Moussa Dembélé

[MotoMkali]

11 hours ago, AshVilla said:

So looking at Dembele's stats in his "good" season.

He did score 21 goals but he was also supplied with 40+ chances finishing most from inside the box.

Do people really think he's going to come here and get that level of service also in a higher standard of league?

I think he will struggle to hit double figures.

 

Depends what it means by chances? Chances as in shots? Because that is generally what is referred to as chances created. Then easily.

If it is some sort of like a chance where you create over 0.1 or 0.2 xG then also probably. 

[Rustibrooks]

Arsenal/Brighton are a good example of getting players from lesser leagues and they hit the ground running/ become decent players. 
 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Rustibrooks

[gwi1890]

47 minutes ago, Laughable Chimp said:

By my count its 8 goals in 36 actually. 1 goal every 300 minutes.

Correct, 7 in 27 in the champion league, and 1 in 8 in the europa. About 12 of those appearances as a 19/20 year old for Celtic.

[CVByrne]

39 minutes ago, Steero113 said:

With that logic applied, no striker in world football would hit double figures. 

A team where one player is responsible for nearly half a clubs goals is a badly run club imo. I know fans want that one player who is prolific, but it's a big risk for lots of reasons, especially injury and that player leaving. Benteke situation for us should be the lesson

Edited January 21, 2023 by CVByrne

[est1874]

18 hours ago, PieFacE said:

Fully trust Emery with this one. If reports are true that Emery wanted him at both PSG and Villarreal then he must be very confident in his ability. 

That's fair. My only issue is that we should have done the business before agreeing to sell Ings. Not exactly leaving ourselves in a strong bargaining position right now. I actually have no clue why Lyon would agree to £3m if true that Emery wants him so much. 

[MSvillain]

4 minutes ago, est1874 said:

That's fair. My only issue is that we should have done the business before agreeing to sell Ings. Not exactly leaving ourselves in a strong bargaining position right now. I actually have no clue why Lyon would agree to £3m if true that Emery wants him so much. 

They lose him for nothing in 6 months so they don’t really have a leg to stand on.

we can agree a contract with him now so it’s basically free money for them, they also get his wages off the books

Edited January 21, 2023 by MSvillain

[est1874]

7 minutes ago, MSvillain said:

They lose him for nothing in 6 months so they don’t really have a leg to stand on.

we can agree a contract with him now so it’s basically free money for them, they also get his wages off the books

And what stops someone else stealing him?

I maintain selling Ings first was not smart.

[Delphinho123]

16 minutes ago, est1874 said:

And what stops someone else stealing him?

I maintain selling Ings first was not smart.

It was smart and it was bloody obvious. Why are you so worried about a second choice striker when we’re out of both cups and our main striker has a phenomenal injury record? 

We needed those wages off the books and this window was arguably the only chance we had to get a fee for an ageing striker who really doesn’t offer all that much. 

Worst comes to worst, we’re a few points worse off at the end of the season and Bailey has to play up there should Watkins get injured.

The alternative is either keep Ings and have him collect millions over the next 18 months or get rid now, get a fee and put that money toward a striker either now or in the summer. 

We should never have signed the bloke. It was massive money for a player who had very little resale value, has a questionable injury record and who didn’t fit the system we were playing whatsoever. He was bought to cushion the blow of Grealish leaving and we were awash with money at the time. 

He comes across as a top bloke and a top professional, but I’m not at all sad to lose him. We need to push on. He isn’t the future. 

[MrBlack]

2 hours ago, Rich192 said:

Can those who think it's a poor signing explain why? I'm genuinely confused. Vast majority of us haven't seen much of him, so all we can really go by is Fbref and WhoScored.

At his time at Lyon, in Ligue 1, he's had an xG of 56.2, and scored 55. That doesn't seem too bad? Ings' xG for us was 12.9 and he scored 13, so we're not talking about a huge difference. Ings has only scored more than 12 goals in a top flight once in his career, and is 31 in the summer, where as Dembele has managed it three times, and is 27 in the summer.

Dembele's average rating for Lyon in Ligue 1 over the five seasons is 6.89 for all appearances, and 7.09 for just those games he started in. By contrast, Ings' average rating for us is 6.61 in the Premier League in all appearances, and 6.82 in just starts. Sure, Dembele was playing for a better team in a worse league, but those two variables aren't big enough to explain such a big discrepancy? It also matches the eye test, when Ings didn't score or contribute, quite a few times it was as if we were playing with a man down.

I really don't get the apathy, or even disappointment of this transfer? Of course it could happen, and it doesn't work out, but if that's the case it'll be a far cheaper mistake than Ings' move, or even Wesley, heaven forbid. 

I'm 100% on board with this potential move, I think he's just what we need as a different option up front, and think he'll be a far better player up top than Watkins is.

Web won't find better for less. And we won't find value anything close to this anywhere else. If FFP is a factor (it is) then it really feels like our best option.

[PieFacE]

45 minutes ago, est1874 said:

That's fair. My only issue is that we should have done the business before agreeing to sell Ings. Not exactly leaving ourselves in a strong bargaining position right now. I actually have no clue why Lyon would agree to £3m if true that Emery wants him so much. 

Well, I suspect it's due to multiple factors.

A) the club weren't anticipating a bid and were planning to finish the season with Ings

once the bid came in Ings himself wanted the move

C) for the deal to be completed, West Ham wanted it to be completed ASAP due to their current League position. 

As for why Lyon would sell, he's out of contact in the summer and isn't exactly playing well for them this season by all accounts. 

 

 

 

[est1874]

8 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

Well, I suspect it's due to multiple factors.

