He could make all the difference. He's no speed merchant but he's got serious committment up top. He missed several good chances when he was with us on loan last season, but at least he had the desire to get on the end of them.
Desire is one thing and finding the back of the net quite another - as we're demonstrating at the moment. For me, Hugill would be missing as many as we do already. Yes, he might be a force in the dressing room but is there any suggestion that we need that at the moment? Everything seems to be in place other than the confidence to finish. If we are going to bring someone in, we don't need them to do anything other than score.
Respect your opinion but we wont know that until we get him (or someone else). Let's face it, we're not going to break the bank to bring in a proven match winner, so if we can afford his wages, then get him in before it 's too late to do anything. Unless of course Morison has got soemthing very special up his sleeve and is keeping very quiet about it.
Absolutely agree that we can't predict outcomes. Therefore, like everything else, it would be a gamble. And like everything else we talk about on here, we're only ever proved right or wrong after the event. So for the moment, opinions are all we have. I would love to know what SM really makes if it all.
You'd hope it was a no brainer for Hugill too if he's not going to play at Norwich. He appeared to enjoy and appreciate his time with us last year and I must admit, I'd be more than happy to have him back. He may not be as "dynamic" as some of our other forwards but he does put a shift in and would be excellent at bringing others into play around him. I could see O'Dowda, Ojo and Sawyers etc bouncing off him nicely. If he could then work with Watters and Harris a bit too to improve their games then all the better.
Afternoon Brizzle. Please forgive me sounding like a broken record. It seems I have a bit of a strong opinion on this one (which came as a shock to me). I think most of us have agreed that we'd have had even better outcomes had we taken the clear chances we created in our first five league games. With that in mind, we either wait for the guys to find their finishing prowess or we get someone in to score the goals. In my opinion that we don't need someone who is less in any part of their game or, even on a par with what we have. You're right that he is less dynamic and if you look at his record with us, hardly prolific either. It's just someone to score that we need Nothing else, just score. Hope you haven't suffered too much in the face of domestic bragging rights by the way
That's just the point though clingo - he doesn't need to be prolific, he just needs to be there and offer other options for the rest of the team. As you rightly suggest, there are goals in the current squad but it's just not happening. The prime mover must be to get those "expected goals" that the stats keep telling us are there out of the can and into the back of the net. Hugill (or similar) could be the catalyst for that because the way we're going, we could be having this same conversation after the window slams shut.
It's probably me being thick, but I don't see how anyone that is likely to miss as many as we already are missing, will be the catalyst for our current lads to start scoring.
Clingo - we have nobody strong enough to get into the box and give defenders a hard time. I'm not advocating going back to the "lump and rush" days, but Watters is weak, Etete doesn't appear to have that mindset, and Harris is quick but hardly throws his weight around. Without listing them, we now have forward thinking players at the club who need to be brought into the game by somone who can physically match defenders and hold the ball up. Hugill can do that whereas Ikpeazu last season had the size advantage but couldn't link the play. The personnel and gameplan have changed but you still need a strong presence in the oppposition box and we don't possess that.
Watters has had 2 decent chances in his 5 truncated starts this season. Harris has had 1 as has Etete. The problem arguably stems from, save the Birmingham game, the lack of chances being created which has been the problem post Tomlin. It was thought the new system had cured this problem but seemingly not. Sawyers as the supposed creative player has been a disappointment. City still have Ralls. Give them more chances and on the balance of probabilities more of those chances will be taken. Plus our previous seasons reliance on scoring from set pieces has now evaporated.
Can't think of anything new to say to argue my opinion and while as you know I hold differing, well thought out thoughts in high regard, I'm afraid I've read nothing to sway me on the Hugill debate. I'm quite proud of myself for being so entrenched for once. But my entrenchment is born of real belief. Nice to swim against the tide now and again. I enjoyed the debate
I’m not swayed either way on Hugill but on balance if it’s all SM can find then so be it. I’m still hopeful he can find someone though. BTW it would be boring if we all agreed on everything
Rumour that a player we targetted in January, striker Cameron Archer, will be allowed out on loan from Villa.
At PNE last season - 7 in 20 and there’s paper talk he’s rumoured not to go back there due to a loan fee https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/archer-pne-aston-villa-transfer-24820144
That's how to finish!......... https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...2-bournemouth-3-5-pens-carabao-cup-highlights
