurst Park
- Country
-
England
I suggest the Sarr and Mateta situations are essentially down to the fact that they are still here when they want to be elsewhere and little to do with what they're being paid.
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
Ireland
Moot now, I believe.
BromleyMonkey
Member
- Country
-
England
At least you noticed 😎😁
not to mention the ones who want Roy back🙁
Nutmegyeti
Member
- Country
-
England
I’ve been in the Sage-out camp for a while now, but I don’t think things are necessarily as black and white as they appear.
Has he been let down by recruitment? Absolutely, to an extent. He’s had some very good players sold out from under him, and the situations with Mateta and Sarr certainly haven’t helped.
But equally, he came to Palace with around 100 games of top-flight management under his belt. Appointing someone to manage a Premier League club that had just become European champions, largely off the back of what he’d achieved in one successful season, was always going to be a calculated risk.
And that’s the thing. We’re effectively paying for his learning curve and education.
What we don’t need at the moment is a manager who has only ever experienced things going swimmingly well. We need someone who understands transitions, adversity and how to adapt.
Think about our recent history. Hodgson came in after Frank de Boer. Hodgson came back after Vieira. Glasner then took the foundations of Hodgson’s side and moved us forward considerably. Sage, on the other hand, has inherited a difficult situation but really hasn’t helped himself.
Put it another way.
Imagine Palace had sold those players in the summer and then appointed Russell Martin. A highly rated coach (well at one time) with one particularly successful season behind him, but otherwise a fairly mixed managerial record, albeit with more experience.
If Martin had rigidly stuck to his philosophy of pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, regardless of the personnel available, would everyone be defending him? I very much doubt it.
And therein lies the problem with Sage, and with system managers generally. Their system becomes something of a drug. They become so wedded to it that they struggle to recognise when the opposition has the quality to exploit its weaknesses.
The Premier League is built around speed, transitions and exploiting space. You simply cannot afford to be naive about that. Sunday was a perfect example.
In the first half against Liverpool, I thought we looked really tight. We looked organised, disciplined and genuinely competitive. Yes, we conceded, but there was a clear structure to what we were doing.
Then, in the second half, we started reverting to our usual approach. We opened up, left space behind and, lo and behold, conceded further goals. Once again, the opposition exploited the spaces we were leaving.
Simon Jordan summed up Palace beautifully on talkSPORT recently. I don’t listen to it particularly often, but I caught his comments about the traditional profile of Crystal Palace.
We’re a gritty football club. Historically, we’ve had one, two or three outstanding individuals, but they’ve generally been players we’ve developed or helped turn into stars. Your Andy Johnsons, Bolasies, Zahas, Ezes and Olises.
But the teams were never entirely built around those individuals. the foundations were defensive solidity, organisation and hard work. You made yourselves difficult to beat, and then you gave your talented attacking players the freedom to make the difference.
That’s fundamentally what Palace have been about for years.
Now, we don’t currently have the same calibre of attacking player that we’ve enjoyed in recent seasons. But that makes defensive organisation even more important, not less. And that’s my biggest criticism of Sage.
You can blame recruitment. You can blame injuries. You can blame the loss of key players. All of those arguments have merit.
But you cannot continually set up a team in a way that exposes its weaknesses, watch opponents exploit those weaknesses week after week, and then act surprised when the same thing happens again.
Sunday demonstrated that we can look organised and competitive when we’re disciplined. The moment we started opening things up, we were vulnerable again.
A good manager has a philosophy. A very good manager knows when that philosophy needs adapting to the players he actually has.
At the moment, I don’t think Sage has demonstrated that ability nearly enough, And ultimately, that’s why I’ve been in the Sage-out camp. Not because everything is his fault, because it clearly isn’t, but because he doesn’t appear to be learning quickly enough from the things that are within his control.
Has he been let down by recruitment? Absolutely, to an extent. He’s had some very good players sold out from under him, and the situations with Mateta and Sarr certainly haven’t helped.
