Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Jamaal Lascelles

Nobody

by Nobody
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
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?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The College Dropout

The College Dropout

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
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?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The College Dropout

The College Dropout

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LFEE

LFEE

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

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.

Nah… Isak - Wilson replacement - Gordon surely… The last two seasons should tell you that. 
 

I’m a Wilson fan for the record but his fitness I fear is only going one way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt1892

Matt1892

Posted
Posted

Since Isak came back from the only long term injury he has had in his career shortly after joining us, he has missed 8 league games out of 48, with one of those being a suspected concussion. 

Outside of the serious thigh injury he has missed about 13 league games out of just under 170 over the last 5 seasons, with the rest either starting or on the bench.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...