2018/19 Gylfi Sigurdsson

[Lanolin]

It's not about free passes though mate. Nobody performed well last season aside from Pickford (and possibly Coleman). Nobody else enhanced their reputation. You can't bin an entire squad.

You then have to look and say is this 25 players all being poor at the same time, or was the structure we had and the ensuing chaos that resulted wrong?

He underwhelmed last season, I believe we overpaid and I think he's is in many ways representative of everything we did wrong with recruitment under Walsh/Koeman. I also don't think he will ever be the type of player that we felt he would be or were led to believe.

All of this can be true, but we can also merge that with a view that he can be a very effective player for us. The front 4 we have seem to dovetail wonderfully together. It's as well balanced as I can remember a front 4 being. I think a lot of that is down to Sigurdsson's unorthodox as a 10 and his versatility as a footballer. I am not sure it's helpful to him to hold poor performances last season, when he wasn't fit when trying to evaluate this season.

What I will say about the lad, having been pretty critical from the moment he arrived was that I was quite surprised and impressed with aspects of his game last season. I saw him at Brighton last year, getting dogs abuse from fans and nothing coming off for him on the pitch, but he never stopped running. That stayed with me. He didn't stop trying and he didn't stop asking for the ball. I took the view then that he was a good team player who was not just mentally strong but not a coward who would shrink.

Whether that was right or wrong as an analysis is open to interpretation. Conduct makes a big difference though and he won me round with that.

The other thing that surprised me, was he is a more clever player in the final third than I thought. We saw a bit of that last week. I think he will make goals and assists for us. I don't think he will ever be the 50 (in reality 40) million pound superstar we wanted, however I can see him being quite functional and useful for us.

You seem to have completely misunderstood me though mate.

I'm not saying we should sell him, or vilify him, or that he can't contribute. I'm actually saying the opposite, that he most certainly can contribute, but he didn't really do it enough last year. Of course there are reasons for that, and nobody's suggesting otherwise, but as I've said, I think many people have been a little quick to absolve him of all blame for his own pretty average performances over the course of an entire season.

 

[BlueToff]

Depends what you class as playing well I suppose. I'm not saying he was utterly dreadful, tripping over his own feet and giving the ball away every time he got it, but I wouldn't say he played well personally. He got 7 goals or assists in 27 league games, which compares unfavourably to Rooney (9 in 31 excluding pens), Walcott (6 in 13), and Calvert Lewin (11 in 32). It's well established that his contributions to the overall game aren't huge, his average touches etc are low so he was bought to be a high impact player, and he wasn't. He put a shift in, and he had some good moments, but played well overall? Not for me.

That brings me on to the point, which is actually where I have a real problem. Does paying £45m for a player mean he should be a type of player he isn't? Well, yeah, it sort of does. This is what I mean by excuses, it's like it's OK that he didn't really contribute in a lot of games because we didn't make it really easy for him to. It doesn't work like that though. Lukaku wasn't the type of player to want to hold the ball up but we still expected him to. Barkley wasn't the type of player to play it safe on the half way line but we expected him to. Baines isn't the type of player to go out and stop crosses but we expect him to. But for some reason Sigurdsson is allowed to just stroll around not touching the ball for 5 minutes when we're desperately trying to score because 'that's the type of player he is'. It's ridiculous. In that type of situation he needs to move out of his comfort zone and try to influence games anyway, not just carry on playing the way he'd prefer in an ideal world.

No, it doesn't.

Would you sign a striker and expect him to play as the no.10 as well?

Or would you sign a centre-back and expect him to be the playmaker?

You can't transform your playing style /attributes because of a fee paid, mate.

Yes, you can work on improving, but part of that is also down to management and the manager having a plan of where they want a player to play. Part of that is then on the player to work to improve.

My pet hate through the whole Gylfi thing is people saying that because he cost £45m, he should be running a game. It has never been his strength. It has never been what he is best at.

He's good at popping up in the final third and he has the vision/passing ability to create, or he has that long shot/finish to score a goal/test the keeper.

I don't think anyone has said he is allowed to not get involved. But that isn't the same as pointing out he isn't a player to run a game for us, though...

 

[Goodison Groaner]

He would be more popular if he had cost £25m! Good player who I think will do a job for us but will probably never fully justify that fee.

 

[msb]

I don't get all the concern over the transfer fee. Its not as though the player himself decided that, the club wanted him, Swansea set the fee and we were stupid enough to pay it.

How in any way is that the players fault? Everton knew exactly what they were getting and paid the fee for that player. That style, that ability, that everything. 45 mill was clearly overpaying, but no way can that be put at the player - nor can he change to be the world-beater that people think 45 mill should buy. City paid 60 mill for Mahrez, as much an "in and out" player as Siggurdsen and on his day just as effective, probably though Mahrez has more off days than Siggy.

