Rashford’s position doesn’t exist in Amorim’s tactics.
Christopher Nkunku
- Thread starter Berbaclass
- Start date
I think that's the sort of player that fits the LW role for Amorim. There's no obvious forward position for Rashford in the new set-up. Not technically good enough to play behind the striker, not strong enough to play as the 9.
Yeah and look at their best player - someone who apparently wasn’t good enough to start for a rival. I’d be more than happy to get a player of Nkunku’s quality (injury concerns notwithstanding)
Any actual link here?
Hopefully not.
Could do a lot worse, would let us use Hojlund and Zirkzee as subs/squad players instead of relying on them every week
Absolutely awful decision if true, always injured and not worth it - Few years ago he looked exciting but unless it's a no obligation loan I hope we stay away
If he could be relied on to stay fit, he might be a pretty good pick for the forward position
Loan with an option/obligation based on minutes played?
Loan with option would be really good I think. Obligation depends a lot on the fee
Up next
Chelsea offer Mudryk
Chelsea offer Mudryk
Yeah right
An obligation depending on minutes would be interesting because if he stays fit he would be good an potentially worth the money.
Nkunku is a good player.
I’d take him on loan, see how it goes, along with another attacker. It’s a risky purchase though. He’s too brittle.
Maybe we agree to take him on loan as part of the Garnacho deal, I'd be in favour of that. Get to see if he stays fit and if he performs.
Made of glass.
An injury prone, Chelsea attacker who is positionally ambiguous? Stop me if you’ve heard this one before
I can’t hide it. I think Nkunku is an amazing player. Chelsea is a shite show but so are we. So maybe we leave this one alone.
28 games played this season. 13 goals and 4 assists. 1180 minutes played.
Not bad at all.
Not bad at all.
Yeah, no thanks.
We've enough fragile players, we don't need another. Also whilst fleeting, his appearances I've seen for Chelsea have been really poor.
We've enough fragile players, we don't need another. Also whilst fleeting, his appearances I've seen for Chelsea have been really poor.
Only 700 minutes but...
Garnacho our injury prone man in?
He’d instantly be our most dangerous forward, along with Amad, obviously. Positionally flexible too.
Still don’t want to see us rinsed, and think loan is more logical.
Still don’t want to see us rinsed, and think loan is more logical.
Signing Chelsea’s crocks has never gone wrong for us in the past.
Little risk if the loan has the right conditions.
Most of that has come in the league cup and Europa conference to be fair.
What’s 44 games missed since joining Chelsea between friends, eh?Not actually as bad as I thought to be fair
2 vs Servette, 1 vs Bournemouth, 3 vs Barrow, 1 vs Gent, 1 vs Panathinakios, 2 vs FC Noah(?), 1 vs FC Heindenheim(??), 1 vs Southampton, 1 vs Morecambe.
Last edited:
But he is playing games...
Yeah that's exactly why we need another attacker because you just can't trust his fitness
No thanks
He's hardly gotten a sniff in the league
He’s 27 years old?! I thought he was some sort of sub 22 year old guy with how he’s basically just not considered an option in the league for Chelsea.
Goals against shit opposition count when our transfer targets score them.
They only don’t count when we’re selling. That’s what I learned yesterday in the Garnacho out thread.
I think injury and the abundance of competition have been the primary issues for him at Chelsea. When he's actually played, he's been productive.
And if he was in his early 20's, you could argue for betting on the upside that his injury problems clear up and he reaches his potential at our club.
But at 27 years old, he's past the point where you predict any major upside. Instead you'd be buying what you see, a productive but injury prone player. I'd avoid.
And if he was in his early 20's, you could argue for betting on the upside that his injury problems clear up and he reaches his potential at our club.
But at 27 years old, he's past the point where you predict any major upside. Instead you'd be buying what you see, a productive but injury prone player. I'd avoid.
3 against Barrow in the League Cup, 7 in Europa Conference (5 competition proper and 2 qualifiers) and 1 against Morecambe in the FA Cup.
Stat padding...
Stat padding...
I have been telling people, it will be Garnacho out and another Chelsea player coming in. This is going to be a FFP maximisation transfer.
So we get rid of a player who is one of our brightest sparks for an injury prone one and you think that’s low risk?