• 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

The all new Striker thread..

jabbathehut said:
If we got offered big money for Lamela and replaced him with Berehino would we be worse off?
Click to expand...

We'd lose a lot of industry, a lot of creativity and a lot of balance

In terms of balance, that would leave us with 4 natural LWFs (Son, Chadli, Njie and Berahino) and no natural RWFs (though Njie does look equally comfortable on that side)

Basically if our AMs are

---Son--------Alli------Lamela
--(Chadli)--(Eriksen)--(Njie)

+ Onomah and Pritchard

I really don't see where Berahino adds anything at all
 
Gutter Boy said:
We'd lose a lot of industry, a lot of creativity and a lot of balance

In terms of balance, that would leave us with 4 natural LWFs (Son, Chadli, Njie and Berahino) and no natural RWFs (though Njie does look equally comfortable on that side)

Basically if our AMs are

---Son--------Alli------Lamela
--(Chadli)--(Eriksen)--(Njie)

+ Onomah and Pritchard

I really don't see where Berahino adds anything at all
Click to expand...

Son looks better on the right than left to me.
 
billyiddo said:
I think we trade off a bit too much tenacity with Eriksen and Son together, Palace were too comfortable coming out from the back
Click to expand...

Far too early to make that call. Lamela has had 2.5 seasons to "settle". Son has just arrived and already adds much more IMO. Lamela launches recklessly into challenges at times while Son works just as hard and to me offers much better balance wit Eriksen and a more decisive attacking threat.

You thought that Poch agreed with you and would play Lamela against Palace. To me Lamela hasn't been doing it over the last few games and Poch is running a true meritocracy.
 
Pirate55 said:
You thought that Poch agreed with you and would play Lamela against Palace. To me Lamela hasn't been doing it over the last few games and Poch is running a true meritocracy.
Click to expand...

Thats news to me :confused:

What i said on the matter was that i couldn't decide who should drop out for Son so where you have got that from i don't know.

Re the first part it was an observation on the Palace game, of course it's possible Son adds that to his game but i felt it was something we were lacking - and if we're honest it's a pretty key attribute for our style of play...
 
Last edited:
billyiddo said:
Thats news to me :confused:

What i said on the matter was that i couldn't decide who should drop out for Son so where you have got that from i don't know.

Re the first part it was an observation on the Palace game, of course it's possible Son adds that to his game but i felt it was something we were lacking - and if we're honest it's a pretty key attribute for our style of play...
Click to expand...

Apologies Billy, it was your alter-ego Milo who, when we were discussing the relative merits on Son and Lamela and I was suggesting giving Son a run in the side after the Leicester replay, said " I think that It is pretty clear that Poch does not agree with you when it comes to Lamela and I tend to agree with him. I think that Son is going to need to prove it off the bench in the League a few times in order to push for a starting place".

That sanctimonious attitude irked me somewhat and I am pleased Poch played Son from the start against Palace. As I argued, he deserves a few games ( just like Lamela has now had over 2.5 seasons) in order make a proper assessment of their relative merits to the team.
 
^ I've got no problems with Son getting a run out, he looks a good player from what we have seen so far - i think having the likes of him and Chadli coming in to the second half of the season reasonably fresh will help our cause - maybe even make us more of a goal threat - same further back with Bentaleb/Mason/Carroll - good players ready to come in if and when they are needed.

Anyway gone a little off topic here...
 
Pirate55 said:
Apologies Billy, it was your alter-ego Milo who, when we were discussing the relative merits on Son and Lamela and I was suggesting giving Son a run in the side after the Leicester replay, said " I think that It is pretty clear that Poch does not agree with you when it comes to Lamela and I tend to agree with him. I think that Son is going to need to prove it off the bench in the League a few times in order to push for a starting place".

That sanctimonious attitude irked me somewhat and I am pleased Poch played Son from the start against Palace. As I argued, he deserves a few games ( just like Lamela has now had over 2.5 seasons) in order make a proper assessment of their relative merits to the team.
Click to expand...

Why are you being so chippy?

I think that you are taking my post out of context. The conversation was:

Pirate55 said:
That's cos I think Son is the better player! I don't think Lamela played at all well tonight and has been sub par in many games. While I think Lamela has undoubtedly improved this season, he still has many flaws in his game. For example, too often he chooses the wrong option. He doesn't have Sons quick feet or potency. Also, his tackling is too often reckless leading to unnecessary free-kicks in dangerous positions.

