-
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
Transfer speculation
- Thread starter Cochise
- Start date
DeleHarry
Jose Dominguez
If he goes to Watford clearly its cos we are getting Troy Deeney
Vega
Neil Sullivan
Matt LawVerified account@Matt_Law_DT 3m3 minutes ago
Fair play to @MikeWaltersMGM on his Andre Gray to Watford story. £18.5m move should be completed today. Told Deeney likely to stay, too
Gutted.
Fair play to @MikeWaltersMGM on his Andre Gray to Watford story. £18.5m move should be completed today. Told Deeney likely to stay, too
Gutted.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Not many teams around that could handle injuries like that without it putting them in a tough position.
You seem to give the games based on playing a back 3 almost all of the time? I suppose that means Son and Lamela on the bench almost all of the time? How does that play out in your opinion?
Vega
Neil Sullivan
Who: Trix then JJetset
When: 6th August
Where: SC
Trix said: Just spoke to my mate and I'm afraid there is very little to tell. Nothing has changed! We are still looking to get 3 in. Barkley still wants to come, and the only way anyone is leaving is with the managers consent. Something he did say though was that he was told we are still going after the same players we were from the start. So by that I took it as, they were top of the list players, and we haven't had to move on after not getting a preffered target.
To which JJetset replied: Yep nothing has changed from our initial targets.
Should see some movement this week based on the positive news last week
The clamour for ITK has been tremendous on the board for days - here it is.
When: 6th August
Where: SC
Trix said: Just spoke to my mate and I'm afraid there is very little to tell. Nothing has changed! We are still looking to get 3 in. Barkley still wants to come, and the only way anyone is leaving is with the managers consent. Something he did say though was that he was told we are still going after the same players we were from the start. So by that I took it as, they were top of the list players, and we haven't had to move on after not getting a preffered target.
To which JJetset replied: Yep nothing has changed from our initial targets.
Should see some movement this week based on the positive news last week
The clamour for ITK has been tremendous on the board for days - here it is.
Once we started playing it last season, it seemed to be our go-to formation. Whether that will be the case with Davies playing instead of Rose early in the season (ie less attacking wing back) remains to be seen. Clearly if we're going to play 4 at the back a reasonable amount then the risk of not signing another CB goes down however personally I think its one of the biggest vulnerabilities which we have in terms of injuries to first choice players.
re Son and Lamela in a 3-5-2: at the moment, Lamela is starting to become a hypothetical option, rather than than real option given he's been out for so long so less of an issue. I guess we might see from Poch transfer activity in the next 2-3 weeks what formation we'll favour i.e. if we bring in another attacker in place of Sissoko then it suggests to me that we'll go 4-2-3-1 a lot given hte number of players we'll have to keep happy.
Agreed - seems like a reasonable price in today's market as well
Olle73
Jason Dozzell
What else should he tell?
Legohamster
Ian Walker
Actual pace as well, something we lack massively
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
If we go 3 at the back most of the time I think changing to a 4-2-3-1 is a reasonable way to deal with the kind of injury crisis you worry about. Just one of the benefits to that kind of tactical flexibility.
nayenezgani
Jimmy Neighbour
Bang average player and a clam of a human. His level is Watford and he belongs with Deeney and the other felons.
It only takes a single injury to one of Dier Wanyama Alderweireld or Trippier to leave us choosing between fielding an untested youngster or being forced to switch formation (in some cases both) - never mind an actual injury crisis
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Trippier is a red herring in this conversation imo. Either Pochettino rates KWP highly enough or we'll sign someone.
Are you excluding Wimmer? Or is there some idea that both Wimmer and Vertonghen must play as the left centre back even in a back ? I think Alderweireld, Wimmer, Vertonghen as our back 3 with Wanyama as the DM seems absolutely fine to me. That's one injury to Dier.
If Vertonghen, Wimmer and Dier as a back 3 with Wanyama as the DM isn't good enough then it's a question of Wimmer or Dier not being good enough as centre backs, not a question of numbers.
Take out both of Vertonghen and Alderweireld. The best centre back pair in the league most on here would agree. A loss that would be a blow to any team. We can field a 4-2-3-1 with Wimmer and Dier at the back with Wanyama as the DM. We're not as good as with the Belgians, but that's still pretty strong. Again, if that's not good enough it's a problem with the quality of Dier/Wimmer, not with quantity.
Formation flexibility is a strength for us, not a weakness. It allows us to deal with injuries in different ways. That flexibility doesn't mean that we must sign players to be able to play both formations without playing younger players even when struggling significantly with injuries.
I thought it was generally accepted that that is the case re left sided defenders playing on the right? Borne out by the past few years worth of team selections - my issue is regarding RCB RB and DM, hence why I left out Wimmer and Vertonghen.
Formation flexibilty IS a strength and keeping it available to us should be a priority - if a solitary injury means we reduce our flexibility then it is no longer a strength for whatever length of time we are without the injured player for.
Formation flexibilty IS a strength and keeping it available to us should be a priority - if a solitary injury means we reduce our flexibility then it is no longer a strength for whatever length of time we are without the injured player for.
Finney Is Back
Andy Thompson
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Left sided defenders playing on the right, yes. But were talking about a back 3 and you're seemingly excluding Wimmer and Vertonghen from the central centre back role?
Dier-Wimmer-Vertonghen doesn't mean playing a left sided centre back on the right... it means playing a left sided/footed centre back as the central centre back. Is that generally accepted as a bad thing???
That's a fair point, though I'm guessing you'd want Wimmer filling in as the anchor in the middle to allow Vertonghen to continue being able to push up. How many times did we line up that way when Alderweireld was injured last out of interest?
So just RB and DM that we're one injury away from problems then? Assuming Wimmer stays - seeings as Davies can play CB maybe we should just jettison Wimmer in the name of having a tight squad?
Honestly thought I don't really see the issue here with an extra man in this area - it's one thing to have a streamlined squad that could get by unless we pickup a couple of injuries in certain positions and another to be knowinglly weak in two or three positions which is where I see us atm
Last edited:
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
No. Not DM. We have Wanyama injured, Dier plays there. Choice between Wimmer, Davies if Rose is fit, CCV or a simple move to a 4-2-3-1. Again, flexibility, options. Not sure how many times we lined up like that last season, but it wasn't because that option wasn't there, rather because other options were preferred by Pochettino.
Yes, RB. But again, either KWP or we sign a new right back before the window closes.
Yes, if we lose one of our best centre backs and one of our best defensive midfielders to injury at the same time we're weaker, but it's not a crises. Same as most of our competitors. Or arguably we're a bit stronger actually.
Another player means most likely:
A. Very limited game time for CCV as surely the new guy must be given game time to be able to perform. Last season even Wimmer wasn't happy with his game time...
B. Less game time for Son and Lamela if we're actually going to keep the existing defenders and the new guy happy.
C. Or we just keep the new guy or Wimmer in reserve, without getting game time. Just in case enough players get injured. Meaning most likely he won't actually be ready to perform if needed and a year from now he'll be unhappy and want away. We end up selling at a loss and replacing him with a new backup for the backup to sit around just in case costing us money.
I would rather trust CCV.
Pochettino hasn't seemed too fond of the strategy you propose.
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
As i have said before ' i see what you're saying'.
BUT to put it simply, if we sign a decent CB that would hope to get plenty of game time how does that square with already having one CB (wimmer) that is already not that happy with a lack of games. We'd then have two.