Tammy Abraham

[brummybloke]

26 minutes ago, Paul33 said:

If we had not seen Tammy have a decent spell with us in the Championship then I doubt there would be much enthusiasm for a player that can't make Chelsea's first team. My concern is that too many here are over-romanticising and living in the past ..... we are playing at a much higher level now and Tammy would need to be significantly better than he was to add anything to Villa 21/22. Has he shown that he can do that at Chelsea ? Clearly they don't think so and have chosen some bang average strikers in preference to him.

Personally, I'm not convinced and would certainly not spend north of £20M on him. Would rather spend the rumoured money on somebody playing, performing and proving themselves in the Premier ..... signing players with "potential" should be reserved for the Academy now, we are at a level where we buy proven quality for the first team rather than gamble with maybe players !

Why can't tammy get into the Chelsea team ? Did he suddenly become rubbish ? No, they changed manager and that manager doesn't like him. Is luke Shaw rubbish ? What about lingard ? They were dropped by a manager who didn't like them.

We are at the moment, a mid table team, looking to move to the next teir which is 5th to 8th.

Please provide a list of obtainable forwards who fit the clubs remit of being experienced in premier league football, young and hungry who we could possibly buy who is better than tammy.

That would be tammy who was Chelsea top scorer 2019/20 and was 2nd last year despite only featuring in 22 games, for a team who finished 4th in both the last 2 seasons.

 

 

[The Rosk]

Tammy's record in the PL, if he were to play every game, would be an average of 22 goals per 38 games for Chelsea.  He also doesn't take penalties.  

That is a very good record and the best in the forward line at Chelsea.  He simply is a goalscorer. 

The question is not whether he is good enough for us at all - it is more whether he fits in our style of play.  Watkins has energy to burn and we relied on him a lot for his endless hassling of defenders and running down of long balls.  However, with (hopefully) the investments in the midfield, we will be a lot more creative and open for our strikers, like we were in the Champ when Tammy ran riot.

 

[brummybloke]

5 minutes ago, The Rosk said:

Tammy's record in the PL, if he were to play every game, would be an average of 22 goals per 38 games for Chelsea.  He also doesn't take penalties.  

That is a very good record and the best in the forward line at Chelsea.  He simply is a goalscorer. 

The question is not whether he is good enough for us at all - it is more whether he fits in our style of play.  Watkins has energy to burn and we relied on him a lot for his endless hassling of defenders and running down of long balls.  However, with (hopefully) the investments in the midfield, we will be a lot more creative and open for our strikers, like we were in the Champ when Tammy ran riot.

 

Do you not think watkins can play in the same team as tammy ? Taking up the space left by birkley?

Leaving tammy as the most forward player when we don't have the ball ?

[nick76]

9 hours ago, Jas10 said:

That’s all well and good TRO. But why Tammy? Over anyone else?

Give me an option then?  All I've been given is cheaper less quality options or a complete higher risk player.  Nobody has given a name that is either attainable or at Tammy/Ollie's level which then is pointless.  It's not "Over anyone else" it's just we havent been a quality alternative yet.  The responses have just been either anti-Tammy by just a few or by most that Ollie will play 99% of games and Tammy wont accept a bench role, which both @Dave-R and I have covered extensively in this thread and so have others.

9 hours ago, Jas10 said:

I’m sure there isn’t a single person here who does not want us to have competition and a deeper, better squad & cover.

I'm not totally convinced of that, if you read this thread in the striker department there is some of that coming across even when we have discussed if you take out the equation the transfer fee value which is the stumbling block for some.

9 hours ago, Jas10 said:

He would be a fine addition to the squad and is a great kid but wouldn’t it concern you that we would be spending a huge part of our budget and breaking our transfer record for a player who would most likely be spending the majority of time on the bench?

