Indy_Bones

We didn't get sussed 2 years ago, we simply changed how we played after we went up to the PL, and have continued to dismantle the style of play that was so successful last time around, and are now blaming the likes of Pukki despite him getting little to no supply to work with, and have started suggesting he should be dropped because of it. The square pegs in round holes situation is being caused by our changed approach, not because people have 'sussed' us out.

So your answer is to drop our 30 goal striker (11 in PL) for the guy who scored half of that, just because Farke has decided to spend the last year changing how we play and it no longer suits said 30 goal striker, rather than playing the way we did last time, with Pukki running on to balls played by Vrancic, Buendia, Cantwell and Stiepermann, with balls across from Argos, Aarons (and now Xavi instead of Lewis) at a low height for him to place home. Turning into yet another RvW situation, where the striker is being blamed for the sh!t supply they are getting thus leading to no goals, instead of looking at WHY this is happening and changing things accordingly.

Yes, I remember 2 years ago, where we got promoted playing a brand of football that suited the players we had and got the best out of them, quite how we've gone from that to this is the key question, not how many points we have or haven't got in the first month of the new season. Either Farke reverts back to how we played 2 years ago or he can do one, because I'm getting pretty tired of seeing good players being made to look poor because we've decided to play in a way that suits NONE of them.

Sorry guys, but I really do not understand what warped logic is being applied here. We got promoted playing a style of football that worked extremely well with the players we had and suited their strengths, this style of play then continued for a short while in the PL and then got changed and has since gone further and further away from what we excelled at to the point where we've got fans suggesting we drop our previous 30 goal striker in order to lump high crosses and long balls to Hugill or Idah because that's how we've setup this season - JUST WTF IS GOING ON??? For those with a short memory, take a look at this video: Look at the goals Pukki scores, and what sort of balls we were playing to make that happen, it wasn't high crosses or asking him to play as a target man ffs! Look at the number of excellent balls through to him from the likes of Buendia, Cantwell and Vrancic, look at the work on the wing by Hernandez who then plays low balls across for him to finish, look at what both Lewis and Aarons were doing in attacking positions - playing the ball across at a height (or even ground level) that suited Pukki. Apart from Lewis, we still have ALL those players, so why the hell have we changed our style of play so completely, and gone with double defensive mids, high crosses from wingers, and giving our top striker virtually NO through balls or balls across for him to work with? We are NOT in the PL, we're back in the champs, so why we've chosen to play so differently to what was successful for us last time around is beyond me. THE PROBLEM IS NOT PUKKI FFS!

The problem isn't Pukki, the problem is the supply (or lack of it) that he's getting, and in a way that suits him. It's RvW all over again, proven goalscorer when given the right kind of supply, we don't provide it and then turn on said goalscorer as if it's their fault. I have ZERO idea why we are not looking to play through balls or low crosses for him to work with, but let's not blame the guy who scored 30 the season we went up, added another 11 in the PL, and is now being scapegoated for the shambles that's happening behind him!

I've been saying for weeks that Vrancic needs to be playing alongside Skipp/Tettey/Rupp, and he showed again today exactly why that is, the ball to Aarons was great vision and excellent technique and on another day that's a goal, and that was within minutes of him coming on. We don't need TWO defensive midfielders ffs, let Skipp handle that side of things, and let Mario play the sort of balls our forwards love to work with. Vrancic HAS to start next week, as even though neither of Rupp or Skipp were poor today, it's the loss of creativity that's killing us and our strike force.

Could have been wondering how the hell he was being subbed when we needed to make something happen for the points, yet Rupp and Skipp kept on the pitch (and I'm not saying either had a bad game). I think that one of the two (probs Rupp) should have made way for Hugill, Vrancic then played alongside Skipp, with one of Buendia, Pukki or Idah in the no 10 role. Ironically it was Idah's misplaced pass that set them free, then Rupp's reckless tackle which cost us the game, had the suggested changes been made, that wouldn't have been able to happen (isn't hindsight wonderful!). Still the same problem again though when you don't have Vrancic in the middle, no real creativity from the centre, and it was interesting to see that within minutes of him coming on, he's played a fantastic ball over to Aarons which forced a good save, now imagine if we'd had that sort of thing for the full game...

