The Pre-Summer-2017 transfer rumours and hearsay all inclusive Thread

[der Berliner 3,219]

But Garner WAS a panic buy. How else do you explain signing a 28 yr old striker late in the transfer window who is neither prolific nor actually fits the formation ?

 

Every man and his dog from down south was saying he couldn't play the lone striker role and in MW's 4-3-3 that is exactly what he would be !

 

He was signed 10 days before the end of the transfer window (for players with a fee involved) after a few weeks of negotiations, had scored 57 goals in 148 games for PNE and was the type of striker we badly lacked, i.e. someone who is a real central striker, takes on and being a pest for any defender, draws fouls in the area and puts himself where it hurts.

 

And while we are at it, we might have played a 4-3-3 on paper, but more often than not it panned out to be a 2-1-4-3 with our CHs more or less protected by the odd midfielder, the full-backs essentially playing in midfield and a "host" of attackers in and around the area. And for what it is worth, Garner was IMHO better than all others when playing alone up front, holding the ball or laying it on for others, despite being comparatively small.

 

All about opinions, it seems.

Edited June 15, 2017 by der Berliner

[Bluedell 5,329]

He was signed 10 days before the end of the transfer window (for players with a fee involved) after a few weeks of negotiations, had scored 57 goals in 148 games for PNE and was the type of striker we badly lacked, i.e. someone who is a real central striker, takes on and being a pest for any defender, draws fouls in the area and puts himself where it hurts.

 

And while we are at it, we might have played a 4-3-3 on paper, but more often than not it panned out to be a 2-1-4-3 with our CHs more or less protected by the odd midfielder, the full-backs essentially playing in midfield and a "host" of attackers in and around the area. And for what it is worth, Garner was IMHO better than all others when playing alone up front, holding the ball or laying it on for others, despite being comparatively small.

 

All about opinions, it seems.

 

Garner was a panic buy. We had been trying for loads of other strikers, none of which panned out and Warburton was forced back onto the guy who appeared to by last on his list, with time running out. He desperately needed a striker and it came across at the time that Garner wasn't that suitable but he was the only one left we were looking at.

 

We did play 4-3-3. Yes the full backs attacked, but that was still the basic formation. Garner was fairly good at holding the ball up but what we really needed was a goal scorer and Garner didn't prove to be that. His return was patchy at best for most of the season.

[der Berliner 3,219]

Garner was a panic buy. We had been trying for loads of other strikers, none of which panned out and Warburton was forced back onto the guy who appeared to by last on his list, with time running out. He desperately needed a striker and it came across at the time that Garner wasn't that suitable but he was the only one left we were looking at.

 

We did play 4-3-3. Yes the full backs attacked, but that was still the basic formation. Garner was fairly good at holding the ball up but what we really needed was a goal scorer and Garner didn't prove to be that. His return was patchy at best for most of the season.

 

Good that someone knew MW's list of targets to confirm this.

 

When we played half decent balls into the box, preferrably quick and early, the return was there. Our whole midfield and wing union though deemed it far more worthwhile to over-elaborate nigh any sort of attack and Garner (and any other striker in there) was forced to feed from the scrabs. McKay's and Tav's "good crosses" record must be one of their worst in years, and we saw when Miller did it simple and early what Garner could do. Too little, too late. A striker is your main weapon in your team, if you want to win games. We hardly ever utilized the strengths of Garner all season ... and that is not to say toning a team for one player, but if that one player is in the team, play to his strength as well rather going by plan A no matter what.

[craig 5,195]

He was signed 10 days before the end of the transfer window (for players with a fee involved) after a few weeks of negotiations, had scored 57 goals in 148 games for PNE and was the type of striker we badly lacked, i.e. someone who is a real central striker, takes on and being a pest for any defender, draws fouls in the area and puts himself where it hurts.

 

And while we are at it, we might have played a 4-3-3 on paper, but more often than not it panned out to be a 2-1-4-3 with our CHs more or less protected by the odd midfielder, the full-backs essentially playing in midfield and a "host" of attackers in and around the area. And for what it is worth, Garner was IMHO better than all others when playing alone up front, holding the ball or laying it on for others, despite being comparatively small.

 

All about opinions, it seems.

 

Your recollection of last season is vastly different to mine dB. There was hardly ever a host of attackers in the area. It was one of our weaknesses, we rarely had enough bodies in the box. The formation difference matters little because Even with yours the 3 up front was in essence Garner through the middle and wingers 30 yards away from him, or Miller dropping 30 yards deep.

 

Warburton's couldn't get his first choices in ANY of the positions and with the window close to shutting it was abundantly clear to most that Garner was a panic buy.

 

If you look at his goal scoring record he actually has only ever been prolific in two seasons, both of which are in League One.

[Walterbear 557]

Good that someone knew MW's list of targets to confirm this.

