Former Barca forward who did not break through and current Palmeries forward, 20 years old, our "top" winter target that we are currently in talks to sign.

Never heard of him. Under 21. Playing in farmer's league.

Ticks all the boxes.

Genuinely a very talented player, moved to Barca at the worst possible time.

However. What is the f**king point in another ‘talented youngster’ when we’re dying for a bit of experience and nuance in that position.

Does this mean we’re moving on one of Guiu or Delap?

10 minutes ago, The Boehly Babes said:

Genuinely a very talented player, moved to Barca at the worst possible time.

However. What is the f**king point in another ‘talented youngster’ when we’re dying for a bit of experience and nuance in that position.

Does this mean we’re moving on one of Guiu or Delap?

Guiu back to Sunderland.

Another data-driven purchase :

"Find me a short striker who is crap in the air"

What have we done to deserve another "who"?

Sounds like bo**ocks

1 hour ago, axman2526 said:

Guiu back to Sunderland.

this is his only option for a loan apparently, although he could be sold, but to who?

That said if he is a striker Roque Guiu and Delap is hardly an excess.

Edited December 26, 2025Dec 26 by OTL

59 minutes ago, OTL said:

this is his only option for a loan apparently, although he could be sold, but to who?

That said if he is a striker Roque Guiu and Delap is hardly an excess.

He is a 2nd striker, needs to be paired with a big man up top. We don’t use a front two, so it will be a waste of everyone’s time.

2 hours ago, OTL said:

this is his only option for a loan apparently, although he could be sold, but to who?

That said if he is a striker Roque Guiu and Delap is hardly an excess.

I might be wrong but I think you can only play for 2 different teams in a season. So Guius options are stay with us or go back to Sunderland. Either way he is not playing much until next season.

9 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Former Barca forward who did not break through and current Palmeries forward, 20 years old, our "top" winter target that we are currently in talks to sign.

We have no targets to sign. This is all media and agent bullsh*t. Even if we were looking for anyone we will try to rope in a ridiculous trade that nobody would be interested in. Remember nobody comes in unless somebody goes out. These clowns have backed themselves into such a corner now that the departures will have to physically be completed first. With this mob it could take them the entire window to get Disasi out of the door and that'll only be on loan.

8 hours ago, Valerie said:

What have we done to deserve another "who"?

It's the time of year @Valerie . We literally are Who-ville.

I saw this link and thought ffs why can't we just sign a proven striker, but then I got stumped when thinking of who I would actually sign. There is pretty much zero strikers in world football that we could realistically sign that I think instantly makes us better which shows the sad state football is in right now.

1 hour ago, timetowaste said:

I saw this link and thought ffs why can't we just sign a proven striker, but then I got stumped when thinking of who I would actually sign. There is pretty much zero strikers in world football that we could realistically sign that I think instantly makes us better which shows the sad state football is in right now.

Very true. There are very few elite strikers around and why would they come to us.

Also I think more and more people are coming to the realisation of what a massive gulf there is between PL football and pretty much anywhere else. It is becoming increasingly rare for any transfer import to be an upgrade and instant success now.

6 hours ago, axman2526 said:

I might be wrong but I think you can only play for 2 different teams in a season. So Guius options are stay with us or go back to Sunderland. Either way he is not playing much until next season.

You're not wrong.

2 hours ago, timetowaste said:

I saw this link and thought ffs why can't we just sign a proven striker, but then I got stumped when thinking of who I would actually sign. There is pretty much zero strikers in world football that we could realistically sign that I think instantly makes us better which shows the sad state football is in right now.

Quite bizarre that the more money goes into football the worse the standard of the players seems to get !

It's no wonder that there is so much growth in the statistical analysis of the game. Without it there would be very little to actually discuss LOL

Cricket has gone the same way so perhaps it is a generational thing ? Modern generation too distracted by mobile phones, Thicktok, video games etc etc and hence a smaller pool of people playing sport to choose from, and those that are are lacking the patience to learn proper technique, and put the 1000s of hours in it takes to become expert at anything, etc etc

Edited December 26, 2025Dec 26 by Sexyfootball

6 hours ago, dermott said:

You're not wrong.

That is probably the first time anyone has said that to me...

On 26/12/2025 at 21:32, Sexyfootball said:

Quite bizarre that the more money goes into football the worse the standard of the players seems to get !

