January Transfer Window.

[rigger]

11 minutes ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

Left back and striker for me.

Also would like them to look at improving the backup to Kaminski. Still think that's a complete season buster should the worse happen.

Left back - Mola or Batty.

[Mike E]

A bit of pace and physicality up front would suit me.

Perhaps someone like Semenyo at Bristol City? 22yo and out of contract next summer.

I'm happy with our left back options.

Would definitely look to add a CB and RWB to build on what he have now.

A midfielder, ideally experienced, with some nous re: 'keep possession' passing and hard in the middle to keep Travis on his toes and help Garrett's development (replacing Morton at the end of the year).

Not sure who, mind.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Mike E

[ben_the_beast]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

A bit of pace and physicality up front would suit me.

Perhaps someone like Semenyo at Bristol City? 22yo and out of contract next summer.

I think he'd be a cracking signing. And realistic. 

In terms of January I think two positions could really push us forwards. Obviously a striker. Ideally someone who can bully defenders like Kenan Davies did for Forest. We seem to struggle when our midfield is pressed. As the alternative to a central pass is playing into the feet of one of our forwards with their back to goal. If that player can't make the ball stick (Vale, Hirst) then we have no plan B.

Second position would be another central midfielder who is comfortable on the ball, but can mix it up a bit. As much as I like Travis he is a bit of a weak link for us. And we do miss Wharton and we can't relay on him to carry the team at such a young age. 

It's a wishlist that won't be easy to fill, but there are players out there. Especially if we looked at the loan market. 

[Guest]

Viktor Gyökeres please Gregg. Admired him for a while now and certainly didn't taint my view of him when we played them midweek. Hit them whilst they're down. Only 18 months left on his deal. Be a much better way to spend £4m.

[roversfan99]

I'd be flabbergasted if we spent £4m in January, would love to be wrong. Although I think Gyokeres would cost more and most likely would fancy something a bit bigger, as much as he would be a good signing. Same with Semenyo, unobtainable I would guess.

[Mike E]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

I'd be flabbergasted if we spent £4m in January, would love to be wrong. Although I think Gyokeres would cost more and most likely would fancy something a bit bigger, as much as he would be a good signing. Same with Semenyo, unobtainable I would guess.

Don't believe either to be anymore unobtainable than Brittain or Hyam tbh.

[roversfan99]

8 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Don't believe either to be anymore unobtainable than Brittain or Hyam tbh.

Brittain had just been relegated to League 1 and was available for under a million, and Hyam wouldn't have been of interest to Premier League or even big Championship sides, had been part of a poor Coventry defence, isn't that young and Coventry needed money to cover their cash flow issues relating to cancelled games.

Semenyo and Gyokeres are 2 international, youngish attackers who have both been linked to Premier League teams.

[Oldgregg86]

20 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I'd be flabbergasted if we spent £4m in January, would love to be wrong. Although I think Gyokeres would cost more and most likely would fancy something a bit bigger, as much as he would be a good signing. Same with Semenyo, unobtainable I would guess.

We won’t be able to get them but two signings of that quality would have me believe we would be actually pushing for promotion and not playing at it. We’re nearly there and so far away at the same time and two singings like that and a Morton replacement  would leave us with a starting 11 that could compete for top six with expectations attached 

[Upside Down]

Left back, defensive holding midfielder and a striker are crucial.

Pickering needs cover, we keep getting bummed in midfield and we need a forward that can hold up the ball.

If we can sort out those positions then we can be real contenders.

[booth]

How's about just as a novelty, we sign a striker that scores goals?

It's been a while.

[Zak]

Ash Barnes, could do a job for you.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

58 minutes ago, Zak said:

Ash Barnes, could do a job for you.

Dream on. He’s well past it even at this level.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[ben_the_beast]

16 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Brittain had just been relegated to League 1 and was available for under a million, and Hyam wouldn't have been of interest to Premier League or even big Championship sides, had been part of a poor Coventry defence, isn't that young and Coventry needed money to cover their cash flow issues relating to cancelled games.

Semenyo and Gyokeres are 2 international, youngish attackers who have both been linked to Premier League teams.

I think Gyokeres would be obtainable if we had the finances available. That only happens by us selling an asset. If Diaz were to leave in January Gyokeres would be top of my list as a replacement. 

[joey_big_nose]

The only real priority is a striker. You could argue we could sign two central strikers really, as we only have Gallagher who is (sort of) a number 9. 

Everywhere else if we sign more players we are only blocking decent young prospects we already have. Even in the midfield enforcer role if we could sign someone who was real proven promotion quality great - but if we aren't going to sign someone like that (and surely it is very unlikely we will spend enough to get guaranteed quality) so instead get a Corry Evans, Bradley Johnson etc I would rather see more of the likes of Garrett, Buckley and Edun get games tbh. 