As Poch runs a meritocracy, Son deserves the same run in the side that Lamela has been afforded so we can see if his potential can be fulfilled. That is all I am suggesting. It is hardly fair to judge him on just bit parts after coming back from injury. He needs and deserves a run in the side.
Click to expand...

milo said:
I know what you think. I'm just teasing because you keep repeating yourself.

I thought that Son took his goal very well tonight and his performance was very good but that has not been the case in every game since he has come back from injury.

I think that it is pretty clear that Poch does not agree with you when it comes to Lamela and I tend to agree with him. I think that Son is going to need to prove it off of the bench in the league a few times in order to really push for a starting place. I'll be delighted if he does this though.
Click to expand...

My comment around Poch not agreeing with you was on your criticism of Lamela. I stand by that, I think that it is clear that Poch rates him and that he is an integral member of the squad.

I like Son. I have no issue with him or him starting games.
 
milo said:
Why are you being so chippy?

I think that you are taking my post out of context. The conversation was:





My comment around Poch not agreeing with you was on your criticism of Lamela. I stand by that, I think that it is clear that Poch rates him and that he is an integral member of the squad.

I like Son. I have no issue with him or him starting games.
Click to expand...

The reason I took exception to your post was that you assumed Poch agreed with you on the Lamela /Son debate. The fact he started Son against Palace showed this not to be the case.

BTW, I do rate Lamela as well and think he has improved enormously during his time with us. I was just pointing out some of his remaining deficiencies as I see them. I think Son has come in and immediately demonstrated his attributes. Imagine for a moment if he improves after 2.5 seasons at the same rate Lamela has. Poch obviously rates Son highly too as he wouldn't have sanctioned a fee of £24m for him.

What I was saying is let's give Son a run in the side to see what he can do when he too "settles". That doesn't mean I "hate" Lamela.

Anyhow, let's draw a line and get this thread back on topic as Billy suggested.
 
Pirate55 said:
The reason I took exception to your post was that you assumed Poch agreed with you on the Lamela /Son debate. The fact he started Son against Palace showed this not to be the case.

BTW, I do rate Lamela as well and think he has improved enormously during his time with us. I was just pointing out some of his remaining deficiencies as I see them. I think Son has come in and immediately demonstrated his attributes. Imagine for a moment if he improves after 2.5 seasons at the same rate Lamela has. Poch obviously rates Son highly too as he wouldn't have sanctioned a fee of £24m for him.

What I was saying is let's give Son a run in the side to see what he can do when he too "settles". That doesn't mean I "hate" Lamela.

Anyhow, let's draw a line and get this thread back on topic as Billy suggested.
Click to expand...

I don't assume that Poch agrees with me on the Lamela/Son debate. I assume that he would not agree with some of the criticism that you were levelling at Lamela given that he has been a key player for us this season. I do not think that Son starting against Palace shows that this is wrong.
 
Back to the striker business I must say the quotes from Poch RE Osvaldo have perhaps made me think about this transfer window in a different way.

Here was someone that most of us would have probably been appeased by in a few windows as he's obviously capable, but to come in at that price and not produce due to character issues as well as being detrimental to general morale does show that it can be a risky business. Good to see our manager owning up to this as well.

I think I may be more disappointed if we don't sell Townsend than if we don't sign someone, I get that it's a game of chess with negotiations but whichever club buys him has lost a month of his services during a time they will have needed him.
 
milo said:
Son looks better on the right than left to me.
Click to expand...
Agreed.... I'm also not sure why Berahino is suddenly being labelled as a 'LWF'?... He is a CF that can also play as a 7, 10 or 11.

My own thoughts are that I see no need for us to move Lamela on, he has been a big part of our success so far this season and provides a different sort of number 7 option to Son.

If Berahino came in then he would come in to a place in the squad that we are not currently covering - that is the back up number 9 to Harry Kane. The fact that Berahino can also cover any of the 7, 10 or 11 spots is merely a bonus that adds to our attacking options depending on the opposition, game situation and form/fitness of our squad.

I think it is telling that in GB's post he shows our attacking midfield three with their cover as follows:

---Son--------Alli------Lamela
--(Chadli)--(Eriksen)--(Njie)

What that fails to show is the number 9 position in front of them where there is nobody to put in brackets underneath the name "Kane". That is the position that Berahino would come in and fill.

