More transfer rumours

[Jaqen]

Be interesting to see what Eddie's looking to play long term. I think we'll switch to a 4231 with a destroyer type next to Bruno. 

 

Lingard signing in that scenario would make sense as he offers good versatility and can play in any off the three behind the striker. 

 

Striker and a winger are a must though. The lack of quality we have outside of Wilson and Maxi is awful and you can't really rely upon those to stay fit either. 

 

I think we'll go big this summer. I know there's talk of slow gradual progress but they must look at the league and the state of alot of the sides and think we aren't a million miles of competing for a top 8 spot with the right signings. West Ham are right in the mix for top 4 and aren't a great side. 

[jonny1403]

4 hours ago, Inferior Acuña said:

4 right? Darlow, Krafth, Almirón and Gayle are in the squad. 

 

But Hendrick comes back from loan. Obviously we'll almost definitely sell him as well. 

[nufc123]

2 hours ago, STM said:

Reckon it will be more like 90, not including Targett, but bare in mind I expect we might get at least one free signing.

 

If we get Lingard, that gives us more finance to spend on fewer players.

 

We don't want to be held over a barrel for previous targets like Botman or Carlos.

Douglas or Waugh said we definitely would look after free players. Also seen a few places the 90 number being mentioned. So you are probably right in many ways here.

[The College Dropout]

7 hours ago, Comegetasample said:

We'll spend up to or about 150M this summer I reckon, with the largest percentage of that being on forwards.

 

CB

LB (Targett?)

CDM

RW/LW

CF

 

With maybe a few cheaper youngsters/loans here and there. I think 6/7/8 in total. 

 

 

That’s an Aston Villa style spending spree and it doesn’t get the quality. 
 

I’d rather a couple quality £70m transfers than 5 30m transfers. That often doesn’t go very far these days. 

[Chicane]

We just spent £12m on the highest quality player we've signed in years

 

 

[r0cafella]

I expect us to pass on Lingard given his wages demands and his age. He would have been a great January signing but in the summer we should  have better options. 

[Geordie Ahmed]

Yeah, in January Lingard would have been a good signing but I'd be disappointed if we went for him in the summer

 

He's 30 this year and for the wages he'd be looking for on a free I think we can easily get better

[Thiago]

Lingard would be the kind of mistake early Man City/Chelsea made. 

[cubaricho]

Loving this negative Lingard talk to be honest (which sounds weird I know). We’re better than his ilk now. Genuinely worried with all the continued talk about him. 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by cubaricho

[r0cafella]

9 minutes ago, cubaricho said:

Loving this negative Lingard talk to be honest (which sounds weird I know). We’re better than his ilk now. Genuinely worried with all the continued talk about him. 

 

 

 

It’s a funny one, he’d be a massive upgrade on say Miggy or Murphy but I would really want someone younger with a higher ceiling coming in. 

[ExiledGeordie]

43 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It’s a funny one, he’d be a massive upgrade on say Miggy or Murphy but I would really want someone younger with a higher ceiling coming in. 

I think Lingard would be a great signing, he’d slot straight it and be a great option opposite ASM on the other side. That said if they’ve identified another younger option who can come in then great. I wouldn’t have any concerns over Lingard though, I’d be chuffed if he joined. Be a great player with experience to join as we look to push on in the next phase.

[ExiledGeordie]

7 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

That’s an Aston Villa style spending spree and it doesn’t get the quality. 
 

I’d rather a couple quality £70m transfers than 5 30m transfers. That often doesn’t go very far these days. 

I defo definitely think we’ll spent up towards 150m but defo over 100m. A new striker is going to cost a fair chunk of that for starters and we’ll need quality in midfield. I hope we bring in a number 10 type player to play at the head of midfield.

[bowlingcrofty]

Lingard on a two year contract with the option of a third would be fine. I think he’d be a good signing for the next step to become a top 10 side, and then when we look to make the next step to regular European qualification it would be time to go our separate ways.

[ExiledGeordie]

2 minutes ago, bowlingcrofty said:

Lingard on a two year contract with the option of a third would be fine. I think he’d be a good signing for the next step to become a top 10 side, and then when we look to make the next step to regular European qualification it would be time to go our separate ways.

Hed fit in well, mates with Trippier etc too. Falls under the tried and tested too.

[Stottie]

Lingard provides decent cover for many different positions.  Another bonus with him is that we can get him and Trippier to tap up Rashford to come on a free in summer 2023, when we should/hope to be a top half club looking to kick on and threaten the top 4. Pogba's walking and PEA just bought out his contract. The times they are a changing.

 

In the meantime, if he was half up for it before we won six games out of eight, I'd be tempted to go back for Ekitike. Lingard costs nowt, Ekitike whatever, and spend the rest on replacing the last of the deadwood, maybe a CH like Botman if the funds are available. I wouldn't spend big on a DM unless the idea is to change formation. The three is working well and we've not really seen it in a match where we are playing through Trippier and Targett to a Ekitike/Wilson/Lingard/ASM level front line. I think that would get us solidly Top 8. If we do get there, that'll be where difficult decisions and big signings would have to be made to take the next step up.