1) 40m is one value at the start of the thread.  Another value was 38m euros which is 32.5m GBP which wouldnt be our transfer record.  We dont know the fee, it has been a placeholder put, which seems to be the main issue for some.  Buendia was rumoured to be 40m but we got for a base fee of 33m

2) Our transfer fee isnt that high comparatively and buying Tammy lets say at 35m isnt much different to full value of Tammy of 33m (28+5), which seems to be reasonable, two players of the same age being roughly the same value

3) We dont know our budget, hard to make that assertion

4) What makes you assume he'll spend majority time on the bench....between all the games then suspensions, injuries, form, tactics and tiredness there is enough game time for both.  I could expand on this but this has been covered in depth previously and this comment is getting long enough anyway

5) still dont understand why having two fine strikers is not a basic wanting for fans....anyway!!!

6) Ollie went on two long goal droughts that we could've done with a change

9 hours ago, Jas10 said:

Do you not agree that Ollie is a superior player, offer so much more, and has more than earned the right to be our main man at CF for the foreseeable future, and not be shifted out wide to accommodate Tammy or another player? He has excelled in that position and is only going to get better. Do we risk unsettling him or stalling his progress? He deserves a lot more admiration than Tammy, he’s our player…

1)  Ollie is a superior player all around, Tammy is a much much better goalscorer (stats shown previously)

2)  Again nobody pro-Tammy has said we shift Ollie out wide, that is a anti-Tammy comment to deflect

3)  Ollie has been brilliant and will only get better.  The competition with Tammy will make him even better and they can also learn from each other...Ollie about more clinical scoring and Tammy about all around play.

4)  Unsettling him?  No

5) Admiration?  Yes and No.  I have the fullest admiration, but it's not about admiration it's about having two strikers competing and getting us goals.

9 hours ago, Jas10 said:

Would you not prefer us to spend the bulk of our remaining budget and for our record signing to be a top class midfielder who can improve and help us out there

You are assuming we can only afford one.  I am not

9 hours ago, Jas10 said:

or a forward who would be adept at covering more than one position (WF & CF)?

No.  Waste of money!  if we buy ESR we are covered on wide and CAM positions.  Then a back up striker, why? we need to improve not just fill a squad plus they'd still be 20m+ for anything decent and a bit more money and you have Tammy

10 hours ago, Jas10 said:

We have a transfer and wage budget (and structure) to carefully manage too.

and Tammy fits both them.

[nick76]

8 hours ago, Jas10 said:

Ollie won’t be relegated to the bench or become 2nd choice CF. He is our main man and main source of goals.

Already answered above but it's not about 2nd choice or favouritism it's about competing for the shirt, maybe different formations, injuries, form....options, just options.  Why not have two sources of goals?  You need two quality strikers because you need options.

8 hours ago, Jas10 said:

We have brought in and are possibly still bringing in players that excel or can play on the wings so why would we play Ollie there?

Again no pro-tammy has said this for Ollie's role going forwards, this is an anti-tammy line...trying to use as an excuse some have

8 hours ago, Jas10 said:

Transfer activity (and a few links) so far suggests that the major priority is to try and provide better & more consistent service for Ollie more than anything, and to assist Jack in doing that. That’s where the majority of our limited funds/budget will be spent.

So if we buy all this creative talent then we need somebody to put the ball away.  What if Ollie gets injured, suspended, we try a different formation, Ollie goes through one of his long goal droughts (2 last season), what if we are chasing a game and  need another striker on the pitch as well, if it's not working with Ollie in a game and we need to try something different, what if Ollie is looking tired which at times he looked tired in the second part of last season.

8 hours ago, Jas10 said:

By strengthening, we will have better cover too (more likely to be some of our present players) and be able to manage should Jack sustain an injury or be suspended.

Your argument for Jack is the same argument we are having for Ollie, I dont see why people arent getting that.  We dont have cover for Ollie.  Wes is unknown and Davis is out of favour

8 hours ago, Jas10 said:

I would agree that we need this player unless Wesley can really stake a claim…

Something we have no idea (as fans) about.  If we go after Tammy or another striker then we will basically know the answer but at the moment we cant assume about Wes.

8 hours ago, Jas10 said:

If Tammy can be brought in on an amazing, high value deal and not an exorbitant wage, and he is coming in with the right sort of expectations, then I wouldn’t have any issue with it. 