Left back we have already signed Mola who hasn't really had a sniff. Can't see us bringing another one in. 

Only other position I'd maybe go for is backup GK as we know Pears is absolutely awful. Finding a good backup GK very difficult though.

 

[roversfan99]

If there was any intention of playing how we have been, it made no sense to put such little emphasis on striking reinforcements in the summer, so I suspect that we didn't intend on playing 5-3-2. 

I don't agree with the idea of not signing players as to not "block" the younger lads. If they are good enough to contribute like Wharton then they will remain regardless, if not like Vale then they shouldn't, Edun will never be good enough.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

The only real priority is a striker. You could argue we could sign two central strikers really, as we only have Gallagher who is (sort of) a number 9. 

Everywhere else if we sign more players we are only blocking decent young prospects we already have. Even in the midfield enforcer role if we could sign someone who was real proven promotion quality great - but if we aren't going to sign someone like that (and surely it is very unlikely we will spend enough to get guaranteed quality) so instead get a Corry Evans, Bradley Johnson etc I would rather see more of the likes of Garrett, Buckley and Edun get games tbh. 

Left back we have already signed Mola who hasn't really had a sniff. Can't see us bringing another one in. 

Only other position I'd maybe go for is backup GK as we know Pears is absolutely awful. Finding a good backup GK very difficult though.

 

I wouldn't agree with any argument to sign two central strikers really, unless we plan to use two at once consistently. I know we have dabbled with that a bit in a two up top system, but it's not really the traditional two strikers that we often think of (although admittedly without the personnel, it wouldn't be). I think when people talk about our lack of strikers they're generally talking about a bit of an old school big lad who can mix it up and hold the ball plus score goals, a Danny Graham of old. Those are a rarity in the modern game though...most of the ones that exist aren't really goalscorers. At any rate a two up top these days is likely to only need one of those at a time, with a nippy, possibly more technical lad alongside. We have a few players a bit of that ilk, it would be odd, to me, to sign more. Then again, much depends on the sort of system JDT really wants to play moving forward.

Agree with you about not blocking pathways, at least in areas where we are reasonably strong and where the youngsters are genuinely promising. Think you're right about the type of midfielder we would likely pick up for instance, and I don't think it would achieve anything most likely to do that. I don't think they would have to be proven promotion material though (Corry Evans was, and that didn't achieve much), but they'd have to be of that quality. Sometimes you just spot a diamond in the rough on a bargain fee, like say N'zonzi was. I could also consent to a loan of a proven experienced midfielder, as half a season of risk and being in the way is much less of a problem than signing another Johnson sucking up wages and being in the way for 2-3 years to little positive effect.

Think you're right about LB. But you didn't mention RB, we have to try all sorts of crap there whenever Brittain is injured, which is a bit too frequently so far. I don't too much mind Carter as a stopgap on occasion there though mind. After that though we really pull players too far out of position to cover it.

Agree with everything you said about the GK situation. Could really do with a better backup, but tough to find someone decent who is willing to mostly sit on the bench for modest wages.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I don't agree with the idea of not signing players as to not "block" the younger lads. If they are good enough to contribute like Wharton then they will remain regardless, if not like Vale then they shouldn't, Edun will never be good enough.

It's not as simple as if they're good enough.

Managers are, almost to a man, reluctant to put out inexperienced youngsters when they have someone with experience to use instead, on bigger wages. Especially if they signed them themselves as it reflects poorly on them if their signings don't play, and they often bring in a player telling them they'll get lots of game time.

It's also not wise to just think short term. Although if we're in a genuine promotion push then short term can be the best long term approach too. But generally, especially with our usual midtable finishes...not much point bringing in a player who is currently marginally better than a youngster, if that youngster might be the better player of the two a year down the line if they get enough game time. Youngsters generally improve over time and with matches, they grow in confidence and game reading if they play, and their growth can easily be stagnated or reverse if they don't get enough game time.

Say you have two players in the same position, and for arguments sake, one is about a 65/100 right now, and experienced. The other is a 60/100 right now and young. The experienced player probably won't be any better next season, or the season after that. Say the youngster might get to 70/100 after a season of learning the ropes in competitive senior games. Is it better to use that experienced player for the duration of his three year deal and keep the youngster from playing much, or use the youngster who may be the better player a year into those three years?

[rigger]

2 hours ago, bluebruce said:

It's not as simple as if they're good enough.

Managers are, almost to a man, reluctant to put out inexperienced youngsters when they have someone with experience to use instead, on bigger wages. Especially if they signed them themselves as it reflects poorly on them if their signings don't play, and they often bring in a player telling them they'll get lots of game time.

