Sorry Chaddy but this is clearly not the case. Check out the transfer link below for previous transfers: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/everton-fc/transfers/verein/29/saison_id/2020 Big players coming into Everton including from Real and Napoli. That shows that they could attract talent without Lampard.

Problem is whilst we rely heavily on Ben it is very much an eggs in one basket sort of thing. Yes he would be a huge loss but he's going to be a huge loss next season as well. And my biggest fear with all this pressure on him is what if he gets injured or goes off the boil? Both are possible. What if we get key injuries in other places we have little cover? I do wonder if £10 million well spent could push us to promotion. Maybe a couple of strikers (perhaps one on loan) and cover for a position we have little depth in. That could be the difference for promotion and lessens the risk all round.

Agree with second point and probably agree with the first too. Certainly the fact he messed up every season in different circumstances is huge evidence suggesting that he would have messed it up anyway. But I also recall we lost a few tight games due to his howlers and do wonder what might have been.

I'm surprised he got that close to it... In some ways this horrific mistake has been mitigated by Kaminski being here. Issues are that it was an unnecessary change, we missed out on much larger money for him and of course the Walton debacle which was a complete handicap to the team. Only one season but my word he was rubbish and cost us big time. Without his howlers, who knows where we would have been.

It's a fair point they do have time to develop. And I hope they do surprise us. Bereton certainly did after 2 years of showing nothing coming good, so it's possible but it's more the exception than the rule. Maybe we should pack them both off to South America. That said it didn't take too much to clock those other guys weren't good, and the signs have been that both these chaps are pretty poor. I think I'd feel more comfortable not naming them so if I saw a definable quality in them, some potential. But I can't think of one thing they are showing which is decent or promising, a strength or an asset if you like. They aren't fast, they don't have presence, they don't strike me as that quick nor predatory or good in the air. Maybe it's a bit early to judge but the early signs imo are very discouraging. And Hirst certainly doesn't look anywhere near worth spending 4 million on.

Kinda disappointed you didn't acknowledge or engage with any of my points 😟 Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but some acknowledgement of the points In made would be nice. It feels like you have totally ignored everything I said! For example I gave 3 reasons why people are still going on about Dack. Fair enough dispute those reasons and their validity - MB is all about debate - but it doesn't help any discussion to ignore what the other person says. Likewise I say why I think the different natural positions doesn't prevent a comparison. Again, that's totally ignored. Disagree, sure but at least engage with the points I've made, in what I hope is a respectful manner. To clarify I don't want everyone to agree with me (well not much anyway 😉) but to engage with what's actually posted.

Come on Chaddy, it shouldn't be a surprise. The abysmal defeats when we look toothless, weaker players playing ahead of him, plus his history at Rovers. No way you should be surprised by this. I take your point that there are a ton of positives and that these outweigh the negatives, but to say this is a surprise topic is a tad naive. Lots of reasons I've mentioned as to why it's a topic that's being discussed. The biggest one for me being just imagine where we'd be using him instead of Vale or Hirst. Well that's not true either. The comparison is valid because a) all three are in the team to score and create goals and b) natural/preferred position doesn't prevent us comparing how one would do outside of that natural position. We can still evaluate their skills there. Different natural positions doesn't protect them. Example no 1 Nayambe's natural position was RB, however given his abilities etc he was still a better bet at CB for us than say Greer. Messi's best position say is as a wide forward but it would be daft to say he wouldn't offer not more up top than Brown did for example. Not sure why you are so keen to defend JDT's use of two of the worst forwards in Rovers history.

If we are basing it on performance, as oppose to blind loyalty to what the manager choses, then clearly he has done more than Hirst and Vale. They have offered the square root of naff all when they have played, which is far less than the glimpses of quality Dack has chosen. Look, I get it, JDT doesn't like Dack, and if I am honest I think the wages could be better spent come January. But to pretend Vale and Hirst are better options is plain daft, as neither have shown an ounce of ability, whereas Dack has shown the odd glimpse now, and showed a lot more prior to injury.

Hirst at £4 seems risky. At £4 million it's lunacy. Mind you given how long it took for Bereton to come good I can see the owners allowing it. For me it has to be a striker. We need a striker who isn't a dead weight like the current cover. Second is a defensive mid. For all I like Morton and Warton they aren't really defensive mids and without Travis we need someone in there who can do the dirty work. Full back is the third position where cover is needed. Definitely need one, maybe two as without the regular 2 we look much more disjointed. If we had more capacity for deals I'd be loaning out a few of the youth and getting them regular game time and bringing in other cover. There's a few who I feel could do with a loan out.

Would agree with this. In many ways - in his best position - Gally is an average championship striker at best. And if we had another average championship striker as cover there'd be much less issues. The problem is as you say the other two are utterly appalling and offer nothing. It's like playing with 10 men. Even a minor amount of vaguely adequate cover and we'd be in a miles better position.

