Jesse Lingard - Nottingham Forest

[freeeki]

And never impressed at all in all that time. What was it about his 20 goals in 149 games for a mostly mediocre Man U that impressed you? And don’t get me started on what he was ever doing in the England team. I’m not saying he’s useless, but there’s nothing there to suggest he’s the quality we should be looking for

His United stats are roughly 1 goal involvement every 4 games, or roughly one every 224 minutes.

The fact you're telling me he's only played 149 games for United in response to a post that said - correctly - he had over 200 appearances for United by the time he joined West Ham on loan tells me you've not watched him very much.

Believe what you want, of course, but the confirmation bias is tiresome.

 

[freeeki]

Yeah and how many appearances in the last 4 years

I posted a video of his 9 goals and 5 assists in 16 games for West Ham above, you're welcome to watch it and tell me which are flukes or where he could / should have done better.

They're stats which if they had Kulusevski's name by them you'd rightly be coating your knickers over them.

 

[Steffen]

Let’s agree that he’s good enough for West Ham, then, but not for a team going for the title.

 

[werty]

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

I think you’re confusing the matter. We are limited to registering a maximum of 17 non-HG players, and a minimum of 4 Club trained players. Only if we register the maximum non-HG players are we limited to 4 Association Trained players. We could have 5 association trained players and only 16 non-HG.

(U-21s notwithstanding).

So we could find space for Lingard at the expense of a fringe non-HG player.

No - I get that - we are currently at 19 non-HG, and looking at CBs and another forward who would also be non-HG.

So, I am assuming when we are done we will have 17 non-HG to register. And, if we were to add Lingard, into that mix in lieu of a non-HG, then his HG won't be a reason to sign him - since we already have 4 Association Trained players.


Its not that we can't, or shouldn't, sign Lingard - its that his HG status is irrelevant given that we already have 4 to fit that criteria. That's all. Nothing more.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

I feel at this point, looking at our business thus far, we shouldn’t be looking at rotation/squad filler options.

For the attacking options that is exactly what we still need, someone not as good as Richarlison but better than Lucas. Lingard would fit that bill and he’s HG.

Think it’s just agent talk but wouldn’t be against it

 

[snakehipsspurs]

I really like Jesse as a player, but if we want a HG hybrid AM/CM who presses loads and offers creativity we're missing, we have the funds to get Maddison. This stinks of agent chat.

 

[djhotspur]

I posted a video of his 9 goals and 5 assists in 16 games for West Ham above, you're welcome to watch it and tell me which are flukes or where he could / should have done better.

They're stats which if they had Kulusevski's name by them you'd rightly be coating your knickers over them.

I get that but I explained my reasons above for not wanting him.

 

[Joshua shepherd]

We must’ve been linked with him in 6 different transfer windows in recent years and each time he becomes more underwhelming of an option.

 

[daryl hannah]

Kane, Sess, Skipp, Doherty, Spence?, Davies, Tanganga, Forster, Austin.

That’s 9 HG. Takeaway Doherty & Davies , that’s 7.

add Devine that’s 8 squad spots of 25. We don’t have a home grown issue.

Kane, Skipp, Tanganga, & Austin are club trained.

we don’t need Lingard, but I’d take him.

Anyone surplus to the 17 non-hg spots will be sold. Simple.

 

[Maxwell]

Not for me…. Mainly because he’s a kn*b and I can’t bear that panpipe goal celebration

 

[s_purs]

I really don't rate him as a player (minus his spell at WH) and never particularly liked him from what I've seen of him in interviews, etc. I don't know if it's a general thing or if it's just something that I have a problem with and generally people like him.

The fact he wants a large amount of money, fair enough for him if he can get it, it puts me off more. If he was happy to come in on low wage but high bonuses and he really fights for his place and give everything for us then is support him and fair play to him.

I'd pick Eriksen any day of the week over him

 

[HildoSpur]

Not every day you could get the chance to bring in one of the brightest young talents in English football. Today is not one of those days.

 

[iddebu52]

Pass pass pass pass.

 

[Thenewcat]

His United stats are roughly 1 goal involvement every 4 games, or roughly one every 224 minutes.

The fact you're telling me he's only played 149 games for United in response to a post that said - correctly - he had over 200 appearances for United by the time he joined West Ham on loan tells me you've not watched him very much.

Believe what you want, of course, but the confirmation bias is tiresome.

I was quoting PL numbers as I’m not really interested in Carabao hat tricks and the like. Suggesting someone is suffering from confirmation bias simply because they disagree with you is tiresome.

I think lingard is an Ok player, but the fact that he can’t get a game for a rubbish United team should tell you something. He’s like Winks - fine for West Ham or Everton, not good enough for spurs

 

[barry]

I wish no ill will to the lad, and I hope he has a fruitful career, but I can't be having this at the club

 

[fuzzylogic]

Not for me…. Mainly because he’s a kn*b and I can’t bear that panpipe goal celebration

a last minute winner against Arsenal from him and you’ll be doing a panpipe duet with him ???

 

[Ghost Hardware]

For the attacking options that is exactly what we still need, someone not as good as Richarlison but better than Lucas. Lingard would fit that bill and he’s HG.

Think it’s just agent talk but wouldn’t be against it

Personally I completely disagree, Richarlison is a squad rotation option. I like him, he has a good work rate and he’s obviously driven, but in regards to his technical ability, he’s lacking. For me , if we are going to bring in a AM or RWF then we should be looking at someone who can really become a pivotal player for us. Really, we don’t actually have a playmaker/AM in the team. Kulu and Kane are the closest thing we have to one. For me Lingard isn’t the right answer to the question. At this point we should be looking for serious talent to put the cherry on top as it were rather then more back up/rotation options.

 

[Thenewcat]

His United stats are roughly 1 goal involvement every 4 games, or roughly one every 224 minutes.

The fact you're telling me he's only played 149 games for United in response to a post that said - correctly - he had over 200 appearances for United by the time he joined West Ham on loan tells me you've not watched him very much.

Believe what you want, of course, but the confirmation bias is tiresome.

To add, In 18/19 (the year half the people on here said he was crap) Eriksen had 20 goal involvements in 36 PL games. So the 1 in 4 is pretty underwhelming when we could just choose Eriksen or someone better instead

 

[mark87]

Pass pass pass pass.

Which ironically is something Lingard doesn't do.