Saido Berahino

[the dza]

One of them will still need to be in the three behind the forward at the very least (to offer us some playmaking ability there), but otherwise, spot on. Berahino in Lamela's position yesterday on that five-on-three breakway wouldn't have dragged it wide of the far post in a botched cut-back/shot attempt, he'd likely have gone near post like trur strikers tend to do. That 'pure' goalscoring instinct might be what we need popping up in those positions from time to time, as opposed to Lamela/Eriksen's focus on playmaking. Son might be that player as well, of course, but to my eyes it looks like he's also trying to be a playmaking inside forward as opposed to an out-and-out goalscorer.

Yep, that's what I was saying -- play one of Eriksen or Lamela, then Kane and another forward (such as Berahino). If we don't sign anyone, then perhaps give Son a run and see if he can give us more cutting edge.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I'd be starting Son over Eriksen at LWF at the moment.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Yep, that's what I was saying -- play one of Eriksen or Lamela, then Kane and another forward (such as Berahino). If we don't sign anyone, then perhaps give Son a run and see if he can give us more cutting edge.

Chadli would also be an option, but his lack of pace could mean that breakways like the one against Sunderland just wouldn't occur.

 

[Robspur12]

I'd be starting Son over Eriksen at LWF at the moment.

Not sure I agree GB. I've not seen anything yet from Son that convinces me he should be a consistent starter and certainly not over Eriksen, who granted has lost a bit of form but we all know what he has in his locker. Son had a purple patch at the start and since injury has not regained his form and I am still to see what is his stand out feature, although I accept it is early in his Spurs career. I don't see Son as cover for Kane either at the moment which is why we need someone like Berahino as well as him being an out and out goal scorer.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Not sure I agree GB. I've not seen anything yet from Son that convinces me he should be a consistent starter and certainly not over Eriksen, who granted has lost a bit of form but we all know what he has in his locker. Son had a purple patch at the start and since injury has not regained his form and I am still to see what is his stand out feature, although I accept it is early in his Spurs career. I don't see Son as cover for Kane either at the moment which is why we need someone like Berahino as well as him being an out and out goal scorer.

I'm with you here. I think Son has looked pretty poor for us in recent games. His control has looked weak and he surrenders possession quite often. I think Eriksen, Alli and Lamela are in our attacking midfield 3 on merit at the moment.

 

[braineclipse]

Yes Berahino can play on the left - that's kind of the point of why a lot of people have been saying he's a good option for us - he can cover CF whilst being able to play LWF(RWF too), it gives us more options than other players who only play through the middle.

The issue has been GB saying that Berahino isn't a CF and so he won't be covering Kane - he says this even though he admits he has barely seen him play for WBA and only seen him play for the U21s - where he plays off the left. Kind of like saying Vertonghen isn't a CB because he plays LB for Belgium. He keeps saying it even though he's talking to people who have seen him play for WBA more than he has.

Is GB saying that Berahino isn't a CF? I thought he was just saying that Eriksen and Son are better options for the LWF role?

We're not short on options for those 3 attacking midfield positions. I've asked the question before, but where does it leave Son if we sign Berahino with the expectation that he will get regular games in those positions? Where does it leave Pritchard and (when back from injury) Clinton?

Berahino's ability in those positions is definitely an important part of the question if the argument being made is that Berahino is a very good signing for us because he can play in those positions too.

 

[Vega]

I'm with you here. I think Son has looked pretty poor for us in recent games. His control has looked weak and he surrenders possession quite often. I think Eriksen, Alli and Lamela are in our attacking midfield 3 on merit at the moment.

I think there has got to be A LOT more to come from Son, we know he has been in and out etc. but the consistent line is that we dont buy players unless they will improve the team and it doesnt seem to be the case with him so far.

 

[braineclipse]

Not sure I agree GB. I've not seen anything yet from Son that convinces me he should be a consistent starter and certainly not over Eriksen, who granted has lost a bit of form but we all know what he has in his locker. Son had a purple patch at the start and since injury has not regained his form and I am still to see what is his stand out feature, although I accept it is early in his Spurs career. I don't see Son as cover for Kane either at the moment which is why we need someone like Berahino as well as him being an out and out goal scorer.

