Transfer News 2022/23 Season Incoming Transfers and a few other things

[RgYellows]

This business model is common with many football clubs.

Would you say that many football clubs are run under sustainable models?

Do you not see a problem with a business that never makes any money itself, but relies on an ever-increasing valuation to make its owners a profit? If not, I've got a digital drawing of a cartoon monkey that I'd love to sell to you for £50,000.

The issue being discussed is not whether Oxford are doing anything uncommon in football. It's whether Oxford fans should be commenting on other clubs that don't make money.

 

[IsleofWightYellow]

We’re (at least historically, and aiming to be) a top 6 side who unarguably have a style where we try and dominate possession, keep the ball and play out from the back. Especially at home, apart from a few of the top teams, we’re going to have the majority of possession and be trying to break teams down. A player like Marcus McGuane who is good on the ball, can pick it up deep, give and go, dribble past someone to make space and beat the press etc - perfect for what we need in those games. Yes, sometimes away from home or against the top teams we’ll need something different - that’s why Gorrin has been given a contract surely?

Of course I’d like another brilliant midfield destroyer - most clubs would take extra brilliance in any position. But I don’t think it’s a priority.

 

[Mojofilter]

What happened with sinclair? Still a likely candidate?

 

[ZeroTheHero]

And we definitely should take a chance on a young striker to be alongside Taylor and Baldock. However, with Baldock out until September at the earliest, have another option on a short term contract is not necessarily a bad thing. Sinclair has looked ok in preseason despite not scoring. But then Taylor has barely scored and our service has not always been the best.

I just think that people have made their minds up on Sinclair without seeing him play or what he could offer, even if just to close out games or give Taylor a break.

No - I think people are looking at Sinclair's record over many years, with many teams. His best patch was when with us before when he scored 4 in 16. Apart from that he has scored 2 goals in his 71 senior games! Now, I suppose we can be very optimistic and say he will magically regain the form he showed for us three years ago and score a goal every 4 games. Or we can assume he will score at his career average and score once every ten games. Or that he will replicate what he has done in league games over the most recent couple of years and score once in over 40 games!

If we didn't know him and the club was considering signing a striker that no other team was interested in who had those sort of stats at the age of 25, there would be some eyebrows raised! If he were the only striker we could possibly sign then you'd take him - but as I said, I cannot believe that there isn't anyone (young, old, one of our youngsters, loan, permanent, English, Irish, Dutch, Scottish...) who wouldn't be more exciting or more of a goal threat.

If we were chasing a game and saw Sinclair warming up on the sidelines, would you *really* have much confidence that his introduction would turn the game around?

 

[SirAndyOfCrosby]

And we definitely should take a chance on a young striker to be alongside Taylor and Baldock. However, with Baldock out until September at the earliest, have another option on a short term contract is not necessarily a bad thing. Sinclair has looked ok in preseason despite not scoring. But then Taylor has barely scored and our service has not always been the best.

I just think that people have made their minds up on Sinclair without seeing him play or what he could offer, even if just to close out games or give Taylor a break.

That bar is low. I'm not completely dismissing Sinclair, for what it's worth, but the point you keep missing is that we are no longer a club that needs to sign players who 'look ok' or are effectively an extra body to run around when our best players are tired.

Surely anyone we are bringing in now should be with a view to being a starter. That goes for Wildschut, Jones, Murphy, McGinty, Brown - all are clearly capable of being starters for us this season no doubt. If you're already conceding that Sinclair is ok as a bit part player then effectively you're conceding that he is not as good as someone in that role needs to be.

How about we sign a young kid on loan AND (if looking at another permanent) we go for someone who has the potential to push Matty Taylor all the way (or Baldock for that matter)? As I say, if that player is Jerome Sinclair, fair enough - but if (as it sounds even from you) that he is already deemed a stop-gap or temporary option to make up the numbers - surely we as a football club can and should do better?

It's interesting to me that I've seen Sinclair mentioned by one or two other sets of supporters as an option. Interestingly, there is an overlay with who else these fans are talking about - Sam Winnall (Walsall fwiw, possibly Scunny). I think that probably gives you a fairer reflection of where Sinclair is at this point (conversely I'm not seeing Wednesday or even Pompey or MK Dons talk him up as a possible signing).

Fully prepared to give any player a chance, but I suspect that if we sign Sinclair he'll end up being this seasons Sam Winnall (but perhaps on a lower wage).

I believe that as a football club we've moved on - as evidenced by Murphy et al.