I guess it's what you think is a high value deal.  I think the deal floated is a great deal for a 23 year old, incredibly low risk, understands our club and fits in, is proven at PL level has much better goalscoring ratio than Ollie, gets on with our players ( a key component), played at the top of the PL and in Europe.  If he's a success at Villa as well, his resell value would skyrocket and even if it doesnt work, for his age, we should still get most money back.

8 hours ago, Jas10 said:

That just won’t be the case though will it?

Definitely will though.  Each to their own value though but some arent being realistic about Tammy only worth 20-25m, that's just plain silly for Tammy's record, age, stats and history.

8 hours ago, Jas10 said:

Fingers crossed on Wesley, send Davis on his way…

Fingers crossed on Wes but I think we need Tammy or quality equivalent.

[nick76]

1 hour ago, Paul33 said:

If we had not seen Tammy have a decent spell with us in the Championship then I doubt there would be much enthusiasm for a player that can't make Chelsea's first team. My concern is that too many here are over-romanticising and living in the past ..... we are playing at a much higher level now and Tammy would need to be significantly better than he was to add anything to Villa 21/22. Has he shown that he can do that at Chelsea ? Clearly they don't think so and have chosen some bang average strikers in preference to him.
 

 

I think there would be interest in him because he is a proven goalscoring 23 year old striker.  He cant make Chelsea first team because of Tuchel  Some managers just dont like certain players, does that make Tammy a bad player? No

Not over romanticising.  We know what he can do at first hand plus he then went back to Chelsea and proved he could do it at PL level at the top end of the PL.  He's played at a higher level than us. 

Bang average Chelsea strikers?  Werner and Giroud....you are trolling now

Quote

Personally, I'm not convinced and would certainly not spend north of £20M on him. Would rather spend the rumoured money on somebody playing, performing and proving themselves in the Premier ..... signing players with "potential" should be reserved for the Academy now, we are at a level where we buy proven quality for the first team rather than gamble with maybe players !

This is definitely trolling. Tammy has played, performed and proved himself at the top end of the PL.  Not even going to comment on the "potential" because he's already proven but at 23 still has room to grow but even if he doesnt he's a top level PL striker.

Tammy is the least gamble of any striker we could almost buy at our level.  The reason for the 40m quoted is because of that, it's a low risk, highly proven young striker.  You dont get that for anywhere near 20m.

 

 

I'm not convinced your response was too serious was it?

[sidcow]

Oh good, long posts responding to multiple points others have made.  Nothing, NOTHING makes the day fly by quicker.

[Kiwivillan]

Tammy is just a lanky Darren Bent 

[TRO]

10 hours ago, Jas10 said:

That’s all well and good TRO. But why Tammy? Over anyone else? 

I’m sure there isn’t a single person here who does not want us to have competition and a deeper, better squad & cover. That’s not the prevailing debate here.

He would be a fine addition to the squad and is a great kid but wouldn’t it concern you that we would be spending a huge part of our budget and breaking our transfer record for a player who would most likely be spending the majority of time on the bench? Not to go straight into the team and elevate it (such as Buendia)?

Do you not agree that Ollie is a superior player, offer so much more, and has more than earned the right to be our main man at CF for the foreseeable future, and not be shifted out wide to accommodate Tammy or another player? He has excelled in that position and is only going to get better. Do we risk unsettling him or stalling his progress? He deserves a lot more admiration than Tammy, he’s our player…

Would you not prefer us to spend the bulk of our remaining budget and for our record signing to be a top class midfielder who can improve and help us out there or a forward who would be adept at covering more than one position (WF & CF)?

We have a transfer and wage budget (and structure) to carefully manage too.

