Cardiff boss hits out at "Swansea fan" journo!

Meow!

Cardiff's Russell Slade is under a lot of pressure at the moment. A lot. I don't normally comment on Cardiff stuff on this blog but hey, he mentioned us so it's fair game. 

Post by Andrea Lewis.

This was in response to WalesOnline's Chris Wathan's questions - and Chris did not mention fans getting a refund in a recent critical match report. 

Given some of the stuff that's been happening over the last few weeks this at least gives us a bit of perspective. Things could be worse.

Cork signing essential, as no guarantee Britton will return

With Leon having missed much of the season through injury, Josh Kilmister looks at the worst case scenario

View image | gettyimages.com

So yesterday, out of pretty much nowhere, we were rumoured to have rekindled our interest in Southampton midfielder Jack Cork. Within hours, it came out that we were in ‘advanced talks’ with The Saints, and now it seems we have had a bid of around £3m accepted for the Englishman. So where does this leave our other midfielders?

If the deal goes through we’ll have Shelvey, Ki, Carroll, Britton, Cork and even the likes of Fulton and Grimes fighting for one of the two available places in midfield. Sigurdsson doesn’t look like losing his place any time soon, and I wouldn’t feel comfortable with any of the players listed playing in his role anyway. That’s seven players fighting for two places, with perhaps another two making the bench; that’s three players who won’t be in the squad at all. 

As much as he’s impressed this season, the signing of Cork might just jeopardise any potential move to make Tom Carroll’s loan permanent either now or in the summer, that is of course if we don’t lose anyone else from that midfield seven. Shelvey perhaps? Honestly, as much as he’s annoyed me this season, I’d be a bit gutted to see him leave. There’s obviously a player in there somewhere and I’ve got a feeling if we let him leave, we’d definitely regret it somewhere along the line. Ki is, as far as I’m concerned, here to stay while Fulton and Grimes are very much prospects for the future. 

That leaves Leon Britton. I’m sure I’m going to get a load of tweets telling me I’m wrong here, but perhaps Leon’s had a word behind the scenes. Maybe he’s decided that the time has come for him to hang up his boots for good. Of course I could be completely wrong. Leon could be training harder than ever and thoroughly looking forward to competing with Jack Cork for that defensive midfield position but, as much as I hate to even think about it, I think his time may have come. 

The reason I say this is not because of any poor performances – he’s been as good this season as he was in his prime – but his injuries. Leon Britton isn’t a player you would normally associate with injuries, but since February 2014 he’s been out on three separate occasions with a knee injury and is currently out with a groin injury, and he might see that as sign that he should consider his retirement. Britton has only had twelve injuries in his professional career, and four of them have come in the last twelve months.

Earlier this season Britton was given the role of co-commentator for BBC Wales in our game against Newcastle, and he later said that it was something he would consider taking up after his football career comes to an end.

“Being out injured has made me think more about after football. I’ve been injured for three months now and it’s the longest I have been injured in my career as such since I turned a professional.  

"It has given me the opportunity to look at other avenues like the media. You have to think about it. I wish football could last forever and I could go on until I am 50, but the reality is there is going to be a day when I have to hang up my boots and I have to look at what career path I will go down after that." – Leon Britton 

It’s not hard to see that he wasn’t happy being injured and although this time around it isn’t his knee that’s keeping him out of Monk’s plans, it must take it’s toll mentally for a player who so desperately wants to be out there helping his team, that’s the main reason I really hope the club can offer him a position in the backroom staff. I would only assume that the club contributed to the costs of Monk’s coaching courses, so offering Leon the same sort of package wouldn’t be a problem. Of course, that’s not saying he’s going to be our next manager, but there’s definitely a place for him in the coaching staff.

Ultimately the decision is his to make and whether he decides to keep on playing, go into coaching or even into the media, he’ll have the whole Jack Army behind him. But if what I’m saying becomes reality then I know Jack Cork is good enough to fill such a huge hole that would be left in our midfield. His contract is up in the summer, but maybe bringing him in now would even give him the chance to work with, and learn from the master himself.  

Thanks to Josh as usual - follow him on Twitter @JoshKilmister. Personally I think we'll see Leon back sooner rather than later, but that said I'll be amazed if he doesn't graduate to a role within our coaching setup. If anyone's earned a job for life, it's Leon Britton.

Jack Cork vs Swansea Midfield - Statistical Comparison

With the Swans rumoured to be in talks to sign the Southampton man, how has he compared to our midfield so far this season?

View image | gettyimages.com

In what must surely be one of the most protracted will-he-won't-he transfer sagas in our history, Jack Cork is reported to be once again the focus of attention from the Swans. I did a stats piece last summer (link) which showed Cork to be a shrewd defensive operator, but with over half a season having passed by since then I thought it'd be worth seeing how he's done this season, with Southampton having changed their style - to dramatic effect - under Ronald Koeman.

Firstly, and seeing as we're famously a team who likes to keep the ball, let's look at possession and passing. All stats are in "per ninety minutes" format unless not appropriate, and are sourced from Squawka.com.

As you can see Cork stands up very well when compared with our midfield, excelling in various areas. Southampton aren't as possession-focused this season so it's natural he's not completing as many passes as our midfielders, but his pass completion percentage is still very high while in terms of output it's hard to argue he isn't the more impressive player. More key passes and chances creates indicate that he'd help us move up the field perhaps more efficiently than we're currently able to.

Next, let's look at actual output - though I appreciate that when looking at more defensive-minded midfielders this may not be the best thing to judge players on.

Unsurprisingly, Leon doesn't score many goals. The only times I can remember are (obviously) the Forest playoff goal, another one (I think) against Forest which came back off the post and hit the keeper before going in, thus being credited as an own goal, before essentially the same fate befell him against Arsenal, when he defied years of habit to surge forward into the box. Again the goal went down as an own-goal, meaning he's now scored two goals in his last eight seasons with the Swans. We don't want him to score, anyway...

