Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
moore_94

Ademola Lookman signs on loan

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

Neither Perez nor Iheanacho are creative enough for that job, which is presumably why Maddison has to play despite being out of form and/or injured.

Hmmm,

Kelechi has 48 goal contributions from 148 Premier League matches.

Maddison 36 from 103.

Arguably Kel has performed his best for us in that 10 role? 
I couldn’t and wouldn’t say he is not creative enough, he plays it differently but the output is marginally better if you consider how many of those appearances are from the bench.

Edited by Strokes
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Hmmm,

Kelechi has 48 goal contributions from 148 Premier League matches.

Maddison 36 from 103.

Arguably Kel has performed his best for us in that 10 role? 
I couldn’t and wouldn’t say he is not creative enough, he plays it differently but the output is marginally better if you consider how many of those appearances are from the bench.

He has 48 contributions. But he doesn’t have 48 contributions from the 10 role.

 

I can’t agree Iheanacho has even played as a number 10. As an attacking midfielder, perhaps, but as a number 10?

 

Aside from Perez, I’m not sure who else can successfully play the number 10 role. I guess that’s why we’ve registered interested in Lingard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

He has 48 contributions. But he doesn’t have 48 contributions from the 10 role.

 

I can’t agree Iheanacho has even played as a number 10. As an attacking midfielder, perhaps, but as a number 10?

 

Aside from Perez, I’m not sure who else can successfully play the number 10 role. I guess that’s why we’ve registered interested in Lingard.

https://www.squawka.com/en/comparison-matrix/?compare=ThCJdM9MsX3y0amh77f6V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jimmy said:

It’s not FIFA, that team would get ripped apart

This was more tong-in-cheek, With the thought of our present difficulties of lumbering around the park...

This side would have to attack, because it couldnt Bloody afford to muck around at the back....

Sort of attack & be dammed...:scarf:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Three at the back with no wingbacks is a guaranteed loss, would have to swap out the AM for a left back in this formation

Barnes & Lookman are the Wingbacks...

its an attack and be damned selection...

Not a boring Play safe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Foxxed said:

He has 48 contributions. But he doesn’t have 48 contributions from the 10 role.

 

I can’t agree Iheanacho has even played as a number 10. As an attacking midfielder, perhaps, but as a number 10?

 

Aside from Perez, I’m not sure who else can successfully play the number 10 role. I guess that’s why we’ve registered interested in Lingard.

....if we sell Maddison and insist on playing the #10 role then we should be looking at Jean Pyerre!!!

  Lingard would probably cost us more and with little resale value.

Pyerre is 23 and is going to be well sought after, if not already. Looks like Fofana's twin brother and if he had the same outlook as Fofana, it should be a no brainer to pick him up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sacreblueits442 said:

....if we sell Maddison and insist on playing the #10 role then we should be looking at Jean Pyerre!!!

  Lingard would probably cost us more and with little resale value.

Pyerre is 23 and is going to be well sought after, if not already. Looks like Fofana's twin brother and if he had the same outlook as Fofana, it should be a no brainer to pick him up. 

Contract runs out next summer so there would be no transfer fee for Lingard, not all signings need to focus on resale value either, need to have experienced players as well

 

At 23, not too sure I would want a number 10 who has an unimpressive goal contribution record so far in his career either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

Hmmm,

Kelechi has 48 goal contributions from 148 Premier League matches.

Maddison 36 from 103.

Arguably Kel has performed his best for us in that 10 role? 
I couldn’t and wouldn’t say he is not creative enough, he plays it differently but the output is marginally better if you consider how many of those appearances are from the bench.

But surely most of Iheanacho’s are from playing up front?

And I’d wager that a higher proportion of Maddison’s are ones that he created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Foxxed said:

He has 48 contributions. But he doesn’t have 48 contributions from the 10 role.

 

I can’t agree Iheanacho has even played as a number 10. As an attacking midfielder, perhaps, but as a number 10?

 

Aside from Perez, I’m not sure who else can successfully play the number 10 role. I guess that’s why we’ve registered interested in Lingard.

