SpartyBlue

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Thought he was heavily involved with Good Omens? He always said he wouldn't adapt it unless it did Practchett justice. 

I know he’s said he’s more involved creatively than on American Gods, at least.

15 minutes ago, Matt said:

Anything like Good Omens and American God's in its loyalty to the source material?

From what I understand Neil was less involved in those in terms of the control he had. Sandman is much more difficult to adapt so there is some condensing and character changes that went on but I think they did a good job bringing such eclectic material to life. I was pleased and it seems most critics and fans have been as well.

26 minutes ago, Wall Writer said:

Not yet, but it's on my list

A good adaptation if you’re a fan of the graphic novel. Hard to even complain about the changes as they are largely coming from Gaiman himself.

16 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

I can see palfys thinking on this…. Why we paying £15m for someone who may not be any better than simms?

id agree if it turns out our scouting reports the player being better than simms and the reality is different….. gotta trust the coaches and scouts. 
 

my understanding on simms is he has poor control and can lose possession easily and isn’t great in terms of movement. But he’s strong, direct and can finish… which may or may not get you far in the prem… let’s be honest Lukaku made a solid career from it. 

 

bbd seems to have the opposite, an awesome first touch and a sharp brain.   This is an interesting read…

 

https://breakingthelines.com/player-analysis/player-analysis-ben-brereton-diaz/

Lukaku was a powerhouse who could get the ball 30 yards from goal and bully his way to a chance. He isn’t an amazing footballer but he had some attributes that few others do. Maybe that’s something Simms can aspire to but you have to be really effective there and in the air to make up for not being great at controlling a ball.

23 minutes ago, London Blue said:

He will be more productive with time, he can see passes and make runs that others cant.

As for a hold up player, that is not his game, that's why we need DCL and another striker for.

He will probably improve with time. But once we start talking about 45m+ that’s a very good player. Might take years for him to get there, if ever. For a guy who isn’t that great defensively and doesn’t cross it that well or hold it up he needs a lot of end product 

14 minutes ago, StevO said:

They don’t play the same role and Iwobi is clearly ahead of him anyway. 

I think they can play a similar role especially if Gueye comes. Iwobi being ahead of Dele is my point.

Surprising. Vote of confidence in Iwobi if true.

48 minutes ago, Wall Writer said:

His effort levels at the tail end of last season set the standard for the rest of the team. If memory serves he got numerous MoM votes on here. In no way is he the finished article; to what level he can climb is open for debate, but there is definitely some potential there. I think he'd make a lot more progress in the next year or two staying here and having a team built around his strengths. My understanding is that Lampard wants him to stay and wants him to be be a key part of the team going forward. For me, he's the kind of player we should be trying to hang on to. Being a regular starter in a developing team is surely gonna give him much more on-field experience and development then being a small fish in a big Chelsea pond. He's still only 21, he's still got plenty of time for that big money move. At his age and stage of development being a regular starter - which he will be for us - and in a team which is most probably gonna be set up to play to his advantages (as long as we get some more strikers in), and clocking up minutes on the pitch, is invaluable. 

I hope he stays, for him and for us, but having said that, if he wants to go, and they pay the money, then good luck to him.

However, I can't see us replacing him easily.

For all his promise, right now he’s not very productive. He is also not a great defensive or hold up player at this point. He might be more exciting than a lot of players we might bring in but I don’t think it would be difficult to find that production. 

Just now, RuffRob said:

more the fact that its a decent chance he would spend more of his contract on the bench. Where as at Everton - he plays. 

 

Yeah this doesn’t make much sense for Gordon right now in terms of his development. Maybe he thinks he’s walking into Chelsea’s starting 11 for some reason but that isn’t the case. He could get this deal in a year or two if he progresses for us and play far more football in the meantime.

19 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

 

This seems like the ultimate non update as it just reports what we all assumed was the case for the last few weeks. 

12 minutes ago, RuffRob said:

https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/chelsea/transfer-talk/feature/why-everyone-loses-out-if-gordon-leaves-everton-for-chelsea_492381.html?newsnow

This article rings true. We will be without a player that starts most weeks, and he almost embodies what we should be trying to do as a club - a local, young academy player in the first team improving year on year.  

Chelsea will spend a lot of money on a player who is unlikely to make there starting 11 any better, and Gordon goes from week in week out starter to bit part player at best. He potentially becomes the next Ross Barkley - who has ended up spent the peak years of his footballing career on a bench or worst or being touted around on loan.

It is a sad sad maker of where football is these days - the financial power to those who have simply been fortunate to get in the 'top 6' monopoly when it really counted means they can simply steam roller the rest of us season after season.  The likes of Everton, West Ham, Leicester or whoever can only get a sniff if and when one or two of the big 6 have an off season - then they simply go out and spend £150-£200M without any sort of financial worry!  

We simply can't turn down £50M bid, and Chelsea et al all know. 

Agree here though Barkley was farther advanced in his career (and went for far less). Shows you how rare it is to get a consistent 50m valued footballer. 

32 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

I have done an about turn on this. In a very very short space of time the lad seems to have gone different in his behaviour.  The daft hair and wacky gear, the theatrics on the pitch, liking fan posts on twitter that are debates over his performances, ducking out of challenges.  Just seems to be a bit affected shall we say. 
 

if we can get a good deal for him and sign terrier for a 1/3 of his fee and get forwards in then I’m ok with it…. I think, but I would have wanted cornet if I’m honest. 

