Summer Transfer Thread 2012

[Whelan]

I think we all need to be realistic. If we can do that, and have some patience, we have a good chance of being successful.

 

That is true, but that also means not being as negative as some people are, for example, who is Belhanda going to sign for in the Premiership? It is looking like we are his only option, same with Krasnic, same with Affelay so they are realistic. As is Ramierez.

 

I think we have to accept mix and match, and I would rather spend (the reported) £30m plus sales on two great players and bring in Diamme, Sigurdson and Kalou.

[Whelan]

Well, I can only judge from my own perspective of what's good enough. There's chatter that the likes of Walcott and Sturridge are available. I'd have both of them in a 4-3-3 way before Kalou.

 

Both would cost £15m plus though, and they are not that good! Which is the problem in your argument I think. He (Kalou) is free, and can replace Kuyt in the squad. What we need is first team players, and I think it is a fair argument that Sturridge and Walcott are not good enough for first team players.

[Aldonose]

I'd wager Sturridge and Walcott would improve our first 11 a fair bit .

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Both would cost £15m plus though, and they are not that good! Which is the problem in your argument I think.

 

Well, not really offering an argument. It's just my opinion on two young players with unbelievable pace and decent records for goals and assists from wide areas.

 

He (Kalou) is free, and can replace Kuyt in the squad. What we need is first team players, and I think it is a fair argument that Sturridge and Walcott are not good enough for first team players.

 

I think it's a terrible argument, mate. I really do. Walcott got 11 goals and 13 assists last season, and 13 goals with 9 assists the season before. He just turned 23 a couple of months ago. Sturridge scored 13 with 7 assists last year and 12 goals the year before. He's 22. They're both quite clearly good enough for starting places at our club.

 

Kalou scored 5 last season with 1 assist and will be 27 by the time the season starts. He's average and we should stay well clear. The wages he'll command won't be insignificant.

[silverlining]

Kalou is shit, regardless of how much he would cost.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Seems like another no risk signing one who may be comfortable, play comfortable and offer as much as the person we just let go. Signing kalou lacks imagination and ambition and he shaved some kind of insect into the back of his head! A grown man!

[CWD82]

Walcott and Sturridge would be good signings definitely

[smilezzz]

Walcott, Sturridge AND Kalou = more pace than we've had this decade. For that, I'm in.

[Gym Beglin]

Kalou is shit.

 

Bt I would have said the same about Leon Britton two years ago.

 

 

Give Rodgers the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure he's as able to watch a tv as me and see that Kalou has been underwhelming in a Chelsea shirt. If he sees something more in him, then brilliant, lets give it a chance.

[Whelan]

I think it's a terrible argument, mate. I really do. Walcott got 11 goals and 13 assists last season, and 13 goals with 9 assists the season before. He just turned 23 a couple of months ago. Sturridge scored 13 with 7 assists last year and 12 goals the year before. He's 22. They're both quite clearly good enough for starting places at our club.

 

Kalou scored 5 last season with 1 assist and will be 27 by the time the season starts. He's average and we should stay well clear. The wages he'll command won't be insignificant.

 

It shouldn't all be about who scored what, and how many assists, Bent scores goals as well, so does (did) Tim Cahill. Walcott has not been able to become a regular for Arsenal in 6 seasons, and seems to be displaying the same mistakes that he was making six years ago, we are talking about buying players who are not good enough from teams that we are trying to overtake! Of course that isn't a particularly good argument in itself, but put together with the prices of both players I don't think they will add anything to us, and by add anything I mean imrpove the team to top four.

 

Sturridge has done nothing whatsoever to warrant his price tag, nothing. Our problem has been scoring goals up front and both options put forward have scored less than Suarez! Where would Sturridge play? Where would Walcott play?

 

Neither look like they have the ability to play football, and neither look like they have the intelligence to play in a team that plays the football Rodgers wants.

[Il Fenomeno]

Neither look like they have the ability to play football, and neither look like they have the intelligence to play in a team that plays the football Rodgers wants.

 

I don't particularly think you need intelligence to play in a Brendan Rodgers side, or even great ability. Wayne Routledge and Scott Sinclair are proof of that, they were viewed as pace merchants before they went to Swansea but have turned into good players there. Routledge actually terrorised our defence at Anfield and looked very good against us.

 

I think Rodgers gives his players clear instructions on what they are required to do, which takes their intelligence out of the question, much like Benitez used to. Dalglish and Wenger, as examples, give their players freedom to make their own decisions, and that results in some players shining and others looking poor because of their poor decision making.

[TheHowieLama]

Sturridge is a good player who is going to get better and offers exactly what we don't have enough of. Pace and an eye for goal. Was on fire for Bolton right? Kept his place in the Chelsea rotation, has been an international at every level and scored 11 league goals in 28 games - way better value at the 15m suggested than any of our recent purchases and certainly a better option in a front three than anyone we have barring Suarez.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

It shouldn't all be about who scored what, and how many assists, Bent scores goals as well, so does (did) Tim Cahill.

