Conor Gallagher

[Ghost Hardware]

With European football we will need more depth and even without Cup distractions this year Hojbjerg more than played his part so it's flexibility across the midfield trio (primarily 8/6) that will appeal to Ange albeit I don't see Gallagher as a master of either but then any squad has those players when you are competing on multiple fronts.

The intangibles are also a factor here in how he is as an individual and leadership skills which i'm guessing they've already made tentative enquiries about and how he would fit in to not only the system but the squad dynamic.

For sure we need more depth, we know we need a DM with PEH out the door and we will need a AM if/When Gio goes. That is 100%.

My question is more do you see Gallagher as an upgrade defensively over Biss? Would you trust Gallagher to do the defensive work PEH does for us? Personally I’m unconvinced on this.

I’m sure his versatility will be attractive the same way Baena’s and Guðmundsson would be. It is also worth keeping in mind Skipp might well stay due to his club trained status, I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion he goes.

If the club think he will be able to play the DM role to the level required then great, I have not seen enough of him in a DM role to know. I know statistically he is impressive in that department but the few times I’ve seen him deeper he’s looked unconvincing, I always thought he looked best suited to the B2B role myself but if Ange thinks he suits the 6 role in his system then who am I to argue.

 

[HildoSpur]

He's good and better than he's given credit for but his best position is as an 8 which is where Bentancur and Sarr are best. Lets him do some stuff defensively, be on the front foot winning things back pressing and contributing a bit further forward. However the ones going will likely be Hojbjerg and GLC and he fits neither of those positions - as a 6 he's too restricted with his engine where he can be proactive winnig it back further up and he's not on the same level as Madders and GLC with the ball. Right now it's £40-50m on the midfield position where the club are arguably strongest overall, the only way it makes sense is if one of Bentacur or Sarr are sold and I'm sorry but he isn't on their level, a fully fit Bentancur is class and Sarr's quality while being 2.5 years younger

Okay Skipp might go but he doesn't play much right now (he has a free squad place in europe being club trained so could stay regardless), Bergvall's joining next season and looks like another 8, maybe he doesn't make the step up but he looks talented. Just thinking about it, the #8 might be the strongest position at the club overall going into the summer with 3 talented options to pick for one place in the first 11? For me it's money can be spent better elsewhere unless Ange is convinced he will come in and be the defacto starter for next season. But then you have 4 players for one position so someone's going to be sold. I'd much rather see it spent on someone like Gray (replacing Hojbjerg) and another young talent, or Todibo who's apparently possible for a similar fee (£40m)

We need better rotation options than we have now especially with us (hopefully) playing in Europe next season. So you would have Bissouma/Bencancur rotating in the number 6 spot, Sarr/Gallagher/Bentancur rotating in the box to box spot (personally not sure if Bentancur after his injuries has the engine to play this effectively) and then you would have Skipp/Bergvall/Gray (I can dream) able to jump in as required. We will be losing Gio and Hojberg at least in the summer and the only midfielder we have with a real engine is Sarr - that's just not going to cut it.

 

[npearl4spurs]

Can't tell if I'm delusional or not but I'm thinking I'd rather have Ross Barkley on a free and splash bigger on a perfect 6

 

[carmeldevil]

The thing is, their board seems a bit incompetent to say the least. It seems they need to sell a lot to meet FFP requirements and he'll only have a year left on his contract. If they ask for too much then clubs will simply look elsewhere.

They're not selling from a position of power here.

I hope you are right. Just feels like they and City will get away with everything. I’ll wait till I see it.

 

[dontcallme]

Can't tell if I'm delusional or not but I'm thinking I'd rather have Ross Barkley on a free and splash bigger on a perfect 6

Barkley might be smarter business. He'll be a free transfer in the summer and could be interested in one final shot at a big club on a 1-2 year deal.

I feel 2 wing/full backs and 1-2 attackers to be our priority this summer and where most of our funds should be going to.

Gallagher gives us 4 good options for the 6/8 positions with young backups. If a cheaper option is available it wouldn't be the worst idea.

 

[felmani26]

For sure we need more depth, we know we need a DM with PEH out the door and we will need a AM if/When Gio goes. That is 100%.

My question is more do you see Gallagher as an upgrade defensively over Biss? Would you trust Gallagher to do the defensive work PEH does for us? Personally I’m unconvinced on this.

I’m sure his versatility will be attractive the same way Baena’s and Guðmundsson would be. It is also worth keeping in mind Skipp might well stay due to his club trained status, I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion he goes.

