And here's Eriksen himself denying the Standard's report that he is unhappy at playing on the wing: http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/s...but_i_m_happy_with_my_role_at_spurs_1_4382668
Highly unlikely he'd settle for a bench role (even though he's 34 now) but Vidic has just had his Inter contract mutually terminated, although he's a fraction of the beast he was at Utd, you can't put a price on experience and having someone like that around the squad near the business end of the season would be incredible.
Conflicting reports also say Townsend is nearing a move to the Geordies while others are saying they're baulking at the asking price, supposedly £14m. If we could get anything of £10m upwards I'd take it, a shame to see him go as I like seeing our own in the team/ squad but he's clearly well out of the plans now and so cashing in on him would make sense.
I hope so too. He's probably the only fringe player we stand to make anything resembling decent money on, so selling him in January to a team desperate to avoid relegation seems like a good idea to inflate his price. I've also heard a few rumours on the bulls*** vine that Levy's put us in the usual 'sell to buy' modus operandi and that shipping Townsend and preferably Fazio too for a total of around £15m+ will free up funds to then pursue NEW STRIKER. It makes sense, if I'm honest. Fits with Levy's approach and Poch's insistence that he won't be panic buying a stop-gap player, instead preferring to bring the 'right' type of player who can be an asset to the club for years to come - a sentiment that will be quite costly.
Saha contributed very little IMO I don't think we would have noticed if we had not signed him. Gudjohnsen was a high class player who contributed much more. He also provided me with one of my favourite moments when he scored the winner against Pullis's very nasty Stoke. IMO we should not be buying 'back up' players at all. Yes it might be good to buy a Gudjohnsen or Davids as a mentor for the young team but not a young player unless he has the potential to become a first teamer. I picked Bent to highlight my point precisely because IMO he did disrupt teams in that his overall contribution was minimal. I argued that his presence cost us goals despite his ability to knee them in. He was back up.
But still, surely there's a glaring difference in that every example you've used has been cited from seasons where we already had multiple strikers at the club? In Bent's case, we had 3 superb strikers already here, all of whom fit the style of play 100 times better than he did, so yes - his arrival was bizarre on so many levels. Gudjohnsen played when we had Pav, Crouch, Defoe and I think even Keane IIRC. Similar to Saha but to a lesser extent in that we played a 1 up top system and had Adebayor and Defoe. The situation now is totally different in that we find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having played half a season with one recognised striker. The PL is unique in that league positions can and do rest on a knife's edge. Look at Watford - trumpeted as potential candidates for the European spots and now a bad few weeks has seen them plummet down the table. Your point about Eidur's one and only goal for Spurs only proves my point (it was Krancjar who scored the winner that day). We finished 4th that year by 3 points. There's your knife's edge. Perhaps it was worth bringing in Eidur Gudjohnsen and paying him what were probably extortionate wages just for that one contribution of note that just may have sent us on our way to a rare victory at the Britannia, which in turn gave us 3 points that would ultimately prove so vital in the race for the top 4. It's counter-factual I know and I'm merely speculating. But my point is that if we finish this season 2 points off of 4th because in one stupid game Harry went off with a strain and we couldn't turn a draw into a win because Chadli replaced him up top instead of competent 'back up', I may spontaneously combust.
Chadli on form is a decent goal scorer but like many players he needs time to come back from injury. Another striker would be good I'm not denying it but I would be quite relaxed if we didn't get one this window because the team has plenty of goalscorers within it and we have managed when Kane has not been scoring. We are not totally reliant on Kane IMO as this is very much a team with goals coming from many sources. The New Striker scenario has become a regular feature of this board, perhaps I have become a little complacent, we will see what happens.
