Steve_E

Not good enough anymore imo. Can't really move anymore.

I hope Everton go in for Riechedly Bazoer:

He looked a much better player than McCarthy against Ireland, but that was the first game in years he had any verticality in his play whatsoever.

I think he's deteriorated a lot last couple of years. Has become a sideways passer.

Matt, Fellaini created 1 less goal scoring opportunities (7) than Payet did in his MOTM performance for France (8). Second most in the tournament so far. Hugely underrated.

He's also part of the reason the team as a whole didn't create more chances.

It was to be expected after the last couple of games and Wilmots' quotes. He said his offensive players have total freedom to create. If you want to create, you need a structured attack. And preferably one where you play footballers that can play football. With this XI, Hazard and De Bruyne need to dribble three players all by themselves to create something.

It's probably already too late to start implementing a more structured attack, but hopefully putting proper footballers into the XI will help as well: Dembele in (for king of the sideways pass after taking three or four touches) Witsel, Carrasco in for Fellaini and either of Batshuayi or Origi in for Lukaku (and the other one as the second option, rather than Lukaku).

Yes, I'd be happy with him.

Howard, Hibbert, Oviedo, Gibson, Osman, Pienaar, McGeady and Koné all need to go. In my opinion it's time to part ways with Lukaku and Mirallas as well.

In goal we're left with Robles, so we need definitely to bring in another keeper and it should be a better one than Robles so it's likely going to be an expensive one.

In defense we'd be left with Coleman, Stones, Jagielka, Funes Mori and Baines. So we'd need competition for Coleman at right back, I'd be okay with Garbutt covering for Baines as Galloway can play there if need be as well. At centre back we'd have Galloway and Pennington as well, but if there really are as much funds available as some media are making out, then I would like another first eleven centre back as well, though it's not a huge priority for me yet.

In midfield we'd have Barry, McCarthy, Besic, Cleverley and Barkley. We could do with strengthening these positions, but I'm unsure of what to make of the players already at our disposal. I thought Barry was finished after the season before last, then last season he did really well. Still he's turning 36 next year and if we want to press higher up the pitch, a player with some more athleticism would be preferable. McCarthy had a disappointing season and I wouldn't be entirely opposed to replacing him either (whether that's simply moving him to a backup role or selling him outright if there's a good offer). Besic has shown flashes, but hasn't been able to conquer a starting spot in two years at the club, let alone make himself irreplacable. Cleverley started out well, got injured and was wank afterwards. I'd keep him around as Osman's replacement as someone that can fill in in the double pivot, behind the striker, on the left, on the right... if need be for at least another season. Barkley has an interesting skill set, but I'm still unsure as to how those skills would be best used. He mostly plays as a number ten, but there's too many instances where he runs and dribbles with the ball with his head down and too few where he picks the right pass at the right moment and executes it perfectly. Maybe he could be turned into a box-to-box midfielder at the eight (because of his strength, athleticism, motor and shot from distance), but I worry it might be too late to teach him the tactical discipline and defensive instincts required. If that switch doesn't work to get the best out of him, maybe he could be deployed on the left as well. Anyway, we could do with midfield reinforcements, but I also don't want to put too many obstacles in the way to the first team for Davies and Dowell, so if we bring players in we need to make sure we move on from others as well.

On the wings we'd only be left with Deulofeu and Lennon, so we could do with two left wingers, in addition to guys like Barkley, Cleverley, Niassé and Dowell who could play there.

Niassé hasn't really shown anything in his half a season in England, so I wouldn't even be entirely comfortable with him as the main backup striker for an entire season, maybe Tarashaj comes over and impresses, but I'd still like two new strikers.

So there's lots of work to be done this summer if we want to catch up with the top sides imo.

Given the fact that I have repeatedly stated that I don't just judge strikers on their goal stats it's very appropriate and I think your argument actually supports my stance.

 

I judge strikers on their ability to finish, their technical skills, intelligence, the work rate... so back to jansenn have I said "let's sign him because he has scored x goals" no I haven't. I have watched him play and he impresses.

 

Good enough?