If the club think he will be able to play the DM role to the level required then great, I have not seen enough of him in a DM role to know. I know statistically he is impressive in that department but the few times I’ve seen him deeper he’s looked unconvincing, I always thought he looked best suited to the B2B role myself but if Ange thinks he suits the 6 role in his system then who am I to argue.

Honest answer is no, not particularly over Bissouma and nor is it a case that he's better in the 8 role than Sarr or Bentancur but it's more over the course of the season where rotation comes into play, injuries and of course navigating through the Cups where Gallagher will feature more prominently.

Agree with Skipp and might be an issue with locally trained quota for UEFA but I also feel that with Sarr's situation it might open up more pathways for Donley, Dorrington et al.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

It would be, it would be even better if we managed to bring in Archie Gray as well. That would spell the end for Skipp of course.

I think this season has been the (beginning of the) end for Skipp. After starting the first game of the season, he was limited to only brief and sporadic substitute appearances, and only got another start (4+ months later) when we were missing all of Bissouma, Bentancur & Maddison.

Hojbjerg has played nearly twice as much as Skipp this season, despite the manager clearly not thinking he fits the system / style of play.

Bentancur and Lo Celso have both played a similar amount to Skipp, despite significant injury issues (Skipp missed one game with a knock, but has otherwise been available), and despite Ange being seemingly reluctant to utilise Lo Celso even when we had an injury/suspension crisis. Bentancur played six matches with a broken toe, while Skipp was available but didn't play a single minute and was only selected for the bench for 2/6 games.

With Bentancur's injury issues in the past, no AFCON, and Bergval arriving in the summer, Skipp's playing time is likely to be even more limited next season. Our CM options over the course of the season will be vastly improved, even without further transfer activity.

 

[HildoSpur]

I think this season has been the (beginning of the) end for Skipp. After starting the first game of the season, he was limited to only brief and sporadic substitute appearances, and only got another start (4+ months later) when we were missing all of Bissouma, Bentancur & Maddison.

Hojbjerg has played nearly twice as much as Skipp this season, despite the manager clearly not thinking he fits the system / style of play.

Bentancur and Lo Celso have both played a similar amount to Skipp, despite significant injury issues (Skipp missed one game with a knock, but has otherwise been available), and despite Ange being seemingly reluctant to utilise Lo Celso even when we had an injury/suspension crisis. Bentancur played six matches with a broken toe, while Skipp was available but didn't play a single minute and was only selected for the bench for 2/6 games.

With Bentancur's injury issues in the past, no AFCON, and Bergval arriving in the summer, Skipp's playing time is likely to be even more limited next season. Our CM options over the course of the season will be vastly improved, even without further transfer activity.

Yeah the only reason Skipp remains at the club is because he is club trained and HG. I'd say he should really leave in the summer but we may still need him due to our HG issues.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Can't tell if I'm delusional or not but I'm thinking I'd rather have Ross Barkley on a free and splash bigger on a perfect 6

Even if Barkley was good enough for us (I'm far from convinced), he would be a very short-term signing. We're building a squad to be competitive in the medium term. It's no coincidence that every single signing under Ange has been of an age where their best years a likely to be ahead of them. This has also been our general transfer strategy for many years.

Our oldest signing in the past three windows was 27 (Werner) and that was a six-month loan deal at a time when we had loads of injuries and Son was off to the Asian Cup. The next oldest have been Maddison (26) & Vicario (26). Football players reach their prime at circa 28 (older for a GK, so Vicario was more like a 24 year old signing in outfield terms). At 30, Barkley is past his prime, so likely to decline year on year, rather than improving on (or even maintaining) his current level.

Short-term signings and giving second (or third/fourth/fifth) chances to players who's careers have fallen off a cliff should be left to lesser clubs. Players like Lingard, Wilshere & Barkley are worth a gamble for a struggling or newly promoted team, where it's the only way they can hope to attract a player of that (potential) quality, but isn't and shouldn't be our MO.

For the record, Werner also isn't the type of transfer I'd generally be in favour of, on the basis of his age and form at the time of us signing him, but it made sense given our circumstances at the time. If we'd signed him on a permanent deal back in the summer, I would have had much bigger reservations.

 

[npearl4spurs]

Even if Barkley was good enough for us (I'm far from convinced), he would be a very short-term signing. We're building a squad to be competitive in the medium term. It's no coincidence that every single signing under Ange has been of an age where their best years a likely to be ahead of them. This has also been our general transfer strategy for many years.