As for Cork, you can see he's managed two goals to Ki's three, despite only taking three shots! Excellent stuff, and that's the kind of finishing we like to see - if players are rarely in advanced positions it's important that when they do get into said positions they make it worthwhile. There's no point breaking from a defensive midfield berth if you aren't going to contribute, so that's an encouraging statistic. 

Lastly, let's look at defence.

I was genuinely surprised by Cork's tackling stats, as last season (see the stats piece from this summer) he outstripped our defensive midfielders in terms of ballwinning. I think you have to accept the disparity has been caused by a change in system, as it's so dramatic (3.36 tackles per ninety down to 1.31 this season) that I can't see it being the result of his form dipping.

It's a bit of a mixed bag from there on in. He commits more fouls, but is yet to receive a yellow card - though having said that is it any surprise our players have suffered more at the hands of referees? It's almost pointless comparing anyone's disciplinary records against ours. 

He wins a good percentage of his duels, while his interceptions and clearances fall inbetween those of our current midfielders. The prospect of Cork coming in also makes Tom Carroll's situation that much more interesting. Does this mean we're not in for Carroll? To be honest, I don't think so. Shelvey's future remains uncertain (and I've only just realised I haven't included him in this piece - sorry Jonjo!), while Leon isn't getting any younger. Yes, we've signed Matt Grimes, but he and Jay Fulton are clearly regarded as a little way off the first team, whereas Cork clearly has the quality to come in and play from day one.

We've seen of late that with a couple of absentees we really struggle to put out a competitive midfield. Against Chelsea we were asking for trouble with Gylfi deep and Oliveira at attacking midfield, and bringing Cork in would significantly strengthen the quality of our central midfield unit. With Shelvey still some way from resembling a Swansea City midfielder, and Carroll by no means certain to join, the signature of Cork would be an excellent addition. With his contract running out, he'll be cheap too.

When I put together the original stats piece in the summer, my opinion was we should do our best to sign Cork. That opinion hasn't changed. No price has been mentioned in the press yet, but I'd imagine it'll be below five million, given the short length of time on his existing contract. 

For that money, we'd be stupid to not sign him.

Investment: An Expert View

Andrew McGlashan takes a quick look at what investment could mean for the Swans

View image | gettyimages.com

It’s been a far from quiet January for us Swansea City fans and today has been just as busy with the news that an investment from US businessmen John Moores and Charles Noell may be close. The recent reports are that perhaps 30% of the shares in the club will be sold for around £30 million. As I have a corporate background I thought I would give my initial thoughts on this to shed some light on the impact of such an investment. 

1. Why are the board considering such an investment?

I’ve dealt with a variety of different investment types in the past few years and they do come in a variety of shapes and sizes and for a variety of reasons. Typically, an investment into a company that is doing well happens for one, or a combination of, these reasons:

(i) The board running the company know that in order to kick on and take the company to the next level, they require a significant injection of cash to develop and carry out their bigger ideas;

(ii) It is decided that in order for the company to continue growing, certain expertise and experience are required and in order to get this, a piece of the company has to be offered to incentivise such persons to join (think Dragons’ Den); or

(iii) Those who set up the company want to realise some of their initial investment into the company by selling some of their shares at a much higher price than they purchased them for. 

Now looking at the situation with the Swans and the board / shareholders, it could be that the reason for such an investment is in fact all of the above. Huw and the boys may well think that in order to avoid stagnating and running the risk of relegation, an injection of cash is needed to kick us on player wise as well as infrastructure and stadium wise. Further, the board may have realised the potential for commercial opportunities in the US given the popular rise of “soccer” over there in the past few years. These potential investors do have experience of running American sports teams and so could offer expertise, experience and connections in relation to this. 

Finally, the shareholders (save for the Trust whose position has been well documented) may want to extract some of the value that they hold in their shares. The £50,000 they initially invested is now worth a huge amount more if the club is valued at £100 million as reports suggest. This investment would allow them to sell some of their shares at a massive premium and that money will go straight into their bank accounts. 

2. What would be the impact?

Without being party to the negotiations it is difficult to comment accurately on this so I will have to comment on what happens typically. The first thing to understand would be that the £30 million paid by the investors doesn’t go to the club but to the shareholders selling their shares. So the existing shareholders (save for the Trust who are reluctant to sell) will sell a proportion of their shares for a proportion of the £30 million. This dilutes their influence re voting rights as they own less shares but is very good for their bank balance.

Any money to be injected into the squad, facilities etc is likely to come from loans from the US investors. This could be for significant amounts but obviously the investors are going to want some sort of security / protection for their loans. This security could well be that the loans are not repaid but the investors get issued more shares instead, meaning that everyone else’s shareholding, including the Trust, gets diluted. The impact is that the new investors have more sway and the rest of the shareholders have less. This is obviously just one option and it could well be the loans are secured over the training ground / other assets of the club.

Further, the investors are likely to each be nominated to the board, meaning that they have influence over the board’s decisions. In addition, if they were to hold 30% of the shares, they could block any “special resolutions” which the shareholders want to carry out as these require 75% agreement between the shareholders. These will be the more important decisions which gives the investors protection by restricting what the other shareholders can do. It does also mean that, with only 30% of the shares, they cannot vote things through so they won’t be calling the shots.

It may also be that the shareholders, once the investors are on board, will enter into a separate agreement between themselves and alter the “articles of association” of the Swans. These “articles” basically set out how the Swans is governed, how decisions are made, how many directors you need for a meeting to be held etc. The new investors, through this agreement and a new set of articles, will be able to insert special provisions which basically mean that nothing big happens without their consent. Again this provides them with some protection so that they have a say on all the big decisions the Swans board makes and nothing goes on behind their back.

