• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

The Summer 2024 Transfer Thread.

Squeak said:
No question. RAN is not a left back. He cannot defend.
Click to expand...
I've seen him lock Mo Salah out of a game more than once, he *can* defend. Today he seemingly chose not to, right from the very first minute where he was beaten embarrassingly easily.

We don't have another left back at the entire club so what you do with that conundrum, who knows.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
I've seen him lock Mo Salah out of a game more than once, he *can* defend. Today he seemingly chose not to, right from the very first minute where he was beaten embarrassingly easily.

We don't have another left back at the entire club so what you do with that conundrum, who knows.
Click to expand...
Sorry to repeat from another thread but GON must be on the hook for the LB situation. He’s waved Bueno out knowing there won’t be a replacement. Seems crackers.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
I've seen him lock Mo Salah out of a game more than once, he *can* defend. Today he seemingly chose not to, right from the very first minute where he was beaten embarrassingly easily.

We don't have another left back at the entire club so what you do with that conundrum, who knows.
Click to expand...
His 1v1 defending can be outstanding. I do wonder about his positioning and reading of the game sometimes. But he shouldn’t be as bad as he was today, that was grim
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
I've seen him lock Mo Salah out of a game more than once, he *can* defend. Today he seemingly chose not to, right from the very first minute where he was beaten embarrassingly easily.

We don't have another left back at the entire club so what you do with that conundrum, who knows.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he did well against Salah, granted.
However, too often he is caught out of position and stands off his man.
Perhaps GON has given him license to roam a bit more and that's what he tried today? It did lead to Cunha's goal.

As for the left back conundrum, only one solution, revert to what we know with a back three and wing backs. We played that way v Liverpool when RAN had a good game and frankly, it is our better system. Not really sure why everyone feels 4 at the back is a better idea anyway as I think we are more fluid with wing backs doing their job.

However, emphasis has to be on defending although no-one really enjoys stealing a game 1-0. First half today was certainly entertaining but two dumb errors put us on the back foot. Second half was crying out for Dawson to bring some leadership and stability but that didn't happen until too late.
 
Mel Evo said:
Sorry to repeat from another thread but GON must be on the hook for the LB situation. He’s waved Bueno out knowing there won’t be a replacement. Seems crackers.
Click to expand...
The Bueno decision is nearly as dumb as the forward situation earlier this year. However, in GON's defence, Bueno seems to have stood still. Bit like Vinagre who showed a lot of early promise and then never developed. Bueno in pre-season wasn't exactly brilliant but you have to assume that if you let him go, it is because you have a better replacement. And just like January, we haven't.
 
It's the same argument, constantly.

If you don't fancy Sasa because he's too slow, can't press and you don't trust his fitness, fine, let him go. But you have to replace him.

If you think that bid is too good to reject for Kilman because he isn't young any more so has limited development in him, he can't turn and he's too passive, fine, let him go. But you have to replace him.

If you think that Bueno needs to go out on loan because he lacks the very fundamentals of stopping a cross or defending the back stick, fine, let him go. But you have to replace him.

And we'll keep having the same argument until Jeff Shi doesn't run the club any more.
 
I think in these situations we have to be careful of not falling into the trap of knee jerk reactions putting all the blame at GON's feet for transfers. It's his prerogative to play players or say who has a future here but if he made a decision last January and the club fell through on their end, that's not really his fault.
 
Not blaming the manager at all there, for clarity.

I can see the owners (I would say board but we don't have one, not in any meaningful sense) asking what he wants to do with Players X, Y and Z who he isn't using (and they all cost a lot of money week to week). He then says I don't want to pick him because of the above. Fine then so if you aren't using them then we shouldn't be paying them. I have no problem with that.

There is no way that Gary O'Neil personally wanted no new forwards in January or that he doesn't want a centre half and a left back now. It isn't his maverick vision to operate on stupid margins like that.

It is Jeff Shi's though.
 
C.L.D said:
I think in these situations we have to be careful of not falling into the trap of knee jerk reactions putting all the blame at GON's feet for transfers. It's his prerogative to play players or say who has a future here but if he made a decision last January and the club fell through on their end, that's not really his fault.
Click to expand...
In principle I agree, his defence play like a swinging gate though. Their lack of talent isn't on him, the way he tries to mitigate it is. We conceded the most goals in a season since our most recent promotion last year, we average 4 a game this.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
It's the same argument, constantly.