 

It should have 'something' to do about it though, yeah? I mean, it's pretty important for an attacker to be able to score and create goals.

 

Walcott has not been able to become a regular for Arsenal in 6 seasons

 

Have Arsenal got two Walcotts and we're talking about different ones because he has been a regular for all of his time there. When you play 35 out of 37 league games, of which only 3 were from the bench, and play 46 games overall, I think you've got to be considered 'a regular'. He has never featured in less than 30 games a season for Arsenal.

 

and seems to be displaying the same mistakes that he was making six years ago, we are talking about buying players who are not good enough from teams that we are trying to overtake!

 

Something tells me you don't watch Walcott all that much. If you don't think he's good enough for Arsenal (who played him in nearly every game), and has very, very good stats the last two seasons, then, honestly, I'm not sure you know much about the guy.

 

Of course that isn't a particularly good argument in itself, but put together with the prices of both players I don't think they will add anything to us, and by add anything I mean imrpove the team to top four.

 

No one player will do that by themselves. However, they're more than capable of adding 10-15 goals. That's a lot of points right there.

 

Sturridge has done nothing whatsoever to warrant his price tag, nothing. Our problem has been scoring goals up front and both options put forward have scored less than Suarez! Where would Sturridge play? Where would Walcott play?

 

I'm sorry, but this is bizarre. Of course he has done something to warrant his price tag. He's a 22 year old player, with rocket boots, who has scored goals at the top level for two years straight and done so for one of the top teams in the league.

 

Suarez, who was 24m and is now worth significantly more, is a striker. He's utterly world class. Walcott and Sturridge have both been played out wide. They'd play wide in a 4-3-3.

 

Neither look like they have the ability to play football, and neither look like they have the intelligence to play in a team that plays the football Rodgers wants.

 

Right. Well. Yeah. Don't know what to say to that really.

[Whelan]

I don't particularly think you need intelligence to play in a Brendan Rodgers side, or even great ability. Wayne Routledge and Scott Sinclair are proof of that, they were viewed as pace merchants before they went to Swansea but have turned into good players there. Routledge actually terrorised our defence at Anfield and looked very good against us.

 

I think Rodgers gives his players clear instructions on what they are required to do, which takes their intelligence out of the question, much like Benitez used to. Dalglish and Wenger, as examples, give their players freedom to make their own decisions, and that results in some players shining and others looking poor because of their poor decision making.

 

Yeah that is a good point actually. Sinclair has certainly improved and Dyer also.

 

 

Sturridge is a good player who is going to get better and offers exactly what we don't have enough of. Pace and an eye for goal. Was on fire for Bolton right? Kept his place in the Chelsea rotation, has been an international at every level and scored 11 league goals in 28 games - way better value at the 15m suggested than any of our recent purchases and certainly a better option in a front three than anyone we have barring Suarez.

 

40 starts in total (Daniel Sturridge Bio, Stats, News - Football / Soccer - - ESPN Soccernet), really not convinved by him, but I am not saying anything else on the matter, as its all about opinions until we sign someone, and yours is as good as mine. If Caroll wasn't a factor I would be fine with him, but Caroll isn't going to leave and I can't see the point in him.

[Gym Beglin]

It shouldn't all be about who scored what, and how many assists, Bent scores goals as well, so does (did) Tim Cahill. Walcott has not been able to become a regular for Arsenal in 6 seasons, and seems to be displaying the same mistakes that he was making six years ago, we are talking about buying players who are not good enough from teams that we are trying to overtake! Of course that isn't a particularly good argument in itself, but put together with the prices of both players I don't think they will add anything to us, and by add anything I mean imrpove the team to top four.

 

Sturridge has done nothing whatsoever to warrant his price tag, nothing. Our problem has been scoring goals up front and both options put forward have scored less than Suarez! Where would Sturridge play? Where would Walcott play?

 

Neither look like they have the ability to play football, and neither look like they have the intelligence to play in a team that plays the football Rodgers wants.

 

But Wenger has won fuck all for eternity, and so perhaps he is the one who is misusing some attacking players and not developing them?

Arshavin springs to mind, but also Reyes, Pennant, Ramsey, Rosicky, Walcott, Wiltord, Eduardo, Baptista, by way of example, all drastically pedestrian under Wengers management.

[Whelan]

Have Arsenal got two Walcotts and we're talking about different ones because he has been a regular for all of his time there. When you play 35 out of 37 league games, of which only 3 were from the bench, and play 46 games overall, I think you've got to be considered 'a regular'. He has never featured in less than 30 games a season for Arsenal.

 

Ah right, only just check his stats. 48 starts, 53 in total, last season with 11 goals (Andy Caroll has 10 in 30). Again, £15m plus for someone who doesn't really add much more than what we have seems excessive. Kalou is 5, in 17 starts, 28 in total.

 

Something tells me you don't watch Walcott all that much. If you don't think he's good enough for Arsenal (who played him in nearly every game), and has very, very good stats the last two seasons, then, honestly, I'm not sure you know much about the guy.

