Fiorini

[reamsofverse]

Left out the senior squad for tonight's game and playing for the U21s again today.

Another Andy Scott masterclass.

[Occam’s Razor]

Feb 13, 2024 13:50:26 GMT reamsofverse said:

Left out the senior squad for tonight's game and playing for the U21s again today.

Another Andy Scott masterclass.

Signing another club’s unwanted squad member , just to get him fit.

Andy Scott never learns.

Does anyone want to explain the point of the Fiorini signing, because I can’t.

[aaronaldo]

Best way to get him fit isn't it?

Andy Scott does seem to like a 'gamble' though. Too many come in on a gamble of getting fit and proving they are good enough for me. 1-2 is fine but we seem to bring most in like this.

[ExeterAddick]

How much a role did Micky Apples play in this too, since he previously played under him?

Whoever was responsible, he enters the great pantheon of horrendous loanees over the past decade.

[hertsaddick]

Feb 13, 2024 14:25:09 GMT ExeterAddick said:

How much a role did Micky Apples play in this too, since he previously played under him?

Whoever was responsible, he enters the great pantheon of horrendous loanees over the past decade.

Think it was said that he was signed with a view to next season, which I thought was strange at the time as he's on a long term contract with Man City, not that he's ever likely to play for them.

[se7sm]

If this was a one off it’s bad luck to continually sign players that are not fit to play or just not good enough is sheer incompetence.

[aaronaldo]

He got a goal and two assists today (if you count a rebound from his shot)

[valley]

Feb 13, 2024 14:50:09 GMT aaronaldo said:

He got a goal and two assists today (if you count a rebound from his shot)

8-1.

[Occam’s Razor]

Feb 13, 2024 14:50:09 GMT aaronaldo said:

He got a goal and two assists today (if you count a rebound from his shot)

It’s goals & assists tonight v Lincoln that we need.

[Occam’s Razor]

With seven games of the season remaining, this lad seems to have fallen into the Bermuda Triangle at Sparrows Labe also known as ‘Andy Scott’s bad signings’.

He must be fit, because CAFC Twitter videos at the training ground have shown Fiorini training with the squad.

A case of Nathan Jones not rating him ? The silence is deafening.

[kings hill addick]

I, actually, think that, relatively cheap, punts like this are always worth taking.

Let's be honest Connor Gallagher was a punt. No one believed that he would have been as instrumental, as he turned out to be, that season.

I suspect that Man City are paying most of his wages and if it works great, even if the plan was to assess his suitability for a loan next season, if it doesn't work we just send him back.

Unlike Charlie Kirk who, probably, cost the club over £1m, loans are both cheaper to acquire and much easier to get out the door.

Methven has been quite open, on his podcast, that the toughest part of running the club is getting out the players that you no longer want.

It's a numbers game, like the academy, you have to 'kiss a lot of frogs'...

[Occam’s Razor]

Conor Gallagher had already captained outstanding Chelsea sides through a number of age groups, including their famous Academy side.

Man City have had us over a number of times, including with Matt Smith, Tedic & now Fiorini.

[Mundell]

Mar 21, 2024 10:50:10 GMT kings hill addick said:

I, actually, think that, relatively cheap, punts like this are always worth taking.

Let's be honest Connor Gallagher was a punt. No one believed that he would have been as instrumental, as he turned out to be, that season.

I suspect that Man City are paying most of his wages and if it works great, even if the plan was to assess his suitability for a loan next season, if it doesn't work we just send him back.

Unlike Charlie Kirk who, probably, cost the club over £1m, loans are both cheaper to acquire and much easier to get out the door.

Methven has been quite open, on his podcast, that the toughest part of running the club is getting out the players that you no longer want.

It's a numbers game, like the academy, you have to 'kiss a lot of frogs'...

Completely agree with that kings hill addick Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but outcome bias is a curse for anyone who seeks to learn from past decisions in order to make better decisions going forward. Fiorini clearly hasn’t worked out, but that doesn’t mean signing him was a mistake. 

The question re Fiorini is what’s gone wrong. He’s still only 21 and only 15-18 months older than Tyreece Campbell and Miles Leaburn, for example. Three seasons ago he was a regular starter for NAC Breda in Eerste Divisie, two seasons ago he started regularly for Lincoln in League One and then last season, when fit, he started for Blackpool in the Championship. Perhaps he’s just not been able to recover from his latest injury? Was that predictable or was hoping he could a reasonable gamble? 

