As a Villa fan, I’m happy with Watkins. I hope that next year he can push past the 20+ goal mark and hopefully help us win a long overdue trophy. It’s been almost 70 years since the last time we won the FA Cup, so that’s my preference. It would return us to Europe next season as well, regardless of our performance in the League so helps us continue to build on that front too.
Isak is also an incredible player, and due to youth could easily surpass Watkins. He’s not a Villa player though, so I’ve gotta be happy with the player who already shows a willingness to bleed for the club, hopefully for many seasons to come.
Good to see both sets of fans seem to be backing their own.
As a Newcastle fan, Isak is probably my favourite player of the last 10 years, so I'd definitely choose him.
I think he has a higher ceiling and some of the things he does is so unpredictable, I can't believe we have a player of his calibre.
That being said, Watkins is also a great player and is more dependable injury-wise.
The argument I always use when backing Isak is that if you asked the manager of any big club to build an ideal striker, almost every one of them would build a player very similar to Isak.
I’m not saying this means Isak is the best in the world but his size, speed, technical ability, how clinical he is in front of goal. He’s the ideal mould of an elite striker.
As a Villa fan, Watkins had a great season and I’m one of his biggest fans although he can go missing for long periods of time his numbers don’t lie and no penalty goals either.
I don’t watch many Newcastle games but Isak looks like a complete striker when I have seen him.
>no penalty goals either.
I'll never get behind the argument of taking away penalty goals or celebrating a player having none. Its a coveted skill that wins games. Obviously you want goal threat other than penalties for a striker but its not a reason to dismiss penalties entirely. With Luiz gone now as well then surely Watkins is going to take all the Villa pens so you must want him to be good at them.
Edit: Yeah downvote me all you want but you'll still celebrate your players when they get penalties and count them as goals especially when they win you games. If you talk about goal involvements and then are ruling out penalties as nothing then you're calling assists more important than penalties scored? Its nonsense.
That is the wrong way to look at it. Villa fans often mention no penalty goals because if he did take them his numbers would be insane (even taking into account his poor penalty record).
Palmers scoring this season was less impressive because a bulk of them were penalties. Yes he's an absolute machine at them and we shouldn't take that away but penalties generally have a high chance of success.
Also I still don't think Watkins will be on penalties with Luiz gone. Itll be Tielemans
>Villa fans often mention no penalty goals because if he did take them his numbers would be insane (even taking into account his poor penalty record).
I dont think I've ever seen Villa fans "often" mention it. This is actually the 1st time Ive seen a Villa fan mention it like that. I disagree with it because of course you'll celebrate him scoring penalties and count them as goals when it wins you games.
>Palmers scoring this season was less impressive because a bulk of them were penalties.
He had 9 penalties overall and 25 goals total for Chelsea across all comps. 27 goals total including the ones he had for for the few early season games at Man City. Very good return from the wing along with all his assists which took him to 40 goal involvements for Chelsea and 42 overall including the few games with Man City.
Even if for some silly reason you take away the 9 pens but counted assists more than penalties for goal involvements then he would have had 33 goal involvements at 1 every 113 mins. So overall it's stilll massive.
Palmer's scoring was less impressive than scoring 27 non penalty goals would've been. But his 18 non penalty goals (or 13 if you're just looking at the league) is still very impressive for a player in his position, given his minutes and age/experience.
It gets a bit annoying when people start downplaying the season of whoever's scored the most pens, but that's like the only player in the league that they take pens away from.
Like people will point out Palmer's pens every time because he's scored 9, but every player that's scored 4, 5, 6 etc just gets their stats treated as normal.
I believe in pointing out when a great finisher who hasn't been on pens isn't on them (e.g. like people often do for Suarez 13/14, Drogba 09/10 etc), but I don't agree with dissecting the goals of people who do take them. Because people just don't apply that thinking fairly and it ends up with one guy (like Palmer this season, or Haaland last season, or Bruno in previous seasons etc) getting dog piled on, and then every other guy who scores about 5 pens gets their stats treated as normal.
