The Promotion Commotion Transfer Thread 2017

[Lost Leopard Spot]

If Kramer's now a free agent, which he appears to be, why haven't we dispatched my missus to lure him over here?

[boltonboris]

If the style of play has to change, so be it. We couldn't hang on to Madine anyway if reports are correct.

Not as easy as that.. It's not just a 'style of play'.. It's a culture that has been ingrained into this club since 1999. We've tried changing it and suffered as a result. A direct, aggressive style is what the club has been accustomed to. Those changes don't happen overnight - It takes years.

Big Sam
Megson
Coyle
Freedman
Lennon
Parkinson

All of them, have at the most part, been at their/our most competitive when playing direct passes towards a solitary big man. It's who we are

[bedwetter2]

...right. Ok, I feel better already. The world's axis has not tipped.
Hopefully the £74 billion quid we've squirreled away for a rainy day will enable us to plan more than two weeks in advance...

Eh? Have you caught a certain correspondent's hyperbole disease?

[bedwetter2]

If the style of play has to change, so be it. We couldn't hang on to Madine anyway if reports are correct.

Not as easy as that.. It's not just a 'style of play'.. It's a culture that has been ingrained into this club since 1999. We've tried changing it and suffered as a result. A direct, aggressive style is what the club has been accustomed to. Those changes don't happen overnight - It takes years.

Big Sam
Megson
Coyle
Freedman
Lennon
Parkinson

All of them, have at the most part, been at their/our most competitive when playing direct passes towards a solitary big man. It's who we are

At the moment that 'culture' is as strong as ever it was and I would suggest managers and coaches have been self-selecting on the basis that the ones appointed have, shall we say, a penchant for that style. Although even Samuel Allardiccio mixed it up at times, especially before Kevin Davies and when the lone striker was not available. Rarely, admittedly, but he didn't play every game of every season.

It is an opinion, (not mine I hasten to add) that whilst the lone striker can be very good at hold-up play there were long periods in KD's day when there was no one to lay off to or the ball bounced off his big chest into touch. You know the score with Madine. For a long time hopeless in getting the ball in the net. Remember Elmander (yes, he was an expensive disappointment) who quite often had the ball booted out of defence towards his head and if not accurate, way out of reach. I would contend that such a style of play when facing a competent defence is fairly useless. We should mix it up and play a lone striker - perhaps this Dutch guy - against only easily dominated opposition (if there is any of those any more) and a forward line of two or three committed players to maximise opportunities against others. After all Clough is small enough to go through the legs of tall defenders!

It is possible to still be aggressive and direct without a single big fat lad up top.

I suppose I am a bit of a romantic remembering the Rioch team of Mcginley and Walker. He got a song out of shortish forwards.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I suppose I am a bit of a romantic remembering the Rioch team of Mcginley and Walker. He got a song out of shortish forwards.

Bruce's tactic was simple - get it down, pass it wide, cross it in. Note our two goals at Anfield were headers from crosses. Since then the average centre-back has become a better footballer and most teams don't play two up top, so the one guy has to bring others into play; the classic method thereof is a target man.

[BWFC_Insane]

I suppose I am a bit of a romantic remembering the Rioch team of Mcginley and Walker. He got a song out of shortish forwards.

Bruce's tactic was simple - get it down, pass it wide, cross it in. Note our two goals at Anfield were headers from crosses. Since then the average centre-back has become a better footballer and most teams don't play two up top, so the one guy has to bring others into play; the classic method thereof is a target man.

Watch highlights of those matches. It’s amazing how much space wingers were afforded. The game is almost slow motion compared to today. Most teams had width and so midfield was far less flooded. The power and pace wasn’t the same either.

It’s ridiculous watching football that isn’t that long ago, relatively to see how different the game is.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Slightly confused as to why you’re apparently spanking my bottom...

Aye. The biggest single difference was actually slightly earlier: the abolition of the backpass. Watch a game from 1990 and it’s fairly easy to kill it off. Liverpool did it for decades.

[BWFC_Insane]

Slightly confused as to why you’re apparently spanking my bottom...

Aye. The biggest single difference was actually slightly earlier: the abolition of the backpass. Watch a game from 1990 and it’s fairly easy to kill it off. Liverpool did it for decades.

When I reply on the tablet it seems to be adding in random emojis. It wasn't intentional....

[bedwetter2]

I suppose I am a bit of a romantic remembering the Rioch team of Mcginley and Walker. He got a song out of shortish forwards.

Bruce's tactic was simple - get it down, pass it wide, cross it in. Note our two goals at Anfield were headers from crosses. Since then the average centre-back has become a better footballer and most teams don't play two up top, so the one guy has to bring others into play; the classic method thereof is a target man.

And yet managers are at times keen to narrow the pitch to limit the opposition's width. Seems to me there is a degree of undue faith in the benefits of using a single striker unless passing accuracy is better than ours because the one guy will find it difficult to bring others into play when there is no one there or if there is the ball will be wasted to the degree that it never gets to big fat lad. So many of our 'attacks' fizzle out in the final third because of inaccurate passing and the opposing team's central defenders don't have to exert themselves too much.