It's no wonder that there is so much growth in the statistical analysis of the game. Without it there would be very little to actually discuss LOL

Cricket has gone the same way so perhaps it is a generational thing ? Modern generation too distracted by mobile phones, Thicktok, video games etc etc and hence a smaller pool of people playing sport to choose from, and those that are are lacking the patience to learn proper technique, and put the 1000s of hours in it takes to become expert at anything, etc etc

Wrong on both sports.

We can't name a striker because strikers, as a position, don't really exist any more. At youth level it is filled by your fastest/strongest kid who is able to athletically dominate teams. They graduate to senior football where their athleticism matters little, and they don't get the time on the ball to shoot. Some of them become defenders in their teens instead.

Every kid with any decent technique gets shoe-horned into attacking midfield. If you can finish and you're quick, they'll try make you a winger that cuts in. If it's too competitive, you'll learn to graft and become a DM and if you can pass, they'll make you a ball-playing CB. And in senior football, with everyone playing 4-3-3, the striker is then relegated to grunt work (running channels + pressing). There is genuinely no pathway between youth and senior football for strikers and players get ranked on technical ability and athleticism, not goalscoring ability.

The irony is that all over the rest of the park, players have never been more technically gifted. Not that long ago Joe Cole was England's first true "#10" since Gascoigne, and Hodgson didn't even take one to the 2014 World Cup. Now, Tuchel will need to choose between at least 6 players who can play as a #10. All the top national teams have a plethora of ball-playing centre-backs, defensive playmakers, box-to-box midfielders, goalscoring wingers etc. but only England (irony) have a genuine #9 in Kane/Watkins, and even then, both are adept playmakers themselves.

Similar story for cricket. Cricket has a problem with its pool of available players because of systemic classism and even racism that restricts professional pathways to all but the most privileged; here in Australia cricket is firmly an upper-middle class sport and the youth teams are suffering for it while other sports poach the best athletic talent.

9 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Wrong on both sports.

We can't name a striker because strikers, as a position, don't really exist any more. At youth level it is filled by your fastest/strongest kid who is able to athletically dominate teams. They graduate to senior football where their athleticism matters little, and they don't get the time on the ball to shoot. Some of them become defenders in their teens instead.

Every kid with any decent technique gets shoe-horned into attacking midfield. If you can finish and you're quick, they'll try make you a winger that cuts in. If it's too competitive, you'll learn to graft and become a DM and if you can pass, they'll make you a ball-playing CB. And in senior football, with everyone playing 4-3-3, the striker is then relegated to grunt work (running channels + pressing). There is genuinely no pathway between youth and senior football for strikers and players get ranked on technical ability and athleticism, not goalscoring ability.

The irony is that all over the rest of the park, players have never been more technically gifted. Not that long ago Joe Cole was England's first true "#10" since Gascoigne, and Hodgson didn't even take one to the 2014 World Cup. Now, Tuchel will need to choose between at least 6 players who can play as a #10. All the top national teams have a plethora of ball-playing centre-backs, defensive playmakers, box-to-box midfielders, goalscoring wingers etc. but only England (irony) have a genuine #9 in Kane/Watkins, and even then, both are adept playmakers themselves.

Similar story for cricket. Cricket has a problem with its pool of available players because of systemic classism and even racism that restricts professional pathways to all but the most privileged; here in Australia cricket is firmly an upper-middle class sport and the youth teams are suffering for it while other sports poach the best athletic talent.

Wrong ?

Our own squad is full of evidence, hence why the match threads are so full of indignation at defenders who cant defend, wingers that can't cross, shoot or beat a man, forwards that blaze the ball wide or over the bar, or shy away from shots altogether. And when you try and come up with a list of better replacements to bring in, no-one can really come up with anything compelling .... we look like we are about to pay through the nose for this Jacquet guy who has played less than 2,500 minutes of top tier football !

As for the cricket, England's batsmen got bowled out in 30 odd overs twice in the recent Ashes ... our bowlers can't even do the basics of line and length, and remind me how many catches we put down again ?

Standards are on the floor in both sports to my eyes ....

11 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Wrong ?

