Realistic signings in January

[GT49er]

Was he really that good though? He had one good game every 5 or 6, hence us being utter SHITE that year. Tex is hugely overrated by some people on here IMO

No, you've got it the wrong way round. We weren't shite because Tex had one good game in five or six. It was because we were so shite that Tex didn't have more good games - his skills would have been much more effective in a much better team (which we are now).
Did he hold on to the ball too long? Yes, of course; waiting for one of his team mates to show. They didn't, because we were shite.
Did his passes sometimes go astray? Yes. They weren't bad passes - they were passes into spaces where in a half decent team, one of his team mates would be bombing into. They didn't bomb into those paces and pick up the ball, because we were shite.
In this team, he might be awesome.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Was he really that good though? He had one good game every 5 or 6, hence us being utter SHITE that year. Tex is hugely overrated by some people on here IMO

Agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nixonator]

Without Hughton we would have gone down. Didn't we go something like 9 games without scoring at one point too? Not the best advert for our most creative player! Saying he was our best player that season is hardly a ringing endorsement either... the competition wasn't really up to much

Do you mean the 1og in 9 games at the end of the season? Where he had his leg in a splint

 

[samtheseagull]

Anyone that thinks Tex was not a decent player really surprise me. He was a bright spark in a utter toilet team.

 

[Javeaseagull]

We all have opinions on his playing potential but as a "statement" signing, even a six month loan, would make other teams think Brighton are really going for it. He knows the club and may well believe he can get game time here. If he doesn't think he can get in our team then we shouldn't bother. I reckon he would fancy it but that doesn't mean it will happen!

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Isn't that the idea though, cover? He is probably of similar match fitness to Solly and could get up to speed very quickly, in the position we need cover, we know he's quality, he's been here before and knows at least 7-8 of current squad. Probably wouldn't need to use him much on Baldock's form.

Title of this thread is realistic signings and I could do without a big time charlie coming in and disrupting what I think is our biggest asset, the team spirit.

I agree re cover and not a 'big time charlie' but I disagree with the answer being a player who hasn't played in England for 18 months. The team is so very different to what it was when he was here. Different players, different system, different mentality. It's a big assumption to think he'll just 'gel'. The games he has played in he has been a bit part, he won't be fit, he won't be match sharp and, most importantly, he's not a striker.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Do you mean the 1og in 9 games at the end of the season? Where he had his leg in a splint

That, plus he was supplying CMS and O'Grady.

I'm not saying he was perfect, but there's a Premier League player in Texeira. If Lingaard can play regularly for Utd and England, then Texeira can play at a similar level if he's given the same opportunities.

 

[GT49er]

I'm not saying he was perfect, but there's a Premier League player in Texeira. If Lingaard can play regularly for Utd and England, then Texeira can play at a similar level if he's given the same opportunities.

This.

Just cant fathom why people would want Tex back. We are way too good for him now.

....but not this.

 

[burnee54]

No, you've got it the wrong way round. We weren't shite because Tex had one good game in five or six. It was because we were so shite that Tex didn't have more good games - his skills would have been much more effective in a much better team (which we are now).
Did he hold on to the ball too long? Yes, of course; waiting for one of his team mates to show. They didn't, because we were shite.
Did his passes sometimes go astray? Yes. They weren't bad passes - they were passes into spaces where in a half decent team, one of his team mates would be bombing into. They didn't bomb into those paces and pick up the ball, because we were shite.
In this team, he might be awesome.

This, all day long, This!

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

No, you've got it the wrong way round. We weren't shite because Tex had one good game in five or six. It was because we were so shite that Tex didn't have more good games - his skills would have been much more effective in a much better team (which we are now).
Did he hold on to the ball too long? Yes, of course; waiting for one of his team mates to show. They didn't, because we were shite.
Did his passes sometimes go astray? Yes. They weren't bad passes - they were passes into spaces where in a half decent team, one of his team mates would be bombing into. They didn't bomb into those paces and pick up the ball, because we were shite.
In this team, he might be awesome.

People forget. He was our top goal scorer that year. He was our joint top assist maker. He completed the most dribbles per game alongside KLL, and he completed the most key passes per game. That, all whilst having a pass completion rate only 2% less than Kayal when he came in.

I get that people see what they want to see, but the potential was always there with him, and if we had another player to drive us up the pitch alongside Knockaert, Murphy and March, then that would undoubtedly add yet another excellent option to us as a counterattacking side. And I reiterate... this was whilst playing with CMS and O'Grady up front. If we can get him, we'd be mad not to.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

No, you've got it the wrong way round. We weren't shite because Tex had one good game in five or six. It was because we were so shite that Tex didn't have more good games - his skills would have been much more effective in a much better team (which we are now).
Did he hold on to the ball too long? Yes, of course; waiting for one of his team mates to show. They didn't, because we were shite.
Did his passes sometimes go astray? Yes. They weren't bad passes - they were passes into spaces where in a half decent team, one of his team mates would be bombing into. They didn't bomb into those paces and pick up the ball, because we were shite.
In this team, he might be awesome.

You watched different games to me then.

Time and time again, he had numerous options and chose to go alone, mistrust of teammates ability, who knows? Just poor decisions.

There were flashes of brilliance but for me it was outweighed by poor performances.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[spring hall convert]

Was he really that good though? He had one good game every 5 or 6, hence us being utter SHITE that year. Tex is hugely overrated by some people on here IMO

I was one of those who said this.

I will suggest a couple of things on reflection. His level of performance improved significantly once Hughton arrived (especially defensively.) If Chris Hughton saw enough of him to want him back, that's good enough for me.

 

[spring hall convert]

Didn't we go something like 9 games without scoring at one point too?

Pretty sure he was injured for some if not all of that run.