3. What happens now

Well from what I can gather talks are ongoing and board meetings will undoubtedly be being held regularly to discuss this. Should the investment go through, a good indication of the changes can be found out at Companies House as the Swans will have to register any changes to their shareholdings and their articles. This will indicate the extent of power that the new investors will have and how much of the club’s shares they own. What these will say we cannot be sure of until / if the investment is confirmed.

Until then, we can be sure that the fans will be voicing their opinion and the Trust will be at the front of that. Everyone will have different views on whether such an investment is needed but hopefully this article has given a brief insight into the potential deal that is before the club.

Once we have more information, and I have more time, I’ll go through this in more detail and give me views on whether this deal is needed but hopefully this brief review has been helpful!

Thanks to Andrew (@ajmcglashan) for taking the time to put together this piece, which is a more analytical, and a lot less partisan than mine (link). Without knowing details it's hard to know what to think, and hopefully we'll know more in the near future.

No To External Investment

I may be living in an idealistic world, but why on earth do we need investment?

View image | gettyimages.com

Swansea City. Regarded the world over as "The Supporters' Club". A club which has even had a film made about it (which I'm still yet to see, granted), and one which has risen from - literally - the very bottom of the football league to sit proudly amongst it's most glamorous names.

All of this could change though. Ongoing talk of investment from third parties has me, and I'm sure many other fans, very, very concerned.  I appreciate that everyone needs money. Of course I do - I'm almost perennially skint. I am so, so uneasy with this talk of investment though that I feel it's worth explaining why.

“Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.” ― Alexander Pope

We are built on the basis that hard work and patience will overcome big money and impulse spending. What's more, we are living, breathing proof that this works. Why change now? Because we've stood still for a year or two? It was inevitable that once we reached the coattails of football's high society that we would have to become more patient, so why do we suddenly need a cash injection?

"The directors want a payday"

This is one possibility. If so, then there's little we can do about it and we just have to like it and lump it - sad as that is. I'd be very disappointed though that if it is purely financial, the club would allow 30% of it's shares to be transferred to a previously unknown party, whose sole interest in the club - despite what he and his club-shop-bought baseball cap may say - is financial. 

@TheSwanseaWay we are the blueprint for all other clubs. Sell out and it will make us hypocrites.

— paul leyshon (@paulleyshon) January 28, 2015

"The Swans need to expand"

Why? We're fine as we are. Growth at this point will slow down, and that is only natural. We've catapulted ourselves up the leagues in almost unheralded fashion, and the idea that we can continue this growth curve is ludicrous. Previously we were waltzing past fallen greats and clubs around our own size; now the only teams left above us are massive, massive clubs with long established fanbases, all of which dwarf our own. 

A slow-down in financial, and all other growth is natural. However, we will continue to grow with every year we spend in the Premier League and the benefits of this won't disappear overnight. Key should be building slowly and organically - making a financial grab for glory is almost always rewarded with failure.

The extra cash will allow us to compete

Again, why? Why do we suddenly need to be competing at the top level? Do we deserve it? Personally, I'd say it's massively deluded to think we're in a position where we should be challenging the top clubs. We should be happy where we are, as - in my opinion - another five years at Premier League level would bring year-on-year growth, in terms of online fanbase, commercial revenue and much more. If we can get the expansion sorted in that timeframe too I'm confident we'd see our average gate rise. 

There have been issues with ticketing in the past but these seem to have been addressed, and if there are seats available there are a million different ways of incentivising local people to attend. Once there is a capacity for these fans they will start to attend, I'm sure, and to me the idea we need to "compete" to keep fans interested, or to keep moving forward as a club, is massively shortsighted.

There is still plenty of organic growth left to be had. We have by no means maximised the opportunities afforded us by our geographical location, and that is yet another reason I find the idea of investment scary. It's simply unnecessary.

Now that I've talked it through, there appear to be two possible reasons why we could be looking to sell a sizeable stake in our club.

Firstly, it could be purely financial, The directors who are to sell their stakes want some money. As I say, we can't do much about that.

The second reason is some kind of expansion. Be it in marketing, infrastructure (training centres etc) or on the field, if the reason for seeking, or entertaining the idea of investment is down to this second option I want absolutely no part of it. I can't claim to be an economics expert, but I've watched my fair share of football. Investment into a club looking to expand, in all but the few most money-fuelled of cases (Chelsea, Man City, PSG) has failed. Countless clubs have been ruined by short-sighted planning, and I simply can't bear the thought of this happening to our club.

The more I think about this, the more the "why" becomes the crucial factor. If people want money back for their work over the years for the Swans we'd have to accept. They're their shares, so that's their decision. If it's because the club feel the money is necessary for advancement, something has gone wrong at Swansea City. We do not need a sudden monetary push, be it up the league or anywhere else. We need, want, and have a sustainable football club. 

And that's all we should want.

A Few Swan Theories

Warren Smith gives us some theories of his own...

View image | gettyimages.com

An essayist named Nassim Nicholas Taleb once developed a theory called Black Swan Theory, which is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

This detail serves no purpose for my post other than the fact that I thought it allowed me a very small correlation to my proposed “Swan Theory.” Swan Theory is the compilation of theories developed by the fans of our lovely Swansea City to explain some of the decisions that the football club makes that will later prove to be fruitful and full of wonderful foresight (or, at least, that seems to be Huw Jenkins’ track record thus far).

These theories in no way can be claimed as perfectly credible, but can offer our fans a few ideas that may allow them to be at peace while we wait for the final result to be displayed.

Some examples in the past could be that we made the Sigurdsson trade because he is just THAT good or the Danny Graham sale because he is NOT so good (and came at a wonderful price). Both of these theories if made by one of us fans would have proved to be legitimate.

So anyways, as we approach the middle of the season with many recent controversies and events to speak of, I thought I would weigh in with a few Swan Theories of my own. We shall see if any of them ring true down the road.

