Matthew Lowton

[silhillvilla]

I remember The the jackal aka Carlos Cuellar playing loads of awkward games at RB. It was MON's Waterloo.

[Dante Lavelli]

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.

[Villa in Denmark]

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.

The biggest problem was throwing too many unproven players into the first team at the same time.
The second biggest was that despite most of those showing some form of promise / ability, it was never nurtured and allowed to develop.  In fact after hitting a highpoint in spring of his Lambert's first season, the whole team regressed in a very ugly death spiral.

Remember Sherwood's comment about them having to try and teach Bacuna how to play fullback in a week after a few days in the job.  The gut who'd played a fair percentage of his appearances at fullback with everyone saying how was good going forwards but heart attack material when defending. (Not saying that he'll ever make a good fullback, might be why Sherwood's looking at other alternatives if the rumours are true)

[Risso]

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.

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

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.

[QBVILLA]

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.

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 think the timing played a big part in Cahill leaving. He was 22/23 ready for first team football and coming towards the end of his contract. At the time he was being kept out by a Laursen/ Davies partnership. For me Laursen is the best centre half i've seen since McGrath and Davies had just been deservedly called into the England squad. I thought Cahill looked a real prospect but hand on heart wouldn't have picked him ahead of those two at the time. Weeks after we had sold Cahill, Davies did his achilles and was out for months. Had that injury have occured earler then Cahill may have signed a new deal and got the first team football he wanted. Ifs and buts which is football.

[glasses]

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.

[cheltenhamlion]

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.

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.

Woodhall and I had a beer with Faulkner in the Bartons after the last game of the season when this was first being mooted.

PF was giddy with excitement about how we could become an English Ajax. I was thinking "you haven't quite grasped this have you chief".

[Gregorys Boy]

At 26 and not looking like progressing enough then I can see why we have moved Lowton on, but I did always like him. Have a bad feeling that we will still be seeing Hutton lumbling about the touchline come August too.

[dcdavecollett]

Lumbling -what a great new word!

[clash city rocker]

Yep..he certainly is a right ugly lumbler.

[Damo70]

We appear to have considered anyone under 25 to be classed as 'kids' in recent years and allowances should be made for them. They weren't exactly Spink, Williams, Gibson, Cowans and Shaw were they? More like Norton, Glover, Walker, Bradley and Kerr.

[Neil Hawkes]

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.

The clue is in the reading, all of Davies, Knight & Cahill had wonderful appearances alongside Laursen. Only one was capable of doing the same when marvelous Martin wasn't playing and he was the one that was sold.

[eamonn]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

Just looking at the table for that season.

2007 - we scored 37 away goals. 2014/15 - we scored 31 goals *total*