Summer transfer window 2021

[a m ole]

2 minutes ago, Big Salad said:

I'd sacrifice my left nutsack to get Gio Reyna

You have two nutsacks?

[HKP90]

1 hour ago, alreadyexists said:

I wonder if they are thinking; consolidate this year and aim as high as possible but be content with mid table, and then next year spend really big? Could easily spend £180m next year with the previous losses dropping off the FFP period, and the net spend this year?

I think with Jack leaving we may have been put onto this track by default.

[Big Salad]

4 minutes ago, a m ole said:

You have two nutsacks?

Lol meant to just say my left nut but still haven't fully woken up yet

Edited August 17, 2021 by Big Salad

[thunderball]

I hope we revert to 4-3-3 until we find our feet, at least the pattern works for us and we have the talent to generally upgrade those positions this season. We could then work at implementing other systems later in the season as new players find their feet.

That would mean playing one of only Watkins or Ings as the lone striker, and I would run with Watkins as the starter as he did a great team job as well as scoring - we have goals elsewhere this seson too. I would play Buendia at the "10" position Barkley occupied with Bailey out on the RHS. I think this is how we planned to play this season if Jack stayed.

This would mean we buy a new starting DM/CM to sit alongside McGinn in stead of Nakamba/Luiz, and if I had the choice I would have JWP or Koopermieners, but failing that Anguissa, Sarr or Doucoure.

I would then go all out for Damsgaard to replace Jack on the LHS.

This is all within our means, and we could sell Nakamba, AEG, Hourihane and recoup a fair chink of that outlay.

Edited August 17, 2021 by thunderball

[lexicon]

6 minutes ago, a m ole said:

You have two nutsacks?

That's why it wouldn't be such a loss tbf

[TRO]

3 hours ago, KangarooVillan said:

I think we’re talking about 2 different things here. My response was to a poster saying that we need to spend all the Grealish money ASAP - so I was talking about marquee signings.

In regards to my thoughts on a new DM, I’ll back Smith and co’s judgement on that one. 

The things that I can’t really get around in my head as to how a DM would help are:

- That midfield area has sparkled before and it was mostly the same personnel 

- Our defensive record was very good last year so we must be doing something okay

- If people think a big defensive presence is what’s lacking, although Nakamba doesn’t have the passing range we’re after, he is very good defensively and it still didn’t help on the weekend

- The goals scored on the weekend had very little to do with our defence in the middle of the park - the damage was mostly done in wide areas

I agree with you about a need to control things in the middle of the park, although I can’t help but I think we may already have that if we play a 433 and can get a combination of Sanson, McGinn, Luiz and Nakamba on the park. 

 

 

• Our season was mixed last year and of course you can pick out games where a DM was not needed, but that also depends on how the opposition plays.....we still dropped too many points against the lower teams, who want to battle.
• Our defensive record overall was much better, but tell tale signs against teams like Leeds, West Ham, Burnley and Brighton were there for all to see or dismiss, depending on the analytical interest.
• If you refer to the missing link (DM) NEEDS to be big?, you are missing the point, being made, if you think a big one is likely to give us more physical presence?, you might be right, if you think such a player needs to be just a clogger?, you would be wrong......Nakamba was relieved of the ball from behind on numerous occasions, he is sadly not the level we require and is sadly not able to start attacks, which is what we require.
• If you think half the fan base have gleaned that we was overrun in midfield and you think that had no affect on us,or the oppositions goals, thats your call.....Losing your midfield has a knock on effect to other area's, its like a row of dominoes, one or two go, it all goes.
• The midfielders we have at the club, may be ok, but they are all too samey, we need contrast.....we need one or two, who have a natural tendency to defend first and attack second.....we are deploying players there with a natural tendency to attack and asking them to defend.
• Formations can be anything, its where a team starts, not necessarily where it plays, the dynamics of the game, dictate that.....getting each individual player to get a 7-8/10 would be a much better benchmark, to appraise, or look for.

In my opinion we haven't got the personnel to play with 2 in midfield, they are simply not dominant enough, so we play 3 and possibly lose a forward, which now sounds contradictory as we have Danny Ings...but equally you can't expect Ollie to play a whole season in such a demanding role on his own....its a conundrum that needs a solution.