Son got into double digits for 3 consecutive Bundesliga seasons before joining us (12, 10 and 11 respectively). Not playing as an out and out striker most of the time from what I know. He's the same age as Berahino. Seems just as proven as a goal scorer as Berahino in my eyes.

I think there has got to be A LOT more to come from Son, we know he has been in and out etc. but the consistent line is that we dont buy players unless they will improve the team and it doesnt seem to be the case with him so far.

Agreed.

It's also doesn't seem like our style to buy a player like Son whose hard working and talented only to buy someone else half a season into his career to move ahead of him in the queue. This is very much the City/Chelsea way of doing things.

I've said it before, I'll keep saying it. I think Son would score plenty in a counter attacking WBA side playing as a striker (particularly pre Pulis sometimes playing in a 4-4-2). He would be WBA's best player by some distance playing on either flank at the moment.

 

[StephenH]

Son has not been the same since his foot problem. He may need more time to settle also, we know it can take some considerable time for players to adapt to a new team and Poch's teams are very particular in there methodology and ask a lot physically from incoming players. Give him more time people.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Berahino will either have to spend 85% of the season on the bench, or establish himself as first choice at LWF. He's a million miles behind Kane as a CF, and not as good as at least two (if not three) of our LWF options.

It's why I think we need to get a less high profile player, who is also more of a specialist #9 in the Kane model (i.e. mobile).

 

[Gutter Boy]

I think there has got to be A LOT more to come from Son, we know he has been in and out etc. but the consistent line is that we dont buy players unless they will improve the team and it doesnt seem to be the case with him so far.

It was suggested at the time that Son's injury would continue to hamper him for up to a year

 

[Armchair Expert]

Berahino will either have to spend 85% of the season on the bench, or establish himself as first choice at LWF. He's a million miles behind Kane as a CF, and not as good as at least two (if not three) of our LWF options.

It's why I think we need to get a less high profile player, who is also more of a specialist #9 in the Kane model (i.e. mobile).

But do you not agree that some form of rotation with Harry would be a bonus? He's just completed 50 premier league games on the trot, and its unlikely that that run will continue forever. If we had of had another striker he would already have played in the league cup, EL group stage, FA Cup and would have provided another option during all those games at home we have drawn blanks in.

There are so many games these days that when you have two strikers and play only one up front, both are guarunteed a good amount of football. Why couldn't we switch to two up front if needs be also?

We really, really need a second striker. I'd snap your hand off for Berahino, but i don't give a brick who it is really, just needs to be anyone. Off the top of my head the only other feasible choice might be Jon Walters. I think he'd be an excellent signing. Can't remember who mentioned him the other day, but would be a great shout. Perfect sub.

 

[braineclipse]

But do you not agree that some form of rotation with Harry would be a bonus? He's just completed 50 premier league games on the trot, and its unlikely that that run will continue forever. If we had of had another striker he would already have played in the league cup, EL group stage, FA Cup and would have provided another option during all those games at home we have drawn blanks in.

There are so many games these days that when you have two strikers and play only one up front, both are guarunteed a good amount of football. Why couldn't we switch to two up front if needs be also?

We really, really need a second striker. I'd snap your hand off for Berahino, but i don't give a brick who it is really, just needs to be anyone. Off the top of my head the only other feasible choice might be Jon Walters. I think he'd be an excellent signing. Can't remember who mentioned him the other day, but would be a great shout. Perfect sub.

Walters most certainly fits the "anyone" category. Other than that though....

I wouldn't want to see Kane rotated for the PL games. I think we might have seen him rotated a bit more for cup games if not for Son's injury. And as it has been Kane has only started one league cup game and 3 EL games. There has been some rotation. Though to be fair the EL knockout stages will probably be more of a test...

There were plenty of people crying out "if only we had another striker" when Kane had a dry spell earlier this season. But I for one am delighted that he got to play through that dry spell and recover his goal scoring form. I would have wanted to see the same even if we had Berahino/Austin/Walters/anyone in the squad. Kane really is that good that he is an out and out first choice for us regardless of who we sign.

Even when we're struggling in games I wouldn't be particularly happy to see Kane replaced by someone else in a game. We struggle to score against Leicester and the solution will be to take Kane off the pitch? This doesn't make any sense to me... And we already have players capable of playing alongside Kane if that's what we want. Is there a player we can buy that we would want to replace Kane on the pitch when we're struggling for goals in a game? I don't think so.

A young up and coming striker with plenty of potential like Dembele or Sandro seems like a good fit for me.

 

[Gutter Boy]

But do you not agree that some form of rotation with Harry would be a bonus? He's just completed 50 premier league games on the trot, and its unlikely that that run will continue forever. If we had of had another striker he would already have played in the league cup, EL group stage, FA Cup and would have provided another option during all those games at home we have drawn blanks in.

There are so many games these days that when you have two strikers and play only one up front, both are guarunteed a good amount of football. Why couldn't we switch to two up front if needs be also?

We really, really need a second striker. I'd snap your hand off for Berahino, but i don't give a brick who it is really, just needs to be anyone. Off the top of my head the only other feasible choice might be Jon Walters. I think he'd be an excellent signing. Can't remember who mentioned him the other day, but would be a great shout. Perfect sub.

That's why I said 85%. Berahino could start at CF the other 15% (early round cup games). Just look how often Wimmer or Vorm have featured as a benchmark - Poch doesn't rotate his core.

 

[Armchair Expert]

Walters most certainly fits the "anyone" category. Other than that though....

I wouldn't want to see Kane rotated for the PL games. I think we might have seen him rotated a bit more for cup games if not for Son's injury. And as it has been Kane has only started one league cup game and 3 EL games. There has been some rotation. Though to be fair the EL knockout stages will probably be more of a test...

There were plenty of people crying out "if only we had another striker" when Kane had a dry spell earlier this season. But I for one am delighted that he got to play through that dry spell and recover his goal scoring form. I would have wanted to see the same even if we had Berahino/Austin/Walters/anyone in the squad. Kane really is that good that he is an out and out first choice for us regardless of who we sign.

Even when we're struggling in games I wouldn't be particularly happy to see Kane replaced by someone else in a game. We struggle to score against Leicester and the solution will be to take Kane off the pitch? This doesn't make any sense to me... And we already have players capable of playing alongside Kane if that's what we want. Is there a player we can buy that we would want to replace Kane on the pitch when we're struggling for goals in a game? I don't think so.

A young up and coming striker with plenty of potential like Dembele or Sandro seems like a good fit for me.

See, I disagree. The reason I mention Walters name is that he would be coming here with no illusions as to his role in the side: back up for Kane. A young, hungry striker will want starts - and starts in his favourite position. I'M not sure that is what we need at the moment. Walters, for me, would be a good solution: hard working, honest, capable of ruffling defences and scoring goals.

I'M not saying that we shouldn't have played Kane through hisdry spell - we should've - i also think he should remain an undisputed first choice, hence recommending Walters as back up. What everyone seems to happily ignore is that Kane might get injured tomorrow, be out for three months, and then we will have literally no alternative. No one. Surely we cant continue to take these risks? I'm not advocating signing a striker to replace or challenge Kane; or so that we can sub Kane when struggling for a goal (who takes off their most potent scorer in that situation?), be we simply MUST have another option. Walters and Kane on together for the 15 minutes when chasing a goal would be a real handful.

I would say having another strike option on the bench when we are struggling at home to Leicester would be prudent, wouldnt it? That doesn't translate into taking Kane off in the same match, IMO.

 

[Armchair Expert]

That's why I said 85%. Berahino could start at CF the other 15% (early round cup games). Just look how often Wimmer or Vorm have featured as a benchmark - Poch doesn't rotate his core.

But we don't know what Pch might do if he had two effective striking options. He has never had that luxury at Spurs so far. There is also no reason why Berahino shouldn't be able to pick up minutes in place of an out of form Eriksen or goal shy Lamela.

