Yet the boss still wants a striker!
Agreed but we have done this despite, not because, we dont have a central attacker.
That is bad recruitment and its been poor for almost 5 years. Not 2 months . No one is suggesting we buy a poor central striker. Just an average one would suffice. .It has to be the right central attacker. And the better you get, the harder it is to find someone who can improve you, who is also affordable. There's several genuine central attackers in this league doing worse than our main 4 forwards. We've struggled to get that player before ,tried several times and ended with egg on our face.
We also ended up with egg on our books once.We've struggled to get that player before ,tried several times and ended with egg on our face.
like Sasa?That is bad recruitment and its been poor for almost 5 years. Not 2 months . No one is suggesting we buy a poor central striker. Just an average one would suffice. .
Would be a good match for the way we playWe should go for S Wan Vesta bit on the slim side and red headed but a good striker in the box
No, but he’ll be burnt out by the time we next play them.Can he do it on a wet & windy midweek February night in Grimsby though?
Bad recruitment again. As with Silva, Cutrone , Mir and Jose .like Sasa?
We should have kept one of him or Fabio. I think the whole pursuit of a number nine this January with our budget was never going to happen.like Sasa?
He has a bit of a rough side, so we need to watch out for that.We should go for S Wan Vesta bit on the slim side and red headed but a good striker in the box
Bad recruitment again. As with Silva, Cutrone , Mir and Jose .
But there is something very illogical about the argument that there are bad number 9s so we shouldn't have a number 9.
Some clubs have poor goalkeeper so should we not play with ,or recruit, a goalkeeper?
there are probably quite a few good traditional number 9s in the leagues but are currently playing as centre halves - as from youth level the traditional no 9 was frowned upon/not required over the last 5-10 years.That's not the argument, though. My point is that as we are scoring at the highest rate since promotion , do we really need a traditional #9 at the moment?
You need a goalkeeper to stop goals conceded, as he is the one player allowed to handle the ball. Any of the entire team is allowed to score a goal, so that's not a meaningful comparison. If we could find a way to win matches without a goalkeeper, then go for it!
The comparison is more like: does every side need two proper wingers out wide? A box to box midfielder? A sweeper?
i would have preferred we did for sure.We should have kept one of him or Fabio. I think the whole pursuit of a number nine this January with our budget was never going to happen.
i don’t think we need a nine, but i think the above shows how difficult it is.Bad recruitment again. As with Silva, Cutrone , Mir and Jose .
But there is something very illogical about the argument that there are bad number 9s so we shouldn't have a number 9.
Some clubs have poor goalkeeper so should we not play with ,or recruit, a goalkeeper?
Not so difficult, a £4m loan fee would have done it in January.i don’t think we need a nine, but i think the above shows how difficult it is.
He might still have chosen Fulham so it might have been difficult, still.Not so difficult, a £4m loan fee would have done it in January.
which would have been a prodigious waste of money we don’t have. yet there’s posters criticising us wasting money in the past while advocating this.Not so difficult, a £4m loan fee would have done it in January.
which would have been a prodigious waste of money we don’t have. yet there’s posters criticising us wasting money in the past while advocating this.
the irony is astonishing
the agent asked for a load of cash last minute?The funny thing is if you listen to e&s poddy, GON was effectively saying he was led to believe that if sasa went someone would come in and wages weren’t the issue.
So what happened?
Would have been better to keep what we had or one of than let both go with no one to come in with hwang and Neto’s injury records
oh i agree, that part is shocking.The funny thing is if you listen to e&s poddy, GON was effectively saying he was led to believe that if sasa went someone would come in and wages weren’t the issue.
So what happened?
Would have been better to keep what we had or one of than let both go with no one to come in with hwang and Neto’s injury records
There must have been a shortlist of attackers?the agent asked for a load of cash last minute?
‘Run into the ground’ is a little sensationalist. They’re unlucky if they play more than once a week.Small squad being run into the ground . Players being asked to do things to cover lack of alternatives. So predictable.
So you wouldn’t have picked Matheus ‘one of our best players’ Cunha, to play against Brentford?It was my answer to why our important players get injured . If we had got cover, as GON asked for, they wouldn't be as important.
Villa can still put out a potent team.
I think you’re spot on with the frivolousness of our pay awards. However on transfers, it’s been proven that over 90% of Wolves’ buys since Fosun took over, were successful.It’s not that Wolves haven’t spent the money. We have 2 players out on loan that cost 50 million between them. Imagine how strong we would look, if just one had been up to scratch, let alone both.
For what it’s worth, I think they have looked at it and realised, that whilst throwing money at the project, it’s not guaranteed to bring success. Jota and Neves turned a big profit but many haven’t. We had also become a bit frivolous with wages.
I think, they sat down and put a purposeful structure together that is much more sustainable long term. At least I hope that’s what they’ve done.
Get rid of the deadwood on high wages. Ride this season out and restructure. Getting someone in the January window just to fill a gap, would be immediately going against the new policy. Also, they would have only sat on the bench unless we got injuries, which of course has happened but it’s always easy with hindsight.
You mean one with less than 15 children…?And a mad ****er in goal, preferably not Scottish. Any body over 50 will understand what I mean by that.
Made good money on Mir and wasn’t Jose a loan?Bad recruitment again. As with Silva, Cutrone , Mir and Jose .
But there is something very illogical about the argument that there are bad number 9s so we shouldn't have a number 9.
Some clubs have poor goalkeeper so should we not play with ,or recruit, a goalkeeper?
the agent asked for a load of cash last minute?
oh i agree, that part is shocking.
But spending £4m on Broja? nah.
The two can be mutually exclusive
Last two minutes of the Liverpool 0- Wolves 4 final game of the season. Replacing the injured Neto.
My argument is why not a number 9 ? We needed numbers to cover . So a number 9 adds to the numbers and adds balance and adds options.That's not the argument, though. My point is that as we are scoring at the highest rate since promotion , do we really need a traditional #9 at the moment?
You need a goalkeeper to stop goals conceded, as he is the one player allowed to handle the ball. Any of the entire team is allowed to score a goal, so that's not a meaningful comparison. If we could find a way to win matches without a goalkeeper, then go for it!
The comparison is more like: does every side need two proper wingers out wide? A box to box midfielder? A sweeper?
I think you are confused . I never even hinted at that.So you wouldn’t have picked Matheus ‘one of our best players’ Cunha, to play against Brentford?
I am looking at a number 9 that could effectively play for Wolves when I am watching themMade good money on Mir and wasn’t Jose a loan?