It's also not wise to just think short term. Although if we're in a genuine promotion push then short term can be the best long term approach too. But generally, especially with our usual midtable finishes...not much point bringing in a player who is currently marginally better than a youngster, if that youngster might be the better player of the two a year down the line if they get enough game time. Youngsters generally improve over time and with matches, they grow in confidence and game reading if they play, and their growth can easily be stagnated or reverse if they don't get enough game time.

Say you have two players in the same position, and for arguments sake, one is about a 65/100 right now, and experienced. The other is a 60/100 right now and young. The experienced player probably won't be any better next season, or the season after that. Say the youngster might get to 70/100 after a season of learning the ropes in competitive senior games. Is it better to use that experienced player for the duration of his three year deal and keep the youngster from playing much, or use the youngster who may be the better player a year into those three years?

All well and good, but I am paying my money for tomorrows game, tomorrow.

[Tugayisgod]

Maybe the new head of European scouting will turn up a gem. ?? Luke Griffin from Hibs apparently ?

 

[bluebruce]

49 minutes ago, rigger said:

All well and good, but I am paying my money for tomorrows game, tomorrow.

And you'll be paying your money next season too. And the ones after that. I hope you don't approach everything in life by virtue of only what's happening tomorrow. Your pension fund would be a bit shit for starters. Planning for the future is an integral part of life.

And on the topic of short term entertainment value, I find it more exciting to watch an academy prospect than a journeyman who might be marginally better for now. As stated, real promotion quality is a different story.

[rigger]

13 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

And you'll be paying your money next season too. And the ones after that. I hope you don't approach everything in life by virtue of only what's happening tomorrow. Your pension fund would be a bit shit for starters. Planning for the future is an integral part of life.

And on the topic of short term entertainment value, I find it more exciting to watch an academy prospect than a journeyman who might be marginally better for now. As stated, real promotion quality is a different story.

But I may die the day after tomorrow

[JohnD]

Dream as if you will live forever

Live as though you will die tomorrow 

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, bluebruce said:

It's not as simple as if they're good enough.

Managers are, almost to a man, reluctant to put out inexperienced youngsters when they have someone with experience to use instead, on bigger wages. Especially if they signed them themselves as it reflects poorly on them if their signings don't play, and they often bring in a player telling them they'll get lots of game time.

It's also not wise to just think short term. Although if we're in a genuine promotion push then short term can be the best long term approach too. But generally, especially with our usual midtable finishes...not much point bringing in a player who is currently marginally better than a youngster, if that youngster might be the better player of the two a year down the line if they get enough game time. Youngsters generally improve over time and with matches, they grow in confidence and game reading if they play, and their growth can easily be stagnated or reverse if they don't get enough game time.

Say you have two players in the same position, and for arguments sake, one is about a 65/100 right now, and experienced. The other is a 60/100 right now and young. The experienced player probably won't be any better next season, or the season after that. Say the youngster might get to 70/100 after a season of learning the ropes in competitive senior games. Is it better to use that experienced player for the duration of his three year deal and keep the youngster from playing much, or use the youngster who may be the better player a year into those three years?

Our squad is already packed full of youngsters, the better ones will play lots of game time regardless because they are good enough, or at least close to in your situation to still justify regular minutes.

Of the players you mentioned, Edun is crap and is nowhere near the first team, Buckley is usually a first teamer but his form has been so poor that he has fallen away, Garrett is perhaps the most obvious one but we shouldn't avoid signing what I would deem to be a necessary more experienced option, we could either keep him to compete with (minus the loanee) a 25, 23 and 18 year old, or let him have a loan spell and regular football in League 1.

[bluebruce]

26 minutes ago, Tugayisgod said:

Maybe the new head of European scouting will turn up a gem. ?? Luke Griffin from Hibs apparently ?

 

Not sure how qualified a very young looking bloke from Hibs would be to head up our European scouting. I wouldn't imagine they have a great European network. Sounds a bit odd, will wait for an official announcement before I believe it.

[bluebruce]

4 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Our squad is already packed full of youngsters, the better ones will play lots of game time regardless because they are good enough, or at least close to in your situation to still justify regular minutes.

Of the players you mentioned, Edun is crap and is nowhere near the first team, Buckley is usually a first teamer but his form has been so poor that he has fallen away, Garrett is perhaps the most obvious one but we shouldn't avoid signing what I would deem to be a necessary more experienced option, we could either keep him to compete with (minus the loanee) a 25, 23 and 18 year old, or let him have a loan spell and regular football in League 1.

Eh? I didn't name any players.