Abdoulaye Doucouré

[c1982]

5 minutes ago, pete0 said:

We signed Gbamin in Silva's third transfer window.

First year here we got Richarlison. Moshori backs his managers, if Silva wanted Doucoure he'd have been here.

Silva did want Doucoure but Watford were asking £50m - Moshiri backs managers but he’s also seemingly learned his lessons after a steep learning curve with Walsh as his DoF paying well over the odds.

[pete0]

3 minutes ago, c1982 said:

Silva did want Doucoure but Watford were asking £50m - Moshiri backs managers but he’s also seemingly learned his lessons after a steep learning curve with Walsh as his DoF paying well over the odds.

We paid that for Richarlison. Any manager worth his salt would have brought Doucoure here over Richarlison.

[c1982]

1 minute ago, pete0 said:

We paid that for Richarlison. Any manager worth his salt would have brought Doucoure here over Richarlison.

We paid £35m plus add ons for Richarlison. Young exciting Brazilian attackers with Premier League experience are usually pretty expensive and now he’s full international, he’s probably worth double. Doucoure, as good as he may be, is and never was worth £50m - yes, he’s priceless to us but Richarlison is the more economically valuable asset.

[Palfy]

6 minutes ago, pete0 said:

We paid that for Richarlison. Any manager worth his salt would have brought Doucoure here over Richarlison.

Pete put your shovel away mate Silva wanted Doucoure and sold the idea to Brand’s. 

[pete0]

31 minutes ago, c1982 said:

We paid £35m plus add ons for Richarlison. Young exciting Brazilian attackers with Premier League experience are usually pretty expensive and now he’s full international, he’s probably worth double. Doucoure, as good as he may be, is and never was worth £50m - yes, he’s priceless to us but Richarlison is the more economically valuable asset.

Shameless as usual trying to bend facts, so was it a flat out £50m for Doucoure but £30m plus add ons for Richarlison? At that time Doucoure was worth every penny of the Richarlison deal. One needed nurturing and the other was ready made in a position we were desperate to fill.

31 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Pete put your shovel away mate Silva wanted Doucoure and sold the idea to Brand’s. 

Didn't want him enough. He signed Richi over him and Doucoure signed a new contract with Watford shortly after.

[Romey 1878]

1 hour ago, Bailey said:

Not for the first time recently, he played like a player that needs a freshen up. 

Definitely. A poor performance from him tonight, but he was far from alone in that regard.

[c1982]

7 hours ago, pete0 said:

Shameless as usual trying to bend facts, so was it a flat out £50m for Doucoure but £30m plus add ons for Richarlison? At that time Doucoure was worth every penny of the Richarlison deal. One needed nurturing and the other was ready made in a position we were desperate to fill.

They’re hardly facts - you said we paid £50m for Richarlison - I’ve read it was £35m plus add-ons. You said Doucoure would have been worth £50m - I suppose it’s a ‘peteO fact’ I’m bending and yeah your ‘facts’ could probably do with a bit of reshaping. It’s just clicked what your post is about anyway, ‘the other was ready made in a position we were desperate to fill.’ It’s about Gueye again... get over it!!!

I’m personally delighted that we’ve got both - thank you Watford!

[pete0]

9 minutes ago, c1982 said:

They’re hardly facts - you said we paid £50m for Richarlison - I’ve read it was £35m plus add-ons. You said Doucoure would have been worth £50m - I suppose it’s a ‘peteO fact’ I’m bending and yeah your ‘facts’ could probably do with a bit of reshaping. It’s just clicked what your post is about anyway, ‘the other was ready made in a position we were desperate to fill.’ It’s about Gueye again... get over it!!!

I’m personally delighted that we’ve got both - thank you Watford!

Go back and read it you were the one that said Watford wanted £50m. So since you know everything was that flat out or the same as Richarlison?

The £35m plus add ons comment was a snide attempt to twist it.

 

[c1982]

15 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Go back and read it you were the one that said Watford wanted £50m. So since you know everything was that flat out or the same as Richarlison?

The £35m plus add ons comment was a snide attempt to twist it.

 

There’s nothing snide here - I believe we paid £35m plus add-ons for Richarlison - I don’t know what we offered for Doucoure at the time but we paid £20m last summer and he’s been an excellent signing...

