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

[Oufcrealist]

Agree what both he and Mc Nally could do with is an experienced no nonsense centre half playing alongside them pointing out exactly what they should be doing.Someone like a younger Mous. Moore is too quiet to be captain as well

Agree. Flint or Beevers would be ideal as I've suggested before.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

We have 20-30 goals already between Taylor and Baldock. Would prefer a younger untested talent who can be brought in to learn from those guys and develop as part of our model.

Exactly this - we need to do a bit of succession planning. Get a young striker in, play them sparingly - as a sub when we need fresh legs or more speed, to cover injuries and to learn from the older heads, as well as partnering either of them at times in the doesn't matter cup competition or in case of injury, suspension or fatigue of one of the 'main' strikers. If all goes well, by next season you have a third choice striker.

 

[holdsteady]

Could, if he signs the contract we have offered, Bodin not play as a forward n a two? Has obvious quality, has played there before and, let’s be honest, he doesn’t really do a lot of defensive work when he plays a bit deeper. With the three at the back formation he is either going to play just behind the forwards or as one of them, no where else he fits in.

 

[Oxford1996]

Could, if he signs the contract we have offered, Bodin not play as a forward n a two? Has obvious quality, has played there before and, let’s be honest, he doesn’t really do a lot of defensive work when he plays a bit deeper. With the three at the back formation he is either going to play just behind the forwards or as one of them, no where else he fits in.

You’d think if we persist with the 3-4-1-2 formation that we switched to then Bodin will compete with Browne for the 10 position behind the 2 strikers. Which is perfect for him.

There will also be times where Browne plays alongside Taylor in that formation so Bodin would slot in behind.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

If getting a third '1st choice' striker in, who is only likely to play 20% of the season, takes wage budget away from the defence and defensive midfield, then I'm totally against.

We have 20-30 goals already between Taylor and Baldock. Would prefer a younger untested talent who can be brought in to learn from those guys and develop as part of our model.

30 games is 66% not 20%.

Your scenario is not deep enough for promotion contenders imo, Baldock is prone to a knock and we still don`t
know how Browne`s acl will hold up, its not too difficult to imagine both being sidelined for a bit and we are
straight down to bare bones with Taylor and an untested talent that might or might not be the biz, its a bit too
much of a punt and i want to see us have a deeper squad than that.

No idea about what budget we have for next season but since this is supposed to be the season we go for it
i have no reason to believe that we are on a shoestring and i`m not overly worried about that just yet especially
if the pot matches our ambition.

 

[Oufcrealist]

If getting a third '1st choice' striker in, who is only likely to play 20% of the season, takes wage budget away from the defence and defensive midfield, then I'm totally against.

We have 20-30 goals already between Taylor and Baldock. Would prefer a younger untested talent who can be brought in to learn from those guys and develop as part of our model.

20% is only 9 games. I think he means a bit more than that.
I don't think we'll get more than 25-30 games out of Baldock so we'll need 16 or so minimum from a third striker as Taylor will almost certainly miss some games as well
Plus it's a big risk going for an untested player. Sam Smith?

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Despite what we are being told, I am fairly sceptical about the chance of us starting every game with two central strikers on the pitch. I think there will be quite a few when we start with one. KR isn't really a 'two up front' manager - what he calls that might well be Browne supporting Taylor or Baldock rather than the two of them with Browne behind them, at least at times.

 

[beyondthefourth]

30 games is 66% not 20%.

Your scenario is not deep enough for promotion contenders imo, Baldock is prone to a knock and we still don`t
know how Browne`s acl will hold up, its not too difficult to imagine both being sidelined for a bit and we are
straight down to bare bones with Taylor and an untested talent that might or might not be the biz, its a bit too
much of a punt and i want to see us have a deeper squad than that.

No idea about what budget we have for next season but since this is supposed to be the season we go for it
i have no reason to believe that we are on a shoestring and i`m not overly worried about that just yet especially
if the pot matches our ambition.

a) I didn't say 20% of the matches, I said 20% of the season. How many minutes are we expecting this 3rd striker to play in each of these games that he 'might' come off the bench? Enough to warrant another £3-5k striker?

b) I didn't say we don't go in for another striker to replace Winnall. I just don't see the point of getting another over the hill striker on our books. If they're happy to be in rotation, there's a reason for it. They're either injury prone, in which case we could be struggling to have any fit strikers at some points of the season, or their best years are behind them and we end up with another Mackie/Winnall.

