Premier League - Ipswich Town vs Nottingham Forest Preview & Matchday Thread

[The Odious Mr Rossi]

what has been a thoroughly awful season.

Do you mean that considering context, or just outright? Because we have outperformed Southampton by a mile and Leicester too, which is no mean feat.

It has been a thoroughly awful season because it appears to be a relegation season, but it's not without points of merit too, it was a herculean task to stay up.

In truth, both.

I agree we've out-performed Southampton - we have the same number of points as Leicester so I think that saying we have out-performed them is a little bit silly.

We all knew it would be difficult to stay up, but considering we're the second highest spenders on players this season I think we ought to be higher up than we are, hence it's an awful season in my book.

[Bluemike]

You know the most striking thing for me is that Southampton probably are the worst Premier League team ever with a meagre Nine points, 4 of which they got from us for God sake, half their points off us !!!

[hallamblue]

That's why we will probably lose to Wolves, because when the chips are down Town never turn up. It's been like this throughout the entire time of following Town.

[Ricco]

we have the same number of points as Leicester so I think that saying we have out-performed them is a little bit silly.

Perhaps, and maybe Leicester may feel the same, but we should certainly have more points than we do for how we've played.

I personally thought we were going to scrape staying up this season, so I am disappointed. In terms of what we've managed in an impossible division, it's probably a 5/10 performance/effort so far for me, not a disaster... it's just it needed to be 8/10 for us to stand any chance of staying up.

[ITFC2024]

we have the same number of points as Leicester so I think that saying we have out-performed them is a little bit silly.

Perhaps, and maybe Leicester may feel the same, but we should certainly have more points than we do for how we've played.

I personally thought we were going to scrape staying up this season, so I am disappointed. In terms of what we've managed in an impossible division, it's probably a 5/10 performance/effort so far for me, not a disaster... it's just it needed to be 8/10 for us to stand any chance of staying up.

Cut out the silly mistakes and pub-league defending, and I'm sure we would have survived. That bit is most disappointing for me.

[The Odious Mr Rossi]

we have the same number of points as Leicester so I think that saying we have out-performed them is a little bit silly.

Perhaps, and maybe Leicester may feel the same, but we should certainly have more points than we do for how we've played.

I personally thought we were going to scrape staying up this season, so I am disappointed. In terms of what we've managed in an impossible division, it's probably a 5/10 performance/effort so far for me, not a disaster... it's just it needed to be 8/10 for us to stand any chance of staying up.

Cut out the silly mistakes and pub-league defending, and I'm sure we would have survived. That bit is most disappointing for me.

So who do we blame for that? The players? Granted there's not a lot of quality amongst them.

Or the coaching staff? We're making the same schoolboy mistakes week after week, so why are they not ironing this out?

The manager? He has mentioned more than once just lately that he's had to rotate the squad a lot due to injuries etc. True, we have had our fair share of injuries, yet he rotates virtually every game regardless. What's even worse, somebody misses a game for a knock or suspension, the cover comes in for a game and usually plays well yet they are dropped the minute the original player is fit.

Personally, I feel that all 3 need to take a long hard look at themselves and their performance.

[hallamblue]

WORD ^^^^

[Ricco]

So who do we blame for that?

How about the Premier League? For allowing the gulf between the divisions to become too large, not enforcing fair play ruls, and for allowing all the rich teams to hoard quality players.

It's natural to want to point fingers, of course McKenna could have done better, of course the recruitment team could have done better, of course the players could have done better... however aren't we just setting unrealistic expectations for them, partly based on the previous couple of seasons of success?

I'd say we're victims of our own success and that the football authorities have failed us, everything else is ifs, buts and maybes. I have yet to hear a strong argument for anything we did 'wrong' that was in within our control that would have made enough of a difference had we done things differently.

[Blue Wilf]

So who do we blame for that?

How about the Premier League? For allowing the gulf between the divisions to become too large, not enforcing fair play ruls, and for allowing all the rich teams to hoard quality players.

It's natural to want to point fingers, of course McKenna could have done better, of course the recruitment team could have done better, of course the players could have done better... however aren't we just setting unrealistic expectations for them, partly based on the previous couple of seasons of success?

I'd say we're victims of our own success and that the football authorities have failed us, everything else is ifs, buts and maybes. I have yet to hear a strong argument for anything we did 'wrong' that was in within our control that would have made enough of a difference had we done things differently.

I would argue not being tactically aware enough to make changes to how we approach the game when in leading positions (ie Brentford, Fulham etc) is a strong argument of something we did wrong - and we have paid a high price (ie relegation). Also, constant rotation and playing players who are underperforming - another strong argument. Just my view.

[ITFC2024]

Hindsight is 20/20, but I often wonder how we would have faired if we’d stuck with our core players who got us promoted. Obviously we needed Delap, but many of our signings were overpriced and underwhelming. It almost seems like by paying exorbitant prices, Ashton felt he was getting players who would perform well in the PL. I’m a huge fan of MA, but I think alot of our acquisitions were based on what we could now afford rather than astute recruitment and finding pieces to the winning formula we already had. Chaplin is a player who could have played a bigger part, Walton obviously now and maybe Broadhead & Hirst. We spent a lot of money on unproven PL players when we already had that in the squad. In the future, I hope our recruitment team focuses more on ability rather than cost.

[ashfordblue]

What we need is a centre-half of the same stature as Dan Burn of Newcastle and we build the defence around that player, similar to when Mogga was playing, big and strong and also up when free kicks and corners are taken, we also need a new LB as Davis has struggled big time and we need a better midfield as Morsy has been proved wanting the only midfielder who has performed well is Cajuste, and we keep Hirst, Broadhead, Chaplin, Hutchinson, Szmodics, Philogene, Ogbene, and if we can get him back on loan Encisco,

[Bluemike]

Enciso has done nothing for me tbh, very disappointing. Sarmiento was way better.

[The Odious Mr Rossi]

Hindsight is 20/20, but I often wonder how we would have faired if we’d stuck with our core players who got us promoted. Obviously we needed Delap, but many of our signings were overpriced and underwhelming. It almost seems like by paying exorbitant prices, Ashton felt he was getting players who would perform well in the PL. I’m a huge fan of MA, but I think alot of our acquisitions were based on what we could now afford rather than astute recruitment and finding pieces to the winning formula we already had. Chaplin is a player who could have played a bigger part, Walton obviously now and maybe Broadhead & Hirst. We spent a lot of money on unproven PL players when we already had that in the squad. In the future, I hope our recruitment team focuses more on ability rather than cost.

That is a very interesting thought.

Pre-season there was a thread on here about how much we would spend and what we needed. The majority were saying that we would spend around £90m and needed 6 or 7 players around the £10m mark. A few of us argued that it would be better to spend the £90m on 2 or 3 players of higher quality. It would be interesting to know how we would have fared by merely adding 2 or 3 quality players into the existing team. Seems to me that we prioritised quantity over quality when it ought to have been the other way round.

[Ricco]

That's what I said too Rossi, a few real quality improvement type players is what I wanted. Instead it feels like we have about a dozen players here that are no better than who they were meant to replace, and instead only serve to disrupt the existing team/squad.

And yes Mike, Enciso always had absolute desperation written all over it for me.

We have seen from the many rebuilds we tried in League 1 that the first season doesn't go well, even with McKenna in charge, yet we tried a rebuild in the first season in the Premier League. I think that was naive, we should have used our Championship players more, used the same team spirit and understanding that has taken us so far. However we'll never know, perhaps we'd be on 7 points, not 17 if we did that.

Same with the tactics and seeing out games... yes there were times we could have changed things and it may have produced a different outcome, but it's all just maybes. At the end of the day, Wolves have a -18 goal difference to our -34, they are a better team and different tactics certainly don't guarantee to overhaul that difference.

There's a lot of things that could have been done better and together perhaps we would have had a different outcome, but I think that's expecting the best case scenario in all areas and that's not realistic.

[hallamblue]

That age old thing that people perceive you MIST be getting quality if you pay over the odds for something . Its almost a snob vale really. The PL is perceived as "the best in the world" just because of the £££££ involved. Well not for me I'm afraid. Its pants. As soon as we were a PL club, up went the price of any player we inquired about. Are these players (strangely all valued around £20m) worth it ? Of course they're not.

[Ricco]

That age old thing that people perceive you MIST be getting quality if you pay over the odds for something.

Exactly, see how many people prefer a bottle of identical liquid if you tell them it's a £200 bottle of vintage bordeaux, rather than some £3.99 cooking acid.

It's fine for the average Joe to make that mistake with wine, but companies spending tens of millions of pounds should be a little more wise to it.

[valleyroad]

Hindsight is 20/20, but I often wonder how we would have faired if we’d stuck with our core players who got us promoted. Obviously we needed Delap, but many of our signings were overpriced and underwhelming. It almost seems like by paying exorbitant prices, Ashton felt he was getting players who would perform well in the PL. I’m a huge fan of MA, but I think alot of our acquisitions were based on what we could now afford rather than astute recruitment and finding pieces to the winning formula we already had. Chaplin is a player who could have played a bigger part, Walton obviously now and maybe Broadhead & Hirst. We spent a lot of money on unproven PL players when we already had that in the squad. In the future, I hope our recruitment team focuses more on ability rather than cost.

That is a very interesting thought.

Pre-season there was a thread on here about how much we would spend and what we needed. The majority were saying that we would spend around £90m and needed 6 or 7 players around the £10m mark. A few of us argued that it would be better to spend the £90m on 2 or 3 players of higher quality. It would be interesting to know how we would have fared by merely adding 2 or 3 quality players into the existing team. Seems to me that we prioritised quantity over quality when it ought to have been the other way round.

