Isakly what we need
- Thread starter Hansern
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Because our formation is lopsided as is, and I think we are making it even more aggressive. Either Salah isn't usually the furthest forward anymore, or he is, and we have to hold the ball better. When Salah loses the ball, there was obvious counterplay last year, and I don't see how if we play the players we spent a fuck ton on, how we arent at more risk in that situation. Diaz is a bigger pain in the ass off the ball than any we can field now.
I'm not saying it doesn't also give us even more options, but I dont totally understand how it'll work off the ball in competitive games. There's a reason we used a false 9 in those situations, even szobo.
But why? You care about saving money that isn't yours more than Liverpool giving themselves the best possible chance of winning the Champions League & League titles?
Wirtz, Salah & Isak is ridiculous but you'd prefer it not to be & instead gamble 40/50/60 million some unproven talent (we already have done that twice in Nunez & Ekitike) instead of buying the real deal & pushing the club on to a real position of strengh.
I just don't get why any fan would want that.
Because there is an element of being practical in all of this. We are not City / PSG / Real Madrid and there has to be a recognition that this is a one off summer to get things right, just as it was when we spent the Coutinho money on Alisson and VVD - there wasn't another 100M to spend the following summer in case we fucked it up.
Isak is good. Is he the best option now? Perhaps, but if so, we should have thought about that before getting rinsed for Ekitike who is a carbon copy player.
We are light elsewhere in the squad, Salah and VVD won't last forever. Can we afford to put all our eggs in the Isak basket? Maybe we can, but it's a risky strategy, particularly given his injury record.
I've got to say I agree with the misgivings around signing both Ekitike and Isak. It was a lot of money that now can't be invested elsewhere and worst of all actually deprived Newcastle of their Isak replacement, making that deal much harder to do.
Unless he proves to be really effective on the left, I'm not sure why we went for him.
Unless he proves to be really effective on the left, I'm not sure why we went for him.
To counter this is to acknowledge that our stats guys / current transfer committee have an incredible track record (unparalleled really) in making the right decisions around targets and big ticket players (taking Nunez out of the equation given he was supposedly a Klopp buy against the general consensus).
If they really think Isak hits the right metrics / profile / potential upside in performance at that fee…they’re most likely right?
Maybe because we haven't got two strikers at the club anymore (Jota and Darwin).
Jota was a 50-60 mill player and now he's replaced with Ekitike.
Its weird that people think we should go into a new season with only one striker. The good news regarding Ekitike is that he can play in multiple positions as well. The fact that he also has a similar profile to Isak is great for the team.
Getting 60 mill for Darwin means that we're basically upgrading our nr 9 for 70-75 mill and end up with a top 3 player in the world in that position.
Its a great move.
Jota was a 50-60 mill player and now he's replaced with Ekitike.
Its weird that people think we should go into a new season with only one striker. The good news regarding Ekitike is that he can play in multiple positions as well. The fact that he also has a similar profile to Isak is great for the team.
Getting 60 mill for Darwin means that we're basically upgrading our nr 9 for 70-75 mill and end up with a top 3 player in the world in that position.
Its a great move.
We needed two strikers with Díaz, Jota and Nunez no longer here or soon departing. Whether it was necessary to spend so heavily on two strikers of a similar type is debatable, as it does little to offer a genuine Plan B to change a game. I just hope we haven’t gone overboard or initially misjudged our chances of landing Isak.
It also puts real pressure on Ngumoha being ready, but if Chiesa leaves as well, there could still be scope for a versatile forward to join. I think people are understandably concerned that we still need funds available to secure Konaté and bring in a centreback. The biggest risk to our competitiveness is an injury crisis in central defence. We’ve been through it before, and nobody wants to revisit that scenario. Ultimately, we can only properly judge the window in three or four weeks’ time. If they sign Isak and sort out CB then it's a hell of a window. It already is in truth, but there's always going to be grumbling. The nineties damaged us all.
It also puts real pressure on Ngumoha being ready, but if Chiesa leaves as well, there could still be scope for a versatile forward to join. I think people are understandably concerned that we still need funds available to secure Konaté and bring in a centreback. The biggest risk to our competitiveness is an injury crisis in central defence. We’ve been through it before, and nobody wants to revisit that scenario. Ultimately, we can only properly judge the window in three or four weeks’ time. If they sign Isak and sort out CB then it's a hell of a window. It already is in truth, but there's always going to be grumbling. The nineties damaged us all.
I hope so.
I get the fact that Isak is probably the only "elite" attacker that is just about gettable right now. My main concerns are the squad balance, injury record and...
If I'm honest, I have to admit a large part of my reticence is the feeling that this can't be it, that we're going to see the emergence of a new exciting crop of players (beyond the ones PSG have hoarded all for themselves) and that we'll have already spunked our load on whoever was available at the time.
This is it. I think without Isak we will still outscore last seasons total. I just don’t want us allocating this amount of money to a player and leave us wide open to risk at the back.
I hated the club spending big money on transfers, I love Klopp and he got most transfers right, but he did get them wrong too and it cost the club 10s of millions.