Our own squad is full of evidence, hence why the match threads are so full of indignation at defenders who cant defend, wingers that can't cross, shoot or beat a man, forwards that blaze the ball wide or over the bar, or shy away from shots altogether. And when you try and come up with a list of better replacements to bring in, no-one can really come up with anything compelling .... we look like we are about to pay through the nose for this Jacquet guy who has played less than 2,500 minutes of top tier football !

I think we're arguing different parts of the same point. All those issues you describe, I see a consequence of the specialisation/filter system that youth football around the world is obsessed with. If you're good technically you get pushed into being an attacking midfielder. If you can pick a pass, you get told to be a centre-back, never mind your defensive skills. No one specialises in wingers, so no one gets taught to cross, shoot or beat defenders. It's expected you just learn these things yourself. They aren't necessary for modern football because even your U-15 coach thinks he's Guardiola.

Strikers get picked for senior football based on their tactical ability, not how many goals they score. Francesco Camarda has scored nearly 500 goals at youth levels for Milan, debuted at 15 and yet got criticised because he doesn't play as as a gegenpressing-tiki-false-9-playmaker-quartista. He's still 17. This is at a club who won trophies off the back of Filippo Inzaghi, FFS!

All this focus on rearing attacking midfielders has led to a bizarro-world where England has more viable #10s to choose from than Brazil but has no viable striker or goalkeeper past this World Cup.

11 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

As for the cricket, England's batsmen got bowled out in 30 odd overs twice in the recent Ashes ... our bowlers can't even do the basics of line and length, and remind me how many catches we put down again ?

Standards are on the floor in both sports to my eyes ....

As an Australian, gladly

Firstly, that reflects on England, not the game globally. 20 years ago subcontinental teams were appalling at fielding, and now India and Sri Lanka have consciously improved to be among the best. T20 values good fielding and the general standard of fielding is much better than it was in the past.

As for your bowlers, it's impossible to judge international standard so long as your bowlers are reared on seaming pitches with the Duke ball. No need to learn how to hit the top of off-stump when you can just pitch it wide and have it jag back in a metre. The bowling standards have improved worldwide and even as an Australia, your current crop of pacemen, while made of glass, is much, much better than the dross England brought to these shores over the years.

12 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I think we're arguing different parts of the same point. All those issues you describe, I see a consequence of the specialisation/filter system that youth football around the world is obsessed with. If you're good technically you get pushed into being an attacking midfielder. If you can pick a pass, you get told to be a centre-back, never mind your defensive skills. No one specialises in wingers, so no one gets taught to cross, shoot or beat defenders. It's expected you just learn these things yourself. They aren't necessary for modern football because even your U-15 coach thinks he's Guardiola.

Strikers get picked for senior football based on their tactical ability, not how many goals they score. Francesco Camarda has scored nearly 500 goals at youth levels for Milan, debuted at 15 and yet got criticised because he doesn't play as as a gegenpressing-tiki-false-9-playmaker-quartista. He's still 17. This is at a club who won trophies off the back of Filippo Inzaghi, FFS!

All this focus on rearing attacking midfielders has led to a bizarro-world where England has more viable #10s to choose from than Brazil but has no viable striker or goalkeeper past this World Cup.

As an Australian, gladly

Firstly, that reflects on England, not the game globally. 20 years ago subcontinental teams were appalling at fielding, and now India and Sri Lanka have consciously improved to be among the best. T20 values good fielding and the general standard of fielding is much better than it was in the past.

As for your bowlers, it's impossible to judge international standard so long as your bowlers are reared on seaming pitches with the Duke ball. No need to learn how to hit the top of off-stump when you can just pitch it wide and have it jag back in a metre. The bowling standards have improved worldwide and even as an Australia, your current crop of pacemen, while made of glass, is much, much better than the dross England brought to these shores over the years.

Rob Key introduced the Kookaburra ball into county cricket last season supposedly to give bowlers experience with the pill before the Ashes. Only problem: few of the Test bowlers played enough county cricket to benefit. If there were ever going to be any benefit. The Kooka doesn't suit English condition. Goes soft quickly, seam nowhere near as prominent as the Dukes ball, quickly flattens. Basically Rob Key pulling ideas out of his anus. Something he's practised at.

20 hours ago, dermott said:

The Kooka doesn't suit English condition. Goes soft quickly,

You sure? Sounds right up our street