 

[StephenH]

It's worth considering - Berahino + Pochettino is a totally different proposition to Berahino + Pulis.

 

[braineclipse]

See, I disagree. The reason I mention Walters name is that he would be coming here with no illusions as to his role in the side: back up for Kane. A young, hungry striker will want starts - and starts in his favourite position. I'M not sure that is what we need at the moment. Walters, for me, would be a good solution: hard working, honest, capable of ruffling defences and scoring goals.

I'M not saying that we shouldn't have played Kane through hisdry spell - we should've - i also think he should remain an undisputed first choice, hence recommending Walters as back up. What everyone seems to happily ignore is that Kane might get injured tomorrow, be out for three months, and then we will have literally no alternative. No one. Surely we cant continue to take these risks? I'm not advocating signing a striker to replace or challenge Kane; or so that we can sub Kane when struggling for a goal (who takes off their most potent scorer in that situation?), be we simply MUST have another option. Walters and Kane on together for the 15 minutes when chasing a goal would be a real handful.

I would say having another strike option on the bench when we are struggling at home to Leicester would be prudent, wouldnt it? That doesn't translate into taking Kane off in the same match, IMO.

I would say Kane and Son/Dembele/Alli is also a real handful when chasing a game for the last 15 minutes. We haven't had a shortage of good attacking players to bring on. Chadli and Son are good players and would be automatic starters at most mid table PL teams. They've been lacking match fitness though and not been able to come in and make a huge impact. I think the same would be true for Walters and many others.

Kane might get injured. Right now Son would be the obvious player to take his place. Is Berahino better than Son for that? Perhaps... Is Walters better than Son for that? Not for me.

I'm not saying we shouldn't sign another striker. I'm saying we shouldn't sign "anyone". And I would rather see someone with the potential to actually one day become a real force for us rather than a short term solution like Walters or Long.

It's worth considering - Berahino + Pochettino is a totally different proposition to Berahino + Pulis.

Definitely. And if Berahino is the one Poch wants I say go for it. But the cost matters, and I imagine it matters to Poch too.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Is GB saying that Berahino isn't a CF? I thought he was just saying that Eriksen and Son are better options for the LWF role?

We're not short on options for those 3 attacking midfield positions. I've asked the question before, but where does it leave Son if we sign Berahino with the expectation that he will get regular games in those positions? Where does it leave Pritchard and (when back from injury) Clinton?

Berahino's ability in those positions is definitely an important part of the question if the argument being made is that Berahino is a very good signing for us because he can play in those positions too.

If Berahino is better as a number 11, 7 or 10 then it leaves Son a place further down the pecking order and our team/bench will have been improved. If Son is better than Berahino in those roles then it leaves him exactly where he is and we have lost nothing. Exactly the same story with Clinton (although from what I have seen so far I am already pretty confident that Berahino is a better player at the moment). I am not really at all bothered by our 11, 7 and 10 roles though. The fact that Berahino can also cover those is merely a bit of icing on the cake. What I am bothered about is the cake itself... The big number 9 shaped cake that at the moment only Harry Kane is able to bake.

 

[braineclipse]

If Berahino is better as a number 11, 7 or 10 then it leaves Son a place further down the pecking order and our team/bench will have been improved. If Son is better than Berahino in those roles then it leaves him exactly where he is and we have lost nothing. Exactly the same story with Clinton (although from what I have seen so far I am already pretty confident that Berahino is a better player at the moment). I am not really at all bothered by our 11, 7 and 10 roles though. The fact that Berahino can also cover those is merely a bit of icing on the cake. What I am bothered about is the cake itself... The big number 9 shaped cake that at the moment only Harry Kane is able to bake.

A £20m sideways step in terms of those 11, 7 and 10 roles is not a good thing. If Kane stays fit that's where I imagine Berahino will get the vast majority of his game time? And I assume he will expect to get game time...

If you see Berahino as a perfect Kane replacement I get why you want us to sign him. For me he doesn't seem like a perfect replacement at all.