Deal or no deal? - Summer 2022 Transfer gossip!

[truewhite15]

We're also still short a back-up left-back if we're going with 4 at the back.

Ireland and John, unless we think John can only function as LWB. He's certainly better there but he's not unconscionable at LB.

Ah, see, I had Iredale down as the Santos foil at CB in a back 4, rather than a John replacement. Declan is first choice on the left in either system, for me. If Dec is out, then in a 4 it's Iredale on the left with Santos and either Aimson or Johnston at CB - is either a CB partnership that would see us promoted? Not sure.

I'll confess that I'd neglected Sadlier in my wing back run down earlier. He could also be a decent enough option at 10, so we're probably ok for both wing backs and attacking mids.

I'll change my earlier assertion that we need another #10 to needing an additional #4. Still think we need a back up left back, though.

[GhostoftheBok]

John’s numbers, particularly post October (I think he stated the season injured / unfit - Covid?) we’re pretty good from memory. One of the best on the league IMO.

John is a very good player at this level. Intelligent and technically sound with a good engine.

[GhostoftheBok]

Back four is: Jones/Bradley...Santos/Aimson...Johnston/????...Iredale/John.

Back 5 is currently: Bradley/Izzy....Jones/????....Santos/Aimson....Iredale/Johnston....John/Sadlier

It's the CB that's missing in terms of essential recruitment. Ideally someone comfortable off both feet, decent in the air and with a bit of pace.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I had Iredale down as the Santos foil at CB in a back 4, rather than a John replacement. Declan is first choice on the left in either system, for me. If Dec is out, then in a 4 it's Iredale on the left with Santos and either Aimson or Johnston at CB - is either a CB partnership that would see us promoted? Not sure.

Reasonable question.

It may be New Signing Fever but right now I would think (guess) that our first-choice back four would be John-Iredale-Santos-Jones, with John getting forward more and the space behind him covered by Iredale. Johnston can also do the "covering behind" bit, it's the "heading away corners" bit that would make me go Iredale first.

On that theme, one could argue for Aimson, but
(1) I suspect Gethin's recovery speed is better than Dec's, so we need slightly more cover on the left;
(2) Santos prefers playing on the right in a 2, hence Baps going left;
(3) Aimson is a good lad but has his shortcomings in ball retention, which you would assume we're hoping Ireland is better at.

Worth remembering too that this late spring we didn't play a straightforward back four, but a back three/back four hybrid. Having Geth and Ireland as players who can play both full-back and "outside" centre-back is key to that. But if circumstance (injury, tactics, in-game management) required, I think Ireland is the reserve left-back.

[GhostoftheBok]

It may be New Signing Fever but right now I would think (guess) that our first-choice back four would be John-Iredale-Santos-Jones

I think the fact we went for a player as serious as Tucker suggests that Iredale is a left back in a back four for Evatt (as much as I rate him at centre half).

Iredale, Tucker, Santos, Jones would have been a big, physical back four, with Jones as the "little guy" at over 5'10" and the rest all over 6'2". All of them athletic and good on the ball.

An ideal Evatt defence.

Then in a 3 you'd have Iredale, Santos, Tucker as a massive, quick, talented unit with John and Bradley offering really good attacking options wide.

[truewhite15]

I had Iredale down as the Santos foil at CB in a back 4, rather than a John replacement. Declan is first choice on the left in either system, for me. If Dec is out, then in a 4 it's Iredale on the left with Santos and either Aimson or Johnston at CB - is either a CB partnership that would see us promoted? Not sure.

Reasonable question.

It may be New Signing Fever but right now I would think (guess) that our first-choice back four would be John-Iredale-Santos-Jones, with John getting forward more and the space behind him covered by Iredale. Johnston can also do the "covering behind" bit, it's the "heading away corners" bit that would make me go Iredale first.

On that theme, one could argue for Aimson, but
(1) I suspect Gethin's recovery speed is better than Dec's, so we need slightly more cover on the left;
(2) Santos prefers playing on the right in a 2, hence Baps going left;
(3) Aimson is a good lad but has his shortcomings in ball retention, which you would assume we're hoping Ireland is better at.

Worth remembering too that this late spring we didn't play a straightforward back four, but a back three/back four hybrid. Having Geth and Ireland as players who can play both full-back and "outside" centre-back is key to that. But if circumstance (injury, tactics, in-game management) required, I think Ireland is the reserve left-back.

Yep, agree with pretty much all of that. Except the bits where you called him "Ireland" rather than "Iredale"

For me, too, it's a back four of John-Iredale-Santos-Jones as first choice. If we're right that Jack has been signed more to cover for CB than LB, that might eradicate our need for another CB this summer - Santos-Iredale with Aimson-Johnston as back up isn't bad for this level.

Back three with Iredale-Santos-Jones does leave a potential headache as we only have CB cover for two of the three. But there's enough flexibility there to cover all of the (potentially) five defensive positions in case of fatigue.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Yep, agree with pretty much all of that. Except the bits where you called him "Ireland" rather than "Iredale"

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Yep, agree with pretty much all of that. Except the bits where you called him "Ireland" rather than "Iredale"

It may be New Signing Fever but right now I would think (guess) that our first-choice back four would be John-Iredale-Santos-Jones

I think the fact we went for a player as serious as Tucker suggests that Iredale is a left back in a back four for Evatt (as much as I rate him at centre half).

