Ollie Watkins

[KentVillan]

5 minutes ago, Oaks said:

Ollie has 3 goals and an assist in the 5 games since Gerrardball left (when he would maybe get a half cahnce every 2/3 games) maybe we should layoff the lad a bit and back him for the rest of the season.

Agree, his stats are okay, and will look better when we get an easier run of games. He's always going to be a frustrating player who misses chances, but he does get plenty of chances.

[Oaks]

8 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Agree, his stats are okay, and will look better when we get an easier run of games. He's always going to be a frustrating player who misses chances, but he does get plenty of chances.

He's always under performed his xg slightly, (not to Jesus levels) but under Gerrard we created so few chances he would snatch a lot more imo. If he knows he will keep getting chances i think he will relax and will start netting more often.

[KentVillan]

4 minutes ago, Oaks said:

He's always under performed his xg slightly, (not to Jesus levels) but under Gerrard we created so few chances he would snatch a lot more imo. If he knows he will keep getting chances i think he will relax and will start netting more often.

I also think the more comfortable he feels with his goal record, the more likely he is to actually get his head up and see assists.

[Oaks]

Totally.

[nick76]

15 minutes ago, Oaks said:

Ollie has 3 goals and an assist in the 5 games since Gerrardball left (when he would maybe get a half chance every 2/3 games) maybe we should layoff the lad a bit and back him for the rest of the season.

Rather we get a new striker that is more suited to the strikers role that can convert the chances that we are making.  Great that he’s scored three but given the chances he’s had it should’ve been more and another striker would’ve had more.  Let’s not kid ourselves that just because he’s scored three, that it was a good return on the opportunities he’s had recently, plus it’s a very small sample size because I can’t believe that anybody thinks we can’t improve on him if we want to be a top half team.  If he’d done better in the first half against Liverpool it could’ve been a different game.  Goals make difference in games and taking a first half opportunity could’ve seen a different outcome.

[Oaks]

8 hours ago, nick76 said:

Rather we get a new striker that is more suited to the strikers role that can convert the chances that we are making.  Great that he’s scored three but given the chances he’s had it should’ve been more and another striker would’ve had more.  Let’s not kid ourselves that just because he’s scored three, that it was a good return on the opportunities he’s had recently, plus it’s a very small sample size because I can’t believe that anybody thinks we can’t improve on him if we want to be a top half team.  If he’d done better in the first half against Liverpool it could’ve been a different game.  Goals make difference in games and taking a first half opportunity could’ve seen a different outcome.

Who the hell do you want bloody Haaland ffs? 

[nick76]

4 minutes ago, Oaks said:

Who the hell do you want bloody Haaland ffs? 

So you are saying the next best striker after Haaland is Watkins . There is a whole raft of strikers in between those two in terms of quality.  Never understand why people go to extremes when trying that argument.

[Oaks]

8 hours ago, nick76 said:

So you are saying the next best striker after Haaland is Watkins . There is a whole raft of strikers in between those two in terms of quality.  Never understand why people go to extremes when trying that argument.

No my point is very few score more than 3 in 5. Watkins' xg vs Liverpool was 0.68, your in cloud cuckoo land if you think many strikers are bagging a lot more. 

[messi11]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

Rather we get a new striker that is more suited to the strikers role that can convert the chances that we are making.  Great that he’s scored three but given the chances he’s had it should’ve been more and another striker would’ve had more.  Let’s not kid ourselves that just because he’s scored three, that it was a good return on the opportunities he’s had recently, plus it’s a very small sample size because I can’t believe that anybody thinks we can’t improve on him if we want to be a top half team.  If he’d done better in the first half against Liverpool it could’ve been a different game.  Goals make difference in games and taking a first half opportunity could’ve seen a different outcome.

You always say we need to get a striker to replace Watkins since the dawn of time, but you never suggest a name. I think deep down you know we can't get better than Watkins that's why you never say who we should sign to be our new striker. 

[nick76]

2 minutes ago, Oaks said:

No my point is very few score more than 3 in 5. Watkins' xg vs Liverpool was 0.68, your in cloud cuckoo land if you think many strikers are bagging a lot more. 

Your sample size of 5 games is statistically too small.  We know from our own eyes and longer sample sizes that he’s not a finisher of good quality.  You know very well that if he had scored one of those first half chances it may have been a different game.  Generally his ability is finish is poor at the level he’s at.  You can quote a very small sample size all you want, you can say I’m in cloud cuckoo land but many on here and at the ground have very similar views on him.  It may be you in cuckoo land clinging onto to hope he’s going to be sufficient for us.

[Oaks]

8 hours ago, messi11 said:

You always say we need to get a striker to replace Watkins since the dawn of time, but you never suggest a name. I think deep down you know we can't get better than Watkins that's why you never say who we should sign to be our new striker. 

In the 4-4-2/4-2-2-2 it would be to play with Ollie first anyway.

