| Would you take Tammy on loan again? 08:50 - May 10 with 11352 views | omarjack |
If it's possible?
He was superb with Bristol. scoring +20 goals or so..and we assume he's grown as player since then.
It's just..he's kind of a Dwight Gayle or Vydra..Superb EFL player..sh!t PL one.
so what do you think? |  |
| |  |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:29 - May 11 with 1141 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:16 - May 11 by londonlisa2001 |
Yep, he was.
In our situation, if you are unable to guarantee having the players that can make his game work, you sign a player with the best possible versatility. Not a player who can only work in one particular way. If the only way for making Tammy work was signing Chadli (God knows why - there are many players who could do the same as Chadli but let's go with that for one moment), then unless you have a deal in place for Chadli you don't sign Tammy. If you don't have that deal in place, you don't sign him.
If you don't know what else will be in place, you go with versatile. A player that can be used in a number of ways depending on who else you are able to recruit. He didn't cost £2m - we have to pay wages, substantial wages at that, that could be used elsewhere.
I'm not saying he's a bad player, just a bad signing. And given his cost, inability to get in the team, and goals scored this year, that's undeniable. It doesn't matter why it didn't work, just that it didn't.
I didn't say anything, as an aside, about Llorente other than he wanted to go. If we had any choice (which we didn't), replacing Llorente with Bony was ridiculous. Which I did say at the time. |
Nope, definitely not.
Again this is not a computer game where you type in “versatility 20” and it comes up with a list and you simply pick. Signings are based on their merit and the plan you want to have. If you start out your plan assuming it will fail and as a result not signing the players needed and instead versatile players (a la Clucas) then you don’t really have a plan to begin with. This is football, no plan is guaranteed.
Usually we are able to gamble on these signings knowing that the squad all plays a similar way and if one doesn’t work then someone else can come in. Our squad this time round was paper thin and painfully weak, any deviation in the plan would lead to a massive hamstringing of our fortunes. But it was a risk we simply had to take and were forced into. This is not a result of one season of failed plans, it is consecutive failed plans.
You said the Llorente sale was the correct due to his contract status, I haven’t seen you say anything about him wanting to go, but it’s not really the point. When a club does not generate its own transfer funds naturally then a £15m injured and ageing asset simply has to be sold when he has less than a year on his contract with very little chance of renewal. You agreed with those sentiments, which of course are complete common sense.
That is why we were forced into this plan change. Which was absolutely the right gamble to make, the status quo was only leading one way anyway. No amount of hindsight can change what was a decision that simply had to be made. |  |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:33 - May 11 with 1132 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:29 - May 11 by E20Jack |
Nope, definitely not.
Again this is not a computer game where you type in “versatility 20” and it comes up with a list and you simply pick. Signings are based on their merit and the plan you want to have. If you start out your plan assuming it will fail and as a result not signing the players needed and instead versatile players (a la Clucas) then you don’t really have a plan to begin with. This is football, no plan is guaranteed.
Usually we are able to gamble on these signings knowing that the squad all plays a similar way and if one doesn’t work then someone else can come in. Our squad this time round was paper thin and painfully weak, any deviation in the plan would lead to a massive hamstringing of our fortunes. But it was a risk we simply had to take and were forced into. This is not a result of one season of failed plans, it is consecutive failed plans.
You said the Llorente sale was the correct due to his contract status, I haven’t seen you say anything about him wanting to go, but it’s not really the point. When a club does not generate its own transfer funds naturally then a £15m injured and ageing asset simply has to be sold when he has less than a year on his contract with very little chance of renewal. You agreed with those sentiments, which of course are complete common sense.
That is why we were forced into this plan change. Which was absolutely the right gamble to make, the status quo was only leading one way anyway. No amount of hindsight can change what was a decision that simply had to be made. |
If Llorente hadn't wanted to go he would have signed the new contract offered to him. He didn't want to, hence we had to sell him. The two things were inextricably linked. It wasn't £15m.
And we'll agree to disagree about Tammy. |  | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:33 - May 11 with 1131 views | jack247 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:21 - May 11 by E20Jack |
I’m not, I am making a factual observation that is clearly motivation for some as it is shown on a daily basis, others are genuinely that stupid I guess.
Again your last paragraph shows your lack of awareness of the situation we, and he, was faced with. When you mean “at the start” what do you mean? So you mean when we signed him? If so, then I agree with you. However things changed after that as I have explained. In a free flowing attacking side as was expected to be able to have been assembled with £55m to spend I most certainly would not have been happy with the 8 goals he got.
However as soon as it was clear the recruitment plan failed and we resorted to relegationball then 8 goals from the obvious subsequent limited game time and our most productive goal threat per minute is a perfectly reasonable return. Not being chosen as a wide forward when you aren’t a wide forward is no sleight on his ability, but we both know that. Or at least I hope you do otherwise I am convinced more than ever you are still in year 7. |
Were you naive enough to think we would build a free flowing attacking side under Clement? | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:35 - May 11 with 1125 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:33 - May 11 by jack247 |
Were you naive enough to think we would build a free flowing attacking side under Clement? |
Are you naive enough to think Clement signed our players? | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:42 - May 11 with 1115 views | jack247 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:35 - May 11 by E20Jack |
Are you naive enough to think Clement signed our players? |
Nope. I didn’t say or imply that.
He managed them. He picked the players and set the formation and play8ng style.
Did you think it was going to be free flowing and attacking? | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:44 - May 11 with 1108 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:33 - May 11 by londonlisa2001 |
If Llorente hadn't wanted to go he would have signed the new contract offered to him. He didn't want to, hence we had to sell him. The two things were inextricably linked. It wasn't £15m.
And we'll agree to disagree about Tammy. |
Not necessarily, many players have not signed a contract only to then sign one after deciding to stay: I do agree he probably wanted to leave but I don’t actually see the point in this part of the discussion. The point is he had to go. £12m, £13m, £15m is also irrelevant, he could not stay and run his contract down due to the fact we do not generate our own transfer funds. Something you have previously, and presumably still do agree with so not sure what we are discussing it for. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:48 - May 11 with 1098 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:42 - May 11 by londonlisa2001 |
I don't do anything to come across as 'faux neutral'.
I agree or disagree with whoever depending on whether I agree or disagree with what they are saying.
I don't give a toss whether you are being forthright in your opinions or not. I don't notice really to be honest. I'm simply posting on this thread because I disagree with your assessment of Tammy as a good use of our money.
The only reason I commented on the use of 'sleight' rather than 'slight' is because you made a point of calling posters that disagreed with your view as stupid. And it's always better to avoid doing something stupid yourself while doing that... |
We will agree to disagree about that as well then. I stand by it though.
You have made a point of calling people stupid before too have you not? Equally rightly so of course. And yet you still said “I’m not entering an argument” above which doesn’t really make any sense does it. Got forbid you typed something incorrectly.
We both know these things are irrelevant to any sort of point, so again not sure why we are discussing it, I can only assume it is going back to the first part I highlighted in this post that we are agreeing to disagree over. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 15:07 - May 11 with 1081 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:44 - May 11 by E20Jack |
Not necessarily, many players have not signed a contract only to then sign one after deciding to stay: I do agree he probably wanted to leave but I don’t actually see the point in this part of the discussion. The point is he had to go. £12m, £13m, £15m is also irrelevant, he could not stay and run his contract down due to the fact we do not generate our own transfer funds. Something you have previously, and presumably still do agree with so not sure what we are discussing it for. |
I do agree we couldn't let his contract run down.
If he hadn't actively made it known he wanted to go then I would have said to keep him and see if he signed another one.
The only point of this part of the discussion is you raised it, so I responded. We are discussing it because you introduced it. I assume that you thought it was relevant when you did? If I had, I would have raised it. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 15:10 - May 11 with 1079 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 14:48 - May 11 by E20Jack |
We will agree to disagree about that as well then. I stand by it though.
You have made a point of calling people stupid before too have you not? Equally rightly so of course. And yet you still said “I’m not entering an argument” above which doesn’t really make any sense does it. Got forbid you typed something incorrectly.
We both know these things are irrelevant to any sort of point, so again not sure why we are discussing it, I can only assume it is going back to the first part I highlighted in this post that we are agreeing to disagree over. |
You think I'm concerned about any poster on this site rather more than I am if you believe that to be the case. I don't have strong feelings either way about people I've never met. Genuinely. I don't know why anyone would. It's not important is it? | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 15:20 - May 11 with 1068 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 15:10 - May 11 by londonlisa2001 |
You think I'm concerned about any poster on this site rather more than I am if you believe that to be the case. I don't have strong feelings either way about people I've never met. Genuinely. I don't know why anyone would. It's not important is it? |
Not concerned no, but you respond to people in different ways depending on who they are and the challenge posed. Not a criticism just an observation, we all do it. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 15:23 - May 11 with 1063 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 15:07 - May 11 by londonlisa2001 |
I do agree we couldn't let his contract run down.
If he hadn't actively made it known he wanted to go then I would have said to keep him and see if he signed another one.
The only point of this part of the discussion is you raised it, so I responded. We are discussing it because you introduced it. I assume that you thought it was relevant when you did? If I had, I would have raised it. |
I didn’t raise it, all I said is you previously said Llorente had to be sold and leading to the fact that it was due to that which gave us the opportunity to gamble on being able to give us the oersonel to play our old style again, the only thing to give us a chance of further longevity. I don’t believe I mentioned the reasons for that to you as I assumed we were on the same page regarding that anyway. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 15:47 - May 11 with 1039 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 15:23 - May 11 by E20Jack |
I didn’t raise it, all I said is you previously said Llorente had to be sold and leading to the fact that it was due to that which gave us the opportunity to gamble on being able to give us the oersonel to play our old style again, the only thing to give us a chance of further longevity. I don’t believe I mentioned the reasons for that to you as I assumed we were on the same page regarding that anyway. |
I don't understand the point you are making?
Tammy was brought in before we knew Llorente was leaving.
I didn't have a problem with Llorente going in the circumstances (no new contract). I thought selling Siggy for £40m was the right thing to do as well.
None of that changes the fact I think Tammy was a poor loan for us this year. I think he probably thinks it was a poor loan for him as well. You disagree, that's fine. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 16:06 - May 11 with 1008 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 15:47 - May 11 by londonlisa2001 |
I don't understand the point you are making?
Tammy was brought in before we knew Llorente was leaving.
I didn't have a problem with Llorente going in the circumstances (no new contract). I thought selling Siggy for £40m was the right thing to do as well.
None of that changes the fact I think Tammy was a poor loan for us this year. I think he probably thinks it was a poor loan for him as well. You disagree, that's fine. |
Before “we” knew he was leaving, yes. I think it would be naive to think the club had not already conceded that he was leaving regardless, even if the destination had not been determined. As we agree we cannot keep players in his situation.
So his sale and the Siggy sale which we both agree with, gave us the funds to make a much needed radical change from the rubbish we had been getting accustomed to. So their sales led to the decision to try and get back to good football and thus a form of longevity again. Tammy, under this thought process, was a good signing. A logical place to start the plan too considering it cost only £2m and a weekly wage which is nothing but average for a middling striker in this league.
It does not become a poor signing because failures elsewhere in recruitment led us to ditch that and go back to the old hoof ball. It became a frustrating signing yes, but not a poor one, as it was the right decision. If we signed him after it became clear we were to resort to hoof ball then you will have me agreeing with you, but we didn’t.
So with that in mind, he did will to do what he did when he was asked to perform a role that he clearly is not suited to, he’s a goal poacher that hangs on the shoulder of the last defender - he is not a targetman. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 16:12 - May 11 with 1002 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 15:47 - May 11 by londonlisa2001 |
I don't understand the point you are making?
Tammy was brought in before we knew Llorente was leaving.
I didn't have a problem with Llorente going in the circumstances (no new contract). I thought selling Siggy for £40m was the right thing to do as well.
None of that changes the fact I think Tammy was a poor loan for us this year. I think he probably thinks it was a poor loan for him as well. You disagree, that's fine. |
"I think he probably thinks it was a poor loan for him as well."
Yes, on the plus side it showed he can score in the Prem, on the minus side it also showed up his shortcomings as well.
