Schu me the way to Amarillo - Summer 2025 Transfer Thread

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Something down the sides would be nice!

Still got a fair few to shift. Imagine Sheehan would be one, the oldest and least versatile of those midfielders, bit agree they probably all have their price.

Sheehan's value is the one most likely to drop quickly. His contract ends in 2027 (like Thomo and Morley) but he turned 30 this spring. Some fans think he can play the 10 and I can understand that tactical possibility, but (1) it's not like we're short of 10s and (2) like it or not, Sheehan was always the second-biggest avatar or Evattball after Santos, so there's a 'hygiene' / new-broom feel to moving him on.

(Of course, whoever leaves, some fans will pick on a new victim...)

[Worthy4England]

Something down the sides would be nice!

Still got a fair few to shift. Imagine Sheehan would be one, the oldest and least versatile of those midfielders, bit agree they probably all have their price.

Not sure we need to hit the same squad compisition as the last few years. There's plenty of "attackers" we could still dump. We also seem to be reading into an "accidental" flash of some magnets on a white board...

But yeah, couple of sides would now be good.

[Worthy4England]

Something down the sides would be nice!

Still got a fair few to shift. Imagine Sheehan would be one, the oldest and least versatile of those midfielders, bit agree they probably all have their price.

Sheehan's value is the one most likely to drop quickly. His contract ends in 2027 (like Thomo and Morley) but he turned 30 this spring. Some fans think he can play the 10 and I can understand that tactical possibility, but (1) it's not like we're short of 10s and (2) like it or not, Sheehan was always the second-biggest avatar or Evattball after Santos, so there's a 'hygiene' / new-broom feel to moving him on.

(Of course, whoever leaves, some fans will pick on a new victim...)

Agree in the main, we have seen him tactically in a more advanced role. Last time, iirc he scored 1 and set one up, between HT and 60 minutes...

Most of the other "10's," and "maybe 10's" we"re not sure they can tie their own boots.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Not sure we need to hit the same squad compisition as the last few years. There's plenty of "attackers" we could still dump. We also seem to be reading into an "accidental" flash of some magnets on a white board...

But yeah, couple of sides would now be good.

It's not the whiteboard tea-leaf reading (though that definitely happens) so much as Schumacher saying (back in late April) he wanted a back four and width. Here's the quote:

This team has been recruited to play a back five, to play with three centre-backs, over the last few years. So, I want to recruit to play a system that I'd prefer, playing with wide players, which hasn't really been easy to do so far. We would look to try and get some speed on the sides if we can, forward-thinking players, a number nine that runs in behind, and a physical presence, if possible.

Dalby's the physical presence more than the in-behind (Kenny?). Nmai is speed on the sides. "Forward-thinking players" is a phrase we could analyse all day, but it's not impossible he's referring to midfielders who have been trained to retain possession rather than risk the early ball...

For me, I do think Sheehan is an intelligent player and if Schumacher says "stop playing percentages or waiting for the perfect ball, hit the wingers early" he could do that just as happily as the Welsh-Xavi thing he's done for Evatt. Or...

Agree in the main, we have seen him tactically in a more advanced roll. Last time, iirc he scored 1 and set one up, between HT and 60 minutes...

Most of the other "10's," and "maybe 10's" we"re not sure they can tie their own boots.

He may well be the best 10 we own. But we own a lot. Same interview from Schumacher:

The players who we signed this summer for example, we signed three number 10s, two in the summer and one in January, and all three have got long-term deals. That is going to be really difficult, because it's crowded obviously in those areas, and we lack in certain other areas – a recognised number nine and wide players. We have got loads of work to do but we’re aware of it.

So that comes back to the imbalance. If Sheehan is a 10 (and assuming we do play a 10...), then fine, we've got just about the right number of "central midfielders" - Ceesay, Simons, Morley, Thomason fighting for two places.

But it moves the imbalance elsewhere - Sheehan is added to the most overloaded section of the squad, a 10/attacking midfielder/support striker along with Randall, McAtee, Lolos, CMG and Dempsey. They can't all tie their boots but they're all currently entitled to draw wages.

[Worthy4England]

I think that's sort of part of my point - the contention was (from gun I think maybe) if we get Ceesay, we need to unload (one/some of Morley, Thommo, Sheehan).

Not sure that's correct. We could also unload plenty of players further forwards - I mean we still have Dan at this point.

[jmjhb]

Well, there's bids in for all sorts so we shall see.

[The_Gun]

I put Sheehan into the central midfield pot because that’s almost exclusively where he’s played for us. That’s not to say that Schumacher won’t try him further forward, but did he ever try it last season? Genuinely can’t remember.

