9 minutes ago, HazardousChoice said:

 

But as a player there's no suggestion anyone would have paid 58m or even 18m for what Pulisic shown at Dortmund, he clearly was nowhere near the level there and was already getting the "where did it all go wrong for Christian Pulisic" articles before we signed him.  There's really no argument that his nationality and off the field reasons aren't the primary reasons he's here

He was projected to be the next star winger in European football. What the club paid was also due to a potential transfer ban + the prediction that Hazard won't be in our squad the season afterwards, both of which became true.

Pulisic at the time had the question mark on him in regards to being injury prone, the club knew the risk and still assessed that it was worthy to gamble on him and sadly the club lost that gamble because he had a good first season for us but somewhere at the end got injured and ever since then he has been unable to make a full season. Still I'm convinced that his nationality wasn't the primary reason why he was signed, there was a huge talent there, a player that at some point was capable of taking on players and playing direct football.

Poor old Jorgi, his thread used to boast the most vitriol and angst...

25 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

He was projected to be the next star winger in European football.

That's a half truth.  Pulisic was indeed predicted to be a top winger.  When he was 17. when he broke through he was expected to go on to become a top talent like every 16 year old who plays senior football there's almost an expectation that players will continue to get better as they get older so playing at such a high level at a young age must mean they'll be world class by 26 .  But it doesn't workout like that, Not every player is Wayne Rooney.

Now Puli did show some talent when he broke through, Klopp wanted him at this time, even offered £5m for him. Which is a fair price for a 17 year old with no senior game time.

However that isn't the Pulisic we signed. The Pulisic we signed had gone on to play 3 and a half seasons for Dortmund and was utterly terrible for them, he showed the odd moment but his general level was really poor, he wasn't this unpolished but extremely talented player he was just flat out bad with some Dortmund fans saying he's the worst attacking player they've had in a decade.  Dortmund have had and sold a lot of promising attackers who have had mixed success at their new clubs but they all scored bags of goals in the Bundesliga for Dortmund.  Pulisic didn't.  He then found himself benched by 2 younger more talented teenaged wingers and couldn't get in the team.

That's when we signed him.  So we weren't signing a player who was improving and predicted to be the next big thing we signed a 20 year old 3 goal a season bench warmer that had stagnated for years and wasn't good enough for Dortmund who was only still mentioned at all by his own countrymen as a prospect because of his nationality.

There's a million talented teenagers that don't go on to be top class players,  Mceachran, Kakuta, Solanke all looked like they would be top players as teenagers but they just didn't progress as we'd hoped.  It's a big step up and a lot of youth players don't make it.  Pulisic was in that category.

The one thing you want when you sign a young player is a clear indication he's improving and progressing each season, the fact that at 20 he was so stagnant from a footballing perspective and had been for years would have ended any possible interest in him if we weren't so blinded by the possibility of monetizing his commercial impact.

Edited July 30, 20223 yr by HazardousChoice

3 hours ago, HazardousChoice said:

That's a half truth.  Pulisic was indeed predicted to be a top winger.  When he was 17. when he broke through he was expected to go on to become a top talent like every 16 year old who plays senior football there's almost an expectation that players will continue to get better as they get older so playing at such a high level at a young age must mean they'll be world class by 26 .  But it doesn't workout like that, Not every player is Wayne Rooney.

Now Puli did show some talent when he broke through, Klopp wanted him at this time, even offered £5m for him. Which is a fair price for a 17 year old with no senior game time.

However that isn't the Pulisic we signed. The Pulisic we signed had gone on to play 3 and a half seasons for Dortmund and was utterly terrible for them, he showed the odd moment but his general level was really poor, he wasn't this unpolished but extremely talented player he was just flat out bad with some Dortmund fans saying he's the worst attacking player they've had in a decade.  Dortmund have had and sold a lot of promising attackers who have had mixed success at their new clubs but they all scored bags of goals in the Bundesliga for Dortmund.  Pulisic didn't.  He then found himself benched by 2 younger more talented teenaged wingers and couldn't get in the team.

That's when we signed him.  So we weren't signing a player who was improving and predicted to be the next big thing we signed a 20 year old 3 goal a season bench warmer that had stagnated for years and wasn't good enough for Dortmund who was only still mentioned at all by his own countrymen as a prospect because of his nationality.

There's a million talented teenagers that don't go on to be top class players,  Mceachran, Kakuta, Solanke all looked like they would be top players as teenagers but they just didn't progress as we'd hoped.  It's a big step up and a lot of youth players don't make it.  Pulisic was in that category.

