Jump to content

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

I think in hindsight that 40 odd million was perhaps better spent elsewhere

 

100% my thoughts too. I always found it a little odd to be honest. We'd not long spent £40m + on a player who plays in exactly the same position as him. 

 

When money is so tight due to these poxy rules, the money could have definitely been spent better elsewhere - the other wing for starters. I know people will say 'we need depth etc', which is true. However it's quite clear that we aren't at the stage yet where we can spend £40m on a squad player - that has became clear.

 

I've nowt against him and I think he's a good player who will get you 10 + over a season (if he's starting). I don't think he's the wrong player for us, just the wrong signing for us *at this moment in time*.

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Chicken Dancer said:

 

100% my thoughts too. I always found it a little odd to be honest. We'd not long spent £40m + on a player who plays in exactly the same position as him. 

 

When money is so tight due to these poxy rules, the money could have definitely been spent better elsewhere - the other wing for starters. I know people will say 'we need depth etc', which is true. However it's quite clear that we aren't at the stage yet where we can spend £40m on a squad player - that has became clear.

 

I've nowt against him and I think he's a good player who will get you 10 + over a season (if he's starting). I don't think he's the wrong player for us, just the wrong signing for us *at this moment in time*.

 

I think the idea was/is to be able to have our wingers run themselves into the ground for 45-60 minutes and be rotated, so we needed more depth in that area of the team than any other, especially for last season in the CL.

 

Also, it wasn't obvious when we signed Barnes that Gordon would kick on to the extent he has and become the clear 1st choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jackflap said:

In hindsight it was a poor signing IMO, 5 decent options on the left now and 2 on the right that realistically wouldn't start for the majority of teams in the prem.

 

Don't see any evidence at all that it was a poor signing. He got injured then came back in and played a meaningful role in the last third of the season, scoring some crucial goals. Now he's providing quality competition and depth on the left-hand side. What's the problem? RW has nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not a poor signing FFS, because he's not a poor player.

 

Its not Barnes fault we haven't signed a right winger yet.

 

Why do I get the feeling Barnes is being frog-marched into a N-O firing squad. [emoji38]

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, STM said:

He's not a poor signing FFS, because he's not a poor player.

 

Its not Barnes fault we haven't signed a right winger yet.

 

Why do I get the feeling Barnes is being frog-marched into a N-O firing squad. [emoji38]

There must be a scapegoat for not making a big signing yet this summer [emoji38] It doesn’t matter who, what or where.. we need to be upset at someone.

 

Barnes had a freak injury and then did great for us, another quality opportunistic signing. Everyone will come to appreciate him more as time goes on. So much being said about what we do or don’t need right now, because all good squads are built on just signing your absolute priority all the time.. who needs strength in depth anymore? 

 

 

Edited by Nine

Link to post
Share on other sites

As said, he isn't a bad player and I wouldn't say he was too expensive at £40m. I just think with the limited budget we have enforced by the rules the £40m could have been better spent elsewhere.

 

The Gordon point is fair though - I don't think anybody could have predicted what he would become and how important he is for us. I still think spending £80m + in 6 months on 2 players that play the same position is an odd choice. I do think that given the fee paid, there was maybe an idea to fit them both in the team though. How we planned to do that is another question entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think he’d bang in 10+ goals as a right sided winger / forward who was combining with isak, Bruno, Tonali etc and getting in on the end of balls over the top and through. As much as he may prefer the left side he may need to reinvent himself a bit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a lovely ball in for the goal, like. I thought he was very unlucky with the left footed chance as well. He srikes the ball so well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Changed the game for us; looked quick and showed a lot of technical quality. He can't beat a man by kicking it down the line but that's where Willock comes in. Very dangerous cutting in and I don't blame him for shooting; Isak would have probably been offside had he made the pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a very good technical footballer. Much better than I thought before we got him. If we can't sign a RW this window then surely the front 3 that ended the game is the way to go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Changed the game for us; looked quick and showed a lot of technical quality. He can't beat a man by kicking it down the line but that's where Willock comes in. Very dangerous cutting in and I don't blame him for shooting; Isak would have probably been offside had he made the pass.

I thought he actually turned the full back inside out to make room to cross, which is very unlike him. Still feel there's more to come from him when he and Isak are on the same wavelength. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...