The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 6th January 2015

DaSpurs · Jan 12, 2015

cliff jones said:
Kane is certainly most effective off the front, ie a modern ten not a nine. so we should target a line leader, someone who can give Harry a deserved anti blow out breather. not an ings or berahinho. but a Benteke. Eriksen and Chadli either side, nominally, but with plenty of interchange and the full backs pushed on as is Pochs mandate. Lamela and Lennon on cover. Townsend to go along with Ade and Solly.

We can recoup the outlay for the big Belgian from the summer. or some of it a bit sooner if we can get shot of somecdeadwood this month.

id also love to see Dembele in the ten or even nine, but accept that whilst Bentaleb and Mason are unavailable he plays deeper.

Good lord man I could not disagree with you more. I don't want Dembele's lethargy anywhere near the attacking positions, especially since he wasn't even productive in attacking positions when he once was healthy. There's a very good reason each progressive manager has moved him further and further back in their setups.

Also, while Kane may fare well as a No 10 individually, he's not creative enough at the position to help us find openings against sides that sit back. It reduces our movement, options, and channel maneuverability/manipulation when he's there in lieu of a more creative player. As is, Kane's proven himself of late plenty capable in the No 9 slot. No sense in spending the stupid money it would cost to get another No 9, and one who isn't even scoring as consistently as Kane is in the position.

225 · Jan 12, 2015

y1dk1d said:
Thing is, we look at our league position and think "great, we've not even been that impressive but we've still got a chance. An addition or two could get us in the top four"

But

Maybe I'm wrong but I can't help but think that Levy thinks "Well we're near the top four so there's no need for anyone else"

I personally think Ings would be a great signing. Him and McCarthy would go a very long way IMO. Of course I'm not saying it's easy to bring them in this window as it's far from it but I think that players like this could make a real difference

Perhaps, but I think it's a bit sensationalist to blame Levy.

Last season TS made it clear that he told DL to stop asking him if he wanted players, because he was a touch arrogant in wanting to show he could achieve without bringing in players.

The season before, AVB seemed to only want Holtby and had already assembled a squad in the summer, with Siggy, Lloris, Verts, Dembele, Dempsey, Ade on a permanent etc.

The season before that, Redknapp was in an uncertain position with both court and having apparently rejected a contract, so it's perfectly reasonable that the board wouldn't want to spend millions on players for a manager that might not stick around.

I'm really not convinced that the board are as at fault as is often suggested for January windows - Redknapp's biggest problem was him being a fantasist; he even said that DL would try for players he wanted (Tevez etc.) but it was difficult to bring in the right players. AVB was similar, asking for DL to sign half of the Porto squad in competition with oil-rich clubs.

spursfan77 · Jan 12, 2015

Scott Spur said:
Storts on COYS saying we want £5M for Naughton....

I don't see anything wrong with that. It's about right.

spursfan77 · Jan 12, 2015

spurs9 said:
If we move Kane to "behind the striker" then Eriksen has to either play on the left (where he is nowhere near as effective) or drop him. If we do play Eriksen, then Chadli would have to be dropped and has our most assists and is second top goal scorer. IMO, if we are to improve the first team (from the AM3 up) it has to be the right side. Ings would be cover for Kane and Chadli IMO.

Isn't it a squad game nowadays?

We need more than starting XI players.

0-Tibsy-0 · Jan 12, 2015

spursfan77 said:
I don't see anything wrong with that. It's about right.

I agree, I see nothing wrong with that fee.

Home grown, solid if unspectacular, English defender. 5 million isn't particularly heavy.

Hoopspur · Jan 12, 2015

Someone suggested that a Ings transfer would not have the development fee? Because he was signed from Bournemouth which kind of negates this. Is this right?

Tom Pops · Jan 12, 2015

Hoopspur said:
Someone suggested that a Ings transfer would not have the development fee? Because he was signed from Bournemouth which kind of negates this. Is this right?

Wouldn't Bournemouth get paid anyway, like Lallana?

spursfan77 · Jan 12, 2015

0-Tibsy-0 said:
I agree, I see nothing wrong with that fee.

Home grown, solid if unspectacular, English defender. 5 million isn't particularly heavy.

If anything it's a good price. Arsenal paid £16 million for Callum Chambers. Is he £11 million better than Naughton at this minute in time? They paid £12 million for Debuchy. Man Utd paid £25 million for Shaw.

Fullbacks are pretty expensive in the market. Any clubs that get him for £5 million have done well.

arunspurs · Jan 12, 2015

spursfan77 said:
If anything it's a good price. Arsenal paid £16 million for Callum Chambers. Is he £11 million better than Naughton at this minute in time? They paid £12 million for Debuchy. Man Utd paid £25 million for Shaw.

Fullbacks are pretty expensive in the market. Any clubs that get him for £5 million have done well.

Honestly, Shaw for 25m, Chambers at 11m & Debuchy at 12m looks abysmal buys.

arunspurs · Jan 12, 2015

Both Ings & Berahino can play with Kane. Question is not who is no9. Question is who can play alongside Kane & be compatible.

With U21 games, Kane & Berahino interchange their positions seamlessly. If one plays no9 role, then other drops back to second striker role & vice versa.

Key is movement & intelligence. Both Ings & Berahino have that in abundance.
IMO, Ings looks the best of two coz,
a) Significantly lesser transfer fee than Berahino
b) Behavior gives a massive edge to Ings than Berahino.