Problem is that those 2 or 3 players wouldn't come to Ipswich as they have better offers.
Plus most of the squad who came up overachieved and were not good enough for PL.
So at the price the club could afford and the spending envelope they were allowed by the rules they went for top Championship level or lower Premiership players in the main who they hoped would step up. Plus added loan players that they could get like Phillips and Cajuste.

[The Odious Mr Rossi]

Hindsight is 20/20, but I often wonder how we would have faired if we’d stuck with our core players who got us promoted. Obviously we needed Delap, but many of our signings were overpriced and underwhelming. It almost seems like by paying exorbitant prices, Ashton felt he was getting players who would perform well in the PL. I’m a huge fan of MA, but I think alot of our acquisitions were based on what we could now afford rather than astute recruitment and finding pieces to the winning formula we already had. Chaplin is a player who could have played a bigger part, Walton obviously now and maybe Broadhead & Hirst. We spent a lot of money on unproven PL players when we already had that in the squad. In the future, I hope our recruitment team focuses more on ability rather than cost.

That is a very interesting thought.

Pre-season there was a thread on here about how much we would spend and what we needed. The majority were saying that we would spend around £90m and needed 6 or 7 players around the £10m mark. A few of us argued that it would be better to spend the £90m on 2 or 3 players of higher quality. It would be interesting to know how we would have fared by merely adding 2 or 3 quality players into the existing team. Seems to me that we prioritised quantity over quality when it ought to have been the other way round.

Problem is that those 2 or 3 players wouldn't come to Ipswich as they have better offers.
Plus most of the squad who came up overachieved and were not good enough for PL.
So at the price the club could afford and the spending envelope they were allowed by the rules they went for top Championship level or lower Premiership players in the main who they hoped would step up. Plus added loan players that they could get like Phillips and Cajuste.

To say that players worth £30-£40m would not come to Ipswich because they had better offers is just an assumption on your part with not an atom of evidence to back it up.

Yeah, we got Phillips on loan - and how has that worked out?

[Ricco]

Yeah, we got Phillips on loan - and how has that worked out?

Odiously one might argue.

[The Odious Mr Rossi]

Yeah, we got Phillips on loan - and how has that worked out?

Odiously one might argue.

indeed

[shabba]

That is a very interesting thought.

Pre-season there was a thread on here about how much we would spend and what we needed. The majority were saying that we would spend around £90m and needed 6 or 7 players around the £10m mark. A few of us argued that it would be better to spend the £90m on 2 or 3 players of higher quality. It would be interesting to know how we would have fared by merely adding 2 or 3 quality players into the existing team. Seems to me that we prioritised quantity over quality when it ought to have been the other way round.

Problem is that those 2 or 3 players wouldn't come to Ipswich as they have better offers.
Plus most of the squad who came up overachieved and were not good enough for PL.
So at the price the club could afford and the spending envelope they were allowed by the rules they went for top Championship level or lower Premiership players in the main who they hoped would step up. Plus added loan players that they could get like Phillips and Cajuste.

To say that players worth £30-£40m would not come to Ipswich because they had better offers is just an assumption on your part with not an atom of evidence to back it up.

Yeah, we got Phillips on loan - and how has that worked out?

Rossi I don’t know what planet you live on sometimes or if you’re just out to wind people up (successfully to be fair).

The evidence would be how many promoted teams have managed to secure £30-40m players in their first season up.

I’d imagine not many. Or look at 30-40m transfers this season and see how many went to clubs outside the bottom 3.

With those fees also comes larger wages, which can upset the squad harmony too.

I think Smith Rowe was 30m? He hasn’t exactly ripped it up. Eddie Nketieh is another - also a bit of a flop.

I actually agree I’d rather have less players and better quality ones but as others say it’s impossible to get them as they’d rather go to established PL sides.

[The Odious Mr Rossi]

Rossi I don’t know what planet you live on sometimes or if you’re just out to wind people up (successfully to be fair).
The evidence would be how many promoted teams have managed to secure £30-40m players in their first season up.
I’d imagine not many. Or look at 30-40m transfers this season and see how many went to clubs outside the bottom 3.
With those fees also comes larger wages, which can upset the squad harmony too.
I think Smith Rowe was 30m? He hasn’t exactly ripped it up. Eddie Nketieh is another - also a bit of a flop.
I actually agree I’d rather have less players and better quality ones but as others say it’s impossible to get them as they’d rather go to established PL sides.

The conversation was about players not wanting to come to Ipswich, NOT clubs in their first season up.
And you'd "imagine not many"? That's supposition rather than fact.

Me try to deliberately wind people up? Surely not. To be fair, in the earlier days of this forum I did, and I freely admitted it (I had a long conversation with Liz one Saturday pre match about this). But the last 15 years or so, no - I merely say things as I see them; and if that irritates others, then so be it.

[Ricco]

(I had a long conversation with Liz one Saturday pre match about this)

Liz the IRL moderator