Harvey Barnes

[80]

3 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Don't think he was let down by Tino whom we know is a wingback who stays wide. He was let down by the manager who's tactic seems to revert to crossing the ball to nobody when we are struggling. Harvey Barnes is not a right winger Period. 

It's obviously not his best spot, but I thought he did quite a respectable job on the offensive side. He didn't look totally out of place. Don't get me wrong, I've been banging the RW/our attack is going down the swanny drum for what feels like an eternity.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, 80 said:

It's obviously not his best spot, but I thought he did quite a respectable job on the offensive side. He didn't look totally out of place. Don't get me wrong, I've been banging the RW/our attack is going down the swanny drum for what feels like an eternity.

He did his best for sure, he put one decent cross in that's about all I remember. 

 

Barnes excels at cutting inside from the left, you take that away and you aren't left with much. 

[80]

8 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

He did his best for sure, he put one decent cross in that's about all I remember. 

 

Barnes excels at cutting inside from the left, you take that away and you aren't left with much. 

I can't remember specifics too well because it was that kind of match for us, but there was definitely more than that.

 

There were a couple of times I was surprised to see it was him doing certain things like shimmying past a defender. But a lot of his positive stuff in build up play was killed in the crib by teammates just not making the runs for balls he knocked through or them immediately passing the ball straight to the opposition. I thought he cut a frustrated figure yesterday - he looked particularly pissed off midway through the second half after there were two fuck ups in a row.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2024 by 80

[OverThere]

If we can get our money back and buy a RW I'd be more than happy 

[Danh1]

 

People called out Mitchell for his comments on our strategy but this makes sense. 
 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2024 by Danh1

[mattypnufc]

I can't say I'd blame them.  He's an impact sub and pretty much surplus to requirements the majority of the time. 

[Paully]

I still can't get my head around the signing - I like him but we had spent a similar amount on Gordon the year before plus the Joe's can do a job there and we were desperate for a RW

 

 

Edited December 4, 2024 by Paully

[nufcjmc]

If we had Europe we would need him and there are other dross in the side I would prefer to shift first if only people would buy them but he's not pulling up trees when he starts and is older than gordan so I can see it being a sacrifice to move forward. 

[Danh1]

5 minutes ago, Paully said:

I still can't get my head around the signing - I like him but we had spent a similar amount on Gordon the year before plus the Joe's can do a job there

Made little sense at the time and even less now.

 

I like Barnes but think out of the players we could get a decent fee for, he’s definitely the most sellable. 
 

Hopefully moving forward we see some decent squad building and (said it to death) some players signed from overseas. Will be pissed off if our target for the right wing is Elanga. 

[Aiston]

9 goals and 4 assists in 1403 minutes for the club.

 

 

Great record but lets sell him

 

 

[mattypnufc]

4 minutes ago, Aiston said:

9 goals and 4 assists in 1403 minutes for the club.

 

 

Great record but lets sell him

 

 

His offence stats are decent thats not the issue, the issue is there's a player in this position who offers more for a entire match and overall contributions, with assists/goals added into the mix, and then subsequent adequate backup for this position too, in big Joe.  Arguably a player who could be worth a steady sum, a decent saleable asset for which we have decent options.

 

If it funds a Gordon RW equivalent, then why wouldn't it be a good thing? 

[r0cafella]

It's probably a case of we will listen to offers and not hawk him about. 

 

I think it makes sense, his age profile means we can't hold too long and repeat mistakes of the past. It's also worth remembering Mitchell cleared decks at Monaco before bringing players in. 

[Sibierski]

This summer will be the window to cash in, should be a reasonable £30m+ available because of his proven output, and we should cash in if we need money to invest elsewhere.

[AJ9]

I would move him on if it freed up funds for RW. We have Joelinton as cover, and potentially Willock can cover there too. I do rate Barnes, but not the way we use him in the squad.

[huss9]

20 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It's probably a case of we will listen to offers and not hawk him about. 

 

I think it makes sense, his age profile means we can't hold too long and repeat mistakes of the past. It's also worth remembering Mitchell cleared decks at Monaco before bringing players in. 

think that may be a case for all of them. big enough offer and we'll sell. no option if we want to move forward.

EPL bastards.

[Holmesy]

13 minutes ago, AJ9 said:

I would move him on if it freed up funds for RW. We have Joelinton as cover, and potentially Willock can cover there too. I do rate Barnes, but not the way we use him in the squad.

This is the crux of it. He's a starter in most PL teams below the top 7-8 maybe. It was a strange transfer at the time and it looks like Eddie doesn't really know what to do with him.

