Bamford

[ZLF 274]

Is bamford better than Hooper or Grabban? Hard to know - but his work rate was impressive for boro last season so he will suit our style far more than Hooper and has the potential to finish better than grabban. So it could be an improvement on both grabban and hooper.

The whole palace debacle worries me though - they are team screaming out for a striker to grab their starting position, yet he only started in the league cup and made a paltry 6 sub appearances in that time - that makes me worried that he isnt quite good enough for the prem - and the demeanour of his exit could either hint at an attitude problem (demanding pitch time?) or, being more generous the club/player relationship simply didnt work.

I do trust the manager though.

[Tumbleweed 106]

All about the price for me. I too am not convinced he is a material upgrade on what we have at the moment, If we are to spend £10m or so I''d prefer someone a bit more proven over a couple of seasons rather than one in a very good M''Boro side with a solid midfield to feed him.

I don''t think we''ve tried to get the best of out the current crop, there seem to be favoured players and non favoured players some of whom have hardly started under AN. Remember Hooper''s strike at Rotherham? And the last game of last season when Hooper was everywhere and a constant thorn in Fulham''s side.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]Kane was a raw kid when he was here and a strange signing by Hughton and I put it down to the Spurs connection.

Now I personally view him as England''s best all-round striker.

Bamford gets a thumbs down from me. He has had opportunities but then flops eg. play off final.[/quote]Where he was playing injured. On the other hand, the ''must win'' game (at the time) at Carrow Road he was excellent, and was easily man of the match.I don''t think he''d be the worst signing in the world. I''m just not sure how much minutes he''d get this year. I think we have a more immediate need.

[Kingston Yellow 220]

Simply can''t understand people arrogantly dismissing Bamford, as though know that little bit more than the average fan. Bamford looked class against us last season and if Alex Neil thinks Bamford''s what we need, who are we to argue?

And as for Bamford not being an upgrade on what we had coming into this transfer window, watch these goals and tell me he''s not a better option than Grabban. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlpJvm-83uw

As for preferring to spend £10 on a more proven goal scorer, who do you have in mind?

[Crabbycanary3 994]

My opinion is influenced by the conversation we had with a few Boro fans on the way to Wembley, where I said Bamford was the player we feared most, and they were very indifferent about him. They were saying that he almost picks and chooses his games to perform in. Now this could be down to one or two factors, but they had seem him on a regular basis. One fan said he wished he wasn''t going to be picked that day!

There may be a more mature side to his game now, and the ''lure'' of a (realisitic) Prem team having him, may make a difference. Listening to what AN says about players not being shrinking violets, then I am not sure Bamford is the person, nor the player that we need.

[ron obvious 1,502]

What I saw there was some stylish goals against distinctly average defending. PL defences are quicker, stronger & better organised.

That''s the whole problem; you never know how well a striker can perform until he''s in a real life PL situation - hence the Ricky debacle.

It comes down to gut feeling. Mine is he hasn''t got the Right Stuff.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

I love the idea of him joining permanently but £10m seems a lot! I trust AN though and if he sees potential in bamford enough to be our top striker then it could be the best buy we ever make.

The whole Palace striker situation confuses me. I really don''t rate wickham and don''t see how he''s kept Murray, Gayle and bamford out when my dead pet dog looks more of a goal threat than him. He''s like a shit heskey!

[TCCANARY 263]

He''s keeping Murray out of the Palace team because Murray plays for Bournemouth.

[Mooney 0]

He''d be a seriously amazing signing if we could get him permanently (Mirror suggesting thats what we are pushing for). He scored 17 in the championship so its likely he could push for 10 in the prem at this stage, but would probably progress to be a 20 goal a season striker in years to come. It would really show ambition.

If Lukaku didn''t break through fully at Chelsea then he certainly won''t so a strong bid might pull him through (Was 28 million cost). £10 million would be well spent on Bamford and if he develops we''d be likely to double that by the time he''s 25.

His movement for Middlesborough against us last year was pretty impressive. He''s 22 so if we signed him permanently there wouldn''t be as much of a pressure to start him. He''s the perfect impact player to come on and open up some gaps in behind the oppo defence and he''s worth a goal out of nothing too.

[Just Dan 10]

Did you see how many of those came from attacks down the left wing?

I think he would be a good signing and will only get better.

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/01/22/report-norwich-city-want-permanent-deal-for-patrick-bamford/

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]He''s keeping Murray out of the Palace team because Murray plays for Bournemouth.[/quote]

And why is he playing there?

That''s right, he''s gone there because he couldn''t get games at palace because they bought Wickham. I''m not daft, he started vs us but it was clear that that place was being warmed for Wickham.

[morty 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]Is bamford better than Hooper or Grabban? Hard to know - but his work rate was impressive for boro last season so he will suit our style far more than Hooper and has the potential to finish better than grabban. So it could be an improvement on both grabban and hooper.