We are not appealing the Sigurdsson red card in order to allow him to rest.

The current most popular theory about this decision is due to the price of appealing, which could be true, but with our performances this season and our current economical welfare I cannot imagine this is the full story. Monk mentioned the fact that Sigurdsson had been playing with a bruised foot, and I believe that this event simply gives him an excuse to allow Siggy a well-deserved break.

Don’t get me wrong, Gylfi has still been one of our best players despite this injury nuisance (if not the best, I mean that last goal was superb!), but considering how we are almost guaranteed safety, I believe it is a way for Monk to not feel pressured into pushing Sigurdsson through more pain and allow him to take a few weeks to recover, so that he may come back stronger and better than before.

The Bony money is to save for spending in the summer.

Let me preface this theory by saying I do not believe that we will throw money around this summer and I do believe a large portion of this sale is for development of facilities and the stadium as Monk has said. However, the main purpose behind this theory is to remind fans that Huw Jenkins and the board have always been focused on building for the future.

Although we started strong this year, the club knows how we can build towards consistently competing for the top half of the table, and if we do not happen to reach this goal this year, we have still reached safety for another season, which is the ultimate goal. I believe Jenkins is focused for the years to come, even though he would surely enjoy immediate success.

Our U21s are building to compete with the likes of Southampton.

After reading Scott’s recent report on the youth team, constantly hearing about Garry Monk’s willingness to play youngsters, and consistently following the U21 matches through my twitter feed with the expectation of a victory, I would like to theorize that our board is truly working towards building a youth program that is comparable to teams such as Southampton.

There have been many subtle buys in the youth department (not to mention a few decent products already here), and that leads me to think that Jenkins and the board are working towards building this strong foundation that can either lead to great products for our team or possible future revenue streams. From my impressions, Llewellyn seems like a very strong youth coach and I believe there is a great future for our youth program, which has already brought out a few solid products (Ben Davies specifically).

We keep buying from Spurs because they have solid players that are not used properly.

Recently, Jenkins and Levy seem to be having some fun trading players back and forth, and thus far Jenkins has appeared to have the upper hand as Carroll and Sigurdsson have each had a positive impact. I must admit that I was not exactly ecstatic to sign Kyle Naughton for 5 million pounds after everything I had heard and seen of him. However, I believe Jenkins and Monk know something that we may not about Tottenham.

It has been often mentioned by Kevin DeVries on the EPL Roundtable podcast that the Spurs have a litany of good players, but a lack of many exceptional, “Big 6” type players. I think that Monk and Jenkins recognize the fact that there remain many talented players at Spurs that may be hurt by the over-sized dressing room and lack of consistent game time. A player like Naughton who is constantly rotating in and out of the 18 during his time there may be soured due to the constant competition for game time, shots to his footballing ego, and inability to truly prove his worth. Monk and Jenkins see this opportunity to benefit from his ambitions to once again prove himself and use this tactic to bring out an even better player than before.

In conclusion, these theories are simply educated conjecture, but I do hope you enjoy them and throw out a few of your own as I still cannot decide what to make behind the brilliance Jenkins will prove to be displaying in the handling of Gomis. Either way, as we move through the rest of the season and on to the next summer, surely some of these theories will prove right or wrong.

Thanks to Warren for his latest piece - follow him on Twitter @WarrenSmith21. 

Youth the way to go

Monday night saw our Under 21s extend their unbeaten run to 12, and they’re still to lose at home this season. Josh Kilmister looks at why we should possibly be looking to involve more of our development squad in the first team

View image | gettyimages.com

I’m not suggesting we take four or five of our youngsters and shove them in at the deep end, that would be silly. That said, I don’t see any harm in giving a few more of our development side a chance to grab an opportunity at the big time before they reach the standard of our first team regulars. 

Reading this, I know people will be thinking, “What’s he talking about? Hasn’t he seen Mo Barrow this season?!”, but although he still has his best years to come, Barrow isn’t quite as young as everybody thinks. Listening to TalkSport on the way home from the Arsenal game (when Barrow came on to make his professional debut), the presenter and those calling in to represent The Swans seemed to think he was nineteen years old; he isn’t, he’s twenty-two. Now I’m not saying twenty-two is old, but I think at that age Barrow would almost be expected to push for a place in the first team. 

As most of you will know, our youth systems apply the same tactics to their games as Monk and Co. do to the first team, meaning that if disaster strikes and we have an injury crisis, we’ve got backup from the younger sides. This for me is fantastic, and it obviously optimises our chances of getting younger players to break through to the first team, and it’s definitely something we should look to take advantage of. 

Watching Liverpool and Man United’s U21s on Sky last night (I definitely think more youth games should be televised), Gary Neville said that one of the best experiences for a young player is for them to experience the build up to a first-team match. Talking about Liverpool’s seventeen-year-old midfielder Sheyi Ojo - who has been named on the bench for the Merseyside team a few times this season - Neville complimented Rodgers’ style of management, allowing young players to make their mark in the first team before they become a regular. 

Understandably, our youth system isn’t as good as the likes of Liverpool and United’s [Yet - Ed], but I think the same concept should apply. Players like new signing Matt Grimes, Aussie Gincarlo Gallifuoco and even goalkeepers Dai Cornell, Gregor Zabret and Oliver Davies should, in my opinion, be making appearances on the first team bench, even if it’s just for experience. 

Zabret and Davies both have, from what I’ve seen and read, potential to be first team goalkeepers for us in the future, so why not start them off early? Of course we need to respect Gerhard Tremmel as he’s been a good servant for us, but from seeing his shambolic performances in the cup this season, he can’t be much better than our young ‘keepers. 

Matty Grimes has only joined us this month so I fully expect him to play a part in the first team before the end of the season, while other midfielders such as Adam King, Josh Sheehan and Jay Fulton have already been given chances to mix it with the first team - though these chances have been limited. 