In terms of creating a space in our squad of 25 for Berahino. We would achieve that by moving Townsend on. We therefore lose an attacking midfield squad option (where we have decent cover) to add a backup striker (where we have no cover at all).
 
Finney Is Back said:
Agreed.... I'm also not sure why Berahino is suddenly being labelled as a 'LWF'?... He is a CF that can also play as a 7, 10 or 11.

My own thoughts are that I see no need for us to move Lamela on, he has been a big part of our success so far this season and provides a different sort of number 7 option to Son.

If Berahino came in then he would come in to a place in the squad that we are not currently covering - that is the back up number 9 to Harry Kane. The fact that Berahino can also cover any of the 7, 10 or 11 spots is merely a bonus that adds to our attacking options depending on the opposition, game situation and form/fitness of our squad.

I think it is telling that in GB's post he shows our attacking midfield three with their cover as follows:

---Son--------Alli------Lamela
--(Chadli)--(Eriksen)--(Njie)

What that fails to show is the number 9 position in front of them where there is nobody to put in brackets underneath the name "Kane". That is the position that Berahino would come in and fill.

In terms of creating a space in our squad of 25 for Berahino. We would achieve that by moving Townsend on. We therefore lose an attacking midfield squad option (where we have decent cover) to add a backup striker (where we have no cover at all).
Click to expand...

I've been assuming Dembele will be the Kane understudy at #9. The rumours are much stronger around him and he's also much more a like-for-like with Kane

In terms of the squad, we are actually still a bit bloated in AM. Excluding Townsend but including Onomah and Pritchard, we still have 8 players for 3 positions. Berahino would take that to 9, which is too many. We'd probably want to lose Chadli and/or Njie then to accommodate him, and I really don't think he's worth doing that for.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I've been assuming Dembele will be the Kane understudy at #9. The rumours are much stronger around him and he's also much more a like-for-like with Kane

In terms of the squad, we are actually still a bit bloated in AM. Excluding Townsend but including Onomah and Pritchard, we still have 8 players for 3 positions. Berahino would take that to 9, which is too many. We'd probably want to lose Chadli and/or Njie then to accommodate him, and I really don't think he's worth doing that for.
Click to expand...
Have you actually watched him play?
 
Gutter Boy said:
I've been assuming Dembele will be the Kane understudy at #9. The rumours are much stronger around him and he's also much more a like-for-like with Kane

In terms of the squad, we are actually still a bit bloated in AM. Excluding Townsend but including Onomah and Pritchard, we still have 8 players for 3 positions. Berahino would take that to 9, which is too many. We'd probably want to lose Chadli and/or Njie then to accommodate him, and I really don't think he's worth doing that for.
Click to expand...

We may want to play two up front at times so we would need at least 3 strikers capable of playing there.

We're also setting up a squad for anywhere between 50 and 70 games a season dependant on success. Don't forget they all play internationals too

We're seeing at the moment the benefits of the squad with the likes of son coming in and Chadli and no drop in quality. That's a serious boost when looking at our competitors who really are not seeing that
 
braineclipse said:
Not really a stretch to assume that Dembele is more of a like for like replacement for Kane when the comparison is Berahino is it?
Click to expand...

Depends on what it's being based on - I can't imagine many watch much of Fulham to give an in depth summary of how he plays.

Looking at various sites online he's a left footed forward who plays most of his football as part of a two in a side who don't dominate possession, can also play off the left or right - sounds familiar...
 
billyiddo said:
Depends on what it's being based on - I can't imagine many watch much of Fulham to give an in depth summary of how he plays.

Looking at various sites online he's a left footed forward who plays most of his football as part of a two in a side who don't dominate possession, can also play off the left or right - sounds familiar...
Click to expand...

Sounds familiar. But in terms of size and physical presence he seems a more natural replacement for Kane. Also seems quite capable with his back to goal and holding the ball up based on highlight clips I've seen. He plays in a two alongside McCormack? A smaller player again. If we're looking for a more complete centre forward type I think he sounds like a good talent for that role at the very least.

I just don't think Berahino is anywhere near a natural like for like replacement for Kane. Not saying that makes him a bad signing, but being a Kane backup/option seems to be a strong motivator for people wanting us to sign him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back