Betfair Bozo
Well-known member
- Jul 24, 2007
- 2,096
We obviously need cover, you can't assume that we won't suffer injuries and/or suspensions.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
How important is it to get a forward this window?
- Thread starter Hyperion
- Start date
Marshy
Well-known member
Its pretty important in my opinion, just to frshen things up and provide that added bit of cover.
A loan, nothing more.
A loan, nothing more.
As Rhodes is valued at £10m what do you reckon the asking price is for Clough?
I'll give you a clue:-
It's nowhere near his actual value.
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
Oh, the irony, you are being extremely rude... show me where I got personal before this (-->>), you ****ing hypocrite...
We failed to sign Muzza in Jan, that cost us dearly, so the injury catastrophe was not the only problem / lesson to be learnt...
If you don't like the heat, then stay out of the kitchen...
Oh, you lack accuracy, so corrected for you... and Commander was just plain wrong...
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
I guess 4-5 million, but in this overheated window it could be much more.
Pretty much from your FIRST post you were unnecessarily RUDE, you stupid prick. You do it ALL the f**king time.
I do like the heat thanks, I just find you a repugnant nob.
I guess technically this window isn't as overheated as the last...
...what with it seemingly being considerably hotter.
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 8,718
I'd say it's vital, I am not sure three forwards will be enough. Even if the Murray, Baldock and Hemed avoid injury, fatigue could become a factor given the intensity of the games over the final months of the season.
it is not vital that it is a 'marquee' signing, I do think we already have our first choice pairing. I'd suggest we are looking for back up rather than competition, and i think that is what we will get.
it is not vital that it is a 'marquee' signing, I do think we already have our first choice pairing. I'd suggest we are looking for back up rather than competition, and i think that is what we will get.
Bob'n'weave
Well-known member
Vital and crucial. We know we need a good quality striker for cover and so does CH. I would hope for a PL forward on loan. It's a very competitive market so not easy for CH. IMHO it is a bigger gamble to not get someone in.
Miximate
Well-known member
With the reported 'clearout' at Man City, I reckon we will pick up a big name on loan for the rest of the season. If he turms up with similar attitude as Bridge, then its a winner all round
The Wookiee
Back From The Dead
Robbie Keane
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
If Murray and Baldock get injured/suspended at the same time we'd be fecked imo. We need to be looking to sign someone who will actually push Baldock for a place. If we don't I think we might regret it big time. To be left with just Hemed and a make shift no 10 is not what teams looking for auto should be doing. So yes we very definitely need to sign a striker however hard it inevitably is.
To think we can go half a season with what we have, having got away with virtually no injuries to forwards for the first half of the season is extremely cavalier. I do think that we might well end up with no signing though
To think we can go half a season with what we have, having got away with virtually no injuries to forwards for the first half of the season is extremely cavalier. I do think that we might well end up with no signing though
I agree, and think this captures the feelings of most
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Although I agree with your general thrust here, we were affected by a shortage of strikers last season. If you're going to play two up top, you need four probably five strikers. Two to start, two on the bench ideally, and one to cover injuries, loss of form, suspensions, etc. Although we had four good strikers last season, they were never there at the same time: Wilson came in late Nov (?) and seemed to be suffering from something from Jan onwards, Baldock long injury mid-season, Zamora took a while to get up to speed, couldn't last 90 minutes, and then was unavailable from early (?) Feb.
We've been lucky this season in that we've only had three strikers that CH trusts and none has had an injury that's kept them out for more than a game or two. We also had Elvis, but he's gone now. Given where we are in the table, it'd be a massive gamble not to sign a striker this window. It would give us cover, competition and, hopefully, a lift to the squad.
What we do need to focus on is what sort of a striker. I'd go for a young PL loanee, to help us get to where we want to go to this season. Rhodes, for instance, is proven at this level, but I doubt he'll cut it in the PL, and would cost a lot in fees, wages, bonuses, etc.
Bloom gave a heavy hint at the Bristol FF that one would be coming in this window, and I hope and suspect the club have got a long list of targets that will become increasingly available as that 'slams shut' moment draws nearer.
Postman Pat
Well-known member
Andy Naylor implied that we had made an approach for Robbie Keane a couple of weeks ago, but the Sun were reporting yesterday that Preston are now favourites.
Would be disappointed if they beat us to someone of his quality, but contract length might be something they can offer that we can't.
Would be disappointed if they beat us to someone of his quality, but contract length might be something they can offer that we can't.
I think it will all depend on cold hard currency. If we are faced between a choice of paying too much for a lower league striker and being prepared to bring in a loan cover, I don't think we'd go for the former. That's not to say that the club shouldn't work hard to find the striker equivalent of Connor Goldson, it's just that if he can't be found then I don't see us signing a lesser player for more money.
Your Mum
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2016
- 469
...your mum.
BensGrandad
New member
I do not think that another SB or similar is the immediate problem as I believe our problem at the moment is still conceding too many goals from crosses and set pieces. Duffy has come in and stopped the rot a little but with out Dunk we conceded another one which set us on the road to defeat. I also believe CH made a mistake playing Goldson and moving Duffy across rather than play Hunemier in Dunks position.
It's difficult to understand how conceding only 17 all season constitutes a problem at the back, and given that a fairly high percentage of goals are scored from set pieces/crosses I'd be interested in seeing any stat that showed we are wildly out of kilter.
Burnley was an off day, as I understand it we were less than impressive across the pitch
We really do need back up at the front ... any injury/suspension to Murray/Baldock leaves us with pretty well nothing