Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[HMSIllustrious]

47 minutes ago, Joe1984 said:

Did you know after sinking Liverpool, Welbeck has scored more PL goals this season than Ekitike?

Ah sure, how could I forget the second phoenix after DCL!

[Wallsendmag]

22 hours ago, alexf said:

All that media talk feels like bullshit. The likely outcome is he comes back and has a much better season next year than this and unfortunately Liverpool are probably a force again, especially if they bin the manager. 

 

Annoying but probably how it will play out. 

 

Still feels sore to think about him and how loved he was here to do what he did to us last summer. Ruined his season this year and ruined ours aswell. If he has just given us one more year, helped us have a good season I think he would have left with everyone's blessing this summer and fond memories could be kept by all. He ruined that with his greed. 

 

I'm not saying he wasn't quality for us but was he really that important that the loss of one player can turn us from a CL team to a bottom half one, especially when he did miss a fair few games through injury? If he was then that is akin to the model being built on sand tbh. Clubs trade players all the time. The loss of one shouldn't have had such an unstabalising effect and my opinion is that, whilst it certainly didn't help, there's many more other issues at play here.

 

Brentford lost Wissa, Mbuemo, Norgaard and Flekken last summer and have found a way to evolve, and in fact improve.

 

Bournemouth lost Kerkez, Zabarnyi, Huijsen and Ouattara last summer, and Semenyo in January (also Solanke the season before) and have managed to remain stable.

 

Losing Isak was a body blow. In reality we lost him more or less after the cup final as he downed tools, but the loss of 1 player can't be attributed to what we've seen this season. He missed 37 games through injury whilst here which pretty much amounts to a full season so it's hardly as if we weren't used to being without him.

[Superior Acuña]

I reckon I probably underestimated the effect of having a threat like him occupying defenders, even in games where he didn't make much of a direct contribution.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The nature of the transfer and the timing was also a big issue, combined with the Mitchell disaster. 
 

I would note that staying stable in the Bournemouth/Brentford acceptable finishing range is a lot easier than staying stable in the CL positions. 

[Loki679]

5 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

@wacko?

 

First thought was Mike but then I realised he said 'good poster'.

[alexf]

4 hours ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

I'm not saying he wasn't quality for us but was he really that important that the loss of one player can turn us from a CL team to a bottom half one, especially when he did miss a fair few games through injury? If he was then that is akin to the model being built on sand tbh. Clubs trade players all the time. The loss of one shouldn't have had such an unstabalising effect and my opinion is that, whilst it certainly didn't help, there's many more other issues at play here.

 

Brentford lost Wissa, Mbuemo, Norgaard and Flekken last summer and have found a way to evolve, and in fact improve.

 

Bournemouth lost Kerkez, Zabarnyi, Huijsen and Ouattara last summer, and Semenyo in January (also Solanke the season before) and have managed to remain stable.

 

Losing Isak was a body blow. In reality we lost him more or less after the cup final as he downed tools, but the loss of 1 player can't be attributed to what we've seen this season. He missed 37 games through injury whilst here which pretty much amounts to a full season so it's hardly as if we weren't used to being without him.

 

He's not the sole reason for the decline no. But are you telling me if we had had the inform version of Isak from last year in the team for those crunch games against man city in the the league cup semi and the fa cup, the Sunderland games, the Barcelona games, we wouldn't have had a better chance?

 

He was a difference maker and helped elevate us from the rest of the pack that we have found ourselves bedded into this year. We had a truly world class striker (atleast at times last season) that helped settle big games like Arsenal in the cup semi, Liverpool in the cup final etc. 

 

So there were no guarantees we would have had the same player in peak form for a whole season, and the accumulation of games and fatigue would have still impacted. But not having the turmoil of that summer, not panic buying strikers and having to mess with systems to try and fit them in, not having to move Gordon upfront and having a more settled team. I think we would have done a lot better in moments yes.

 

Moments can make or break seasons. Getting to a final or beating Barcelona would have given people are far different view of this season than they have now.

 

 

Edited March 27 by alexf

[bobbydazzla]

The only way Isak would have made us have better results this season is if he was a rock solid defensive Kaiser who would stop the rest of the team from making stupid fucking Chuckle Brothers mistakes week after week after week.

 

 

[Joe1984]

4 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

The only way Isak would have made us have better results this season is if he was a rock solid defensive Kaiser who would stop the rest of the team from making stupid fucking Chuckle Brothers mistakes week after week after week.

 

 

So you're saying there was a chance... 😄

[cannybagoftudor]

6 hours ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

I'm not saying he wasn't quality for us but was he really that important that the loss of one player can turn us from a CL team to a bottom half one, especially when he did miss a fair few games through injury? If he was then that is akin to the model being built on sand tbh. Clubs trade players all the time. The loss of one shouldn't have had such an unstabalising effect and my opinion is that, whilst it certainly didn't help, there's many more other issues at play here.

 

Brentford lost Wissa, Mbuemo, Norgaard and Flekken last summer and have found a way to evolve, and in fact improve.

 

Bournemouth lost Kerkez, Zabarnyi, Huijsen and Ouattara last summer, and Semenyo in January (also Solanke the season before) and have managed to remain stable.

 

Losing Isak was a body blow. In reality we lost him more or less after the cup final as he downed tools, but the loss of 1 player can't be attributed to what we've seen this season. He missed 37 games through injury whilst here which pretty much amounts to a full season so it's hardly as if we weren't used to being without him.

This is a good point - I believe that Isak was but the head of the snake and the most vocal; judging by the drop off it would appear that several other players are pining for pastures new. It will be up to the executives and manager to navigate, what I think will be, a pivotal summer.

[Doc]

10 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

@wacko?

@Mike

[andycap]

Cannot believe this fucker might qualify for the world Cup after that group phase they had. 

