CanadaSaint

If we upgrade on Vestergaard that is not a bottom eight line up. Depth is a work in progress, but Diallo has started to look like more than a fringe player, and Livramento clearly has real quality. And I’m pondering on your idea of solving the Forster/McCarthy dilemma by not playing either of them. 😂

It seems that Chelsea/Tuchel think we’ll have a much better season than some of our fans. They wouldn’t be throwing talented youngsters like this into a confidence killing shitshow.

For me it’s a season in which Bednarek can become a decent CB, but the key is confidence. Most of last year it was undermined by things going on around him - losing Romeu, always having to defer to Stephens (who would carry the ball for 20 yards before giving it away), covering Vest’s brain farts, losing KWP and being asked to mark Saint-Maximin, the debacle at Old Trafford, and so on. He looks much more assured with Poland. I think there’s a much better player in there, and we have to find a way to bring him out.

What's Phil Boyer doing these days?

So do you seriously think they should have turned down the $30 million for Ings (around $10 million more than anyone was expecting) because we hadn't already agreed a deal for his replacement? How do you know that they (knowing things that we don't know) aren't confident that they can replace him AND upgrade the squad with the Ings (and probably Vestergaard) money? While you are willing to "decide on whether or not the Ings deal was good firstly on 1st September, and then with hindsight at the end of next May", there's a big group on here who have already made their decision. That's what I find frustrating.

The lack of balance in all this criticism of the club is ridiculous. I don’t think Villa were particularly gung-ho for Ings – that’s why it took everyone by surprise. They needed some appeasement for their fans because they were about to sell Grealish, so they chose a very good player and were willing to pay far more than anyone was expecting. In return for the extra cash we completed the transfer even though we were still jostling with a bunch of other clubs for Ings’ replacement. I think the club did the right thing, even though it has put us under a lot of pressure. Vestergaard is very different. We’re in the timeline driver’s seat on that one – whether it’s Leicester or Spurs after him. Sure, the club deserves some criticism, but I think they’re doing their best to stretch scarce resources across a number of problem areas.

Assuming that we get a decent striker in, this - for me - is the key buy of the window. The lack of cover for Romeu was a major factor behind our failure to arrest the New Year slide. The lack of his bite in front of the CDs really exposed their weaknesses. Vestergaard has to be adequately replaced or else it's scary reliance on Stephens and Bednarek, along with the promising Salisu. It's an unconventional profile and Ralph mentioned it some time back, so I'd be surprised if they don't have some "under the radar" names in mind. If they get this right it could be a major upgrade.

We have four decent-ish CDs and cover at RWB that we didn't have last year. We have a LWB who already seems to be about four times as engaged as Bertrand was last year - that's not a "like for like" to me. The strength at Wing Back is key - it makes us better going forward, and it makes us better defensively and gives us various options at the back. I think our CDs will be less exposed when we're under pressure. Having strong wing backs on both sides, not just one, changes a lot of things for the better. The caveats remain, but so does the potential for nice young surprises - like Livramento. Twelfth might be pushing it but I certainly don't see us below fourteenth.

I think we'll finish above all the promoted teams, as well as Brighton, Wolves, Newcastle, Burnley and Palace. And I'm not convinced that Leeds and West Ham will be anywhere near as good as they were last year. We’ve improved because we have multiple defensive permutations that we didn’t have last year, and wing backs on both sides who will be pivotal to an effective attacking style. The caveats? Ballsing up the Ings replacement, losing and not replacing Vestergaard, and another injury to Romeu. But there could also be some nice, young surprises. A bit rose-tinted? Sure, but there's not much point following footy with a negative mindset.

Based on the entirely reasonable assumption that Semmens and Crocker have a better idea of what's best for the club than the people on this forum, and the fact that we've added some depth were we suicidally lacked it last year (with more to come), I'll go with a fairly comfortable 12th.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of our academy - and especially the goalkeeper coaches - is the fact that we've been unable to develop a youngster to challenge Forster and McCarthy. This is basic position-specific coaching, not rocket science.