The recruitment team has got transfers right probably better than anyone, they told Klopp to get Isak instead of Nunez. I don't think they were fans of Naby or Ox. It was because of them we ended up with Robbo and Salah. I think they also pushed for Mane. Isak is the best player available and he guarantees goals. Yes he is over priced but so was Ekitike and Flo.
VVD and Ali were overpriced but they feel like bargains now. The amount and time and effort it goes into identifying the right talent is incredible, so they will get more right than coaches because its all they do, is analyse players.
I think we didn't want to run the risk. If we were unlikely to get Isak, then we had to get Ekitike as he's the most similar profile to isak out there. I don't think we necessarily wanted both, but I do think we needed to get Ekitike to stop Newcastle having us over a bigger barrel for Isak.
We knew Diaz wanted out, we knew we were selling Nunez and then the Jota news happened. Going to Newcastle who have Ekitike and Isak, and us having 0 capable forwards meant we would have to pay closer to 150 than we would likely do now when we're not in that situation.
It's a bigger overall outlay for a smaller risk. It's unlikely Isak and Ekitike fail. Having neither then we definitely would fail
We lost Jota, sold Diaz and will likely sell Nunez - replacing them with Ekitike & Isak seems fair to me.
Why were we unlikely to get Isak though? Newcastle were always gonna give in and sell him once they had their replacement. If they sell to us now it's not because we don't need him - they don't give a toss either way.
And personally I'd rather overpay by £20m for Isak then overpay by maybe £40m on Ekitike (compared to £30-40m we'd have spent on a backup striker).
And people saying we had to get Ekitike cos we need two strikers - the same applies to the LW position having signed him. Personally I'm happy enough having him as cover on the left, but I don't know why that's necessarily better than a LW like Rodrygo who can also cover up front. Either way we're slightly stretching 4 good attackers.
Would seem to make more sense to spend backup money (30-40m) on the backup and then properly replace Diaz if you ask me. If we hadn't deprived Newcastle of Ekitike we could've had Isak in the squad by now.
The point is, we have lost or are going to lose Chiesa, Jota, Diaz and Nunez.
We have zero strikers. Ekitike was absolutely necessary. So too is Isak. If not Isak, then I have not heard any other names being linked. Perhaps someone can enlightened us as to where this elusive 35-50m striker good enough to lead the line for us is going to come from.
We have zero strikers. Ekitike was absolutely necessary. So too is Isak. If not Isak, then I have not heard any other names being linked. Perhaps someone can enlightened us as to where this elusive 35-50m striker good enough to lead the line for us is going to come from.
How long is a meter of time anyway? 101 cm? 99 cm?
That would be metre! He means like a parking meter, but for time. So someone needs to put a couple of quid in.
Ah, so one or two quid should do the trick then before Isak signs. Someone from the camp site with a bit of change can hopefully fix that.
I guess it’s perceptions.
I don’t get your “deprived Newcastle” stance - we’ve been linked to Ekitike for a while and he looks more likely than the other names mentioned to be able to play through the centre or on the left.
I also wouldn’t entirely go along with the “backup” idea - surely that’s possibly compromising quality and we know that Slot won’t play someone if they’re not good enough.
I don’t see Ekitike as “backup” as such - in the same Gakpo wasn’t backup to Diaz and vice versa, rather he’s been bought to play in rotation with Gakpo & Isak in the central and left positions.
We know Slot prefers a tight “smaller” squad and with the amount of games we play, there’s plenty of minutes to go around.
I wonder whether the Jota situation triggered more of a move to get Ekitike in now and actually looking like we’re in with a chance of Isak has cooled our interest in someone like Rodrygo.
We deprived Newcastle of the chance to sign Ekitike by signing him ourselves. He can't play for both of us. Seems pretty obvious to me.
I think it's reasonable to spend relatively less on backup players than first choices. I think £80m on a backup striker is quite a lot. Not totally against it, but it's a bit questionable for me.
It was 69m
I know the literal meaning, I just don’t follow the logic - every player we sign would be depriving every other team of the chance to sign that player and in turn, not signing him would be depriving ourselves.
Anyway, that’s not important.
Again - you say backup and I don’t see him as backup - I see him as rotation and being used in a similar way to Diaz last season - because Gakpo & Isak can’t both play all minimum of 50 games we’ll play.
It may sound like I’m splitting hairs, but I’m not - Endo & Elliot are and while Gravy & Wirtz, like Isak, are likely starters, Mac, Dom & CJ are all likely to rotate through the other midfield role and play in the defensive/attacking roles as required.
That’s, in my mind, how we square the “smaller” squad, maintaining a consistent team team to win the league, while keeping key players fresh for the business end of the knockout comps, primarily CL.
It’s also why I would consider Guehi backup to Virg & Konate and would like him signed too., but don’t really see the point spending much money on more CB’s past that.
Fundamentally I just think that money might have been better spent on a cheaper striker and a Diaz replacement - maybe chuck in an extra £20m and that should've been doable. As it is we look a bit overstocked at CF compared to LW. Guess it depends how well Ekitike covers LW, if indeed that's the plan.
This now gives us 3 players that can play LW and CF so I don't see any overload or duplication. Exciting times.
