Transfer Rumours Summer '22 Transfer Thread

[Shark Sports]

Under Bruce we turned the previously maligned McShane into a reliable option, we had a rotating list of keepers with Amos, Jak and Stockdale between the sticks, we had the skeptical signing of his son coming in at CB, and battlers like Evans, Hobbs, Rosenior, Meyler, and Dudgeon who all played significant roles. All players who improved and proved that they could step up to compete for automatic promotion and then a number of whom played a role in the PL.

But Dudgeon and Rosenior were in a completely different league to Elder and Coyle.

Even when Evans, Hobbs, Rosenior and Meyler all left, they all went to Championship clubs, Elder and Coyle will be heading back to L1 so I don't really see your point.

I'd take Evans, Hobbs, Rosenior, Meyler and Dudgeon in a heartbeat, they'd improve us immensely.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

But Dudgeon and Rosenior were in a completely different league to Elder and Coyle.

Even when Evans, Hobbs, Rosenior and Meyler all left, they all went to Championship clubs, Elder and Coyle will be heading back to L1 so I don't really see your point.

I'd take Evans, Hobbs, Rosenior, Meyler and Dudgeon in a heartbeat, they'd improve us immensely.

My point is that players that at the time were perceived as 'not good enough' proved that they were good enough to play a part in a promotion squad. You made the point that all the players in that squad were reliable, and I'm suggesting that the players we have now that we have re-signed are also reliable. Elder proved himself more than reliable over the course of the season, as did the other players re-signed.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Ridiculous notion. We aren't a Liverpool or Man City that can have 16-20 first choice players in the squad.

It's not a ridiculous notion at all, nobody's suggesting we need two first choice players for every position, just that ideally we'd have a first and second choice player for each position (rather than a first choice and then someone who's not really good enough).

This might be an academic discussion anyway, there's a couple of players we've just triggered options on, that might well be gone if we get offered a few quid for them.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

It's not a ridiculous notion at all, nobody's suggesting we need two first choice players for every position, just that ideally we'd have a first and second choice player for each position (rather than a first choice and then someone who's not really good enough).

This might be an academic discussion anyway, there's a couple of players we've just triggered options on, that might well be gone if we get offered a few quid for them.

That's literally what Shark was saying. That if a player isn't good enough to be first choice they shouldn't be in the squad.

 

[originallambrettaman]

That's literally what Shark was saying. That if a player isn't good enough to be first choice they shouldn't be in the squad.

He didn't say 'good enough to be first choice', he said 'good enough to play every week'. At some point, all our first choice players are likely to be out for one reason or another and the player replacing them doesn't necessarily need to be as good as the player he's replacing, but he does need to be good enough to perform at the level we're playing at.

 

[Shark Sports]

My point is that players that at the time were perceived as 'not good enough' proved that they were good enough to play a part in a promotion squad. You made the point that all the players in that squad were reliable, and I'm suggesting that the players we have now that we have re-signed are also reliable. Elder proved himself more than reliable over the course of the season, as did the other players re-signed.

Whoever said that Rosenior, Meyler and Dudgeon weren't good enough?

That's literally what Shark was saying. That if a player isn't good enough to be first choice they shouldn't be in the squad.

No I didn't. I said if someone ain't good enough to play every week, then they shouldn't be at this club.

When we signed Elmo, Rosenior struggled for game-time but I had zero problem if we played him every week. It's just about having a back up that's good enough. And you don't need a back up for every position. But you do need a squad that has some versatile players in it

 

[SydneyTiger14]

He didn't say 'good enough to be first choice', he said 'good enough to play every week'. At some point, all our first choice players are likely to be out for one reason or another and the player replacing them doesn't necessarily need to be as good as the player he's replacing, but he does need to be good enough to perform at the level we're playing at.

Haha might be splitting hairs here on what 'playing every week' means if not 'first choice'.

 

[Shark Sports]

Haha might be splitting hairs here on what 'playing every week' means if not 'first choice'.

I've just posted the same thing as OLM without noticing so it wasn't really splitting hairs.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Whoever said that Rosenior, Meyler and Dudgeon weren't good enough?



No I didn't. I said if someone ain't good enough to play every week, then they shouldn't be at this club.

When we signed Elmo, Rosenior struggled for game-time but I had zero problem if we played him every week. It's just about having a back up that's good enough. And you don't need a back up for every position. But you do need a squad that has some versatile players in it

This is all a bit of a silly semantics exercise, the point, as PLT made it, is that the players we have re-signed have had solid seasons and have given no indication of not being good enough to step up and provide serviceable squad options as we improve.

 

[Kalman]

Triggering the option on Elder and Emmanuel gives us two right-back and two left-back options before the transfer window opens, which gives us a bit of assurance.