I'm suggesting we may as well take a punt on a young talent from leagues below, who has more in his legs, and can learn from our senior strikers to develop and become an actual long term/saleable asset.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

a) I didn't say 20% of the matches, I said 20% of the season. How many minutes are we expecting this 3rd striker to play in each of these games that he 'might' come off the bench? Enough to warrant another £3-5k striker?

b) I didn't say we don't go in for another striker to replace Winnall. I just don't see the point of getting another over the hill striker on our books. If they're happy to be in rotation, there's a reason for it. They're either injury prone, in which case we could be struggling to have any fit strikers at some points of the season, or their best years are behind them and we end up with another Mackie/Winnall.

I'm suggesting we may as well take a punt on a young talent from leagues below, who has more in his legs, and can learn from our senior strikers to develop and become an actual long term/saleable asset.

A) I`m probably having a bit of a thicky moment but whats the difference between 20% of matches and 20% of the season ? As for coming off the
bench i suspect quite a lot, there is a vote coming up to see if we go to 5 subs next season, I think KR would love that and even if we stay at 3
subs its a fair bet that one of the 2 strikers will be coming off every game when possible, Taylor and Baldock are no spring chickens and Baldock
especially will need looking after, we can`t run them into the ground game after game thats for sure.

B) 30 starts plus sub appearances plus cup games should add up to well over 40 appearances, thats not too bad and should be able to get us
a player that is decent enough and not necessarily over the hill.

Personally i would like to see O`Donkor in the apprentice role this season, way back as 6th choice but given a run in the pizza cup and a few minutes
here and there when a game is sewn up.

 

[Swaby39]

I suppose the cliched counterpoint to this is that really good defenders rarely need to make the dramatic blocks and covering tackles because they’ve already read the game and stopped the trouble at source. I’m not sure how much you really want a centre back to get you out your seat!

I think we perhaps undervalue Moore as a fan base because we’ve been blessed these last few years with raw, exciting young centrebacks who were clearly destined for bigger things than League One football. Moore isn’t that - I think League One will always be his level - but I don’t think every centreback needs to be some mercurial talent who has a mistake in him. There’s definitely space in any back line for a no-nonsense, authoritative defender like Moore, and, despite his drawbacks, he is that. Also deceptively good on the ball too, which I think goes unnoticed a lot of the time.

Fair point - I shall take a seat!

I certainly won’t be in any way shape disappointed to see him continue here but as I’ve said before, I just don’t think he imposes himself on games the way he should do in both boxes, particularly given his size. I don’t think he has any real fear factor about him and we could do with that in at least one of our defenders. But maybe it’s not him who should step aside, maybe he needs a partner he can truly hang his hat on.

 

[beyondthefourth]

A) I`m probably having a bit of a thicky moment but whats the difference between 20% of matches and 20% of the season ? As for coming off the
bench i suspect quite a lot, there is a vote coming up to see if we go to 5 subs next season, I think KR would love that and even if we stay at 3
subs its a fair bet that one of the 2 strikers will be coming off every game when possible, Taylor and Baldock are no spring chickens and Baldock
especially will need looking after, we can`t run them into the ground game after game thats for sure.

B) 30 starts plus sub appearances plus cup games should add up to well over 40 appearances, thats not too bad and should be able to get us
a player that is decent enough and not necessarily over the hill.

Personally i would like to see O`Donkor in the apprentice role this season, way back as 6th choice but given a run in the pizza cup and a few minutes
here and there when a game is sewn up.

You can play 5 minutes as a sub in every match, and you will have played in 100% of matches. However you will only have played 5-6% of all available minutes that season.

Rotate all 3 strikers exactly evenly with one up top and they of course play 33.3% o the season each. If you make a bold assumption that we'll do two up top the entire time that'll go up to 66%. But as this is our third choice, he'd be closer to 50% even in the best case scenario.

So, why sign a big name striker that will be on even wages with Taylor/Baldock/Brannagan, who isn't going to feature enough to justify it?

 

[Scotchegg]

You can play 5 minutes as a sub in every match, and you will have played in 100% of matches. However you will only have played 5-6% of all available minutes that season.

Rotate all 3 strikers exactly evenly with one up top and they of course play 33.3% o the season each. If you make a bold assumption that we'll do two up top the entire time that'll go up to 66%. But as this is our third choice, he'd be closer to 50% even in the best case scenario.

So, why sign a big name striker that will be on even wages with Taylor/Baldock/Brannagan, who isn't going to feature enough to justify it?

Why couldn't a top striker look to join to be the number 1 starter, with Taylor and Baldock rotating the second position between them?

Taylor has played 90% of the minutes since arriving, but would benefit from playing less and keeping the intensity high. Equally, Baldock looked fantastic but we don't want him brilliant for 10 games and them miss the next 20. A few 60 minute starts or 30 minute cameos would hopefully extend his fitness throughout the season.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

You can play 5 minutes as a sub in every match, and you will have played in 100% of matches. However you will only have played 5-6% of all available minutes that season.

