Sven Botman back late December/early January 'at the earliest' (Howe)

[Displayname]

Not sure why Botmans opinion gets so much focus, it shouldnt have influenced the decision at all(not claiming it did). Ofcourse he would want to help his mates.

[Sibierski]

44 minutes ago, Conjo said:

 

 

The discussion is naturally arisen out of Botmans long term injury, but it feels very wrong to have that discussion in this thread when in this instance it seems everyone has shown caution and tried to solve the injury in the best possible manner.

Didn’t the same approach happen with Barnes? Rest, try and avoid surgery. 
 

Part of me feels that by end of season, he’ll have surgery on that foot and miss pre season as a result.

[nufcjmc]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Think it’s very harsh to say the window was a failure. We can only sign so many players and we should be starting with Joelinton, Bruno and Tonali in midfield with Willock and Longstaff as options (amongst others). 
 

No realistic window could have insured us against events of this season. 

 

Obviously gone off topic here and I am sure a thread will come at the end of the season but I think in my opinion it seemed like the action was add to a great set of lads in the hope they maintain the levels they have shown for 12 months+ and add/ tweak. That left a group of players that were hardly ever called upon as we had next to no injuries and playing once a week as our backup kraft/lascelles/dummet/richie/manquillo etc knowing full well we would need to rotate more with being involved in more games at the start of the season.

Then while we have no idea who was offered up for sale or who we would be willing to trade back in the summer hoping almiron purple patch continued, a recognised left back target was unable to replace dan burn in the side the previous season but we kept him around anyway, willock had been injured for so long we had no idea if we were able to call upon him and when. Our last deal was a loan to buy and committed 28m of the summer spend the following year to a player who has had just a few cameos (especially considering if we kept Targett around as a genuine LB option), IF and its a big IF there were a deal out there that enhanced the middle/striker/CB or right wing instead it would have been better spent short and medium term. 

 

[Conjo]

56 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I mean.. you're saying "of course" now. But for months many have been using that exact line.

 

There's been people pointing at the Tonali ban and "freak" injuries like Burn, Pope & Barnes as bad luck, but have there really been many saying the other injuries are only down to bad luck, and not a crisis that has been amplified due to the freak injuries requiring others to come back earlier which has again resulted in set backs thus prolonging the injury crisis?

[The College Dropout]

I think there was an assumption that Burn was Sven's back-up. So having 3 left-backs made some level of sense. Then Burn stunk at Brighton and Lascelles was pretty solid throughout. SO Burn is now only a LB and the other two are only seen as LB's too. And Burn is way ahead of both in Howe's eyes.

[Conjo]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

This is fine except for the fact that everyone is under extreme pressure to win every game. 

 

Yeah, I can sympathise with that pressure. That's partly why I'd like the club as a whole to adopt more caution with injured players to alleviate the pressure on the manager. It doesn't work if we are more careful with injured players, but still have the same requirements for results during an injury crisis.

[nufcjmc]

Just to add I think Keith's point was in the summer we ended up spending/committing to spend around 100m (taking out tanali) on players who were short term at best rotation  players and worst ones for the long term. When money is tight you do have to make it all work both ways but at this stage in the rebuild more starting 11 players were needed. 

[The College Dropout]

24 minutes ago, nufcjmc said:

Just to add I think Keith's point was in the summer we ended up spending/committing to spend around 100m (taking out tanali) on players who were short term at best rotation  players and worst ones for the long term. When money is tight you do have to make it all work both ways but at this stage in the rebuild more starting 11 players were needed. 

The Barnes one in particular doesn't make sense.

 

Livra and Hall were opportunistic signings. It's questionable but understandable. Tonali was for the first team.

 

Barnes? Didn't make sense. We needed a RW and a good £45m RW would've been brilliant.

[gbandit]

Agreed on the Barnes transfer being an odd one. Their approach of “we’ll go for a quality player if they’re available and we think they’re good value” would have been a great approach if we didn’t have Gordon already. Even though I think Gordon is already a significantly better and more versatile player. However, if we hadn’t had Gordon, fair enough, it’s not the most adventurous signing but it’s a very solid one. Unless we are looking at playing Gordon in other positions then Barnes is second to Gordon at LW by a distance. We’re not in a position really to be having a £25m player as a backup with little versatility. 
 

I like Barnes and I think his striking from distance is a big advantage but he’s reliant on Gordon either being injured or playing elsewhere for game time. I don’t think Barnes will ever be able to play anywhere other than LW. 

We have Willock, Anderson, Joelinton, Gordon and Barnes who can all play on the left wing in different fashions. On the right we have Miggy and Murphy, with Gordon being a back up option there. It’s a ridiculously imbalanced depth for the two positions

[LiquidAK]

19 hours ago, Miggys First Goal said:

Lad at work is convinced this is all Eddie’s fault, that Eddie should fall on his sword, and that Jose should be brought in to replace him. 
 

Mentalist. 

 

What's his username?

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The Barnes one in particular doesn't make sense.