The one thing you want when you sign a young player is a clear indication he's improving and progressing each season, the fact that at 20 he was so stagnant from a footballing perspective and had been for years would have ended any possible interest in him if we weren't so blinded by the possibility of monetizing his commercial impact.

Having overpaid for a useless player, purely because he was American did the club actually make money from commercial deals on the back of the purchase ?

 

38 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Having overpaid for a useless player, purely because he was American did the club actually make money from commercial deals on the back of the purchase ?

 

Probably not.  We seemed to have forgot that one of the key components in the franchise player model in American sports is that the player has to actually be good at what he does and not the worst player on the team.

There wouldn't be any Air Jordan brand if Mike couldn't shoot a jumper.

I don't know the commerical side so I can't comment.  If Pulisic had a massive impact on our revenue then he did what we signed him for.

But it seems to me the majority of the new American eyes we attracted through the worlds most expensive mascot haven't grown to love the club but instead blame us or tuchel because the new Freddy Adu can't nail down a starting role.

Edited July 30, 20223 yr by HazardousChoice

12 hours ago, HazardousChoice said:

That's a half truth.  Pulisic was indeed predicted to be a top winger.  When he was 17. when he broke through he was expected to go on to become a top talent like every 16 year old who plays senior football there's almost an expectation that players will continue to get better as they get older so playing at such a high level at a young age must mean they'll be world class by 26 .  But it doesn't workout like that, Not every player is Wayne Rooney.

Now Puli did show some talent when he broke through, Klopp wanted him at this time, even offered £5m for him. Which is a fair price for a 17 year old with no senior game time.

However that isn't the Pulisic we signed. The Pulisic we signed had gone on to play 3 and a half seasons for Dortmund and was utterly terrible for them, he showed the odd moment but his general level was really poor, he wasn't this unpolished but extremely talented player he was just flat out bad with some Dortmund fans saying he's the worst attacking player they've had in a decade.  Dortmund have had and sold a lot of promising attackers who have had mixed success at their new clubs but they all scored bags of goals in the Bundesliga for Dortmund.  Pulisic didn't.  He then found himself benched by 2 younger more talented teenaged wingers and couldn't get in the team.

That's when we signed him.  So we weren't signing a player who was improving and predicted to be the next big thing we signed a 20 year old 3 goal a season bench warmer that had stagnated for years and wasn't good enough for Dortmund who was only still mentioned at all by his own countrymen as a prospect because of his nationality.

There's a million talented teenagers that don't go on to be top class players,  Mceachran, Kakuta, Solanke all looked like they would be top players as teenagers but they just didn't progress as we'd hoped.  It's a big step up and a lot of youth players don't make it.  Pulisic was in that category.

The one thing you want when you sign a young player is a clear indication he's improving and progressing each season, the fact that at 20 he was so stagnant from a footballing perspective and had been for years would have ended any possible interest in him if we weren't so blinded by the possibility of monetizing his commercial impact.

This is where I disagree as there is no real evidence that shows that we signed him because of his nationality at all, too much of a stretch. The fact that he ended up being injury prone doesn't diminish the fact that he was projected to be a good winger, after all Bayern was ready to pay 40m for CHO that has had much less impact for us in comparison.

The club was looking at Pulisic even a year prior he actually was signed:

On 02/01/2019 at 11:44, ForeverCarefree said:

Sounds a lot like the Barkley signing. Not necessarily a signing the manager wants but someone the club (who specifically who knows seeing as we have no technical director) has identified Pulisic presumably for footballing and commercial reasons. 

Up to Sarri now to make it work, will be interesting to see what happens with Willian and Pedro come the summer. 

And that season prior to us signing him and letting him stay in Dortmund till the end of the season he was already known as one of the best dribblers in Bundesliga:

On 03/01/2019 at 00:39, Skinnedy said:

Looking this up, I guess it was more quantitative than my eye test. He actually led the Bundesliga last year. What he can do after beating his man will determine if he becomes a productive player or not, but the talent is there. 

 

We got him at 21 years of age, not so much prior to that he was a top prospect, these are all facts.

On 03/01/2019 at 22:23, Skinnedy said:

I know this is a bit ridiculous (the infographic), but so is writing off a 20 year old kid...

 

3 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

And that season prior to us signing him and letting him stay in Dortmund till the end of the season he was already known as one of the best dribblers in Bundesliga:

A winger who dribbles well is absolutely useless though if he can't cross and has minimal end product.

