Rovers old boys

[O4anotherplayoff]

Vaughan was a one man beast who would have gotten us out of L2 single handed bar the injury…

I agree, and he also looked like becoming influential in possibly keeping us in L1 until the plague and the EFL intervened.

But we were only able to bring in Vaughan initially by offloading Mullin (both on loans). A no brainer. Proven quality versus someone who hadn’t, and still hasn’t, ever hacked it at L1 level.

incidentally, Mellon had already left us before Mullin, by then a free agent, signed permanently for Cambridge. Presumably Mullin signed because he knew, after his loan, that he’d get regular first team football there, whereas if he stayed with us (though I can’t remember if we even offered him a contract) he’d likely be second fiddle to Vaughan, who was rightly our top target by then.

I can’t see how mismanagement comes into it.

 

[Boz]

Mullin got very little playing time in his first season with us, playing in less than half the games. I don’t remember that he featured as a pair with Norwood that often, Micky initially preferring Nors with the returning Cole Stockton and then as a lone striker with Jennings behind. There were times when Mullin didn’t even make the bench, being behind the likes of Dagnall in the pecking order. Even when it became clear that Norwood was off in the summer, MM didn’t give Mullin much opportunity, though he didn’t play badly when given a chance. Hard to be too critical given how the season panned out, but given how well Paul did at Cambridge, perhaps he should have been used more.

The L1 season he was behind Payne and Ponticelli initially and given the poor recruitment that summer, there were always going to be difficulties which were only addressed in the January. I would have liked to see Mullin stay at Cambridge to get a better idea of whether he could do a job at L1 level. His goals in the Watford Cup ties helped earn the money-spinning game with Man Utd, which helped fund our recruitment then. No argument that Vaughan was an upgrade though it was always a question of how long he could stay fit. In terms of striker management and development, don’t think Mullin is one Micky will be using on his cv!

 

[bigmart]

The simple fact is when Mullin played he never took his chance, for all his efforts he was pretty disappointing for us and there were not many complaints when he left.
Hes done very well since he left us but that doesn't mean he would have done similar with us, it simply didn't work out with us.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Feel like I’m responding to MM’s defence lawyer! Maybe we should spur everyone’s career on by releasing them!? Ridiculous comment!! Vaughan was a one man beast who would have gotten us out of L2 single handed bar the injury… Wonder how far Hill would have taken us? Not far I suspect, which was why I thought at the time good fortune had favoured us!

A strange response. Perhaps you are Mullin's agent, or Mum ? Players often need a change of environment to progress, which is the point which seems to have eluded you, and that is often down to the pyschology of the player. Or perhaps you think Morecambe and Swindon were also wrong to release him because his genius was so apparent ? Were De Bruyne and Salah the same players at Chelsea that they later became, or did their release force them to reflect and improve ?

As others have commented, Mullin's failure to make it here had nothing to do with mismanagement. Contrary to Boz's comments, he played almost half of the 19-20 season in a front two but was not good enough. He was given an opportunity and did not take it.

 

[Ian]

He's certainly not a bad player as his goal record at Cambridge and Wrexham is very impressive but I just don't think it worked out at Tranmere for whatever reason. I do seem to recall he was a much better impact player when coming on as a sub than he was when he started games.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

In terms of striker management and development, don’t think Mullin is one Micky will be using on his cv!

Jim Bentley must be even more embarrassed then, given that Mullin did little at Morecambe in several seasons.........

 

[Goody Two Shoes]

Just to throw something else into the debate, Hemmings has almost an identical goals to appearances record to that of Mullin at Rovers. Read into that what you wish. It would be interesting to know how many minutes each has played.
Mullin’s record prior to joining Rovers wasn’t that bad in relation to the appearances/goals ratio; he has, of course, run riot at Cambridge and Wrexham in relative terms.
Personally, I liked his work ethic and he clearly has the tools to score goals.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

In 122 appearances at Morecambe Mullin's goalscoring ratio was about 1 in 4, whereas Hemmings has generally averaged 1 in 2 / 1 in 3 and often at a higher level than League Two.

 

[Ian]

Very stark records. He's either really good or a bit rubbish. Maybe a personality thing.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Connor Jennings goes straight into the Altrincham side tonight, with Ben Pringle on the bench.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Andy Cook scores for Bradford.

 

[Ian]

Andy Cook scores for Bradford.

He's having a really good season.

 

[Boz]

As others have commented, Mullin's failure to make it here had nothing to do with mismanagement. Contrary to Boz's comments, he played almost half of the 19-20 season in a front two but was not good enough. He was given an opportunity and did not take it.

