SpartyBlue

Just now, Hafnia said:

A while ago I would have said no chance.  My frustration with him so far this season is he seems to have gotten a bit big for his boots, nothing definite to go on but something a little bit niggly in the sense that against Chelsea he ducked challenges, he went down holding his face yesterday from an arm across the neck… if he actually held his neck then it would have been something the ref may have looked at, in the end the ref probably thought “piss off”.

there seems to be clubs where he has flagged up highly on the scouting hit lists. 

He’s always gone done easily and with exaggeration from what I’ve seen. The rest I suppose you can chalk up to being out of position. He certainly doesn’t seem to have the physicality to play up top 

6 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Totally agree with this: Gordon for Gallagher and Broja. I'm sure, given Lampard's knowledge of Chelsea players, we're negotiating right now for a couple of their top prospects.

I can’t imagine they would ever entertain this. Is Gordon even a better prospect than Gallagher?

4 minutes ago, Formby said:

I rest my case. We're crazy.

Depends why. If we don’t think we can find a replacement this window it could be 100m and it wouldn’t matter. Plus, if he has a good season those bids won’t go away. 

Just now, Palfy said:

We sold Richarlison for 50m if we get 50m for Gordon I would consider the sale of Richarlison a bargain. 

English premium and the attraction of potential. At this point Richarlison is what he is. Easy to fall in love with the idea of what Gordon might be in a few years. If they pay 50m for Gordon it’s a crazy price. 

8 minutes ago, Matt said:

Frank is also quite happy clappy, so I'd take his praise with a pinch of salt 

Also if anyone is coming in for your player you’re never going to say “Yea, he’s just Ok. Wouldn’t be bothered to let him go” 

I’m sure he genuinely likes the potential of Gordon but that potential has a price. We could get some good players who are better right now with, say, 50m

8 minutes ago, London Blue said:

He can't hold the ball up because he is not a forward, he is a winger or a 10, its not in his skill set.

He can and does beat players and create chances. If Frank Lampard one of the greatest midfielders in the history of the premier league says he has the potential to be a top player, and wants to keep him, then thats an indication of how good he is now can be.

Lets not forget, this is his first full season as a regular starter.

Richie could hold the ball. Other top wingers can as well. He lacks that physicality. He can certainly turn an opponent and get in good positions. It just typically goes poorly at that point. He’s not a good crosser at this point and he doesn’t give himself a lot of clean chances. Usually he just ends up running into a defender. 
 

Of course many of those things can improve. But he is not near a 40m+ player at this point. There are lots of wingers in football who lack end product. That’s where he is. A promising player but one with lots of areas to improve. Given his history with us and his upside I think you’d need an outrageous bid to let him go. 40m+ starts to get into that territory. 

1 hour ago, London Blue said:

Do Not Sell, the fact Chelsea want to buy him shows how much potential he has.

He will be pivotal for us not only this season but for seasons to come. 

It will alienate a large section of the fan base.

Chelsea can afford to invest in potential. They can afford to miss on a 40m transfer. Gordon is quite a ways from being worth that, even with the English premium.  Lot of potential but his finishing and crossing are quite poor, he’s not a player that can really hold the ball up well as we saw so far this season etc.. He might one day be worth that or more but that is a very fair price, more than fair. 

1 minute ago, Palfy said:

Simms scored again, oh dear how he’s proving he should have been 3rd or 2nd option and not shipped out on loan. Like Frank said in his interview management is all about timing, well he got the timing wrong with that move

Management is also about doing what’s best for the team in the long run. 2 games does not a season make.

Iwobi by a mile today. With Doucoure seemingly banged up I will be disappointed if it’s not him and Onana next time out. I thought Patterson was solid given how inexperienced he still is. Bit overzealous sometimes and gets caught out because of it but that’ll come with time. Some good quality going forward from him.

1 minute ago, Palfy said:

The thing is with Forrest you won’t be able to judge whether their signings have made a difference or not in this league, because you haven’t seen the team that got them promoted play in the PL to make a comparison, yet they may still go down with say 38 points and you will no doubt say, signed 12 players yet didn’t do them any good proof that buying players doesn’t always work, but if they didn’t buy players they might have gone down with 24 points we can never really know. I think City will win the league this season because they have improved their team by bringing in better players in transfers, not because they have improved and promoted better players they already had in their system. You didn’t advocate promoting Simms to the first team which strangely I did, you don’t believe he’s ready which means the only option is to buy to improve, yet in my eyes that is going against what you are trying to advocate. 
Brendon Rodger’s hasn’t bought an outfield player this season in an interview he said if the team stayed as it was he was happy with his squad, now if they don’t make signings they would make a good indication of whether new signings improved you or not. But the evidence is there that in general new signings improve a team you yourself have been saying how some of our signings will help us improve, if it wasn’t the case then why do the huge majority of teams buy new players and why is there such an emphasis on the transfer windows. Transfers for the sake of transfers would be ludicrous, but what team or teams can you name who are buying players just for the sake of it ?