Our oldest signing in the past three windows was 27 (Werner) and that was a six-month loan deal at a time when we had loads of injuries and Son was off to the Asian Cup. The next oldest have been Maddison (26) & Vicario (26). Football players reach their prime at circa 28 (older for a GK, so Vicario was more like a 24 year old signing in outfield terms). At 30, Barkley is past his prime, so likely to decline year on year, rather than improving on (or even maintaining) his current level.

Short-term signings and giving second (or third/fourth/fifth) chances to players who's careers have fallen off a cliff should be left to lesser clubs. Players like Lingard, Wilshere & Barkley are worth a gamble for a struggling or newly promoted team, where it's the only way they can hope to attract a player of that (potential) quality, but isn't and shouldn't be our MO.

For the record, Werner also isn't the type of transfer I'd generally be in favour of, on the basis of his age and form at the time of us signing him, but it made sense given our circumstances at the time. If we'd signed him on a permanent deal back in the summer, I would have had much bigger reservations.

Good post. Thank you

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Yeah the only reason Skipp remains at the club is because he is club trained and HG. I'd say he should really leave in the summer but we may still need him due to our HG issues.

I'm in no rush for him to be pushed out the door, but I feel bad for him playing so little. He seems to be a very likeable guy with strong commitment and affinity to the club, but staying here doesn't seem to be the best thing for his career. He was a standout player in the Championship during his successful loan spell with Norwich, but needs to be a regular starter at a lesser PL club if he's ever going to progress. If Ange sees any hope of a long-term future for Skipp at Spurs, I think a season on loan to the right PL club would be the best thing for him.

 

[Hercules]

Pee frking off with this player

 

[dontcallme]

Even if Barkley was good enough for us (I'm far from convinced), he would be a very short-term signing. We're building a squad to be competitive in the medium term. It's no coincidence that every single signing under Ange has been of an age where their best years a likely to be ahead of them. This has also been our general transfer strategy for many years.

Our oldest signing in the past three windows was 27 (Werner) and that was a six-month loan deal at a time when we had loads of injuries and Son was off to the Asian Cup. The next oldest have been Maddison (26) & Vicario (26). Football players reach their prime at circa 28 (older for a GK, so Vicario was more like a 24 year old signing in outfield terms). At 30, Barkley is past his prime, so likely to decline year on year, rather than improving on (or even maintaining) his current level.

Short-term signings and giving second (or third/fourth/fifth) chances to players who's careers have fallen off a cliff should be left to lesser clubs. Players like Lingard, Wilshere & Barkley are worth a gamble for a struggling or newly promoted team, where it's the only way they can hope to attract a player of that (potential) quality, but isn't and shouldn't be our MO.

For the record, Werner also isn't the type of transfer I'd generally be in favour of, on the basis of his age and form at the time of us signing him, but it made sense given our circumstances at the time. If we'd signed him on a permanent deal back in the summer, I would have had much bigger reservations.

Good post.

As a general rule I think you're right.

I have to go back a little but I remember Utd bringing in Henrik Larsson on a short deal near the end of his career as a squad player, Liverpool did the same with Gary Mcallister.

I'm not saying Barkley is as good as them but he has been very good this season. On a free transfer and doing a job for 1-2 years could give the likes of Bergvall to get up to level then have a position available once he's up to standard.

Sometimes an experienced player can be a good squad player.

 

[worcestersauce]

Chelsea gonna want big money so he won’t be moved till the end of the window if at all.

I rather focus elsewhere and get players in early.

They won't get what they ask.

 

[dontcallme]

I hope you are right. Just feels like they and City will get away with everything. I’ll wait till I see it.

Thing is, even if Chelsea get away with their FFP breaches they're still going to have to be careful and it's unlikely they'll be in the clear by the end of the summer.

So they'll still have a player on a 1 year deal that they're not offering a contract to so will be best off selling.

 

[he is you know!]

Chelsea gonna want big money so he won’t be moved till the end of the window if at all.

I rather focus elsewhere and get players in early.

They have to sell before end of June at our price, they have no leverage.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Good post.

As a general rule I think you're right.

I have to go back a little but I remember Utd bringing in Henrik Larsson on a short deal near the end of his career as a squad player, Liverpool did the same with Gary Mcallister.

I'm not saying Barkley is as good as them but he has been very good this season. On a free transfer and doing a job for 1-2 years could give the likes of Bergvall to get up to level then have a position available once he's up to standard.