I would be elated with if we get one of these two, this window.

Lilbaz · Jan 12, 2015

Jospur said:
How about this for a scenario?

The Club makes a few player sales in the coming days/weeks and then let's it be known (ITK) that Ings is the prime target. It gets down to the final night of the transfer window with the Club in last minute negotiations with Ings and Burnley that fail.

Instead of Ings Levy announces that a Saha type has been signed. "We tried our best but Ings just didn't want to move...".

Believable?

Anyone remember Moutinho, Musacchio, others?

Never heard any comments from Levy about any of those players.

Japhet · Jan 12, 2015

arunspurs said:
Both Ings & Berahino can play with Kane. Question is not who is no9. Question is who can play alongside Kane & be compatible.

With U21 games, Kane & Berahino interchange their positions seamlessly. If one plays no9 role, then other drops back to second striker role & vice versa.

Key is movement & intelligence. Both Ings & Berahino have that in abundance.
IMO, Ings looks the best of two coz,
a) Significantly lesser transfer fee than Berahino
b) Behavior gives a massive edge to Ings than Berahino.

I would be elated with if we get one of these two, this window.

Would have given you the green tick but I think Berahino is way too expensive and sounds like a bit of a tit. Ings for me.

DaSpurs · Jan 12, 2015

spursfan77 said:
Isn't it a squad game nowadays?

We need more than starting XI players.

People often use this excuse to suggest we can cram people anywhere and can move for anyone of quality. The fact is no matter how many games are played, consistency has to be acquired and that comes first and foremost through compatibility. Buying players because we can shuffle hypothetically at some point is just not a good policy, and we brought Mitchell in to more specifically hone in our focusing on that compatibility. It is about the efficiency of the system of a whole, and bringing in a player who would undoubtedly demand first choice minutes at Kane's position will have negative repercussions.

arunspurs · Jan 12, 2015

Japhet said:
Would have given you the green tick but I think Berahino is way too expensive and sounds like a bit of a tit. Ings for me.

Expensive is relative. Berahino could be 14m in transfer fee & be paid 30k a week. Ings we may have to pay 9m &50k.

Who knows...This is for club to figure out.

Moreover, Strikers are expensive commodity & so at some point, we have to take a leap of faith & go for it.

kungfugrip · Jan 12, 2015

DannySafer said:
I just got a hunch that whoever they decide to bring in is to play with Kane rather than deputise for him. I think with his ball retention and dribbling ability, Kane is better coming from deep. With a no9 in front of him with an equal work rate and ability like an Ings or Benteke they will create the space for him to move into. At the moment he is creating the space and scoring all on his own and big credit to him but he's also become a feared and respected striker and as we saw with Bale, the bigger teams will find a way to nullify his threat.

Just my opinion, but I see Kane as more of a Sheringham then a Klinsmann, albeit with a lot more work rate which is perfectly suited to the modern game.

But Bale scored and assisted in plenty of matches involving Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City, Man United, Liverpool? I don't get it.

Lilbaz · Jan 12, 2015

DaSpurs said:
People often use this excuse to suggest we can cram people anywhere and can move for anyone of quality. The fact is no matter how many games are played, consistency has to be acquired and that comes first and foremost through compatibility. Buying players because we can shuffle hypothetically at some point is just not a good policy, and we brought Mitchell in to more specifically hone in our focusing on that compatibility. It is about the efficiency of the system of a whole, and bringing in a player who would undoubtedly demand first choice minutes at Kane's position will have negative repercussions.

Unless Eriksen or Kane get injured. Hell even Chadli. Maybe they wont be effective if they are shuffled but they have all played those positions.

DaSpurs · Jan 12, 2015

Lilbaz said:
Unless Eriksen or Kane get injured. Hell even Chadli. Maybe they wont be effective if they are shuffled but they have all played those positions.

Injuries will happen, which is why we do need to improve our squad options. But that doesn't mean splunking whatever it would take to get Benteke, as he would not come to be a squad option, and it would mean ramifications for moving people around and consequently making the system less efficient. And for all this, it would mean funds taken away from addressing other positions. We can still improve our squad immensely without spending big this January, and especially not displacing or replacing those who have earned their spots.

Lilbaz · Jan 12, 2015

DaSpurs said:
Injuries will happen, which is why we do need to improve our squad options. But that doesn't mean splunking whatever it would take to get Benteke, as he would not come to be a squad option, and it would mean ramifications for moving people around and consequently making the system less efficient. And for all this, it would mean funds taken away from addressing other positions. We can still improve our squad immensely without spending big this January, and especially not displacing or replacing those who have earned their spots.

Sorry didn't realise you were talking about Benteke. Ings would be worth it, although he may well do a Lambert.

nightgoat · Jan 12, 2015

y1dk1d said:
I suppose. Differences though are that Ings has 6 months left, we were in a worse scenario and in desperate needs then and Bent was more proven in the premier league when we signed him

When we bought Darren Bent we already had Berbatov, Keane and Defoe. We didn't actually need him at all.

spike472 · Jan 12, 2015

Essexyid07 said:
You really think Danny Ings is the best we can do??

Pity Messi has said all the transfer rumours are lies as we could got him instead. Get a grip man. Ings would be a prefect fit for us at the moment.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 6th January 2015

Well-Known Member

Living in hope, existing in disappointment

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You have insufficient privileges to reply here!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Just call me Baz

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Just call me Baz

Well-Known Member

Just call me Baz

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads