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
 Share
moore_94

Patson Daka

By moore_94, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

The problem is though that in Enzo’s system Daka wouldn’t do well. His game is very one dimensional and he wouldn’t adapt, though he is a tidy finisher given time and space. 

Firstly, I keep hearing that he's a striker in the Vardy mould. A quick, off-the-shoulder number nine. I also keep hearing that Vardy doesn't fit Enzo's game. And yet we keep winning these games, and looking more dangerous as a team, when Vardy is on the pitch. So maybe that sort of player does have a part to play, if not a central one. Perhaps he wouldn't need to adapt so much.

 

Secondly, we're assuming that Enzo is always going to play the same system and shape. There are past interviews with him where he talks about the importance of tactical flexibility. Man City weren't tactically one-dimensional either. Perhaps we're currently learning one of Maresca's preferred shapes and systems, and focusing on establishing it as our Plan A. There'll almost certainly be an alternative at some point too, and that may favour Daka.

 

Thirdly, there's the possibility that it doesn't work out for Maresca, and by Xmas or next year we'll be learning someone else's system.

 

Finally, perhaps the reason we're not playing Daka isn't because we have no use for him. For instance, maybe those who believe there's an appearance-based clause are right. Or maybe Enzo simply wanted to smooth the transition by prioritising Vardy as back-up, and then bankrolling a new signing (who's less likely to be knocking on his door when not picked) through selling Daka. Hence he chose not to play him.

 

In any of these scenarios, we have a useful player on our hands, with more pedigree for football at this level than many. And even if we didn't consider him useful, his wage could at very least be alleviated by a January loan (not to mention the prospect of a 10m+ offer down the line) if we keep him.

 

But if we cancel his contract, we forgo any chance of the aforementioned benefits, on the field or off, and pay more than his wages will cost us anyway this year just to get rid of him. To me, I can see why clubs don't tend to do that with players that, evidently in his case, interest other clubs (and potentially offer us something too).

Edited by inckley fox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, LVFox said:

Surely if there are no takers, Leuven would snap our hands off for Daka and one of Ward or Iversen? Maybe even Soutts too?

 

.... Why the fvck would he want to play for Leuven? If its true he has refused to play in the Championship (and I hate repeating that shit because I really hope it isn't true but something is a bit off with him and/or his agent) the he's not going to go to OHL is he. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ryy

Ryy

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, LVFox said:

Surely if there are no takers, Leuven would snap our hands off for Daka and one of Ward or Iversen? Maybe even Soutts too?

Leuven have brought 2 keepers already, Iversens already been there before on loan funnily enough. They’ve recently bought Haalands cousin and already have Opoku on loan from us. Souttar maybe but he will be involved now imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LVFox

LVFox

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

.... Why the fvck would he want to play for Leuven? If its true he has refused to play in the Championship (and I hate repeating that shit because I really hope it isn't true but something is a bit off with him and/or his agent) the he's not going to go to OHL is he. 

Cause he may have a straight choice, Leuven or don't feature for 4 months. And with AFCON coming up, I'd imagine he wants to be sharp.

 

Don't believe for a second he's completely downed tools. Doesn't seem that kind of character 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Legend_in_blue

Legend_in_blue

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

Firstly, I keep hearing that he's a striker in the Vardy mould. A quick, off-the-shoulder number nine. I also keep hearing that Vardy doesn't fit Enzo's game. And yet we keep winning these games, and looking more dangerous as a team, when Vardy is on the pitch. So maybe that sort of player does have a part to play, if not a central one. Perhaps he wouldn't need to adapt so much.

 

Secondly, we're assuming that Enzo is always going to play the same system and shape. There are past interviews with him where he talks about the importance of tactical flexibility. Man City weren't tactically one-dimensional either. Perhaps we're currently learning one of Maresca's preferred shapes and systems, and focusing on establishing it as our Plan A. There'll almost certainly be an alternative at some point too, and that may favour Daka.

 

Thirdly, there's the possibility that it doesn't work out for Maresca, and by Xmas or next year we'll be learning someone else's system.

 

Finally, perhaps the reason we're not playing Daka isn't because we have no use for him. For instance, maybe those who believe there's an appearance-based clause are right. Or maybe Enzo simply wanted to smooth the transition by prioritising Vardy as back-up, and then bankrolling a new signing (who's less likely to be knocking on his door when not picked) through selling Daka. Hence he chose not to play him.

 

In any of these scenarios, we have a useful player on our hands, with more pedigree for football at this level than many. And even if we didn't consider him useful, his wage could at very least be alleviated by a January loan (not to mention the prospect of a 10m+ offer down the line) if we keep him.

 

But if we don't keep him, we forgo any chance of the aforementioned benefits, on the field or off, and pay more than his wages will cost us anyway this year just to get rid of him. To me, I can see why clubs don't tend to do that with players that, evidently in his case, interest other clubs (and potentially offer us something too).

