Snog, Marry, Avoid: Summer 2023 Transfer Window

[Worthy4England]

I'm not going to be stunned if our N10 isn't a loan signing....

Is or isn't?

My bad - is...I just think he might head back to Shortire...

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Age wise though he's 32. Not saying he couldn't do a job for us but doesn't exactly fit the money ball profile. Unless it's a case of promotion at all costs this season.

The suggestion seems to be that Mayor is an option, but we are chasing a bigger fish.

My view is that neither Flick nor Baccus have been used to their full potential in terms of what they can offer going forward, but I don't think either is a natural "him or Mayor" pick.

Submit your guesses at your own leisure - whilst remembering Messi has already signed for Miami.

You forget a certain German Scouser. It could still happen

[GhostoftheBok]

My bad - is...I just think he might head back to Shortire...

Could easily see it.

Evatt clearly rates him very highly and I think he showed enough that I'd like to see more if we had a reliable option at 10 to compete with him. The trouble is that we don't. "Shoretire or bust" is less attractive than "plus Shoretire."

Iles this morning has us struggling to finalise the fee for Wilson, close on Baccus and working on the permit issues for Flick.

On Flick, I do wonder if he's not destined to play that "centre back who can operate in midfield role" I keep banging on about.

[BWFC_Insane]

My bad - is...I just think he might head back to Shortire...

Could easily see it.

Evatt clearly rates him very highly and I think he showed enough that I'd like to see more if we had a reliable option at 10 to compete with him. The trouble is that we don't. "Shoretire or bust" is less attractive than "plus Shoretire."

Iles this morning has us struggling to finalise the fee for Wilson, close on Baccus and working on the permit issues for Flick.

On Flick, I do wonder if he's not destined to play that "centre back who can operate in midfield role" I keep banging on about.

Why can't Flick and Baccus be our midfield with a number 10 or Dempsey in front?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I keep coming back to the thing that from mid-March onwards we didn't play with a 10.

What we do need is more from midfield. More midfielders might help. But I wouldn't expect us to sign Bobby Goalagame and that to be The Answer. Feels like it'd be more systemic.

[jmjhb]

Once the current 3 have been finalised (hopefully this week), we can afford to be a little more patient with any further activity imo

[BWFC_Insane]

I keep coming back to the thing that from mid-March onwards we didn't play with a 10.

What we do need is more from midfield. More midfielders might help. But I wouldn't expect us to sign Bobby Goalagame and that to be The Answer. Feels like it'd be more systemic.

The thing is it depends how you define a 'number 10'. I'd agree we didn't play with one but we did have one free to push on and lead the press in a similar way to the Lee number 10 role if slightly withdrawn at least at from starting positions.

I'm not sure I'd regard Lee as a real 'number 10'.

[BWFC_Insane]

Once the current 3 have been finalised (hopefully this week), we can afford to be a little more patient with any further activity imo

I suspect these three are not finalised this week - work permits take a while. Wilson is a haggle job and BC are bringing him in for training so that will drag on. Flick sounds complex to say the least given it comes down to immigration law it seems.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The thing is it depends how you define a 'number 10'. I'd agree we didn't play with one but we did have one free to push on and lead the press in a similar way to the Lee number 10 role if slightly withdrawn at least at from starting positions.

I'm not sure I'd regard Lee as a real 'number 10'.

Indeed. He'd spent his career as a right-back or box-to-boxer. And yet he had the skillset (and the coaching) to perform very effectively as our most advanced midfielder.

I just think it's a bit of a red herring to think we will sign some sort of glorious trequartista, Juan Roman Riquelme role, floating around behind the strikers thinking beautiful thoughts and racking up 15 goals and 30 assists. Far more likely that we will have several versatile players who can fulfill multiple roles and get forward intelligently.

[BWFC_Insane]

The thing is it depends how you define a 'number 10'. I'd agree we didn't play with one but we did have one free to push on and lead the press in a similar way to the Lee number 10 role if slightly withdrawn at least at from starting positions.

I'm not sure I'd regard Lee as a real 'number 10'.

Indeed. He'd spent his career as a right-back or box-to-boxer. And yet he had the skillset (and the coaching) to perform very effectively as our most advanced midfielder.

I just think it's a bit of a red herring to think we will sign some sort of glorious trequartista, Juan Roman Riquelme role, floating around behind the strikers thinking beautiful thoughts and racking up 15 goals and 30 assists. Far more likely that we will have several versatile players who can fulfill multiple roles and get forward intelligently.

Yep - this. Entirely. There are relatively few players truly good at doing that role. I mean I'm not sure I can think of many. And in our team you add on a need to press and really be quite intelligent in your work off the ball. I don't see it.

I think its about as you say having some versatile options who add things into midfield and let us set up a few different options.

Arguably the best goalscoring midfield player we had was Nolan who basically played as a number 8 and most of his success was arriving late. I suspect play him in the 'number 10 role' and he'd struggle big time!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Arguably the best goalscoring midfield player we had was Nolan who basically played as a number 8 and most of his success was arriving late. I suspect play him in the 'number 10 role' and he'd struggle big time!

Yep. Agree on Nolan - same with Lampard, a great goalscoring midfielder who was never employed at 10.

Even Dapo, excellent at 11, struggled at 10 because you need more "360-degree" vision and mobility.

There's a similarity with the way some strikers are much better with others "with their back to goal."

[BWFC_Insane]

Arguably the best goalscoring midfield player we had was Nolan who basically played as a number 8 and most of his success was arriving late. I suspect play him in the 'number 10 role' and he'd struggle big time!

Yep. Agree on Nolan - same with Lampard, a great goalscoring midfielder who was never employed at 10.

Even Dapo, excellent at 11, struggled at 10 because you need more "360-degree" vision and mobility.