That’s all I have to say so make of it whatever you want to sunshine - goodbye!  

[pete0]

4 minutes ago, c1982 said:

There’s nothing snide here - I believe we paid £35m plus add-ons for Richarlison - I don’t know what we offered for Doucoure at the time but we paid £20m last summer and he’s been an excellent signing...

That’s all I have to say so make of it whatever you want to sunshine - goodbye!  

So that's a no. No evidence at all that the £50m was any different. 

30 minutes ago, c1982 said:

It’s just clicked what your post is about anyway, ‘the other was ready made in a position we were desperate to fill.’ It’s about Gueye again... get over it!!!

First comment in the 2018 summer transfer thread names Doucoure as a player they'd want. General feeling was most of us wanted him. You yourself before Silva was even manager commented in this thread you wanted Doucoure. 

 

[Hafnia]

We paid £35m for Richarlison with add-ons maxing out at £50m if we win leagues and cups.  The likeliest total fee being £40m.....  Either way he's worth at least double what we paid for him.

Doucoure - they spat the dummy out and wanted £50m... Common sense prevailed. We got him for £20m a couple of years later. 

I'm not arsed with this whole "I don't like him so I'll throw any shit that will stick to him"..... Silva was a weak manager - had some good moments and the last thing that could be thrown at him was his transfer record when compared to the other shit managers we had.

Koeman blew a fortune.  Allardyce blew £50m on Tosun and Walcott. Along with Silva - that's 3 shit managers. End of story. 

Doucoure... Great athlete, his feet let him down and he needs to select simple passes more often. 

[pete0]

50 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

We paid £35m for Richarlison with add-ons maxing out at £50m if we win leagues and cups.  The likeliest total fee being £40m.....  Either way he's worth at least double what we paid for him.

Doucoure - they spat the dummy out and wanted £50m... Common sense prevailed. We got him for £20m a couple of years later. 

Would they not take sold Doucoure for similar had we chose him over Richarlison as priority number one?

[Hafnia]

2 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Would they not take sold Doucoure for similar had we chose him over Richarlison as priority number one?

We paid over the odds for Richarlison at the time because they were pissed off at our pursuit of Silva. 

At the time we signed Richarlison we only had Walcott, DCL, Bernard, Tosun as attacking players to cover 3 or 4 roles which is why we were seeing Gylfi on the left alot 

In midfield we had Gomes, Gylfi, McCarthy, Gueye, Schneiderlein, Davies, 

The priority was an attacking player based on those names numbers alone. 

[pete0]

2 hours ago, Hafnia said:

We paid over the odds for Richarlison at the time because they were pissed off at our pursuit of Silva. 

At the time we signed Richarlison we only had Walcott, DCL, Bernard, Tosun as attacking players to cover 3 or 4 roles which is why we were seeing Gylfi on the left alot 

In midfield we had Gomes, Gylfi, McCarthy, Gueye, Schneiderlein, Davies, 

The priority was an attacking player based on those names numbers alone. 

Hate how you try to manipulate stuff. Leaving out Vlasic, Bolasie and Mirallas from the attackers (potentially even add Lookman), and moving Sigurdsson to centre mid to make your numbers game fit. Pathetic.

There was big question mark whether McCarthy would be able to do as much running after his injury, leaving Davies as the only box to box midfielder unless you count Gana. Either way neither are powerful players, which is exactly what we needed, a player to drive the team forward from midfield.

 

[StevO]

I love Doucoure, but between him and Richarlison I’m choosing Richarlison every time. 
 

Thankfully, we have both of them. 

[Hafnia]

1 hour ago, pete0 said:

Hate how you try to manipulate stuff. Leaving out Vlasic, Bolasie and Mirallas from the attackers (potentially even add Lookman), and moving Sigurdsson to centre mid to make your numbers game fit. Pathetic.

There was big question mark whether McCarthy would be able to do as much running after his injury, leaving Davies as the only box to box midfielder unless you count Gana. Either way neither are powerful players, which is exactly what we needed, a player to drive the team forward from midfield.

 

Not sure why you are taking that tone given I've not applied any such tone to mine.