Just remembering that run of games gives me the cold shivers.

 

[Machiavelli]

That, plus he was supplying CMS and O'Grady.

I'm not saying he was perfect, but there's a Premier League player in Texeira. If Lingaard can play regularly for Utd and England, then Texeira can play at a similar level if he's given the same opportunities.

You've made a good case for Tex, particularly in post 190, but Lingard is streets ahead of him, which is why he sometimes plays for United (under more than one manager) and Tex couldn't get near the Liverpool team under Klopp. Tex is more of a fantasy player, more skilful and has wonderful vision, but Lingard is a much more modern player, who plays according to what the best managers want, which is rapid turnarounds, seizing opportunities. Fortunately, we've got a great manager, if not the best, certainly very under-rated, and I sincerely doubt he will view Tex to be the answer this time round. He slows the game down too much, and we've got flair players (March, Knockaert and, maybe, Murphy) and decent passers (especially Stephens and Norwood). What we want is either a player similar to Baldock, or one in the Tammy Abraham-mould, i.e. one who is rapid, but also has more height and physicality to their game.

 

[spring hall convert]

but Lingard is a much more modern player, who plays according to what the best managers want, which is rapid turnarounds, seizing opportunities.

And not good enough for us, if you remember some of the wise sages of NSC during his time here.

I agree on the thrust of your point on Tex btw, with the caveat if CH disagrees with me, then I'll bow down to his superior judgement.

 

[Machiavelli]

And not good enough for us, if you remember some of the wise sages of NSC during his time here.

I agree on the thrust of your point on Tex btw, with the caveat if CH disagrees with me, then I'll bow down to his superior judgement.

Oh, that's taken as a given and I hope my comments about CH in that post conveyed as much.
Just found Nils Frahm, and I'm very glad I have.
Have you got round to your albums of 2016 yet?

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

You've made a good case for Tex, particularly in post 190, but Lingard is streets ahead of him, which is why he sometimes plays for United (under more than one manager) and Tex couldn't get near the Liverpool team under Klopp. Tex is more of a fantasy player, more skilful and has wonderful vision, but Lingard is a much more modern player, who plays according to what the best managers want, which is rapid turnarounds, seizing opportunities. Fortunately, we've got a great manager, if not the best, certainly very under-rated, and I sincerely doubt he will view Tex to be the answer this time round. He slows the game down too much, and we've got flair players (March, Knockaert and, maybe, Murphy) and decent passers (especially Stephens and Norwood). What we want is either a player similar to Baldock, or one in the Tammy Abraham-mould, i.e. one who is rapid, but also has more height and physicality to their game.

There are "fantasy players" everywhere. David Silva, Coutinho, Firmino, Ozil etc, as well as many similar types of players in the Championship. The key, like you say, is whether such a player would fit into our side. The fact that Hughton tried to get Pritchard in the summer, for £8m+ no less, suggests that he believes one can, and I would support that view. Ideally we'd have an upgrade on Baldock (although he's been excellent the last few games) and ideally we'd have someone who is a natural number 10 too.

Also, whilst I don't doubt that Lingaard has a number of the qualities you speak of, there is also absolutely no doubt in my mind that Tex is more of a natural talent, and any manager should back themselves to get more out of a more talented player. Furtermore, the suggestion that Lingaard is a newer, more modern player doesn't stack up on their appearances for us. Tex actually worked incredibly well defensively for someone who, throughout the second half of that season at least, played as a number 10 and as our focal creative outlet, before his untimely injury. In spite of that, the stats suggest he made his share of tackles and interceptions per game. As I said, I'm not saying he's perfect, but I do suspect he's more than the fantasy player you're suggesting, and I think he'd fit in within the structure CH plays, as I believe he would compliment the other attacking players we had if given a real run in the side.

 

[spring hall convert]

Oh, that's taken as a given and I hope my comments about CH in that post conveyed as much.
Just found Nils Frahm, and I'm very glad I have.
Have you got round to your albums of 2016 yet?

Brighton'll probably be mathematically promoted by the time I do it this time! I'm well off the pace, had a very busy year.

 

[Machiavelli]

There are "fantasy players" everywhere. David Silva, Coutinho, Firmino, Ozil etc, as well as many similar types of players in the Championship. The key, like you say, is whether such a player would fit into our side. The fact that Hughton tried to get Pritchard in the summer, for £8m+ no less, suggests that he believes one can, and I would support that view. Ideally we'd have an upgrade on Baldock (although he's been excellent the last few games) and ideally we'd have someone who is a natural number 10 too.

Also, whilst I don't doubt that Lingaard has a number of the qualities you speak of, there is also absolutely no doubt in my mind that Tex is more of a natural talent, and any manager should back themselves to get more out of a more talented player. Furtermore, the suggestion that Lingaard is a newer, more modern player doesn't stack up on their appearances for us. Tex actually worked incredibly well defensively for someone who, throughout the second half of that season at least, played as a number 10 and as our focal creative outlet, before his untimely injury. In spite of that, the stats suggest he made his share of tackles and interceptions per game. As I said, I'm not saying he's perfect, but I do suspect he's more than the fantasy player you're suggesting, and I think he'd fit in within the structure CH plays, as I believe he would compliment the other attacking players we had if given a real run in the side.

Agree with all of your first paragraph (with the possible caveat of Firminho, who really is the archetype of the modern player with a prodigious work-rate and, even more importantly, top of the pile of intensive sprints).
Less persuaded by your second paragraph, and we might just have to leave it at that, i.e., you've made a good case (I think I've made a decent different case) which just happen to differ.

 

[sydney]

I'm so glad this thread has been started, I've been waiting for a thread about January signings

careful old boy......you will be marked as a sarcastic twatt if you continue in this vein....