Just get over the price, it is done, what we need is the type of performance that we bought him for - and I certainly saw that last Saturday.

 

[sageyefc]

I don't get all the concern over the transfer fee. Its not as though the player himself decided that, the club wanted him, Swansea set the fee and we were stupid enough to pay it.

How in any way is that the players fault? Everton knew exactly what they were getting and paid the fee for that player. That style, that ability, that everything. 45 mill was clearly overpaying, but no way can that be put at the player - nor can he change to be the world-beater that people think 45 mill should buy. City paid 60 mill for Mahrez, as much an "in and out" player as Siggurdsen and on his day just as effective, probably though Mahrez has more off days than Siggy.

Just get over the price, it is done, what we need is the type of performance that we bought him for - and I certainly saw that last Saturday.

??

Mahrez is a genuine match winner and former prem player of the year, his fee was justified

 

[sageyefc]

And what he cost is completely relevant, sure that's not on him but it's perfectly reasonable to have certain expectations for a player that cost such an amount.

 

[Lelouch]

And what he cost is completely relevant, sure that's not on him but it's perfectly reasonable to have certain expectations for a player that cost such an amount.

but he's not a 45m player..to have 45m expectations of him is ridiculous, We got rinsed by Swansea and Koeman had a huge boner for him. I don't think he's been amazing either but I wouldn't say he's been the worst we've seen last season.

 

[Lanolin]

No, it doesn't.

Would you sign a striker and expect him to play as the no.10 as well?

Or would you sign a centre-back and expect him to be the playmaker?

You can't transform your playing style /attributes because of a fee paid, mate.

Yes, you can work on improving, but part of that is also down to management and the manager having a plan of where they want a player to play. Part of that is then on the player to work to improve.

My pet hate through the whole Gylfi thing is people saying that because he cost £45m, he should be running a game. It has never been his strength. It has never been what he is best at.

He's good at popping up in the final third and he has the vision/passing ability to create, or he has that long shot/finish to score a goal/test the keeper.

I don't think anyone has said he is allowed to not get involved. But that isn't the same as pointing out he isn't a player to run a game for us, though...

Those are absolutely terrible examples mate, and you're intelligent enough to know it. We're not talking about him being asked to play a completely different position, just to play his own position in a slightly different way. You know, like the examples I've already given you.

When people talk about him 'running a game' I don't think they mean that he needs to be everywhere on the pitch like Kante, or doing the old Lampard/Gerrard superman act, just that if we need a goal he needs to try and get on the ball and help us get it. He wasn't doing that enough last year, too often we'd be behind and he'd still be milling round on the periphery while people like Gana and Davies tried to play through balls or burst beyond the striker. One of my issues with him was that he didn't take enough responsibility, and I don't accept that 'not being that type of player' is a valid excuse.

 

[snipellis11]

He's class, everybody knows it.

 

[sageyefc]

but he's not a 45m player..to have 45m expectations of him is ridiculous, We got rinsed by Swansea and Koeman had a huge boner for him. I don't think he's been amazing either but I wouldn't say he's been the worst we've seen last season.

But he came in as our marque signing, our main man, yet he was anything but, he hid too often and as stated above we didn't miss him in the slightest when he wasn't playing. Compare that to Theo who came in and was straight away our best player and we missed him when he got injured. And now richarlson, who's come in and straight away been one of our best and most influential players

 

[SteStocksDJ]

He already looks twice the player he was last season for us. The attacking players we have now are able to interchange intelligently and they have the freedom to do so from the manager.

Give gylfi pace to aim at and he's a different player.

 

[COYBL25]

But he came in as our marque signing, our main man, yet he was anything but, he hid too often and as stated above we didn't miss him in the slightest when he wasn't playing. Compare that to Theo who came in and was straight away our best player and we missed him when he got injured. And now richarlson, who's come in and straight away been one of our best and most influential players

He`s a borderline higher than average Premier League player, that Koeman had a hard on for and we overpaid by at least 20 mil for. ( not his fault )

The fact that he flopped at Spurs, was a massive warning, that he would struggle in a team, where he was much more accountable for his overall contribution.

You`re one hundred per cent right, when you highlight the fact that from the moment Walcott and Richarlison came in, they stood out, where as Siggy never has ( he had a good game last week, but how many others spring to mind ! ).

We`ve had all the excuses - no pre season, lack of fitness, playing out of position, but surely the law of averages says that even if that were true, he`d eventually have a good game !!!!

No one wants him to fail, just some consistency would be a start and then lets take it from there.

 

[BlueToff]

Those are absolutely terrible examples mate, and you're intelligent enough to know it. We're not talking about him being asked to play a completely different position, just to play his own position in a slightly different way. You know, like the examples I've already given you.