 

The reality is there are many players at Gordon’s current level. The number that make it to being 50m+ type players is just a fraction of those. He has promise, no doubt, but the odds of that being very good business for us are pretty high imo. Given our financial situation and that replacements would likely be better than he is currently I’d be happy to sell.

53 minutes ago, Gwlad all over said:

If his head has been turned and money and CL being dangled, he's off. If rumours are true it seems we are playing hardball - good to see if so.

If we don’t sell for that price I would think it has a little more to do with finding a replacement this window.

5 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Sorry to give you a hard time. You are right that he wasn't always as bad, but what matters is having a capable striker today, and he's not that.

No worries. I enjoy a good discussion. We agree that he’s not it, even at his best. Serviceable 3rd striker is the best we can hope for.

1 hour ago, Cornish Steve said:

The fact that he was a tolerable player a decade ago doesn't take away from the fact that he's a terrible player today. If "he cost essentially nothing", then we got what we paid for. Is this what we expect of Everton? Personally, I expect a lot more.

Well it was 3 years ago, and for whatever the Chinese League is he performed well there also. 
 

I agree he’s not been good enough but he’s still our best CF option at the moment 

52 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

[[sarcasm mode on]]

Then let's go to the Chinese leagues again and bring in a midfielder and another striker. After all, they'll be cheap, right?

[[sarcasm mode off]]

We can take it to another thread if need be. My point, which was obvious, is both that he cost essentially nothing so this “waste of money” stuff isn’t relevant and that he has had a decent record in the premier league before he left. He might be past it now but it’s because he’s about to be 33, not because he’s never known how to play.

35 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

He is a terrible footballer. He disappeared off to China to play with no-names because no team in a serious league would want him. The only reason he's here is because our former manager was also at that same Chinese club and for some reason thought it a brilliant idea to waste money.

He went to China because he was 29 and presumably that’s where he could get paid the best. He also was transferred there for just shy of 20m.   Worth noting that he scored 11 league goals before he left. The Rondon move made all the sense in the world. We had effectively no money that window. Makes sense to bring in a player Rafa knew well who had good experience in the league. Also, waste of money? He was a free transfer who is on 20k a week, making him one of the lowest paid senior players at Everton. He is incredibly cheap so there is no real risk to us from that perspective. 

He may be past it now but it’s just not true to say he’s terrible at football or somehow costing us significant money. He was brought in as a placeholder at a time we couldn’t spend.

2 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

No doubt, I was even saying at half time where I was watching it that we needed to get him on. It wasn't even because I thought he'd win many balls (I actually think he's been a big disappointment in that regard) but just to give the Villa defenders someone they'd actually have to go towards to mark. Our front three didn't need marking whatsoever, they were abysmal.

Rondon is not a terrible footballer he’s just old and seemingly always out of shape. He still might be  a better hold up player than DCL and I’d trust him with a shot from outside the box before Dom. You can see how he was a reasonably productive player years ago. That said he needs to be 3rd choice at best for us.

10 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

If it wasn't for @dunlopp9987 and @Sibdane I'd think American's don't have a sense of humour.

Perhaps it was the quality of the joke to blame .

I get it, I was just making the point that as poor as he’s been for us it was obvious he’s a better option than Gordon.

3 hours ago, Btay said:

It’s not so much worth recalling him but i think it was worth keeping him in the squad and loaning him out towards the end of the window or once we had enough depth in the squad. Lampard said Rondon isn’t fit enough to start ( not sure why ) so it’s even more perplexing that we’ve let him go on loan at that stage.

He needs the loan and I hope he does well but we would benefit having him here now.

Well at the time of the loan we had DCL healthy and looking good and Rondon as temporary cover until we brought in another striker. Bit unreasonable to risk getting Simms a high quality loan because maybe DCL gets hurt slipping in the shower or whatever before we bring that other striker in. Just one of those things. In retrospect woulda been nice to have him for these couple games but hindsight is always 20/20.

2 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

He was saying he's not fit to start because he's shite, he wasn't talking about his actual fitness .

He’s a better CF than Gordon, I think that is obvious.

4 hours ago, dunlopp9987 said:

Went back and watched the highlights from Villa. Rondon has to start against Forest, even if he only gives us 60 minutes. Won almost every header, including the nod down to Onana that led to the goal

I think we forget because of his lack of fitness etc.. last year that he was a serviceable premier league player for years. He’s probably a better technical footballer than Dom, he’s definitely a better CF than Gordon. If he’s fit enough to start he really does have to.

7 minutes ago, RuffRob said:

I agree, Gallagher probably worth more than Gordon. They might try and be crafty and try and dump a few on us - Gilmour etc, and maybe sweeten the deal with a Gallagher or Broja loan. I think we should try and bring in Broga on a permanent and he can be proper competition for DCL not simply back up.

 

The idea of sone of those in loan is attractive for us this season. Hard to know what sort of deal is possible.

10 minutes ago, dunlopp9987 said:

This was my thought. Gallagher's only one year older and has shown way more end product than Gordon.

Pulisic isn't a bad shout as he seems to be a fringe player this year

Pulisic is considerably better than Gordon imo, and cost more than the numbers mentioned here. Which is what makes it an odd one from Chelsea unless they are simply that rich where they are fine with him being a fringe player who may or may not ever be a regular contributor.

2 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Pulisic and Broja?

Haha. I think he sometimes other clubs are moronic. Maybe City would give up De Bruyne? He is getting up there.