I hope this is just a negotiating stance and we are actively looking for at least a Striker to help Kane
Presumably we're looking for at least one striker, but we don't want to look desperate. I expect us to sign one of our youth targets (Dembele II, Lookman, someone random) and then go after someone else from a stronger position. Fulham's inability to bring anyone in on a permanent deal might help on this front. Let's say that we still want to buy Berahino. Levy goes to Fulham, offers to give them some money for Dembele, which they won't get if he goes abroad. Tells them that we'll also loan them a couple of youth players (Winks, Pritchard?) and possibly even Dembele back, if we bring in who we want. The go to West Brom and offer them something reasonable, while still keeping tabs on other strikers. That or we'll spend deadline day randomly chucking out bids to every team in the world.
It's that last paragraph that is of grave concern to me. That must be the fourth or fifth time he's used that line of argument since last July so unless it's one massive bluff to throw teams off our scent, I'm starting to take it at serious face value. The sting is at the end..."if we are to improve then we need to add the right player; if we can't find the right player we won't buy anyone." This holds true as long as we assume that Kane remains fully fit and fatigue-free for the rest of the season. If he gets injured, 'improving' a Kane-less team suddenly becomes a whole lot easier as Son, Njie and Chadli are pretty ineffective up top unlike perhaps what many posters on here are saying. I just don't get the narrowness of his argument. It's like encountering a guy lost in the desert who has a supply of orange juice so he won't take any water from you because that doesn't 'improve' his beverage experience. Surely that traveller will take into account the likely possibility that he'll run out of orange juice before he reaches civilisation and that, at such a juncture, warm water will suddenly appear a whole lot better than dying of thirst? Is it just me?!
I do agree with Poch's sentiment that we need to sign a player who will fit in our team rather than just adding bodies to the squad for the sake of adding them, after all that approach is the reason we ended up with Fazio - but there comes a point where, if that player isn't available in the January window, we need to consider a stop gap to carry the squad through the remainder of the season. And, no, Shayon Harrison or Kaziah Sterling are not a stop gap.
Rumours of a bid for Jackson Martinez but I can't see the club spending that much on a player who is 30 later this year. After the soldado debacle I can't see the club spending that much money again on a player who would have a huge drop in resale value if they turned out to be another flop.
Axel Witsel's name has come up again, but naturally there's a couple of problems. Firstly, the Russian transfer window still hasn't opened, and it won't until the 27th. This means, even if a deal was agreed, their earliest he would play is either the league game against Norwich in early February or the hypothetical FA Cup match with Colchester. Still, it could be worse - the Ukrainian window doesn't open until the 31st. Secondly, as Zenit qualified for the knockout stages for the Champions League, they'd be reluctant to let Witsel leave - so that stretches out negotiations and could potentially see his fee creep upwards, and considering a price of £17m was bandied about on the presumption they'd finish third or fourth in their group rather than winning it, that's a problem.
What are you doing in a desert with orange juice, you know it gives you indigestion. We are not in a desert btw we are in a verdant newly planted forest with very strong saplings all around. Oak, Birch, Willow, Poplar, transplanting an old Ash can be tricky, very expensive and no guarantee it will take even after some time of holding it up with stout stakes.
Well, what about Alli replacing Kane when/if needed? We’ve tried Son and Chadli. IMO they’ve been not quite good enough, even if we’ve been okay with them and three other midfielders. Alli seems to have better hold up skills. He certainly was brilliant with his back to the keeper on his last goal.
Agreed. I think Alli has shown far better movement and predatory instincts than the other players being mentioned on here as 'capable' back-up for Kane. It's staggering to think that posters on here would genuinely prefer seeing Chadli up front than an Austin/Long type option. I obviously respect their opinion; I just pray to the G-d that took down Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini that come the end of the season my only remaining comfort isn't that I can turn round to some faceless men who I'm actually quite fond of in a creepy, internet forum type way and say 'i told you so'.
I wouldn't PREFER Chadli but I do prefer Pochettino's judgement on the matter. Why we did not go for Austin is not clear but I trust there to be a good reason, that's my mindset with the current manager atm. I am in a trusting mood. As for the I told you so bit! No CK you have more class than that.