 

If they are not on TV then no I don't! I tend to be either travelling to or from a liverpool match when they are playing, so other than live matches and Champions league, and match of the day highlights and the international matches, and the Carling cup and the Fa Cup I don't really watch him that much.

 

I'm sorry, but this is bizarre. Of course he has done something to warrant his price tag. He's a 22 year old player, with rocket boots, who has scored goals at the top level for two years straight and done so for one of the top teams in the league.

 

It isn't bizzare at all, it is an opinion different to yours! Funny how you seem to think that differences of opinion are bizzare, I certainly don't think yours is. I just don't agree with it. For example, my argument that Sturridge is a bit selfish, and not particularly an intelligent player is born out from watching him, and watching him dribble up his own arse on numerous occasions because he wants to be Billy Big Bollocks and do it all himself. But as I explained, without Caroll I am in, but I can't see where he would play as I think Caroll offers more.

 

Walcott is a good, but I think we can get much better value by shopping abroad. Krasnic is a better player in my opinion and will be far less, and I see Elia as a similar type of player, but again far less. I want Belhanda, I would accept Kuba and I think they are better value than Walcott.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Whelan

[WaltonRed]

where's this walcott stuff come from?

[Eljeficito]

For me if Walcott starts a game, I'm quite happy as his play is utterly one dimensional and pace based. His decision making and final ball is more often than not terrible. Coming off the bench after 65, 70 minutes is when I worry about Walcott making an impact. As has been said, at his price and considering his salary, there are far better options from the continent. Danny Sturridge I wouldn't be opposed to at the right price, which for me wouldn't exceed 10million. Certainly think Sturridge has a lot of natural ability, not at the moment the cleverest of players mind

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Ah right, only just check his stats. 48 starts, 53 in total, last season with 11 goals (Andy Caroll has 10 in 30).

 

I only pointed it out because your point about him not being a regular is, well, plain wrong. It doesn't matter, but if you're basing your argument on that, you're bound to go wrong.

 

Again, £15m plus for someone who doesn't really add much more than what we have seems excessive. Kalou is 5, in 17 starts, 28 in total.

 

But he does add more than what we have, Whelan. As a wide player, you can only really put him up against wide players at out club. For Arsenal he scored 11 goals and created/assisted 13. The season before that he scored 13 and created/assisted 9, despite playing 10 games fewer. Compare those to Kuyt and Downing and tell me it's not 'much more than what we have'.

 

If they are not on TV then no I don't! I tend to be either travelling to or from a liverpool match when they are playing, so other than live matches and Champions league, and match of the day highlights and the international matches, and the Carling cup and the Fa Cup I don't really watch him that much.

 

So you don't know how much he plays, you don't want him that much, but you're going at it like a bull in a china shop over him being not good enough? I hope you watch him a bit more next season, because he's a good player. He'd be a better player were he played in his natural position.

 

 

It isn't bizzare at all, it is an opinion different to yours! Funny how you seem to think that differences of opinion are bizzare, I certainly don't think yours is. I just don't agree with it.

 

I think it's bizarre to say these things which are either wrong ('regular') or based on not watching him very much. I honestly think it's a bizarre position you've chosen to take.

 

You're welcome to think the moon is made of cheese, but I'll still think it's a bit wonky.

 

For example, my argument that Sturridge is a bit selfish, and not particularly an intelligent player is born out from watching him, and watching him dribble up his own arse on numerous occasions because he wants to be Billy Big Bollocks and do it all himself. But as I explained, without Caroll I am in, but I can't see where he would play as I think Caroll offers more.

 

What do you mean by 'more'? If it's more goals, then he doesn't. If it's more assists, then he doesn't. If it's his ability to fit into a 4-3-3 with a 'tiki take' style, then he quite clearly doesn't offer more than those players.

 

Walcott is a good, but I think we can get much better value by shopping abroad. Krasnic is a better player in my opinion and will be far less, and I see Elia as a similar type of player, but again far less. I want Belhanda, I would accept Kuba and I think they are better value than Walcott.

 

That's fine. I think there's probably better value out there, but they're good options if we can get them, and they offer pace, directness, goals and assists. I'm not going to kick that out of bed for farting when our £35m man scored 4 league goals last season.

[janmolby]

Walcott sums up youth development in this country

 

speed first

 

technique second

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Walcott sums up youth development in this country

 

speed first

 

technique second

 

He has plenty of technique. As with most things in the football world, once a label is put on a player they rarely shake it.

[Glen C]

He has plenty of technique. As with most things in the football world, once a label is put on a player they rarely shake it.

 

RVP loves walcott. Walcott gives him the most assists out of any other player.

[janmolby]

well I beg to differ, I think he's a poor player and would be gutted if we signed him

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

RVP loves walcott. Walcott gives him the most assists out of any other player.

 

Yeah, think there's a video somewhere of him just setting up Van Persie time and again.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

well I beg to differ, I think he's a poor player and would be gutted if we signed him

 

Poor? What sort of level do you rate him at? What sort of players is he in the same bracket as?

 

I consider players like Konchesky to be poor. Would you say he's at that level or just above?