If you don't fancy Sasa because he's too slow, can't press and you don't trust his fitness, fine, let him go. But you have to replace him.

If you think that bid is too good to reject for Kilman because he isn't young any more so has limited development in him, he can't turn and he's too passive, fine, let him go. But you have to replace him.
Click to expand...


Totally, said it at the time but it was worrying when they moved Sasa and Fabio and said the "we aren't needing to replace a lot of minutes with them." Remark. Which was totally missing the point of why they hadn't been playing or being used. Almost immediately paid for that comment with lack of options.
 
Last edited:
Deutsch Wolf said:
I can see the owners (I would say board but we don't have one, not in any meaningful sense) asking what he wants to do with Players X, Y and Z who he isn't using (and they all cost a lot of money week to week). He then says I don't want to pick him because of the above. Fine then so if you aren't using them then we shouldn't be paying them. I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...
Squad players are like home and contents insurance. You hope you don’t need it but shit happens and instead of fire, theft and flood you encounter injury, suspension and loss of form. Anyone who has a home worth upwards of £200m would be mad not to take out insurance because the cost of not doing so dwarfs the cost of it should you need it. It quite probably cost us a visit to Wembley last season and if they don’t learn the lesson in the next few days it may well be rewarded with a visit to the Championship.
 
Wilf Wolf said:
Squad players are like home and contents insurance. You hope you don’t need it but shit happens and instead of fire, theft and flood you encounter injury, suspension and loss of form. Anyone who has a home worth upwards of £200m would be mad not to take out insurance because the cost of not doing so dwarfs the cost of it should you need it. It quite probably cost us a visit to Wembley last season and if they don’t learn the lesson in the next few days it may well be rewarded with a visit to the Championship.
Click to expand...

The thing is he didn't trust those players to even play a few minutes. They rarely ever even came on for any meaningful action and got rotated in as starters even less.

So they weren't very effective insurance and it's OK to let them go. If you replace them with players that you do trust.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
The thing is he didn't trust those players to even play a few minutes. They rarely ever even came on for any meaningful action and got rotated in as starters even less.

So they weren't very effective insurance and it's OK to let them go. If you replace them with players that you do trust.
Click to expand...
We’re singing off the same page. They were better than nothing. The fact you find out the insurance policy you had was actually pretty shit is not an excuse for saying “sod it, I won’t bother with insurance again”. To be two games into the season and five days from the end of the transfer window is gross negligence when the squad has so many shortcomings. We need a LB, CH and a pacy forward. If money is so tight it beggars belief we slammed the door in Marseilles’ face when they enquired about Hwang at a rumoured £20m+.
 
Wilf Wolf said:
We’re singing off the same page. They were better than nothing. The fact you find out the insurance policy you had was actually pretty shit is not an excuse for saying “sod it, I won’t bother with insurance again”. To be two games into the season and five days from the end of the transfer window is gross negligence when the squad has so many shortcomings. We need a LB, CH and a pacy forward. If money is so tight it beggars belief we slammed the door in Marseilles’ face when they enquired about Hwang at a rumoured £20m+.
Click to expand...
That's all without discussing the quality of some of the other players. Eg I don't blame Sa for any of their goals really, but him belting the ball out of play or over people's heads is a further hindrance to the style the manager is trying to adopt.
 
Wilf Wolf said:
We’re singing off the same page. They were better than nothing. The fact you find out the insurance policy you had was actually pretty shit is not an excuse for saying “sod it, I won’t bother with insurance again”. To be two games into the season and five days from the end of the transfer window is gross negligence when the squad has so many shortcomings. We need a LB, CH and a pacy forward. If money is so tight it beggars belief we slammed the door in Marseilles’ face when they enquired about Hwang at a rumoured £20m+.
Click to expand...
Turns out most of the insurance game is a scam. Promises much but when asked to deliver, usually fails.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Bear
  • Locked
The Summer 2018 Transfer Thread
340 341 342
Replies
7K
Views
609K
The Bear
The Bear
Back
Top