• Tammy has been linked, thats all, but he has been with us before and succeeded, he is tried and tested and fitted in to a well oiled machine....so many factors have ticks next to them on this guy, he just needs some love and his belief returned to him....above all, he can score goals.
•  I don't see him on the bench, if we were to be signing him, I see him playing with Ollie, as I explained in an earlier post.....playing a sheringham role when he played alongside Shearer for England.....I'm not entirely sure that Ollie is a no 9 in the traditional sense, I love Ollie and don't want to disrupt him from should be a great career with Villa.....but this notion of 11 first teamers and the rest "all so rans" to make up the squad is a defeatest approach.....we need, they need, competition to progress....its going to be a new mindset for us, because we might be living in the past.....These owners were always aware and primed to act, when we established ourselves mid table....We have no idea, what the financial wherewithal of these guys intentions are....we can only get on board and take the ride.
• Anyway, I trust the management to get the right players, whoever they are.
• I think Ollie is a different player, with different attributes to Tammy, some co-incide, but some are different and more pronounced....I think both are very good.
• I don't know what our budget is, so I can't comment on whether we are prioritising properly or not.
• It is well documented on here, that I am in favour of a midfield General coming in, one with an ability to direct our play...but it needs to be a player in the 80's of Fifa ratings, not 70's.
• I have every confidence that the three musketeers, Purslow,Edens & Sawaris are more than capable of managing our wage bill/structure.

Edited July 5, 2021 by TRO

[the_eristic]

11 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Oh good, long posts responding to multiple points others have made already dozens, nay, hundreds of times in this thread and the last 3-5 transfer window threads and inevitably elsewhere. Nothing, NOTHING makes the day fly by quicker.

ftfy. Just gimme some ******* tweets at this point. (inb4 fakeout "loading tweet" image)

[Kiwivillan]

11 minutes ago, TRO said:

 I don't see him on the bench, if we were to be signing him, I see him playing with Ollie, as I explained in an earlier post.....playing a sheringham role when he played alongside Shearer for England

Respectfully if you think that you don't understand or have ignored the formations Smith plays. Very few PL clubs play this system atm maybe Southampton and Leicester. This will not happen which is main reason why I think we won't sign Tammy

Edited July 5, 2021 by Kiwivillan

[nick76]

24 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Oh good, long posts responding to multiple points others have made.  Nothing, NOTHING makes the day fly by quicker.

isnt that what a forum is to discuss points?  What's the point if there is no debate, it's then just a place to make statements.  Surely the idea is to engage with each other.  When you are down the pub, do you just each make statements at your mates or family members or do you discuss things, debate things, argue over things.  Somebody asked a question and people reply.

plus if you dont want to read it you dont have to, you can just go to the next post.

Edited July 5, 2021 by nick76

[TRO]

27 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said:

Respectfully if you think that you don't understand the formations Smith plays. This will not happen which is main reason why I think we won't sign Tammy

Equally, respectfully, managers play systems according to the attributes they have at their disposal in a squad.....They also have to bear in mind of the financial implications when looking for new recruits, I.e Burnley go for the robust approach, generally....Man City go for the silky passing approach generally....there is a co-relation there in terms of wherewithal....and what is acheiveable by their clubs.....Managers may have a view, but that is also sculptured by what resources they have to implement that view.

Dean Smith, having been granted another bumper summer,( presumably) may change things around according to who he brings in and what the team is capable of.....I have said many times formations morph, so I am not so hung up about formations, some folk are, accepted.

I am well aware of the formations Smith played last season and I am also of the opinion, he is capable of tweaking it to suit his needs.....Dean has far more latitude now, to play the kind of football that he desires as opposed to what he had to do in the past, some principles will stay with him,some will be circumstantial and be revisited.

I too, don't know whether, we will sign Tammy, but to think Ollie can spear head a team planning on 38 league games of arduous nature and embark on cup runs too, is fanciful.....This position is centre forward arguably the most demanding and difficult position on the field, allied to the mental stress of the accountable return of goals to boot.....Ollie did fantastic, but he needs help, real help, not journeymen or huge gambles.....He needs a partner, whether they play every match of not, injuries, suspensions, form dips all play a part, in that.

It is quite unusual for any ambitious player, being put out by team strengthening, they all crave it....so my worries about Ollie are dismissed.