Again, well worth pointing out when a Watkins or Foden doesn't take pens, to highlight just how impressive their records are. But then giving disclaimers every time Palmer's goals get brought up is a bit unfair, because people don't do the same thing for players like Salah or Saka. If you actually go and provide a list of the top open play goalscorers, or best finishers by xG overperformance, that's different. But usually it just ends up with "Penaldo", "Penandes", "Pole Palmer" etc.
It doesn't have zero value, but when you're talking about a goal scorer's worth, penalty goals obviously don't count the same as goals from open play. Penalty taking is obviously a skill, but it's not a required skill for a striker. You wouldn't start a striker just because they were good at penalties. On the other hand, you would absolutely start a striker like Watkins who is shit at penalties, but really good at being a striker. Watkins won't be taking pens for Villa next season, he is shit at them and why put extra pressure on him to do something he isn't good at rather than letting him be relaxed and concentrate on things he is good at.
The reason to discount it, is that if you have someone on your team that is good at pens, that's all that matters. It's not a requirement of a good goal scorer and doesn't tell you how effective a goal scorer is. You can't count on penalty kicks either and there tends to be a large disparity in how they are awarded.
Isak scored more in fewer appearances- 21 in 30 vs 19 in 37- but Isak also scored 5 penalties, while Watkins didn't take any league penalties. So off last season alone, they're more or less even. Then you look at assists, and 2 vs 13 is no comparison (although Isak would have more assists if key passes were going to players like Bailey and Diaby instead of Longstaff and Almiron).
But going beyond stats, Villa were pretty much good all season, while Newcastle were terrible once the injury crisis hit and though things improved, we never really got back to our best. To do what Isak did in a struggling team makes it all the more impressive.
Isak is the better dribbler, FAR more clinical finisher (59 shots/39 on target/21 goals vs 83/46/19), 5" taller, 4 years younger, and still a few years away from his prime.
Would love to hear a case for why a non Newcastle/Villa fan would prefer Watkins. I rate both highly but it's an easy, albeit biased, choice for me.
I'm a villa fan and I love Watkins, it's not just his ability but his whole attitude is perfect. He's a workhorse, super fit, rarely injured, completely grounded, a team player that is now also scoring loads of goals. If he was better at penalties he'd be elite.
That said I really like Isak, I think he's absolutely class so as long as his attitude and injury record is ok (don't know enough about him to comment on either) I'd happily swap them (not that I think that's a remote possibility of course)
There are plenty of games where you do need to be able to carry Isak around. His hold up play is pretty much non-existent - often he seems to almost deliberately stand miles away from where the clearance will go.
But I think Isak is far more likely to create something out of nothing, and he's absolutely lethal in front of goal. You won't see him for 60 minutes, he gets 1 chance, he scores. A bit like Aguero used to be (though he's not at that level yet)
Injury record. Most teams second striker isn't anywhere near as good. Watkins is never injured.
I do rate both and the age of Isak does help but that also makes his injury record all the more worrying.
If I needed one season I’d go Watkins for the simple reason he doesn’t get hurt and Isak has missed time from injury. But I think if healthy Isak is probably the more complete player. Some of his dribbling is just impressive.
Surprised to hear that from a Newcastle fan, he did still play 30 games in the league last year. But he is certainly a bit more injury prone.
Anyhow I think Watkins has periods where he goes hot and cold, whereas Isak always seems to be dangerous in the game. There aren’t many strikers who can create their own chances in the way Isak can and in general he’s a more complete player. Should get better once we sign a better RW and have a high quality midfield available this season.
I'd say for Wolves, I'd take Watkins, because his running seems to suit our style of play, and he's homegrown. However, both are great strikers that are definitely real assets to their clubs.
Isak is 24 and Watkins is 28.
If you sign Watkins it's going to cost maybe £70M-80M in todays market to get a striker of his record. You'll sign him for 5 years at least but once players go past that 30 mark the resale value goes down a lot for a lot of players. That means you'll have a lot less money to reinvest and your squad value in the long term will drop as a result.
If Newcastle were willing to sell Isak instead of putting a "fuck off" price on him then you're maybe looking at £90M-100M. He will be in his 20s still by the time his contract expires so his resale value isn't going to diminish. You could eventually sell him for a similar amount or more and put it back into the squad.