How I see it is we have seven places on the bench, three of which can be used. Unlike the days when Alan Tate was seen as an acceptable backup goalkeeper, one of those spaces needs to be taken by someone who could step in should Fabianski get injured or sent off.  As unpredictable as football is, I think there are games where Monk can afford to use at least one of those spaces on the bench to give one of the younger players some valuable match day experience. 

From being part of a Premier League team talk to just having a kick about with the other subs at half-time, the chance to give the future a chance to become familiar with the atmosphere in and around a Premier League game from a players perspective is one that cannot be passed up, and while our squad is the sixth youngest in the Premier League with an average age of twenty-six (taken from October 1st), maybe dropping that number a little would benefit all parties involved. 

Thanks to Josh for this latest piece - give him a follow on Twitter @JoshKilmister. I'm a big fan of involving youth in the first-team, and with Monk having already blooded several youngsters it's clear our manager is too. 

Swans U21s 2-1 QPR U21s - Kenji Gorre brace secures fine victory

A cold clear night at Landore saw Swansea's young side run out winners thanks to a brace from Kenji Gorre

A lovely night for football. Cold and crisp, tonight I made my first trip to see the U21 Development side at their Landore home, and I have to say it was a really good experience. The facilities look great, and it's a great way to spend a few hours on a weeknight.

The teamsheet from tonight

The Swans fielded a side with some fairly familiar names, as well as some we haven't heard mentioned too often. New signing Matt Grimes was there, as was Kenji Gorre (who always seems to pop up on the scoresheet for the U21's), while some names I didn't readily recognise were Connor Roberts at right-back and Joseph Jones alongside him at centre-back. Good Welsh names those. Giancarlo Gallifuoco was alongside him - not quite so Gallic...

The game started and the first bit of action was James Loveridge almost being snapped in half by Rangers' left-back Olamide Shodipo. It really was a shocking challenge, and one which Loveridge felt, but the referee felt only a talking to was necessary. In a week where refereeing decisions have once again risen to the fore, I was amazed that - at a minimum - a yellow card wasn't given. 

We didn't have too long to wait for the Swans to take the lead. Gorre latched on to a poor QPR pass in the 12th minute before going a fine run, which was matched by the quality of the finish. He tied the defence in knots running at speed with the ball, before hitting a right-footed finish which clipped the inside of the post on it's way into the net.

QPR were threatening from set pieces, but barring a few half chances from tidy through balls they struggled to create anything of note. Their equaliser came, predictably, from a second-half corner (they caused us no end of problems all night) and Cole Kpekawa nodded home. We've seen the first-team struggle to deal with big men at set pieces recently, though as it was my first time n attendance I'm in no position to say whether that's something that happens regularly to our development side.

This was the Swans' night though, and I think on the balance of play we were worth the victory. Picking up on a loose ball in midfield the Swans broke, and Grimes burst down the left. He crossed for Gorre, who'd switched to the right wing by this point, who had the simplest of finishes. Two goals for Gorre, who was replaced by Henry Jones late on, and a promising display from the former Man Utd trainee.

I thought Gorre looked a very gifted footballer, but on numerous occasions he would have benefited from taking a more simple option, and if he'd looked for the one-two more often after beating a first man he could have had even more than the two goals he managed. There's no doubting the technique, and purely basing it on that he can't be far off the first team, but a little bit more awareness in the open and he could be a really, really good prospect.

I was thinking about about mentioning a few other players but then I thought it would be much better to do a quick run-through of what I thought of the players, as a lot of readers won't have seen our youth side before, or read much about them.

GK - David Cornell

Solid. Did nothing wrong all night, though perhaps could have tried to dominate from corners a bit more. If Cornell is rated as our top youth 'keeper I'd prefer to see him now given games as opposed to Tremmel, and I saw nothing tonight to persuade me otherwise.

RB - Connor Roberts

Again, solid. Always offered an option in attack, and cool on the ball. He seemed a tidy footballer and made a couple of good tackles to boot. Kyle Naughton watch out...

LB - Stephen Kingsley 

The first time I've seen Kingsley since his move from Scotland, he looked very good. Big and athletic but also very good on the ball, he made a couple of overlapping runs as well as winning his fair share of headers. Expect him to be challenging for the first-team before the end of the season.

CB - Joseph Jones

Didn't have a huge amount to do but found his man in defensive midfield with cushioned headers on a few occasions which is always encouraging. 

CB - Giancarlo Gallifuoco

Looked slightly more assured than his centre-back partner (Gallifuoco is twenty-one, Jones eighteen), the ex-Spurs centre-back was solid and appeared comfortable on the ball. 

CM - Matty Grimes

Baller. Composed, cool, and excellent in the build-up to Gorre's second goal. Showed a couple of really nice touches out on the touchline near the home fans, which went down very well. As with Kingsley, you could tell he's already played senior football.

CM - Josh Sheehan (C)

As with Grimes, very composed. Seemed to be operating beside him in a shared defensive-midfield role but with license to roam he spent his evening pinging five to twenty-yard passes to anyone who wanted it, and every time I see Sheehan I like him more.

AM - Adam King

King seemed to be having a fairly quiet night, and just as I made that remark he played a wonderful through ball for Samuel, splitting the QPR defence completely. Summed up his night - quiet for spells before something a bit special. Still only nineteen, King is known to be highly regarded and he showed a couple of really nice touches tonight, but as mentioned his vision was what impressed me.

FW - Kenji Gorre

Very lively. Got both the Swansea goals, but will have been frustrated not to have made more of other opportunities. 

FW - James Loveridge

Almost snapped in half within a few minutes of kickoff, but recovered well. Definitely busier in the first-half as opposed to the second, he showed he had a really, really good first touch on more than one occasion.

