What's new

Player Watch: Richarlison

arunspurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
9,733
39,922
Really lankshear as our n.o2 striker going into the season wanting to compete on 4 fronts?

3rd option sure but 2nd and selling Richy is madness.

We need quality depth then the youth can get chances around that

Solanke, Lankshear, Son can play striker role + we have Kulu for false 9 + worst case there is Werner.
IMO, this is more than enough. If Lankshear doesnt work out, we can always buy another no9 in Jan or next summer and get Werner of.

Solanke for Richy improves our HG quota + gets a striker more fitter & reliable for PL. His numbers are also good and fit for Ange system.

Key is to get a top class winger now.
 

sidford

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2003
13,207
39,687
While I appreciate that selling Richy and just bringing in say Solanke doesn't improve us overall numbers wise up top, if you have an offer of 50m+ on table for Richy you have to take it as it will never be on the table again.
Solanke has a much better record of being available to play and we have lankshear who can be given an opportunity if required. With Solanke we have the probability of having a proper striker start for us alot more than last season so that will automatically improve us.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,498
3,770
Whilst I appreciate what you’re saying of course there is an element of fluidity but at some point (especially as we get closer to crunch time) then we need to stop ourselves getting swept away by the currents and start taking a bit more control of our destiny. That time is coming pretty soon.

The job of a good scouting team is to identify multiple players in the profile that Ange needs for each position. So when that time comes we can be decisive.

I think sometimes we embrace the chaos too much and leave ourselves short. High risk for potentially high reward.

I always think a good strategy is to have minimum bases covered by deadline day if you can, and then see if there’s a bonus deal to be done late on if an opportunity arises.
100% agree. I think that crunch time is very soon (end of this week say) and hopefully we can get deals wrapped up quickly rather than have them rumble along like the Porro deal did.

There are a million caveats to everything, but it sounds like there is movement behind the scenes so let's see how it pans out.
 

keithtighe93

Well-Known Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,038
4,706
If Richy goes and we get one of Gyokeres/Solanke and the club are genuinely in agreement that Lankshear is ready to step up as the cover striker then that is fine.

That's what I'm thinking. Maybe we think Lankshear is ready to play Europa + early cup games, and maybe 1 or 2 PL games?

If we sell Richi, I'd expect Solanke + Neto by default, and maybe even Eze on top.
 

bbunc

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2019
1,923
7,923
It is going to be very interesting what we do with the “extra” roster spot assuming this Richarlison / Solanke switch happens.

Does this allow us to go get Eze or another AM? Do we look at a backup striker for cheap (Roque loan?)? Do we look at a higher class versatile fullback (Gertruida, etc?).
 

HildoSpur

Likes Erik Lamela, deal with it.
Oct 1, 2005
11,224
37,187
It is going to be very interesting what we do with the “extra” roster spot assuming this Richarlison / Solanke switch happens.

Does this allow us to go get Eze or another AM? Do we look at a backup striker for cheap (Roque loan?)? Do we look at a higher class versatile fullback (Gertruida, etc?).
I don't think we do any of those things - we hopefully sign Neto and that's probably it. We don't need a full back with Spence apparently impressing, why buy a cheap back-up striker when we have Lankshere in the wings and it appears we can't afford Eze's up front release clause plus Bergvall looks like he may be good enough to rotate with (or play alongside) Maddison.
 

Bluto Blutarsky

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2021
21,652
97,224
It is going to be very interesting what we do with the “extra” roster spot assuming this Richarlison / Solanke switch happens.

Does this allow us to go get Eze or another AM? Do we look at a backup striker for cheap (Roque loan?)? Do we look at a higher class versatile fullback (Gertruida, etc?).
What "extra" spot?

For European competitions we are already over the allotment for Association Trained HG players - adding Solanke will be the same as adding a non-HG

For the League - we still have several open slots - not sure this changes anything in that regard.
 

The Scarecrow

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
5,696
12,724
Replacing Richarlison with Solanke for roughly the same money is a great move imo. Ideally we'd have a little more depth up front, but as long as we strengthen elsewhere, Kulusevski, Lankshear and Son should be cover enough.
 

bbunc

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2019
1,923
7,923
What "extra" spot?