 

Barnes? Didn't make sense. We needed a RW and a good £45m RW would've been brilliant.

I'm pretty sure most of last year and most of the summer there was constant gripes (Including from yourself) about how we needed better numbers from out wide players as Miggy purple patch aside, non of our wide players consitently scored or assisted enough. Particularly true of those who played on the left last season. 2 goals all comps from ASM and only 1 from Gordon.

 

In that context Barnes made perfect sense. Yes we needed more goals from the right too, but that didn't also mean that the left didn't also need strengthening. We now know it was a flash in the plan but Miggy and Murphy had 15 goals between them last season from the right in contrast to the 3 from those previosuly mentioned. Even if you add in Willock and Joelinton it only rises to 12. Also given where the majority of our chance creation occurs (Trippier) it made sense to have a finisher on the opposite flank.

 

Theres some amazing captain hindsight revisionism occuring all over the place at times

[LiquidAK]

1 minute ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

I'm pretty sure most of last year and most of the summer there was constant gripes (Including from yourself) about how we needed better numbers from out wide players as Miggy purple patch aside, non of our wide players consitently scored or assisted enough. Particularly true of those who played on the left last season. 2 goals all comps from ASM and only 1 from Gordon.

 

In that context Barnes made perfect sense. Yes we needed more goals from the right too, but that didn't also mean that the left didn't also need strengthening. We now know it was a flash in the plan but Miggy and Murphy had 15 goals between them last season from the right in contrast to the 3 from those previosuly mentioned. Even if you add in Willock and Joelinton it only rises to 12. Also given where the majority of our chance creation occurs (Trippier) it made sense to have a finisher on the opposite flank.

 

Theres some amazing captain hindsight revisionism occuring all over the place at times

Yup, not to mention that at the time we signed Barnes, Gordon was still an extremely rough diamond. The way he's come on this season has been phenomenal, but I can imagine the thinking might have been Barnes getting regular starts at LW and Gordon getting minutes across both wings

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

I'm pretty sure most of last year and most of the summer there was constant gripes (Including from yourself) about how we needed better numbers from out wide players as Miggy purple patch aside, non of our wide players consitently scored or assisted enough. Particularly true of those who played on the left last season. 2 goals all comps from ASM and only 1 from Gordon.

 

In that context Barnes made perfect sense. Yes we needed more goals from the right too, but that didn't also mean that the left didn't also need strengthening. We now know it was a flash in the plan but Miggy and Murphy had 15 goals between them last season from the right in contrast to the 3 from those previosuly mentioned. Even if you add in Willock and Joelinton it only rises to 12. Also given where the majority of our chance creation occurs (Trippier) it made sense to have a finisher on the opposite flank.

 

Theres some amazing captain hindsight revisionism occuring all over the place at times

No captain hindsight over here. If you offered me a LW or a RW after we sold ASM, I would take the RW 100 times.

 

I didn't rate Gordon but we spent £45m on him. He needed a chance to prove himself. Joelinton, Willock & Isak are good replacements if he still wasn't performing. But everyone at the club believed in him, it's not like the Antony situation now.

 

Miggy and Murphy aren't top 8 PL players. They don't have the ability. We needed a RW.

 

I like Barnes if he was in addition to 1 or 2 others in more pertinent positions. But as it is... it didn't make sense.

[Gallowgate Toon]

17 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Agreed on the Barnes transfer being an odd one. Their approach of “we’ll go for a quality player if they’re available and we think they’re good value” would have been a great approach if we didn’t have Gordon already. Even though I think Gordon is already a significantly better and more versatile player. However, if we hadn’t had Gordon, fair enough, it’s not the most adventurous signing but it’s a very solid one. Unless we are looking at playing Gordon in other positions then Barnes is second to Gordon at LW by a distance. We’re not in a position really to be having a £25m player as a backup with little versatility. 
 

I like Barnes and I think his striking from distance is a big advantage but he’s reliant on Gordon either being injured or playing elsewhere for game time. I don’t think Barnes will ever be able to play anywhere other than LW. 

We have Willock, Anderson, Joelinton, Gordon and Barnes who can all play on the left wing in different fashions. On the right we have Miggy and Murphy, with Gordon being a back up option there. It’s a ridiculously imbalanced depth for the two positions

We didn't know how good Gordon was last July. Some rays of hope but he'd ultimately had a very mixed start.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

No captain hindsight over here. If you offered me a LW or a RW after we sold ASM, I would take the RW 100 times.

 

I didn't rate Gordon but we spent £45m on him. He needed a chance to prove himself. Joelinton, Willock & Isak are good replacements if he still wasn't performing. But everyone at the club believed in him, it's not like the Antony situation now.

 

Miggy and Murphy aren't top 8 PL players. They don't have the ability. We needed a RW.

 

I like Barnes if he was in addition to 1 or 2 others in more pertinent positions. But as it is... it didn't make sense.