The whole palace debacle worries me though - they are team screaming out for a striker to grab their starting position, yet he only started in the league cup and made a paltry 6 sub appearances in that time - that makes me worried that he isnt quite good enough for the prem - and the demeanour of his exit could either hint at an attitude problem (demanding pitch time?) or, being more generous the club/player relationship simply didnt work.

I do trust the manager though.[/quote]Yeah, that sums it up for me. Another poster says people are arrogantly dismissing him, but I think most just have the concerns you list above.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Bamford could develop into a very fine player, he has all the attributes including being incredibly smart (he was offered a scholarship to Harvard).

He will only develop though if he can play regularly and be given patience when inevitable dips in form occur from time to time. This is the worry for me if Norwich sign him - is he going to be able to play enough to actually improve? Palace are desperate for a striker who can score (all their strikers have a grant total of 1 goal between them, which was a penalty) and he still couldn''t get into their team. Maybe he didn''t suit there style and Pardew has been know to cut out perfectly good players for unknown reasons before, but it does put a massive question mark over him for me.

I guess it depends on how any potential fee is structured - if it is heavily based around money for performances, goals, survival in the Prem, etc. then it wouldn''t be much of a risk. I''m guessing Chelsea will only really discuss a deal though if it a large payment up front.

[Kingston Yellow 220]

The point is, we''re not in the market for a ''finished article.'' We simply can''t afford the +£20m (plus wages) required. So obviously we''re going to have to invest in players who are either in the final 3rd of their career with some proven experience (a la Naismith) or younger players with lots of potential but who still need to develop.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Kingston Yellow"]The point is, we''re not in the market for a ''finished article.'' We simply can''t afford the +£20m (plus wages) required. So obviously we''re going to have to invest in players who are either in the final 3rd of their career with some proven experience (a la Naismith) or younger players with lots of potential but who still need to develop.[/quote]The sticking point for me though is this Palace loan thing.I really can''t understand why he couldn''t get a game there, which makes you question whether or not he is ready to make the step up, either physically or mentally. If the price I have seen of 10m bandied around, yeah thats technically not a huge amount for the Premiership, but its a lot of money for us. We are only just getting over wasting money on V Wolfswinkel.No one is saying they know better, but taking it all on face value, most rightly have reservations.

[morty 0]

And I would add that his failed loan at Palace should be knocking some money off the asking price. No more than 7 million for me.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Kingston Yellow"]The point is, we''re not in the market for a ''finished article.'' We simply can''t afford the +£20m (plus wages) required. So obviously we''re going to have to invest in players who are either in the final 3rd of their career with some proven experience (a la Naismith) or younger players with lots of potential but who still need to develop.[/quote]The sticking point for me though is this Palace loan thing.I really can''t understand why he couldn''t get a game there, which makes you question whether or not he is ready to make the step up, either physically or mentally. If the price I have seen of 10m bandied around, yeah thats technically not a huge amount for the Premiership, but its a lot of money for us. We are only just getting over wasting money on V Wolfswinkel.No one is saying they know better, but taking it all on face value, most rightly have reservations.[/quote]I agree. But sometimes, perfectly good players just aren''t fancied by managers for loads of reasons. Take Lukaku for example. Never fancied by Jose. Has since gone to West Brom on loan, then Everton, and looked great. On current form, he looks better than anything playing up top for Chelsea - including Costa.I think Bamford might be worth the risk. However my main concern is the same as BG&Y above, in that how much game time will he be getting here initially? Will he develop?I think the risk at £10m is more mitigated than RVW though. Being young and British means even if he fails, he''d still have some resale value (e.g. Hooper).It certainly is an interesting one though. And one I didn''t think we''d be talking about after 2 big transfers this week.

[Tumbleweed 106]

We have enough "squad" players and in my view should not now be spending any money on this type of addition. We still have some great youngsters coming through and who may well be capable of being the future squad and back up players if not full time first teamers.

In my view the money should be spent on those who take our offering in any particular position to a new higher level. Naismith and Klose and Pinto seem all to be satisfying that. I''m not sure Bamford is quite there at that level yet. However I am a fan of CJ, I like Lafferty, have thought Hooper a tad unlucky with us and that Mbokani with the right midfield support could be pretty decent. Don''t we still have Morris and Loza somewhere waiting in the wings or have they gone now?

[AJ 1,218]

Morris is on loan at Hamilton, where when I last checked up on him had managed just 3 goals in 21 games - but the fans like him. He holds it up well etc., just needs to return a better striker rate. Still lots of development to go before he''s near the first team anyway.

Loza, just returned from a loan period to smash 5 past Southamptions U21''s at Carrow Road. Again, needs a lot of development before he''s ready.