[Geordie Ahmed]

7 hours ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

The nature of the transfer and the timing was also a big issue, combined with the Mitchell disaster. 
 

I would note that staying stable in the Bournemouth/Brentford acceptable finishing range is a lot easier than staying stable in the CL positions. 

It's getting tiresome seeing people compare us to Bournemouth/Brentford but they make zero reference to how they fared in the 3 other competitions

[Beren]

On 26/03/2026 at 19:38, Mike said:

 

@Beren iirc.

 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

19 hours ago, bobbydazzla said:

The only way Isak would have made us have better results this season is if he was a rock solid defensive Kaiser who would stop the rest of the team from making stupid fucking Chuckle Brothers mistakes week after week after week.

 

 

This is just untrue. So if we spent £130m on one of the world’s best strikers this summer you wouldn’t expect an upturn in results?

[Nobody]

On 26/03/2026 at 12:48, OoOGazOoO said:

In all fairness Ekitike has been class.

My FPL team begs to differ. 

[Dr Venkman]

On 27/03/2026 at 16:43, bobbydazzla said:

The only way Isak would have made us have better results this season is if he was a rock solid defensive Kaiser who would stop the rest of the team from making stupid fucking Chuckle Brothers mistakes week after week after week.

 

 

 

Nah. Goals change games.

[bobbydazzla]

39 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

 

Nah. Goals change games.

Conceding goals changes games 

 

We’re the worst team in the entire league for Points Dropped From Winning Positions.
Because we can’t defend. 

 

 

Edited March 30 by bobbydazzla

[bobbydazzla]

On 28/03/2026 at 12:20, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

This is just untrue. So if we spent £130m on one of the world’s best strikers this summer you wouldn’t expect an upturn in results?

It was hyperbole. 

 

But it has its basis in truth. 

 

Our problem this season isn’t scoring goals. We’re 8th in the league for Goals For.

 

But we’re 14th in the league for Goals Against.

 

And we’re rock bottom of the league for Points Dropped From Winning Positions.

 

You do the math.  

 

 

Edited March 30 by bobbydazzla

[Abacus]

With a credible goal threat up front ready to run in behind, teams are less willing to push players up against us. If they can do that with little fear of being caught out, they can keep the pressure on.

 

But likewise with a keeper not rooted to his line and able to sweep in defence like Pope of a couple of years ago, your own back line is able to push up and link better with midfield allowing less space for the opposition to pass through. 

 

I think we've been caught at both ends in this way, with differing strikers and keepers variously available and causing some confusion in how we play. Fix both of those spots and we're an altogether different proposition.

 

 

Edited March 30 by Abacus

[Yorkie]

We've scored more than two goals on three occasions in the league this season (Everton, Burnley, Leeds).

 

22/23: 11

23/24: 14

24/25: 12

25/26: 3

 

Incomplete sample in the case of this season obviously but you don't picture it increasing a great deal.

 

Being a serious goalscoring threat has always been the key ingredient to our success under Howe, and there's only 22/23 where we've looked rocksteady at the back as well. Look at games like Forest at home last season; we looked like we could concede at any point but fortunately we had enough about us at the top end to still win.

 

Clearly we've got our issues at the back - the key one being goalkeeper - but the seed of all our on-field issues is the dysfunctional attack, accountable mostly to the lack of a good striker.

[Dr Venkman]

45 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Conceding goals changes games 

 

We’re the worst team in the entire league for Points Dropped From Winning Positions.
Because we can’t defend. 

 

 

 

 

Nothing you've said there addresses whether Isak's presence might have 'made us have better results', which was what I responded to. It seemed like that post was a legitimate argument masquerading as a joke. Was it just a joke? If it was a legitimate argument it's thoroughly devoid of context. 

[bobbydazzla]

9 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

 

Nothing you've said there addresses whether Isak's presence might have 'made us have better results', which was what I responded to. It seemed like that post was a legitimate argument masquerading as a joke. Was it just a joke? If it was a legitimate argument it's thoroughly devoid of context. 

 

It wasn't a joke, but it was hyperbole.

 

Our issue this season isn't scoring goals, although we clearly miss a striker of Isak's quality when he was playing well and aren't as clinical as we were when he was here.

 

A key issue for us this season is conceding goals. Conceding goals after we've got ourselves in the lead. We're the worst team in the league for throwing away points from winning positions.

 

My point was, albeit made in a purposefully daft way, that we need to tighten up at the back and stop making so many basic defensive errors that cost us points. And by defensive, I mean the team defending as a unit.

 

Which bit of that is thoroughly devoid of context ?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30 by bobbydazzla

[black_n_white]

The loss of Isak is exactly why we’ve struggled this season, so much so it’s not even worth discussing.

 

 

Edited March 30 by black_n_white

[Yorkie]

4 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

It wasn't a joke, but it was hyperbole.

 

Our issue this season isn't scoring goals, although we clearly miss a striker of Isak's quality when he was playing well and aren't as clinical as we were when he was here.

 

A key issue for us this season is conceding goals. Conceding goals after we've got ourselves in the lead. We're the worst team in the league for throwing away points from winning positions.

 

My point was, albeit made in a purposefully daft way, that we need to tighten up at the back and stop making so many basic defensive errors that cost us points. And by defensive, I mean the team defending as a unit.

 

Which bit of that is thoroughly devoid of context ?

 

Because we don't get far enough in front.*

 

We're currently on course to concede fewer goals than we did in 23/24.

 

*Simplified/reductive; clearly we've got defensive issues too

[The College Dropout]

Losing Isak was a hammer blow to us on the pitch and the entire project. It initiated the end of this teams cycle.  I expect us to lose star players season on season now from this team. 1-2 this summer and then the next when it’s a basically a new team.