Dack is moreof a striker than Hirst and Vale. And yes I know that's not his position. Goodness Ayala up top is a better bet than those two. Also - and this is key- there's a difference between writing someone off and thinking they are currently nowhere near the level needed at present. Currently both are offering us nothing.

Forget Dack I'd take the wheelchair over Hirst.

1 May be defensible.if Pickering was knackered/carrying a knock. Not ideal and perhaps another full back needed, but I'm not sure it's JDTs fault that Edun is no good and we haven't had more than one right back in the squad since 1932. My bigger worry on this was not having bite in cm. It is so obvious we needed that. Travis had to play cm. 2 Absolutely. How come Buckley is dropped from the team for terrible form yet these two chancers get game time? Madness. Not saying Buckley's had a good season but it smacks of.double standards. We are always going to have limited and inconsistent players - especially as a championship team - and that's the risk you take with players. But no team can afford utter passengers who are liabilities. That's shooting yourself in the foot and what happens playing these 2. 3.Spot on. It's so little time and when you consider how much the ball is actually in play it's asking a hell of a lot in no time at all. There's also no margin for error. Let's say Dack creates a good chance or two in his meager time, the keeper could pull off a worldie or there he a bad call from the ref. With enough time you can overcome these issues, not in 10 mins. Worst of all it blatantly wasn't working so why wait so long.

Yes there are other issues too. Totally agree it's not the sole issue But I do think a striker who y'know gave them something to think about might also relieve some pressure.

The ones we have are ok. And a fair few who can do a job there. Maybe another one or a defensive mid to cover when Travis goes full back. Ok, so maybe one more good option outside of a striker. But I still think a striker is more pressing as these two are so off the pace it's untrue.

We are another good striker away from being a good team. Even when playing badly if we had someone with either a bit of presence, threat of trickery in them, we would be more likely to get a few comebacks. (Dack perhaps could be that person...) As it is we have the most useless back up strike duo in Vale and Hirst since Varney and Brown. Stuffed how anyone thinks these guys are going to be a success

I wouldn't disagree with you here buddy. (Other than I know his wages aren't that, it's hypothetical as in if he were on that he would still be in the team ) My initial point was on talent alone no one would put him behind the other two. As for the other two and at what level £ better bet. Thing is I don't really rate either of them. The pragmatist in me is happy to trade Dack for 2 longer term decent players but neither of them strike me as decent. Neither has shown me anywhere near enough to make that kind of swap. Neither seem to be able to cut it at this level or look likely to. So at the moment I wouldn't make the swap with those 2 said players. With others, yes.

I doubt JDT does think they are better. More a case of him wanting the wages for his players or someone else putting pressure on to get rid. Maybe he doesn't think Dacks value for money for his talent. However I seriously doubt it's on pure ability Dacks not in the team! Put it this way, if his wages were around £4-5k/week I've no doubt he'd be ahead of both of the other 2.

If anyone genuinely thinks Hirst or Vale are better options off the bench than Dack then they need to go to Specsavers. I get it's a game of opinions but neither of them have shown anything whatsoever. Contrast with what Dack has ability wise and his potential to return to pre injury Dack and it's a no brainer that he is miles better as an impact sub. Can his wages be spent much better for the y? Absolutely - but not till Jan. Therefore he remains the best (or one of) attacking options from the bench and should be used accordingly.

Yes. No. And the 2 are mutually exclusive. Certainly, Bereton for example did nothing for 2 years despite costing a huge sum for us, and yet there were no consequences for TM of having used such a huge chunk of his budget for no return for 2 years and no commensurate return for 3. Can't think of any other club where that would be allowed.

Sad if appointing on friendship rather than ability. I'm not sure knowing the club or similar really helps unless it's a basket case or particular set of circumstances. I'm all for an experienced number 2 rookie manager with the right background research but my word if Woodgate is the experience it's a worrying lookout.

Who would want Woodgate on their staff? He's done crap as a manager and stepped in when his former boss got the boot. Hardly that experienced either. Not sure what he brings.

Football is a game of opinions and there are many ways of seeing the same thing. Perspective makes a difference. That said when you have 3 relegation worthy streaks running months on end, when good players regularly can run down contracts, when the CEO - or whatever Waggots official title is (if he doesn't have one I can make some suggestions) gets away with poor attendances year on year, when big investments take years to come to fruition - I can't see how that shouts out anything other than indifferent. If that's them bothered then heaven help us if they lose interest.

Who would have thought a league with more than 2 strong teams would have been more difficult? Can't say he wasn't backed either. Early days given it's a few months at QPR but was Beale the power behind the hottest?

Excellent I'd say. Especially given QPR could lose their manager which may disrupt them somewhat.