His lack of heading ability for such a tall person is quite perplexing, I am not sure if it is "timing", "self confidence", which is not apparent in the rest of his play or that he just can't jump very well. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 16:48 - May 11 with 971 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 16:12 - May 11 by A_Fans_Dad |
"I think he probably thinks it was a poor loan for him as well."
Yes, on the plus side it showed he can score in the Prem, on the minus side it also showed up his shortcomings as well.
His lack of heading ability for such a tall person is quite perplexing, I am not sure if it is "timing", "self confidence", which is not apparent in the rest of his play or that he just can't jump very well. |
Not really his shortcomings though, he is not a targetman and probably never will be one. Just like it would be unfair if he went in goals to say “Tammy had his shortcomings exposed”. Michael Owen would laugh at you if you told him that the Premier League exposed his shortcomings as a target man, it’s not his game. Which is what this whole debate is loosely around. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 18:56 - May 11 with 926 views | Rancid |
Abraham is the better player but I'd still prefer McBurnie up top for us.
We haven't done much right for a few years but the way we've handled McBurnie has been spot on.The timing is perfect for him to be our striker in this league. |  | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 19:16 - May 11 with 900 views | Dr_Winston |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 18:56 - May 11 by Rancid |
Abraham is the better player but I'd still prefer McBurnie up top for us.
We haven't done much right for a few years but the way we've handled McBurnie has been spot on.The timing is perfect for him to be our striker in this league. |
One of the main reasons for a bit of optimism is the way he tore things up for Barnsley. If we can get midfield right then we've already got at least one potentially prolific striker on board. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 19:20 - May 11 with 891 views | Neath_Jack |
E20, you were banging on about him being the top goal scorer, then when someone correctly pointed out that he wasn't the top goal scorer, overall or in the league, you changed to best ratio of goals to games, and have banged on that one ever since
I do enjoy your posts, apart from when you go on and on like in this thread, just walk away mun, have your say and it's done. Nobody is right or wrong on this occasion, it's differing opinions. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between both points of view.  |  |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 19:21 - May 11 with 888 views | Neath_Jack |
And it's a no from me as well.
And it's also nice to see, that loads of you who were writing Ollie off, are now agreeing he can play a bit. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 19:57 - May 11 with 859 views | nantywatcher |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 19:21 - May 11 by Neath_Jack |
And it's a no from me as well.
And it's also nice to see, that loads of you who were writing Ollie off, are now agreeing he can play a bit. |
Ollie, Jay Fulton and Leroy should be back in next season's squad. Three players we could have done with these last 2/3 months. | | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 20:02 - May 11 with 851 views | E20Jack |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 19:20 - May 11 by Neath_Jack |
E20, you were banging on about him being the top goal scorer, then when someone correctly pointed out that he wasn't the top goal scorer, overall or in the league, you changed to best ratio of goals to games, and have banged on that one ever since
I do enjoy your posts, apart from when you go on and on like in this thread, just walk away mun, have your say and it's done. Nobody is right or wrong on this occasion, it's differing opinions. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between both points of view. |
Yes, I thought he was. He was when we had this debate last time. Ayew has inevitably overtaken him since due to his game time so that is no longer valid, so to even out the fact that Tammy is being hampered by limited game time then goals per minute comes into play. Why is that a bad thing or why is it seen as something I shouldn’t do? I am not following your point here. Would you prefer me to incorrectly state he is top scorer?
I am not going on and on, you are usually quite astute when reading these threads. I am replying to posts aimed at me. | |
| |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 20:35 - Sep 14 with 392 views | hobo |
"Average Championship striker" Jesus Christ  His talent was clear to see form day 1. 7 goals in his first 5 PL games of the season. Well done lad! |  | | |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 20:47 - Sep 14 with 379 views | Dr_Winston |
| Would you take Tammy on loan again? on 20:35 - Sep 14 by hobo |
"Average Championship striker" Jesus Christ His talent was clear to see form day 1. 7 goals in his first 5 PL games of the season. Well done lad! |
The usual story. Striker gets played up top on his own with no service and the Planetswans tactical geniuses decide that he's no good.
We didn't see enough of Abraham in his spell here in a tediously defensive Clement team to give any kind of serious indication as to his long term ability, but that didn't stop plenty of people deciding that he was shite.
He's doing well this season. Good for him. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
