• 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

Fernando Llorente

He certainly improved after the goal and despite his ambling style you can see it meant something to him. It did look to me that Sideshow give him a helpful nudge to the ball but sometimes it doesn’t matter how they go in as some strikers are such sensitive creatures the goal is all they need to find confidence. Another run out against Palace for Llorente might help with his sharpness, although the other challenge for Kane’s deputy is when they get a run out for weakened teams the service and understanding makes it an additional challenge to shine.

Defoe was the polar opposite, he could miss 5 chances and he’d still be hungry for another one. His all round play improved as he got older too, he wouldn’t have been a bad shout for our bench if playing every week wasn’t the prime motivation for dropping down the the SPL.
 
Thought he did well last night, not easy to replace Kane especially when you have hardly played for a while. Hope we keep him in at the weekend.
 
galeforce said:
It’s the things he’s doesn’t even bother chasing/fighting for that annoy me.
Click to expand...

Agree. I thought Llorente showed some nice touches today, he's just...not a Poch player. Pretty sure Lamela b0ll0cked him today for not being where he should be when we were trying to squeeze Palace and win the ball back.

But he's all we've got for now. I expect he'll be back on the bench when Sonny is ready to play again.
 
I hope he gets loaned out or sold somewhere next week. Freeing up 100k a week would be handy and I'd prefer an academy player to get minutes ahead of the big old useless donkey.
 
In my opinion he was far from the worst player out there today. He had some good touches, brought other players into the game and generally kept the ball up better than in previous games. He hit the goalkeeper when he got a decent chance, but again, other players missed bigger chances.

In the first half we refused to put the ball into the box again. We were just passing the ball around in no man's land 30 yards away from goal and never actually seemed like we were trying to score. If we play with him up front, then at least we have to try to use his strengths. In the second half, we showed more desire to score, put some crosses in, but we never seemed to find Llorente with them (which should have course be partly be his fault for not finding the right positions and getting away from defenders).
 
King of Norway said:
In my opinion he was far from the worst player out there today. He had some good touches, bought other players into the game and generally kept the ball up better than in previous games. He hit the goalkeeper when he got a decent chance, but again, other players missed bigger chances.

In the first half we refused to put the ball into the box again. We were just passing the ball around in no man's land 30 yards away from goal and never actually seemed like we were trying to score. If we play with him up front, then at least we have to try to use his strengths. In the second half, we showed more desire to score, put some crosses in, but we never seemed to find Llorente with them (which should have course be partly be his fault for not finding the right positions and getting away from defenders).
Click to expand...

He's not good enough to change our style of play to accommodate and what he is best at is a way of playing with a very low percentage chance of conversation.

The reason why there was all the play 30 yards from goal is because there was fudge all movement in front. We're better off playing with a false nine than starting with Llorente.

I think that his only use to us now is as a last 10 minutes desperation sub.
 
milo said:
He's not good enough to change our style of play to accommodate and what he is best at is a way of playing with a very low percentage chance of conversation.

The reason why there was all the play 30 yards from goal is because there was fudge all movement in front. We're better off playing with a false nine than starting with Llorente.

I think that his only use to us now is as a last 10 minutes desperation sub.
Click to expand...

Totally agree but makes you wonder why we signed him in the first place and makes our transfer committee confusing to me. I understand the principle of a committee to limit mistakes. But if Poch is not happy with a player he does not play him, I can not think that Llorente was not a Poch signing.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Totally agree but makes you wonder why we signed him in the first place and makes our transfer committee confusing to me. I understand the principle of a committee to limit mistakes. But if Poch is not happy with a player he does not play him, I can not think that Llorente was not a Poch signing.
Click to expand...

Llorente was likely our 3rd/4th choice. However, how things have turned our with Llorente AND Janssen is a massive blot on Poch's reputation imo, especially Janssen, which was a signing he clearly wanted
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Totally agree but makes you wonder why we signed him in the first place and makes our transfer committee confusing to me. I understand the principle of a committee to limit mistakes. But if Poch is not happy with a player he does not play him, I can not think that Llorente was not a Poch signing.
Click to expand...

I thought that he was a good signing at the time. It made me realise that I know jack brick about football.

I don't think that there is much of a committee now. Poch names the players and we work through the list.
 
glorygloryeze said:
Llorente was likely our 3rd/4th choice. However, how things have turned our with Llorente AND Janssen is a massive blot on Poch's reputation imo, especially Janssen, which was a signing he clearly wanted
Click to expand...

I know that it is difficult to judge, but I thought that Janssen was a Mitchell signing.
 
galeforce said:
The signing made perfect sense at the time.
Click to expand...

Well with respect it absolutely did not.

He has not fitted in with our style of play, we are a young physical pressing style and it is clear he never had to do that at Swansea and his age meant he was never going to be able to do that again.

Also we should be planning long term not short term flimflam signings, that signing did not make sense at the time and anyone who thinks it did has a desperately limited knowledge of football.

I think it is clear it was not a Poch signing as he does not play him enough even taking into account we have Kane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back