[Link] Martin Odegaard Season long loan move

Nice one. ESPN have Matthews on 8 assists and that's just the league, but that thread has him on 7 all competitions. But to be honest I trust ILTC more than ESPN, Scottish football isn't really their forte.

I like him too, I just think he has to be ok with a squad role. He's going to be vital in that role for us, it's going to be another long season. I realise people think he is good enough to start, but I don't. On the other hand, if you start letting players like Stokes go you find yourself with a paper thin squad and in big trouble when people are injured.

 

ESPN does the same thing and has Commons and Stokes both on 9.

 

He was injured when GMS/Armstrong came in, when he came back on he couldn't regain his place off of them and when the court case and that came round and he never returned from Ireland he wasn't going to be rewarded with playing time on the pitch.

It wasn't the performances on the pitch that meant he didn't get a game. It was the * off it that he clearly needs to pack in. It's no coincedence Ronny was praising him to the rooftops after the League Cup final, held him up as an example to the others.

Quite rightly.

 

ESPN have some of the most shocking stat keeping I've ever saw. Sometimes they forget full * seasons

He had 13, Johansen 11, Guidetti 9 and Commons 8.

 

No judge available so the trial will happen in January according to a quick google.


I hear if he gets time the warden will throw a party in the county jail

 

ILTC's on here I know are right, I check it as well, cos I'm a sad * that likes that * :icon_mrgreen:

Matthews probably won a penalty or something ESPN counts that as an assist. That's bullshit though! He's in a squad role just now definitely but we need players who can come in, push for a first place, players we can rely on. I wouldn't put it past Stokes coming in again next season and having one of his unplayable phases.

* look at him when Griffiths came in, scored 14 in 16 (7 assists in that time as well if I remember right).

 

Where are you looking? The ESPN one I'm on has Matthews and Commons on 8, Stokes and Johansen on 7. They've lost the plot.

 

We're never going to agree on this, but for me Stokes is mediocre as a left (or right) sided player and as a lone striker, which are the only two available positions we have for him.

Upfront with a partner like Hooper then yes, I would keep him, but that's not how we play now.

He was decent before Christmas but not great and we weren't playing great as a team either, Armstrong and GMS made an instant impact coming in because they are far more suited to them roles and the difference in the way we played with them in the team was clear.

 

:smiley-laughing002:

Maybe ESPN isn't to be trusted then.

 

He is a mediocre all round player with some outstanding skills, his ability to make space and find others in scoring positions is that ability for the most part.

Obviously we won't agree with this but I'm interrsted in why you'd think Armstrong is more suited to the wide left role? He's not comfortable there at all for me, except for the Inter game, strangely enough.

 

I don't think Armstrong is overly suited to the left side role, I would rather see him more central. He does add a balance to the front three though and is good at arriving in the box. But a bit like Stokes it's just not his natural position. Unlike Stokes though I can see where else he would fit into the team, either slightly deeper or in the Johansson role.

If it's a straight up coin toss for Stokes or Armstrong for the left side role though I'd pick Armstrong just because I think he's an overall better player but I'd rather neither played it.

 

Ok? I wasn't disagreeing or disrespecting the comment.

 

The argument is that at the the times when the development squad players, or Henderson, or other young fringe players could be getting game time that they need to develop there is now another youngster who is not ours filling that place. As this youngster is from Real Madrid it is an almost certainty that he will be better than our youngsters, therefor getting in the squad before them and stifling our youngsters development. It's a pretty logical argument.

 

Just think about what this is deal could do for our youth profile worldwide. If Odegaard comes good and if Janko proves to be a shrewd buy, then more youngsters will see our club more appealing for them to come and develop as players. Would love to see us go toe to toe with Ajax in the youth market!

 

I would like this but at the same time his preferred position is a cam is it not? Would Odegaard be here as cover for that position or a starter? If he's being brought in as a starter I wouldn't think the likes of johanson would like playing 2nd fiddle to a 16 year old. I would like him here though as another option and it will be good for the club since so many teams want him

 

The Denayer transfer differs in that we were massively short at CB and he was signed to become our first choice CB.

We have cover in Odengaard's position and he would be supplementing Forrest, GMS, Armstrong, Commons, Johanson - which is Henderson's role right now, our own youngster who needs game time to develop. With Odengaard taking up another place, Henderson's place, it will hinder his development. Henderson is good enough to be in and around our team, but more than likely is not as good as Odengaard. So it is not players that are not deemed good enough that he would be impeding, it is players already in and around the first team, who are good enough.

 

We need quality to improve and this kid has it but as has been said we have plenty of bodies in this area and there is no chance of a long term deal.