FW - Alex Samuel

My favourite guy of the night. He's clearly watched a lot of Bony, and he scrapped for every ball all night. While he didn't have any real joy in front of goal he was brilliant everywhere else, and he managed to retain possession against the odds on many an occasion, allowing us to build from a solid base high up the field.

SUB - Henry Jones

Came on for Gorre late on, and didn't have too much time to make an impression. That said he showed a few nice touches, and I heard the Swansea coaching team shouting that "he's playing number ten" - which I liked. 

All in all I had a great time tonight. I'll definitely be making more of an effort to get to development games in the future, and I can't recommend it enough. The team seem to be doing great work, and it's now 12 games unbeaten for the young Swans who went back to the top of their league with this victory.

Former referee: "Lack of consistency from match officials"

Former referee Mark Halsey disagreed with both Swansea red cards at Blackburn

View image | gettyimages.com

In my alter ego as online journalist/social media dude for a group of football websites, I spoke with former referee Mark Halsey about the Swans' recent game at Blackburn - and in particular the two red cards which saw our tally rise to eight for the season. 

“The first sending-off [Bartley] – it’s clear that he didn’t see it as a Blackburn player was obstructing his view. He must have had advice from the assistant referee. I’d have let play go on personally, but once the referee has given a foul it has to be a red. In my opinion though it was six of one and half a dozen of the other”  

http://supersoccersite.com/ex-ref-recognition-of-excessive-force-all-over-the-place/

 On the second red card (for Sigurdsson):

“I thought it was a yellow. He was unlucky. Craig Pawson saw it as a red for endangering the player's safety”

I've spoken with Keith Hackett (former referee's cheif) on two occasions now, and on both occasions he's been critical of the current standard of refereeing. Mark Halsey also feels there's a lack of consistency in decision making, leading to confusion as to what is and what isn't a red card offence:

“The recognition of what constitutes excessive force is all over the place due to the conditions the referees are working under. Just look at the tackle by Leicester’s Jamie Vardy on Ashley Westwood before Christmas – only a yellow card was given but the Villa player ended up missing a spell through injury. In my opinion that was a definite red card.”  

http://supersoccersite.com/ex-ref-recognition-of-excessive-force-all-over-the-place/

As mentioned, we spoke with Keith Hackett on The Jackcast (use the player below to listen), and he explained that under his watch there regular reviews where officials would get together and discuss decisions that had been made in the previous week's matches. If this is still going on you can only guess what it is they are discussing, as it's quite clear nothing is being done in terms of standardising the decision-making process.

Hopefully with increasing pressure from the section of football lobbying for the use of technology, we see an improvement in the near future. Nobody expects referee's to be perfect, though I appreciate that they do strive to be as good as they can. To err is human. Just be consistent.

FA Cup gone, but top ten still the goal

Eric Imhof takes a reflective look back at a weekend which saw an FA Cup exit, two red cards and a whole load of frustration

View image | gettyimages.com

I would write "this is the winter of our discontent," but of course that's a misquote (of "thus the winter of our discontent is made spring by the Son of York,” or something similar), and besides, discontent is the wrong word to begin with. “Disappointment” would be more accurate, considering the huge individual and collective opportunities that have been simultaneously squandered in the most frustrating way imaginable. 

Bartley, Gomis, and Carroll all lost chances to impress (with Bartley owing Carroll a pint or two), while the Swans lost a chance to survey a remaining FA-Cup field without City, Chelsea, and Southampton. With Europe out of reach, that limits Monk’s goals to finishing in the top ten and, in my view, winning rubber matches against Stoke and Liverpool, admittedly just to satisfy a self-righteousness and vindicate Monk’s Serpico approach to the game as a whole. 

And speaking of self-righteousness, there have been more than a few asterisks this season, which only highlight the job Monk’s doing in his first year at the helm. In the case of Bartley, I’m of the opinion that yes, by the letter of the law, a red could be shown there, but the dozens of other similar instances that didn’t even produce a yellow card this season—let alone the instances of clear-cut reds the Swans’ opponents have avoided—further highlights the demonstrable inconsistency that more and more, it has to be said, seems to slant consistently against Monk’s side. Ask yourself if, in a million years, the Swans would ever get that call if the roles were reversed. 

Actually, it’s worth mentioning that while the Swans now have eight red cards on the books, some of their opponents miraculously have none to speak of. It simply can’t be the case, if the refs are consistently following the letter of the law, that this statistic should exist, especially considering that many teams go in with a gameplan that revolves around monkeywrenching Swansea’s passing game; i.e. fouling at will. It’s also worth mentioning that Monk has successfully appealed two of those cards, meaning at least 25% of them were patently incorrect. 

For all the talk of points lost from a winning position, Monk has arguably lost 10 points from red cards this season to go along with two cup exits. And that’s just counting if the Swans don’t pick up questionable reds; there are of course the equally important cases where other teams have avoided them (Costa, Yoshida, Alcaraz, Chamakh and Green come to mind, without doing any research). I don’t mean to make excuses, but the pattern at this point is unavoidable. 

Onward, then, to the next three games without Siggy, in which I think Monk will be happy to finish with three points. The Swans are not going to beat Southampton, if I may be blunt, but a win at home against Sunderland is surely not only achievable but likely. That fast start must now look like a godsend to Monk, who can now do some more long-range planning with the knowledge that three or so wins will just about do it. Still, a top-ten finish should be the goal. 

Thanks to Eric for his weekly contribution - follow him on Twiter @AustinJackArmy

A Piece Of My Mind

Chill out, is it...

View image | gettyimages.com

Yesterday the Swans crashed out of the FA Cup at Blackburn in a sadly predictable fashion. Our seventh and eighth red cards of the season bookended a disappointing day where we'd ultimately lose 3-1, but there are several things I want to talk about that aren't particularly connected so here goes. 

