Jase

The point is, a striker leading the line should still be expected to contribute to the overall team's attacking play, a lot or not. There is a reason why a pure goal poacher, a striker who just stands inside the box to stick the ball in doesn't work anymore, certainly not at the highest level and at big clubs. IIRC, this was mentioned by others but a reason why we were probably able to create so many chances last season was because how we operated as a unit, how the attacking players were involved in the buildup play, interchanging positions, moving and dragging players out of position etc. Converting chances was of course the problem but that was down to individuals. Bringing someone like Haaland may help with the conversion but it'll also alter the way we play and the chances created may or may not decrease. Liverpool and City, for example, have shown that a team can thrive at the highest level without having a traditional #9 leading the line. P.S. There you go with the essay-esque reply again. 🤣

IIRC, I saw the news that Italy got vaccinated prior to the Euros while Spain were fast tracked for vaccination after Busquets' positive case before the tournament. Not sure if other sides have gotten vaccinated but don't think all have been. Athletes are also getting vaccinated before they travel to the Olympics in Japan. So, it's not out of the question that maybe the players should have been vaccinated before the Euros, especially when it's taking place in so many countries and teams have to travel from country to country. EDIT: Yup, Italy and Spain did get vaccinated before the Euros. https://apnews.com/article/premier-league-ciro-immobile-europe-italy-health-6c57bf8ad24c95c9eb682d2c295a4b44 https://theathletic.com/news/spain-euro-2020-squad-coronavirus-vaccinations/LWD6LxS7CDlx

I don't see what the system has to do with our conversion rate. The system is about the team overall, how the players function as a unit while the conversion rate is simply down to the players. Our attacking players still get at the end of chances, no? Different case if we aren't creating chances because that then is more down to the system. Focal point or not, Haaland should still be expected to contribute in buildup play. It was the same case with Drogba, Costa previously. They contributed to our attacking play and also scored goals while being a focal point. As I have mentioned before, if we get someone - be it Haaland or someone else - to score the goals, then great but we also won't get anywhere if the others don't score more. One person can't be scoring the goals only. So in some ways, we still need the others to find better form in front of goal.

Wait, are you saying that we need a pure poacher leading the line and one that does nothing else apart from scoring? What I said there with Tuchel is that he indirectly puts the blame on the work the players have to put in without the ball, not with the ball and has nothing to do with the buildup. Given our Champions League success was a prime example (and a good template for success) of the 11 players putting a shift in offensively and defensively, I'd be surprised Tuchel suddenly veers away from that. Haaland or not. I don't think the problem is whether that striker is too involved in the buildup or not (didn't stop the likes of Drogba and Costa from scoring goals in the past). All our attackers get chances to score. It's only the final execution that has been the problem.

Wouldn't necessarily mind Abraham staying if need be but that would require a u-turn from Tuchel and both parties to reconcile. The club may also have to live with the fact that Abraham may not sign a contract extension and he will have only a year left come next summer.

Haaland or not, we need another striker. Assuming both Giroud and Abraham are leaving, it's very risky to go into a long season with just 2 options to lead the line and neither of them are a typical #9 either.

You don't think Tuchel will make Haaland get involved in the build up too? Tuchel often mentioned how the attacking players likely get affected with their decision making/execution in the final third because of the work they put in off the ball. And think the issue is not whether Haaland is the answer, but whether can the club afford to spend big on him. If the answer is really no, then obviously we go to the alternatives like Isak etc.

Can Spurs even afford their wages?

But City can't do anything if the players don't want to move.

So aka nothing will happen...?

https://as.com/futbol/2021/06/19/primera/1624098087_797793.html AS linking us with Isak. Says club view him as an alternative if we can't get Haaland etc. He's worked with Tuchel previously at Dortmund.

Crikey!

The initial question I asked was this

Well, there are also stories that Tuchel is a fan of Rice. So...

You're still not answering the question, KK. 😭

There were so many outstanding bits about this CL win to the point it's hard to say which one is the most impressive of the lot. One thing that arguably hasn't been mentioned much is the fact that we only trailed for 5 minutes in the entire CL campaign and those 5 minutes were pretty much unimportant - 4 minutes in the dead rubber Krasnodar game and 1 minute after conceding that late winner against Porto. We were always in control otherwise and "got" the game to play out the way we want to.

Don't try to turn it around here. lol Because you sound so confident, I'm asking you what if they are true. Not everything in life makes sense or has to make sense. If somehow PSG/Pochettino can convince Hakimi better, then he could easily just go there. We are assuming Hakimi will be first choice if he comes here but what if he isn't? What if Tuchel told him he'll rotate the RWB options while Pochettino can guarantee him a starting spot week in week out?

But what if the Hakimi-PSG stories were true? What if he really does prefer PSG?