I used this source. https://www.toffeeweb.com/season/18-19/squad.php

Vlassic was out on loan, lookman was logged as a midfielder on here so if I wanted to be pedantic I could have included him as a midfielder but he was a non starter as it happened. 

Anyway... It's from here that such debates go off the beaten track.

I'd have signed Richarlison over Doucoure but preferred both but I'm not arsed as he's here now and Silva isn't. 

[pete0]

7 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

Not sure why you are taking that tone given I've not applied any such tone to mine.

I used this source. https://www.toffeeweb.com/season/18-19/squad.php

Vlassic was out on loan, lookman was logged as a midfielder on here so if I wanted to be pedantic I could have included him as a midfielder but he was a non starter as it happened. 

Anyway... It's from here that such debates go off the beaten track.

I'd have signed Richarlison over Doucoure but preferred both but I'm not arsed as he's here now and Silva isn't. 

The tone is reflective in how you historically bend stats. It's manipulative.

[Hafnia]

4 hours ago, pete0 said:

The tone is reflective in how you historically bend stats. It's manipulative.

It's in a person's prerogative to make stats justify their stance and opinion.  It just depends on how far you bend them and risk losing all credibility.

Anyway ... We move on.

[pete0]

2 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

It's in a person's prerogative to make stats justify their stance and opinion.  It just depends on how far you bend them and risk losing all credibility.

Anyway ... We move on.

Your prerogative is to truth bend and you've been know to flat out lie. Personally I prefer honesty and integrity.

[Bailey]

Even though I have put in here that he needs a rest, is anyone else concerned as to how we will do without him. 

I would be less concerned with Allan in the side but he is the only other midfielder that can get tight, press quickly, stay with runners and also get forward and cover ground up the pitch. He was poor with the defensive work last night but those runs he makes to support the forwards are so important to how we play, especially against the better sides.

If anything the West Brom game should be one we dominate so maybe that is the one. 

[Wiggytop]

He’s just served a one match ban, and had 9 days between games, he should be fine for the next two.

[StevO]

32 minutes ago, Wiggytop said:

He’s just served a one match ban, and had 9 days between games, he should be fine for the next two.

I agree with that. 
West Brom tomorrow, then Chelsea on Monday. I think we need him for both. 
Then five days until Burnley and seven days until City. We currently have a two week break after that (internationals?), so I’m sure he’ll be fine. Those four games are massive for us and we’ll need him. 

[Palfy]

10 hours ago, Bailey said:

Even though I have put in here that he needs a rest, is anyone else concerned as to how we will do without him. 

I would be less concerned with Allan in the side but he is the only other midfielder that can get tight, press quickly, stay with runners and also get forward and cover ground up the pitch. He was poor with the defensive work last night but those runs he makes to support the forwards are so important to how we play, especially against the better sides.

If anything the West Brom game should be one we dominate so maybe that is the one. 

Him and Godfrey don’t seem to tire I’m sure they do but you wouldn’t notice it they could play a game every 3-4 days and take it in their stride. 
 

[Hafnia]

14 hours ago, pete0 said:

Your prerogative is to truth bend and you've been know to flat out lie. Personally I prefer honesty and integrity.

We all prefer honesty and integrity Pete, example:-  it's important to give credit to players who you don't rate for giving an upturn in form and not be rigid. 

Hopefully this period of antagonism is due to pass mate. The forum is pretty positive at the moment and I've no intention of allowing you to drag me into one of your shit fest's 

[Hafnia]

11 hours ago, Bailey said:

Even though I have put in here that he needs a rest, is anyone else concerned as to how we will do without him. 

I would be less concerned with Allan in the side but he is the only other midfielder that can get tight, press quickly, stay with runners and also get forward and cover ground up the pitch. He was poor with the defensive work last night but those runs he makes to support the forwards are so important to how we play, especially against the better sides.

If anything the West Brom game should be one we dominate so maybe that is the one. 

The only time we've had a player with that energy and mobility to close is Gana and when you take it out the side it's noticeable.  Allan is a workhorse but not as quick. 

[Palfy]

9 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

We all prefer honesty and integrity Pete, example:-  it's important to give credit to players who you don't rate for giving an upturn in form and not be rigid. 