 

I agree with the first two scenarios, but the third scenario is out of the question.  This simply will not happen with the squad we currently possess.  Not a chance.  We're looking extremely strong and it would take a huge disaster and a huge dose of bad luck to find ourselves in such a position.  This league isn't that great.  It's full of hard work, endeavour and "getting stuck in", but the clinical edge and ruthlessness when punishing mistakes just isn't there.  It's why Vestergaard looks nowhere near as bad as we know he can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimJams

JimJams

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

.... Why the fvck would he want to play for Leuven? If its true he has refused to play in the Championship (and I hate repeating that shit because I really hope it isn't true but something is a bit off with him and/or his agent) the he's not going to go to OHL is he. 

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeell technically it's not he championship soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, LVFox said:

Don't believe for a second he's completely downed tools. Doesn't seem that kind of character

 

I've maintained this the whole time to be fair. But something about it just doesn't seem right. I dunno, maybe it really is as simple as we thought he'd be the easiest to sell and we didn't want to get him injured. I just can't see the sense in freezing him out entirely given there obviously weren't concrete offers on the table and the alternative was two keepers on the bench. 

 

It doesn't make sense. But then he shows up in several training photos working with the first team as normal? So I dunno. 

 

If he isn't refusing to play why not just register him then? OHL still wouldn't make sense unless we're that desperately on the edge for FFP which I doubt else we wouldn't have signed Cannon. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimJams

JimJams

Posted
Posted

If there is truth in the appearance payment due on his next showing then it made perfect sense to freeze him out until the window was shut. From the rumour it was stated about 5mill wasn't it? Imagine bringing a player on as a sub for a few games and then somebody makes you an offer, you sell and those cameo appearances cost you probably a quarter of the fee you just got for him. 5million quid for half an hour, down the shitter...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dobbylcfc

dobbylcfc

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JimJams said:

If there is truth in the appearance payment due on his next showing then it made perfect sense to freeze him out until the window was shut. From the rumour it was stated about 5mill wasn't it? Imagine bringing a player on as a sub for a few games and then somebody makes you an offer, you sell and those cameo appearances cost you probably a quarter of the fee you just got for him. 5million quid for half an hour, down the shitter...

Whoever did the deal for (assume Rudkin) needs bloody shooting if this appearance crap is true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

I agree with the first two scenarios, but the third scenario is out of the question.  This simply will not happen with the squad we currently possess.  Not a chance.  We're looking extremely strong and it would take a huge disaster and a huge dose of bad luck to find ourselves in such a position.  This league isn't that great.  It's full of hard work, endeavour and "getting stuck in", but the clinical edge and ruthlessness when punishing mistakes just isn't there.  It's why Vestergaard looks nowhere near as bad as we know he can be.

You can't see a scenario whereby, in 4+ months, Maresca leaves and someone with different ideas comes in? I'm impressed with what I've seen but it's very early days. Opening fixtures have been kind and the expectation is automatic promotion. If people are that quickly on board, they can be equally as quickly disenchanted if we pick up a few poor results and fall away. See how long it takes for people to say we need a Plan B then. And, if we slip out of the top six, trust me - it doesn't take long for minds to change. We've had good starts in the past which have gone wrong (Hamilton 1986, Taylor 2000, Sven when he took over in 2010 etc.). I don't expect it to happen but never discount it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimJams

JimJams

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Shah johns said:

We don’t want players that clearly want to leave. Let him train with the youth team 

It's not clear he wanted to though. Could be that the club or manager wants him to more than him. We don't know. It makes no sense to alienate him at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

.... Why the fvck would he want to play for Leuven? If its true he has refused to play in the Championship (and I hate repeating that shit because I really hope it isn't true but something is a bit off with him and/or his agent) the he's not going to go to OHL is he. 

I doubt he's refused to play. It's one of the least likely explanations for his exclusion.

 

As for Leuven, well, it wouldn't cost KP anything, I suppose. How does the Belgian league measure up to, say, the Austrian league? If he went for four months and hit 15 goals he'd stand a far better chance of getting the move he wanted in January than if he barely features for us.

 

I'm not sure I can see it either, mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KP Fox

KP Fox

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

You can't see a scenario whereby, in 4+ months, Maresca leaves and someone with different ideas comes in? I'm impressed with what I've seen but it's very early days. Opening fixtures have been kind and the expectation is automatic promotion. If people are that quickly on board, they can be equally as quickly disenchanted if we pick up a few poor results and fall away. See how long it takes for people to say we need a Plan B then. And, if we slip out of the top six, trust me - it doesn't take long for minds to change. We've had good starts in the past which have gone wrong (Hamilton 1986, Taylor 2000, Sven when he took over in 2010 etc.). I don't expect it to happen but never discount it.

Yeah and don't discount that we continuing to do well and someone like Tottenham or Chelsea sacking their manager and then come poaching ours! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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