If Ndiyae & Berge hadn't been sold do we stay up?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

If we hadn't sold Ndiyae and Berge do we stay up?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 25.6%

  • No

    Votes: 120 75.0%
  • Total voters
    160
Fjortoft's Aeroplane

Fjortoft's Aeroplane

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
1,373
Since it's poll season I'll chip in.

Having seen what you have from the rest of the team, do you think we stay up if we had kept Ndiyae & Berge?

I honestly don't. Too many other weak links in defence and midfield, and also offering nothing going forwards out wide.

Thoughts?
 

We would have scored a few more, but our midfield, even with berge in it, who let's be fair isn't a player to boss it in there given his size, would still be way out of it's depth
 
They wouldn't have helped our desperately poor defence.

Let's be honest, we all thought the likes of Anel would step up a level but its not happened.
 
No is the simple answer, going on current form. However now with the change we would have had a greater chance 🤔
 
yes 1000% not particulary Berge- but our whole game was Ndiaye- not just goals but the way he pressed from the front.

Also watching this team is extremely boring- Ndiaye was the best player at the Lane in 50 years- generational talent-

Look back at his Championship reel- it's ridiculous - so so entertaining.
 
coolasanidiot said:
yes 1000% not particulary Berge- but our whole game was Ndiaye- not just goals but the way he pressed from the front.

Also watching this team is extremely boring- Ndiaye was the best player at the Lane in 50 years- generational talent-

Look back at his Championship reel- it's ridiculous - so so entertaining.
Click to expand...

Unpopular opinion but I'm not sure he would have stepped up to PL level, even though he was so good in the championship like Adel Tarrabt.
 
If we got the wider recruitment right, yes. With the wider recruitment we did, no. It didn't need much imo: a couple of decent midfielders, a quality left wingback and a centre back.
 
Last edited:
nopigfansintown said:
If we got the wider recruitment right, yes. With the wider recruitment we did, no.
Click to expand...
I think the point of the sales is we'd have struggled to do much recruitment if they hadn't been sold. They haven't shown a lot yet but having some young players tied down to contracts for next season in Hamer, Trusty, Souza, Traore, Slimane puts us in a much better position than keeping Berge/Ndiaye, still getting relegated and having them leave on frees. Everything suggests that we tried to offer Ndiaye and Berge new deals but they turned them down so we felt like we had to sell. I still think that was the right decision and time will tell on how successful the signings we've made are, whatever happens this year they all have a far better chance of making an impact in the championship.
 
I couldn’t find the button that said “ why do we have to keep recycling this irrelevant old shit? ”.

Nobody knows the answer because it never happened, and we can learn nothing from it. It’s been done to death already, and nothing changed as a result.
 
If we had still bought Hamer, signed Doyle, invested in an experienced centre back and left back and still brought in a good back up keeper and used the loans for McAtee and a decent striker.
So lots of ifs and buts but I think we should have had enough money to do all of that (£35M).
Not a lot of investment in the scheme of things.
But we didn't and we pay the price. We spent around £20M nett and at the moment have little to show for it all.
 
Wizard said:
I think the point of the sales is we'd have struggled to do much recruitment if they hadn't been sold. They haven't shown a lot yet but having some young players tied down to contracts for next season in Hamer, Trusty, Souza, Traore, Slimane puts us in a much better position than keeping Berge/Ndiaye, still getting relegated and having them leave on frees. Everything suggests that we tried to offer Ndiaye and Berge new deals but they turned them down so we felt like we had to sell. I still think that was the right decision and time will tell on how successful the signings we've made are, whatever happens this year they all have a far better chance of making an impact in the championship.
Click to expand...

It'd have been difficult but we still supposedly spent above those fees. It only needed a couple of cheap permanents and the right loans to make us competitive in a a shite bottom six. It's irrelevant anyway: they were never staying unless they extended their contracts.
 

With the amount of goals we have been leaking then I don't think they would have made much of a difference.

Ndiaye and Berge were not the players who would stop us conceding and at this level it's much harder to outscore the opposition.
 
nopigfansintown said:
It'd have been difficult but we still supposedly spent above those fees. It only needed a couple of cheap permanents and the right loans to make us competitive in a a shite bottom six. It's irrelevant anyway: they were never staying unless they extended their contracts.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt we'd have been better with them but Ndiaye has struggled making the step up to Marseille and the fact Berge's move was to Burnley who'll very likely go down with us suggests he wouldn't have been a game changer either.

Down the Channels said:
If we had still bought Hamer, signed Doyle, invested in an experienced centre back and left back and still brought in a good back up keeper and used the loans for McAtee and a decent striker.
So lots of ifs and buts but I think we should have had enough money to do all of that (£35M).
Not a lot of investment in the scheme of things.
But we didn't and we pay the price. We spent around £20M nett and at the moment have little to show for it all.
Click to expand...
The Archer fee can basically be written off as it's a glorified loan and I remember there being mention that Souza's fee and possibly others were lower than reported.
 
Not a chance, much as I love/loved Illiman he wouldn't have got the numbers or time on the ball he had in championship. Sander, he was marmite on here wasnt he if I remember? When he was good he was very good but nowhere near half the time he could & should've been.
 
SwissBlade said:
They’d be injured
Click to expand...

Berge most certainly would be injured.

Ndiaye probably back to cramping up. As apparently OM's manager does not think he is fit enough to do 90 minutes at the moment.
 
No. Hecky would still be deep in conversation with Stuart about pushing Berge forward and maybe dropping Illy into right wing to accommodate Ben as a false 9 when the 4th goal went in.
 
No, but Ndiaye would've made a hell of a difference. Ndiaye was a player that we could get the ball to and it would actually stick for a few seconds, that's aside from the insane amount of our creativity that came through him. Archer isn't a bad signing by any stretch but he doesn't provide creativity.

Berge...still feel meh. Burnley have had all the same debates about what type of player he is, and seen the inconsistency. He's starting to look good but he's threatened that so many times. I still think he has a future at Prem level but he isn't the difference between staying up and going down.

I'd even go as far as to say that Hamer is more the player we need, even if we've been making him look poor. Of all our players, it's Archer and Hamer that I have the most sympathy for.

The real problem is that at best all Hamer and Archer can do is replace Berge and Ndiaye. But what we needed was Berge and Ndiaye PLUS signings of that calibre. We needed them and we needed a central defender or two and we needed a proper wingback or two and we needed someone of Doyle's quality or better.

Keep Ndiaye and Berge but if the back line is still the same then we're not doing much of anything.
 
May not be on topic, and he was a bit “off” for a few weeks, but which idiot employed by the club sanctioned Egan going out and playing two internationals when he was clearly injured?
 
Shawy24 said:
May not be on topic, and he was a bit “off” for a few weeks, but which idiot employed by the club sanctioned Egan going out and playing two internationals when he was clearly injured?
Click to expand...

The decision making with regards to injuries have been poor.
 
Ndiaye and Archer would have been a really fun front pairing that would have at least made us exciting to watch.

Then if we’d bought and used our loans better in the midfield and LB, we could have had a chance.

But still it would be a less than 50% chance of survival. Realistically we would need to finish ahead of Bournemouth or Everton and we’re way off them (and they will strengthen in Jan).

I think they take us from a 5% chance of survival to like a 35% chance. So I can see why the club didn’t think it was worth losing £30m for that.
 

We needed to keep Iliman and Tommy Doyle, and then add the likes or Archer, Hamer etc to the group to have a realistic chance. The transfer business irrespective of the iliman departure showed that there was never any ambition to try and stay in the division. That is on the prince.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom