Danny Murphy on Talksport today

[spikey norman]

Anybody else  listen to Danny Murphy on Talksport this morning.
Slammed our recruitment policy and those responsible.Saying only Mitro and Shcurrle  and possibly Mawson good enough for Prem.Should have signed more players with Prem experience.
Danny also  talked about our poor defending.
Well worth a listen and a main piece on Talksport website.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Yes I listened, and he wasn't far wrong, he talked a lot of sense.

[Lighthouse]

It is as always the easy excuse that is made every year at Fulham since the ownership took over. The squad isn't good enough not enough good players. They don't know what they are doing. Then they start winning and suddenly it is all down to the coach being brilliant and we forget about the players suposedly being awful.

After yet another season start that is woeful. I simply don't buy it anymore.

[EJL]

What has basic defensive positioning got to do with "Premier League experience"? Danny Murphy's just chucking buzzwords out there that don't really relate to our situation. The problems are all mostly coaching at the moment. We've seen how well we can play against some of the teams in this division already this season.

[Andy S]

It's not just how well you play it is about results. Those results only come against certain teams.

[colinwhite]

I heard Danny say on talksport a few weeks ago that he thought we had made some very good signings. Too many he thought however. He talked sense and defended the manager which was balanced saying he could only work with the players he had.

[Statto]

If you sign a high number of players, a high proportion from foreign leagues, and sign them late in the window, common sense says the time it takes to integrate those players, and the fail rate among them, will also be high.

Well done Murphy for stating the obvious.

Beyond that who cares about his opinion? The man doesn't have any more experience of football management and transfer recruitment than any of us on this forum.

[Milo]

Schurrle, Mitro, Seri all Premiership quality.

Only issue is lack of signings at full back as I keep boringly saying.

[toshes mate]

Murphy raises the whole issue of how the Club recruits players.  I also raise the issue of how the Club chooses who to retain.  Both are 'recruitment policy' and the big question is how much influence or say so does Jokanovic have?  There are those on here who always say 'but there's a box ticking exercise' which is all well and good if you assume people don't talk to each other (a poor feature of contemporary society perhaps), but how much meaningful dialogue does take place before a player is sold or the piece of paper with the boxes on it has a name added too?  Have our coaching personnel been told that identifying players is not their job?  Does Jokanovic have a situation where he simply really has little or no choice at the end of the day (which is what Murphy implies).

I could go on dissecting the things that could be wrong with recruitment but in essence, and funnily enough kind of running parallel to Lighthouse's comment above, could it be the old saying 'All is well that end's well' is the reason for compacency away from the hard work put in, and essential to success, on the training ground to produce positive outcomes?   And when bad habits go wrong in a slightly more magnified and embarrassing fashion everybody has to have a scapegoat and we all know who the likely suspect will be.

[Statto]

Schurrle, Mitro, Seri all Premiership quality.

Agreed but in fairness that still leaves questions marks over the other 75% of our signings, including all of GKs, defenders and a £30m DM.

(although to be clear I'm not yet saying I've decided they're poor)

[grandad]

Hindsight is a wonderful attribute. Pundits change their views after every game. All the players we signed are decent & they don´t become bad players overnight. When all our injured players return SJ must pick a starting team & stick with it. All the chopping & changing is counter productive.

[alfie]

Murphy raises the whole issue of how the Club recruits players.  I also raise the issue of how the Club chooses who to retain.  Both are 'recruitment policy' and the big question is how much influence or say so does Jokanovic have?  There are those on here who always say 'but there's a box ticking exercise' which is all well and good if you assume people don't talk to each other (a poor feature of contemporary society perhaps), but how much meaningful dialogue does take place before a player is sold or the piece of paper with the boxes on it has a name added too?  Have our coaching personnel been told that identifying players is not their job?  Does Jokanovic have a situation where he simply really has little or no choice at the end of the day (which is what Murphy implies).

I could go on dissecting the things that could be wrong with recruitment but in essence, and funnily enough kind of running parallel to Lighthouse's comment above, could it be the old saying 'All is well that end's well' is the reason for compacency away from the hard work put in, and essential to success, on the training ground to produce positive outcomes?   And when bad habits go wrong in a slightly more magnified and embarrassing fashion everybody has to have a scapegoat and we all know who the likely suspect will be.

I am sure SJ has more involvement than we assume, I may be wrong but did he not say that after Klyne went?, after all how could he get Mitrovic if he had no involvement. I am sure that when it's said he does sign players it's true , he does not do the negotiations with player/agents, that is done by the recruiting team.
Unless of course I am completely wrong.

[RaySmith]

It is what it is.

We can only sign whoever is available, and top British players are at a premium, though we did bring a few in.


But Slavisa has to do the best with the players he has  acquired at short notice, and try to make a team out of them, while playing in  Prem games against top sides.

[Southcoastffc]

What has basic defensive positioning got to do with "Premier League experience"? Danny Murphy's just chucking buzzwords out there that don't really relate to our situation. The problems are all mostly coaching at the moment. We've seen how well we can play against some of the teams in this division already this season.

I really really take issue with this.  Take Saturday v Cardiff as an example.  You COULD say that the line up was the wrong choice. But you could not say coaching was why Chambers was so slow, so inept. Ream, hailed by many as our saviour in waiting when he was injured, had a bit of a mare for a couple of their goals.  KMac's miskicks were too numerous to count.  These things contributed to collective lack of confidence - but are they the fault of the coach? (Except for picking Chambers at RB which many on this board suggested should happen)

[toshes mate]

Murphy raises the whole issue of how the Club recruits players.  I also raise the issue of how the Club chooses who to retain.  Both are 'recruitment policy' and the big question is how much influence or say so does Jokanovic have?  There are those on here who always say 'but there's a box ticking exercise' which is all well and good if you assume people don't talk to each other (a poor feature of contemporary society perhaps), but how much meaningful dialogue does take place before a player is sold or the piece of paper with the boxes on it has a name added too?  Have our coaching personnel been told that identifying players is not their job?  Does Jokanovic have a situation where he simply really has little or no choice at the end of the day (which is what Murphy implies).