There's a similarity with the way some strikers are much better with others "with their back to goal."

I think the issue with the number 10 people have in their minds is that such a player would need to dictate our game. Not be 'in and out' in fits and starts. They'd have to effectively set the play - dictate tempo and raise tempo with their ability. That's easier to say than do. Its why I think all options we've tried there bar Lee in a sort of more 'traditional midfield role' have struggled big time and Lee doesn't offer the goal threat.

[Prufrock]

The problem for be in midfield was depth last year. Morley Dempsey and Sheehan all good players, but it isn't going to happen for any player every game, plus their energy levels suffered at times. MJ and Thomo not good enough to challenge them or come on and change a game. Lee's legs had fallen off by the end. You add in two more of that quality and suddenly that area looks much better. I don't think we'll play that out and out 10 very often, so can see Shoretire coming back as an option and also a fifth forward/something slightly different.

Wilson, Flock, Baccus and Shola and I'd be very happy. Then the squad looks balanced and strong and you're keeping an eye out for that special player wherever they play.

[GhostoftheBok]

This issue with saying that we don't want/need/play a 10 is that we signed Shoretire to offer just that. Evatt specifically cited his ability to play as a "10" and said that the team had to learn to create the space he required as the "next part of our evolution."

We have played Shola as both a 10 and a false 9, because we tailor our tactical approach to the opposition. Sometimes that role behind the forwards will be performed by a midfield 10 and sometimes we'll play two 8s and drop a forward off. It depends where the space is.

We will try to sign someone with the required skillset to play that role. The manger has said it's important and that's not going to have changed in a couple of months.

[BWFC_Insane]

This issue with saying that we don't want/need/play a 10 is that we signed Shoretire to offer just that. Evatt specifically cited his ability to play as a "10" and said that the team had to learn to create the space he required as the "next part of our evolution."

We have played Shola as both a 10 and a false 9, because we tailor our tactical approach to the opposition. Sometimes that role behind the forwards will be performed by a midfield 10 and sometimes we'll play two 8s and drop a forward off. It depends where the space is.

We will try to sign someone with the required skillset to play that role. The manger has said it's important and that's not going to have changed in a couple of months.

He never worked as a number 10 and we abandoned doing it pretty quickly.

[GhostoftheBok]

Why can't Flick and Baccus be our midfield with a number 10 or Dempsey in front?

They could, very easily.

That would be an excellent midfield.

However, I'd not be shocked to see him rock up as a transitional defender/midfielder in certain games. He has just about the perfect profile for that gig when we need it.

Evatt wants tactical options. He wants to be able to vary his team to take advantage of opposition weaknesses. The players we are linked to thus far all offer something different. That's great.

If Flick, Baccus and Wilson all got done we'd be very, very close and could probably go as-is if the market shut down a bit for us.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Is it only a couple of months since January? Warm for March, innit?

In all seriousness – Evatt has previously made far bigger tactical switches than abandoning the 10. As it happens I think you're right, Ghost, and that he may seek someone who *could* play that role – but probably not exclusively; an 8 who can also play there, or a striker who can also drop off.

That might be Shola, although from what I've heard/read he spent a lot more time at MU as a winger than a 10 – and at times it showed. But I doubt it would put us off if some boy genius loanee became available - and we've already seen, just this weekend, that Evatt is prepared to back his decisions even if initial output was less than underwhelming.

I'm just wary of expectations building that we'll sign The Answer. Far more likely to me that we incrementally improve the hand we can play at any given time.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

If Flick, Baccus and Wilson all got done we'd be very, very close and could probably go as-is if the market shut down a bit for us.

Aye. And then, having considerably upskilled, maybe see who comes available (perhaps on loan) toward the end of the window, 67 long summer days away.

[BWFC_Insane]

Why can't Flick and Baccus be our midfield with a number 10 or Dempsey in front?

They could, very easily.

That would be an excellent midfield.

However, I'd not be shocked to see him rock up as a transitional defender/midfielder in certain games. He has just about the perfect profile for that gig when we need it.

Evatt wants tactical options. He wants to be able to vary his team to take advantage of opposition weaknesses. The players we are linked to thus far all offer something different. That's great.

If Flick, Baccus and Wilson all got done we'd be very, very close and could probably go as-is if the market shut down a bit for us.

Agree. Still a way off getting them done.

For me if they sign its only real an exception goalscoring midfield player or striker or LWB for me....though I think we'd need another serious goalscoring option somewhere...

[GhostoftheBok]

Is it only a couple of months since January? Warm for March, innit?

In all seriousness – Evatt has previously made far bigger tactical switches than abandoning the 10. As it happens I think you're right, Ghost, and that he may seek someone who *could* play that role – but probably not exclusively; an 8 who can also play there, or a striker who can also drop off.

That might be Shola, although from what I've heard/read he spent a lot more time at MU as a winger than a 10 – and at times it showed. But I doubt it would put us off if some boy genius loanee became available - and we've already seen, just this weekend, that Evatt is prepared to back his decisions even if initial output was less than underwhelming.

I'm just wary of expectations building that we'll sign The Answer. Far more likely to me that we incrementally improve the hand we can play at any given time.

I agree with all of that.

There's no one answer to the issues we had last season, but a functional 10 solves quite a few issues.

I don't think it's an issue of "abandoning" the '10' role or any other. We want to play slightly tweak systems against different teams and any '10' we sign will need to also be able to play as a more attacking 8, or maybe a false 9. We're not going to sign a player who can only play as a 2000s enganche when we only need a 10 in certain games. Well, not unless we have unearthed some kind of genius who is too good not to start every game and have us change the world around him. That seems unlikely.

What we're talking about primarily is skillset requirements. Where you put those skills will depend on who you're playing.