 

[Scotchegg]

That bar is low. I'm not completely dismissing Sinclair, for what it's worth, but the point you keep missing is that we are no longer a club that needs to sign players who 'look ok' or are effectively an extra body to run around when our best players are tired.

Surely anyone we are bringing in now should be with a view to being a starter. That goes for Wildschut, Jones, Murphy, McGinty, Brown - all are clearly capable of being starters for us this season no doubt. If you're already conceding that Sinclair is ok as a bit part player then effectively you're conceding that he is not as good as someone in that role needs to be.

How about we sign a young kid on loan AND (if looking at another permanent) we go for someone who has the potential to push Matty Taylor all the way (or Baldock for that matter)? As I say, if that player is Jerome Sinclair, fair enough - but if (as it sounds even from you) that he is already deemed a stop-gap or temporary option to make up the numbers - surely we as a football club can and should do better?

It's interesting to me that I've seen Sinclair mentioned by one or two other sets of supporters as an option. Interestingly, there is an overlay with who else these fans are talking about - Sam Winnall (Walsall fwiw, possibly Scunny). I think that probably gives you a fairer reflection of where Sinclair is at this point (conversely I'm not seeing Wednesday or even Pompey or MK Dons talk him up as a possible signing).

Fully prepared to give any player a chance, but I suspect that if we sign Sinclair he'll end up being this seasons Sam Winnall (but perhaps on a lower wage).

I believe that as a football club we've moved on - as evidenced by Murphy et al.

The point you're missing is that I've not said that we shouldn't look to bring another striker in, in fact I hope we do and do so by Saturday.

However, if that player has not had a full preseason then they are unlikely to be able to make a full contribution immediately. If (God forbid) anything happened to prevent Taylor from playing, we would have the option of playing Browne or Bodin upfront, giving Gatlin O'Donkor a chance, or potentially use Sinclair. None of these are ideal. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss having Sinclair as a low wage option until the new signing and Baldock are up to speed.

 

[Foley]

We will not finish in the top 6 with Seddon & Long as our first choice Full Backs, Last season showed that. Long will pick up injuries over the season as well. He basically plays with some kind of niggle every time he steps on to the field. I’ve heard that from a few sources that are close to him, last season he had an injury or felt tightness in his calf I believe & we sent him for scans & they found nothing. Seddon will burn out again as a LB as well. We need someone to share the load with him.

I think that we need a new left back definitely, but I am not sure that we have to get one in by next Saturday at all cost ( the suggestion was that we need 2 full backs in the building for Saturday)
I am always for trying to improve wherever possible and if we can fit a further right back in the squad total then great, but I think Long is good enough for a Top 6 side.

 

[SirAndyOfCrosby]

The point you're missing is that I've not said that we shouldn't look to bring another striker in, in fact I hope we do and do so by Saturday.

However, if that player has not had a full preseason then they are unlikely to be able to make a full contribution immediately. If (God forbid) anything happened to prevent Taylor from playing, we would have the option of playing Browne or Bodin upfront, giving Gatlin O'Donkor a chance, or potentially use Sinclair. None of these are ideal. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss having Sinclair as a low wage option until the new signing and Baldock are up to speed.

Why would that be the case? Why are you assuming that if we opt against Sinclair, we'll go for A N Other of his ilk, without a club, out of form and out of fitness?

Is it not possible to sign someone fit, with pre-season behind them (you know, like another professional footballer)? Why is the other 'new signing' suddenly behind Sinclair in the pecking order?

Rather than viewing Sinclair as a 'why not' - perhaps you should try and find a 'why' for his inclusion?
I suspect you'll talk about cheapness, having been in and around the squad and other such vague notions - all of which ignore ability/talent/form.

Even then, do you honestly believe he is the best option - from thousands of professional footballers - to perform that role?

 

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

 

[ZeroTheHero]

If we are talking about fullbacks, then I think he also have to talk about what the midfielder in front of them is expected/prepared to do. One of the reasons (the other) Baldock looked so good was IMO the fact that MacDonald (the midfielder in front of him much of the time) was pretty adept at dropping back and defending when Baldock was on the attack, or taking the ball and allowing Baldock to overlap at speed before passing it to him.

 

[IsleofWightYellow]

If we are talking about fullbacks, then I think he also have to talk about what the midfielder in front of them is expected/prepared to do. One of the reasons (the other) Baldock looked so good was IMO the fact that MacDonald (the midfielder in front of him much of the time) was pretty adept at dropping back and defending when Baldock was on the attack, or taking the ball and allowing Baldock to overlap at speed before passing it to him.

