Jamaal Lascelles

[Coffee_Johnny]

2 minutes ago, Pata said:

I really liked him most of the game. Looked very strong stepping up and intercepting things while being comfortable in possession. No idea what he did for the goal though, somehow just missed the ball entirely after the bounce from a fucking throw-in.

Just a dodgy bounce, I think ?‍♂️

[SUPERTOON]

 

[STM]

Pleased. He adds depth to our CB position. Would have been silly allowing him to leave for nothing.

[The Prophet]

Adds depth at CB and is a huge presence behind the scenes by all accounts.

 

Phasing the old guard and their leadership group will be a gradual process I'd imagine.

[GeordieDazzler]

Happy with this. Done a great job when he had to play that extended period of games. 

[SUPERTOON]

I’d imagine it’s more so we can get a bit of money for him tbh.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, SUPERTOON said:

I’d imagine it’s more so we can get a bit of money for him tbh.

 

Even that makes sense tbh, he's only 30 so good for a few seasons yet, and he's still a very capable CB when called upon. We should be able to get some reasonable money for him if a club wants to buy. If not, he's worth his place as cover.

[Likelylad]

We do need another CB but he's a solid 4th choice option. 

[Guest]

Either means no centre-back this summer, or Burn still considered a left-back. 

[timeEd32]

Happy with that as it gives us more flexibility. 

[BergenMagpie]

Also gives another year to see what trajectory Charlie McArthur and Cathal Heffernan are on 

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

43 minutes ago, BergenMagpie said:

Also gives another year to see what trajectory Charlie McArthur and Cathal Heffernan are on 

 

You forgot Alex Murphy too 

[The College Dropout]

3 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Either means no centre-back this summer, or Burn still considered a left-back. 

Burn has played LB for pretty much 2 seasons. He's an inferior CB to Lascelles. I'm glad he's not considered a CB. Back-up LB or sold, please.

 

This assumes we sign a CB in the summer. I'd rather a CB than an out and out ST.

 

RW

LB
CB

 

Anything else is a bonus or 1 in 1 out.

[Beth]

32 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Burn has played LB for pretty much 2 seasons. He's an inferior CB to Lascelles. I'm glad he's not considered a CB. Back-up LB or sold, please.

 

This assumes we sign a CB in the summer. I'd rather a CB than an out and out ST.

 

RW

LB
CB

 

Anything else is a bonus or 1 in 1 out.

I'm sorry like but a striker is way more important than a left back this summer, even if Hall goes back to Chelsea. We'd still have Burn, Targett and Tino who could play there next season.

[The College Dropout]

Its only Burn that starts when everyone is fit. That's signing up for another season with Burn at LB. No thanks.

 

Someone to warm the bench for Isak isn't a priority for me. We still have Isak, Wilson & Gordon on the books. 33 goals between the 3 so far this season.

[Beth]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Its only Burn that starts when everyone is fit. That's signing up for another season with Burn at LB. No thanks.

 

Someone to warm the bench for Isak isn't a priority for me. We still have Isak, Wilson & Gordon on the books. 33 goals between the 3 so far this season.

You won't get more than half a season out of Wilson and Gordon is far more valuable on the wing. We could get away with it if there is no european football next season, otherwise we'd need a third striking option.

[The College Dropout]

14 minutes ago, Beth said:

You won't get more than half a season out of Wilson and Gordon is far more valuable on the wing. We could get away with it if there is no european football next season, otherwise we'd need a third striking option.

Wilson shouldn't need to play half a season and Gordon has arguably the strongest back-up in our squad. Wages and fee his back-up shouldn't even be a back-up.

[Beth]

9 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Wilson shouldn't need to play half a season and Gordon has arguably the strongest back-up in our squad. Wages and fee his back-up shouldn't even be a back-up.

Isak is hardly a paragon of fitness either though is he? He's had to play most of this season at 70-80% due to Wilsons unavailablility.

[The College Dropout]

24 minutes ago, Beth said:

Isak is hardly a paragon of fitness either though is he? He's had to play most of this season at 70-80% due to Wilsons unavailablility.

That's the actual problem. Isak's fitness. If he can't stay fit or we can't adapt to keep him fit - we should sell him. We can't have a £60m striker who can only stay fit for 55% of matches.

 

I'm not advocating we sell him. But people are blaming Wilson (a 32-year-old injury-prone backup that is only at Newcastle because he's injury prone) for Isak's fitness issues when it doesn't make sense. Wilson has got himself injured mostly from being run into the ground due to Isak's injuries and Howe's lack of rotation. He played 90 minutes 5 times in 15 days before getting injured at a point. It would've been reckless management to demand that from him 3 years ago as our star forward, it's reckless to expect that from him at 32.

 

He's a back-up. He should start 3-7 league games through injuries. Some more due to rotation. And regularly get 20-30 minutes off the bench. Unless we need the money because of FFP, we won't find a better striker to do that next season.

 

I'm happy to get a RW that can play ST the way Gordon does. But we are so weak at RW.

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Wilson shouldn't need to play half a season and Gordon has arguably the strongest back-up in our squad. Wages and fee his back-up shouldn't even be a back-up.