If you look at the 19-20 stats, Mullin only started 10 games for Rovers. That's about a third of those where he was available to play before his January departure. A lot of the other appearances that season were as a sub often of relatively short duration. While most of the starts were in a front two, that wasn't always the case, for example at Oxford he was one of a 3 behind Payne. The reality is that the opportunity he was given was fairly limited and there isn't enough evidence either way to say whether he'd have been capable at L1 level.

Jim Bentley must be even more embarrassed then, given that Mullin did little at Morecambe in several seasons.........

That's an odd comment to make. Mullin was signed by Bentley as a teenager, made on average 40 appearances each season with Morecambe during his 3 years, (as opposed to a 21 appearances average with us) averaging a goal every 4 games. When he moved to Swindon, a fee was paid.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

In a mythical world, where we can just ignore all the facts and circumstances of why we replaced Mullin, all of us would probably have kept him as one of our four strikers.

In that mythical world he might have somehow gone on to displace Vaughan and score 30 goals for us in L2, firing us to L1. Or even partnered him and they scored 60 between them!

And then it’d be us, rather than Cambridge, he’d inevitably have walked out on to take non-league Wrexham’s $$$. Imagine the reaction to that!

Best not to think about it.

 

[Boz]

In a mythical world the Hollywood mob might have taken over Rovers or the Palioi discovered a magic money tree. Whatever.

The real world is largely shades of grey rather than black and white and this applies to the relative merits of Mellon and Mullin too.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

If you look at the 19-20 stats, Mullin only started 10 games for Rovers. That's about a third of those where he was available to play before his January departure. A lot of the other appearances that season were as a sub often of relatively short duration. While most of the starts were in a front two, that wasn't always the case, for example at Oxford he was one of a 3 behind Payne. The reality is that the opportunity he was given was fairly limited and there isn't enough evidence either way to say whether he'd have been capable at L1 level.

That's an odd comment to make. Mullin was signed by Bentley as a teenager, made on average 40 appearances each season with Morecambe during his 3 years, (as opposed to a 21 appearances average with us) averaging a goal every 4 games. When he moved to Swindon, a fee was paid.

I find your original comment stranger. If Mellon should be embarrassed that Mullin did not perform under his management, then Bentley should be equally if not more embarrassed should not he ? He failed to score goals anywhere until he went to Cambridge. I thought your original comment was provocative and petty.

I can't be bothered checking the stats you quote, but ten games in a front two is a substantial run in the team and Mullin made virtually no impression in that period. He was given an extended run in the side and was not good enough. Vaughan played far fewer games in 19-20 after his arrival but clearly was good enough.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

In a mythical world the Hollywood mob might have taken over Rovers or the Palioi discovered a magic money tree. Whatever.

The real world is largely shades of grey rather than black and white and this applies to the relative merits of Mellon and Mullin too.

Mullin did not perform at any club until he got to Cambridge, so if Mellon is to be 'blamed' for that so should all the other coaches and managers Mullin worked under in the early years of his career.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

In a mythical world the Hollywood mob might have taken over Rovers or the Palioi discovered a magic money tree. Whatever.

The real world is largely shades of grey rather than black and white and this applies to the relative merits of Mellon and Mullin too.

The point being that, regardless of any alleged mismanagement, even if we’d somehow kept the guy and he‘d then produced for us what he produced for Cambridge, he still wouldn’t be with us today, which is what some of our fans still seem to pine for and blame Mellon for.

In the real world, as soon as he’d proved he could hack it in L2, he chose to turn his back on his club’s new challenge in L1, as well as supposedly numerous offers from Championship down, to take the easier money in non league. If that’s his mindset, no way on earth would Tranmere have trumped that.

Mellon has absolutely no case to answer here.

 

[Keith Hill (Bolton)]

@Ian can you look this post over and edit It appropriately.

It wasn't in the managers control.
Regardless of your belief in who does what behind the scenes, contracts are the purview of the board, mainly the chair.
Contract discussions between agents and club are conducted within the budgetary constraints.
If the manager has influence, this is taken into account but other than recommendations, that is it.
Sometimes the manager gets his recommendations, but sometimes he doesn't.
Agents are always trying to place their players for the best contract possible and loans come into this for trial purposes.
In football, the level of pay and signing on fee is important, then bonuses. Length of contract can be even more important.

Mullin wasn't first pick and he knew it. He was frustrated and he knew he needed first team football. That is why he went on loan. After his loan, he had two options open to him. He could stay at Rovers, with a reduction in pay and bonuses, he would get a reduced signing on fee and only one year. He was offered more of everything at Cambridge.

The manager, other than not starting him, had no influence of continuing his stay at Rovers.

And he did enjoy his time at Rovers.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

The real world is largely shades of grey rather than black and white and this applies to the relative merits of Mellon and Mullin too.

I think it is clear which of those two individuals made the greater contribution to TRFC.

No shades of grey there......