I mean, the other reason he looked so good was that he was absolutely brilliant, come on now. Look what he did afterwards

 

[Swaby39]

View attachment 9502

This is the League One signing of the season if it happens.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Well yes - point taken. But I still think it's important that the midfielder in front of any 'rampaging fullback' is prepared to do their bit properly.

 

[Tomox]

Where did Murphy play when he came on against Wimbledon? Left or right?

 

[Scotchegg]

Why would that be the case? Why are you assuming that if we opt against Sinclair, we'll go for A N Other of his ilk, without a club, out of form and out of fitness?

Is it not possible to sign someone fit, with pre-season behind them (you know, like another professional footballer)? Why is the other 'new signing' suddenly behind Sinclair in the pecking order?

Rather than viewing Sinclair as a 'why not' - perhaps you should try and find a 'why' for his inclusion?
I suspect you'll talk about cheapness, having been in and around the squad and other such vague notions - all of which ignore ability/talent/form.

Even then, do you honestly believe he is the best option - from thousands of professional footballers - to perform that role?

Once again, you misrepresent what I have said and use that to make your point. I've not said that Sinclair is the best option from thousands of professional footballers. I haven't even said that he's the best option in a club with only one fit and recognised striker!

The point I will repeat, is that if we bring a striker in this week it is likely to be a young PL prospect. They could be excellent but equally have likely had bit parts in preseason tours and would likely need a little while to get up to full match fitness and sharpness. Not a bad thing, we should look to ease players in. Of course, we may get a Stockton or similar player, but I'd imagine that Morecombe would not let him go without a replacement etc and that all takes time.

So we go into Derby with Taylor and a PL youngster on the books. Would it be so reckless to also have Sinclair on a one month deal? Even a six month deal? He doesn't have to play. He doesn't even need to be registered in September if we have others in. He would cost virtually nothing and he does know the club, the players etc and will be settled.

I honestly can't see how this can be seen as anything other than a low cost, low risk option?

 

[holdsteady]

I think McDonalds role in how good Baldock was is overstated, we had a top championship attacking right back playing in league two, he was just much better than league we were in.

The interesting thing is what manager didn’t really fancy him at his actual club at the time? Full back is a definite blind spot for that manager still.

 

[Yello]

But doesnt that tell you something if he would be prepared to sign a short term one month ( your words) deal, and virtually cost nothing? Obviously no other clubs prepared to offer him any better .

 

[LeftSideBoy]

Where did Murphy play when he came on against Wimbledon? Left or right?

Right hand side. Browne moved into CAM and linked up with him, brilliantly!

 

[JC_Yellow]

Done some more reading on Josh Murphy. Appears to be a versatile attacker which helps massively with any balance issues in attack. Also, as well as being able to cover both right and left-wing, sounds like he's played a few games at wing-back as well which could come in handy if we move back to a back-three at some point this season.

Starting to get excited over this one - I just hope it's not over nothing and we get this deal over the line. SURELY he wouldn't have played on Saturday - and possibly alerted some L1 clubs to his availability in the process - if we didn't have something agreed. Right...?

 

[tatabanya]

I'm not sure what is required, and certainly don't think it's a midfield "destroyer" in every game.

Gorrin does that role, but can often slow the game down leaving Cam to drop deep to direct play.

Kane last season did the quarterback role allowing Cam to play further up the pitch and both were excellent at times. But he was caught out against teams with a high press or combative midfields.

McGuane is closer to the Kane model, but has shown that he is stronger and more athletic than Kane, but may struggle against the toughest teams. For those you play Gorrin.

I disagree. The way we are set up to play, with the full-backs bombing on, if we set up with a ball playing dmc, then the only defensive minded players in our side are the two CBs. It’s also looks like Findlay, as was the case with Atkinson and McNally, likes to step out with the ball at his feet. It’s absolutely imperative then that the player who plays that role has the nous to drop into the vacated space and also break up play when we are caught on the counter.

Herbie Kane is a very talented footballer so of course he had good games playing as the deep midfielder. I’m sure McGuane would too, and we would also pick up points. But long-term we would suffer because the attacking mindset isn’t going to change.

The best ball playing, attacking teams in modern football need that midfield screener. Busquets, Casimero, Fabinho, Rodri. It’s desperately naive to think we don’t. It’s that player who enables others to play.