A) the club weren't anticipating a bid and were planning to finish the season with Ings

once the bid came in Ings himself wanted the move

C) for the deal to be completed, West Ham wanted it to be completed ASAP due to their current League position. 

As for why Lyon would sell, he's out of contact in the summer and isn't exactly playing well for them this season by all accounts. 

 

 

 

OK. So then why isn't a deal done? 

We've been hearing about this for over a week now and we have a need.

Ings was done and dusted within 48 hours.

Something feels not right about it.

[Rolta]

Just now, est1874 said:

OK. So then why isn't a deal done? 

We've been hearing about this for over a week now and we have a need.

Ings was done and dusted within 48 hours.

Something feels not right about it.

I think that feeling is what happens when you compare two transfers as if they're the equivalents without really knowing anything about either!

[est1874]

1 minute ago, Rolta said:

I think that feeling is what happens when you compare two transfers as if they're the equivalents without really knowing anything about either!

[Guest av1]

FWIW I’d have been happy if we took this guy in a straight swap with Ings. 

The fact we could possibly get him and come out of it better off seems like great business to me. 

[Guest av1]

49 minutes ago, est1874 said:

And what stops someone else stealing him?

I maintain selling Ings first was not smart.

Nothing, but by the same token West Ham were desperate for a striker so what stops them looking elsewhere if they couldn’t complete the Ings deal this week? 
 

All things considered I think it was an offer we’d have been mad to turn down. 

[est1874]

2 minutes ago, av1 said:

Nothing, but by the same token West Ham were desperate for a striker so what stops them looking elsewhere if they couldn’t complete the Ings deal this week? 
 

All things considered I think it was an offer we’d have been mad to turn down. 

Thank you for the considered response actually engaging with my question, was too much for others.

Appreciate what you're saying. I think the success or otherwise of the deal will be defined by how the rest of the window turns out for us, and over time. If Duran ends up hitting the ground running and/or being a very decent player in the long run, or we get Dembele or better in the door and get some goals out of him, then obviously it will have looked like very good business.

If we end up failing to bring in anyone else up top, and Duran takes a long time to get going, some people might be revising their thoughts on it.

I'm open to the movements, but I'm skeptical. Folks can't deny it's a risk. Question is, will it prove to be a risk that pays off, or one that backfires.

[PieFacE]

25 minutes ago, est1874 said:

OK. So then why isn't a deal done? 

We've been hearing about this for over a week now and we have a need.

Ings was done and dusted within 48 hours.

Something feels not right about it.

Have we? First I heard of it was the day that Ings was sold. And I don't know why it's not done. The club obviously don't feel the same urgency as you which is fair enough considering Ings was a player who would be on the bench anyway. It's not like we've just sold a first teamer. It leaves us light of course, but I'm sure we'll manage for 1 game. 

[MSvillain]

1 hour ago, est1874 said:

And what stops someone else stealing him?

I maintain selling Ings first was not smart.

Yeah that’s a fair point, wasn’t sure that was the angle you were initially coming at it from 

[Guest av1]

23 minutes ago, est1874 said:

Thank you for the considered response actually engaging with my question, was too much for others.

Appreciate what you're saying. I think the success or otherwise of the deal will be defined by how the rest of the window turns out for us, and over time. If Duran ends up hitting the ground running and/or being a very decent player in the long run, or we get Dembele or better in the door and get some goals out of him, then obviously it will have looked like very good business.

If we end up failing to bring in anyone else up top, and Duran takes a long time to get going, some people might be revising their thoughts on it.

I'm open to the movements, but I'm skeptical. Folks can't deny it's a risk. Question is, will it prove to be a risk that pays off, or one that backfires.

I think there is a risk with every signing to be fair. What Ings brought to the team is subjective and everyone will have a different opinion, but I just think that given his limited game time and our managers comments that he decided to let him go, Emery obviously felt that Ings wasn’t go to play a huge role moving forward. 
 

If that is the case, and given he age, salary, fee received etc, I think it was a good move for everyone. 
 

[allani]

55 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

It was smart and it was bloody obvious. Why are you so worried about a second choice striker when we’re out of both cups and our main striker has a phenomenal injury record? 

We needed those wages off the books and this window was arguably the only chance we had to get a fee for an ageing striker who really doesn’t offer all that much. 

Worst comes to worst, we’re a few points worse off at the end of the season and Bailey has to play up there should Watkins get injured.

The alternative is either keep Ings and have him collect millions over the next 18 months or get rid now, get a fee and put that money toward a striker either now or in the summer. 

We should never have signed the bloke. It was massive money for a player who had very little resale value, has a questionable injury record and who didn’t fit the system we were playing whatsoever. He was bought to cushion the blow of Grealish leaving and we were awash with money at the time. 

He comes across as a top bloke and a top professional, but I’m not at all sad to lose him. We need to push on. He isn’t the future. 

Whilst this has probably been done to death already - I do slightly worry that a few points difference at the end of the season could still be very important to us.  I think there is a big difference between us finishing 8th or 9th (in which case we will have finished the last two thirds of the season as being "best of the rest") and finishing 11th or 12th in terms of attracting the players who can take us to the next level.  I don't think players and agents consider 2 - 5 points different as much as they look at the league position and league table.  This becomes even more important if / when we are competing with Spurs / Newcastle for a signing rather than other teams in mid-table.

I do think we'll end up with someone who fits our system better than Ings by the end of the month.  But if we don't - even though I think the Ings deal is a good one financially, I am a little concerned that it could have an impact on our summer business and that the few points dropped might result in us missing out on the player(s) who can take us to the next level next season rather than having to wait another season to try and establish ourselves as the team outside the Sly 6 (and Newcastle) that players should be signing for.