Lowton (and Weimann) showed promised but failed to kick-on, do people feel that this was because they lacked the cajoles to push to the highest level or was it a consequence of a lack of coaching? You could argue that both had the athleticism to make it but their tactical knowledge and skills never really improved. It seems bonkers that Lambert/the club decided to go down this buy 'promising youngsters' route without seemingly having the desire to develop the players - an example being going for months without a full complement of coaches.
Quote from: Dante Lavelli on June 24, 2015, 06:55:11 AMLowton (and Weimann) showed promised but failed to kick-on, do people feel that this was because they lacked the cajoles to push to the highest level or was it a consequence of a lack of coaching? You could argue that both had the athleticism to make it but their tactical knowledge and skills never really improved. It seems bonkers that Lambert/the club decided to go down this buy 'promising youngsters' route without seemingly having the desire to develop the players - an example being going for months without a full complement of coaches. I would strongly argue that Lowton's LACK of athleticism is one of the reasons he wasn't suited to the Premier League long term.
Quote from: Toronto Villa on June 22, 2015, 05:51:10 PMI certainly don't overrate him. I just think our memory of him is maybe more fond than it should be because of that goal. There is no doubt he was a very promising talent but he didn't have to leave. He could have stayed and fought for his place. The way it went with the other players unless MON had a personal gripe then he'd have worked his way into the first team. It's a shame how it all went down and that he felt he had to go to Bolton to get regular first team action. But it also says a lot that he went to Bolton and not to a higher profile side as to how many other managers felt about him at the time. If everyone thought he'd become the player he is then he would have gone elsewhere. I think most saw him as a very good prospect, not quite ready for the first team and with room for improvement. Just as MON probably and his coaches saw him at the time.This was the main problem, he did this and deserved a chance to keep his spot but mon decided to sign Davies and Knight and push both of them in front of him.
I certainly don't overrate him. I just think our memory of him is maybe more fond than it should be because of that goal. There is no doubt he was a very promising talent but he didn't have to leave. He could have stayed and fought for his place. The way it went with the other players unless MON had a personal gripe then he'd have worked his way into the first team. It's a shame how it all went down and that he felt he had to go to Bolton to get regular first team action. But it also says a lot that he went to Bolton and not to a higher profile side as to how many other managers felt about him at the time. If everyone thought he'd become the player he is then he would have gone elsewhere. I think most saw him as a very good prospect, not quite ready for the first team and with room for improvement. Just as MON probably and his coaches saw him at the time.
Quote from: Risso on June 24, 2015, 09:59:08 AMQuote from: Dante Lavelli on June 24, 2015, 06:55:11 AMLowton (and Weimann) showed promised but failed to kick-on, do people feel that this was because they lacked the cajoles to push to the highest level or was it a consequence of a lack of coaching? You could argue that both had the athleticism to make it but their tactical knowledge and skills never really improved. It seems bonkers that Lambert/the club decided to go down this buy 'promising youngsters' route without seemingly having the desire to develop the players - an example being going for months without a full complement of coaches. I would strongly argue that Lowton's LACK of athleticism is one of the reasons he wasn't suited to the Premier League long term.Absolutely agree on that.The whole "young and hungry" concept seemed to be based on the idea that what you had to do was pick up a collection of cheap, younger players, stick them in the team for enough premier league games, and eventually, they'd just "magically" become good.It looked nuts at the time, and now we know a bit more about the chaotic coaching situation (Karsa, Culverhouse, Keane, then nobody etc) it looks even more nuts with hindsight.I honestly think they (Faulkner, Lerner) just thought that if you wanted it to happen enough, if you gave it a chance to happen, it'd just happen. Just like making the bomb squad train with the kids would "make" other clubs come in for them.At worst stupidity, at best, naivety.
People also forget how good Knight was during the first half of that season 07/08 alongside Laursen when Davies was injured. The pair of them, in the season that Cahill was sold, were solid with Laursen. As QB says, you'd be hard pushed to say you wouldn't have played them at the time in favour of Cahill.
Didn't we concede fifty league goals or more with Davies/Knight partnering Laursen in 07/08? The defence wasn't that good. Just as well we pwnd teams at setplays and counters.
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: Matthew Lowton (Read 152494 times)