 

So we pay someone £80k a week knowing they can only play 50% of available game maximum? That's awful. 

 

I'd sooner have someone with 70-80% of his ability capable of playing in more games. Need someone ready to rotate, lesser games, if Isak loses form, etc. 

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

So we pay someone £80k a week knowing they can only play 50% of available game maximum? That's awful. 

 

I'd sooner have someone with 70-80% of his ability capable of playing in more games. Need someone ready to rotate, lesser games, if Isak loses form, etc. 

We are paying Isak £100k+ to only play 50% of matches. And he costs £10m a year in amortisation for FFP. £15m p/a for a player to feature in 50% of matches. Is that not a bigger problem? If we fix his injury issues, we fix the back-up problem too.

 

How much do we pay Targett, Krafth, Dummett, Ritchie? They don't play under any circumstances.

 

You wouldn't. We had Chris Wood who is a serviceable PL striker who has scored goals everywhere he's played. Everyone hated him. Any legitimately good backup striker (who is not old) won't want to be a backup for long. Our problem is our backup striker has needed to play too many minutes this season. 

 

----

 

IMO there are 2 types of "back-up" striker in the modern game typically at the highest level. Maybe 3.

 

1. The not-good-enough backup: Nketiah maybe Jhon at Villa. These lads are proper backup strikers who only play 9. Only problem is they aren't v. good and their managers often prefer to play other players at ST anyway.

2. Great player who is more natural elsewhere but can play ST: Trossard, Havertz, Alvarez. These players get most of their other minutes in other positions but can play uptop too. IMO we have that in Gordon and Barnes is a superb deputy LW. No problem with this but we already have it.

[TRon]

14 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

We are paying Isak £100k+ to only play 50% of matches. And he costs £10m a year in amortisation for FFP. £15m p/a for a player to feature in 50% of matches. Is that not a bigger problem? If we fix his injury issues, we fix the back-up problem too.

 

How much do we pay Targett, Krafth, Dummett, Ritchie? They don't play under any circumstances.

 

You wouldn't. We had Chris Wood who is a serviceable PL striker who has scored goals everywhere he's played. Everyone hated him. Any legitimately good backup striker (who is not old) won't want to be a backup for long. Our problem is our backup striker has needed to play too many minutes this season. 

 

----

 

IMO there are 2 types of "back-up" striker in the modern game typically at the highest level. Maybe 3.

 

1. The not-good-enough backup: Nketiah maybe Jhon at Villa. These lads are proper backup strikers who only play 9. Only problem is they aren't v. good and their managers often prefer to play other players at ST anyway.

2. Great player who is more natural elsewhere but can play ST: Trossard, Havertz, Alvarez. These players get most of their other minutes in other positions but can play uptop too. IMO we have that in Gordon and Barnes is a superb deputy LW. No problem with this but we already have it.

 

 

Does Isak have a poor injury record prior to signing for Newcastle? I wouldn't use this season as a benchmark where he's been used more than we would like due to two games a week. If we had a half decent back up striker who stays fit, then you would use him more judiciously and keep him in tip top form.

 

Either way, you can't have two strikers who are fragile, you can have one at most. If you are going to choose between Isak and Wilson, which one would you want to keep here?

 

 

[The College Dropout]

Just now, TRon said:

 

 

Does Isak have a poor injury record prior to signing for Newcastle? I wouldn't use this season as a benchmark where he's been used more than we would like due to two games a week. If we had a half decent back up striker who stays fit, then you would use him more judiciously and keep him in tip top form.

 

Either way, you can't have two strikers who are fragile, you can have one at most. If you are going to choose between Isak and Wilson, which one would you want to keep here?

 

 

No - which is even worse news. He missed a grip of games last season and missed loads this season.

 

Agree you can't. The bigger problem is the £60m £100k+ a week main man. 

 

And Howe isn't going to rotate Isak with a significantly lesser player to any meaningful extent. We should know that by now. We have a super talented £30m+ RB who isn't rotating with the exceptional 33-year-old RB.

[TRon]

6 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

No - which is even worse news. He missed a grip of games last season and missed loads this season.

 

Agree you can't. The bigger problem is the £60m £100k+ a week main man. 

 

And Howe isn't going to rotate Isak with a significantly lesser player to any meaningful extent. We should know that by now. We have a super talented £30m+ RB who isn't rotating with the exceptional 33-year-old RB.

 

 

So you would sell Isak and hold onto Wilson?

 

 

[The College Dropout]

13 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

So you would sell Isak and hold onto Wilson?

 

 

No - I would work on Isak's conditioning in the summer. Perhaps adapt the tactics slightly.

 

I'm happy with Isak - Wilson - Gordon as our 3 options.

 

Especially with Barnes & Big Joe able to deputies at LW.

 

Biggest problems in the first-team are (1) lack ability in midfield to control a game. Tonali goes a long way to solving that. (2) lack of guile going forward. A creative RW should contribute to that and number 1. (3) Lack athleticism in defence. A pacey CB/LB would solve that.

 

Everything else is 1 in 1 out for me.