Transfer Rumours Summer 2024 transfer thread

I stand corrected! My apologies

 

We caught fire too late. That period around Stoke and Birmingham was killer but from Cardiff onwards we looked a different team

 

Was highly rated when he first went to Roma but can't remember him pulling up any trees. Westerloo paid £3m for him so you'd imagine they'd want to recoup that and I'm not sure we can afford £7m on fullbacks alone

 

But we do need another right-back to compete with Coyle and nobody in the academy is ready to step up. Nixon’s barely played for Donny in the second half of the season. We need a new right-back as well as left-back (I’m assuming Giles is signing permanently). Not to mention other positions like three new strikers at least, a defensive midfielder and another box-to-box midfielder. It’s a massive rebuild and one of the negatives of having so many key loan players.

 

Can see us going for Drameh again. He'll be available for free/minimal compensation and is experienced at this level. Same agent as Carvalho and Tan mentioned in an interview that hopefully we'll complete another deal we him that we didn't quite pull off last time.

 

yes please

 

3 million euros

 

€3.5m, so £2.99m if we're being pedantic

 

Must have been the other 3 wot faded, not Frankie ?

 

Yes, compared to the other teams around us. That was implied in what I said? Why would he be disappointed if we played the best of the other teams in the run in? It shows that it's tough to maintain good form but we timed our run almost perfectly, and just missed out.

 

I think the biggest factor in Acun's mind (and my own) is the catalyst of that late run. Our performances improved after a poor Easter weekend which is when some of the players instigated this 'supposed' talk with Tan mediating. Acun probably viewed that catalyst for improved performances as too little, too late. He probably questioned why we weren't playing that way more often previously and questioned if that upturn would have happened if there wasn't that catalyst for it, ie; whether or not the improvement was by design, or due to what you could argue was player frustration starting to ramp up. The form before that run was essentially what cost us a playoff place and it happened intermittently throughout the season. We had too many games with large possession stats and little chance creation.

I agree form is hard to maintain but I don't think we did ourselves any favours either. We'd dropped to 10th, albeit in a tight table and when we gambled more in attack we saw improved performances, albeit again, with the more difficult run of games (by then) to try and play catch up. I think the performance in the Plymouth game sums up our season quite accurately. Didn't quite do what we needed to when it mattered.

For the record I was surprised to see Rosenior go. I think if he learned from that late season run of performances then someone else will benefit from it - however the Plymouth game for me shows that we were still too willing to drop back into being too safe. I've got the impression over the season that the team have had it drilled into them that sticking to the plan (possession and casual build up) will get us the results we need, but I don't think we got the balance quite right in too many games.

 

Plymouth wasn't 'safe' we had nothing to protect, we just tightened up on the day. It happens. Plymouth had a lot to play for too, they weren't just going to roll over for us.

 

However the shortcomings are to be described, they were unfortunately shortcomings. We had too many games like that this season.

I don't think any professional outfit in any league would roll over for anyone.

 

Huddersfield did. Plenty of teams do when they have nothing to play for.

 

I can't imagine for one minute that Huddersfield 'rolled over' for anyone when players earn bonuses etc for wins and goals scored, clean sheets etc. I didn't see their line ups towards the end of the season, but if their manager decided to rotate or try youth out then that's fair enough, might as well give them some game time, but I still can't imagine they'd 'roll over' for anyone. They'd want to win.

The overarching point I'm making is we had too many games this season where we underperformed by creating too little.

 

Their manager gave up, criticised half the squad, and then bailed on the club days after their relegation. They rolled over.

We did, but the point I was making was that we were the form team heading into the play offs if we had made it, and the slip up to Plymouth did not reflect us returning to a 'safe' style of play but rather coming up against a team with a lot on the line and our young squad not playing well on the day with the pressure hanging on the game. Add to that WBA were winning comfortably meaning we had no chance of catching them, there were plenty of factors at play in that game. Some want to read more into it than others, including our owner, and that's his prerogative. The fact is we had a (deliberately) young squad, and with youth comes inexperience and inconsistency of performance, which as you say we experienced throughout the season. I don't for one minute think Rosenior deliberately told the players "Go out and play brilliantly away at Southampton, but make sure you pass it around and do nothing at home against Stoke". I think what's far more likely is that the players on any given day, and particularly at home in front of an expectant crowd, had off days where the plan didn't work, or came up against teams that disrupted their rhythm and frustrated them. Over time we were seeing progress with both the mentality of the players and experience in different situations. Plymouth not going in our favour doesn't dismiss all that came before it. Or I suppose it did.

 

I don't disagree with any of that to be fair. The only part of that where I think there's a difference is those days it didn't come off. I think it's a combination of the inexperience you mention and the fact everyone has bad days at the office etc, and I also think a large part of it is the play style has its flaws, to the point that I don't think it's as effective as some people make out that it is. For me it's a combo of players not being brave enough too frequently (to pick that pass, or make that run etc) and a playing style/mentality that too frequently stifled the attacking options we had available.

 

I saw players making runs along the oppositions line of defence only to see us pass the ball sideways or backwards. I agree that the players either weren't brave enough or the mantra was not to take any risks of losing the ball. I think it leaves you wide open against a team that chases the ball down and that showed in our results against teams lower down the league. Basically i don't think we were good enough as a team to try and pass our way around the pitch. You have to take risks. But then you do need( in my opinion) some players who can win the ball back. I think we lacked that sort of a player