Rotate all 3 strikers exactly evenly with one up top and they of course play 33.3% o the season each. If you make a bold assumption that we'll do two up top the entire time that'll go up to 66%. But as this is our third choice, he'd be closer to 50% even in the best case scenario.

So, why sign a big name striker that will be on even wages with Taylor/Baldock/Brannagan, who isn't going to feature enough to justify it?

If you think that we are going to stick with 1 up front and wingers then yea sure, i agree, but i really doubt thats the
way we are planning to set up next season, it really isnt that bold an assumption to plan on playing 2 up top for most
of our matches based on what KR said at the end of the season.

You are also looking at this as if the new striker will be 3rd choice, why ? Anyway, i`m going for another 1st choicer to
share the load, thats 66% starts plus a bunch of 15-20 minute appearances as a sub, your 5 minutes wont provide the
player coming off enough of a break imo and we havent even spoken about cup games.

 

[beyondthefourth]

Why couldn't a top striker look to join to be the number 1 starter, with Taylor and Baldock rotating the second position between them?

Taylor has played 90% of the minutes since arriving, but would benefit from playing less and keeping the intensity high. Equally, Baldock looked fantastic but we don't want him brilliant for 10 games and them miss the next 20. A few 60 minute starts or 30 minute cameos would hopefully extend his fitness throughout the season.

Once again - if we have the budget to do that and also make top quality additions to midfield and defence, then sure. Great.

But a third premium striker should not be our priority when drawing up the budget for next season. Taylor scored 20 and Baldock got 4 in 7, nothing to suggest they should be rotating the bench slot behind a newer premium option.

I'd be happy to put a loanee or young prospect in that role so we're not facing the same fitness issue with all three strikers.

My main point which keeps getting lost is that if we get another good striker, but don't adequately recruit in DM or defensive options, then we ship the same amount of goals without really changing our attacking output much.

 

[Scotchegg]

Once again - if we have the budget to do that and also make top quality additions to midfield and defence, then sure. Great.

But a third premium striker should not be our priority when drawing up the budget for next season. Taylor scored 20 and Baldock got 4 in 7, nothing to suggest they should be rotating the bench slot behind a newer premium option.

I'd be happy to put a loanee or young prospect in that role so we're not facing the same fitness issue with all three strikers.

My main point which keeps getting lost is that if we get another good striker, but don't adequately recruit in DM or defensive options, then we ship the same amount of goals without really changing our attacking output much.

I agree that it shouldn't be a top striker OR defenders etc. But there's no reason why our budget can't stretch to both.

A top striker will be on less than the wages of Winnall and Hanson that we're saving. We could get Ciaron Brown, Jack Tucker and a promising Irish player like Kofi Balmer, all for the same wages as Jordan Thorniley. And there are very good midfielders out there that we would be paying less than we paid Herbie Kane.

The budget is not an issue, as always, it's how it's used.

 

[werthersoriginal]

I agree that it shouldn't be a top striker OR defenders etc. But there's no reason why our budget can't stretch to both.

A top striker will be on less than the wages of Winnall and Hanson that we're saving. We could get Ciaron Brown, Jack Tucker and a promising Irish player like Kofi Balmer, all for the same wages as Jordan Thorniley. And there are very good midfielders out there that we would be paying less than we paid Herbie Kane.

The budget is not an issue, as always, it's how it's used.

Sounds promising. And almost a criticism of our management of last season - though we couldn’t do much about Hanson and Winnall being perma injured

 

[beyondthefourth]

I agree that it shouldn't be a top striker OR defenders etc. But there's no reason why our budget can't stretch to both.

A top striker will be on less than the wages of Winnall and Hanson that we're saving. We could get Ciaron Brown, Jack Tucker and a promising Irish player like Kofi Balmer, all for the same wages as Jordan Thorniley. And there are very good midfielders out there that we would be paying less than we paid Herbie Kane.

The budget is not an issue, as always, it's how it's used.

But with your example, you're filling an already weakened defence with unproven options that are cheaper than Thorniley, and midfield options cheaper than Kane, so we can spend on another good striker. I would think we need to be spending money to bring in a proven defender of Thorniley's level, and a DM that can match Gorrin, or a CM to cover the departures of Kane and possibly Brannagan.

The issue last season wasn't that Winnall didn't score enough goals. He's not who we need to replace, as we already did that with Baldock. If there's budget left over from the priority, then sure we can get another proven striker in. But if he's also over 30 and of the Winnall mould, then we could be replacing 3 strikers next year.

 

[JOHN BOY]

I don't think Gorrin is as good as people make out there are better players out there we need to sign better players to get promotion.

 

[MJB]

I wonder if Sunderland going up reducing the likelihood of Gorrin joining them?

Surely they wouldn’t want him as a Championship side.

 

[Paul Cannell]

Be an interesting view if they did, though.