Hopefully this period of antagonism is due to pass mate. The forum is pretty positive at the moment and I've no intention of allowing you to drag me into one of your shit fest's 

This is very true Haf. Pete I made a simple comment regarding Doucoure that I and some others believe to be true not all granted, that we should thank Silva for some of his acquisitions and in Doucoure’s case for being the catalyst in trying to get him here in the beginning. 
You could have agreed or disagreed with that statement, but you chose to attack my post on something I never said, which was that I was thanking Silva for his managerial ability. He helped bring some good players here for me that cannot be denied, he was proven to be not ready for the challenge he took on, his tactics were all over the place and he lacked the experience to challenge himself, in a nutshell to big a job for him at that time in his career, I don’t think you will find many who will disagree that he should have been replaced, but surely that shouldn’t mean I or anyone else can’t thank him for some of the players he brought to the club, which a better coach has benefited from. 

[RuffRob]

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

This is very true Haf. Pete I made a simple comment regarding Doucoure that I and some others believe to be true not all granted, that we should thank Silva for some of his acquisitions and in Doucoure’s case for being the catalyst in trying to get him here in the beginning. 
You could have agreed or disagreed with that statement, but you chose to attack my post on something I never said, which was that I was thanking Silva for his managerial ability. He helped bring some good players here for me that cannot be denied, he was proven to be not ready for the challenge he took on, his tactics were all over the place and he lacked the experience to challenge himself, in a nutshell to big a job for him at that time in his career, I don’t think you will find many who will disagree that he should have been replaced, but surely that shouldn’t mean I or anyone else can’t thank him for some of the players he brought to the club, which a better coach has benefited from. 

Fair enough to give Silva some credit for Richarlison and Doucoure but to be honest if you have worked with this pair at a different club - then it not overly impressive picking up on the qualities each of these player has and suggesting them to your new club that you would like to work with them again highlighting what they can offer. We bought arguably Watford's two best players.   Ancelotti has done it with players he likes and though we needed, almost every manager does. Silva was a Premier league manager - so this is almost minimum I would expect from any manager of this level if I am being honesty.

I remember having my head in my hand when we brought SIlva to the club - He was never going to be the man to take us to the next level, that appointment was nothing more than a punt - that well and truly didn't work. To me it was made even worst by the fact his appointment followed what was also a punt on Koeman. The club put a LOT of money in some inexperienced and somewhat experimental hands - Twice!! and lost a good chuck of it!! I think the club were looking for the next Poch!! 

Anyway, club have made up for it now - with bringing in the near perfect manager for what we need.  

[Bailey]

5 hours ago, Palfy said:

Him and Godfrey don’t seem to tire I’m sure they do but you wouldn’t notice it they could play a game every 3-4 days and take it in their stride. 
 

I don't think it is physical tiredness, I think it is more mental and in that respect he probably needs more than a game out of the side. He just looks and plays like a player that is a bit fried.

 

[Palfy]

27 minutes ago, Bailey said:

I don't think it is physical tiredness, I think it is more mental and in that respect he probably needs more than a game out of the side. He just looks and plays like a player that is a bit fried.

 

I see it differently, I see Doucoure in games that might not require his skill set so he doesn’t look as good, against Southampton for example I think another ball player such as James was needed in stead of player like him who is there to break up the opposition’s play or a half way house player like Davies who can give you a bit of both, Southampton weren’t dangerous enough to warrant both Doucoure and Allan in the same team. 
Doucoure doesn’t own the skills required to be a play maker and when his ability isn’t required he can’t give you much else, due mainly to a poor first touch and poor passing, so looks off the pace, if he plays against Chelsea he will be vying for man of the match, because his attributes will be badly needed Chelsea will have much more possession and he will thrive on breaking it down. 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, RuffRob said:

Fair enough to give Silva some credit for Richarlison and Doucoure

And that’s all I did Rob give him some credit for helping get Richarlison and Doucoure and nothing else, unless you can show me different in my original post then there’s no more to be said on the subject from myself, but please feel free to discuss Silva’s  merits or lack of with Pete I don’t wish to get embroiled in that debate. 
Sorry I should have added I agree with a lot of what you said.