Jump to content

Ollie Watkins


alreadyexists

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, MaVilla said:

do you genuinely think he is a top 6 striker?

Yes similar numbers/better to Wilson, Isak, Nunez, Jesus. If you are thinking we’re signing an improvement then you must believe we’re signing someone from the Benzema, Lewandowski, Haaland bracket.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, STO said:

We need someone to hit 20 goals a season if we want top 6.  I'm not saying Ollie can't do that but I'm not sure he's a natural goalscorer.  He's been brilliant since Emery came in and hopefully isn't the finished article. 

This 20 goals a season nonsense is a thing from the past. This season only Haaland and Kane have managed it. Toney has half his goals from the Penalty spot so he's not a 20 a season in real terms. 

Salah is on 19 goals. Watkins on 14. 

What we need is more from his strike partner up top and goals from a bench option to come on. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've noticed from Ollie in the past month or so is the little bits of flair he's started adding to his game that he was possibly too afraid to do before. We're seeing these nice little flicks, bits of skill to beat a man etc. that we'd not seen before. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

This 20 goals a season nonsense is a thing from the past. This season only Haaland and Kane have managed it. Toney has half his goals from the Penalty spot so he's not a 20 a season in real terms. 

Salah is on 19 goals. Watkins on 14. 

What we need is more from his strike partner up top and goals from a bench option to come on. 

If you take away the goals from the players you mention, Man City, Spurs and Liverpool don't finish where they are currently.  The point is, we need a top goalscorer, Watkins is a 10 to 15 per season scorer, as we know.  We may need our own version of Salah, Haaland or Kane.  We also need more of the midfielders to chip in with even more goals, that is the only way in which we can afford Ollie to be a 10 to 15 a season striker.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, STO said:

If you take away the goals from the players you mention, Man City, Spurs and Liverpool don't finish where they are currently.  The point is, we need a top goalscorer, Watkins is a 10 to 15 per season scorer, as we know.  We may need our own version of Salah, Haaland or Kane.  We also need more of the midfielders to chip in with even more goals, that is the only way in which we can afford Ollie to be a 10 to 15 a season striker.  

City scored more goals last season and the top scorer only got 15 league goals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

The man has been on absolute fire for s stretch of games, and almost solely responsible for getting us some crucial points.

He then has a little quiet patch of say 3 games, games where the whole team underperformed, given him no service, and he's back to being slated by some again.

He still did some very good things yesterday.

I don't get it.

That's fair enough mate. Some of us won't change our long standing opinion of him after one (albeit very good) run.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zatman said:

City scored more goals last season and the top scorer only got 15 league goals

It's a good point but Pep Guardiola recognised this and went out and signed Haaland.   Hopefully, the likes of Alemany can find our own gems.  I am not comparing Ollie to anyone else, he's been great this season but to finish higher, we are going to need more goals from a range of positions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kiwivillan said:

Took out 2 Spurs players for the first goal and got the fantasy assist for Luiz FK

Put one on a plate for Bailey as well which he missed. Not his best game but I think most teams would be delighted with his overall contribution in that match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do love Watkins but I do wonder if we can afford a striker who blows so hot and cold with his streaks. Not sure it’s really enough. We definitely need to sign some proper competition for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Spoony said:

I do love Watkins but I do wonder if we can afford a striker who blows so hot and cold with his streaks. Not sure it’s really enough. We definitely need to sign some proper competition for him. 

When your sole striker is going through a rough patch you need your wide players and midfielders to step up and score in his stead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dante_Lockhart said:

When your sole striker is going through a rough patch you need your wide players and midfielders to step up and score in his stead.

Only Saka and Harvey Barnes have worse goals per minute in the top 15 or so Prem scorers, and they're wide men. Outside of the top 15, Isak, Mitrovic, Nunez and Gabriel Jesus also have a better goals per minute ratio. We do need better, and that's not just because of his scoring rate either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Tom13 said:

Only Saka and Harvey Barnes have worse goals per minute in the top 15 or so Prem scorers, and they're wide men. Outside of the top 15, Isak, Mitrovic, Nunez and Gabriel Jesus also have a better goals per minute ratio. We do need better, and that's not just because of his scoring rate either.

I don't entirely know what goals per minute particularly shows to be honest.  He probably takes fewer shots than Isak/Mitrovic/Nunez/Jesus et al as we, as a side, don't tend to have loads of shots in matches (hence the ridiculous xG stuff).  From memory, Watkins has a decent accuracy % - so you basically have a player shooting less, but hitting the target more.  I'm cool with that.  Bear in mind it's only his 4th season as a striker in his entire career too; he's generally developing his game and getting better.

Watkins is a good striker - not great - and is probably the absolute least of our worries right now.  If we're replacing him, it's a £60m+ job and that money (currently) can be spent better elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, lexicon said:

It's reductive to only consider Watkins's goal output anyway, considering everything he brings to the table. 

He'd be even better if his passing wasn't so poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tom13 said:

He'd be even better if his passing wasn't so poor.

It's not that bad at all; you really don't need to be so hyperbolic. He has a middling completion rate with a high assist rate compared to other forwards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â