 

When we played half decent balls into the box, preferrably quick and early, the return was there. Our whole midfield and wing union though deemed it far more worthwhile to over-elaborate nigh any sort of attack and Garner (and any other striker in there) was forced to feed from the scrabs. McKay's and Tav's "good crosses" record must be one of their worst in years, and we saw when Miller did it simple and early what Garner could do. Too little, too late. A striker is your main weapon in your team, if you want to win games. We hardly ever utilized the strengths of Garner all season ... and that is not to say toning a team for one player, but if that one player is in the team, play to his strength as well rather going by plan A no matter what.

 

Agree on the formation points. The full backs were AWOL particularly Tav and the recycling was impotent because of the lack of quality. We were found out by big standard Scottish teams. Nothing wrong with what Warburton tried to do but if you don't have the quality you need to try something else, which he refused to do.

[craig 5,195]

Good that someone knew MW's list of targets to confirm this.

 

When we played half decent balls into the box, preferrably quick and early, the return was there. Our whole midfield and wing union though deemed it far more worthwhile to over-elaborate nigh any sort of attack and Garner (and any other striker in there) was forced to feed from the scrabs. McKay's and Tav's "good crosses" record must be one of their worst in years, and we saw when Miller did it simple and early what Garner could do. Too little, too late. A striker is your main weapon in your team, if you want to win games. We hardly ever utilized the strengths of Garner all season ... and that is not to say toning a team for one player, but if that one player is in the team, play to his strength as well rather going by plan A no matter what.

 

None of the above disproves he was a panic buy. There were absolutely LOADS of leaks within Ibrox when MW was manager, so yes, people definitely knew his list of targets.

 

Garner just never suited the system. In fact, this to me proves he was a panic buy. MW constantly went on about players fitting the system rather than making the system fit the player.

 

Garner wasn't a prolific striker. Maybe he was trying too hard but when he had chances you were never confident he would score because he missed some fairly easy chances. His return of a goal every 3 games just wasn't enough ultimately. That can't all be blamed on him obviously as the manager, tactics, formation, other personnel all play a part.

 

One thing you couldn't complain about was his work rate, determination and application. We could have done with plenty more players wth his drive.

 

It didn't work out for him and he leaves with my best wishes.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Good that someone knew MW's list of targets to confirm this. .

 

It was fairly clear who we were after and who we didn't get. Stick your head in the sand if you must.

 

When we played half decent balls into the box, preferrably quick and early, the return was there. Our whole midfield and wing union though deemed it far more worthwhile to over-elaborate nigh any sort of attack and Garner (and any other striker in there) was forced to feed from the scrabs. McKay's and Tav's "good crosses" record must be one of their worst in years, and we saw when Miller did it simple and early what Garner could do. Too little, too late. A striker is your main weapon in your team, if you want to win games. We hardly ever utilized the strengths of Garner all season ... and that is not to say toning a team for one player, but if that one player is in the team, play to his strength as well rather going by plan A no matter what.

 

Good to see that you agree that Garner didn't fit into Warburton's style of play.

 

As for your claim that the return was there from Garner, I must have imagined all these chances that he missed.

[MacK1950 2,226]

It wouldn't have mattered who was signed as a striker as MW's pass it to death tactics would negate even the best striker in the world.

[Devil's advocaat 1,275]

Maybe time you fella's started a Garner thread, let the rest of us talk about the new boys instead?. :-)

[der Berliner 3,219]

Maybe time you fella's started a Garner thread' date=' let the rest of us talk about the new boys instead?. :-)[/quote']

 

We're but passing the time till the next bit comes in. Did I just wrote that? Well, it is all about opinions and as always, we differ every now and then.

 

Meanwhile, Ian Cathro thinks Walker's transfer value is 1m ...

 

Ian Cathro: Hearts won’t sell Jamie Walker for less than £1m

 

Hearts boss Ian Cathro has told Rangers they will not be able to sign Jamie Walker unless they meet the Tynecastle club’s £1million price tag. Keep up to date with all our sport news on The Scotsman’s Sport page on Facebook The Ibrox side had verbal offer of £500,000 rejected out of hand by Hearts for the 23-year-old, who netted 15 goals last season. Walker is out of contract at the end of next season and has already told the club he won’t be signing a new deal. However, Cathro insists Hearts will not be bullied into selling the player well short of his market value. He told STV: “I think it depends on a lot of aspects. When you look at the market I don’t think you can bring Jamie to your club for anything less than £1m. “But you also see [similar] players, maybe because they are at different clubs, going for more like £3m. The market can be a funny thing at times.

 

“Jamie is one of the most talent players in the country. Depending on how he works, he can go on to play at a very, very high level in the game. “He will not be leaving here for anything other than a value which reflects that. “Naturally we want to have him in our team so if there are going to be circumstances which take him away then they have to reflect the level of quality and potential of the player. “My understanding is there has been nothing of the sort.” Despite Walker expressing his desire to play elsewhere, the Hearts head coach insists he still wants the midfielder in his first-team squad for next season. “We understand the quality of player that we have and as his coach I look forward to continuing to work with him. “The players return tomorrow and I’ll be the first one to shake his hand and welcome him back to work.”

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/ian-cathro-hearts-won-t-sell-jamie-walker-for-less-than-1m-1-4476765

 

 

We'll see what Mistress Budge makes of this.