• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Transfer Rumour Thread

Kandi1977 said:
'Fit the style' and 'like for like replacement' is not the same.
Click to expand...

GB seems to me to be arguing based on his opinion on how players fit our style...

I'm arguing that I don't think Berahino is a much better fit for the lone striker role for us than Son is. So I don't see a huge value in bringing in Berahino as an upgrade on Son for that role. Doesn't mean that I don't think Messi wouldn't be an upgrade... Bringing him into the conversation really isn't useful.
 
braineclipse said:
GB seems to me to be arguing based on his opinion on how players fit our style...

I'm arguing that I don't think Berahino is a much better fit for the lone striker role for us than Son is. So I don't see a huge value in bringing in Berahino as an upgrade on Son for that role. Doesn't mean that I don't think Messi wouldn't be an upgrade... Bringing him into the conversation really isn't useful.
Click to expand...
I think this is where our thoughts differ. I don't think that Son looks suited to playing number 9 whereas it is the position that Berahino considers to be his primary one. If we consider Kane as a 10 out of 10 centre forward then I see Son as a 5 out of 10 type centre forward, whereas Berahino is probably a 7 or an 8 out of 10.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I think this is where our thoughts differ. I don't think that Son looks suited to playing number 9 whereas it is the position that Berahino considers to be his primary one. If we consider Kane as a 10 out of 10 centre forward then I see Son as a 5 out of 10 type centre forward, whereas Berahino is probably a 7 or an 8 out of 10.
Click to expand...

Getting a bit cross-thread here. But the #9 role for a counter attacking WBA side (at least sometimes in a 4-4-2) and the lone striker #9 role for us when we're often dominating positions are not the same role. One can disagree about if Berahino would fit as a lone striker in both setups or not, but just calling both #9 roles and ignoring the differences in style of play is too simplistic. In my opinion part of why big teams end up failing with purchases of players that have done well at smaller clubs playing a very different, often counter attacking, style.

I'm struggling to see that Berahino has the qualities to be a great fit for that role for us. And I'm not seeing him as exceptional to the level where style of play becomes less important.

A different example as the Berahino discussion seems to be going around in circles: Vardy obviously plays as a striker, and does great for Leicester. Would he be a good fit for Manchester United? I'm not convinced.
 
braineclipse said:
Getting a bit cross-thread here. But the #9 role for a counter attacking WBA side (at least sometimes in a 4-4-2) and the lone striker #9 role for us when we're often dominating positions are not the same role. One can disagree about if Berahino would fit as a lone striker in both setups or not, but just calling both #9 roles and ignoring the differences in style of play is too simplistic. In my opinion part of why big teams end up failing with purchases of players that have done well at smaller clubs playing a very different, often counter attacking, style.

I'm struggling to see that Berahino has the qualities to be a great fit for that role for us. And I'm not seeing him as exceptional to the level where style of play becomes less important.

A different example as the Berahino discussion seems to be going around in circles: Vardy obviously plays as a striker, and does great for Leicester. Would he be a good fit for Manchester United? I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...

I think you have some really valid points here but why wouldnt we play slightly differently anyway if Berahino plays. We can deploy Kane as a 10, we can play a false 9, we can also play a slightly more pacey game as Berahino is quick (son is too)

The difference between son and Berahino for me is one is a creative attacker playing as a striker and the other is a striker sometimes playing as a creative attacker. Son is a 10 for me and Berahino a 9 as their first position although both have capabilities to play the other role.

Berahino is different to Kane too but they worked really together for England under 21s and we could get Berahino in for the cost of Townsend and Chadli with a profit (and have Prichtard take Townsend and place for free)

It gives us a genuine alter give but not a like for like granted. It's a bit like solskjaer and Chicarito when they played at United. Completely different to the men they replaced but it meant the defenders had a different problem too when they came on
 
braineclipse said:
Getting a bit cross-thread here. But the #9 role for a counter attacking WBA side (at least sometimes in a 4-4-2) and the lone striker #9 role for us when we're often dominating positions are not the same role. One can disagree about if Berahino would fit as a lone striker in both setups or not, but just calling both #9 roles and ignoring the differences in style of play is too simplistic. In my opinion part of why big teams end up failing with purchases of players that have done well at smaller clubs playing a very different, often counter attacking, style.

I'm struggling to see that Berahino has the qualities to be a great fit for that role for us. And I'm not seeing him as exceptional to the level where style of play becomes less important.

A different example as the Berahino discussion seems to be going around in circles: Vardy obviously plays as a striker, and does great for Leicester. Would he be a good fit for Manchester United? I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...
Indeed... I have kind of replied to this in the Berahino thread as well.... My thoughts are that you are looking primarily at the way that West Brom play/have played as opposed to looking at the attributes of the player. I would say that Berahino's qualities are his ability to strike the ball (similar to Kane), his ability to find space in the box (similar to Kane), his ability to make intelligent runs to open up through balls to him (similar to Kane) and his workrate (similar to Kane). I also think he is a lot closer to Kane than Son is in his ability to receive the ball with his back to goal and hold off a defender.

I would say that when we play with Son up top then we alter our style of play so that we play with a false 9 (which is a decent option to have in the locker). However if we had Berahino then we could rest Kane and still play the same formation and tactics. I don't think it is "Berahino or nobody" but I do think we need somebody to come in in that position and it would seem to me that Berahino is pretty sure to be available for transfer in January, the manager wanted him in the Summer, he is proven in the Premier League, he is the right age for us, wants to join us and has already played with several of our players in England age group football.
 
Last edited:
I remember when Caulker was supposed to be the next King, abit like how CCV is being overhyped.
 
Yiddo said:
I remember when Caulker was supposed to be the next King, abit like how CCV is being overhyped.
Click to expand...

He has failed to do it at Swansea, then QPR, cant get in the Southampton side and now finds his way to Liverpool.
 
.....Swansea may use the Shelvey cash on Naysmith and Gibson from Everton.

Good chance Gomis be on his way too for £7 mill.....so 20 mill for two players,that only cost them £5 mill. Learning off Levy most prob!!
 
a spur from swansea said:
.....Swansea may use the Shelvey cash on Naysmith and Gibson from Everton.

Good chance Gomis be on his way too for £7 mill.....so 20 mill for two players,that only cost them £5 mill. Learning off Levy most prob!!
Click to expand...
I think that Gomis was signed on some sort of strange deal where the player got a decent portion of the transfer fee if they happen to sell him.
 
Yiddo said:
I remember when Caulker was supposed to be the next King, abit like how CCV is being overhyped.
Click to expand...

Caulker was always about his physicality over his opponents. I used to prefer his CB partner Calum Butcher (now at Burton) - he looked a top prospect.
 
I think perhaps with Caulker the issue was desire / work rate. He obviously was /is talented but I think he likes the social side of being a footballer. The *rumoured* reasons for his hastened departure from us lend credence to that too.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Caulker was always about his physicality over his opponents. I used to prefer his CB partner Calum Butcher (now at Burton) - he looked a top prospect.
Click to expand...
Physicality is one of the most important attributes for a centre half. Caulker was strong, had good pace and was also excellent in the air. I think the hope with these sorts of players is that the positional sense and decision making can be coached into them. Some players just aren't able to take it in however. I wonder whether Caulker was such a player?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back