"We're a long ball team"

Bollocks. I looked at some stats a few weeks ago (link) and it's simply not true that we are playing a more direct style of football. Where he have struggled is retaining possession, but Leon Britton has been absent for large swathes of the season and, as I point out in the stats piece, he makes a massive difference to our possession stats.

What we are, nonetheless, going to have to plan for and achieve is how to retain the ball without Leon at the base of our midfield. People (including myself) have long been crowing for a bruising defensive midfielder, and I do feel this would go a long way in solving the problem of how to retain possession without our diminutive talisman.

Directly tagging players on social media to criticise them

This is something that has long got my goat, and something which I simply do not understand. If you want to have a rant then fine, that's your prerogative. If a player has had a bad day and actually goes out and searches for his name on the internet he should expect to see things he doesn't like - but actually tagging them in the hope that the player sees it? Just what are you trying to achieve? Psychology is becoming a massive part of performance management in sport, and the idea that swearing or berating a player on Twitter will do anything other than exacerbate a problem is, frankly, ludicrous. 

If managing players' motivation levels was that easy, then why bother with managers? When a player's had an off-day, he could just check his Twitter feed to see what people (who've never played professional football, and who have probably never done any coaching courses relevant to professional football) thought of his performance. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, so it's obviously right and you know better than the manager, right?

Let's put this in perspective. Imagine you work for the DVLA, the council, or in another big officey type building, and that you have a very job-related specific set of tasks. Would you be happy if a Swans player turned up and started giving you public grief about how you're a disgrace to the workforce and that you don't know what you're doing? No? Thought not - so why on earth would it be a good idea to actively search out a player to essentially say "I thought you were shit today"? The percentage of people who respond positively to that approach is very small, and I maintain that nothing good will come of behaving in such a manner.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to speak freely. But if in doing so you actually demotivate the players you're claiming to support then perhaps think twice before searching out that Swans player to give him some stick after a match.

"We're in trouble"

Rubbish. So we lost 5-0 to Chelsea, who've brushed aside most teams this season, when we were missing Leon, Ki & Jonjo. Sigurdsson was in an unfamiliar position, as was Oliveira... I wrote last week that it was no surprise we got a bit of a hammering but those are the options we have.

To me, that result shows that we're still massively punching above our weight. Look at our squad - it's littered with players from the football league picked up for relatively small fees, and there aren't many more cheaply assembled squads in the Premier League. 

2014/15 PREMIER LEAGUE SQUADS' COST

#	CLUB	SQUAD COST
1	Manchester United	£379.4m
2	Manchester City	£353.7m
3	Chelsea	£301.8m
4	Liverpool	£253.8m
5	Arsenal	£242.7m
6	Tottenham Hotspur	£178.0m
7	Everton	£95.7m
8	Southampton	£90.4m
9	Sunderland	£82.2m
10	Aston Villa	£79.9m
11	Newcastle United	£69.5m
12	West Ham United	£67.8m
13	QPR	£67.0m
14	Hull City	£59.7m
15	Stoke City	£50.0m
16	Swansea City	£44.6m
17	West Bromwich Albion	£38.3m
18	Crystal Palace	£32.9m
19	Leicester City	£18.3m
20	Burnley	£10.4m

Source

If there are only four teams who've spent less money on their squads, I'd say we should accept that anything above a sixteenth place finish is a massive, massive achievement. With a rookie manager still learning the ropes even more so. People seem to think we're entitled to a place in the top ten - to me that's ludicrous and we still have some way to go before that becomes a realistic target, as opposed to something we shoot for in the knowledge we'll probably fall a little short, but secure safety nonetheless.

As for yesterday's result, some of the pearls gleaned from social media included "We're going back to league one" and "fans should have a refund". If the latter was to happen and fans were refunded after a heavy loss would you happily pay twice as much when we win 5-0? No? Then you have no argument! If you're saying a refund is dependent on price, then the price is performance-related, in which case as a customer you should be happy to pay more. After all, you're getting a better "product" than you expected, right? 

Maybe after our first season in the Premier League we should have asked all fans who bought season tickets to chuck in the same amount of money again, seeing as we finished so highly? The idea that fans should be entitled to a refund after a poor performance is, in my eyes, ludicrous and smacks of extreme arrogance. As fans all we're entitled to for our match ticket money is to see our team take the field and play a game of football. If they literally didn't turn up then you'd have a valid argument. As long as they were only metaphorically absent then, as supporters, it's something we have to accept.

The future

Will be fine. You heard it here first. Monk may still be green around the gills, but we're still ninth in the Premier League. Objectivity is called for right now. We've lost Bony, Ki has been away, Shelvey has been banned, Leon has been missing for lots of the season - these are all players who would be nailed on to start so is it any wonder the fifth-least-expensive squad in the league has struggled at times to play it's natural game? 

We're currently in a transitional period, and I have absolute confidence we'll come out the other side smelling of roses. We have a manager in charge who believes in the long term future of the club, and who accepts that on occasion that will mean having less money to play with than his Premier League counterparts. 

I wouldn't have it any other way. 

Blackburn 3-1 Swansea – Player Ratings

Josh Kilmister gives his take on our FA Cup exit at Ewood Park

View image | gettyimages.com

It’s days like this that make me think, ‘do I take football too seriously?’ After being promised a reaction to the 5-0 thumping at home to Chelsea, this is what we get. Not only did the players leave the pitch without a result, but they also left without two teammates. Another two red cards with their respective match bans make it difficult to think of any possible positives to take out of Saturday’s match. 

Starting XI

Lukasz Fabianski – 6

Fabianski done what he does best and commanded the box, dealing with any ball posed a threat to our defence. He made a good save from the free-kick to prevent Blackburn taking the lead immediately after Bartley’s sending off, but couldn’t get down quick enough to save a late Conway effort. Certainly not his worst game in a Swans shirt, but he’ll kick himself for letting in that third goal. 