[Oaks]

8 hours ago, nick76 said:

Your sample size of 5 games is statistically too small.  We know from our own eyes and longer sample sizes that he’s not a finisher of good quality.  You know very well that if he had scored one of those first half chances it may have been a different game.  Generally his ability is finish is poor at the level he’s at.  You can quote a very small sample size all you want, you can say I’m in cloud cuckoo land but many on here and at the ground have very similar views on him.  It may be you in cuckoo land clinging onto to hope he’s going to be sufficient for us.

You would bin Jesus at Arseanl too would't you? Ollie has been "sufficient" in the past played his way into the England squad. His finsihing isn't the best part of his game i agree but theres also what he does when running the line. Is he a top 6 striker... no he isnt, but then this isnt a top 6 squad and Ollie is way down the line of replacment imo. As i said before its who we get to play with him first.

[nick76]

5 minutes ago, messi11 said:

You always say we need to get a striker to replace Watkins since the dawn of time, but you never suggest a name. I think deep down you know we can't get better than Watkins that's why you never say who we should sign to be our new striker. 

Why would I say a name? Emery, Lange and Purslow don’t listen to any of us.  I can list dozens of names but what does that achieve?  Unless we brought one I can’t be proved right or wrong.  I’ve always found listing loads of names rather pointless.  I can articulate what I believe our issues are and I can even say what I believe we need but listing other players always seems pointless to me.  I’ll let others list a whole raft of names of who they are like and mean time when we get linked to players I will review and comment myself and until then I will identify weaknesses in our current squad and maybe what we need.

[nick76]

7 minutes ago, Oaks said:

You would bin Jesus at Arseanl too would't you? Ollie has been "sufficient" in the past played his way into the England squad. His finsihing isn't the best part of his game i agree but theres also what he does when running the line. Is he a top 6 striker... no he isnt, but then this isnt a top 6 squad and Ollie is way down the line of replacment imo. As i said before its who we get to play with him first.

See, making assumptions again.  Firstly Haaland, now Jesus, trying to put words in my mouth.  Let’s agree to disagree.

Edited December 29, 2022 by nick76

[Oaks]

8 hours ago, nick76 said:

See, making assumptions again.  Firstly Haaland, now Jesus, trying to put words in my mouth.  Let’s agree to disagree.

Well Jesus is always the worst finisher in the Premier League year on year. I was taking the piss with Haarland.

[Tomaszk]

2 hours ago, Oaks said:

Who the hell do you want bloody Haaland ffs? 

Literally yes. That is what some want.

They aren't in touch with reality and think we should win every game.

Players like Haaland and Bellingham is what they expect. Still, they will complain.

[nick76]

3 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

Literally yes

Who has said that, given it’s “literally”

3 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

They aren't in touch with reality and think we should win every game.

Who has said this or thinking this?

4 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

Players like Haaland and Bellingham is what they expect.

Who?

 

Maybe there maybe one person on here who has come close to indicating this type of player but I can’t remember somebody saying it, certainly not me.  

It just feels on here that if some of us feel that we can do better that some who love some of our players think we suddenly want the best players in the world in each position.  We never expect any of that but we can acquire better players like we did with Martinez, like we did with Kamara, like we did with Carlos….we can attract quality that is better than what we have without them being the best players in the world.

[Tomaszk]

5 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Maybe there maybe one person on here who has come close to indicating this type of player but I can’t remember somebody saying it, certainly not me

Don't worry about it then.

5 minutes ago, nick76 said:

 

 

5 minutes ago, nick76 said:

It just feels on here that if some of us feel that we can do better that some who love some of our players think we suddenly want the best players in the world in each position.  We never expect any of that but we can acquire better players like we did with Martinez, like we did with Kamara, like we did with Carlos….we can attract quality that is better than what we have without them being the best players in the world.

I think we can sign good players too.

[Oaks]

8 hours ago, nick76 said:

Who has said that, given it’s “literally”

Who has said this or thinking this?

Who?

 

Maybe there maybe one person on here who has come close to indicating this type of player but I can’t remember somebody saying it, certainly not me.  

It just feels on here that if some of us feel that we can do better that some who love some of our players think we suddenly want the best players in the world in each position.  We never expect any of that but we can acquire better players like we did with Martinez, like we did with Kamara, like we did with Carlos….we can attract quality that is better than what we have without them being the best players in the world.

Weve brought in one quality player a season. We probably need to speed this up while Keeping Martinez and Kamara (im not ready to judge Carlos yet) We will need to upgrade wide areas, Centre back and someone to play WITH Ollie before Ollie upgraded. As i said thats maybe 18 months to 2.5 years away and i think Emery likes him and his type of player, which is good enogh for me.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Oaks

[CVByrne]

Ollie is still out best attacking player. What he offers overall is better than Ings, Bailey, Buendia or Coutinho.