Come on TY, just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that others don't, nor indeed that others may agree with you as well, it's simply personal opinion. I've never rated Stones anywhere near the hype or transfer fees he's received, and as the friendly Everton fan points out, he's always got a mistake in him - much like Bassong, Doherty and a number of our other defenders over the years who could be good for large sections then make an awful error and cost us a goal, but none of them cost 50 million! Godfrey's passing is defnitely superior to Stones, I think he's quicker and more agile, and far better at moving up to support the midfield. Stones has the benefit of experience at present as well as having the chance to play alongside some very good players whereas Godfrey has struggled to have a settled partnership with a truly great teammate to help him develop. I still maintain that 25mil is too low based on all the factors previously mentioned, but do concede that maybe my original value of 40 mil + addons was too high. 30 mil + addons would be my preferred position, but I doubt the club would turn down 25 + addons either...

It's not about whether or not another defender could do a job defensively, it's about the inherent value in a defender who does more than just defend, something which is a premium and carries far more value in the PL than it does in the champs. Also to clarify, Gibson cost 15 million not 9, and all three of the defenders you've listed are just that - defenders, they aren't ball playing defenders with the ability to move comfortably with the ball into midfield. Take the comparison between Rio and Vidic, both great defenders, and an excellent pairing, but it was Rio that looked to play the ball from defence, it was Rio that took the ball out of defence, and it was Rio that cost Man Utd 30+ million compared to Vidic costing 7 million. You ALWAYS pay a premium for homegrown talent, you ALWAYS pay a premium for a defender that can do more than just defend, you ALWAYS pay a premium with a young player with proven potential, and Godfrey hits all three of those factors easily, as well as being able to play in midfield if wanted/required. He may not have huge experience so far, but experience will be earned, and he will continue to develop as a player over the next 5-10 years, even more so if playing alongside stronger teammates than he currently is. Finally, I stand by my opinion that Godfrey is a better player than Stones who has clearly shown at Man City that even in a side of world class players, he's distinctly average and can't hold down a first team place which is why they continue to bring in central defenders like they did Laporte, and even a 19 year old Garcia is preferred to him. He's also continually failed to impress on International duty as well.

Except it isn't - in all cases. We CANNOT replace Godfrey with anyone in our squad, as NONE of our central defenders are even close to his level of ball playing ability and technique, nor his ability to move up into the midfield as needed. If you'd said one of Zimmermann, Klose, Gibson or Hanley as being replaceable by one of the others, I'd fully agree, but Godfrey is a completely different kettle of fish to any of them. A solid PL standard defender will set you back 15-25 mil, a 22 year old ball playing English centre back will cost substantially more, and you only have to look at the transfer fees of players like Ake, Maguire, Wan-Bissaka to see the sort of prices players easily fetch. Hell, John Stones went for near on 50 mil, and I'd take Godfrey over him every day of the week! I think the price for Lewis was fair and respectfully he was arguably the least talented out of the 'big 5' and we still got around 20 mil for him including the addons, so suggesting that Godfrey is only worth 5 mil more is ludicrous IMHO.

Not at that price. 40 mil + addons and not a penny less.

Where was Pirlo's pace? or Crooky's or David Fox's? or numerous other midfielders who were technically fantastic with great vision and passing range, but lacking in pace and strength? Nobody else in our entire squad can pick out the range of passes that Vrancic can, nobody else (maybe bar Emi) has the vision to find the runs that players like Pukki will make and give him the correct ball, and these are both things we've utterly missed from the middle of the park for too long and it shows in our play. Give Vrancic a run of games instead of the ineffective McLean, give Stiepermann another chance behind Pukki and see what happens, because what we have done for the past year just hasn't worked, it isn't working this season, and we need to make changes ASAP rather than sticking with what's already been proven to not work.

