Lewis Hall

croadyman said:
Yeah it's scandalous we are having to make do in one of these two key positions because of INEOS scrooges
Click to expand...

Better to spend our money lightly than blow it on the likes of Sancho for bigger fees than their worth,

Reminds me of the summer we got Lukaku and Chelsea got Morata. We both were willing to spend stupid money because we couldn't be patient. That's what I kind of feel here.

They will still make a deal, but I highly doubt any of the deals is the 70m+ fees that fans seem to want since other teams are doing them.

People forget, some of these teams are risking their futures ( Spurs) to do this. We just escaped that fate last season, so acting like because we had a bit more money, we should just go out there and buy whatevers out there for fairly little value is a mistake. I genuinely believe we have something in both Tielmans and Andrey Santos ( in particular). Mainoo is still here as well.

If a good deal for a good young player becomes available, then of course we should take it. But looking back, making the wrong kind of deal is worse than making no deal at all. We have a good squad right now, one which we're getting to play good football. If we buy expensively, then it should be a player worth that amount based on their career, not hype that we can't be sure will occur. Outside of that, better to buy young, develop and get players that fit. At least that's my view of the last decade. Big risky transfer cost more than just money.
 
If there was a legit interest, I think we would've bought him already. The problem with buying him is we already have Shaw and the likes of Maz and Amass, which would make this more of a luxury than a necessity buy.
 
Raoul said:
If there was a legit interest, I think we would've bought him already. The problem with buying him is we already have Shaw and the likes of Maz and Amass, which would make this more of a luxury than a necessity buy.
Click to expand...
Still say Amass will be sold before window closes
 
DJ_21 said:
I don’t see how santos isn’t one of the starters though looking at how he’s been used in pre season. He’ll be the deeper midfielder who can play progressive passes. I don’t see how tielemans and mainoo can work together. Not defensive enough and will struggle.
Click to expand...
Mainoo played 90 minutes every game in that role since Carrick took over as the deepest midfielder. His defending improved loads and it's the way he's developing under Carrick.
 
If we dont buy Hall or another, we're going to have to do a hell of a lot of back 4 business next summer.

Best to sign a LB now.
 
Stickz said:
If we dont buy Hall or another, we're going to have to do a hell of a lot of back 4 business next summer.

Best to sign a LB now.
Click to expand...

But we already have Shaw. That's the predicament we're in now. Unless we're going to sell Shaw, its difficult to justify buying an expensive LB during a year when CM is the obvious priority.
 
Raoul said:
But we already have Shaw. That's the predicament we're in now. Unless we're going to sell Shaw, its difficult to justify buying an expensive LB during a year when CM is the obvious priority.
Click to expand...
I disagree. We need a LB in for sure, especially because we have Shaw. He’s too injury prone + getting up there in age anyway. Better to get one in now then wait till next summer.
 
ManhattanRed said:
I disagree. We need a LB in for sure, especially because we have Shaw. He’s too injury prone + getting up there in age anyway. Better to get one in now then wait till next summer.
Click to expand...

We will in the future, but not necessarily in the present. Until Shaw is moved on, it will be difficult to justify spending upwards of £60m on a player who may not consistently play because there's no indication he would beat out Shaw for a consistent starting XI role. Next year feels like a more plausible time to level up at LB since Shaw will be 32 and out of contract.
 
Raoul said:
But we already have Shaw. That's the predicament we're in now. Unless we're going to sell Shaw, it’s difficult to justify buying an expensive LB during a year when CM is the obvious priority.
Click to expand...

So what? Everyone, except perhaps you and one or two other outliers, recognise that expecting Shaw to play two games a week for a season is a terrible idea. The absolute best thing we can do for Shaw is to have someone to compete and rotate with him.
 
Zumbi said:
So what? Everyone, except perhaps you and one or two other outliers, recognise that expecting Shaw to play two games a week for a season is a terrible idea. The absolute best thing we can do for Shaw is to have someone to compete and rotate with him.
Click to expand...

The "two games a week" line has been easily addressed by way of the availability of Maz to accompany Shaw at LB throughout a 55 fixture year. At that point, its difficult to justify spending an additional £60m on a player when its obvious our resources are scarce and the priority of the summer is at CM.
 
