Hi there, Guest! Login Register


Poll: How would you define the Dutch Experiment?
Success
Failure
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Dutch Experiment: Success or Failure?
#1
I've just been reading the latest Daily Record fan blog from our very own IDW16.

Darren Maatsen's departure puts an end to the doomed Dutch experiment

In which it is stated: "It’s safe to say the Dutch experiment in Dingwall didn’t work."

I'm not seeking to criticise IDW16 as I realise this is very much a subjective matter. I happen to disagree on this point and would class the Dutch Experiment as a success rather than failure. Not an unqualified success, but a success nonetheless.

Let's look at the four participants in the Experiment. I've chosen not to include Jordi Balk in that as I see the Dutch Experiment as something initiated in summer 2013. Summer 2014's transfer strategy seemed a lot more scattergun than that, basically just signing anyone we could get on trial (see Fenlon, Jim).

Melvin de Leeuw
Easily our best player, shone last season despite never being fully fit, scoring some vital goals in the process. Departed this season after continued fitness problems, personal problems and alleged disagreements with the management. Hasn't gone on to bigger and better things as we might have initially thought and has turned up playing again in Thailand.

Marc Klok
An exciting prospect initially who looked like he could be good, seemed to have an attitude problem and refused a loan spell at Peterhead to get game time. Released after a year. Also the target of my favourite chant of recent times: "Marc Klok, what's the time, Marc Klok, Marc Klok, what's the time?"

Darren Maatsen
Another exciting prospect who, despite impersonating Bambi on Ice at every opportunity, scored a couple of cracking goals. Arguably never given a fair crack of the whip and departed in January to sign amateur terms in the Dutch 2nd division.

Kevin Lukassen
Played 14 times as a lone striker, trying hard but ultimately not scoring at all, but nonetheless showed enough raw attributes for us to get a six figure sum from Slovan Liberec for his signature after 6 months at the club.

So, we had a top talent who shone brightly for a season before burning out and leaving the club earlier than expected, two others who never really broke in to the first team and were released, and another who we sold for a big wad of cash.

On that basis, I would say the Dutch Experiment was, overall, a success. It's a strategy I wouldn't mind repeated, so long as it supplements our own youth programme. That's where the focus should really be.

What does everyone else think?

 
Reply
#2
Totally agree. Pretty much word for word.
Which is disappointing in a way Wink I wanted to have something more interesting to say on what is an interesting topic.
 
Reply
#3
In a long article in the Inverness Courier today Roy says :-

"We tried a Dutch experiment with too many Dutch players and it was actually worse."


"The Dutch ones we took in, apart from De Leeuw hadn't played at a high enough level to appreciate Premier League football in Scotland.............. That might have been all that was available with the money that was there. I'm not going to prejudge, but their quality just wasn't there."

Really interesting was the headline "In 2 or 3 years you'll see part-time football in the top flight"
 
Reply
#4
Failure.

De Leeuw was our player of the season, but Luckassen, Maatsen and Klok were all failures. Neither of those 3 players established themselves as SPL standard players.

De Leeuw was great when he played, but eventually had a lot of injury problems and got released without doing much at all this season.

Luckassen was extremely raw and, whilst he had some potential, simply wasn't SPL quality. How we got £100k for him I really have no idea. Some people may consider him a success for his transfer fee, but any striker who scores ZERO goals in half a season is a major failure in my eyes.

Maatsen and Klok both had potential, but made no impact here. Between the two of them, they only had a handful of starts.

Considering our summer transfer dealings of 2013 were based around these 4 signings, I consider the Dutch Experiment a failure.
 
Reply
#5
(02-10-2015, 03:54 PM)Its Only A Game Wrote: In a long article in the Inverness Courier today Roy says :-

"We tried a Dutch experiment with too many Dutch players and it was actually worse."


"The Dutch ones we took in, apart from De Leeuw hadn't played at a high enough level to appreciate Premier League football in Scotland.............. That might have been all that was available with the money that was there. I'm not going to prejudge, but their quality just wasn't there."

Really interesting was the headline "In 2 or 3 years you'll see part-time football in the top flight"

I remember when they arrived Adams saying they were with an eye on the future (hoping to develop them), apart from De Leeuw, so at least they understood that at the time.

The headline sounds interesting though! Is there a link or scan of the article?
 
Reply
#6
Try a different way of looking at it. We picked up four unknown players for no fee. Sold one in six months for 100 grand, got a great season out of one, got one that had talent, scored a few great goals but wasn't given a chance in the second season, and one with talent but an attitude problem.

Then select another four at random from all we've signed in the last four years and see if you get any better. Were the Dutch any better or worse than the rest?
 
Reply
#7
As you know, I think it has been a failure.

We got a good fee for Luckassen, that's great. But what did he do in front of goal? Nothing. 14 appearances and zero goals. He wasn't top-flight quality.

