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

Recommended Posts

Posted
31 minutes ago, FoxyJim1987 said:

If this has any legs then I hope it's not because either Tielemans is not likely or it's a possibility that Maddison is potentially going. It seems like too much money for an SPL player to be honest no real pedigree at all, start the bidding lower. 

Chris Sutton will be gunning for you making remarks like this.

Posted
1 minute ago, NasPb said:

Rodgers literally just said that we need a backup for Maddison 

Sounds about right as £17.5m or whatever it is meant to be is prob about right for a back up player. We paid £12m for a back up keeper, so a decent back up for Maddison and Tielemans is a good shout to me. Madders always seemed to struggle to finish 90 mins last season so wouldn't be a bad thing. I haven't seen much of this guy to be fair but Rodgers must know hes good enough for the PL. I 

  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, NasPb said:

Rodgers literally just said that we need a backup for Maddison 

I think that Ghezzal is a pretty hopeless winger, but not bad as back up for the number 10 role.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, murphy said:

I think that Ghezzal is a pretty hopeless winger, but not bad as back up for the number 10 role.

This could well be true ..... not sure we will get to find out though 

 

looks like tierney is headed to arsenal ...... would they sell their two best home grown players in one window ??.

Edited by st albans fox
Posted
57 minutes ago, murphy said:

I think that Ghezzal is a pretty hopeless winger, but not bad as back up for the number 10 role.

We don't play a 10 anymore though as both Maddison and Tielemans played in advanced central midfield roles with either Ndidi or Choudhury at the base. A 4-1-4-1 rather than Puelball 4-2-3-1

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We don't play a 10 anymore though as both Maddison and Tielemans played in advanced central midfield roles with either Ndidi or Choudhury at the base. A 4-1-4-1 rather than Puelball 4-2-3-1

To be fair, it was Puel that started us playing a 4141 with Maddison and Tielemans together

  • Like 4
Guest TaggertvsWise
Posted
30 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

This could well be true ..... not sure we will get to find out though 

 

looks like tierney is headed to arsenal ...... would they sell their two best home grown players in one window ??.

This bodes well for Chilwell staying put.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

To be fair, it was Puel that started us playing a 4141 with Maddison and Tielemans together

He did and in the 2 games we lost 7-2 on aggregate, teething problems ??

  • Like 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We don't play a 10 anymore though as both Maddison and Tielemans played in advanced central midfield roles with either Ndidi or Choudhury at the base. A 4-1-4-1 rather than Puelball 4-2-3-1

It's difficult to say.

 

From memory, we began under Rogers with a number 10 in that Puel shape which I believe is favoured by Rogers but adapted for those last few tricky fixtures against Arsenal, Man City and Chelsea to bring in another holding mid (Choudhury) and play 4-3-3 I thought.  Maddison played on the left of that three and Barnes dropped out.  If we continue with that shape then we have Barnes as ample back up for Maddison.

 

It remains to be seen what how we will set up next year.

 

 

Posted
27 minutes ago, murphy said:

It's difficult to say.

 

From memory, we began under Rogers with a number 10 in that Puel shape which I believe is favoured by Rogers but adapted for those last few tricky fixtures against Arsenal, Man City and Chelsea to bring in another holding mid (Choudhury) and play 4-3-3 I thought.  Maddison played on the left of that three and Barnes dropped out.  If we continue with that shape then we have Barnes as ample back up for Maddison.

 

It remains to be seen what how we will set up next year.

 

 

Maddison and Tielemans for the majority of Rodgers games played in similar roles where they attacked and defended higher up. Ghezzal could play in a 10 role but I'd fear for any expectations of him to operate as a " central midfielder "

 

Either way I dont see Rodgers trusting him for any role, seems he will be moved on if we can.

  • Like 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Maddison and Tielemans for the majority of Rodgers games played in similar roles where they attacked and defended higher up. Ghezzal could play in a 10 role but I'd fear for any expectations of him to operate as a " central midfielder "

 

Either way I dont see Rodgers trusting him for any role, seems he will be moved on if we can.

I don’t think Ghezzal has the work ethic to press high compared to Maddison & Tielemans.

  • Like 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, FoxesFourLife said:

Ghezzal is rubbish even Rogers won't change that was on the bench at Monaco for a reason he was a Puel panic buy.

I agree with this I feel the club felt the need to sign a Mahrez like replacement in order to please the fans.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Bluearmyfox28 said:

I agree with this I feel the club felt the need to sign a Mahrez like replacement in order to please the fans.

 

Mahrez replacement? He wasn't at all, very average player, I don't know why we signed him.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Happy Fox said:

 

Mahrez replacement? He wasn't at all, very average player, I don't know why we signed him.

He was signed to fill the role not Mahrez's shoes but is not good enough to be a shadow of the man.

Posted
2 minutes ago, FoxesFourLife said:

He was signed to fill the role not Mahrez's shoes but is not good enough to be a shadow of the man.

It was an odd signing.  I said it at the time, but I don't think he was a Mahrez replacement, more a squad player to make up the numbers for RW.

 

His lack of pace is really exposed at RW and I think he is quite a mercurial player.  Capable of looking awful one moment and then skilful in another.  I think he is best suited as a reserve no.10 but really we need him to move on.

  • Like 2
Posted
54 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Sign him just to annoy Chris Sutton.

This would be the most pleasing part of the signing for me.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, FoxesFourLife said:

Ghezzal is rubbish even Rogers won't change that was on the bench at Monaco for a reason he was a Puel panic buy.

So was that Youri guy and he doesn't do too bad :P 

  • Like 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Happy Fox said:

 

Mahrez replacement? He wasn't at all, very average player, I don't know why we signed him.

He was signed as he was like for like style wise never said in terms of ability.

  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

He was signed as he was like for like style wise never said in terms of ability.

That's the oddest justification I've ever read.

 

:yawn:       "Well he's Algerian and a right winger"

 

:dunno:  "But is he any good?"

 

:yawn:      "Who cares?   That's close enough.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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