Tbf he hasn't done bad. 2 goals and 3 assists in 694 mins of football. That's a goal contribution every 138 mins.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Richarlison
- Thread starter Denmark Spur
- Start date
Tbf he hasn't done bad. 2 goals and 3 assists in 694 mins of football. That's a goal contribution every 138 mins.
Mosquito_Coasting
Jonathan Woodgate
He’s been asked to play off the right which isn’t his game. Jesus would have been a better buy as he plays well there. He might have had his heart set on being CF at Arsenal though. Kulu shouldn’t be making way for him anyway but it was always likely to happen with the profiles of Son and Kane.
Jesus is on huge wages. Romano said £200k a week net i believe. Other reports have it a bit less at around £250k a week gross. You'd have had to bump kane and sons wages a bit aswell. Richarlison is on £140k a week gross.
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
Was just about to make the same point
In his career i wouldn't say he's never been good there. It does seem his weakest position though.
Cf, games 109, goals 30, assists 10. Goal contribution every 2.7 games.
Lw, games 101, goals 34, assists 19. Goal contribution every 1.9 games.
Rw, games 38, goals 9, assists 4. Goal contribution every 2.9 games.
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
I’ve unfortunately had to watch a lot of Everton, due to friends being fans. I’ve never ever seen him play right for them
I’ve seen him play in a 2, left of a weak 3 and CF plenty
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
Possibly
He never played CF there but did play wide
On a side note Sarr is still there and playing really well. Shame they value him so high
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
I like Richarlison as a player but I now wonder if he was the wrong signing for this current Spurs squad.
He is currently Brazil's first choice centre forward and is deployed through the middle in a 433 formation and we signed him from Everton where he either played through the middle as a centre forward or on the left of a front 3 enabling him to cut in on his favoured right foot. However as a Spurs player he is not played as the centre forward because of Kane nor is deployed on the left of a front three because of Son, instead our record signing is dumped on the right flank of a front 3 where he is the least effective of any of the forward positions.
He is currently Brazil's first choice centre forward and is deployed through the middle in a 433 formation and we signed him from Everton where he either played through the middle as a centre forward or on the left of a front 3 enabling him to cut in on his favoured right foot. However as a Spurs player he is not played as the centre forward because of Kane nor is deployed on the left of a front three because of Son, instead our record signing is dumped on the right flank of a front 3 where he is the least effective of any of the forward positions.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
He was signed as cover for Kane with the added bonus that he can also cover the wide forward positions. I think he was the perfect signing for us.
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
I agree, it was just a bit bizarre that Kulu was the one dropped to accommodate him rather than Son earlier in the season. Had Kulu been playing poorly then maybe there would have been an argument, but he was looking good and Son was clearly off form.
in theory it gives us the chance to rotate Kane out for the odd game, or more likely rest him for the last 20 of some games. When you have 3 injuries in your front 5.5 (counting Gill as a .5) it makes things more complicated though.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
agree that didn't make sense
maybe Kulu was already carrying a strain?
he was the best performer in the front three at the time
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
Spending 60mill on him and then playing him in the forward position he is most ill equipped for does not make good football sense to me. I also think Son would do a better job on the right than Richarlison as his left foot appears to be equally as good as his right. So I would play Richarlison on the left when Kulu is not available.
Last edited:
Dicko
Paul Stalteri
To be fair, If he was bought to add depth to the squad and as a back up for Kane at CF (but knowing at a push he can also play wide) then we can't really complain.
If he was purely a straight back up for Kane at CF only and was just getting 10min sub appearances for Kane then people would also be complaining that we spent too much money on a bit part player.
The whole idea of a decent Kane back is someone who can cover all forward positions. It just so happens that with Kulu out he has had to play in his weakest position on the right. Its just the way it has turned out.
I'm sure he'd rather play RWF than be considered not good enough there and sit on the bench waiting for Kane to get injured.
Although I do agree that he should at least switch sides with Son sometimes. Seems strange they don't do it that much in games.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Paying £60m for a player who can provide cover across the front 3 is good business for a team that previously had little cover. I could be wrong but my memory tells me that Son has never really played well for us from the right. We also don't really know the situation with Kulu (was he carrying a little injury for example?)
MKSpur
Christian Ziege
You'd think that but for some reason Son has always been ineffective when playing on the right. I know he's too footed but movement wise I think it's rare to have a player equally adept at coming off either wing.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I think it's mostly a coincidence that he's been played mostly on the right. A couple of games where Kulusevski was rotated out, but we don't actually know why, could have been carrying a knock.
Other than that it's the injury to Kulusevski and then the injury to Richarlison that's dictated that Richarlison has played almost exclusively on the right.
Very happy with him so far, but we need that cover player for Kulusevski's role. Getting someone that can cover for Kane, Son and Kulusevski all in one player was always going to be a big ask.
Other than that it's the injury to Kulusevski and then the injury to Richarlison that's dictated that Richarlison has played almost exclusively on the right.
Very happy with him so far, but we need that cover player for Kulusevski's role. Getting someone that can cover for Kane, Son and Kulusevski all in one player was always going to be a big ask.