But equally, he came to Palace with around 100 games of top-flight management under his belt. Appointing someone to manage a Premier League club that had just become European champions, largely off the back of what he’d achieved in one successful season, was always going to be a calculated risk.
And that’s the thing. We’re effectively paying for his learning curve and education.
What we don’t need at the moment is a manager who has only ever experienced things going swimmingly well. We need someone who understands transitions, adversity and how to adapt.
Think about our recent history. Hodgson came in after Frank de Boer. Hodgson came back after Vieira. Glasner then took the foundations of Hodgson’s side and moved us forward considerably. Sage, on the other hand, has inherited a difficult situation but really hasn’t helped himself.
Put it another way.
Imagine Palace had sold those players in the summer and then appointed Russell Martin. A highly rated coach (well at one time) with one particularly successful season behind him, but otherwise a fairly mixed managerial record, albeit with more experience.
If Martin had rigidly stuck to his philosophy of pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, regardless of the personnel available, would everyone be defending him? I very much doubt it.
And therein lies the problem with Sage, and with system managers generally. Their system becomes something of a drug. They become so wedded to it that they struggle to recognise when the opposition has the quality to exploit its weaknesses.
The Premier League is built around speed, transitions and exploiting space. You simply cannot afford to be naive about that. Sunday was a perfect example.
In the first half against Liverpool, I thought we looked really tight. We looked organised, disciplined and genuinely competitive. Yes, we conceded, but there was a clear structure to what we were doing.
Then, in the second half, we started reverting to our usual approach. We opened up, left space behind and, lo and behold, conceded further goals. Once again, the opposition exploited the spaces we were leaving.
Simon Jordan summed up Palace beautifully on talkSPORT recently. I don’t listen to it particularly often, but I caught his comments about the traditional profile of Crystal Palace.
We’re a gritty football club. Historically, we’ve had one, two or three outstanding individuals, but they’ve generally been players we’ve developed or helped turn into stars. Your Andy Johnsons, Bolasies, Zahas, Ezes and Olises.
But the teams were never entirely built around those individuals. the foundations were defensive solidity, organisation and hard work. You made yourselves difficult to beat, and then you gave your talented attacking players the freedom to make the difference.
That’s fundamentally what Palace have been about for years.
Now, we don’t currently have the same calibre of attacking player that we’ve enjoyed in recent seasons. But that makes defensive organisation even more important, not less. And that’s my biggest criticism of Sage.
You can blame recruitment. You can blame injuries. You can blame the loss of key players. All of those arguments have merit.
But you cannot continually set up a team in a way that exposes its weaknesses, watch opponents exploit those weaknesses week after week, and then act surprised when the same thing happens again.
Sunday demonstrated that we can look organised and competitive when we’re disciplined. The moment we started opening things up, we were vulnerable again.
A good manager has a philosophy. A very good manager knows when that philosophy needs adapting to the players he actually has.
At the moment, I don’t think Sage has demonstrated that ability nearly enough, And ultimately, that’s why I’ve been in the Sage-out camp. Not because everything is his fault, because it clearly isn’t, but because he doesn’t appear to be learning quickly enough from the things that are within his control.
doombear
Member
- Location
- Too far from Selhurst Park
- Country
-
England
Agreed. And for me, let me ask: what was wrong with our 1st half performance which required Sage to tell the players at half time to press high and go for the equalizer? Nothing IMO.
Yes, we didn't score in the 1st half but we certainly created chances and but for at least one excellent save by Allison would have been on the board. There was no reason to change our play in the 2nd half; it strikes me as something of a panic move by Sage because he knew his job was on the line and he decided to twist and bust rather than stick and see what that might have achieved. He could always have gone gung-ho in the last 15 if we were still a goal behind.