In many ways Thierry Small was a similar gamble, but he’s been a spectacular success. His loans at Port Vale and St Mirren were so unsuccessful that Southampton released him from his contract early when they could easily have extended him, continuing to loan him out before cashing cash. Did we see something they didn’t or did we just make a low risk bet that has paid off because something has eventually clicked for Small? Let’s not forget, even we only offered him a contract until the end of the season. 

In my view, both signings are evidence of a valid and potentially attractive strategy. Sign players with significant potential with very little risk, i.e. either on loan trials or on very short term contracts. We should judge the effectiveness of the strategy as a whole, not focus on whether individual signings are ‘good’ or ‘bad’, if we want to make better decisions going forward. 

[Occam’s Razor]

If a signing doesn’t work out, that means it hasn’t been successful. Therefore, that signing was a mistake.

[Mundell]

Mar 21, 2024 11:55:21 GMT Occam’s Razor said:

If a signing doesn’t work out, that means it hasn’t been successful. Therefore, that signing was a mistake.

A ‘mistake’ isn’t necessarily a poor decision. In the same way that a good outcome doesn’t always imply a good decision. 

[Occam’s Razor]

Poobah language. Tortuous tautology, being deployed to attempt justify another signing that has bombed.

Had Scott even glanced at Fiorini’s career record to date, he would have seen that his signing was an act of rank stupidity.

[Mundell]

Mar 21, 2024 12:03:42 GMT Occam’s Razor said:

Poobah language. Tortuous tautology, being deployed to attempt justify another signing that has bombed.

Had Scott even glanced at Fiorini’s career record to date, he would have seen that his signing was an act of rank stupidity.

Nonsense. On several levels.

[Occam’s Razor]

Mar 21, 2024 12:06:37 GMT Mundell said:

Mar 21, 2024 12:03:42 GMT Occam’s Razor said:

Poobah language. Tortuous tautology, being deployed to attempt justify another signing that has bombed.

Had Scott even glanced at Fiorini’s career record to date, he would have seen that his signing was an act of rank stupidity.

Nonsense. On several levels.

It seems to me & others that you have personally invested in somehow being correct about Andy Scott, namely that our Technical Director is a good thing for the club.

I mention ‘others’ only because you get quite an easy ride on here, other than some gentle ribbing from me, whereas you have detractors elsewhere.

What I would say on Fiorini is that he’s made 17 professional appearances in the past two years (4 for us), and given his well catalogued fitness issues, there was no justifiable basis for signing him given our precarious league position at that time. Perhaps you could explain why you think that there was 🤔

I recall reading at the time, on CL, that his loan was down to the then dynamic between Appleton (ex Blackpool) and Scott.

[Mundell]

Mar 21, 2024 12:24:09 GMT Occam’s Razor said:

Mar 21, 2024 12:06:37 GMT Mundell said:

Nonsense. On several levels.

It seems to me & others that you have personally invested in somehow being correct about Andy Scott, namely that our Technical Director is a good thing for the club.

I mention ‘others’ only because you get quite an easy ride on here, other than some gentle ribbing from me, whereas you have detractors elsewhere.

What I would say on Fiorini is that he’s made 17 professional appearances in the past two years (4 for us), and given his well catalogued fitness issues, there was no justifiable basis for signing him given our precarious league position at that time. Perhaps you could explain why you think that there was 🤔

I recall reading at the time, on CL, that his loan was down to the then dynamic between Appleton (ex Blackpool) and Scott.

You might be right about Fiorini, but you’re wrong about my motivation. I’m not trying to defend Andy Scott. I’m fairly indifferent to whether he stays or leaves, though if he does leave I’d view it as a negative if he wasn’t replaced.

The fundamental point I’m making is a very simple one and it’s that you can’t judge the quality of a decision solely by the outcome.

[seriouslyred]

Mar 21, 2024 12:06:37 GMT Mundell said:

Mar 21, 2024 12:03:42 GMT Occam’s Razor said:

Poobah language. Tortuous tautology, being deployed to attempt justify another signing that has bombed.

Had Scott even glanced at Fiorini’s career record to date, he would have seen that his signing was an act of rank stupidity.

Nonsense. On several levels.

I really wouldn't bother!

Some spend their whole time showing their support by focussing upon the players who don't feature in the matchday 18 AND the one club in 24 that secures promotion from the Championship without parachute monies.

Hindsight? Or perhaps wilful neglect of a complex, mature player market where there really are very few bargains. Hankering after a guarantee of success accompanied by blame and regrets when players, managers, executives and owners fail.

The current landscape and recent history of CAFC allow us clear choices in our approach:

What does the club need to do in the next window as opposed to "I'm entitled to promotion!"