• Our full backs were mullered on Saturday and they are part of the defence, so that must be looked at, if the game was not just a bad day at the office....we have a situation where only Mings and Konsa show any physical presence in the team, maybe Axel or Hause can, if deployed.

Looking forward to Newcastle and addressing the issues.

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by TRO

[QldVilla]

56 minutes ago, TRO said:

Its the area over the years, we have always tried to do on the cheap in relation to other area's.....The times when we have had good midfielders, we have had good teams.

why spoil the ship for a ha'penth of tar......our midfielders by and large have similar attributes, all too samey......We need a contrast in there.....also we have to play 3 because 2 are not strong enough, so you lose one up front.

I think it’s a catch 22, because the clubs policy is to buy young players, improve them, so they have a higher resale value. The issue is we aren’t buying the finished article, Sanson excluded, so there will always be a level of frustration with young developing players.

While I agree we need a dominant CDM, the question is do we buy a young player who can develop with some performance risk, or the ready made article, but will be expensive and maybe hard to attract because we can’t offer European football?

We did invest in Sanson and got him for half what he would normally cost, so slightly disagree that we haven’t invested in the midfield as believe he will come good for the club when fit.

Sometimes believe the bigger picture is lost for short term gain.

[TRO]

33 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

being a party pooper...neither are ever happening

 

but we can dream of what we need a nd get close....if we don't we never move on from the likes of Cleverley and Westwood.

Edited August 17, 2021 by TRO

[TRO]

1 minute ago, QldVilla said:

I think it’s a catch 22, because the clubs policy is to buy young players, improve them, so they have a higher resale value. The issue is we aren’t buying the finished article, Sanson excluded, so there will always be a level of frustration with young developing players.

While I agree we need a dominant CDM, the question is do we buy a young player who can develop with some performance risk, or the ready made article, but will be expensive and maybe hard to attract because we can’t offer European football?

We did invest in Sanson and got him for half what he would normally cost, so slightly disagree that we haven’t invested in the midfield as believe he will come good for the club when fit.

Sometimes believe the bigger picture is lost for short term gain.

The only issue there is....I don't see the younger players as THE problem.

[osmark86]

1 hour ago, Tommo_b said:

Spot on, watching the Man City documentary shows that decisions about players and recruiting are made at the boardroom level without the manager present, I can’t imagine it’s too much different for us. 

This isn't exactly surprising considering the fees involved in transfers. However I would be surprised if the board didn't listen to the footballing people on potential targets and that info would come from Lange and Smith et al.

[Greenfly]

22 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

This isn't exactly surprising considering the fees involved in transfers. However I would be surprised if the board didn't listen to the footballing people on potential targets and that info would come from Lange and Smith et al.

I assumed Lange was pretty much board level, considering his role is director. It would be weird if they hired him then didn't use him for input in transfers.

[KangarooVillan]

16 minutes ago, TRO said:

• Our season was mixed last year and of course you can pick out games where a DM was not needed, but that also depends on how the opposition plays.....we still dropped too many points against the lower teams, who want to battle.
• Our defensive record overall was much better, but tell tale signs against teams like Leeds, West Ham, Burnley and Brighton were there for all to see or dismiss, depending on the analytical interest.
• If you refer to the missing link (DM) NEEDS to be big?, you are missing the point, being made, if you think a big one is likely to give us more physical presence?, you might be right, if you think such a player needs to be just a clogger?, you would be wrong......Nakamba was relieved of the ball from behind on numerous occasions, he is sadly not the level we require and is sadly not able to start attacks, which is what we require.
• If you think half the fan base have gleaned that we was overrun in midfield and you think that had no affect of us, thats your call.....Losing your midfield has a knock on effect to other area's, its like a row of dominoes, one or two go, it all goes.
• The midfielders we have at the club, may be ok, but they are all too samey, we need contrast.....we need one or two, who have a natural tendency to defend first and attack second.....we are deploying players there with a natural tendency to attack and asking them to defend.
• Formations can be anything, its where a team starts, not necessarily where it plays, the dynamics of the game, dictate that.....getting each individual player to get a 7-8/10 would be a much better benchmark, to appraise.

