RobS Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 27 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: I don't know man. Maybe i'm insane. To me £50m on a backup striker is crazy. This type of player will still cost £20-£40m like. It's down to the quality of player, their personality and a bit of luck. I don't think you can call him a backup when Isak has hardly proven his fitness record so far. If he can play 3/4ers of our games in a season then fair enough, but as it stands i would like thme to sign another equal striker, one with a good fitness record and an eye for goals as they will get a lot of game time as it stands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, Ikon said: I would sell two CM to get two in. One more defensive minded with good technical ability as well as one more attacking one with some creativity as well as ball carrying ability. Longstaff would be the one I’d look to sell, although I appreciate the homegrown quota probably makes this unlikely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 47 minutes ago, RobS said: I don't think you can call him a backup when Isak has hardly proven his fitness record so far. If he can play 3/4ers of our games in a season then fair enough, but as it stands i would like thme to sign another equal striker, one with a good fitness record and an eye for goals as they will get a lot of game time as it stands. Can get Sesko for £10m less(ignoring the obvious competition for him), younger and far higher ceiling. Doesnt make sense to be buying in the PL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 55 minutes ago, RobS said: I don't think you can call him a backup when Isak has hardly proven his fitness record so far. If he can play 3/4ers of our games in a season then fair enough, but as it stands i would like thme to sign another equal striker, one with a good fitness record and an eye for goals as they will get a lot of game time as it stands. No other club has this setup. These expectations are unrealistic unless you think we should sell Isak. We need to sign someone that can play with Isak on the right and perhaps fill-in for him when injured (although I think Wilson and Gordon is fine back-up personally). Solanke isn't that player. Mbeumo is more of that profile. But if Isak was injured I would start Barnes - Gordon - Mbeumo for balance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monters Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: No other club has this setup. These expectations are unrealistic unless you think we should sell Isak. We need to sign someone that can play with Isak on the right and perhaps fill-in for him when injured (although I think Wilson and Gordon is fine back-up personally). Solanke isn't that player. Mbeumo is more of that profile. But if Isak was injured I would start Barnes - Gordon - Mbeumo for balance. Apologies if I'm misquoting you but haven't you said Isak can't press for more than 60 minutes max and Howe needs to change what he asks him to do and repeatedly criticized the lack of rotation? I am coming in late here but it reads like now you are against having another A standard striker unless we sell Issac... Surely with 5 subs, cup games etc both could get effective minutes and maybe cut down on the injuries \ fatigue issues? Again if apologies if I've jumped in without the full context but it reads like you will criticize no matter what, I'm not advocating Solanke but I think we do need 2 main strikers before resorting to Gordon etc through the middle unless Isak goes on a major training program between now and next season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Why don't any other club have 2 "A standard" strikers? With FFP - it just doesn't make sense. Isak needs to improve his strength and conditioning so he can cope with the physical demands of Howe-ball better - that's route A. He visibly struggles with the pace of it. We also need to rotate more when he does get fatigued but that should happen less often. I don't see how we spend £50m on a striker - then have enough money for RW, LB & CB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 8 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Why don't any other club have 2 "A standard" strikers? With FFP - it just doesn't make sense. Isak needs to improve his strength and conditioning so he can cope with the physical demands of Howe-ball better - that's route A. He visibly struggles with the pace of it. We also need to rotate more when he does get fatigued but that should happen less often. I don't see how we spend £50m on a striker - then have enough money for RW, LB & CB. Or we accept that Isak, Bruno and Botman are our crown jewels and we should consider if Howeball as it currently looks gets the best out of them. If not then 2 options - (a) we sell them and replace, (b) we necessitate a change in playing style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobS Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 9 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Why don't any other club have 2 "A standard" strikers? With FFP - it just doesn't make sense. Isak needs to improve his strength and conditioning so he can cope with the physical demands of Howe-ball better - that's route A. He visibly struggles with the pace of it. We also need to rotate more when he does get fatigued but that should happen less often. I don't see how we spend £50m on a striker - then have enough money for RW, LB & CB. City - Haaland / Alvarez Liverpool - Diaz / Nunez (plus Salah from out wide) Arsenal - Jesus / Havertz (plus Saka scoring loads) Man Utd - Hojlund / Garnacho (Rashford contributing too) I'm not saying buy Solanke, im not even a big fan of his and think he's just having a miggy purple patch. But from this season anyway, Gordon is not a central forward, and Isak is not fit enough, so we need to buy another contributing forward this summer who can replace Wilson, thats obvious, to me anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 minutes ago, RobS said: City - Haaland / Alvarez Liverpool - Diaz / Nunez (plus Salah from out wide) Arsenal - Jesus / Havertz (plus Saka scoring loads) Man Utd - Hojlund / Garnacho (Rashford contributing too) I'm not saying buy Solanke, im not even a big fan of his and think he's just having