Bamford would be more closer to the first team - but from the outside it''s hard to tell how ''ready'' he is. He was obviously very good for Middlesborough last year, yet they didn''t try and buy him - does that tell you what you need to know? I''m not sure on him. Kane has obviously burst onto the scene and gone strength to strength, but he proved that he could do that in his clubs youth set ups and for the youth England teams as well.

Has Bamford done that? No, not even close. His goals/games ratio across his 3 loans to MK Dons, Derby and Middlesborough is around 0.4% (chance of scoring per game). At Palace he got 0 in 6. Is that what we really need right now? It''s a no from me, especially if it is going to be a high fee for him - I''d rather have kept Hooper!

[Mr Apples 1,320]

It needs to be remembered that Morris is also playing in a pretty terrible Accies team at the moment.

 

Apples

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Worth noting that Bamford''s 6 appearances for Palace equate to 119 mins of football. I don''t think it is fair to make any judgements about what he achieved on the pitch for Palace, as he really hasn''t been given a chance - but is right to ask why he wasn''t closer to the starting XI.

As for Boro, they did enquire about him but Chelsea and Bamford both rejected the approach. So they didn''t follow it up with an actual bid.

Loza and Morris aren''t showing any indication they will make it in the Premier League. Loza is great at U21s, but has never translated that into league football, at any level. When Bamford was the same age as Loza he won the Championship player of the year scoring 17 goals.

Also, Bamford''s loan record is a lot better than Harry Kane''s was in the Championship (Bamford played 59 scored 25; Kane played 35 scored 9). I''d say a ratio of a goal almost every other game is impressive at Championship level for a 20/21 year old.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

I like Bamford but I just can''t see him coming into the side and making a difference at the moment.

If we were buying him with a view to seeing him further develop then that would not be a bad thing but with our limited resources I don''t think he is the player for us right now.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Bamford could develop into a very fine player, he has all the attributes including being incredibly smart (he was offered a scholarship to Harvard).

[/quote]

Thing is Bethnal, does being booksmart or of high IQ actually really help much on the pitch? Look at Rooney, one of the cleverest players out there, spots passes etc others don''t but he''s hardly Harvard material to put it nicely.

I can see it helping him off the pitch and it should mean any of those "attitude problem at Palace" rumours are completely rubbish as you don''t get near Harvard with no work ethic to add to the natural smartness.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Intelligence helps both on the field and off.

Rooney has on field intelligence, but he is too stupid to know that smoking, drinking and not training in post-season may have shortened his career by a year or two.

Intelligent players make smart choices off the pitch, which means they are in a better position once they get on the pitch. Also, the game is increasingly tactical, which does require an extra level of intelligence to understand manager''s plans.

Southampton have put an emphasis on off field intelligence in their academy and recruitment (Yoshida has a degree in sociology from one of the best universities in Japan for example) with very good results. Partly due to this, Pochettino was able to introduce tactics that had 32 pressing triggers, 32! Such complex tactics may not be implemented as well by players who aren''t the sharpest off the field.

Obviously it isn''t the most important thing and natural talent will always be the most vital ingredient but a bit of brains helps hugely, especially when it comes to making the most of such talent.

[Peanuts 150]

I wouldn''t read too much into the Harvard thing as the scholarship was football related and while he got BBBC at A level and is obviously bright, those grades are a long way off the requirements of an elite university.

As to his supposed attitude problems, I suspect there may be a bit of the ''graeme le saux'' about him and it might be as simple as him just not fitting in at Palace or getting along with the sensitive and thoughtful soul that is Alan Pardew.

I''d be happy with him here on a loan with an option to buy, but I think he''s maybe a bit too much of a gamble to buy outright, particularly at 10m+. Unless he''s guaranteed first team football I''m not sure he''d want a move anyway given the way he left Palace, but who knows.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Quick look on skybet at Bamford next club before Feb 3rd, I notice we are at 5/6 but the "stay at Chelsea" at 10/3 when you consider the championship emergency loan window is later than that is incredibly appealing.

To put it simply, I seen m coming to us or some champs side having him for 3 months to coincide with the playoffs like we did dorrans aka mid Feb, 3 month emergency loan. Obvs another rand on prem club may swoop but they are all fairly long odds from 14s to 28s as well.

I wonder if we see it as one of Haller, bamford or Gayle or some mystery guy we haven''t thought of?

[ZLF 274]

Any loan we take has to be done in the transfer window, "emergency" loans not possible for prem teams. Any champs team will benefit from having him

Happy to watch and see what happens.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Hmm, thats the catch I guess. We supposedly want a permanent deal but I guess we could do a Bournemouth Iturbe type deal. That''d screw that bet up!

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/chelsea/transfer-talk/news/hull-close-to-capture-of-patrick-bamford_264916.html