For European competitions we are already over the allotment for Association Trained HG players - adding Solanke will be the same as adding a non-HG

For the League - we still have several open slots - not sure this changes anything in that regard.
It’s an “extra” spot in that yesterday we all thought Solanke was coming while we kept Richarlison. So if we’re selling richy that opens up one more slot.

if we kept richy and played games with Forster, we had room for 2 more players (as you note, HG doesn’t matter any more since we are already full this year). 2= Neto and Solanke. If richy is gone, that’s one more slot available
 

JUSTINSIGNAL

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2008
17,162
54,528
Really lankshear as our n.o2 striker going into the season wanting to compete on 4 fronts?

3rd option sure but 2nd and selling Richy is madness.

We need quality depth then the youth can get chances around that
It’s hard to keep two high level strikers happy. See even Alvarez has been moaning for a long time at Man City about not getting enough playing time. And he’s been winning trophies while riding their bench.

We have enough between Son/Kulu/Johnson to cover us. And then Lankshear can get more minutes to help his development.
 

WiganSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
17,907
36,881
I don't think we do any of those things - we hopefully sign Neto and that's probably it. We don't need a full back with Spence apparently impressing, why buy a cheap back-up striker when we have Lankshere in the wings and it appears we can't afford Eze's up front release clause plus Bergvall looks like he may be good enough to rotate with (or play alongside) Maddison.
A realistic ideal for me is Solanke for Richarlison, Neto in, and Davies upgraded with a player who can play LCB and LB much like Micky. I get a lot of flak for suggesting we move on Davies but we need that spot and we need to strengthen at the back for sure. But we’ve either got to sell him or perhaps de register him or someone else for Europe imo.
 

Davids_5

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
342
407
I like Lankshear but I'm not sure he is ready to be our number 2. Selling Richarlison seems weird to me. Why not wait until next summer when Lankshear has some real minutes? Must be a very good offer if we are going thru with this
I think the issue is that Richarlison will have little market value next year. He would have to stay fit and score a lot of goals.
 

WiganSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
17,907
36,881
It’s hard to keep to high level strikers happy. See even Alvarez has been moaning for a long time at Man City about not getting enough playing time. And he’s been winning trophies while riding their bench.

We have enough between Son/Kulu/Johnson to cover us. And then Lankshear can get more minutes to help his development.
We need a winger yet before we can start suggesting we allocate a fair number of minutes to Son and Kulusevski up front. Have to get moving on that position , it’s vital and it also makes sense to plan the rest of our business around it.
 

Dunc2610

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2008
2,080
4,943
All well and good the Saudi's preparing this bid and that bid, but wasn't Richy (quite recently) quite adamant about NOT wanting to go to Saudi? You can't make the lad go there!
 

Finchyid

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2017
4,834
14,563
Makes no sense to sell Richy for Solanke and have 1 striker again. If it were Osimhen I may be more into it but we were short last year and will be again Solanke is just not good enough IMO
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
58,701
114,393
All well and good the Saudi's preparing this bid and that bid, but wasn't Richy (quite recently) quite adamant about NOT wanting to go to Saudi? You can't make the lad go there!

Well if they go as far as sumbmitting a formal bid, they've clearly sounded out Richarlison prior to doing so.
 

bbunc

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2019
1,923
7,923
All well and good the Saudi's preparing this bid and that bid, but wasn't Richy (quite recently) quite adamant about NOT wanting to go to Saudi? You can't make the lad go there!
I think there’s a lot of tea leaf reading, but with some of the recent smoke, it certainly seems like that stance may have changed
 

fishhhandaricecake

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
23,427
59,047
Solanke, Lankshear, Son can play striker role + we have Kulu for false 9 + worst case there is Werner.
IMO, this is more than enough. If Lankshear doesnt work out, we can always buy another no9 in Jan or next summer and get Werner of.

Solanke for Richy improves our HG quota + gets a striker more fitter & reliable for PL. His numbers are also good and fit for Ange system.

Key is to get a top class winger now.
Do we want to close the gap to the top 2 eventually or do we want to fight for top6?

Either way I’m confident Ange will have a plan but if we sell Richy and sign Solanke & Neto we will be 1 player short in attacking depth again.
 
Top