Klok and Maatsen both had obvious potential. We never got to see them fulfill it. Why? Cause they weren't given a fair chance.

Between them, they had six starts. We lost all six of the games in which they started.

I'm not by any means trying to imply that they were at fault for those defeats, I'm simply stating their involvement.

Klok shot himself in the foot when he rejected the loan to Peterhead.

Maatsen had to make do with cameos from the bench. And even this season when he contributed with two goals as a sub, he was never rewarded with a start. He only had 2 starts in his one and a half years with County.

I can't see how either could be considered a success.

It's fine to say the three had potential, but what did they really do for the club on the park? I have a soft spot for Maatsen as I really wanted him to get his chance. Sadly, it just didn't come.

De Leeuw was very good for us without a doubt. Unfortunately, his fitness and injuries played a big part in his release. And with McIntyre wanting to bring in his own players, it was clear Melvin's time was up. It's a shame he left so soon.

I'd rather see home-grown players coming through rather than investing in young foreign talent. I'm sure many would share my viewpoint.

I do think it's interesting to hear what others think on this. Clearly there's mixed views on the issue.

 
Reply
#8
(02-10-2015, 04:00 PM)staggie1746 Wrote: I remember when they arrived Adams saying they were with an eye on the future (hoping to develop them), apart from De Leeuw, so at least they understood that at the time.

The headline sounds interesting though! Is there a link or scan of the article?

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/Sport...022015.htm?
 
Reply
#9
(02-10-2015, 06:29 PM)jamiepscot Wrote: http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/Sport...022015.htm?

What's that nonsense about Oikonomou, Songo'o and Cikos struggling to make an impact? Fair enough Oikonomou wasn't as good in his second spell but even then he would have been better than a lot we've seen this season, and I'd still take Songo'o and Cikos tomorrow if we could.
 
Reply
#10
(02-10-2015, 06:37 PM)staggie52 Wrote: What's that nonsense about Oikonomou, Songo'o and Cikos struggling to make an impact? Fair enough Oikonomou wasn't as good in his second spell but even then he would have been better than a lot we've seen this season, and I'd still take Songo'o and Cikos tomorrow if we could.

Aye, a bizarre line that one?! Thankfully its from who wrote the article rather than Roy. Those 3 would arguably form 75% of our best ever back 4.
 
Reply
#11
(02-10-2015, 06:37 PM)staggie52 Wrote: What's that nonsense about Oikonomou, Songo'o and Cikos struggling to make an impact? Fair enough Oikonomou wasn't as good in his second spell but even then he would have been better than a lot we've seen this season, and I'd still take Songo'o and Cikos tomorrow if we could.

I never actually wrote the article m8. For what it's worth I agree with your comments 100% Wink
 
Reply
#12
(02-10-2015, 06:37 PM)staggie52 Wrote: What's that nonsense about Oikonomou, Songo'o and Cikos struggling to make an impact? Fair enough Oikonomou wasn't as good in his second spell but even then he would have been better than a lot we've seen this season, and I'd still take Songo'o and Cikos tomorrow if we could.

Just beat me to it! They were arguably our three most successful short term signings!

 
Reply
#13
I just remember that dreadful headline over the photo of DA and the four Dutch guys "My Dutch lads will light up this league"

Well - they didn't simple as that, I also didn't particularly like that fact they went bleating to the press once DA was gone - poor show!

Fact is, they all hung out together and didn't do much for team bonding!
Supporter Liaison Officer 

 
Reply
#14
I agree with Forfinn's original post, a success.

Mainly due to the season we got out of De Leeuw, plus being able to witness that AMAZING take down (against aberdeen??) last season was pretty special.

Lukassen's transfer fee is just a very tasty cherry on top.
 
Reply
#15
(02-10-2015, 06:26 PM)IDW16 Wrote: I'd rather see home-grown players coming through rather than investing in young foreign talent. I'm sure many would share my viewpoint.

I think everyone would rather see local lads come through the system and the club seem to have finally realised that's where the future lies - developing our own players and selling them on at a profit.

However, we have a fairly small talent pool in the Highlands. That's nothing against the Highlands, simply that the population is very small compared to somewhere like Glasgow. Admittedly we have fewer competitors than the likes of Hamilton, but I still think we're at a disadvantage for a number of reasons.

If we can supplement the local talent with appropriately talented young players from abroad who are looking to use Ross County as a springboard then that can only be a good thing. It would even help enhance the education of our own young players.

The key part of it is the scouting and assessment of players. I think the Adams' were correct in signing the four Dutchmen they did in summer 2013. De Leeuw we all agree was a success, Klok had potential but his attitude eventually let him down, Maatsen would have been great if he could have learned to control the football, and Luckassen had the raw materials, was thrown in to the first team too soon and was quickly sold at a profit.