Perrault needed a call to let the cross go out, and it should have come from McCarthy, but communication is not his strong suit.

I think you’re right but I’d be okay with it if it happened. We’ll see, but I get the impression that there’s a broader plan at work - not the lose a key player/panic buy approach of recent years. I’m sure the Ings replacement is incoming (probably Armstrong). And if JWP goes, his will be too - as well as some more depth.

I’m okay with this. It’s not just that Ings only had a year left on his contract. It’s that his durability isn’t good enough for the heavy demands that Ralph’s style places on his strikers. I think we’ll end up actually looking better up front, all things considered, and I have more confidence that we’ll use the money wisely this time. If JWP goes as well we lose a reliable workhorse who scores deadball goals but doesn’t contribute much creatively. He’s certainly replaceable, too. This could be a quick and effective rebuild.

That's my concern. Granted, there are some top strikers in-play this window, and there's some waiting going on, but the fact that we've (supposedly) had no enquiries for Ings makes me wonder if we're over-valuing him (for a club of our size) with the contract offer. And a year or two hence this forum will be talking about him in the same terms as others we've over-committed to contract-wise. But in his case it's less about talent level or the risk of lost form, and more about durability. We can't afford any more contract clangers that haunt us for seasons. I really think our best bet may be to get Armstrong, give him half a season to settle without the pressure of being our "#1 Striker", and let Danny go in January after he's spent that half-season scoring goals, proving his value to the big clubs, and helping us to get points in the bank. Sure it's risky, but we're up to our ying-yangs in risk right now.

Not sure about that verlaine. The January window is known to be really bad for value - AKA a seller's market. In the Summer window pretty much everyone is fit, but in the January window, clubs (especially big clubs with lots of fixtures) are trying to cover for injured players. Huge money is at stake for them. It's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that Ings could go for more in January than he would now if a really big club is desperate. But my main point is that there may be a way of hedging our bets, so that it's not an "all or nothing" situation. We could get half a season from Ings (and hopefully a lot of safety points) and also have time to get his replacement acclimatized in the club and up to speed with our style.

Saints can only play the cards they’re dealt, and we don’t have many good ones because he clearly wants to go and we are skint. Playing ANY cards in our situation involves risk, especially when the deck is skewed in the player’s favour. In the absence of a crazy offer, of which we’d lose 20% to Liverpool, I’d be inclined to let Ings know that he can go in January, and then go hammer and tongs for Armstrong or someone similar. That way we get a highly motivated Ings for the first half of the season, and an "heir apparent" who has some time to settle in (like Adams needed). The future income from the Ings sale funds the Armstrong signing. Any additional budget goes to other areas of need, of which there are several. Not sure what else we can do and still retain some semblance of control.

Here comes the hooker. If we can just get it out of the scrum a bit quicker we could get one back.

Totally agree with that. And, at risk of repetition, we are a COMPLETELY different team without Romeu. So many of the goals we have been conceding have come from the Romeu void, and JWP often looks like the boy trying to plug the hole in the dike. We also lose quite a lot of Armstrong's forward effectiveness because he's forced to hedge his positional bets. The problem is not that we're crap, or prone to goalkeeping blunders. Sure, we do have some weaker players, and goalkeeping is certainly not a strength, no matter who's in there. The problem is that without Romeu we become weaker all over the park. With him, we're a pretty decent side.

The reality is that we were much the better side in the first half and we paid a heavy price for not scoring when we were on top. Ralph’s substitutions looked more like experiments than tactical adjustments, and all our rhythm went with them.

Game lost in the first half

Tella’s a nightmare to defend against. He takes a lot of defensive composure away with his speed and aggression.

Stephens looks great when he goes marauding forward, but 90% of the time it ends up with a turnover.

Important to come out of this pressure with something

Slowly losing the will to live as I naively check this thread for possible takeover news. Every time MLG wades in with yet another correction or semantic nitpick I’m reminded of Robin Williams’ superb line in Good Morning Vietnam: ”You’re in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history”