This was the exact same argument I put forward years ago regarding RvW, we simply didn't play to his strengths and give him the right kind of supply (if at all), and then people berated him rather than look at the reasons for his failings. Hughton knew exactly what kind of striker he'd bought, but insisted on trying to play him as a lone target man which was NEVER his game, and here we are years later and Farke is doing the exact same thing to Pukki, and again we have some posters claiming it's time to drop Pukki (seemingly forgetting his 30 goals last time at this level), rather than saying we need to change back to how we were playing when we won promotion back to the PL. We've missed Buendia's link-up play and natural flair badly, we've missed Stiepermanns direct play behind Pukki (has was poor in the PL to be fair), we've missed Vrancic's passing and creativity, but instead of trying to return to what worked brilliantly for us, Farke keeps playing too many defensive minded/non creative midfielders across the middle and the supply to Pukki just isn't there. Next game needs to see McLean and Rupp on the bench at best (Rupp was OK today), Vrancic and Stiepermann back in, and if we are going to play Argos and Placheta, they need to be looking to either drive inwards or play low fast crosses for Pukki to run onto and put in, rather than balls 3 feet over his head against 6ft+ brawny CB's. Krul Aarons, Godfrey, Gibson, Xavi Skipp, Vrancic Placheta, Stiepermann, Argos Pukki Subs: McGovern, Zimm, Tettey/Sorensen, Leitner, Martin, Idah, Hugill

We were always going to struggle to create anything with that central midfield selection. Also, playing 2 wingers to cross for Pukki isn't exactly smart either. IF both Emi and Cantwell are off, we need a return of Stiepermann behind Pukki and Vrancic alongside Skipp, with only 1 of Argos or Placheta starting.

Miracles CAN happen!

Last time in the champs we had Stiepermann doing a job behind Pukki, Buendia was on fire, and Vrancic was spraying balls around the midfield covered by Tettey or Trybull. Today we've got NONE of those 3 even on the pitch (or in some cases bench), all creativity from the middle is gone, Pukki has ZERO supply to work with, and people wonder why we're not playing like we did last time at this level...

This has been my point for ages. He isn't as good defensively as the likes of Skipp, Tettey or Trybull. He can't pass or create as well as Vrancic or Leitner. He doesn't work in the no 10 role like Cantwell, Buendia or Stiepermann. So why exactly is he the first name on the team sheet??? A jack of all trades squad player who somehow has worked his way onto Farke's good side and now doesn't get dropped despite offering little to nothing other than running a lot, pointing even more and occasionally winning a header...

Exactly, but whenever I say we need to drop McLean for someone like Vrancic, I get told I have a vendetta against McLean...

I WOULD rather have Johnson in a like for like comparison then to now. Obviously Bradders is getting past it, but when he played for us he was far better than McLean and I didn't really rate Johnson that much back then either! Point being that I'd rather play Vrancic, Leitner or Sorenson over McLean, never mind someone who played for us 8 years ago...

I don't "have it in for him", I simply don't rate him as a player and think our midfield is weaker with him in instead of players like Vrancic, Leitner etc. He just doesn't do enough of anything to justify his place, squad player at best.

I'm not, and he doesn't.

Think it's clear that Vrancic has been written off by Farke now. Seemingly would rather play Rupp and McLean ahead of Skipp than give Vrancic the minutes. Pathetic.

He still offers more than McLean. Johnson had his weaknesses, but scored a number of important goals for us, wasn't afraid to get stuck in and actually tried to pass the ball forwards (even if he wasn't always that accurate).

So why have you put McLean in?

It's almost always better for a young player to be moved on loan for regular playing time (even if poorer leagues) than it is to simply play limited U23 football here. If the coaching team don't feel he's ready to play a role here as yet, then it makes sense for all parties to sort a loan deal out, with the long-term view either being the player develops and may be able to push for a place on their return, or prove that they may not be good enough or ready enough so will be sold/released/re-loaned out.