Iredale, Tucker, Santos, Jones would have been a big, physical back four, with Jones as the "little guy" at over 5'10" and the rest all over 6'2". All of them athletic and good on the ball.

An ideal Evatt defence.

Then in a 3 you'd have Iredale, Santos, Tucker as a massive, quick, talented unit with John and Bradley offering really good attacking options wide.

Don't be downhearted. Someone else might turn up. And it's quite possible Iredale was signed for his versatility. Why, he even has two surnames....

[GhostoftheBok]

Don't be downhearted. Someone else might turn up. And it's quite possible Iredale was signed for his versatility. Why, he even has two surnames....

I'm not downhearted. I wanted Tucker, but I have said for a while that I think there might be other players who'd turn out to be a better tactical fit.

Tucker was the ideal blend of ability, cost and resale value; but he wasn't particularly quick, nor was he versatile. It might be that we end up with a pacier, more physical player who doesn't have the same development in him (and won't make us millions) but suits us better over the next couple of years.

Or, you know, dross.

[Prufrock]

The real issue here is the take over of the forum by a pervasive modern convention (I blame the BBC):

I.e. the change from a back four being written "right back--------->left back", as if you were stood at kick off looking from the centre circle at the team, GK at the top, to this new fangled modern "left back---------> right back" as if you're stood in the goal looking out.

The new system is metric in that it makes sense, the left is on the left, but is wrong because it isn't what they used when I was young.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The real issue here is the take over of the forum by a pervasive modern convention (I blame the BBC):

I.e. the change from a back four being written "right back--------->left back", as if you were stood at kick off looking from the centre circle at the team, GK at the top, to this new fangled modern "left back---------> right back" as if you're stood in the goal looking out.

The new system is metric in that it makes sense, the left is on the left, but is wrong because it isn't what they used when I was young.

I apologise. I went L-R because we were discussing the LB.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Interesting to hear Liverpool's sporting director Michael Edwards has been to Lostock to watch Wanderers training. Evatt “We’ve become trustworthy, we’ve become a club that clearly knows and develops players and works on the four corners. We speak about the technical, tactical, physical and mental. It’s a huge thing for us that they’ve selected us and that’s down to our hard work behind the scenes - myself, the rest of the staff, Chris (Markham). We’ve had lots of conversations with Liverpool last season. Michael Edwards has even been to visit us and watch how we train and do things, which is a huge bonus for how we’re working. I’m delighted with it.”

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... s-24284439

[nicholaldo]

Nixon's claiming we're looking for more players called Conor (or more likely Connor).

Any ideas?

[truewhite15]

The real issue here is the take over of the forum by a pervasive modern convention (I blame the BBC):

I.e. the change from a back four being written "right back--------->left back", as if you were stood at kick off looking from the centre circle at the team, GK at the top, to this new fangled modern "left back---------> right back" as if you're stood in the goal looking out.

The new system is metric in that it makes sense, the left is on the left, but is wrong because it isn't what they used when I was young.

I apologise. I went L-R because we were discussing the LB.

I go L-R because that's usually how the team looks at kick off when I'm stood in my place behind the goal.

[GhostoftheBok]

Michael's out as of now, I think. Jules Ward has taken over the senior role, having previously managed loans and done various other bits. It was Jules who did the assessment on Bolton a while ago as a potential destination and it'll have been his call to loan Bradley to us, along obviously with Klopp giving the okay to the overall planning.

Jules was at City before he moved over to Liverpool about 10 years ago and he's fully clued up on everything going on in North West football. He's a very solid ally to have at a club of that size and if we look after Bradley there's a relationship to be had there.

[Bruce Rioja]

And whereas I for one had not given up hope entirely on us bringing Fossey in until I see him being paraded elsewhere, I think we can now safely say that that's the end of that.

I'd be interested to know if, at some stage, we wanted both. There's an argument for still needing another option on the right in that 3-5-2.

Good call, but do we have that luxury? I'd suggest not.

[GhostoftheBok]

Good call, but do we have that luxury? I'd suggest not.

As things stand, no; but Evatt was pretty clear that there might be some contracted players going and the big benefit of sticking rigidly to our wage structure is we're not robbing Peter to pay Paul. If Evatt wants 3 more players the structure will be built around that and if he wants 5 then there will be money for 5. We're not going to spend three wages on one position and end up short, by the looks of it.

At the moment we sort of know we want Barkhuizen. We don't know exactly how Evatt envisages that working, but it may be that if we don't get him we go again down the right. It's also worth noting that Bradley gets described a lot by his youth coaches as a winger, rather than a full back, so there may be scope for some interesting stuff happening with him too.

Until we see the finished squad we can't know....and maybe even then we'll be in for a surprise or two with how they line up.

[nicholaldo]

Nixon's claiming we're looking for more players called Conor (or more likely Connor).

Any ideas?

It turns out it was a joke. More fool me.

[GhostoftheBok]

One that Brommers was a fan of, Shaun McWilliams, has signed a new deal with his parent club.

[GhostoftheBok]

It is my sad duty to announce that we will not be signing Mark Beevers. He has gone to Perth Glory down in Oz.