[The_Gun]

Well, there's bids in for all sorts so we shall see.

You mean bids made by us, or for our players? I’m almost more interested in the outgoings at this point.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I put Sheehan into the central midfield pot because that’s almost exclusively where he’s played for us. That’s not to say that Schumacher won’t try him further forward, but did he ever try it last season? Genuinely can’t remember.

He didn't. Maybe because we had so many 10s

But then I've said many times that he seemed to be undertaking a complete squad audit last season. So suddenly shifting Sheehan to 10 without trying it first might be a bit odd. I still suspect a sale is more likely.

[The_Gun]

I have to say that I’d be quite interested in seeing Sheehan playing alongside a more physical type like a Simons, or an absolute unit like Ceesay. He’s also now our most experienced player, and he regularly gets picked picked for his country, so I wouldn’t be desperate to see him leave.

[irie Cee Bee]

Not sure we need to hit the same squad compisition as the last few years. There's plenty of "attackers" we could still dump. We also seem to be reading into an "accidental" flash of some magnets on a white board...

But yeah, couple of sides would now be good.

It's not the whiteboard tea-leaf reading (though that definitely happens) so much as Schumacher saying (back in late April) he wanted a back four and width. Here's the quote:

This team has been recruited to play a back five, to play with three centre-backs, over the last few years. So, I want to recruit to play a system that I'd prefer, playing with wide players, which hasn't really been easy to do so far. We would look to try and get some speed on the sides if we can, forward-thinking players, a number nine that runs in behind, and a physical presence, if possible.

Dalby's the physical presence more than the in-behind (Kenny?). Nmai is speed on the sides. "Forward-thinking players" is a phrase we could analyse all day, but it's not impossible he's referring to midfielders who have been trained to retain possession rather than risk the early ball...

For me, I do think Sheehan is an intelligent player and if Schumacher says "stop playing percentages or waiting for the perfect ball, hit the wingers early" he could do that just as happily as the Welsh-Xavi thing he's done for Evatt. Or...

Agree in the main, we have seen him tactically in a more advanced roll. Last time, iirc he scored 1 and set one up, between HT and 60 minutes...

Most of the other "10's," and "maybe 10's" we"re not sure they can tie their own boots.

He may well be the best 10 we own. But we own a lot. Same interview from Schumacher:

The players who we signed this summer for example, we signed three number 10s, two in the summer and one in January, and all three have got long-term deals. That is going to be really difficult, because it's crowded obviously in those areas, and we lack in certain other areas – a recognised number nine and wide players. We have got loads of work to do but we’re aware of it.

So that comes back to the imbalance. If Sheehan is a 10 (and assuming we do play a 10...), then fine, we've got just about the right number of "central midfielders" - Ceesay, Simons, Morley, Thomason fighting for two places.

But it moves the imbalance elsewhere - Sheehan is added to the most overloaded section of the squad, a 10/attacking midfielder/support striker along with Randall, McAtee, Lolos, CMG and Dempsey. They can't all tie their boots but they're all currently entitled to draw wages.

For me the only true 10 in this list is Randall, and Sheehan maybe better than all of them in that position, although I think we must sell him to balance the books.

Dempsey is box to box, CMG is a 7, Lolos and McAtee more a false 9 players and should be sold to balance the team.

[jmjhb]

Well, there's bids in for all sorts so we shall see.

You mean bids made by us, or for our players? I’m almost more interested in the outgoings at this point.

I suppose one is heavily reliant on the other. If we sign 5 more then there will be a bunch of players unregistered and a bloated squad.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

...But it moves the imbalance elsewhere - Sheehan is added to the most overloaded section of the squad, a 10/attacking midfielder/support striker along with Randall, McAtee, Lolos, CMG and Dempsey.

For me the only true 10 in this list is Randall, and Sheehan maybe better than all of them in that position, although I think we must sell him to balance the books.

Dempsey is box to box, CMG is a 7, Lolos and McAtee more a false 9 players and should be sold to balance the team.

Yeah I agree. But it depends on definitions - and formations.

You say McAtee and Lolos are "false 9s" and I know what you mean but (maybe just to me personally) I think that's slightly overestimating their ability. Messi was a false 9; Messi they are not. They're basically strikers that prefer to come on to the ball from behind, rather than leading the line. The slightly older term is 'second striker' - think a Sheringham to a Shearer, or a Keegan to a Toshack - and that suits them better to my mind than saying they're some kind of creative fulcrum. Besides, as a 'false 9' is rarely played with an 'actual 9', we won't be doing it. Could've tried it last spring; didn't; having signed Dalby, doubt we will.