How will the owners and SMT execute the vision to improve continuously and perform on [top six] budget with a play off finish? As opposed to "sack the SMT!"

Celebrate having a club to support OR bang on about a bygone era whilst ignoring the fall of CAFC as the parachute monies ran out just as we were relegated

The list goes on but life is short 😀

[garrynelson]

Mar 21, 2024 12:32:30 GMT Mundell said:

Mar 21, 2024 12:24:09 GMT Occam’s Razor said:

It seems to me & others that you have personally invested in somehow being correct about Andy Scott, namely that our Technical Director is a good thing for the club.

I mention ‘others’ only because you get quite an easy ride on here, other than some gentle ribbing from me, whereas you have detractors elsewhere.

What I would say on Fiorini is that he’s made 17 professional appearances in the past two years (4 for us), and given his well catalogued fitness issues, there was no justifiable basis for signing him given our precarious league position at that time. Perhaps you could explain why you think that there was 🤔

I recall reading at the time, on CL, that his loan was down to the then dynamic between Appleton (ex Blackpool) and Scott.

You might be right about Fiorini, but you’re wrong about my motivation. I’m not trying to defend Andy Scott. I’m fairly indifferent to whether he stays or leaves, though if he does leave I’d view it as a negative if he wasn’t replaced.

The fundamental point I’m making is a very simple one and it’s that you can’t judge the quality of a decision solely by the outcome.

I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with you there Mundell

That is exactly how you judge the quality of a decision - by the outcome.

Good outcome = good decision
Bad outcome = bad decision

Now the intentions of the decision are another matter altogether, but to suggest that signings like Fiorini, Tedic, Abankwah etc… weren’t bad decisions is just false

[Mundell]

Mar 21, 2024 17:29:58 GMT garrynelson said:

Mar 21, 2024 12:32:30 GMT Mundell said:

You might be right about Fiorini, but you’re wrong about my motivation. I’m not trying to defend Andy Scott. I’m fairly indifferent to whether he stays or leaves, though if he does leave I’d view it as a negative if he wasn’t replaced.

The fundamental point I’m making is a very simple one and it’s that you can’t judge the quality of a decision solely by the outcome.

I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with you there Mundell

That is exactly how you judge the quality of a decision - by the outcome.

Good outcome = good decision
Bad outcome = bad decision

Now the intentions of the decision are another matter altogether, but to suggest that signings like Fiorini, Tedic, Abankwah etc… weren’t bad decisions is just false

Let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario. I have a regular coin which is unbiased. I’m going to toss it once and offer you 2/1 against it comes up heads and 2/1 on it comes up tails.

You bet on it coming up heads at 2/1 against. I toss the coin and it comes up tails. Did you make a good or bad decision?

[garrynelson]

Mar 21, 2024 22:20:56 GMT Mundell said:

Mar 21, 2024 17:29:58 GMT garrynelson said:

I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with you there Mundell

That is exactly how you judge the quality of a decision - by the outcome.

Good outcome = good decision
Bad outcome = bad decision

Now the intentions of the decision are another matter altogether, but to suggest that signings like Fiorini, Tedic, Abankwah etc… weren’t bad decisions is just false

Let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario. I have a regular coin which is unbiased. I’m going to toss it once and offer you 2/1 against it comes up heads and 2/1 on it comes up tails.

You bet on it coming up heads at 2/1 against. I toss the coin and it comes up tails. Did you make a good or bad decision?

If I’m making a hypothetical decision based on the toss of a coin? Bad decision
If I’m making a decision based on the fact a player has played minimal games over the last few seasons and is injury prone and when I bring them to the club anyway and they turn out to be unfit and not very good? Also a bad decision

[garrynelson]

Not really sure about your unrelated coin toss analogy unless you’re suggesting that Andy Scott simply selects players to sign based on tossing a coin?

[aaronaldo]

Mar 21, 2024 22:48:39 GMT garrynelson said:

Not really sure about your unrelated coin toss analogy unless you’re suggesting that Andy Scott simply selects players to sign based on tossing a coin?

I think the point is more about the decision isn’t necessarily bad due to the outcome. It could’ve been a perfectly good decision with reasonable knowledge and expectations that didn’t work out.

He may go to the next club a be an absolute beast of a player. Is he then a good decision to sign him?

Edit: He scored for Scotlands u21’s tonight btw

[garrynelson]

Mar 21, 2024 22:59:51 GMT aaronaldo said:

Mar 21, 2024 22:48:39 GMT garrynelson said:

Not really sure about your unrelated coin toss analogy unless you’re suggesting that Andy Scott simply selects players to sign based on tossing a coin?