When people talk about him 'running a game' I don't think they mean that he needs to be everywhere on the pitch like Kante, or doing the old Lampard/Gerrard superman act, just that if we need a goal he needs to try and get on the ball and help us get it. He wasn't doing that enough last year, too often we'd be behind and he'd still be milling round on the periphery while people like Gana and Davies tried to play through balls or burst beyond the striker. One of my issues with him was that he didn't take enough responsibility, and I don't accept that 'not being that type of player' is a valid excuse.

My point has always been that if Koeman/Walsh signed Gylfi to be our Ross replacement, they were barking up the wrong tree. Whether they did or didn't, only they know.

It's not 'asking him to play his own position in a slightly different way'. It's asking him to come in and be the metronome, the player that sets the tempo. That has never been his game. Not at Swansea, not in his brief time at Spurs and not with Iceland. So why, at 28, it's suddenly expected that he could do that is baffling (or why fans keep asking him to do that). It's not an excuse for him to shirk any responsibility, it's just asking a player to do something that wastes what they are actually good at (for example, asking Gana to be the ball-playing midfielder when he's much better in that role in front of the defence).

I just think because of the fee people are obsessed with what he can't do rather than what he can do. And the evidence is right here in this thread, when some posters won't acknowledge that he had a good (I think very good) game (I'm not claiming they want him to do badly, btw, because I don't think any Evertonian wants that).

The bit in bold, I agree to an extent. He didn't take enough responsibility, in a team that had no set style or structure. I don't think he ever went into hiding, like Schneiderlin, but ultimately he didn't step up when needed enough times either.

Gylfi's strengths from open play were demonstrated perfectly on Saturday - especially in the second half.

Press high and when in possession quickly look for the forward pass. That's not dropping deep and picking up the ball and looking to spread a 40 yard pass or drive from midfield, because that isn't his game (and maybe this is where it's semantics, because for me, that is 'running a game'). That's what a Schneiderlin/Gomes needs to be doing. They are the players who have that skill set.

 

[Lanolin]

My point has always been that if Koeman/Walsh signed Gylfi to be our Ross replacement, they were barking up the wrong tree. Whether they did or didn't, only they know.

It's not 'asking him to play his own position in a slightly different way'. It's asking him to come in and be the metronome, the player that sets the tempo. That has never been his game. Not at Swansea, not in his brief time at Spurs and not with Iceland. So why, at 28, it's suddenly expected that he could do that is baffling (or why fans keep asking him to do that). It's not an excuse for him to shirk any responsibility, it's just asking a player to do something that wastes what they are actually good at (for example, asking Gana to be the ball-playing midfielder when he's much better in that role in front of the defence).

I just think because of the fee people are obsessed with what he can't do rather than what he can do. And the evidence is right here in this thread, when some posters won't acknowledge that he had a good (I think very good) game (I'm not claiming they want him to do badly, btw, because I don't think any Evertonian wants that).

The bit in bold, I agree to an extent. He didn't take enough responsibility, in a team that had no set style or structure. I don't think he ever went into hiding, like Schneiderlin, but ultimately he didn't step up when needed enough times either.

Gylfi's strengths from open play were demonstrated perfectly on Saturday - especially in the second half.

Press high and when in possession quickly look for the forward pass. That's not dropping deep and picking up the ball and looking to spread a 40 yard pass or drive from midfield, because that isn't his game (and maybe this is where it's semantics, because for me, that is 'running a game'). That's what a Schneiderlin/Gomes needs to be doing. They are the players who have that skill set.

I think it is just semantics because as I said above, I really don't think anybody expects him to be doing that. Again, I think when people say 'run the game' they mean that he should be taking control of situations and saying 'give me the ball i'll make something happen'.

Whether that's how he wants to play is completely irrelevant here, it's about stepping up and doing what the team needs from an attacking player. How often last season did we put together moves like those which put Walcott in for his goal, disallowed goal, assist, and sitter on Saturday? Virtually never. That's how he'd like to play every week, getting on the shoulder of his man and getting in behind due to quick interplay. And yet he still found a way to be very effective for us during that period because he adapted, always offering us an outlet and arriving in the box to get on the end of crosses. That's absolutely not how he would choose to play, but he's a quality player and he did what was necessary in order to contribute. All i'm saying is that i'm not sure Sigurdsson did, and some people seem to think that's alright. I don't.

Going back to where I started, my point was really that he needs to leave last season behind him and step up to the plate this year. He's started well and hopefully the improved football and competition for places will bring the best out of him. If he can have a good season then there's no doubt he can be a real asset for us.

 

[Tubey]

He's supposed to be a playmaker. As in he's supposed to make play.

He's not meant to be a luxury player where if we're playing well, he plays well and if we're playing bad, he plays bad.

That's the massive issue with him. Hopefully the players around him now allow him to have a decent season, but he shouldn't be relying on that - he should be making others better.