Murfy1 Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 Here's a full list of players recruited since the club was taken over by CFG and renamed Melbourne City (Mooy was just signed before the takeover). Looking at the big picture helps can often help get an understanding of things. I'd like to know: Which of these signings can be called our best? Which signings have been our worst? Are there any trends to Melbourne City's recruitment? What does this history of recruitment suggest about the types of players Melbourne City should sign in the future? I'll post a few of my own ideas later. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris p Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 Doesn't seem to be much method to the madness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofhearts Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 It's been really shit. /thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 That's pretty tricky Murf. My first try is to look at two categories - Positive - players who IMO performed above my expectations based on what I knew about them and the hype surrounding them, and then Negative - those players who performed below my expectations and the hype. So that's very subjective (and bear in mind that I didn't know much about some of them!). Anyone I don't mention therefore went pretty much as might have been expected (and not necessarily well or poorly). Positive: 2014-15: Chapman, Clisby, Novillo, Safuwan, Jaliens. 2015-16: Caceres, Fitzgerald, Fornaroli. 2016-17: Kilkenny, Rose. 2017-18 so far: Schenkeveld. Negative: 2014-15: Kennedy, Koren, Duff. 2015-16: Franjic, Hughes. 2016-17: Brattan, Kamau, Cahill. 2017-18 so far: Budzinski. Best signing ever: Fornaroli. Worst: Hughes. Trends: I'd say that our signings have tended to be more "ho-hum", and our vision has become narrower, particularly this season. That said our youth set-up has got stronger over the same period. What we need: Better and more exciting visa and marquee players. Desperately need a couple of players with the "wow" factor. Will be interested to see the views of others. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedaik Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 (edited) Tactics/quality etc aside, its makes it pretty hard to grow a connection to any team that has such a high turnover of players. As much as they are dickheads, its players like Wifebeater, Muscat and Berisha who make a club. Edited January 1, 2018 by hedaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeming Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 You can't build on something if you keep chopping and changing players and the team. 2014-15 no players left at the club 2015-16 4 players left at the club 2016-17 8 left at the club but only 4 playing regularly 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityWildcat Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 Last two comments make a lot of sense. No one on the field bleeds City, do they? They are never around long enought to do so. FFS even ''we'' sing about Berisha....says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murfy1 Posted January 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 My take: Our best (most effective/talented) signings: Fornaroli (27), Novillo (22), Schenkeveld (25), Fitzgerald (23), Brandan (26), Jakobsen (30), Wilkinson (30), Paartalu (28), Zullo (26), Brattan (26), Kilkenny (30), Sorensen (39). What jumps out is that all these players are between 22/23 to 30 (with the goalkeeper Sorensen being the outlier). Other trends/points about City's signings: - Despite CFG saying they wouldn’t sign “aging stars” from overseas, Koren (33), Duff (34), Hughes (35) and Sorensen (39) beg to differ. IMO our better Visa players have definitely been younger like Fornaroli, Novillo, Schenkeveld, Brandan, Jakobsen. I think CFG eventually realised this, and this season and the last (especially with regards to marquees) the club has moderated things and has signed much younger players. - The club has signed 11 Australian players 22 years old or younger, and many have barely played games for MC, and only a few have made a real impact on the senior team (I’d say Mauk, Kamau, and Chapman [all rather debatable]). Melbourne Heart young players played more, and probably performed better (e.g. Behich, Babalj, Good). Maybe things are finally turning with Atkinson and Arzani, but still over 4 seasons the record is that of a limited return from Australian players under 22 years of age. - The numbers aren’t explicitly revealed here, but I’d say that the club is definitely continuing its extremely high turnover rate, of 80% of players or more playing 2 seasons or less (and it’s usually less) for Melbourne City. I’d also pinpoint this lack of stability with the squad with contributing to limited success and inconsistent performances. - The older players, aged 34 or older, have also made a limited impact (and have, entirely predictably) effectively never played more than 1 or 2 seasons for the club. Too many young players, and too many old players, and not enough players at their best football ages (between 23 and 30) has definitely led to inconsistency and limited success IMO. All up, it can be seen that the high turnover rate of players, and either an obsession with young players (e.g. JVS season two) or an obsession with older players (e.g. Aloisi’s seasons) are IMO the 2 most constant factors in existence at Melbourne Heart and now Melbourne City, from the club’s creation in 2009 to now at the beginning of 2018. Other clubs provide an example of