[Happinesstan]

I'd take Lingard, I've always liked him though. Maybe because I am unaware of his online presence, I don't know.

He can play anywhere in attacking midfield and would be a great player to have available. Him and a top quality RW would be a good start. Follow that up with a top forward and we're improved no end. 

 

I'm petty happy with our defence, if we can be more effective in attack. I'm sure if we'd managed to score against Everton we would have maintained our composure and not conceded late on. We definitely need better cover/competition, all across the back four. But our first team weaknesses are in attack.

[STM]

It annoys me far too much that people would turn their noses up at Lingard.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lingard is going to fire us to the PL title but having extra quality in the squad might prevent us from having to look at Almiron or Murphy from the bench.

 

OK, if we were having to pay a big fee we could probably look elsewhere for value for money but adding this guy for peanuts would be a no brainer for me.

 

He's also incredibly versatile, he could play right, left or centre comfortably.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by STM

[STM]

Fraser, ASM, Lingard and a potential signing like Raphinha from Leeds would make us look strong on the wings.

[r0cafella]

15 minutes ago, STM said:

It annoys me far too much that people would turn their noses up at Lingard.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lingard is going to fire us to the PL title but having extra quality in the squad might prevent us from having to look at Almiron or Murphy from the bench.

 

OK, if we were having to pay a big fee we could probably look elsewhere for value for money but adding this guy for peanuts would be a no brainer for me.

 

He's also incredibly versatile, he could play right, left or centre comfortably.

 

 

 

I think the conversation is more nuanced than turning our noses up. We should look for someone younger with a higher ceiling than Lingard. Lingard is of course better than Almiron and Murphy and possibly Fraser however would he be motivated? Would he be worth paying over 100k per week for? 

[The College Dropout]

4 hours ago, ExiledGeordie said:

I defo definitely think we’ll spent up towards 150m but defo over 100m. A new striker is going to cost a fair chunk of that for starters and we’ll need quality in midfield. I hope we bring in a number 10 type player to play at the head of midfield.

Not a fan of the #10 atm.  Especially with a back 4 in a 4231. If we get a Raphinha style wide player, we don’t need a 10.  
 

 

I think Arsenal have the best 10 in the league and they still struggle for goals.   I think often a 10 accompanies a stodgy midfield. 

[Manxst]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Not a fan of the #10 atm.  Especially with a back 4 in a 4231. If we get a Raphinha style wide player, we don’t need a 10.  
 

 

I think Arsenal have the best 10 in the league and they still struggle for goals.   I think often a 10 accompanies a stodgy midfield. 

I’m not the most tactically minded of folk, but isn’t the #10 the middle player of that forward 3? Going with a 4231, it seems a natural fit to have a playmaker type there? 

[Stifler]

I’d take him as he would be better than other options we have on our bench and if played RW, he would be our best option on that side of the pitch.

I wouldn’t want us to spend a fortune on his wages though, when we could get a better player instead.

[Guest]

10s were classically the player that played behind the forward in European football (AMC in FM). The likes of Baggio, Hagi, Juan Roman Riquelme, etc. and to a lesser extent Messi. Players given a free role to create with the rest of the team taking up the tactical side of the game defensively. 

 

They faded out of popularity as tactical awareness grew and the role of the #4 changing into a defensive midfield role countered their influence (which resulted in the wide roles becoming dominate) - football always in a cycle. 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by OCK

[STM]

Yeah the idea of a "10" has changed. I always knew a 10 as Bergkamp/Gudjohnsen/Rooney type. A striker but a one who often played with his back to goal or saw their game as creative.

 

At some point it changed to a midfielder who plays in an advanced creative player.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Manxst said:

I’m not the most tactically minded of folk, but isn’t the #10 the middle player of that forward 3? Going with a 4231, it seems a natural fit to have a playmaker type there? 

Yes but I’m not a massive fan of that formation.  
 

The best team that play it in the PL are Arsenal and I think they’re a rigid and stodgy side. But that Odegaard & Saka combo is legitimately elite. Before them Man Utd used it well under Olebut they were super reliant on Bruno and a bit of magic. I think it’s a luxury position that places too much emphasis on that player. 
 

I look at the best managers in the league and they don’t play with a sole 10 in a 4-2-3-1.  Chelsea and Liverpool get creativity from wide and pressing. Liverpool have gotten more football ability from the 3 midfielders when that doesn’t work. Chelsea have 2 creators with a forward. City play with 7 creators. 
 

that’s why I’m so keen on Raphinha. He’s a genuine creator. He has the stats of one. But he plays wide.  He might actually be a natural 10 he’s just got the stamina and pace to play wide.  If we get Raph and a 10 - the 10 is just going to get in Raph’s way.