Jake Leake and Matty Jacob could do with a season-long loan to a League 1 or 2 team. I like them both and who knows, one or both of them could be pushing into the first team in the not-so-distant future.

 

[Shark Sports]

This is all a bit of a silly semantics exercise, the point, as PLT made it, is that the players we have re-signed have had solid seasons and have given no indication of not being good enough to step up and provide serviceable squad options as we improve.

There also needs to be some realism.

Without points deductions, I think we'd have finished 3 points above the bottom 3. We gained results largely by playing extremely defensively with a back 5 and 2 holding midfielders.

We're a bottom 4 side right now and there's a lot of work that needs doing to get us anywhere close to top 6 challengers

 

[SydneyTiger14]

There also needs to be some realism.

Without points deductions, I think we'd have finished 3 points above the bottom 3. We gained results largely by playing extremely defensively with a back 5 and 2 holding midfielders.

We're a bottom 4 side right now and there's a lot of work that needs doing to get us anywhere close to top 6 challengers

We're a bottom 4 side because of the lack of goals scored. Our defence was top half if not top 6 quality. Only Stoke conceded less in the bottom half, and Luton, QPR and Coventry all conceded more in the top half.

 

[Shark Sports]

We're a bottom 4 side because of the lack of goals scored. Our defence was top half if not top 6 quality. Only Stoke conceded less in the bottom half, and Luton, QPR and Coventry all conceded more in the top half.

If you think the defence isn't also an issue you're wrong. We were probably the most defensive team in the league and under Shota, we pretty much just parked the bus and hoped we'd nick a goal.

The reason we struggled so much at home is because we got more of the ball, opened up and were picked off because we aren't very good.

If you're having to play a back 5 along with 2 holding midfielders to get points, you aren't good defensively. There's a very good reason why we did that.

I'm not saying the defence hasn't improved but they've all got mistakes in them. If we want to play a back 4, we need a top CB to play alongside Greaves and a decent RB too.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

If you think the defence isn't also an issue you're wrong. We were probably the most defensive team in the league and under Shota, we pretty much just parked the bus and hoped we'd nick a goal.

The reason we struggled so much at home is because we got more of the ball, opened up and were picked off because we aren't very good.

If you're having to play a back 5 along with 2 holding midfielders to get points, you aren't good defensively. There's a very good reason why we did that.

I'm not saying the defence hasn't improved but they've all got mistakes in them. If we want to play a back 4, we need a top CB to play alongside Greaves and a decent RB too.

So you're saying we played defensively.. and were successful? Suggesting that our defenders.. played well? Both keepers were huge assets and there's a reason Preston and Luton are after Ingram. PL clubs are after Greaves. Our defence had a good season. I'm not wrong.

 

[Shark Sports]

So you're saying we played defensively.. and were successful? Suggesting that our defenders.. played well? Both keepers were huge assets and there's a reason Preston and Luton are after Ingram. PL clubs are after Greaves. Our defence had a good season. I'm not wrong.

We were successful in that we survived but that's not the aim for next season and we had to sacrifice forward/s for defensively solidity.

We're a lot better defensively than we are offensively but that's not saying much. KLP is wanted by West Ham, but that doesn't mean our attack had a good season so I don't really get your point.

If you have a good defence which you trust, you play a back 4 or 3. You certainly don't play a back 5 with 2 deep midfielders. By playing that formation, we completely killed our attack but Shota did that knowing the attack isn't particularly good. I guarantee you that if we signed Pesic, we wouldn't have played that formation.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

We were successful in that we survived but that's not the aim for next season and we had to sacrifice forward/s for defensively solidity.

We're a lot better defensively than we are offensively but that's not saying much. KLP is wanted by West Ham, but that doesn't mean our attack had a good season so I don't really get your point.

If you have a good defence which you trust, you play a back 4 or 3. You certainly don't play a back 5 with 2 deep midfielders. By playing that formation, we completely killed our attack but Shota did that knowing the attack isn't particularly good. I guarantee you that if we signed Pesic, we wouldn't have played that formation.

People keep suggesting we played a back 5 for the majority of the season, seemingly conveniently forgetting the large portion of games with KLP and Longman operating as wing backs, as if we were playing some ultra-defensive back 5.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Jake Leake and Matty Jacob could do with a season-long loan to a League 1 or 2 team. I like them both and who knows, one or both of them could be pushing into the first team in the not-so-distant future.

I know one game's not much to go on, but I really liked the look of Jacob.

I also just found out he's the grandson of ex-Tiger Geoff Barker.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Acun confirms that Traore is almost done and thinks there's actually four deals that are close.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Ally, Traore, Tetteh and Fernando?

 

[Real ale tiger]

The team that finished the season was a better team than the one that started it. Players gained experienced and honeyman overcame his injury problems. Also there were additions such as Allahyar Sayyadmanesh and fleming.
My point is we aren't a bottom 4 side any more.