In my opinion we haven't got the personnel to play with 2 in midfield, they are simply not dominant enough, so we play 3 and possibly lose a forward, which now sounds contradictory as we have Danny Ings.

• Our full backs were mullered on Saturday and they are part of the defence, so that must be looked at, if the game was not just a bad day at the office.

Looking forward to Newcastle and addressing the issues.

 

A season is always mixed - Liverpool dropped a tonne of points against teams like Brighton, Burnley, Newcastle and Fulham. Sometimes it happens - the PL is stiff competition these days. It’s a stretch to state this as evidence for an underlying issue.

In terms of big, you’ve taken my words too literally... I said a big defensive presence - that’s what you’re after right? A defensive minded player? I never said they have to be literally big.

The bit I’ve bolded though is the bit that’s incredibly frustrating. Nakamba is limited and might not be everything people want, but the idea he gets dispossessed too often is a myth.

His dispossession stats are better than Bissouma and Doucoure who people are keen on to fill that role. I’m all for people putting forward players that will improve us based on a solid rationale, but often people just want a shiny new player based on some hollow qualitative analysis and want to fix an issue with another player who’s no better at that particular component of the game.

Hence, I have no doubts that if we dropped £50 mil on Bisouma or £15 mil on Doucoure, the same people would be complaining they get dispossessed too often in 6 months time.

Again, I’ll back Smith and co in with what’s best, worth mentioning again they literally have not let us down yet.

[HalfTimePost]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

There must be a prospect out there like him.

Isn't that Cheikh Doucoure and Pape Sarr links we've had through the summer?

[Reivax_Villa]

I can’t see is bringing in another CM although we need one.

we are heavily stacked in that position and the club doesn’t want to block the pathway of Carney Chukwuemeka and Jacob Ramsey.

 

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

 

• If you refer to the missing link (DM) NEEDS to be big?, you are missing the point, being made, if you think a big one is likely to give us more physical presence?, you might be right, if you think such a player needs to be just a clogger?, you would be wrong......Nakamba was relieved of the ball from behind on numerous occasions, he is sadly not the level we require and is sadly not able to start attacks, which is what we require.

 

You are right in that we need a baller. Someone who can pick a pass and initiate attacks, but I do feel we need a bit more of an aerial presence in midfield. Particularly when we play McGinn. An all round ball winner.

[wict01]

So our business is done according to Ashley Preece? Bit disappointing if true as we all know CM needs strengthening, but hopefully it gives us the scope to address it in Jan if needs be. Hope Sanson can step up and make a big impact once fit. 

[PaulMcGrath_5]

3 minutes ago, wict01 said:

So our business is done according to Ashley Preece? Bit disappointing if true as we all know CM needs strengthening, but hopefully it gives us the scope to address it in Jan if needs be. Hope Sanson can step up and make a big impact once fit. 

For context.

 

[AshVilla]

5 minutes ago, Reivax_Villa said:

I can’t see is bringing in another CM although we need one.

we are heavily stacked in that position and the club doesn’t want to block the pathway of Carney Chukwuemeka and Jacob Ramsey.

Do they want to block the pathway of us getting top six because this will happen if were persisting with throwing in Chukwuemeka and Ramsey.

Both should go out on loan for their development.

We need proven quality now to push us on and not players who are very much work in progress.

You didn't see Onomah e.t.c starting for Spurs week in week out did you?

[MWARLEY2]

Those close to the club .. are you not close to the club Ash Preece ? 

[AshVilla]

2 hours ago, alreadyexists said:

I wonder if they are thinking; consolidate this year and aim as high as possible but be content with mid table, and then next year spend really big? Could easily spend £180m next year with the previous losses dropping off the FFP period, and the net spend this year?

That's a sound plan provided we actually finish midtable.

If the Watford game is anything to go by were going backwards and will end up failing to attract players as they won't want to join a club in the bottom half.

Our stock has never been higher in terms of the players we can attract and we really need to push on now imo.