a miggy purple patch. But from this season anyway, Gordon is not a central forward, and Isak is not fit enough, so we need to buy another contributing forward this summer who can replace Wilson, thats obvious, to me anyway. These all play together - not instead. Alvarez moves into midfield when Haaland starts. Havertz plays in midfield in the main (old tired eyes is starting upfront recently - Nketiah on the bench). Garnacho was cheap and plays on the wing. The back-up striker is Martial and he's backup backup. Diaz & Nunez often start together. Liverpool are stacked upfront tbf but they have a weak midfield. Unbalanced squad. Apart from Liverpool's unbalanced squad - no team has two £50m+ strikers that can only effectively play as a striker. We have Isak / Wilson / Gordon It's as good as any of these. Alvarez, Diaz, Havertz, Garnacho - none of these are centre-forwards and get more minutes in other positions. Solanke's a good PL player and will continue to score goals at this level imo. Miggy Almiron had a purple patch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushimonster85 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 6 minutes ago, RobS said: City - Haaland / Alvarez Liverpool - Diaz / Nunez (plus Salah from out wide) Arsenal - Jesus / Havertz (plus Saka scoring loads) Man Utd - Hojlund / Garnacho (Rashford contributing too) I'm not saying buy Solanke, im not even a big fan of his and think he's just having a miggy purple patch. But from this season anyway, Gordon is not a central forward, and Isak is not fit enough, so we need to buy another contributing forward this summer who can replace Wilson, thats obvious, to me anyway. Are you trying to prove that other side do have two "A standard" strikers? Because of those listed I'd say it's only the City lads who you'd say each players best position is as a central striker. The rest are doing what we do using a wide player to supplement in terms of depth. Also (again excluding the City lads) Gordon has out scored everyone listed there except Nunez (who he is only 1 goal behind). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 13 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said: Or we accept that Isak, Bruno and Botman are our crown jewels and we should consider if Howeball as it currently looks gets the best out of them. If not then 2 options - (a) we sell them and replace, (b) we necessitate a change in playing style. I agree. I suggested A and B is a valid route. To his credit, I think Howe has tried to do B for Isak at times. But his lack of conditioning and persistent injuries persist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monters Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 22 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Why don't any other club have 2 "A standard" strikers? With FFP - it just doesn't make sense. Isak needs to improve his strength and conditioning so he can cope with the physical demands of Howe-ball better - that's route A. He visibly struggles with the pace of it. We also need to rotate more when he does get fatigued but that should happen less often. I don't see how we spend £50m on a striker - then have enough money for RW, LB & CB. Fair enough - I should have said A / B striker but the point remains in my opinion we can't go from Isak to Gordon as the central striker options unless Isak suddenly turns into a workhorse like Shearer was and even then Al spent long periods playing on one leg... Who in the current squad plays though the middle when Isak needs to rotate? Unless we hit lucky and it's on one of Wilson's fit days! (Breaks my heart typing that as I've loved watching Wilson play but...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 6 minutes ago, sushimonster85 said: Are you trying to prove that other side do have two "A standard" strikers? Because of those listed I'd say it's only the City lads who you'd say each players best position is as a central striker. The rest are doing what we do using a wide player to supplement in terms of depth. Also (again excluding the City lads) Gordon has out scored everyone listed there except Nunez (who he is only 1 goal behind). Even Alvarez has more minutes in other positions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monters Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 4 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: These all play together - not instead. Alvarez moves into midfield when Haaland starts. Havertz plays in midfield in the main (old tired eyes is starting upfront recently - Nketiah on the bench). Garnacho was cheap and plays on the wing. The back-up striker is Martial and he's backup backup. Diaz & Nunez often start together. Liverpool are stacked upfront tbf but they have a weak midfield. Unbalanced squad. Apart from Liverpool's unbalanced squad - no team has two £50m+ strikers that can only effectively play as a striker. We have Isak / Wilson / Gordon It's as good as any of these. Alvarez, Diaz, Havertz, Garnacho - none of these are centre-forwards and get more minutes in other positions. Solanke's a good PL player and will continue to score goals at this level imo. Miggy Almiron had a purple patch. We don't have Wilson anymore... if we did I'd fully agree with you! "Apart from Liverpool's unbalanced squad" - I'd swap! Top of the league by 4 points, cup final at the weekend with the possibility of two more... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 6 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Even Alvarez has more minutes in other positions. For the record, a lot of Man City fans claim that Alvarez and Haaland don't play well together. Alvarez will eventually be their main striker once they've got their money out of Haaland. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 hours ago, RobS said: I don't think you can call him a backup when Isak has hardly proven his fitness record so far. If he can play 3/4ers of our games in a season then fair enough, but as it stands i would like thme to sign another equal striker, one with a good fitness record and an eye for goals as they will get a lot of game time as it stands. There's definitely room at Newcastle for two top line strikers. Isak and Wilson have both started plenty of games during their 18 months together, and they could have started more if they were available more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Shearergol said: For the record, a lot of Man City fans claim that Alvarez and Haaland don't play well together. Alvarez will eventually be their main striker once they've got their money out of Haaland. I'm not sure he's prolific enough yet to be their main striker. It took Rodri & Gundo about 18 months to work well together. Alvarez only been a mainstay in the team this season. And in any case... the manager plays both of them when fit. That's the plan he's had for the season. And Alvarez didn't cost £50m. 4 minutes ago, TRon said: There's definitely room at Newcastle for two top line strikers. Isak and Wilson have both started plenty of games during their 18 months together, and they could have started more if they were available more. They've started like 6 games together in 18 months. Hardly plenty. With Gordon's form and signing Barnes - I think the plan was to rotate with CL football and otherwise have Isak as #1 with Wilson getting 20-30 minutes a game. Which is all good. Edited February 22 by The College Dropout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 hours ago, The College Dropout said: Definitely at the expense of Barnes. RW was a more pressing position. Palmer is also more versatile positionally and can play uptop as a false 9 and as a 10. Barnes is a LW only. With everyone fit our best team either has Barnes on the bench or Gordon out of position to accommodate him. Signing a RW would have given the squad more balance. This is not hindsight. This was the prevailing thought at the time for many. Apart from those who don't know ball and over-rated Almiron. If Barnes doesn't get the injury, Gordon doesn't have the same output on the RW or one of them sits on the bench. It's weird squad building. We've shown with our transfer dealings that we aren't looking 6-12 months ahead, we're looking at building a squad almost from scratch. Howe wants two XIs that are largely interchangeable - Gordon/Barnes as LW options is clearly part of that plan and yes, our quality on the RW is lacking with Almiron/Murphy but I think it comes down to the fact that Barnes was available at a price we were comfortable with and our RW targets weren't. We spent £40m+ on Livramento knowing that he's mostly going to be sat behind Tripper, but a deal was there and we presumably think he could be "the guy" in a year or twos time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Yeh and £40m on Palmer is better value for money than £40m on Barnes. He’s 4-5 years younger to boot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 28 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: They've started like 6 games together in 18 months. Hardly plenty. With Gordon's form and signing Barnes - I think the plan was to rotate with CL football and otherwise have Isak as #1 with Wilson getting 20-30 minutes a game. Which is all good. You read it wrong, I don't mean together as a pair on the pitch, I meant together at the club. Look at how many goals the pair of them got individually last season, there's plenty of games for them to rotate as needed, same will be the case for Wilson's replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 minute ago, TRon said: You read it wrong, I don't mean together as a pair on the pitch, I meant together at the club. Look at how many goals the pair of them got individually last season, there's plenty of games for them to rotate as needed, same will be the case for Wilson's replacement. Oh aye. It works because 1 is aging and injury-prone. And the other is picking up injuries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 11 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Yeh and £40m on Palmer is better value for money than £40m on Barnes. He’s 4-5 years younger to boot. That's always assuming Palmer wanted to come to Newcastle. If he didn't then it's all moot tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobS Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 34 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: I'm not sure he's prolific enough yet to be their main striker. It took Rodri & Gundo about 18 months to work well together. Alvarez only been a mainstay in the team this season. And in any case... the manager plays both of them when fit. That's the plan he's had for the season. And Alvarez didn't cost £50m. They've started like 6 games together in 18 months. Hardly plenty. With Gordon's form and signing Barnes - I think the plan was to rotate with CL football and otherwise have Isak as #1 with Wilson getting 20-30 minutes a game. Which is all good. It is all good. Until wilson gets injured and missed 5-6 matches, Isak plays every minute of those games, getting more and more tired till he gets injured, and suddenly were playing Miggy - Gordon - Murphy and not scoring much. Your theory is sound if you have 2 strikers who can stay fit, and support each other. Isak andf Wilson are incapable of doing that sadly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 4 minutes ago, midds said: That's always assuming Palmer wanted to come to Newcastle. If he didn't then it's all moot tbh Don't make me say the other guy man. We could've diligently spend £40m on a RW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 To an extent, I do agree with @The College Dropouton this and have backed his view on not needing 3 strikers. Given where we are now and the fact that Wilson MUST be replaced. I'd be happy with either scenario suggested. Either we sign another quality signing, which has the benefit of giving Isak some rest and allowing us to be more flexible with Isak or we sign someone younger who's willing to play second fiddle/learn. If we were to sign, let's say Solanke, I don't see many down sides. Either he and Isak play plenty of games and dovetail (like Isak and Wilson were supposed to) or one of them plays the majority of the games and has an outstanding season. I take the wider point about whether 50m would be a wise use of funds but I suppose that discussion can only happen with knowledge of budgets etc. One thing is for certain, I have full confidence that we will have signed a quality replacement for Wilson come the end of the summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now