Retaining squad value in the long term has to be a priority for any club in their transfers because with psr/ffp it will be harder to build it back up than to maintain the highest value you can.
If you are a club in a position where immediate success is likely with a little more extra then Watkins could be a decent enough investment because you could regain the future lost value through prize money. However Isak still offers a similar level of quality so even in this regard hes going to be a better choice financially.
Yeah, he's a lateish bloomer. Didn't play in the PL until we signed him at 24, he was a winger until 2019-20 at Brentford too. We signed him on the back of that shift to centre forward when he scored 25 in the Championship.
The bloke has worked his way up the leagues, started with League Two Exeter, had a loan at Conference South Weston-Super-Mare, moved to Championship Brentford, then (hopefully,) finally Villa.
Isak, but im heavily biased. Lets be honest if you wernt a toon or villa fan and your club signed either you'd be made up. Wish we saw more of watkins in these euros though
I’d say take absolutely everything into account here…
Age, (perceived) market value, ability, (potential) value to your club, experience, overall team contribution, injury record etc…
Assuming they can both stay fit the whole season, Isak, easily too imo.
If you're getting what they gave this last season, which accounts for the fact that Watkins was fit and available for pretty much the whole season, you'd take the contribution of Watkins. Because it wins you more points.
Isak's 24, so that and the fact that I think he's a better overall player trumps him being more injury prone if I were to sign one.
As a biased Villa fan; I love Ollie and have for years so it's going to have to be him.
Taking off my claret and blue glasses for a second; all other things being equal (Wage, Transfer fee etc.) I think who you'd want comes down to who else you already have; Ollie's older but barely misses a game and Isak's younger but has already shown an concerning injury record (which I hope he can put behind him) - both are absolutely a similar level of ability and separating them will essentially boil down to preference rather than ability (imo)
If you can afford to miss a player of that quality for 10 games a season, then I'd go Isak - he's at the same quality as Ollie despite being 4/5 years younger so it's amazing to think where he could be in a few more years. But if you need someone who will be hardworking and reliable **right now** then I'd go Ollie but with the obvious understanding you'll probably need to start looking at a replacement in 4+ years time
People answer this question differently based on how they view it.
If I was signing one now on a 4 year contract - it’s obviously Isak. He will go to the top and in a great team will do wonders.
If I was a midtable team and had both and had a huge game this weekend but could only pick one to play - I’d give Watkins the edge. In my opinion - he is more complete, and improves a team more than Isak does. Isak is a deadlier finisher, but think Watkins edges him in his all round game (currently)
‘On the ball’ as in dribbling? Yes, I agree Isak is better. He is a better ‘pure’ footballer; technique, shooting, dribbling.
There are other facets to playing as a striker… physicality, movement, all round hold up play, aerial ability, defensively with pressing etc as well. Watkins is better than Isak at all of this and all probably contributed to how Watkins finished top of the assists chart with 13, compared to Isaks 3.
Plus I obviously rate Isak, I literally said I’d sign him with the chance of either.
Hardly an ‘unreal take’.
I actually think they would do a great job playing together. I'm a villa fan so I will always pick ollie because he was outstanding last year and to be honest, he seems like a really lovely guy.
Ollie has missed maybe 2 games through injuries in the past 3 years. I think that's massive. You would expect someone with his build, pace etc to pick up way more muscle injuries, but to be honest, even when he's had those, he's played through them. Was injured before the ajax home game, scored, game done, off early.
I really like isak too, I'd say from a stylistic point of view, he's one of the more watchable footballers in the league. Was super impressed in that euros before he came to England, and when he's been fit, he's a joy to watch. Great control, good finisher, got flair, a bit of pace, physical enough when he needs to be. Great player.
