Summer transfer window 2021

[Phil Silvers]

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

1st

Would

[Philosopher]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

Just have to agree to disagree on Tammy.

I have no opinion on Alvarez.  Could be a sensation but could be a kid that cant handle the PL and take years to adapt if at all and sold for a small fee to some Spanish club in a couple of years time.  I think we know what we get with Tammy, you obviously dont think much, I think a lot.  Let's just agree to disagree.

Tammy will always get goals, but for me he's like Darren Bent. He always gets into goalscoring positions and is a good enough finisher to find the back of the net. But he also misses a fair amount of chances and not as clinical as the best goalscorers, and also doesn't do a lot for the team outside the Box. I actually think that is a good striker, but Ollie does all that and harasses the crap out of defenses, holds it up well for someone his size and links up well. It's not about not thinking much of Tammy, but thinking a lot of Ollie Watkins. 

[Monkeypuzzle]

28 minutes ago, Phil Silvers said:

BUENDIAAAAAAAA, definitely no plans for him being a super sub, he's a 100%  starter for me buddy.

I'm not advocating that formation, just demonstrating a line up with Watkins and Abraham both in it. Of course I want Buendia on the pitch when possible, but there will be games when either he or Grealish are not available. This change of formation uses two quality strikers with a creative player behind them. It sacrifices width but there will always be strengths and weaknesses to a formation. The person I quoted in my last post asked how could you fit them both in to the first eleven. I think you can only realistically have three out of four from Grealish, Buendia, Watkins and Abraham without losing some drive from the middle of the park.

A standard 4-4-2 with Grealish and Buendia on the wings would probably need a pair of more defensively minded central midfielders, for us that means Douglas Luiz and Nakamba. I don't think having both of them in the middle without a more box to box style runner like Sanson or McGinn alongside them would be our best line up. If we get a new, first team quality defensive midfielder then maybe. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I am liking the idea of occasionally switching to a standard 4-4-2. Maybe this formation could work if 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 isn't working?

                           Watkins    Abraham

Grealish    Douglas Luiz    McGinn    Buendia

  Targett            Mings         Konsa         Cash

                                  Martinez

[Junxs]

An article from the Daily Mirror has caused quite a stir over the last few pages including an argument between 2 posters, and The Sun with Grealish the other day. Surprised these 2 aren't on the blacklist when Twitter ITK accounts are.. (John Percy, Fabrizio Romano etc)

[VillanousOne]

12 minutes ago, Philosopher said:

Tammy will always get goals, but for me he's like Darren Bent. He always gets into goalscoring positions and is a good enough finisher to find the back of the net. But he also misses a fair amount of chances and not as clinical as the best goalscorers, and also doesn't do a lot for the team outside the Box. I actually think that is a good striker, but Ollie does all that and harasses the crap out of defenses, holds it up well for someone his size and links up well. It's not about not thinking much of Tammy, but thinking a lot of Ollie Watkins. 

which undermines your argument as this isn't about Watkins it's about signing Abraham. If Dean genuinely wants Tammy then i would have 100% faith he would know how to utilise him without diminishing the role Watkins plays or his career with us.
 

I think most of the top 10 have more than one world class striker on the books and wouldn't sh*t the bed at the thought of signing one.

[Phil Silvers]

3 minutes ago, Monkeypuzzle said:

I'm not advocating that formation, just demonstrating a line up with Watkins and Abraham both in it. Of course I want Buendia on the pitch when possible, but there will be games when either he or Grealish are not available. This change of formation uses two quality strikers with a creative player behind them. It sacrifices width but there will always be strengths and weaknesses to a formation. The person I quoted in my last post asked how could you fit them both in to the first eleven. I think you can only realistically have three out of four from Grealish, Buendia, Watkins and Abraham without losing some drive from the middle of the park.

A standard 4-4-2 with Grealish and Buendia on the wings would probably need a pair of more defensively minded central midfielders, for us that means Douglas Luiz and Nakamba. I don't think having both of them in the middle without a more box to box style runner like Sanson or McGinn alongside them would be our best line up. If we get a new, first team quality defensive midfielder then maybe. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I am liking the idea of occasionally switching to a standard 4-4-2. Maybe this formation could work if 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 isn't working?