Fair enough point on Forest but there are other examples where it’s easy enough to say that making too many changes is a detriment to a club’s season. I’m not saying that transfers don’t help. Of course they can. They just aren’t inherently a positive. I can think of a couple dozen additions over the last few  years that made Everton worse in the long run and so can you.
 

There is this idea (mostly from supporters I’ll grant you) that transfer = progress. That isn’t always the case. Regarding City etc.. I’ll repeat my earlier point. If bringing in transfers inherently made your squad better then every year the level of football would rise. It doesn’t. Sometimes it helps a team, sometimes it hurts a team. All I’m saying is I don’t think if a team brings in 6 transfers they will definitely improve over a team that only feels the need to bring in 2. The object is to get better and that means different things for different clubs. 

I don’t think Simms makes the case you believe it does. He’s not playing for us right now because he’s not been deemed ready. His development towards being a premier league player IS an example of not having to always do it with additions. Maybe he gets there maybe he doesn’t but we aren’t just dropping him as an Everton player because he’s not there yet. A better example is Gordon. We are choosing to develop a young talent rather than just bring in someone for the position. Whether it works out or not it makes the point that you don’t have to just buy to get better. You can develop players you have like Gordon, or find a better position for someone like Iwobi, or just have players reaching their prime like Pickford. All of that can improve us and none of it has to do with a transfer. 

You hear it every window from people that if we aren’t signing players we are “falling behind”. It isn’t necessarily true. For several previous years Liverpool spent far less on transfers than Everton. They didn’t fall behind because they had already found those they needed, developed them and maintained a lot of stability that improved their squad. 
 

This season we did absolutely need a bit of an overhaul so lots of additions made sense. Some years that is the case. Other years (hopefully next summer) we will need far less.

7 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Of course there is an advantage in stability, look at Everton Lampard is buying players to try and gain some stability, but standing still and not buying and hoping to improve what we have isn’t going to work. The big 5 or 6 have been spending in particular Arsenal and Spurs in the numbers they have brought in this season, City and the shite haven’t bought that many each but have spent big on quality over quantity. The top 2 won’t change this season they won’t be caught by the team’s below them who have spent money because they have counteracted that by buying themselves. What will happen this season is that City Utd Chelsea Arsenal Spurs and the shite will move further away from every team below them, Newcastle and West Ham are spending to try and stay with them but have still dropped further behind, Leicester who so far have only bought an average keeper this season will not finish above 9th unless they start spending before the window closes. Because of the buying power of the top clubs and the gulf they have already created over the years with that power teams like Everton unfortunately will pretty much struggle for decades to try and get into the top 4-6 even Newcastle with the title of richest club in the world will take years of spending to try and bridge the cap and get close to City and the shite. 

My point is simply that transfers for the sake of transfers mean nothing. You hear complaints from people every year about other clubs making moves. If bringing in players inherently made teams better than teams would get better every year. Obviously they don’t. 
 

As someone from the States it is interesting to me. Football has an obsession with bringing in lots of new players every season. It’s seen as a sign of progress. It’s not true to nearly the same degree in American sports. Of course you improve if you can but it’s at least as much about development and keeping your core together.
 

I think too often we believe the only way forward is additions. Developing young talent and having more experience with your core playing together are other ways to improve. I’ll be curious how a club like Forest does this year with so many new players. 

On 23/07/2022 at 03:18, Palfy said:

It’s not a fallacy it’s a requirement some times the players don’t always for fill the managers believe in them that’s the gamble. Look at the amount of players brought in by Liverpool, City, Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal, and the money spent so far this transfer window, read what Ten Hagg is saying at Utd demanding more money more players. If you don’t keep buying every season to improve your weakest positions you don’t stand still against your competitors if they are buying you go backwards.  
If Liverpool bring in 4 players to improve the team and City don’t respond then Liverpool pretty much win the league next season, that’s how important it is to keep freshening the team up every season.  

Older post but I still say bringing in players doesn’t inherently make you better. Many teams bring in players and get worse. Also, if new transfers improved you as a rule then every year you’d see clubs playing at levels never seen before.
 

It is true clubs are always trying to improve with transfers and address needs but sometimes just developing the players you have, getting healthier etc.. is just as valuable. There is advantage in stability. 

6 hours ago, Matt said:

This leader thing is becoming a buzzword. Remember when we brought in 4 captains in Williams, Klaassen, Rooney and Siggy? That was to bring leadship to the pitch too and we all know how that went. 