I'd love to see the updated chart comparing his career to date to Messi and Ronaldo ... he'll be a country mile behind now.

3 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

A winger who dribbles well is absolutely useless though if he can't cross and has minimal end product.

I'd love to see the updated chart comparing his career to date to Messi and Ronaldo ... he'll be a country mile behind now.

Still doesn't mean that we signed him because of his nationality though.

Pulisic really needs add some weight. Look at Sterling and Hazard who both have that good junk in their trunk. Admittedly Pulisic has completely different body type. He should bulk up on his upper torso. Add some "Adama" to his training regime. 

He also needs extra care and attention from the coaches. You can see how he flourishes in the national team being the go to player having unconditional trust from everyone. Under Frank we saw how good he can be if given the trust. 

I really hope he makes it here. Would love to see him come out from his shell a bit as a person as well.

 

1 hour ago, evissy said:

Under Frank we saw how good he can be if given the trust. 

We saw how good he can be if the season gets stopped for months and then suddenly restarts bringing midtable defenders with nothing to play for back while missing match sharpness, not being drilled into their structures and having to play every 3 days*  

Let's not kid ourselves Pulisic was absolutely dogsh*t most of the time under Frank and spent the 3 quarters of the season we played before lockdown making Willian look prolific.

International football is a much lower standard that the Premier league particularly in North America.  It's perfectly normal for Pulisic to shine against Honduras or Canada but be easily dealt with by pretty much every defender in the Premier league.

They simply show him down a blind alley and he lacks the talent or the tools to actually impact games at this level. 

Edited July 31, 20223 yr by HazardousChoice

18 hours ago, HazardousChoice said:

Probably not.  We seemed to have forgot that one of the key components in the franchise player model in American sports is that the player has to actually be good at what he does and not the worst player on the team.

There wouldn't be any Air Jordan brand if Mike couldn't shoot a jumper.

I don't know the commerical side so I can't comment.  If Pulisic had a massive impact on our revenue then he did what we signed him for.

But it seems to me the majority of the new American eyes we attracted through the worlds most expensive mascot haven't grown to love the club but instead blame us or tuchel because the new Freddy Adu can't nail down a starting role.

Forbes article years back claimed we could make £1 billion in American deals off the back of Pulisic

Called something like " Chelsea £billion gamble " pure fantasy but interesting bit about the extra revenue from stadium rebuilding..

Btw  did you write the piece for " Forbes" ?

Why does this man literally hide every time he comes on?

Seeing Pulisic come on is like when Jose used to bring on Mikel (without the defensive stability) you just know we're done going forward for the day.

It's not even that he was bad he comes on fresh against tired legs and he's just a complete none entity almost every time.

Not the reason we dropped points but it's so frustrating to see the frontline work so hard Albeit with a lack of quality at times and then the subs to be such a massive drop in energy even when they only have 15 minutes.  Broja was guilty of it too.

They should be chasing absolutely everything.

Edited August 14, 20223 yr by HazardousChoice

20 minutes ago, HazardousChoice said:

Why does this man literally hide every time he comes on?

Seeing Pulisic come on is like when Jose used to bring on Mikel (without the defensive stability) you just know we're done going forward for the day.

It's not even that he was bad he comes on fresh against tired legs and he's just a complete none entity almost every time.

Not the reason we dropped points but it's so frustrating to see the frontline work so hard Albeit with a lack of quality at times and then the subs to be such a massive drop in energy even when they only have 15 minutes.  Broja was guilty of it too.

They should be chasing absolutely everything.

He was bought to sell shirts in the states, not because of his footballing ability (which leaves alot to be desired)

5 hours ago, HazardousChoice said:

Why does this man literally hide every time he comes on?

Seeing Pulisic come on is like when Jose used to bring on Mikel (without the defensive stability) you just know we're done going forward for the day.

It's not even that he was bad he comes on fresh against tired legs and he's just a complete none entity almost every time.

Not the reason we dropped points but it's so frustrating to see the frontline work so hard Albeit with a lack of quality at times and then the subs to be such a massive drop in energy even when they only have 15 minutes.  Broja was guilty of it too.

They should be chasing absolutely everything.

HC telling us what he thinks about Puli again. Sigh. We know what you think after weekly posts on the player so why bother? It’s borderline illness  Take a deep breath, get out and enjoy the world  

At least the game commentators and analysts, you know — actual pros — clearly noted the energy level injected by the subs. Apparently my lying eyes saw it as well.