100% and this isn’t to say Barnes is bad either. It’s just quite clear we needed an upgrade on the right flank, and most people had it high on the wish list. 

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Gallowgate Toon said:

We didn't know how good Gordon was last July. Some rays of hope but he'd ultimately had a very mixed start.

This is the equivalent of buying Isak in August. Him having a shakey start so we spend Isak money again on a new striker in late January.

 

It doesn't make any sense.

[duo]

2 hours ago, Shadow Puppets said:

Er, no... that's not what he's saying at all. Unless of course your agenda only allows you to hear what you want to hear.

 

These things align... 

• The injury in the Brentford game was considered very minor... a little bit of swelling and then absolutely fine. Sven felt perfectly fine, so there was no suspicion that anything was in any way seriously wrong.
• That changed in the Sheff Utd game.
• He saw 3 specialists.
• There was some level of disagreement over the severity, but ALL AGREED that rest was a perfectly acceptable course of action.
• When Sven started playing again in January, his scans were considered perfectly fine and he was cleared to play (by ALL parties).

The only difference between what Downie is saying and what I've been told is that his ongoing scans have been perfectly fine with no need for concern. I'm literally 100% sure of that, and I know with 100% conviction that Downie is incorrect on that one.

 

 

1. Yes, that's true... Sven and the club made the decision based on every specialist's recommendations and multiple ongoing scans.
2. Depends on how you define "fully recovered". It takes months of playing to feel, in your own body, "fully recovered" from any relatively complex injury, even once you're cleared to play.
3. With every complex injury, and this one is no different, you have regular ongoing scans to make sure that everything is holding up as it should. His latest scan, as of just before the Wolves game, was perfectly fine (the word I was told was "clear") and the specialists cleared him to continue playing. I know this to be 100% true... I literally have ZERO doubts.

The crux of it is he never looked fit when he came back - clearly it was in the back of his mind.  You didn't see him flying into tackles as he was last season.  It is all well and good playing but it's pointless if you haven't the confidence in the knee. And I think the club just failed to make the right call/provide right advice.

[nufcjmc]

Barnes offered consistency good goal scoring numbers consistently. Further down the rabbit hole of squad rebuild you moan about massive drop offs in quality and having 2 high level 11s if you want to compete for stuff and general competition for places so Barnes is that sort of signing.  Where we are at in the rebuild the options on the right were far weaker when everyone was fit than the left so needed addressing first as opportunistic Barnes might have been it was still a big chunk of the limited budget we had. The biggest skill Murphy has is he is willing to take one for the team and drop to the bench with no apparent fuss. 

 

 

Edited March 22 by nufcjmc

[Sibierski]

I just assumed with Barnes deal, it was a case of RW options not there for who we want, and so Barnes was available and money spent there. So LW purchase brought forward. 

 

Could money have been held back, sure, but that would’ve seen fan base meltdown  

 

Like Diaby was the RW we were linked with loads, and the fee and wages likely saw us park it, with options elsewhere moved to consider for 24-25.

[nufcjmc]

9 minutes ago, Sibierski said:

I just assumed with Barnes deal, it was a case of RW options not there for who we want, and so Barnes was available and money spent there. So LW purchase brought forward. 

 

Could money have been held back, sure, but that would’ve seen fan base meltdown  

 

Like Diaby was the RW we were linked with loads, and the fee and wages likely saw us park it, with options elsewhere moved to consider for 24-25.

Agreed that does sound reasonable but we also now know that summer splurge took us to spending limits leaving nothing in the purse if we say got an injury crisis or if a RW option became available (can't remember how late in the window Barnes was).

[Sibierski]

7 minutes ago, nufcjmc said:

Agreed that does sound reasonable but we also now know that summer splurge took us to spending limits leaving nothing in the purse if we say got an injury crisis or if a RW option became available (can't remember how late in the window Barnes was).

I don’t think you can leave money behind for unexpected injury crisis, especially when we are in mode of needing to kick on and improve.

 

No clue on what they had projected, but I would hypothetically assume that spending last summer and plans for next summer, would’ve been set on an median, which would’ve been European competition post Christmas, cup runs and qualification for Europe again (lowest form via league).
 

A lot of those may not be met, which means heavily reduced plans this summer, or very creative spending. One iffy NFT sponsor in so far, might need to test waters and boundaries by getting some big sponsor in end of season to help keep targeted spending aims on track.

 

 

Edited March 22 by Sibierski

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Sibierski said:

I just assumed with Barnes deal, it was a case of RW options not there for who we want, and so Barnes was available and money spent there. So LW purchase brought forward. 

 

Could money have been held back, sure, but that would’ve seen fan base meltdown  

 

Like Diaby was the RW we were linked with loads, and the fee and wages likely saw us park it, with options elsewhere moved to consider for 24-25.

Missed out on Kudus & Palmer. Painful - both would've likely have been transformative signings.

[SUPERTOON]

Interesting update 

 

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Interesting update 

 

 

Oh Sven

[Ikon]

Sometimes AI is pure shite.