I think the point is more about the decision isn’t necessarily bad due to the outcome. It could’ve been a perfectly good decision with reasonable knowledge and expectations that didn’t work out.

He may go to the next club a be an absolute beast of a player. Is he then a good decision to sign him?

Edit: He scored for Scotlands u21’s tonight btw

The decision hasn’t been a good one. It was an odd decision at the time - it may have been a gamble that could have paid off, but the facts and knowledge at the time didn’t give a particularly favorable likelihood of that happening

It hasn’t paid off, so it has been a bad decision

[weststandfruitloop]

Mar 21, 2024 22:20:56 GMT Mundell said:

Let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario. I have a regular coin which is unbiased. I’m going to toss it once and offer you 2/1 against it comes up heads and 2/1 on it comes up tails.

You bet on it coming up heads at 2/1 against. I toss the coin and it comes up tails. Did you make a good or bad decision?

I'm not sure these folks understand the difference between 2/1 against and 2/1 on.

Maybe reframe the question with decimal odds for the slow kids? x

[Mundell]

Mar 21, 2024 23:27:36 GMT garrynelson said:

Mar 21, 2024 22:59:51 GMT aaronaldo said:

I think the point is more about the decision isn’t necessarily bad due to the outcome. It could’ve been a perfectly good decision with reasonable knowledge and expectations that didn’t work out.

He may go to the next club a be an absolute beast of a player. Is he then a good decision to sign him?

Edit: He scored for Scotlands u21’s tonight btw

The decision hasn’t been a good one. It was an odd decision at the time - it may have been a gamble that could have paid off, but the facts and knowledge at the time didn’t give a particularly favorable likelihood of that happening

It hasn’t paid off, so it has been a bad decision

In the case of my simple example above, you made a good decision that happened not to work out.

The point in the first post on this topic was that if we want to make good, or better, decisions in the future we need to learn the right lessons from the decisions we made in the past and that can mean not being overwhelmed by outcome bias. 

If I offered you the same choice of bets again you should make the same choice. If you chose to bet on tails at 2/1 on because that’s what would have worked last time you’d be making a poor decision. And that would be true even if you won this time because the coin landed on tails again. This should not be controversial. 

You’re right that Fiorini was a gamble that might have paid off. It was also a low cost, low risk gamble. However, in this case we don’t have enough information to judge whether, ex ante, the loan signing was a good or bad bet. The point kings hill addick made though was that the strategy made sense. We shouldn’t reject the strategy just because on this occasion it didn’t work out. Indeed, Thierry Small provides a very good counter example. 

[seriouslyred]

Mar 22, 2024 10:15:05 GMT Mundell said:

Mar 21, 2024 23:27:36 GMT garrynelson said:

The decision hasn’t been a good one. It was an odd decision at the time - it may have been a gamble that could have paid off, but the facts and knowledge at the time didn’t give a particularly favorable likelihood of that happening

It hasn’t paid off, so it has been a bad decision

In the case of my simple example above, you made a good decision that happened not to work out.

The point in the first post on this topic was that if we want to make good, or better, decisions in the future we need to learn the right lessons from the decisions we made in the past and that can mean not being overwhelmed by outcome bias. 

If I offered you the same choice of bets again you should make the same choice. If you chose to bet on tails at 2/1 on because that’s what would have worked last time you’d be making a poor decision. And that would be true even if you won this time because the coin landed on tails again. This should not be controversial. 

You’re right that Fiorini was a gamble that might have paid off. It was also a low cost, low risk gamble. However, in this case we don’t have enough information to judge whether, ex ante, the loan signing was a good or bad bet. The point kings hill addick made though was that the strategy made sense. We shouldn’t reject the strategy just because on this occasion it didn’t work out. Indeed, Thierry Small provides a very good counter example. 

It's always very tempting to blame individual players and executives when the team is failing and landing in mid-table again.

Over the two 2023 windows SE7 Partners dismantled almost all of the 2022 squad they inherited and gave Academy players a chance plus acquired more senior players.

Those Academy players consist AMB, Ness, Campbell, Leaburn, Anderson and Asiimwe who have all played at different times as well as developing through experience and age. This may have been a disappointing season in terms of League position.

But they have replaced the 2022 squad, and one can assert that "just" four or five more "elite" players will make us a genuine contender.

Add in a new, experienced manager, a new Director of Performance from Brighton, and an eight game undefeated run and it's somewhat confusing as to why some only focus on the players who simply won't be here next August.