                           Watkins    Abraham

Grealish    Douglas Luiz    McGinn    Buendia

  Targett            Mings         Konsa         Cash

                                  Martinez

I get ya and I'm liking being able to play any formation if the squad allows it.

I'm in the Tammy in camp and and it gives us a whole new lease of life after a season of effectively have one striker. 

343 or 532 variation of the same thing is something I'd like in our locker too as we have the personnel and would/could accommodate Tammy.

It all gives us a flexibility that we need, the best prem coaches may find us predictable and that's something we need to fix.

[thabucks]

Tammy had his a chance to join the Villa revolution and admirably, decided to fight for his place back at Chelsea. I respect him for backing himself. His goal record is very good thus far in his career outiside of his stint at Swansea. Yet I don’t want him and for numerous  reasons which other posters have eloquently put so won’t rehash. All I will add is, he is not a player who will be sold for more than he costs this summer, I believe he has reached his ceiling and will his goal return will diminish.  He isn’t as good as player as Sturridge was in his younger days before he got bored and much rather give Wesley 6 months. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by thabucks

[paul514]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

but west ham he wouldnt be first choice either.  I think he'd love to come back to us and believe he can fight Ollie for the striker position and that's great for competition after having Davis last season as back up.  Quality alternatives fighting for top spot rather than main striker and then some third rate striker

It from a non financial point of view he is a serious upgrade on Davis and probably Wesley.

He would certainly be starting at West Ham

[Supervillan78]

I actually feel quite sorry for Tammy, he was having a fairly good season then Tuchel came in and completely froze him out. I wouldn’t be apposed to him coming back, although I think it’s somewhat unlikely. However, we do need better striking options because I’m honestly not inspired by Wes or Davis. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by Supervillan78

[PieFacE]

I'd take Tammy on a season long loan with a view to buy if he does well. Wouldn't spend £40m on him now tho. 

[Laughable Chimp]

19 minutes ago, paul514 said:

It from a non financial point of view he is a serious upgrade on Davis and probably Wesley.

He would certainly be starting at West Ham

You think he'd be starting over Antonio?

[rayk]

13 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

I'd take Tammy on a season long loan with a view to buy if he does well. Wouldn't spend £40m on him now tho. 

So we take a punt on Beundia for £33m plus add ons and yet £40m for Tammy who is massively more proven in the Prem but he’s not worth it?

I mean really? At what pint did you decide to ignore logic?

Edited June 26, 2021 by rayk

[CarryOnVilla]

2 minutes ago, rayk said:

So we take a punt on Beundia for £33m plus add ons and yet £40m for Tammy who is massively more proven in the Prem but he’s not worth it?

I mean really? At what pint I’d you decide to ignore logic?

[rayk]

1 minute ago, CarryOnVilla said:

Brains please……

[Lord Willard]

3 minutes ago, rayk said:

So we take a punt on Beundia for £33m plus add ons and yet £40m for Tammy who is massively more proven in the Prem but he’s not worth it?

I mean really? At what pint I’d you decide to ignore logic?

We aren't spending £40m on a back up striker. Buendia was needed, we lacked creativity.

[CarryOnVilla]

Just now, rayk said:

Brains please……

[PieFacE]

1 minute ago, rayk said:

So we take a punt on Beundia for £33m plus add ons and yet £40m for Tammy who is massively more proven in the Prem but he’s not worth it?

I mean really? At what pint I’d you decide to ignore logic?

I disagree that Buendia is a "punt". Strengthening the midfield is more of a priority than strengthening our strikers, to which we already have 3 when we only play with 1.  So spending a huge amount of our transfer budget on a striker seems illogical to me. 

[rayk]

Just now, Lord Willard said:

We aren't spending £40m on a back up striker. Buendia was needed, we lacked creativity.

I don’t know whether we will or not but apparently you do.

Of course we lacked creativity but you could argue we’ll need more when Jack goes because we don’t sign players like Tammy.

[Laughable Chimp]

I'll just say one more thing. If we're bringing in a backup striker, one that you don't really expect to compete with your top striker but still provide a quality option of the bench, we're looking at 15-20 million pounds. Which is a pretty decent amount of money already.

Paying 40 million pounds for depth at our level is pure madness.

[rayk]

3 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said:

I’m Pleased you didn’t understand the irony.