I like the fans of both teams are backing their guy
Isak will always look to get a shot away on goal if he can, he just finds a way
there's a sense of inevitability when he gets the ball that he will do something dangerous with it
if he can just stay fit and available, he can be one of the best around
It’s difficult to compare players without having watched them both live in person in a range of different games, and TV gives you a limited view. So I am comparing one player I know well with another I see on TV. Ollie is the complete team player, sometimes to his own detriment. He is an excellent instinctive striker, who on occasion can get a bit snatchy if the service gets very sparse. It’s a mindset he still works on, and an understandable response. You keep the service up and he will create and finish all day long. In those conditions he is world class. Obviously those conditions don’t exist at England, and after we lost Kamara, he didn’t get as much service at Villa. If he had, I don’t think we would be having this discussion. His team play and temperament brings out the best in others too. I’ve been very impressed by Isak from afar, and at 24 might yet improve still further, which I would enjoy watching, so let’s see next season.
As a neutral, numbers wise they’re incredibly similar, as in goals scored
But I’d rather have Isak any day, he has that bit of magic about him, more technically gifted etc, he’s easier on the eye to watch and makes the game more exciting.
Plus he’s younger so could only get better
The quality of Isaks’ finishing is just so good it’s a genuine surprise if he fails to score and I don’t doubt that he is going to get better. Defo Isak for me.
Villa fan here. I would give Isak the edge here. I think overall a better quality forward in terms of ability and is younger so still not yet at his peak whereas I think Ollie probably is peaking currently. One area that people might overlook is injury record. Ollie is incredibly durable (touch wood) and you can generally rely on him to play almost every game and rarely needs resting.
I’d go for Watkins just because you know you can rely on him.
Isak has had too many injuries so far to be worth the gamble.
I do believe Isak has a higher ceiling, is a better player when fit and is much younger but I’d still go for Watkins
The reality is that depressing.
This is what capitalism has done to the sport, and it’s just…. Sad.
It doesn’t have to be this way, but it will stay this way unless we can make sufficient changes in society and political process. I’d like to believe that’s possible, but I’m also far from convinced it’s going to get any better.
Edit: ooops I forgot this was supposed to be a friendly discussion. I went and brought my world weary cynicism where it wasn’t needed.
As a Man Utd fan I would take either of them , but for myself personally I prefer Isak he has some serious skills and Newcastle will do well to keep him
As a Newcastle fan, I'm inclined to say Isak, but only if he stays fit all season. The worry for us is that he's made of glass.
If we're after a striker that's fit all season. Give me Watkins, and we'll give you Callum Wilson.
Watkins had a good season. Isak looks like he's got a higher ceiling. Isak for me
As a Villa fan, I’m happy with Watkins. I hope that next year he can push past the 20+ goal mark and hopefully help us win a long overdue trophy. It’s been almost 70 years since the last time we won the FA Cup, so that’s my preference. It would return us to Europe next season as well, regardless of our performance in the League so helps us continue to build on that front too. Isak is also an incredible player, and due to youth could easily surpass Watkins. He’s not a Villa player though, so I’ve gotta be happy with the player who already shows a willingness to bleed for the club, hopefully for many seasons to come.
Good to see both sets of fans seem to be backing their own. As a Newcastle fan, Isak is probably my favourite player of the last 10 years, so I'd definitely choose him. I think he has a higher ceiling and some of the things he does is so unpredictable, I can't believe we have a player of his calibre. That being said, Watkins is also a great player and is more dependable injury-wise.
The argument I always use when backing Isak is that if you asked the manager of any big club to build an ideal striker, almost every one of them would build a player very similar to Isak. I’m not saying this means Isak is the best in the world but his size, speed, technical ability, how clinical he is in front of goal. He’s the ideal mould of an elite striker.
As a Villa fan, Watkins had a great season and I’m one of his biggest fans although he can go missing for long periods of time his numbers don’t lie and no penalty goals either. I don’t watch many Newcastle games but Isak looks like a complete striker when I have seen him.
>no penalty goals either. I'll never get behind the argument of taking away penalty goals or celebrating a player having none. Its a coveted skill that wins games. Obviously you want goal threat other than penalties for a striker but its not a reason to dismiss penalties entirely. With Luiz gone now as well then surely Watkins is going to take all the Villa pens so you must want him to be good at them. Edit: Yeah downvote me all you want but you'll still celebrate your players when they get penalties and count them as goals especially when they win you games. If you talk about goal involvements and then are ruling out penalties as nothing then you're calling assists more important than penalties scored? Its nonsense.