I can see him getting frustrated at not being a starter, and angling for a move. Might suit both parties tbh

[KaKa]

Echo what most have said on a potential sale.

 

It's just the smart thing to do if he can't be integrated into the first team alongside Gordon.

 

We're not yet at a place where we can have players with his production and value sat on the bench as squad players.

 

This kind of move would actually be encouraging because it's the kind of tough decision that has to be made regarding squad planning that will allow us to progress.

 

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I agree a bit, but also don't. Are we saying we need a first team supported by much worse squad players? Only going to exacerbate the Championship/Champions League nature of our squad, isn't it?

 

I know because Barnes was signed rather than already here it's a debate, but still seems a move that might leave us weaker overall. 

[JEToon]

I would suggest if we don't have players like Barnes or of that quality on the bench we will get left behind pretty quickly.

 

The notion we are going anywhere with 11 class players and a load of project players, some who might get better, some wont, it is a stretch for me, even more when you see the lack of patience when it comes from some to what the development process is going to mean i.e see the general reaction to Osula. 

 

We are even playing Palace banging on a player who cost 30 million, you need 16 pretty high class players at least given the number of players teams chuck at games these days, it is a long long time since it was an 11 man sport, not being a starter doesn't mean what it used to 20 years ago, you can be part of a squad these days and play a lot of football. 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2024 by JEToon

[Holmesy]

3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I agree a bit, but also don't. Are we saying we need a first team supported by much worse squad players? Only going to exacerbate the Championship/Champions League nature of our squad, isn't it?

 

I know because Barnes was signed rather than already here it's a debate, but still seems a move that might leave us weaker overall. 

If the transfer policy changes a bit so we're looking at younger, less PL-proven players with potential, selling Barnes could provide the funds for two players of that ilk. And those two will essentially do the job he is doing at the moment - mostly warming the bench but coming on as an impact sub. Clearly we're in a position where we have to do some smart trading, and if it's a case of selling Bruno, Isak or Barnes to fund new signings, there's a clear front-runner

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just now, Holmesy said:

If the transfer policy changes a bit so we're looking at younger, less PL-proven players with potential, selling Barnes could provide the funds for two players of that ilk. And those two will essentially do the job he is doing at the moment - mostly warming the bench but coming on as an impact sub. Clearly we're in a position where we have to do some smart trading, and if it's a case of selling Bruno, Isak or Barnes to fund new signings, there's a clear front-runner

Yeah agree, as long as they’re good and we don’t go back to needing Murphy to play minutes (for example). 

[The College Dropout]

You can’t have a £40m+ player on good wages sitting on the bench while you start Murphy RW. 

 

We don’t have the budget for 18 proven top quality players. We need a younger squad profile with high potential youngsters on the bench. 

[KaKa]

6 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I agree a bit, but also don't. Are we saying we need a first team supported by much worse squad players? Only going to exacerbate the Championship/Champions League nature of our squad, isn't it?

 

I know because Barnes was signed rather than already here it's a debate, but still seems a move that might leave us weaker overall. 

 

I think a strong balanced first team has to be the first priority. And so we need to address the right wing.

 

Regarding the squad/ bench players this is where we have to be really sharp, and where Mitchell and the recruitment upgrades will need to do their best work.

 

We will need to identify players that are younger and cheaper, but who are good enough to deputise in the first team when needed, but who still have room to continue to develop even further. That is ideally how our bench should look. Basically what Miley offered us last season, although with more experience in other leagues abroad, or in the Championship.

 

The classic example was that Jonathan Rowe at Norwich that joined Marseille over the summer. He's the exact kind of profile that could have come in as depth when moving on Barnes.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

It's probably a case of we will listen to offers and not hawk him about. 

 

I think it makes sense, his age profile means we can't hold too long and repeat mistakes of the past. It's also worth remembering Mitchell cleared decks at Monaco before bringing players in. 

 

Said this a couple of weeks ago. It's not that he's a bad player, but if he's not starting every week then he's dispensable. We need to prioritise other positions where we clearly do have a weakness. If we sold within the next year or so we'd get our money back you'd have thought. Although I don't think there's going to be interest from the top clubs so that might reduce the bidding pool.

[80]

Not sure what money we'd get for him, given the circumstances. He's obviously worth something serious to the right teams, it's just a question of whether they're in the market.

 

We need to get a good fee for him for PSR reasons - we haven't cleared all that much off his original bill yet. £25m might go down as a loss for us. IIRC his actual price was always hazy.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2024 by 80