Kirchhoff had only played 24 games since 2013, when he signed for us. If somebody had produced his stats, he wouldn't have been my first choice. He turned out to be our best signing. I'm not going to start doubting Sam, now. I've got full confidence in him, especially given the fact he has already worked with him before.
Fair point, but Kirchy had also been training under Guardiola and also with Bayern players... Was touted as a massive wonderkid in his younger days, hence Bayern signing him... He was a bit of an unknown entity Sakho, its been shown what he can do in the PL and I personally believe for the money we are putting up we could do better
I do get your concerns, mate. My main concern is his off field problems, he left the team hotel, one game, last season, just because he wasn't in the starting XI. That's why I'm putting my trust in Sam with this one, he knows what we need and he's done fine so far with his signings. He's obviously looking for a big strong forward, which he normally goes with, and Ayew doesn't fit that description. Ayew is the better player, probably, but not what we are looking for.
11 goals from 24 should mean about 16/20 from 38, yes very nice return that and we do need another striker badly.
I'd tell them to do one personally. Injury record a concern. Attitude a concern. And he's just plain not very good. His record in the Prem last season was awful, the season before that not bad in terms of pure stats but if you look at the goals they were all tap-ins from 3 yards, put on a plate for him. £11m? You're having a ****ing laugh. I'd be disappointed if we continue to pursue this one.
the goals they were all tap-ins Bloody hell man graham,altidor and others could not even get any tap ins
If that's the barometer we're gonna judge our future signings by we may as well give up now... Defoe is a much better player imo and he cost us nowhere near £11m.
obviously why they think we're taking the piss, with him obliged to be starting 30 games a season for the full whack.
i think he did that for several reasons, but our defence was too ****/ill-disciplined to cope. i'd be concerned if he uses just the 1 up top, for every game. wacko sakho doesn't get me excited, but we'll see.
Why? Like I said, hardly anyone plays 2 up front anymore. The teams that played 442 this season gone were bucking the trend and even they didn't do it every game. I'd be more concerned if he didn't play only 1 up because it would leave us mismatched in midfield and defence against most other teams, should the recent trends in formation continue.
why what? Read my post. i said 1 up top every game. why can't we go two up top in games? are you suggesting we stick to 1 up top in every game because of some broad trend - despite this trend being 'bucked' to success in other leagues.
Yes I am. Its not a 'broad trend' its what the majority of the league play and doing anything else islikely to leave us undermanned elsewhere on the pitch. Perhaps changing to two up top during a game might be feasible depending on how the other team line up but the days of 442 appear to be gone. Leicester used it to success but they played a very different game to everyone else in the league. They sucked teams onto them and hit them fast on the break. As they began to be sussed out later in the season, and especially when Vardy was suspended, even they reverted to one up front. It is possible that their success might reinvigorate a vogue for 442 but, as their success was a flash in the pan, I'd suggest that it was more likely that that the 4141/451/433 that the majority of the league have been playing for the last few years will continue to be the norm and so not matching up against them will be a disadvantage.
It is a broad trend then, as it is not applied by everyone, including the team which won the league. 2 up top is adopted at home and abroad by other teams, inc some quite succesful ones such as Juve and Atletico. so why can't we use it, from time to time, if we have the right personnel? If Leicester used amix of 1 and 2 up top theough the season, why can't we? i'm not expecting us to win the league, but different tactics against different sides seems sensible... in trying to get results. Anyway, "Perhaps changing the team to two up top during a game may be feasible depending on how the orher team line up" contradicts your point of adamantly sticking to 1 up top, does it not?
So, in summary: You are saying you would be worried if, in some games, we didn't emulate two teams who are infinitely better than us and one team who (albeit successfully) took a huge tactical risk and sprang a surprise on the rest of the league. Whereas, I am saying that I would be worried if we didn't set up in what is the most tactically sensible and safest option given how the majority of the rest of the league plays. As for your other point, at no point did I say that we couldn't be tactically flexible during a game.