Sometimes an experienced player can be a good squad player.

Larsson was a two-month loan deal, during his parent club's off-season (similar to Beckham's short-term loans during the MLS off-season). He had won the Champions League + La Liga with Barcelona only 6 months earlier, featuring regularly for them, so wasn't out of form / returning from a serious injury / past it...he'd arguably just had the best season of his career.
A better example would be Falcao, who went on loan at Man Utd and then Chelsea, following a serious ACL injury. He struggled at both clubs, which is evidence that these risks often don't pay off.

McAllister was far more of a success story. He must have been about 35 when he signed for them, but was a key player when they won a cup treble (UEFA Cup + FA Cup + League Cup).

We've had some success with these types of signings in the past. For example: Klinsmann (second time), Sheringham (second time), Davids, Naybet, Poyet, Woodgate (injury issues, but solid when fit and scored the winner in a cup final). We also signed Gallas very late in his career, but he had been playing well the season before. Our club is in a different place now though.

 

[dontcallme]

Larsson was a two-month loan deal, during his parent club's off-season (similar to Beckham's short-term loans during the MLS off-season). He had won the Champions League + La Liga with Barcelona only 6 months earlier, featuring regularly for them, so wasn't out of form / returning from a serious injury / past it...he'd arguably just had the best season of his career.
A better example would be Falcao, who went on loan at Man Utd and then Chelsea, following a serious ACL injury. He struggled at both clubs, which is evidence that these risks often don't pay off.

McAllister was far more of a success story. He must have been about 35 when he signed for them, but was a key player when they won a cup treble (UEFA Cup + FA Cup + League Cup).

We've had some success with these types of signings in the past. For example: Klinsmann (second time), Sheringham (second time), Davids, Naybet, Poyet, Woodgate (injury issues, but solid when fit and scored the winner in a cup final). We also signed Gallas very late in his career, but he had been playing well the season before. Our club is in a different place now though.

Shows how good my memory is, I thought it was 1 year for Larsson.

But i think the general point stands. They’re not always available but sometimes an experienced, high quality player can be an excellent squad player on a short deal.

 

[ItsBoris]

A choice of Sarr, Bentancur, Gallagher and Bissouma with Bergvall or Skipp as the young backup would be excellent.

Only problem is none of those players is a real DM.

This is one rumour that I always have mixed opinions on. On the one hand, he's been one of Chelsea's best players (I've watched quite a lot of chelsea games), and he has boundless energy. He's sort of a Klopp type midfielder, relying more on creating chances through counter pressing than through pure creativity. So he's kind of a workhorse, jack of all trades type player imo. But the negative is not really a specialist at anything.

Imo, good as a rotation option but I feel like there are higher priority positions. But if he's what Ange thinks would work well in his system then I'm sure he knows what he's looking for.

 

[JamieSpursCommunityUser]

For sure we need more depth, we know we need a DM with PEH out the door and we will need a AM if/When Gio goes. That is 100%.

My question is more do you see Gallagher as an upgrade defensively over Biss? Would you trust Gallagher to do the defensive work PEH does for us? Personally I’m unconvinced on this.

I’m sure his versatility will be attractive the same way Baena’s and Guðmundsson would be. It is also worth keeping in mind Skipp might well stay due to his club trained status, I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion he goes.

If the club think he will be able to play the DM role to the level required then great, I have not seen enough of him in a DM role to know. I know statistically he is impressive in that department but the few times I’ve seen him deeper he’s looked unconvincing, I always thought he looked best suited to the B2B role myself but if Ange thinks he suits the 6 role in his system then who am I to argue.

I agree 100% on Gallagher.

Personally though I really don't want to see us signing another specialist 10 at this point.

Not with Donley, Devine, and Moore all coming through.

That's England's best playmaker at U20, U19, and U17 age groups.

Failing to create pathways for them would be a criminal waste of talent and potentially damage our reputation as a destination for elite talent.

Moore in particular is a really special talent and I don't want to block him with a short term squad filler.

Nor do I want us to go big on a 10 with greater needs at CF, RWF, LWF, DM, LCB, RB, LB, 2nd GK.

Ideally I'd keep Gio for another season, but if that's not possible I'd rather go big on a more cultured and expansive no.6.

This would allow us to play with two 8s (from Sarr, Bentancur, Kulu, and Bergvall) whenever Maddison is out, and still control games and create tons of chances.