getting it right, for example Sydney FC (pretty much with Brosque, O’Neill, Ninkovic, Ryall, Dimitrijevic, Carney, and maybe a few others), and WSW (around 2015-16) and Victory (a few years ago) are other possible examples. If the club could recruit a core group of players between 23 and 30, who can go on to play at Melbourne City for 3 seasons or more, IMO that would lay the surest foundation for stability, consistency and success, and IMO would meaningfully reduce the incidence of flaky players, flaky performances and arguably a flaky culture. When you take a step back and look at it, Melbourne Heart and now City's track-record is hardly surprising when the fans following the club have been doing so for much much longer than the employees at Melbourne City have been working there (with fans supporting the club for up to 8 years, and players not being at the club for 2). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 @Murfy1 I agree we need to retain players and build a core. Another point to add is that it seems we look for players coming back from injury. I assume this is to have a cheaper salary for a better player. It would be good to see the stat for how many players we have signed directly from an injury stint. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jovan Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 But also a factor and obviously some clubs are better at it than others is the salary cap. It's basically designed as to hinder retaining players (generally good players) so that clubs cannot build teams progressively by adding better players season on season. Instead what we see is massive turnover ever season and basically each team being rebuilt every season. Sydney for example at the end of this season will find it almost impossible to keep all its players and probably coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 28 minutes ago, Jovan said: But also a factor and obviously some clubs are better at it than others is the salary cap. It's basically designed as to hinder retaining players (generally good players) so that clubs cannot build teams progressively by adding better players season on season. Instead what we see is massive turnover ever season and basically each team being rebuilt every season. Sydney for example at the end of this season will find it almost impossible to keep all its players and probably coach. Yea I dont get the Australian sport culture because you know the results will always be on a cycle. To retain a good team for a number of years you need to be good, really good. Take a look at Sydney now, and Roarcelona, they were always winning so players were happy to stay. Whereas in normal championship teams, such as Victory and Adelaide in recent years, if you dont win a championship with ease, players will be happy to find a better club. IMO I would rather a league where the top 2-3 dominate. If you support those teams you always expect to win, so if you start losing its something different. Whereas if you support a lower team, its the best feeling in the world when they punch above their weight (Add in relegation and then it get even better). In a capped league its just on a cycle, if your team plays well, you know that will only last for maybe another year. Weve seen this cycle in the past with Victory, Sydney and WSW. Now its Newy's turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aardvark Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 11 hours ago, haz said: IMO I would rather a league where the top 2-3 dominate. If you support those teams you always expect to win, so if you start losing its something different. Whereas if you support a lower team, its the best feeling in the world when they punch above their weight (Add in relegation and then it get even better). In a capped league its just on a cycle, if your team plays well, you know that will only last for maybe another year. Weve seen this cycle in the past with Victory, Sydney and WSW. Now its Newy's turn. Hate that idea. I understand there are pros and cons, but to me a league with an almost set in stone top 2 or 3 is crap. It's all well and good if you are one of those sides (which City probably should be) but for the rest that's no good. From memory the best A-League seasons have been when there has been a quite even field, giving everyone a decent shot. These last two years (especially this season) the league has had a dominant team and they have been the stalest and worst seasons thus far. The cyclical nature of a league with a cap is a strength I think, and it doesn't limit good teams from remaining at the top. Again Sydney have been up the top for a while, and if you take a look at the AFL, whilst obviously operating under different conditions, multiple clubs have proven you can have a sustained run at success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 Really that's more a discussion for the Salary Cap thread (and perhaps others) in the Australian Football forum. Getting back on topic...overall, IMO Murfy has it right - "Too many young players, and too many old players, and not enough players at their best football ages (between 23 and 30) has definitely led to inconsistency and limited success IMO" and "When you take a step back and look at it, Melbourne Heart and now City's track-record is hardly surprising when the fans following the club have been doing so for much much longer than the employees at Melbourne City have been working there (with fans supporting the club for up to 8 years, and players not being at the club for 2)." I would think Scott Munn would be the only survivor at the club over the entire period of its existence. In saying that though, I would think that other A-League clubs probably also show a pretty high turnover of staff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 The alarming thing is that @Murfy1 ‘s assessment is hardly rocket science. Most people would adopt this is the default position. Our continuity of players really compares poorly to the Tards, I mean Broxham played his 250th for them on the weekend. We’d struggle to have 11 played 50 & I don’t think we’ve had one player reach 100. It really reflects badly on the club. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embee Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 41 minutes ago, Shahanga said: The alarming thing is that @Murfy1 ‘s assessment is hardly rocket science. Most people would adopt this is the default position. Our continuity of players really compares poorly to the Tards, I mean Broxham played his 250th for them on the weekend. We’d struggle to have 11 played 50 & I don’t think we’ve had one player reach 100. It really reflects badly on the club. Personally, I'd be pretty upset if a Sunday league footballer played 250 games for my club. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torn Asunder Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) Given FFA's limitations on the salary cap, and the many other counter productive restrictions associated with recruitment, squad assembly has been and continues to be very difficult (for all clubs). Unknown foreigners, career-twilight players, continually recycled squad standard players, and promising youngsters come and go each and every season, and within seasons. Notwithstanding overall results, considering all of the above, for me, you can judge success in terms of player recruitment on a number of factors; Can they fit into a winning team Are they actually a good solid consistent player, and important within the team Are they exciting to watch Do the fans like the player For the younger players, are they 1, 3 & 4 above, and will they go on to bigger and better things (i.e. success in a better league overseas and future Socceroo representation) Harking back to the Melbourne Heart days, we did quite well with the youngsters, and there was plenty to like about players such as Babalj , Good, Hamill, Aziz, Zahra, Goodwin to name a few. We certainly had our share of journey men, and a number were solid team members, but never really did more than you would expect. Players like Hoffman, Thompson, Marrone, etc. Arguable Mooy has been our most success player and continues to shine in the EPL. Our foreign spots and returning Socceroo players were generally unsuccessful, up until Bruno (and Cahill last season only). Now with players like Jako, Bort and Ross, our foreign player contingent is a strong part of the club and has improved since City took over. Also, we are just starting to see the City era youngsters break through and players like Aktinson and Arzani are as about exciting as you can get. The problem is once you find good players, its hard to hold onto them beyond 1 or 2 seasons. If the league was governed under normal FIFA rules, squads would be better all around, and we would see much improved development and opportunities for younger players across the board. Edited January 16, 2018 by Torn Asunder 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 One aspect that puzzles me is that three of our marquee recruits have disappointed quite a number of people (but not necessarily everyone) - Koren, Colazo and now Budzinski. Koren didn't play after he left us, but Colazo went straight back into the Argentina Primera (now Superliga) and has been scoring coals for LP Gimnasia. Of we we don't know Budzinski's next move. So why is this? Is this a break-down in communication between Melbourne and CFG in the recruitment process? Is it that we don't know how to use these players once they arrive? What other factors might be in play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris p Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 Not a fan of constantly using the FFA squad rules as an excuse, the rules are the same for everyone and its clear despite our resources we are under performing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 13 minutes ago, jw1739 said: One aspect that puzzles me is that three of our marquee recruits have disappointed quite a number of people (but not necessarily everyone) - Koren, Colazo and now Budzinski. Koren didn't play after he left us, but Colazo went straight back into the Argentina Primera (now Superliga) and has been scoring coals for LP Gimnasia. Of we we don't know Budzinski's next move. So why is this? Is this a break-down in communication between Melbourne and CFG in the recruitment process? Is it that we don't know how to use these players once they arrive? What other factors might be in play? Hmmm. all 3 strike me as different. Koren was a much decorated player who’s time was simply up. City weren’t familiar with the A League, had under estimated the impact of the hard grounds on old cooked legs and probably under estimated how much Koren had slipped. Colazo to date had been easily the best of the 3, but whilst he was clearly a best XI player (unlike the other 2) he didn’t boss games. Given his age and pedigree I’m still not sure why not. Budzindki on the other hand has impressed the gaffer so little that he has barely had anytime in the position he was recruited for, making it very hard for fans to figure him out. He does seem to have been recruited on a “last man standing” philosophy and all in all (given they had 6 months) the whole thing is very strange. Is there a common thread? To be honest I can’t see one, but happy to be corrected. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt50 Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Shahanga said: Hmmm. all 3 strike me as different. Koren was a much decorated player who’s time was simply up. City weren’t familiar with the A League, had under estimated the impact of the hard grounds on old cooked legs and probably under estimated how much Koren had slipped. Colazo to date had been easily the best of the 3, but whilst he was clearly a best XI player (unlike the other 2) he didn’t boss games. Given his age and pedigree I’m still not sure why not. Budzindki on the other hand has impressed the gaffer so little that he has barely had anytime in the position he was recruited for, making it very hard for fans to figure him out. He does seem to have been recruited on a “last man standing” philosophy and all in all (given they had 6 months) the whole thing is very strange. Is there a common thread? To be honest I can’t see one, but happy to be corrected. I think this is a good post tbh, sums all three up fairly well. I think ultimately with Colazo he just wasnt suited to the game style here, which perhaps is the same case with Bud. Hence why i was at the time pretty keen on Troisi; he was at least a proven performer in the league and you reasonably knew what you were going to get. Marquees, especially in the CAM position can be a bit of a roll of the dice in a league such as here, which operates in pretty unique conditions. Interestingly enough our other target Antun Palic only featured in three fixtures for a total of 86 minutes for Mouscron in the Belgian League before being released last month as a free agent. Edited January 16, 2018 by bt50 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embee Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, bt50 said: I think this is a good post tbh, sums all three up fairly well. I think ultimately with Colazo he just wasnt suited to the game style here, which perhaps is the same case with Bud. Hence why i was at the time pretty keen on Troisi; he was at least a proven performer in the league and you reasonably knew what you were going to get. Marquees, especially in the CAM position can be a bit of a roll of the dice in a league such as here, which operates in pretty unique conditions. Interestingly enough our other target Antun Palic only featured in three fixtures for a total of 86 minutes for Mouscron in the Belgian League before being released last month as a free agent. Maybe Joyce isn't clearing room for Ross after all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Embee said: Personally, I'd be pretty upset if a Sunday league footballer played 250 games for my club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murfy1 Posted January 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Torn Asunder said: Our foreign spots and returning Socceroo players were generally unsuccessful, up until Bruno (and Cahill last season only). Now with players like Jako, Bort and Ross, our foreign player contingent is a strong part of the club and has improved since City took over. These are two good points. Overall, the foreign signings in the City era have significantly improved on Heart's such signings (Worm, Maycon, Meeuwis, Mifsud, Gray, Gerhardt, Migliorini, etc.). However, returning Socceroos has always been a weakness at this club. At successful A-League clubs it is a strength, and their core groups of players include a few Socceroos--Sydney FC with Alex Brosque, David Carney, Bernie Ibini (and a few more since last season), WSW with Topor-Stanley, Mitch Nichols and Mark Bridge, and the Visitors 2014-15 with Mark Milligan, Archie Thompson, Nathan Coe (Geria and Broxham had even had 1 cap each). So, all of these successful A-League sides had at least 3 former Socceroos who had been at their clubs for about 3 seasons or more. The only Socceroos Heart/City has had for 3 seasons or more were Simon Colosimo (26 caps, 3 seasons, then India and NPL), Clint Bolton (4 cap, 3 seasons, then retired), Matt Thompson (4 caps, 3 seasons, then in. rep. at SFC then NPL), David Williams (2 caps, 4 1/2 seasons, now Hungary), Patrick Kisnorbo (18 caps, 3 seasons, then retired). This club's list of unsuccessful or short term Socceroos is: Aloisi, Skoko, Beauchamp, Heffernan, Sarkies, Madaschi, Garcia, Grella, Reid, Kewell, Mooy (2 seasons), Paartalu (2 seasons), Kennedy, Zullo, Franjic, Wilkinson, Cahill. And the club's current former Socceroos are: Kilkenny, Jamieson, Galekovic. Overall, apart from Heart's first 3 seasons with Colosimo Bolton Thompson, the club has never had 3 former Socceroos together for more than 1 or 2 seasons. And I guess when that happened, the club lacked a good full list of foreigners, and didn't have more than a few players between 23 and 30 years of age. City has improved A) the foreign players, B), the ages of players between 23 and 30 is trending well, and C) arguably the young players are improving. But, Shahanga said well, our 1) marquees have mostly been poor, and as noted 2) we don't have our own "Brosques, Carneys, or Milligans" [a bunch of reliable former Socceroos we've had for more than 2 seasons] and 3) overall we haven't had very very few players for more than 2 seasons, and the players signed haven't often enough been in their prime between 23 and 30. It is January now, so the club has a few more weeks to push its recruitment track-record in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.