Raoul said:
The "two games a week" line has been easily addressed by way of the availability of Maz to accompany Shaw at LB throughout a 55 fixture year. At that point, its difficult to justify spending an additional £60m on a player when its obvious our resources are scarce and the priority of the summer is at CM.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the injury prone Mazraoui who is also our RB cover. Only having three FBs, two of whom are injury prone and one of whom care barely offer an overlap anymore, whilst trying to compete on four fronts, sounds like a great plan. What could go wrong.
 
Raoul said:
The "two games a week" line has been easily addressed by way of the availability of Maz to accompany Shaw at LB throughout a 55 fixture year. At that point, its difficult to justify spending an additional £60m on a player when its obvious our resources are scarce and the priority of the summer is at CM.
Click to expand...
We need both.

Mazaroui is our backup right back who has always looked awkward covering left back for us.

Shaw can't get up and down the pitch properly and is very likely to get an injury. At which point we have 2 right backs and no left backs.

Hideous idea
 
Zumbi said:
Ah yes, the injury prone Mazraoui who is also our RB cover. Only having three FBs, two of whom are injury prone and one of whom care barely offer an overlap anymore, whilst trying to compete on four fronts, sounds like a great plan. What could go wrong.
Click to expand...

Injury prone isn't a real thing. Players get injured and recover and we can't presume they will get injured simply to assuage our transfer fantasies about buying new players. The fundamental problem for the Lewis Hall brigade still hasn't been resolved. In order to buy Hall, we will have to bench Shaw and pretend Maz doesn't exist. Further, we have to presume Newcastle would need to sell yet another player during a 12 month stretch when they've already sold Isak, Tonali, Gordon, and Guimarães for a collective £350m. Therefore the only way this happens is if Hall puts in a transfer request and Newcastle don't attempt to fleece us - both of which are on the lower end of the probability scale.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
We need both.

Mazaroui is our backup right back who has always looked awkward covering left back for us.

Shaw can't get up and down the pitch properly and is very likely to get an injury. At which point we have 2 right backs and no left backs.

Hideous idea
Click to expand...

Maz played at LB for Morocco and did a good job. Shaw is playing at a high level, therefore both are legit options for Carrick.
 
Raoul said:
Maz played at LB for Morocco and did a good job. Shaw is playing at a high level, therefore both are legit options for Carrick.
Click to expand...
And he's looked poor there for us. He also didn't look that great going forward there apart from a couple of flashes against Brazil. International football is not a good barometer for the Premier League.

Regardless, he is our right back cover.

Big clubs with lots of matches have had 2 players for each position for ages.

Having 3 players for 2 positions when 2 of them aren't natural there and the only one who is has a track record of not staying fit is a hideous idea.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
And he's looked poor there for us. He also didn't look that great going forward there apart from a couple of flashes against Brazil. International football is not a good barometer for the Premier League.

Regardless, he is our right back cover.

Big clubs with lots of matches have had 2 players for each position for ages.

Having 3 players for 2 positions when 2 of them aren't natural there and the only one who is has a track record of not staying fit is a hideous idea.
Click to expand...

I don't think Carrick agrees. And the two player bit has already been addressed through the availability of Maz and Amass (who we could elect to not sell or loan out if required).
 
Raoul said:
I don't think Carrick agrees. And the two player bit has already been addressed through the availability of Maz and Amass (who we could elect to not sell or loan out if required).
Click to expand...
I think Carrick fully agrees which is why there are loads of reports of us being interested in Hall.

It hasn't been addressed, if Mazaroui is our left back cover (he shouldn't be but hypothetically) then we need more right back cover. And Yoro isn't it, he's only played there cause the other 2 lads weren't back from the World Cup (as he's said himself).

We are looking to sell Amass.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I think Carrick fully agrees which is why there are loads of reports of us being interested in Hall.

It hasn't been addressed, if Mazaroui is our left back cover (he shouldn't be but hypothetically) then we need more right back cover. And Yoro isn't it, he's only played there cause the other 2 lads weren't back from the World Cup (as he's said himself).

We are looking to sell Amass.
Click to expand...

How many reports have been accurate about any of our transfer activity this summer ? Specifically about predicting we would sign Santos, Thielemans, Darlow, and Thompson ? So why should we presume reports of signing anyone would be remotely true ?
 
Raoul said:
But we already have Shaw. That's the predicament we're in now. Unless we're going to sell Shaw, its difficult to justify buying an expensive LB during a year when CM is the obvious priority.
Click to expand...
Shaw (for me) needs to go into rotation sooner rather than later. There's also a more than decent risk he gets injured at some point in the season.
 
Stickz said:
Shaw (for me) needs to go into rotation sooner rather than later. There's also a more than decent risk he gets injured at some point in the season.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We have Shaw alongside Maz and Amass. Hard to see us buying yet another player, even if we sell or loan Amass.
 
Raoul said:
Injury prone isn't a real thing. Players get injured and recover and we can't presume they will get injured simply to assuage our transfer fantasies about buying new players. The fundamental problem for the Lewis Hall brigade still hasn't been resolved. In order to buy Hall, we will have to bench Shaw and pretend Maz doesn't exist. Further, we have to presume Newcastle would need to sell yet another player during a 12 month period when they've already sold Isak, Tonali, Gordon, and Guimarães for a collective £350m. Therefore the only way this happens is if Hall puts in a transfer request and Newcastle don't attempt to fleece us - both of which are on the lower end of the probability scale.
Click to expand...

Being injury prone is a thing. It literally just means more susceptible to injury, which some players are. Shaw is more susceptible to injuries. Bruno Fernandes is much less susceptible to injuries. We have years and years worth of data on this. That doesn’t mean Fernandes will never get injured and Shaw will always get injured, but in a game of probability it’s smart to stack the cards in your favour.

What you don’t do with an injury prone player who hasn’t shown a consistent ability to stay fit with a busy schedule, is go into a season with a busy schedule where you’re hoping to compete on four fronts without adequate cover and competition. That’s precisely why we’re after a left back. Shaw can barely offer any threat down the left flank playing just once a week! Expecting more of him is naive.

Reinforcing our squad in obvious areas of weakness isn’t a fantasy. It’s just a normal thing which football clubs do. More ambitious clubs tend to be more aggressive by reinforcing with real quality. Sadly, our standards on that front have completely eroded, including in our fanbase.

Your argument is inconsistent and contradictory. You claim that another CM is more of a priority than LB when we currently have Mainoo, Tielemans, Santos and Mount for two positions, plus academy prospects like Fletcher and Thwaites if he stays. According to your logic, won’t another CM be benching Mainoo or pretending Santos doesn’t exist? Yet you still think that’s a bigger priority? With CM you seem to recognise that it’s a squad game where rotation and subs are key. Yet you throw that logic out the window when it comes to LB, which seems a little myopic.

And sure, the Hall deal is hard to do and if we can’t do it then we’ll look elsewhere. But it shouldn’t be in doubt that LB is a priority this window, whoever it is. Given the fact that we know we need a long term replacement for Shaw anyway, it just seems to make sense to many of us to make that move for Hall now.
 
Zumbi said:
Being injury prone is a thing. It literally just means more susceptible to injury, which some players are. Shaw is more susceptible to injuries. Bruno Fernandes is much less susceptible to injuries. We have years and years worth of data on this. That doesn’t mean Fernandes will never get injured and Shaw will always get injured, but in a game of probability it’s smart to stack the cards in your favour.

What you don’t do with an injury prone player who hasn’t shown a consistent ability to stay fit with a busy schedule, is go into a season with a busy schedule where you’re hoping to compete on four fronts without adequate cover and competition. That’s precisely why we’re after a left back. Shaw can barely offer any threat down the left flank playing once every week! Expecting more of him is naive.

Reinforcing our squad in obvious areas of weakness isn’t a fantasy. It’s just a normal things which football clubs do. More ambitious clubs tend to be more aggressive by reinforcing with real quality. Sadly, our standards on that front have completely eroded, including in our fanbase.

Your argument is inconsistent and contradictory. You claim that another CM is more of a priority than LB when we currently have Mainoo, Tielemans, Santos and Mount for two positions, plus academy prospects like Fletcher and Thwaites if he stays. According to your logic, won’t another CM be benching Mainoo or pretending Santos doesn’t exist? Yet you still think that’s a bigger priority? With CM you seem to recognise that it’s a squad game where rotation and subs are key. Yet you throw that logic out the window when it comes to LB, which seems a little myopic.

And sure, the Hall deal is hard to do and if we can’t do it then we’ll look elsewhere. But it shouldn’t be in doubt that LB is a priority this window, whoever it is. Given the fact that we know we need a long term replacement for Shaw anyway, it just seems to make sense to many of us to make that move for Hall now.
Click to expand...

Some players get injured from time to time and heal up and press on. Its just a normal part of the game imo.

As for the CM bit, I have my doubts we are going to buy another CM this summer - mainly because we are losing a massive amount of money by having to keep Rashford (a loss of £57m if you combine a lost £40m transfer fee and another £17 million in wages we have to pay if he stays), as well as another £30m or so we have to eat through not being able to sell Ugarte. Collectively, we are losing about £90m that could've been spent on more players. That's why its hard to see us paying £60m+ on a player who may not play consistently. Let's not forget we're dealing with Ratcliffe and Vivell here.
 
Raoul said:
How many reports have been accurate about any of our transfer activity this summer ? Specifically about predicting we would sign Santos, Thielemans, Darlow, and Thompson ?
Click to expand...
I believe all bar Tielemans were linked before we signed them but that isn't a response to what I said.

Multiple reputable journalists with a track record of having solid sources within the club like Mitten and Whitwell have confirmed we are interested in him.

Even then.

You're attempting to cop out and boil the argument of whether we need something down to a nebulous idea that Carrick doesn't think we need it. Something which neither of us can prove or disprove right now.

Who's our backup right back if Mazaroui is our backup left back?
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I believe all bar Tielemans were linked before we signed them but that isn't a response to what I said.

Multiple reputable journalists with a track record of having solid sources within the club like Mitten and Whitwell have confirmed we are interested in him.

Even then.

You're attempting to cop out and boil the argument of whether we need something down to a nebulous idea that Carrick doesn't think we need it. Something which neither of us can prove or disprove right now.

Who's our backup right back if Mazaroui is our backup left back?
Click to expand...

None of them were credibly linked. United worked in stealth to make these deals before any journos knew what was going on.
 
Raoul said:
Some players get injured from time to time and heal up and press on. Its just a normal part of the game imo.

As for the CM bit, I have my doubts we are going to buy another CM this summer - mainly because we are losing a massive amount of money by having to keep Rashford (a loss of £57m if you combine a lost £40m transfer fee and another £17 million in wages we have to pay if he stays), as well as another £30m or so we have to eat through not being able to sell Ugarte. Collectively, we are losing about £90m that could've been spent on more players. That's why its hard to see us paying £60m+ on a player who may not play consistently. Let's not forget we're dealing with Ratcliffe and Vivell here.
Click to expand...

You honestly don’t think Mount and Shaw are more prone to injury than a player like Fernandes? Really? Utterly bizarre take.

You’re deflecting on the CM question. You claimed it was more of a priority than LB, but your reasoning doesn’t make any sense when you apply it equally to CM and LB. We actually have better cover at CM right now than LB, because we don’t have to take cover from another position (Eg Maz from RB cover) to get two for each position.
 
Raoul said:
As for the CM bit, I have my doubts we are going to buy another CM this summer
Click to expand...
We're currently sat at £30m net spend for the summer and you don't think we need a left back, or another CM...

You think we're done? After spending £30m net?
 
Zumbi said:
You honestly don’t think Mount and Shaw are more prone to injury than a player like Fernandes? Really? Utterly bizarre take.

You’re deflecting on the CM question. You claimed it was more of a priority than LB, but your reasoning doesn’t make any sense when you apply it equally to CM and LB. We actually have better cover at CM right now than LB, because we don’t have to take cover from another position (Eg Maz from RB cover) to get two for each position.
Click to expand...

Yes - CM is obviously the biggest priority which is why we've signed two of them after having only lost one. That doesn't' address the other points that we have lost a massive amount of money through Rashford and Ugarte staying, thereby preventing us from using that money to buy more players - and making the signing the likes of Hall much more improbable (albeit not impossible).
 
