Interesting explanation of the role Sørensen will play in the coming season. https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/canaries-jacob-lungi-sorensen-transfer-reflections-1-6812361 It seems that DF wants him to play as a holding midfielder who can use his CM skills as a pivot to move the ball up the field creatively. That puts him in direct competition with Oliver Skipp, who says about what DF wants: “The boss here is big on the number six playing out and trying to get our attacking players on the ball; to feed them in between the lines. In this team, you get a lot of the ball. At the Spurs academy they drill that into you so I believe I can help. I haven’t played the games I wanted to in previous seasons and I need to kick on.” https://www.spurs-web.com/spurs-new...e-one-thing-he-was-unhappy-with-at-tottenham/
You don’t like either kit so far then Dunc? I’d say it’s teal rather than blue. We have had a variety of blue away shirts before so I’m not sure what the hate this one is getting is for. I don’t get the Heroes link though, there is no sign of any rainbow, closest I can think is that it slightly resembles scrubs? overall I like it but not enough to buy it and the marketing campaign has confused me.
"Petrol" is the colour according to the branding people...perhaps that's because it's what it makes you want to reach for. In isolation it's not an offensive shirt, although blue will always be contentious. I can't imagine Ipswich having a yellow away shirt. But I think the marketing pre-reveal is what ruined it, it's nothing like it was built up to be. The rainbow and heroes angle is entirely tacked on marketing. It's a shame as I think our fanbase would have bought into a rainbow kit. The NHS rainbow, the appreciation the Fashanu tributes in the Barclay have had, I think there would have been buy-in. The home shirt is "safe" from a fan opinion perspective, nobody who wants an NCFC shirt is really going to find the design is the reason they don't, so they could have got away with a more wacky away kit. We barely wear it, and it might have appealed to fans who don't normally buy shirts, as well as "shirt collector" types.
If the plan is to play both, with Skipp replacing Tettey, I'm all for it. A double pivot is fine if both know how to operate it. If Sørensen isn't quite ready for that yet, I expect we'll see Tettey and Skipp, with Skipp tasked with moving the ball forward.
Realistically, I think both Sørensen and Skipp will be given more time to adjust to a new team and the method of play. It could be that either plays alongside Tettey, but my guess would be that initially it'll be Tettey and McLean with either Sørensen or Skipp coming on as a sub until their adjustment is deemed complete. DF usually does these things gradually. Also, given that Vrančić and Rupp are other options, a double pivot all of the time seems unlikely.
I anticipate that DF will want to get as many games out of Tettey as his knees will take and will want to play Skipp alongside him. I cannot imagine that Spurs let us have Skipp without some stipulation on game time. I also suspect that he will play Pukki alongside Hugill which will leave a lot of work for the 2 in the middle and the FB's going forward.
Hugill mentioned in one of his interviews that, while on loan at QPR last season, Warburton had occasionally paired him and Nahki Wells up front. His comment was that it had created difficulties defensively for those behind them! He made it sound as if QPR were like us, only more so: "Only Brentford and Leeds scored more goals, and only Luton conceded more"!
The only slight difference is that I suspect that Pukki will be more prepared to race back and help out when needed than Wells was but we will have to see.
I'm not convinced we would sign someone on loan with a guarantee of game time. I don't think DF works that way.
Guaranteed or not, Skipp himself has stressed that his insistence on going out on loan (Spurs wanted him to stay) was to ensure he got more game time. I hope we aren't going to end up with yet another disgruntled loanee cutting short his loan
I accept what you say but the stipulation might be that the loan is automatically ended if he doesn't play sufficient minutes. Skipp spent most of last season sitting on a Premiership bench and his development is not going to be helped by a season sitting on a Championship bench.
It was the “one looks like Ipswich home shirt and the other is just nasty” line, I though you were referring to the home shirt as just nasty!
DF is not renowned for shuffling his pack. Cup matches apart, the incumbent usually retains the shirt until events (a run of poor performances, or injury) force a change. Such changes as he does make tend to be in the front line and dependent on the particular opposition (e.g. Hernandez for Cantwell or Buendia). Two seasons ago, Leitner played every game until injured. He was then forced to sit out the rest of the season, even when recovered, because McLean was the man in possession. I can only remember one occasion in the three seasons DF has been in charge when a change has been explained as being down to a player "forcing his way into the team" by performing in training (I think the player on that occasion was Cantwell). Nor do substitutes accumulate much game time under DF (except when due to injury); I doubt if Skipp, for example, would consider a couple of minutes at the end of matches as quite what he was looking for. Maybe things are going to be different this season; it'll be interesting to see.