Have you seen that Janssen has said that he is "ambitious and wants to make a move" and that a move to PSV or Ajax "is being made impossible" by AZ asking for 15 million euro's (about 11.5 million pounds, so let's hope Everton don't pay them 28m)?

Don't have a clue whether he's good enough or anything like that, but I know I was entertained the couple of times I've seen him play.

All this speculation appears, again, to be based on....nothing! Oh how we're keeping sports writers in business.

 

We'll learn who it is, and when, once the club has done its work in private. Yes, it's fun to speculate, but let's keep a sense of perspective on this. Garbage in, garbage out. I'm not convinced any rumour right now is based on any credible input data.

 

Edited because I kant spill

It's pretty obvious this is more than speculation. The NOS don't report that Rob Jansen told them something unless he did. Southampton and Everton are negotiating compensation, you can bet on that. How long that's gonna take is anyone's guess, but Southampton will probably fold when they realize his head has been turned (which it most probably has, even though technically we aren't allowed to speak to him or his agent before compensation with Southampton is agreed).

Think he would be a fine hire (though he probably won't be your first choice if you're a big believer in the saviour concept). Solid manager. I'm happy that he's experienced as well. Had success in the CL reaching the quarter finals with Ajax, PSV (knocking out Arsenal to do so) and Benfica (knocking out Liverpool the first time in a decade that they even managed to pass from the group stage). He had a shit season with Valencia, but he's been fine to above average everywhere else he's been.

The Dutch version of the BBC are reporting that his agent has confirmed to them that Southampton and Everton are in talks.

I get that people may prefer Emery (and Monchi) but still think Koeman would be a great appointment. Southampton are a very good team - he's done better than Pottechino had league wise and look what Pottechino's done with Spurs. Koeman has signed some quality players and seems to give the younger lads a chance. His teams play decent football too.

 

I'm happy either way. Either appointment would excite me.

Koeman doesn't sign the players for Southampton. Their success seems to be down more to their structure, given the fact they did well in recruiting before Koeman arrived as well.

Tim de Wit seems to be the only Dutch journalist reporting that Koeman-is-about-to-sign-story and it appears that he isn't even a sports journalist, he's a foreign correspondent.

I think France, Switzerland, Wales, England, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Austria and Iceland will do well. I just realized how onesidedly western-European this list is.

What would be your Belgium starting XI? I'm worried about the defense after all of those injuries. Think I would opt to just play Alderweireld and Vertonghen in the centre and rely on their partnership to carry lesser players at full back.

I would go for:

​Courtois

Ciman Alderweireld Vertonghen Lukaku

Nainggolan Dembélé

Carrasco De Bruyne Hazard

Origi

The new manager needs to do something about his role imo. By now, I'm convinced he simply hasn't got the vision to be a top class number ten. I think the new manager should tell him he's going to be a box-to-box midfielder playing and they should focus on coaching up the skills necessary to play there.

I'm still in two minds about this, and it seems much of the population is. I understand the strategic benefits of remaining in the EU and the importance of strong ties with neighboring countries. The idea of war within Europe these days is almost unthinkable, for example. EU countries constitute a large percentage of our trade as well. We're all free countries, and our values are shared.

 

But security would not be a threat should we leave. Trade would increase with Commonwealth countries, an asset we retain that others don't. The quagmire of bureaucracy and regulation is becoming a huge drag on the economy. Free migration within the EU is a source of significant problems, and no-one has been honest about numbers (always underestimated). There's no doubt that the EU is moving toward a United States of Europe, and I for one don't want that. And you have to worry about the power of the propaganda machine that's trying to convince everyone to stay: What does that say about our future?

 

My principal concern, which is clearly very much a minority issue, is that, without the EU, the English will once again walk all over the other British nations. The EU has recognized the Cornish people as an official minority, something the English would never have done, but Westminster cut all funding for the Cornish language initiative. Surely the same concern would exist for the Scottish and the Welsh: The more Europe is involved, the more respect and autonomy they could expect. For Scotland and Wales, though, they could realistically break from England and rejoin the EU, meaning that it actually makes sense for them to vote to leave: Cornwall doesn't have that option.

 

It must seem odd to many that an issue like this would tip the balance. With all else being equal, though, it's an important factor for me.

