Sandro Tonali

[BonesJones]

There's no bloody discussion to even be had, this guy needs to be in the starting 11, the end.

 

I don't know where or how but Eddie needs to figure it out. He's Bruno quality with pace and strength, and he sits on the bench.

 

Sort it out.

[Kid Icarus]

28 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

I think that's been more down to the other changes that were made at the same time. For example, Willock coming back in, Joelinton going to the left. We've looked more balanced because the team as a whole has had more balance, not because of Longstaff. 

Might be an agree to disagree but Tonali doesn't suit playing there for me. Whenever he's there our midfield seems to be wide open when the opposition win a turnover.

[ExiledGeordie]

Whitehead on pod on the tyhe made the good point that he’s only really going get form and get up to speed fully if he plays regularly which Howe doesn’t seem keen to do currently. 

[nufc123]

59 minutes ago, ExiledGeordie said:

Whitehead on pod on the tyhe made the good point that he’s only really going get form and get up to speed fully if he plays regularly which Howe doesn’t seem keen to do currently. 

Tonali has not been perfect every game, but how many good games does Longstaff have this season? Arsenal and Forest? Its not easy when you are in and out of the team. Just ask Gordon (his first spell), Hall, Willock. You wont gel with the other players when its start stop every week. If he doesnt fit the team after 10-15 starts then fair enough.

[Dr Venkman]

On 26/11/2024 at 12:14, Andy said:

right now Longstaff is keeping him out the team on the basis of "we seem to win more when he plays", which is primary school level analysis.

Big assumption, this. You might not agree with the conclusion but I think we can give Howe and the considerable back room staff the benefit of the doubt in the data they’re using.

 

Tonali needs to be in the team, though, agreed.

 

IMO Howe needs to pick Joelinton or Longstaff, we don’t need both, particularly at home against weaker opposition.

 

 

Edited November 27 by Dr Venkman

[Erikse]

1 hour ago, ExiledGeordie said:

Whitehead on pod on the tyhe made the good point that he’s only really going get form and get up to speed fully if he plays regularly which Howe doesn’t seem keen to do currently. 

 

We saw it with Hall. Shaky start to the season, but became increasingly more condident through trust and building momentum. You also don't build relationships with teammates by sitting on the bench.

 

 

Edited November 27 by Erikse

[Roids]

An average Tonali game is a good Longstaff game.

A great/good Tonali is a level Longstaff can't reach.

No slight on Longstaff as he doesn't pick himself but they're not in the same bracket. 

[Kid Icarus]

A great/good Tonali game hasn't really happened here yet. Not beyond the odd match anyway.

A lot of this is reminding me of Viana at this point, clamouring for what could be rather than what is.

 

 

Edited November 27 by Kid Icarus

[The College Dropout]

The RCM position isn’t working for him.  He’s looked better in a more central role.  He’s not had many minutes there. 
 

viana was a poor fit for the league. Tonali seems a good fit for the league but he’s only had a run of games in a position that doesn’t seem to work for him. 

 

 

Edited November 27 by The College Dropout

[Geordie Ahmed]

On 26/11/2024 at 09:16, Mikky said:

This - we are crying out for a formation change - 4231 - Bruno and Tonali as the 2 - Big Joe ahead as the freelance 10 - Gordon left and Barnes right 

I'd love to see this formation but not Big Joe as the 10, he's technically not good enough to consistently thrive in that position

 

I'd probably be more inclined to push Bruno forward but medium to long term we really need to be signing a no 10

[The College Dropout]

This is where our squad building has been poor. 
 

No RWs signed.  No 10s in the entire squad. Light at RCB.  
 

I was never convinced by Szob but I liked his profile. Similar to Kulu, Palmer and Kudus. Probably ideally a 10. But can play RW well and an attacking 8 too. Left footer. Something different to the squad.  Choosing to only sign a pure LW never made any sense. 

[Lush Vlad]

Not only one left winger, but two in two windows.  

 

That's not a massive dig, as I actually really like Barnes and probably saw it as a deal worth getting involved with.  But now seems like we're reluctant to play Gordon right/he's reluctant to play there.  So we've spent the best part of £100m for two LW's.  Yet after all this time, we still have no guile or creativity at the business end of the pitch and we still don't have a RW/attacking mid type. 

[Kanj]

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

This is where our squad building has been poor. 
 

No RWs signed.  No 10s in the entire squad. Light at RCB.  
 

I was never convinced by Szob but I liked his profile. Similar to Kulu, Palmer and Kudus. Probably ideally a 10. But can play RW well and an attacking 8 too. Left footer. Something different to the squad.  Choosing to only sign a pure LW never made any sense. 

 

I think we would have signed him if not for Liverpool + Klopp. But I agree. Szob would have been a perfect RW/10 hybrid cutting in and creating. 

[Erikse]

3 hours ago, Lush Vlad said:

Not only one left winger, but two in two windows.  

 

That's not a massive dig, as I actually really like Barnes and probably saw it as a deal worth getting involved with.  But now seems like we're reluctant to play Gordon right/he's reluctant to play there.  So we've spent the best part of £100m for two LW's.  Yet after all this time, we still have no guile or creativity at the business end of the pitch and we still don't have a RW/attacking mid type. 