Raoul said:
Also just days before the actual transfer. You're batting a 1000 here.
Click to expand...
I'm baffled by what point you're trying to position yourself as taking, you know you've just been proven totally wrong in the argument you tried to have in an attempt to avoid the actual point.

We signed Santos and Darlow quickly so the fact that Whitwell and Ornstein have both said we are interested in Lewis Hall isn't true? So that is proof that Carrick thinks Mazaroui is a fine option as our backup at left back.

Not an expert on baseball but I reckon you're batting a 0. Let me give you an out, to be nice.

Forget any hypothetical about what Carrick wants. Do you as someone who's presumably watched a lot of football, think it's a good idea for us to go into a season with Luke Shaw as the only recognised left back at the club for a 60 game season?
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I'm baffled by what point you're trying to position yourself as taking, you know you've just been proven totally wrong in the argument you tried to have in an attempt to avoid the actual point.

We signed Santos and Darlow quickly so the fact that Whitwell and Ornstein have both said we are interested in Lewis Hall isn't true? So that is proof that Carrick thinks Mazaroui is a fine option as our backup at left back.

Not an expert on baseball but I reckon you're batting a 0. Let me give you an out, to be nice.

Forget any hypothetical about what Carrick wants. Do you as someone who's presumably watched a lot of football, think it's a good idea for us to go into a season with Luke Shaw as the only recognised left back at the club for a 60 game season?
Click to expand...

The point has been repeatedly made in the preceding posts. We are less likely to buy Hall because we already have Shaw (plus Maz and Amass) during a year when we are hemorrhaging transfer funds because Rashford and Ugarte are staying and our overarching priority has been to bolster at CM. I'm hopeful that this very easy to understand point resonates with you.
 
Raoul said:
The point has been repeatedly made in the preceding posts. We are less likely to buy Hall because we already have Shaw (plus Maz and Amass) during a year when we are hemorrhaging transfer funds because Rashford and Ugarte are staying and our overarching priority has been to bolster at CM. I'm hopeful that this very easy to understand point resonates with you.
Click to expand...
Jesus you're bad faith.
 
Raoul said:
Yes - CM is obviously the biggest priority which is why we've signed two of them after having only lost one. That doesn't' address the other points that we have lost a massive amount of money through Rashford and Ugarte staying, thereby preventing us from using that money to buy more players - and making the signing the likes of Hall much more improbable (albeit not impossible).
Click to expand...

Weren't we talking about what the priority is for our next signing? As a reminder:

Raoul said:
The "two games a week" line has been easily addressed by way of the availability of Maz to accompany Shaw at LB throughout a 55 fixture year. At that point, its difficult to justify spending an additional £60m on a player when its obvious our resources are scarce and the priority of the summer is at CM.
Click to expand...
It makes zero sense to be discussing the priority level of signings already made. How on earth does spending money on Hall take money away from buying players we've already bought!? Make it make sense.

Assuming we can only buy one more player this window, excluding players we have already bought, would you prioritise a CM or a LB?
 
Raoul said:
The point has been repeatedly made in the preceding posts. We are less likely to buy Hall because we already have Shaw (plus Maz and Amass) during a year when we are hemorrhaging transfer funds because Rashford and Ugarte are staying and our overarching priority has been to bolster at CM. I'm hopeful that this very easy to understand point resonates with you.
Click to expand...

This seems a little disingenous. So far we have a net spend of less than 40 million, Ugarte's wages are being covered because he was injured at the WC, and we've already saved a bunch of money by getting Casemiro's wages of the books. We aren't "hemorrhaging transfer funds" because one player on big wages is staying, especially when him staying means we're not bringing in a forward to replace him. We want Hall because our recruitment team recognise that we don't have sufficient cover at LB. They're just likely too cheap to stump up the money Newcastle will demand so will probably go for a cheaper target instead.
 
Zumbi said:
Weren't we talking about what the priority is for our next signing? As a reminder:


It makes zero sense to be discussing the priority level of signings already made. How on earth does spending money on Hall take money away from buying players we've already bought!? Make it make sense.

Assuming we can only buy one more player this window, excluding players we have already bought, would you prioritise a CM or a LB?
Click to expand...

I'd prioritize a cheap and reliable backup striker like Welbeck. Unfortunately, Xabi Alonso agreed with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.