Here we are, then.

In the future, we will know how this has all turned out.

There may not be a consensus. Even GT has his detractors, the more so at the time, and there are takes on Ray Lewington’s spell in charge that contrast starkly with those held on this blog. One suspects that any two Watford supporters would argue over whether they agreed on any given subject.

But stuff will have happened, stuff which will formulate opinion. We have opinions now, based on a little bit of evidence, judgements, suspicions. But we don’t know. Now, right now, in the wake of this most extraordinary of summers and most bizarre of transfer windows, the ball is about to start rolling…

What we know so far is the plan, at least in general terms. And as far as that goes… I think I’m on board. Tentatively. Kind of. Almost certainly. Beyond dispute is that, in any case, the preceding status quo was not somewhere we wanted to be, and not somewhere we would have remained for long in any case. Bassini’s reign concluded with the club every bit as precarious and uncertain as his public appearances; put the two situations, the continuation of the Bassini regime and this new model, next to each other as options and there’s no decision to make. We should be grateful for Lord Ashcroft’s bond provisions, without a doubt, and for the previous board’s boldness.

But even in isolation, the new approach has a lot going for it. Access to the Pozzo’s extraordinary scouting network, an asset that they understandably want to sweat, and to a pool of players already identified and recruited. No coincidence that so many of our loan signings are youngsters, this seems to be the approach – recruit them very young, develop them in training, by loaning them out, by playing them, and then sell them on for maximum profit. Cynical? Not really, just an extension of what we already did, but with bells on.

It’s tempting to say that the same goes for loans… that we’ve long since relied upon borrowing high quality players for our (limited) successes; without checking, I don’t remember the last season that didn’t feature a successful longish term loan. I’d guess it was a while ago. A popular criticism of course is the inherent short-termism, that in borrowing players of the quality that we have to make us more competitive we sacrifice places for our own, perhaps less talented players and become all the more dependent on that loan market as our own players don’t develop as quickly, a vicious circle. Now… we’re borrowing players, predominantly, from Udinese and Granada, clubs owned by the same group that own us. Whatever the degree to which you adopt them as your Italian/Spanish favourites, there’s no denying that we benefit to a greater degree in the longer term by developing Udinese/Granada’s players than Manchester United’s.

But actually there’s more to it than that. No coincidence surely that so many of these players nominally reside with Udinese. That much was confirmed, if it were ever in doubt, by the Marco Cassetti signing; why bring a 35 year-old veteran to Udinese only to move him to Watford? This is not a rough diamond that Udinese need polishing, this is a seasoned veteran, an international. Why not just sign him to Watford if that’s his destination? Whether the benefit is tax-based, or whether we are navigating the Financial Fare Play rules by paying salaries through our sister clubs, there is clearly a benefit to the Pozzos of the registrations being held in Italy, the talk of the recent raft of signings being with an “option to buy” next summer surely just window dressing. Selling players to each other? Why?

The bit that sticks in my craw a little, the development that I find hardest to accept, is the implied lack of opportunity for our younger players. The downgrading of the academy reflects changes external to the takeover, at least in part, and serves as only the most recent demonstration of the point my co-editor has made on here of late; that the rules of the game are continuously being changed by those at the top table, and not in the favour of clubs the size of Watford. So the choice is either to keep trying to make do with the increasingly difficult hand that you’ve been afforded, or you try to change the rules.

As far as the kids are concerned though… we have secured the two brightest lights of our current crop; hugely encouraging on every level that Sean Murray and Tommie Hoban have seen fit to sign five year contracts. But for the rest? Massey, who perhaps hasn’t exploded as quickly as hoped but still looked promising, has gone. Assombalonga, Thompson, Bennett on loan (again). Any number of erstwhile maybes who won’t get anywhere near our team any more. Do we really expect to continue to bring through localish talent, or are the next young players as likely to come from Rio as from Rickmansworth? And does it matter if so? I think it does… it’s part of the identity of the club that the incoming regime committed to protect.

Meanwhile it’s perfectly defensible to separate the model from the execution. If the model looks a good thing, probably, on balance, then it can still be executed badly. Far, far too early to be making any kind of judgements there yet of course… any manager needs time to bed in, even in a relatively straightforward new role which this certainly isn’t. That aside, the wake of a 5-1 tonking at bloody Derby wouldn’t be the most balanced position from which to be taking stock. Hell, I wasn’t even at the game…

There are certainly causes for concern, though. I don’t think that’s a premature statement. I struggle to reconcile losing Martin Taylor with building a side to get out of the division, whatever style of football you want to play and however many defenders you’ve signed. Given that he went though, and went the day before the Derby game, a degree of disorganisation is only to be expected. Nor, without having seen the game, does Zola’s insistence that he called the team right overly concern me… he may know stuff that we don’t; perhaps Hoban isn’t quite ready, Cassetti was only a very reluctant centre back at Roma. One game can be excused, in the circumstances, particularly with so many new faces coming in at the back.

What’s harder to write off is the increasing frailty of our three-man midfield. The Ipswich debacle saw Jonathan Hogg frantically trying – and failing – to close down all available space effectively on his own. Abdi, for all his obvious ability, is not a workhorse and whilst Yeates’ lack of pace has been less of an issue centrally he’s not going to put a foot in either. Such seems to have been the issue at Derby also and you can’t get away with that. Not any passengers in a three man midfield, certainly not two. Encouraging that John Eustace appears to remain a cornerstone, but in his absence surely a Jenkins, capable of breaking things up and keeping possession, was a better bet than Yeates. Worrying, also, that a lack of fitness has been widely reported as evident, an anathema – when could we last accuse a Watford side of that? With the best will in the world, these spectres of the Vialli season will continue to haunt Zola until he proves them irrelevant.

The last few months have been extraordinary, and given all of the above it would be wholly unreasonable to expect everything to fall into place straight away. Watford supporters are probably as patient as any set of football fans (not very, rather than not at all, then) and the recently announced Fans Forum can only help assuage short-term concerns through its very existence. Assuming the protagonists all show up, of course.

The next few months won’t be dull, one suspects; the Bolton match, the new team, the new players, has a rather pivotal feel about it. History is about to be written. The ball has started rolling…

Advertisement