Not every young player 'makes it' but the three that didn't with us there weren't a million miles away from 'it'.

In contrast, summer 2014 was almost entirely an unmitigated disaster. I would have liked Balk and Latouchent to have been given time to develop, but for whatever reason they weren't kept on. The rest clearly weren't good enough from the off.

Recruitment of young foreign talent will be more difficult if we get relegated, but if we stay up there's merit in doing it. So long as it's done right - the right players, at the right age, at the right price and with the right attitude.

 
Reply
#16
De leeuw was a talent no doubt about it, just such a pity his fitness problems curtailed his game time.
Klok wasnt good enough.
Luckassen,getting so much money for someone who couldn't score for us was a big bonus, but he was too soft for the Scottish game
Maatson, he had such pace , just a great pity he would forget to take the ball with him,but I liked him, and still think he deserved more game time.
So ,on the playing side, for De Leeuws goals last season,which probably kept us up it was a success,but I'm not so sure off the park, because these guys were given two year contracts, when the majority of the existing team were being given 12 month contracts ,which may have started to erode the dressing room chemistry.
Just my opinion!
 
Reply
#17
The Dutch experiment was a complete disaster. The fact that none of them are here is testament to that.

De Leeuw was quite suited to the Scottish game - very good in air, strong on the ball and could shoot. However he simply couldn't manage 90 mins. He looked in pain every time I saw him.

Klok was liked by fans who really wanted him to fill the holding midfield role that we desperately needed (and arguably still do). Paul Lawson he ain't, and I don't expect him to be hearing about him ever again. He had quite good hair.

The Lukassen deal was one of the greatest off loads in the history of the club, on par with Jimmy Scott to Hibs.

Maatsen, meh. Headless chicken who would shy away from tackles and simply couldn't get in the game.

Given the chance I'd have a fully fit De Leeuw, the rest can get the first boat back to Zaanstad.
 
Reply
#18
(02-10-2015, 11:52 PM)Pete The Jakey Wrote: The Dutch experiment was a complete disaster. The fact that none of them are here is testament to that.

De Leeuw was quite suited to the Scottish game - very good in air, strong on the ball and could shoot. However he simply couldn't manage 90 mins. He looked in pain every time I saw him.

Klok was liked by fans who really wanted him to fill the holding midfield role that we desperately needed (and arguably still do). Paul Lawson he ain't, and I don't expect him to be hearing about him ever again. He had quite good hair.

The Lukassen deal was one of the greatest off loads in the history of the club, on par with Jimmy Scott to Hibs.

Maatsen, meh. Headless chicken who would shy away from tackles and simply couldn't get in the game.

Given the chance I'd have a fully fit De Leeuw, the rest can get the first boat back to Zaanstad.

My humble opinion too many brought in at one time with some lacking ability but on 2 year contracts while others were on short term once you make a difference to tge value of players ,but I liked Deleew and thought Kevin maetson was going to bloom here,again being on a bigger income than others on shorter contracts,maybe caused. Dissent in dressing room, but nobody escapes blame here, it was not managed right,and I think Roy is admitting we took our eye of the ball,we neglected our youth system George adams had too much a say in how things went,the board allowed it so really can't point fingers,,look ill take the blame for the lot but let's move forward United,
Incidentally interesting to hear Roy say nothing wll go right no real sponsorship will come to scotland until the Rangers problem is sorted out, but every one and there brother wanted this club terminated . I don't know the answer do you guys
 
Reply
#19
The Dutch experiment was worth doing. Some highlights, some lowlights. Much that same as signing any group of 5/6 players from anywhere at our level (i.e. for no transfer fee).

I think the most interesting thing about Roy's interview is the likelihood of part time players in the SPL soon. There is a complete logic about what he says - why would a player take £1,000 a week full time if there is the option of a day job at that rate with part time football for £500 a week on top. He might have added "Especially if a club has a major local employer as a benefactor who can offer a wide range of suitable jobs to good footballers".

If that happens, it is likely that there would be a mix of part time and full time players at the club, and with a sympathetic employer that may not cause too much difficulty with training schedules etc.

But in my view that combination is much more likely to cause disharmony that any variation in wages as may exist at the moment. If a footballer at this level does not recognise and accept that different players will have quite different pay levels, he is in the wrong job. He probably also needs to get a new agent.
 
Reply
#20
(02-11-2015, 09:12 AM)Wicky Wrote: There is a complete logic about what he says - why would a player take £1,000 a week full time if there is the option of a day job at that rate with part time football for £500 a week on top.

I'm clearly in the wrong line of work. How many people in their 20s and early 30s earn £52k p/a? Especially those who've had to dedicate most of their non-core working hours to playing football?! (I know it was Roy who said that, not you).

 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)