Harvey Barnes

[Lush Vlad]

If we commit to playing Woltemade on a more regular basis. Then Barnes should also be starting.
 

I still think their games compliment each other well and there were some small signs of that last season. 

 

 

[GEFAFWISP]

Just now, Lush Vlad said:

If we commit to playing Woltemade on a more regular basis. Then Barnes should also be starting.
 

I still think their games compliment each other well and there were some small signs of that last season. 

 

 

Agreed. Best pairing we have currently in an attacking sense.

[KaKa]

2 years left on his contract.

 

Sell or new contract. Has to be one or the other.

 

Not sure how I feel about putting him in the £100,000 a week bracket and handing him a starting berth, especially on that left side where he looks more and more limited.

[TRon]

Just now, KaKa said:

2 years left on his contract.

 

Sell or new contract. Has to be one or the other.

 

Not sure how I feel about putting him in the £100,000 a week bracket and handing him a starting berth, especially on that left side where he looks more and more limited.

 

He's a good footballer, but lacks the pace to really frighten defenders. I think for him to be effective he needs to get Hall overlapping, then it could work. Not sure Howe would be comfortable with that from a defensive POV though. 

[Ikon]

I would sell. Yes he’s a good goalscorer and it’s not easy to replace goals. Having said that, we have to be smarter sellers and think what’s most important for the club longterm. I also don’t rate him in general play. 
 

We have to be thinking one step ahead and not just the present. If someone offers us around 40m I wouldn’t think twice. I doubt we will sign someone that scores as much from the off, but we might find one that allows the team to get better in general as well as maybe allowing other players to score more because we’re just better overall.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:22 by Ikon

[Weezertron]

25 minutes ago, Kimbo said:

I would not, I want someone with a better all round game.

Fair. But we need goals. Not sure who else guarantees them in this team anymore 

[KaKa]

13 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

He's a good footballer, but lacks the pace to really frighten defenders. I think for him to be effective he needs to get Hall overlapping, then it could work. Not sure Howe would be comfortable with that from a defensive POV though. 

 

There's managers that would better set the team up to hide Barnes' weaknesses and find ways to get him into positions to be a goal threat more often, for sure.

 

Unfortunately, Howe is yet to manage it consistently enough, and so Barnes goes through too many long stretches completely invisible. 

 

There were signs in the one game he started int he 4-2-3-1, on the right ironically, that perhaps he'd look better in that setup, but we only saw that once and so who the heck knows if we had found something there or not.

 

They're going to have to make a big call either way this summer now.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:31 by KaKa

[Keggy_Keagal]

Howe doesn't trust him consistently enough , even with Gordon benched he's played on the right. I like him I don't think we've treated him particularly well but this is the perfect example of knowing when to sell . Now's the time . 

[TRon]

20 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

There's managers that would better set the team up to hide Barnes' weaknesses and find ways to get him into positions to be a goal threat more often, for sure.

 

Unfortunately, Howe is yet to manage it consistently enough, and so Barnes goes through too many long stretches completely invisible. 

 

There were signs in the one game he started int he 4-2-3-1, on the right ironically, that perhaps he'd look better in that setup, but we only saw that once and so who the heck knows if we had found something there or not.

 

They're going to have to make a big call either way this summer now.

 

 

 

 

I was thinking the same thing in relation to the point made by @Lush Vlad re him combining well with Woltemade. I can see that working, but just not under Howe. It would probably need a totally different method of football and build up play. 

 

Also, just not sure that having two of your three forwards lacking genuine pace is a recipe for success. 

[duo]

37 minutes ago, Ikon said:

I would sell. Yes he’s a good goalscorer and it’s not easy to replace goals. Having said that, we have to be smarter sellers and think what’s most important for the club longterm. I also don’t rate him in general play. 

You've nailed the on the head as to why we can't sell.  We struggled as it was last season for goals - without Barnes goals we would have lost 8 points last season.

[SUPERTOON]

1 hour ago, Lush Vlad said:

If we commit to playing Woltemade on a more regular basis. Then Barnes should also be starting.
 

I still think their games compliment each other well and there were some small signs of that last season. 

 

 

I’d be quite concerned if we start next season with those two making up the bulk of our main front 3 tbh.