Edited July 5, 2021 by TRO

[Kiwivillan]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

He needs a partner, whether they play every match of not, injuries, suspensions, form dips all play a part.

We're not going 2 up front. Not 2 CF, not target man and quick, no support striker. Smith plays 433 or 4231. He wants switch overloads on either side with 2 inside forwards on either side of Watkins

[MotoMkali]

40 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said:

Tammy is just a lanky Darren Bent 

Whilst I know this is a joke. You aren't wrong. 

[CarryOnVilla]

[Jas10]

Wow @nick76, I certainly admire your conviction and energy.  

Can’t really compete with that mate

I don’t want to keep repeating myself, just make clear (again) that I don’t have anything against Tammy but my concern is cost and use of budget. We don’t have to buy a striker or forward costing 40m, even 30m at this stage imo. But I never said we don’t need one.

I could give you some names or do some research but I already know what your response will be. And it’s not really my responsibility to target and come up with a list of players. From the players we’ve been linked to, Alvarez excites me greatly. But there are a whole host of other options out there. There is value to be had. At home and abroad.

I don’t go along (as much as others) with the notion that signing foreign players is such a big risk, not if your scouting is good and thorough enough. You just have to get the right ones in.

For me, it’s a tired old, blanket statement.
 

Again, it’s a POV that I’ve stated and elaborated on many times. Foreign players have come in and elevated this league and established themselves as stars and gone on to become renowned for their impact, talent and performances. Some have gone on to become historic figures or even legends for their teams and adored by fans. All the big clubs benefit from that approach… it’s not such a terrible or scary thing.
 

To each their own.

You don’t like it when I’m serious, do you?

[TRO]

8 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said:

We're not going 2 up front. Not 2 CF, not target man and quick, no support striker. Smith plays 433 or 4231. He wants switch overloads on either side with 2 inside forwards on either side of Watkins

why can he not play in a 4-3-3 or a 4-4-2 or a 3-4-3 or a 5-3-2 .....it doesn't have to be as rigid as you suggest.

I understand perfectly what you are suggesting, I just see it more optional.....and above all, I just do not see us take on an a demanding season with 1 real goal threat....There are plenty of options we can muster, to tactically tackle the opposition.

If we stay rigid to a system, we get negated....Dean has to have players he can switch things around with, he has been hampered in the past, he can now look at options at last.

[TRO]

2 minutes ago, Jas10 said:

Wow @nick76, I certainly admire your conviction and energy.  

Can’t really compete with that mate

I don’t want to keep repeating myself, just make clear (again) that I don’t have anything against Tammy but my concern is cost and use of budget. We don’t have to buy a striker or forward costing 40m, even 30m at this stage imo. But I never said we don’t need one.

I could give you some names or do some research but I already know what your response will be. And it’s not really my responsibility to target and come up with a list of players. From the players we’ve been linked to, Alvarez excites me greatly. But there are a whole host of other options out there. There is value to be had. At home and abroad.

I don’t go along (as much as others) with the notion that signing foreign players is such a big risk, not if your scouting is good and thorough enough. You just have to get the right ones in.

For me, it’s a tired old, blanket statement.
 

Again, it’s a POV that I’ve stated and elaborated on many times. Foreign players have come in and elevated this league and established themselves as stars and gone on to become renowned for their impact, talent and performances. Some have gone on to become historic figures or even legends for their teams and adored by fans. All the big clubs benefit from that approach… it’s not such a terrible or scary thing.
 

To each their own.

You don’t like it when I’m serious, do you?

who said its £40 mill?.....that's Journo talk.

[nick76]

4 minutes ago, Jas10 said:

We don’t have to buy a striker or forward costing 40m, even 30m at this stage imo

I think we do.  Ollie had two major goal droughts last season, looked tired occasionally and some games we needed a goal from somewhere.  We had no options, which resulted in our poor game run for months.  We need quality striker options, people just disagree what form that comes in.

6 minutes ago, Jas10 said:

You don’t like it when I’m serious, do you?

I love a good debate, I get to learn things……sometimes