 

I remember a quote from last summer, which I just found now. It was from Eales after we had signed Livra, Tonali and Barnes.

“We can be creative, and will always be opportunistic — if the right deal comes up at the right price we will always be open for business. I understand that’s what fans want to know."

 

I wonder if the Barnes deal was something they saw as opportunistic, meaning they thought the player for that price was a good deal, instead of focusing mostly what position we needed to strengthen the most. I mean, in hindsight this theory sounds a bit silly, but we did after all put our money on Barnes instead of a right winger.

 

The real reason was probably just squad depth, as we still saw big Joe as a CM and therefore thought that we had just 1 pure LW after selling Maxi. But we could have signed an RW who can cover left, and clearly Big Joe is pretty decent out wide anyways.

 

 

Edited November 27 by Erikse

[Kanj]

14 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

I remember a quote from last summer, which I just found now. It was from Eales after we had signed Livra, Tonali and Barnes.

“We can be creative, and will always be opportunistic — if the right deal comes up at the right price we will always be open for business. I understand that’s what fans want to know."

 

I wonder if the Barnes deal was something they saw as opportunistic, meaning they thought the player for that price was a good deal, instead of focusing mostly what position we needed to strengthen the most. I mean, in hindsight this theory sounds a bit silly, but we did after all put our money on Barnes instead of a right winger.

 

The real reason was probably just squad depth, as we still saw big Joe as a CM and therefore thought that we had just 1 pure LW after selling Maxi. But we could have signed an RW who can cover left, and clearly Big Joe is pretty decent out wide anyways.

 

 

 

 

Mate, I do think Barnes was opportunistic. But my view on the whole matter is below:

 

I truly think they saw AG as a RW and eventually the Miguel Almiron replacement. But Barnes signed late and Howe often takes time to beds new signings in. Gordon came to preseason after the youth Euros flying and he started LW as Willock was hurt from the season prior and they moved JL back to LCM and wanted to persist with Miggy at RW. I assume they were going to eventually move Gordon there but Barnes was taking time to get up to speed, then got hurt. 

 

I think if Willock was fit we'd have kept the Big + Little Joe left side with Isak CF, Gordon RW and a midfield with Tonali over Longstaff. 

 

 

Edited November 27 by Kanj

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Does nobody think that Gordon should play LW?

 

I honestly don't know what the best setup is at the moment, but it's where he's played best. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

18 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

This is where our squad building has been poor. 
 

No RWs signed.  No 10s in the entire squad. Light at RCB.  
 

I was never convinced by Szob but I liked his profile. Similar to Kulu, Palmer and Kudus. Probably ideally a 10. But can play RW well and an attacking 8 too. Left footer. Something different to the squad.  Choosing to only sign a pure LW never made any sense. 

 

Man, we've been through this so many times. We needed a whole new first team, would we expect there to be no issues left? If we'd signed a RW first we would just be complaining about a gap somewhere else. 

 

No merit in that argument at all?

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Does nobody think that Gordon should play LW?

 

I honestly don't know what the best setup is at the moment, but it's where he's played best. 

 

He's our best right wing option though (although on current form he's not much better than Almiron).

[andycap]

Barnes and Tonali should start every game when fit. Unless there form has falling off a cliff even howe said Barnes can play both wings but he never gets more than a game or two before getting stuck back on the bench. 

Tonali seems to get a game but was getting dragged off even if he was our best midfielder in games almost like Longstaff has to play in the game no matter what. 

Something isn't right them two should be getting into our team more regularly. Not just 20 minute cameos. 

[The College Dropout]

2 hours ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Man, we've been through this so many times. We needed a whole new first team, would we expect there to be no issues left? If we'd signed a RW first we would just be complaining about a gap somewhere else. 

 

No merit in that argument at all?

No I wouldn't. 

 

A lack of depth is somewhat understandable. A lack of balance isn't. If we only made 3 signings last season, I would've said a CM, RW & LB. In that order. RCB next. 

 

And personally - I think we've got it wrong in totality. We've spent too much with too much on wages. We've not done the "slow build". We seemed set on signing JP for about £30m, then decided to spend double on fees and wages for Isak. Isak's been a success no doubt - but the lack of budget control was apparent then in hindsight. 12 months later, we could've tightened the belt but decided to make another Isak-like signing among others. The whole thing has been wrong. And to top it off - the squad is imbalanced.

 

And I blame leadership for this. We are more aggressive in the transfer market than in the boardroom or courts. We speak of European football every season but can only spend the 7th/8th most in the league. How is overachievement the minimum objective?

[jackyboy]

It's not always about who you want but more about who is available so you can't always get new players in the order that you want

[Kanj]

If only all of this were so simple! 

[The College Dropout]

2 hours ago, jackyboy said:

It's not always about who you want but more about who is available so you can't always get new players in the order that you want

We had a RW prospect but had to sell him because we’ve spent too much.  

[AyeDubbleYoo]

19 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

We had a RW prospect but had to sell him because we’ve spent too much.  

 

Key word being prospect. 

[JEToon]

Miggy is always judged in the form he has been in since rather than the form he was in leading to last summer, never had an issue with him being our RW at the time 

 

 

Edited November 28 by JEToon