43 minutes ago, jbdiver said:

HC telling us what he thinks about Puli again. Sigh. We know what you think after weekly posts on the player so why bother? It’s borderline illness  Take a deep breath, get out and enjoy the world  

At least the game commentators and analysts, you know — actual pros — clearly noted the energy level injected by the subs. Apparently my lying eyes saw it as well.

I don't know what kind of coverage you Yanks get but if you can show me a single none American analysts who highlighted a single positive in Pulisics cameo I'll buy a Pulisic shirt.  I don't recall him even being mentioned by Sky he came on and instantly faded as usual.

Gallagher was bright but both Broja and Pulisic were lethargic and lazy when they came on which is unforgivable in a Derby in which our starters provided so much intensity 

As the poster above you stated pretty much everyone knows Pulisic wasn't signed for footballing reasons but If you're going to be the least talented player in the squad you better be busting a gut every single minute you get on the pitch.

No one outside of Hershey is expecting any quality from Pulisic but when you've got 15 minutes surely even he can provide some kind of intensity against tired legs?

Edited August 15, 20223 yr by HazardousChoice

The question is if a super-sub like him should be our #10?

2 hours ago, Gol15 said:

The question is if a super-sub like him should be our #10?

Rhetorical ? 🙂 

Personally I'd like to give Pulisic a contract extension say 3 years and then get him to go on loan to a good club. Say Roma for a couple of seasons and see if he can follow in Salah's footsteps. I think Mourinho would do him some good, improve him tactically show him the dark arts and he has Tammy who imo they have a great on field relationship/great chemistry. 

Otherwise what I can see happening is we slowly grind to the point where we potentially lose him on a free or sell him with a year left. On the balance of the first 2 games he doesn't look likely to dislodge Sterling, Mount or Kai. Yet with the new 5 subs rule you have to think having him in the squad both to start or act as an impact sub is very handy. 

I feel bad for Christian, the FA Cup final injury cost him a lot, he lost his momentum, a lot of game time, a fair bit of speed and sadly some of the trust from his own supporters. It's nobodies fault and I believe he has the right mentality to handle whatever comes next in his career. He has to work harder than he ever has now, he is a very good striker of the ball and when inside the box a very dangerous player. 

His playmaking skills have been sorely lacking in recent seasons despite that being one of his strengths. Rather than focus on dribbling and getting involved in all the build up. I would rather he takes up more positions closer to the box and inside looking to finish off moves. I think this small tweak will see him become much more effective. He likes to run in behind we need more players to play the ball in behind. Jorginho and Kova are both capable as is Mount and Sterling.

 

6 hours ago, Gol15 said:

The question is if a super-sub like him should be our #10?

He shouldn't be the first sub.

11 hours ago, Gol15 said:

The question is if a super-sub like him should be our #10?

The real question is why anyone would call him a super sub. 

He's as uninspiring an attacking sub as we've ever had.

Super subs regularly change games even if solely by virtue of allowing the team to play a different way like Giroud did. 

Pulisic is far from a game changer.

Edited August 15, 20223 yr by HazardousChoice

12 hours ago, HazardousChoice said:

The real question is why anyone would call him a super sub. 

He's as uninspiring an attacking sub as we've ever had.

Super subs regularly change games even if solely by virtue of allowing the team to play a different way like Giroud did. 

Pulisic is far from a game changer.

Tuchel said that at some point last season, that he could see Pulisic start as a so called "super sub"... Not sure Tuchel will want to keep him next season if that's the plan.

4 hours ago, Gol15 said:

Tuchel said that at some point last season, that he could see Pulisic start as a so called "super sub"... Not sure Tuchel will want to keep him next season if that's the plan.

I don't think Tuchel wants to keep Pulisic. He clearly wants at least 1 new forward.  Possibly 2 before the window shuts.

The problem is he's in the Kepa and Drinkwater category of we can't actually give him away.

There's no offers coming in from him he's going to be here till the end of his contract regardless.

Edited August 16, 20223 yr by HazardousChoice

Linked with a loan move to Man Utd today, you hope for his sake it happens. I also reckon he will be insisting on an obligation to buy.

That was Pulisic is off to Manc Land by Hazardous Choice.

 

It's totally naive to think Pulisic was bought solely for shirt sales in the States but there is an element of truth in it. I was Christmas shopping in Wembley a couple of years ago I completely forgot that Spurs were playing the amount of South Koreans or Anglo SK's was remarkable that is wholly down to the Son effect.