I've said this before and it was met with deafening silence but what about and ageing Vardy at 10?

 

Hear me out before it is poo poo-ed, I think that Vardy is a better all round footballer than he is perhaps given credit for.  He is, after all, not only our record PL goal-scorer but also our record PL assister.  I think he could be a creative force at 10 with Patson or Kelechi at 9.   Vardy could play them in and I think that JV running from deep to receive a return ball could be terrifying for defenders.

 

This is going to be poo poo-ed isn't it?  I can definitely smell poo.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, murphy said:

I've said this before and it was met with deafening silence but what about and ageing Vardy at 10?

 

Hear me out before it is poo poo-ed, I think that Vardy is a better all round footballer than he is perhaps given credit for.  He is, after all, not only our record PL goal-scorer but also our record PL assister.  I think he could be a creative force at 10 with Patson or Kelechi at 9.   Vardy could play them in and I think that JV running from deep to receive a return ball could be terrifying for defenders.

 

This is going to be poo poo-ed isn't it?  I can definitely smell poo.

[No pictures of Winnie the pooh found in the LCFC shirt :( ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, murphy said:

I've said this before and it was met with deafening silence but what about and ageing Vardy at 10?

 

Hear me out before it is poo poo-ed, I think that Vardy is a better all round footballer than he is perhaps given credit for.  He is, after all, not only our record PL goal-scorer but also our record PL assister.  I think he could be a creative force at 10 with Patson or Kelechi at 9.   Vardy could play them in and I think that JV running from deep to receive a return ball could be terrifying for defenders.

 

This is going to be poo poo-ed isn't it?  I can definitely smell poo.

....Vardy has always been a player than can support his partner upfront or the team as a whole!!!

Playing Nacho as a #9 as the lead, is not a good option but playing Vardy as a#10 will not be the be the best use of his talents. Let us not start to create formats just to accommodate players,

if we need a #10, let us go out and get someone proficient in the role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Rodgers historically preferred not to play with a 10, favouring 433 with two 8s?

 

When our best 10 is chronically out of form and his fitness is questionable surely we should be looking at an alternative formation?

 

Rodgers tried the 433 v Napoli but had problems with Iheanacho and Daka's roles. However surely the 4231 formation with Iheanacho in  the "10" role is preferable, allowing him to play behind a 9, even if it's a slightly different type of 10 to Maddison.

 

I think the issue with the 4231 has been our 2 in midfield being outnumbered,  and that's with Maddison in the 10 role.  I don’t think we have much to lose playing Iheanacho there.

 

Or, there is Perez :ph34r:

 

And seeing as this thread is about Lookman, he'd be playing on the right!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Phil Bowman said:

But surely most of Iheanacho’s are from playing up front?

And I’d wager that a higher proportion of Maddison’s are ones that he created.

Well it’s irrelevant whether it’s was either scored or assisted in the same role. Creating a goal for yourself reaps the same rewards.  A goal is a goal after all.

last season, arguably they played in similar positions but in different systems.

Maddison played 42. (2684 minutes), goal involvement 21.

Iheanacho (2258 minutes) played 39, goal involvement 26.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, murphy said:

I've said this before and it was met with deafening silence but what about and ageing Vardy at 10?

 

Hear me out before it is poo poo-ed, I think that Vardy is a better all round footballer than he is perhaps given credit for.  He is, after all, not only our record PL goal-scorer but also our record PL assister.  I think he could be a creative force at 10 with Patson or Kelechi at 9.   Vardy could play them in and I think that JV running from deep to receive a return ball could be terrifying for defenders.

 

This is going to be poo poo-ed isn't it?  I can definitely smell poo.

https://youtu.be/QeF1JO7Ki8E

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vindaloo FOX said:

Ah true my bad, do you know if we have already agreed a price for him ?

I think SkySports mentioned an option to buy, but everywhere else when the deal was announced had no mention of it, including both club statements for the loan

 

So not too sure to be honest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...