But barring that terminological quibble, your point is fundamentally correct. Here's how I see them:
• Randall - clearly a 10. Can play as a 'free 8' in a 433 but not very well.
• Dempsey - best as a 'free 8' (ie box-to-box) in a 433. Can play 10 but isn't really a creative genius and is better facing the oppo goal.
• CMG - yeah probably a winger but we have so little data it's hard to know
• McAtee - 'second striker' in a front two but again not very creative
• Lolos - will try anything, usually without producing. Was touted as a 8/10/9. Probably best as a second striker. In the fourth tier.

So...
• none of them are really a 9 - barring McAtee and maybe Lolos (not very well)
• none of them are 'deep midfielders'
• Only CMG could play wide, and only if fit
• In a 4231, none of them are really a 10 in a promotion team, barring possibly Randall (to be proven)
• In a 433, the only real "box to box 8" (as opposed to the one holding) is Dempsey, and only if fit

Looked at another way:
• Randall can only play 10 in a 4231
• Dempsey can only play 8 in a 433
• McAtee can only play in a front two
• CMG can only play if he's not broken
• Lolos can only play in Division Four

I suspect, notwithstanding the need to raise money, Schuey would very gladly get shut of all five of them - but that's unlikely in some cases. (I further suspect he might be magnanimous/realistic enough to reconsider if they have a stellar pre-season.)

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

We also. have a bid in for Jacob from Hull

Apparently going to Reading on loan.

Pete O'Rourke says so, aye. So who's the next left-back target?
https://x.com/SportsPeteO/status/1940348444272627970

[jmjhb]

Not sure he ever was a target. But still, hard to compete with agent nepotism!

[Worthy4England]

I put Sheehan into the central midfield pot because that’s almost exclusively where he’s played for us. That’s not to say that Schumacher won’t try him further forward, but did he ever try it last season? Genuinely can’t remember.

I think it's the assertion that if we sign X & Y then A & B must go - so - Simons/Ceesay in = one or two of Thommo/Morley/Sheehan out.

We could get Simons/Ceesay in, flog or other wise dispose of CMG/Dan/(Others further forwards) and keep Thommo/Morley and Sheehan. I don't think Sheehan has started further forwards, but we've certainly pushed him there tactically on occasion.

That's not to say we will - just we could...

[truewhite15]

I suppose the question is, is Ceesay coming in as another defensive midfielder (in which case he's in direct competition with Simons, Thomason, Morley and Sheehan), which would indicate that we're likely looking at two holding midfielders to start...

Or is he coming in as our new starting left back?

If the former, then there's still massive holes to be filled on both flanks, both attacking and defensive, as it would likely be a 4-2-3-1 formation. If the latter, then it's still anybody guess, but at least we've filled the massive chasm at left back...

[Bertie Wooster]

I suppose the question is, is Ceesay coming in as another defensive midfielder (in which case he's in direct competition with Simons, Thomason, Morley and Sheehan), which would indicate that we're likely looking at two holding midfielders to start...

Or is he coming in as our new starting left back?

If the former, then there's still massive holes to be filled on both flanks, both attacking and defensive, as it would likely be a 4-2-3-1 formation. If the latter, then it's still anybody guess, but at least we've filled the massive chasm at left back...

I'll be quite shocked if he is coming as a LB, in fact I'd be amazed - he's a central midfielder / defensive midfielder

[truewhite15]

I suppose the question is, is Ceesay coming in as another defensive midfielder (in which case he's in direct competition with Simons, Thomason, Morley and Sheehan), which would indicate that we're likely looking at two holding midfielders to start...

Or is he coming in as our new starting left back?

If the former, then there's still massive holes to be filled on both flanks, both attacking and defensive, as it would likely be a 4-2-3-1 formation. If the latter, then it's still anybody guess, but at least we've filled the massive chasm at left back...

I'll be quite shocked if he is coming as a LB, in fact I'd be amazed - he's a central midfielder / defensive midfielder

I was only going off the reports that he does have that position in his repertoire.

But if that's the case, and making the assumption given that we've signed two players for that position, that it's a 4-2-3-1, it leaves us five players in that midfield 2. That's at least 1 too many.

The alternative is that Ceesay comes in as a definitive #6, playing with the two #8s ahead. Is Simons a #6 or a #8? If a #6, that's Ceesay, Simons and Sheehan squabbling over one shirt; Thomo, Morley and Dempsey arguing over the two #8s, and vanishingly little room in the line up for any of our myriad #10s...

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Watching what Ceesay clips are available online, I'm not even sure he's left-footed.

He's certainly very comfortable on his right, sometimes even seeming to prefer it when both options are available. For example, his only goal this season is a right-foot 20-yarder that might arguably have been easier to hit with his left...