Is he a fast, strong defender? Latter yeah, former no. I'm just hoping he plays well and isn't just another voice for the sake of leadership. That's my concern. 

This is a bit different. This is premier league captains who still have something to give. I don’t think anyone can question we were well organized at the back vs. Chelsea with Tarkowski back there. 
 

Fair point that leadership for its own sake isn’t worth a ton but we seem to be going after guys with that character who can also play.

38 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I wonder who will have the final say on the positioning of the defence, Tarkowski took the responsibility to be the voice in defence last Saturday and with direction to those around him, but I can see Coady wanting to be the leader in the back line it’s what he’s use to as well, it will be interesting to see who takes general control because you can’t have 2 voices or opinions that would only create confusion. 

They are both professionals. Captains. I expect there to not be an issue in working that out.

11 minutes ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said:

 

Nice to see us with a lot of irons in the fire as we try to find the best fit for us.

Just now, Ghoat said:

I know it's not unheard of across the pond, but when a 20 year old kid walks in speaking 5 languages fluently, that indicates to me that adaptability is likely something he already has a pretty good grasp on. Speed and physicality of the EPL will take an adjustment, but big picture, I'm thinking he settles in pretty quickly. He carries himself in interviews (non-native language for good measure) liked a seasoned veteran - far beyond his actual age.

Agreed. Every comment I’ve seen on him references his maturity and it’s obvious in interviews. I’m hopeful he can learn quickly but this is the best league in the world. We are a notoriously fickle and impatient fanbase so I hope that if he starts slowly we keep in mind his age and that we are buying him for the player he will be at 23,24 etc..

10 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I’ll take and go along with that, and just hope it’s not several years and no more than several months, with Iwobi he always showed us he had it but couldn’t consistently do it, but under Lampard he is finding the consistency which comes from being more confident in his position and manager. 

I mentioned it a little while ago on here but what did it for me was the game after his big mistake. Fans stayed with him and he responded well. Seems like he’s matured to the point where his confidence isn’t going to nosedive at the first sign of trouble.

36 minutes ago, Matt said:

It's saying loan with option to buy

Makes sense financially and otherwise. With so much business done this window you can see us not needing to do that much over the next couple. If this guy isn’t it then we cut bait without much damage and can focus our funds on our attack. 
 

it’s going to be a real important season for Gray, Gordon, DCL. Perhaps McNeil as well. They need to establish themselves as first choice or else they are going to end up being rotational players.

5 hours ago, Palfy said:

I’ve never seen him play before so I will with hold my judgment on his game and not be swayed by the price tag, let’s give him the opportunity to settle in with 5-10 games and we can then see a truer picture of his ability and critique him properly based on what we’ve seen and not what we’ve heard.  From what people have been saying you would think you were in the beginning of the Gbamin thread, pretty much exactly the same been said now about Onana as Gbamin before he had kicked a ball, and we all know how well that sighing turned out. Palfy being a miserable fucker again not at all just being honest. 

To be fair you could be both miserable and honest. 

I don’t think we should put a number of games on what we have. Still just 20. Could hit the ground running or could take several years to really show what he has. We need to remember Iwobi and be patient as supporters.

5 minutes ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said:

 

Does anyone know the specific disagreement?

11 minutes ago, Haiku said:

That's true, but it's not as simple as converting minutes to full matches. Oumar Niasse would have 9 goals in just a little over 16 games for us, which is even greater return. If nothing else, that makes Guirassy a prolific bench striker, but there are doubts he's good enough for a regular starter.

Perhaps not but when he was regularly only get 10 or 20 minutes at the end of a match it’s still better to judge per 90. 
 

He may simply not be good enough to start for them as you suggest. 

43 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Several of these goals look so close to being offside. He must be timing his runs really well. I don’t see great quality here but he does seems to have a hunger for goals. 

Yea I don’t see a ton of quality based on this either. Lot of those are just sort of scuttling them over the line. I trust management based on the players they’ve brought in so if they think he’s best for the club right now then full support.

26 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Fair point - but Vardy improved a lot when he stopped being a full-time drunk in his later 20's

Then fingers crossed this guy is a recovering drunk?

43 minutes ago, Haiku said:

Because he's not their first choice striker, Gaetan Laborde is. Rennes supporters fancy the chance of selling him to Everton and bringing someone better in. They think he lacks technical ability and that he doesn't suite Rennes fast paced football. That's pretty much a consensus on their forums.

Thanks. It’s odd though given that he’s scored 26 goals in something like 41 games of time over the last couple of seasons. That they have multiple strikers they prefer over a player with that sort of return is a bit unusual.

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

Can't buy him tho, we got no money and I thought loan places have been,used up.

I believe you are limited to two Loans from English clubs so we’d have the room.