Dwight Tiendalli – 5

Tiendalli isn’t great on his stronger right side, so it still confuses me why we play him on the left. Saying that, Tiendalli wasn’t half as bad today as he was against Chelsea, but that would have been difficult. Apart from offering himself further up the field Tiendalli was poor. His defensive positioning was as bad as ever while he was beaten in the air in the lead up to Chris Taylor’s goal. With Naughton now signed and strong rumours of another fullback on his way in, it’s hard to see Tiendalli fighting for a place come February, even with Jazz joining Fulham on loan.  

Jordi Amat – 5

We all know how good Amat can be, but today certainly wasn’t his day. Even before Bartley got sent off he looked nervous struggled to play even the simplest of passes. It was evident that he hadn’t had much playing time, and this was only made clearer with the introduction of Fernandez. A clear lack of communication between the two made matters worse, while Amat trying to play the ball out of defence when a simple ‘hoof’ would’ve worked didn’t help things either. 

Kyle Bartley – 4

There really isn’t much to judge him on, but getting sent off after just seven minutes isn’t a great way to stake a claim for first team football. That early in the game all you really need to do is stay alert, but he couldn’t even do that. Caught half asleep, Josh King found his way around the big Englishman only to be bundled over. As much as some fans might argue, the laws of the game will tell you that the red card was very much justifiable. 

Angel Rangel – 6

The signing of a Kyle Naughton means that Rangel has to fight for his place for – unless I’m forgetting someone – the first time since joining us. He definitely didn’t disappoint too much, though there was little reason to sing his name. I expect him to still have a fair bit of game time, even with Naughton’s arrival. 

Tom Carroll – 6

Unfortunately for him, Bartley’s early sending off meant Carroll’s game lasted just eight minutes, so again he there isn’t much to judge him by. However he didn’t get sent off, so I guess it’s not all bad. 

Jonjo Shelvey – 5

After a four game ban, you’d think Jonjo would be raring to go; this didn’t seem to be the case as he failed to make any sort of impact on the game. Maybe after being out of action for so long it’s tough for a player to regain form immediately, but it was a similar story to his games prior to his ban as Shelvey looked off the pace and, at times, uninterested. 

Nathan Dyer – 5

One thing I will say is that Dyer actually looked like he wanted to win, but he just couldn’t make a big enough impact for it to happen. His first touch was poor and when he got into the right positions, so was his final product. Playing on the left, though tended to drift across leaving Tiendalli open. With Routledge out, it is now looking unlikely that he’ll lose his spot to the less experienced options we have in the squad . 

Gyfli Sigurdsson – 6.5 (Man of the match)

When Gylfi put us ahead with what can only be described as a screamer, all looked well; hat was until Blackburn equalised just ninety seconds later. Realistically he was our only chance of getting back into the tie and, although it’s disappointing to see, his red card late on showed that he at least cared. Likely to be out for three games, somebody has some big boots to fill. 

Modou Barrow – 6

He tried his best to make an impact when he could, but Barrow wasn’t involved enough to really put his stamp on the game. There were glimpses of what he could be on the wing, but despite looking promising, he was replaced by Montero. 

Bafetimbi Gomis – 3

“Has claimed some big names want to sign him from Swansea. Can only assume he means Inverness Caledonian Thistle on this evidence”. Chris Wathan of Wales Online summed up Bafe’s performance perfectly. I’m struggling to see how Gomis expects to play Champions League football when Shane Duffy dominated him for ninety minutes. If this is the final straw for the Frenchman then so be it, because his lack of commitment is making me wonder how seriously Monk is taking this whole saga. Doesn’t deserve to start at Southampton next week and I’m sure many Swans fans would be happy to see the back of him. Boos echoed around the away stand as Bafe made his exit, and although I don’t condone it, until he gets his head out of his arse, I’m done fighting his corner. 

Substitutes 

Federico Fernandez – 6 (for Carroll, 8')

Calmed things down a bit after an awful first ten minutes, but seemed to be carrying the defence by himself. He did get us out of trouble a few times, but equally slipped up a few times too. 

Jefferson Montero – 6 (for Barrow, 62')

Jeff tried to use his lightning pace and quick feet, but even he couldn’t break through the Blackburn defence. For the short time he was on he was marked heavily, but just having him back from injury is promising in itself. 

Nelson Oliveira – 6 (for Gomis, 77')

In the short time Oliveira was on, he looked more threatening than Gomis had all game. In a similar fashion to his performance against Chelsea the Portuguese international looked to get shots away whenever possible, but his only real chance was hit right at the ‘keeper. Perhaps it would be worth giving him a chance up front against Southampton. 

Referee: Craig Pawson – 6

Monk said he was quick to give both red cards, but the fact that he said we wouldn’t be appealing shows that perhaps he isn’t as against the decisions as he makes out. There were a few moments where the yellow card should probably have been shown to a Rovers player, but inconsistent refereeing is almost expected now, though still not acceptable. 

Summary

A crazy day of FA Cup football with Man City and Chelsea both being knocked out by Middlesbrough and Bradford respectively, but that doesn’t make me feel any better. Last week’s performance was poor but somewhat acceptable, considering that an in form Chelsea side would beat any team in the world, but we shouldn’t be being dominated by lower league opposition. 

I said last February that it would only take a string of poor results for people to start calling for Monk to lose his job, and that’s exactly what’s happening now. Only a minority of fans, but that’s enough to get the ball rolling. Comparisons to Laudrup are absurd, and I still very much think Monk is the man to take us forward. As for next week, I’d love to be positive about a trip to St. Marys but I’m struggling. I’m looking forward to the possibility of Naughton making his debut, and we can only hope that he and the rest of the defence are up for it. 

Thanks to Josh as usual - it's painful picking through the bones of the performance today so I'm glad it was him and not me! Give him a follow on Twitter @JoshKilmister