 

How will this play out? I think it might depend on what happens between now and the vote. We know the EU is planning to issue a report, just days in advance, that will try to terrify everyone about the financial impact on Britain should we leave. Will voters take that seriously or view it as propaganda? Will the striking workers in France do something obnoxious that could influence the electorate's thinking? Might ISIS carry out its threat against the Euros in France, leading to a backlash against more EU migrants entering Britain? The outcome of the vote might well depend on something unexpected happening in the next few weeks.

Why would trade with other Commonwealth countries increase after a Brexit? Is consumer demand (for British products) in those countries suddenly going to rise after a Brexit or is EU membership inhibiting British trade with Commonwealth countries?

Also, there is a reason for EU regulation: to replace 28 sets of rules with harmonised ones, allowing companies to trade throughout the EU, so it's not exactly a drag on the economy.

is that not linked with the Schengin agreement, which the UK isn't part of. Or am I mixing things up here?

Free movement of workers is part of EU legislation and I believe part of the argument for a Brexit is that it would erase the favoured position EU workers have in terms of migration to the UK, isn't it? Here's an article on the issue btw.

 

Sorry, I interpreted the comment wrong. I thought it simply meant that there should be no trade tariffs or that they would be countered. But if you're fine with that trade-off (complying with EU regulation on goods and services without getting any say in what that regulation is in order to achieve autonomy on immigration etc.) then that's fine.

 

I think that's how Switzerland and Norway operate as well, isn't it?

Come to think of it, no, it isn't, right? Because they also comply with EU laws on free movement. And really, isn't that necessary in order to optimalise access to the EU internal market?

 

Uniform regulation on what? The comment from the FT suggests all trade agreements stay in place. What regulation on 'immigration, legal matters, foreign policy, climate change or anything regarding fiscal or internal economic policy' would we need to comply with?

Sorry, I interpreted the comment wrong. I thought it simply meant that there should be no trade tariffs or that they would be countered. But if you're fine with that trade-off (complying with EU regulation on goods and services without getting any say in what that regulation is in order to achieve autonomy on immigration etc.) then that's fine.

I think that's how Switzerland and Norway operate as well, isn't it?

 

I saw this in the comments section of the FT some weeks ago and it made me smile.

'Leaving the EU should not be feared or overcomplicated :-

It's very simple - There will be NO negotiating. The UK simply sends the EU bureaucrats and the heads of state of Germany and France our biggest trading partners a single A4 sheet. On it is written, thank you for the recent cooperation - now that the UK has left the EU, we wanted to show our appreciation for past endeavours and set out the future which should be a smooth interaction on trade.

The UK will trade with all EU member states on the same terms as before.

The trade is on goods and services and clearly there will be no further discussions regarding immigration, legal matters, foreign policy, climate change or anything regarding fiscal or internal economic policy, as these are matters for the British government and the people of Britain.

We don't expect that any of these omissions will affect trade, as equal trade terms are in the best interest of all EU nations concerned and Britain.

Should barriers to trade be erected by any state, then a reciprocation will take place, but clearly this is in no one's interests.

We wish you all well with your continued EU experiment.'

There are idiots on both sides of the campaign who you never think you'd align yourself with.

 

I think you're forgetting that import tarifs aren't the only thing that can inhibit trade. British products exported to the EU would still have to comply with EU regulation. A common European market can only be achieved if European countries accept uniform regulation.

not at all, was just curious.

 

Over here, Embolo has very mixed reviews Ranging from "big fish in a small pond" to "going to be a massive talent". I've not spoken to my Dutch mates because I'm pretty sure I'll get the same reaction.

 

I'd rather be paying for someone established at the moment instead of developing another player. Ideally get solid player in and a youngster too mind you.

I haven't watched Janssen myself, but I also check in on a Dutch forum (as there are no good Dutch-language Belgian message boards) and the fans of Dutch clubs were mocking the Liverpool fans because of a report linking them to Janssen. One Liverpool fan doesn't want him because he doesn't think he's better than Ings.

Dutch daily De Telegraaf have picked up on the story, they're not really reporting anything new, except that Overmars offered "no comment" on the report linking him to Everton.

Casillas isn't good enough anymore to play for Porto, he isn't better than Hart.