Just remind me how many goals we have scored in the league this season? It should be telling us something.

[BWFC_Insane]

I suppose I am a bit of a romantic remembering the Rioch team of Mcginley and Walker. He got a song out of shortish forwards.

Bruce's tactic was simple - get it down, pass it wide, cross it in. Note our two goals at Anfield were headers from crosses. Since then the average centre-back has become a better footballer and most teams don't play two up top, so the one guy has to bring others into play; the classic method thereof is a target man.

And yet managers are at times keen to narrow the pitch to limit the opposition's width. Seems to me there is a degree of undue faith in the benefits of using a single striker unless passing accuracy is better than ours because the one guy will find it difficult to bring others into play when there is no one there or if there is the ball will be wasted to the degree that it never gets to big fat lad. So many of our 'attacks' fizzle out in the final third because of inaccurate passing and the opposing team's central defenders don't have to exert themselves too much.

Just remind me how many goals we have scored in the league this season? It should be telling us something.

The reason lone strikers are so prevalent is because if you surrender midfield then 99% of the time you lose. That’s football today. The game is played at such a pace there is so much power, that if you let teams dominate the middle of the park you are finished. There are very few players around who can play in a midfield two. To do so you need to be able to cover an immense amount of ground, be strong in the challenge and good on the ball.

We certainly cannnot play 2 in midfield without being horribly exposed.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

PP, BN:

“I have to pick a team first but we won’t have lots of time to change the way we play.

“Timing is difficult. Going forward we have played with a focal point at the top of the pitch. You look at Chelsea with Costa and Morata, United have done the same; we all like the number nine with physicality up there. If we don’t replace that, we will have to find another way of winning games.”

[officer_dibble]

Hasnt Parky won 1 league game without Madine?

Its going to get shit before it hopefully gets better...

[BWFC_Insane]

Hasnt Parky won 1 league game without Madine?

Its going to get shit before it hopefully gets better...

Yep. Last 22 months, we've won one league game Madine hasn't started.

The reason for that is Madine was becoming very, very good at what he was doing and the team was setup to benefit from that.

Its going to be incredibly tough to find another way. Thats the job though and Parky will give it his best shot.

[bedwetter2]

I suppose I am a bit of a romantic remembering the Rioch team of Mcginley and Walker. He got a song out of shortish forwards.

Bruce's tactic was simple - get it down, pass it wide, cross it in. Note our two goals at Anfield were headers from crosses. Since then the average centre-back has become a better footballer and most teams don't play two up top, so the one guy has to bring others into play; the classic method thereof is a target man.

And yet managers are at times keen to narrow the pitch to limit the opposition's width. Seems to me there is a degree of undue faith in the benefits of using a single striker unless passing accuracy is better than ours because the one guy will find it difficult to bring others into play when there is no one there or if there is the ball will be wasted to the degree that it never gets to big fat lad. So many of our 'attacks' fizzle out in the final third because of inaccurate passing and the opposing team's central defenders don't have to exert themselves too much.

Just remind me how many goals we have scored in the league this season? It should be telling us something.

The reason lone strikers are so prevalent is because if you surrender midfield then 99% of the time you lose. That’s football today. The game is played at such a pace there is so much power, that if you let teams dominate the middle of the park you are finished. There are very few players around who can play in a midfield two. To do so you need to be able to cover an immense amount of ground, be strong in the challenge and good on the ball. We certainly cannot play 2 in midfield without being horribly exposed.

Yes, yes, I understand all that and would not suggest we go to a two man midfield. In a system which some play however, the flexibility of playing three at the back and freeing up one to augment midfield or indeed play an old fashioned sweeper role behind a midfield trio could make us more flexible. The problem with packing the midfield is that it becomes a negative tactic quite often leading to the ball getting stuck there, lots of sideways passing, then being lost to the opposition.
So, should we play 3-4-3, 4-1-3-2, 4-4-2 or just stop confusing the players with too many tactics and increase their win bonuses substantially. Nothing like an incentive to get 'em moving. Punishment beatings for those who don't up their game.
[/quote]

[BWFC_Insane]

I suppose I am a bit of a romantic remembering the Rioch team of Mcginley and Walker. He got a song out of shortish forwards.

Bruce's tactic was simple - get it down, pass it wide, cross it in. Note our two goals at Anfield were headers from crosses. Since then the average centre-back has become a better footballer and most teams don't play two up top, so the one guy has to bring others into play; the classic method thereof is a target man.

And yet managers are at times keen to narrow the pitch to limit the opposition's width. Seems to me there is a degree of undue faith in the benefits of using a single striker unless passing accuracy is better than ours because the one guy will find it difficult to bring others into play when there is no one there or if there is the ball will be wasted to the degree that it never gets to big fat lad. So many of our 'attacks' fizzle out in the final third because of inaccurate passing and the opposing team's central defenders don't have to exert themselves too much.

