He’s a more attacking central midfielder in his preferred position and role. He’s played every defensive role and every midfield one at Arsenal. I think his best position is probably CM as a box to box midfielder but he could play as a 10 in our 4-2-2-2. He was the utility player at Arsenal and got used all over the pitch. I think his insistence on playing in a set spot is perfectly valid. It was only when JWP found a regular role and position that he really started to develop. It’s hard to develop consistency if you get shuffled from CM to full back to wings etc. and keep having to adjust your game. He just wants to be the best player he can be and needs regular minutes and a regular role to do that. I think it’s probably unlikely that we go for him though. Arsenal are probably desperate to find a buyer as he’s never going to break through to be a regular there and they can’t keep sending him out on loans. I don’t think it’s really that churlish for him to refuse being the Break Glass in Case of Emergencies player at Arsenal, or anywhere really. I don’t believe in this idea that players have no agency and should do what they’re told without argument. We all apply for jobs we’re prepared to take on and why shouldn’t they have a preferred position, responsibility and role? AMN is a player I’ve wanted us to get for ages. He’s a good athlete and his positional versatility shows that he’s intelligent and coachable. He can do a bit of everything. I’d still prefer Garner though.
Ampadu would now.make all kinds of sense. He'd play almost every game either at CB or CM and would give the squad so much more depth. Fits our transfer strategy to a tee and would bring leadership qualities too. Make it happen
But positional versatility is useless if you aren't prepared to make the most of that to...actually play. They can't keep sending him out on loans partly because he appears to refuse a large chunk of them. So he picked West Brom (12 games) and Roma (8 games). In both cases they were in the second half of the season only. Having sat on the bench at Arsenal for the first half of each. How did he not manage to secure full season loans? He is of course welcome to apply for a job at a preferred role. But it hasn't worked out to well so far. Because he hasn't actually earned the right to be making such a demand. Coming through at Arsenal doesn't mean you automatically qualify for a starting central midfield role at any club the rung below Arsenal. He might well end up being good enough. But he is demanding too much given he is not negotiating from as strong a position as he seems to think he is. But that said, there are apparently 6 or so clubs interested. But whether that is for his preferred role is not yet clear. And no one was saying he shouldn't have agency and do what he is told without argument. But one of his selling points, whether he likes it or not, is his versatility. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up picking a club that will install him (once again) as back up central midfielder. For example I have seen West Ham linked. And I'm not even sure he gets into Everton's first choice central midfield. Or even ours for that matter. Although there is some appeal to maybe having him as the right sided ten who can drop into a right wing back when our right back bombs forward As you say - I'd prefer Garner. Especially if we are talking about a Romeu replacement. If it is a Diallo replacement then it makes a bit more sense
Almost every game at CB or CM. I assume you mean for us? Do you think so? I'm not sure he gets ahead of ABK, Salisu, Lavia and JWP in his positions. If we stick with the 3 at the back them maybe. But hopefully we have abandoned that. Would be a good squad player though. But I doubt he wants that
All I'm asking is please god don't let us sell Romeu, miss out on Garner and end up with Winks at 11pm on the final day.
Fantastic business. Sorts out our lack of depth at full back with minimal risk. Also, there is potentially a good player there so we can always buy him if he impresses.
AMN is a decent player. Not sure why people are against it Decent as full back cover and good midfielder. Would be a smart move from us I reckon.
I'm against it if this is the "replacement" for Romeu because I think we will be back to being short in the properly defensive midfield position. If someone like Garner is coming in as well (with perhaps both Diallo and Romeu leaving) or Romeu is not leaving then I have less of an issue And a loan with an option is good because he hasn't really demonstrated he'd be worth a significant outlay yet. He is younger than I thought he was as well From reading the comments from the Athletic it sounds like we are now mainly playing a 4-3-3 with (as Ralph puts it) a "lonely 6", two 8s, two wingers/10s and a central striker. And apparently the "10s" move between being wide and narrow (latter being a little like how they would be in a 4-2-2-2) and also interchange with the 10s. He sounds like he would really fit one of those 8s but not the "lonely 6". I'd also suggest that we arguably only have the one player to play in that 6 right now - even with Romeu. But Romeu can function with another 6 next to him (usually JWP). Perhaps the idea is that someone like Garner can play in this number 6 role and also the number 8. There was a McTominay link the other day (I assume wages would be far too high for that). But he could probably do that as well. Winks - could not. Incidentally - I'm not sure what to make of Adam Armstrong being the left winger in this 4-3-3 style system. I can't help but feel if we don't think he will cut it as a striker then we need to get someone in for whom that is their main position. But by all accounts he hasn't disgraced himself there
Completely different player to Romeu so I don't see this as his replacement. It would be a bad move if that were the case but I am confident this is our full back cover as he can play at both LB and RB.
From the absences in the League Cup squad and the rumours going around online it looks like we are potentially moving on: - McCarthy - Stephens - Bednarek - Romeu (presumably reluctantly) - Redmond - Walcott And I don't think we'd say no to a reasonable Diallo offer either. As to how many incomings that may mean - who knows. I'd like to think if all of those listed go then we bring in a CB, CM and a 10. As well as the already discussed striker. I personally wouldn't count AMN against either of those gaps because he doesn't really replace any of them in terms of position (apart from Diallo) There clearly are a bunch of CM links and a CB has been discussed a lot. It is the attacking positions where things are rather quiet If all of those above do move on (even if only on loan in some cases) then that really will be a substantial squad revamp. I don't expect them all to. I don't see us having much luck with McCarthy for example. Those Man United rumours always seemed to good to be true
We’re not getting rid, he wants to go home, and it would be a bit remiss if we didn’t allow him to, with all he’s done.
He has been offered a three year contract back in his home country (I think reasonably close to his home area). He has one year left on his contract here and we are unlikely to be wanting to extend it on his current terms - especially not for two more years He seems prepared to take a pay cut to go home but not to stay here. Which is fair enough. He'd be going to a lower intensity league. It is perfectly reasonable for him to command a "premier league" rate to stay here. I also think we are trying to change the way we play that requires more pace in his position
I don't see it either - which is why I was suggesting that if he was that would be a scenario where I would be "against it". I doubt he is solely our full back cover because as often mentioned - he wants to play CM. But I'd like to think he would be happy playing/covering there until (at least) Perraud got fit
Makes sense to me, particularly as we’re so short of FB cover. One of those James Milner utility players. Has some quality too. As a loan it makes perfect sense.
It's supposed to be a loan with an option to buy (because Arsenal can extend his deal by one year next summer - so he will have one left). With that in mind I wonder what the option would be set at? I noticed the Arsenal fans on twitter are saying exactly the same things about this as Saints fans are saying about the chance of a Bednarek loan (basically - why a loan and not permanent?). I think they are annoyed because they have to loan out most of the players they don't want (like Pepe). That is because they give them absurd contracts for one. I'm already trying to picture the trouble they will have shifting Nketiah (who rather than let go they gave a 100k a week contract to - and Henry's shirt number) So it isn't just us! Also - I've seen a few comments grumbling about a Bednarek loan to Villa on the grounds that they are relegation rivals. I know the look a shambles under Gerrard but I just don't see it with all their investment and the quality that is actually there. Even if a manager change is required. I understand complaining about it not being a permanent and not getting a large fee. But that seemed optimistic as both linked clubs mainly just need someone in due to injuries (and likely watch what Leicester did when trying to cover injuries and learnt a lesson)
Lavia is our defensive midfielder. And I imagine he is vastly more mobile than Romeu (I haven't watched him closely)