[Ikon]

58 minutes ago, duo said:

You've nailed the on the head as to why we can't sell.  We struggled as it was last season for goals - without Barnes goals we would have lost 8 points last season.

You cannot really say things like ”without Barnes we would have lost 8 points”  Pretty much the same as some people go on about if only we didn’t lose/draw game X and X for example. I mean you “can” say but it’s not quite as simple as that’s 
 

For example, a replacement for Gordon and a new RW might score goals too, never mind improve us on the whole so that we as a team get better and start scoring more goals in general. Narrow minded imo to think that if Barnes leaves we have to get someone who scores as many as him or we are doomed. There’s so much more to with a bit perspective and also so many factors that play in. 
 

Just a simple thing, but having two wingers that are very good on and with the ball in general could improve us massively on the whole even if not one of them scores as many as Barnes. For example our two wingers combined might replace the total. Or two good wingers might improve us in general so that other players score more, and that we are better in possession in these areas could also help us in many ways.

Not only that, but if we could get 40m for him now it could make a difference going forward financially. Could very well have a bad season and then we're stuck with him unless we sell him cheaply. Would be entirely different if he was say 25. 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 14:02 by Ikon

[Nine]

With Gordon gone I just can’t see anyway that this guy is sold this summer 

 

He can drop in at anytime and provide goals, he’s been worth his weight in gold to us 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 14:09 by Nine

[Ikon]

1 minute ago, Nine said:

With Gordon gone I just can’t see anyway that this guy is sold this summer 

 

He can drop in at anytime and provide goals, he’s been worth his weight in gold to us 

 

 

 

 

Most likely not. But IF someone offered us 40-45m for him then I'd be amazed if we don't sell him. 

[Mikky]

10 minutes ago, Ikon said:

 

Most likely not. But IF someone offered us 40-45m for him then I'd be amazed if we don't sell him. 

It’s going to be a tough call if that comes to pass as currently imo we need 2 wingers (one) on either side as it is - there is no way Murphy should be here next season and the priority should be to sell him first

 

Its a tough job this summer for Wilson 

[duo]

40 minutes ago, Ikon said:

You cannot really say things like ”without Barnes we would have lost 8 points”  Pretty much the same as some people go on about if only we didn’t lose/draw game X and X for example. I mean you “can” say but it’s not quite as simple as that’s 

No - it's as simple as that.  As his goals got us those points.

[DC Magpie]

 

It would take a very good (ridiculous) offer for me to sell Barnes. He has great instincts and runs so well into space that if we stick with a 4-2-3-1, I would love him running off Woltemade all year. 

 

But if the plan is to go back to a full time 4-3-3, then sell Ramsey, Barnes and Woltemade, then play Elanga and Bruno in those spots, as it won't matter.  

 

 

[Optimistic Nut]

37 minutes ago, Ikon said:

 

Most likely not. But IF someone offered us 40-45m for him then I'd be amazed if we don't sell him. 

 

Give him a year or two extension, sell next year for £30m when Gordon's replacement is up and running, and we can get a younger Barnes replacement. Would be crazy to sell this summer. 

[Viana]

Now Gordon has gone I think the reasons to sell him are moot. 

 

When I consider that Elanga cost 55m, I don't see much value in selling Gordon and Barnes (a collective 44 goals in 3 league seasons) for 110 million. 

[Ikon]

15 minutes ago, duo said:

No - it's as simple as that.  As his goals got us those points.

Never mind..  You’re clearly missing my point. Which is hypothetical.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 14:55 by Ikon

[Ikon]

6 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Give him a year or two extension, sell next year for £30m when Gordon's replacement is up and running, and we can get a younger Barnes replacement. Would be crazy to sell this summer. 

I wouldn’t actively be looking to sell him. I’m just saying that I’d be surprised if we didn’t if we got 40-45m. 

[timeEd32]

I’d only sell him for something that would be considered an overpay. Otherwise I think it’d be incredibly risky. But a new LW needs to either be instant first choice or have a ceiling significantly above him.

[Zero]

I think we will sell him to Villa for 40m once we got a new LW. Feels like it is similar to the Ramsay deal - both clubs agreed for long and just wait for other conditions met

[The College Dropout]

Think we have players that actually want to leave that we need to sell first. 

[Gavin400]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Think we have players that actually want to leave that we need to sell first. 

And players that the club wants to leave - e.g Willock.