I could go on dissecting the things that could be wrong with recruitment but in essence, and funnily enough kind of running parallel to Lighthouse's comment above, could it be the old saying 'All is well that end's well' is the reason for compacency away from the hard work put in, and essential to success, on the training ground to produce positive outcomes?   And when bad habits go wrong in a slightly more magnified and embarrassing fashion everybody has to have a scapegoat and we all know who the likely suspect will be.

I am sure SJ has more involvement than we assume, I may be wrong but did he not say that after Klyne went?, after all how could he get Mitrovic if he had no involvement. I am sure that when it's said he does sign players it's true , he does not do the negotiations with player/agents, that is done by the recruiting team.
Unless of course I am completely wrong.

It is fine for you to be sure, but I am very unsure because I have worked in environments where box ticking is used and abused as a way of confirming involvement.   SJ has not, to my knowledege, commented on the Kline situation and nor would I expect him to.  The Mitrovic situation has, according to some, been treated to some legendary re-scripting, but we can be sure that the Serbian connecton didn't hinder the process of acquisition.  It also serves the useful purpose of suggesting that SJ has more say now, if you care to swallow it, but I choose not to do so because so much other evidence suggests it may be same as before minus Kline.   I suspect the truth is closer to the fact that SJ was told probably during his first transfer window (when he was reportedly said to be doing a bit of scouting) that it isn't his job.  Of course anybody involved with the Club can always suggest useful acquisitions but they may rapidly be knocked on the head if they do not comply with other policy.

[MikeW]

I have raised on this board a number of times my disenchantment with Talbot and team in scouting and recruitment.

Danny Murphy raises similar concerns in his interview (he being far more informed than me) but in essence, our collective enthusiasm for the players purchased (particularly mid-field and defence) has been dampened by the fact they are well under cooked for Premiership life.  Look at some of the players at Watford/West Ham/Palace who arrived for considerably less money yet are right in there from the start?  Questions should be asked.  Heads possibly roll.

[MJG]

The annual Danny Murphy bitch about Fulham

https://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/danny-murphys-comments-truth-selling-14005800

[alfie]

Murphy raises the whole issue of how the Club recruits players.  I also raise the issue of how the Club chooses who to retain.  Both are 'recruitment policy' and the big question is how much influence or say so does Jokanovic have?  There are those on here who always say 'but there's a box ticking exercise' which is all well and good if you assume people don't talk to each other (a poor feature of contemporary society perhaps), but how much meaningful dialogue does take place before a player is sold or the piece of paper with the boxes on it has a name added too?  Have our coaching personnel been told that identifying players is not their job?  Does Jokanovic have a situation where he simply really has little or no choice at the end of the day (which is what Murphy implies).

I could go on dissecting the things that could be wrong with recruitment but in essence, and funnily enough kind of running parallel to Lighthouse's comment above, could it be the old saying 'All is well that end's well' is the reason for compacency away from the hard work put in, and essential to success, on the training ground to produce positive outcomes?   And when bad habits go wrong in a slightly more magnified and embarrassing fashion everybody has to have a scapegoat and we all know who the likely suspect will be.

I am sure SJ has more involvement than we assume, I may be wrong but did he not say that after Klyne went?, after all how could he get Mitrovic if he had no involvement. I am sure that when it's said he does sign players it's true , he does not do the negotiations with player/agents, that is done by the recruiting team.
Unless of course I am completely wrong.

It is fine for you to be sure, but I am very unsure because I have worked in environments where box ticking is used and abused as a way of confirming involvement.   SJ has not, to my knowledege, commented on the Kline situation and nor would I expect him to.  The Mitrovic situation has, according to some, been treated to some legendary re-scripting, but we can be sure that the Serbian connecton didn't hinder the process of acquisition.  It also serves the useful purpose of suggesting that SJ has more say now, if you care to swallow it, but I choose not to do so because so much other evidence suggests it may be same as before minus Kline.   I suspect the truth is closer to the fact that SJ was told probably during his first transfer window (when he was reportedly said to be doing a bit of scouting) that it isn't his job.  Of course anybody involved with the Club can always suggest useful acquisitions but they may rapidly be knocked on the head if they do not comply with other policy.

First of all I did not say he commented on Klyne I said I thought that after Klyne went he said he has more involvement.
I understand you disagree and you seem to have more knowledge than me, although I don't take too much notice of Murphy, since he went he seems to go out of his way to have a dig at Fulham.
it's interesting that you use the word "suspect" and you just choose not to believe it, I haven't swallowed anything I just don't know, but hey we all put our own interpretation on things to suit what we think, but at the end we all have Fulham at heart, i appreciate your comments, so I end my comments here
COYW

[hovewhite]

All the players added to the squad who on paper all good players, just took away feel inside the club and destroyed the solidity it seems to me last season we fought to the very end it seems to have disappeared.

[FulhamStu]

Listen, the pundits were saying what wonderful recruitment we had made until the results started to go wrong and nobody could understand how we had managed to recruit wold class Seri.  They are just like red top papers, need to sell their story and prove their existence.   Easy to be wise after the event.  After we win Saturday and Frank has a stormer they will be saying what a great buy he was. 
I like to listen to Murphy and he is one of the better ones but he still needs to make statements that cause conversation, just like he has with this one.