Sven Botman

[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, 2024 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, 2024 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. 

[SUPERTOON]

 

[Paully]

Absolutely ridiculous letting a player play as he feels he can do so and over-ruling medical advice - WTF man 

[Keegans Export]

1 minute ago, Paully said:

Absolutely ridiculous letting a player play as he feels he can do so and over-ruling medical advice - WTF man 

The alternative being what? Grab the chloroform and get him on the operating table?

 

 

Edited March 29, 2024 by Keegans Export

[Ikon]

2 minutes ago, Paully said:

Absolutely ridiculous letting a player play as he feels he can do so and over-ruling medical advice - WTF man 

Pretty much. 

[Paully]

6 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

The alternative being what? Grab the chloroform and get him on the operating table?

 

 

 

We paid £35 million for him and he’s rumoured to be on 90K a week - if the medical experts stated that he required surgery then we should have enforced him to do so 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2024 by Paully

[Keegans Export]

1 minute ago, Paully said:

We paid £35 million for him and he’s rumoured to be on 90K a week - if the medical experts stated that he required surgery then we should have enforced him to do so 

 

 

 

Well unfortunately that's not how medicine works, there isn't a surgeon in the country who would operate without patient consent.

[frankpingel]

Don't think people are saying we should have physically forced the op but simply have done everything (more) to convince him it was the best and only long term solution.

[Paully]

2 minutes ago, frankpingel said:

Don't think people are saying we should have physically forced the op but simply have done everything (more) to convince him it was the best and only long term solution.

Aye, this! 

[SteV]

Tbf, Eddie says there was “conflicting opinion”, so obviously at least one of the specialists was saying he’d be alright without surgery.

 

So it’s not like it’s been clear he needed an op and we’ve just let him ignore it and say ‘nah, fuck it, I’ll be fine’.

 

Always easier with hindsight now as well.

[Keegans Export]

1 minute ago, Paully said:

Aye, this! 

Well, firstly we don't know that isn't what happened. Secondly, your exact words were "we should have enforced him to" which isn't quite the same as having a good, long chat about it!

[Ikon]

Just now, Keegans Export said:

Well, firstly we don't know that isn't what happened. Secondly, your exact words were "we should have enforced him to" which isn't quite the same as having a good, long chat about it!

I read enforced but to my eyes it was obvious what he meant. 

[Keegans Export]

1 minute ago, Ikon said:

I read enforced but to my eyes it was obvious what he meant. 

To me "enforced" isn't a particularly ambiguous word but OK, if that's not what he meant then fair enough. 

 

Having said that, its also shakey medical ground convincing a patient to have a procedure rather than giving them all the necessary information to make their own choice.

[Aiston]

Well a complete fuck up of our own making then.

 

Quote

Ultimately, medical team advised him to get surgery, but he wanted to carry on. He has then aggravated that issue.

 

Letting players overrule the medical team...the fuck.