Just remind me how many goals we have scored in the league this season? It should be telling us something.

The reason lone strikers are so prevalent is because if you surrender midfield then 99% of the time you lose. That’s football today. The game is played at such a pace there is so much power, that if you let teams dominate the middle of the park you are finished. There are very few players around who can play in a midfield two. To do so you need to be able to cover an immense amount of ground, be strong in the challenge and good on the ball. We certainly cannot play 2 in midfield without being horribly exposed.

Yes, yes, I understand all that and would not suggest we go to a two man midfield. In a system which some play however, the flexibility of playing three at the back and freeing up one to augment midfield or indeed play an old fashioned sweeper role behind a midfield trio could make us more flexible. The problem with packing the midfield is that it becomes a negative tactic quite often leading to the ball getting stuck there, lots of sideways passing, then being lost to the opposition.
So, should we play 3-4-3, 4-1-3-2, 4-4-2 or just stop confusing the players with too many tactics and increase their win bonuses substantially. Nothing like an incentive to get 'em moving. Punishment beatings for those who don't up their game.

[/quote]

Its all a bit idealistic. We're one of the weaker sides in the league. We found a way to pick up points, with the players we had.

We were effective in doing so.

Now thats been taken away. We'll have to try something different. There is scant evidence we're good enough to pull it off but we'll have to try.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Once more m'lud, I refer the jury back to the fact we are in a relegation place. That occurred with Madine in the side, so the statement "We were effective doing so" doesn't quite mean the same thing to different people. If you think being 22nd is effective god knows where we'd be if we were shit.

[BWFC_Insane]

Once more m'lud, I refer the jury back to the fact we are in a relegation place. That occurred with Madine in the side, so the statement "We were effective doing so" doesn't quite mean the same thing to different people. If you think being 22nd is effective god knows where we'd be if we were shit.

We were just about out of the bottom three until the mid week games were played (which leaves us the Cardiff away game in hand). The target has always been 4th bottom. That would represent huge success given the situation we've been facing off the field and its impact on it.

The point being our PPG since the first 12 has been very decent, midtable form. Pushing towards the playoffs form.

We'd found a way to compete in this league. Without question we were heavily reliant on Madine's goals and performances in doing so.

We were definitely in with a shout of survival. The question is now can we compete in games, starting tonight and be effective at getting points. We've not lost many at home since the opening games.

Common sense says, that most of the time, if you're just keeping your head above water, barely, that selling your top scorer (by a wide margin top scorer as well) is unlikely to help your efforts at keeping your head above the water line.

[Dr Hotdog]

staggers me to think (and I know the market is bonkers) that we (potensh) made more on Madine than we did for any past Scandinavian player we sold, Feeeesh, Thommo, McAteer, Ricketts, Blake, Nolan.

[BWFC_Insane]

staggers me to think (and I know the market is bonkers) that we (potensh) made more on Madine than we did for any past Scandinavian player we sold, Feeeesh, Thommo, McAteer, Ricketts, Blake, Nolan.

Different times though isn't it.

And also a reflection of how few strikers there are about today. Look at Chelsea's troubles since losing Costa for example.

[bedwetter2]

If the style of play has to change, so be it. We couldn't hang on to Madine anyway if reports are correct.

Not as easy as that.. It's not just a 'style of play'.. It's a culture that has been ingrained into this club since 1999. We've tried changing it and suffered as a result. A direct, aggressive style is what the club has been accustomed to. Those changes don't happen overnight - It takes years.

Big Sam
Megson
Coyle
Freedman
Lennon
Parkinson

All of them, have at the most part, been at their/our most competitive when playing direct passes towards a solitary big man. It's who we are

At the moment that 'culture' is as strong as ever it was and I would suggest managers and coaches have been self-selecting on the basis that the ones appointed have, shall we say, a penchant for that style. Although even Samuel Allardiccio mixed it up at times, especially before Kevin Davies and when the lone striker was not available. Rarely, admittedly, but he didn't play every game of every season.

It is an opinion, (not mine I hasten to add) that whilst the lone striker can be very good at hold-up play there were long periods in KD's day when there was no one to lay off to or the ball bounced off his big chest into touch. You know the score with Madine. For a long time hopeless in getting the ball in the net. Remember Elmander (yes, he was an expensive disappointment) who quite often had the ball booted out of defence towards his head and if not accurate, way out of reach. I would contend that such a style of play when facing a competent defence is fairly useless. We should mix it up and play a lone striker - perhaps this Dutch guy - against only easily dominated opposition (if there is any of those any more) and a forward line of two or three committed players to maximise opportunities against others. After all Clough is small enough to go through the legs of tall defenders!

It is possible to still be aggressive and direct without a single big fat lad up top.

I suppose I am a bit of a romantic remembering the Rioch team of Mcginley and Walker. He got a song out of shortish forwards.

Well chaps, I rest my case. It is possible to get a win without a big fat lad up front.