Yes, we didn't score in the 1st half but we certainly created chances and but for at least one excellent save by Allison would have been on the board. There was no reason to change our play in the 2nd half; it strikes me as something of a panic move by Sage because he knew his job was on the line and he decided to twist and bust rather than stick and see what that might have achieved. He could always have gone gung-ho in the last 15 if we were still a goal behind.
My Palace supporting days go back as far as the Bert Howe days, and I've never seen a Palace team defend as loosely as we do under Sage.
Irrelevant?
Well perhaps, but it's important because we've never been ,and don't have the resources, to be a Barcelona or PSG trying to outscore the opposition.
For example the successful teams of Venables and Coppell still had good defences and competitive midfields even though they were also good in attack.
Other of our successful teams have been based on solid defences and sharp counterattacks.
It's understandable if Sage wants to retain his principles and believe attack is the best form of defence, but should it be done at the expense of toying with our future in the Premier League?
I repeat we're not Barcelona or PSG.
I was not Roy's biggest fan, but I absolutely agree on the need for clubs like Palace to have a solid defence.
That's the absolute foundation for us.
In this Sage has absolutely failed in the basics, regardless of the view on the quality of our defenders and who we've sold.
Richards, Mitchell and Disasi are all experienced and proven at Premier League level and I'm sure can recover form under a new manager.
I do think we're light in defensive midfield though, unless Doucoure recovers form.
I remember Roy and Pulis using Richards and Ward as short term solutions when we've been short there before, but that wasn't ideal either.
It's not a role for Kamada or Wharton and Timber doesn't appear to have the discipline.
Other options are Hughes or Lerma, but they rarely feature these days.
Irrelevant?
Well perhaps, but it's important because we've never been ,and don't have the resources, to be a Barcelona or PSG trying to outscore the opposition.
For example the successful teams of Venables and Coppell still had good defences and competitive midfields even though they were also good in attack.
Other of our successful teams have been based on solid defences and sharp counterattacks.
It's understandable if Sage wants to retain his principles and believe attack is the best form of defence, but should it be done at the expense of toying with our future in the Premier League?
I repeat we're not Barcelona or PSG.
I was not Roy's biggest fan, but I absolutely agree on the need for clubs like Palace to have a solid defence.
That's the absolute foundation for us.
In this Sage has absolutely failed in the basics, regardless of the view on the quality of our defenders and who we've sold.
Richards, Mitchell and Disasi are all experienced and proven at Premier League level and I'm sure can recover form under a new manager.
I do think we're light in defensive midfield though, unless Doucoure recovers form.
I remember Roy and Pulis using Richards and Ward as short term solutions when we've been short there before, but that wasn't ideal either.
It's not a role for Kamada or Wharton and Timber doesn't appear to have the discipline.
Other options are Hughes or Lerma, but they rarely feature these days.
Willo
Member
- Location
- West Sussex - On the coast
- Country
-
England
One of his players, Bobby Woodruff, celebrates his 86th birthday today.
I remember him well.
Many Happy Returns Bobby !
The long throw chap?
I seem to recall he had a powerful shot too.
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
-
Ireland
Next manager?
Sansomite
Member
- Location
- Portsmouth
- Country
-
England
Short term contract??
Nutmegyeti
Member
- Country
-
England
With Roy as his young apprentice assistant?
I think it should be mentioned that Sage has drastically improved Pino and Kamada. Pino always showed promise, but this year he's actually delivering on it. Kamada was woeful and Sage identified he's better further forward and we've seen a better Kamada (albeit not against Liverpool).
Just think it's worth giving credit where it's due...as he's not getting much at the moment!
Just think it's worth giving credit where it's due...as he's not getting much at the moment!
HighworthEagle
Member
- Country
-
England
Bert Howe or Bert Head?
Kamada was not 'woeful' before the arrival of Sage. He was an integral part of our most successful squad ever and had a great partnership with Wharton. You have an irrational dislike of Kamada and never miss an opportunity to mention it.