That is the wrong way to look at it. Villa fans often mention no penalty goals because if he did take them his numbers would be insane (even taking into account his poor penalty record). Palmers scoring this season was less impressive because a bulk of them were penalties. Yes he's an absolute machine at them and we shouldn't take that away but penalties generally have a high chance of success. Also I still don't think Watkins will be on penalties with Luiz gone. Itll be Tielemans
>Villa fans often mention no penalty goals because if he did take them his numbers would be insane (even taking into account his poor penalty record). I dont think I've ever seen Villa fans "often" mention it. This is actually the 1st time Ive seen a Villa fan mention it like that. I disagree with it because of course you'll celebrate him scoring penalties and count them as goals when it wins you games. >Palmers scoring this season was less impressive because a bulk of them were penalties. He had 9 penalties overall and 25 goals total for Chelsea across all comps. 27 goals total including the ones he had for for the few early season games at Man City. Very good return from the wing along with all his assists which took him to 40 goal involvements for Chelsea and 42 overall including the few games with Man City. Even if for some silly reason you take away the 9 pens but counted assists more than penalties for goal involvements then he would have had 33 goal involvements at 1 every 113 mins. So overall it's stilll massive.
Palmer's scoring was less impressive than scoring 27 non penalty goals would've been. But his 18 non penalty goals (or 13 if you're just looking at the league) is still very impressive for a player in his position, given his minutes and age/experience. It gets a bit annoying when people start downplaying the season of whoever's scored the most pens, but that's like the only player in the league that they take pens away from. Like people will point out Palmer's pens every time because he's scored 9, but every player that's scored 4, 5, 6 etc just gets their stats treated as normal. I believe in pointing out when a great finisher who hasn't been on pens isn't on them (e.g. like people often do for Suarez 13/14, Drogba 09/10 etc), but I don't agree with dissecting the goals of people who do take them. Because people just don't apply that thinking fairly and it ends up with one guy (like Palmer this season, or Haaland last season, or Bruno in previous seasons etc) getting dog piled on, and then every other guy who scores about 5 pens gets their stats treated as normal. Again, well worth pointing out when a Watkins or Foden doesn't take pens, to highlight just how impressive their records are. But then giving disclaimers every time Palmer's goals get brought up is a bit unfair, because people don't do the same thing for players like Salah or Saka. If you actually go and provide a list of the top open play goalscorers, or best finishers by xG overperformance, that's different. But usually it just ends up with "Penaldo", "Penandes", "Pole Palmer" etc.
It doesn't have zero value, but when you're talking about a goal scorer's worth, penalty goals obviously don't count the same as goals from open play. Penalty taking is obviously a skill, but it's not a required skill for a striker. You wouldn't start a striker just because they were good at penalties. On the other hand, you would absolutely start a striker like Watkins who is shit at penalties, but really good at being a striker. Watkins won't be taking pens for Villa next season, he is shit at them and why put extra pressure on him to do something he isn't good at rather than letting him be relaxed and concentrate on things he is good at. The reason to discount it, is that if you have someone on your team that is good at pens, that's all that matters. It's not a requirement of a good goal scorer and doesn't tell you how effective a goal scorer is. You can't count on penalty kicks either and there tends to be a large disparity in how they are awarded.
Watkins, he's English and Dyche likes em English
Up the toffees
Isak scored more in fewer appearances- 21 in 30 vs 19 in 37- but Isak also scored 5 penalties, while Watkins didn't take any league penalties. So off last season alone, they're more or less even. Then you look at assists, and 2 vs 13 is no comparison (although Isak would have more assists if key passes were going to players like Bailey and Diaby instead of Longstaff and Almiron). But going beyond stats, Villa were pretty much good all season, while Newcastle were terrible once the injury crisis hit and though things improved, we never really got back to our best. To do what Isak did in a struggling team makes it all the more impressive. Isak is the better dribbler, FAR more clinical finisher (59 shots/39 on target/21 goals vs 83/46/19), 5" taller, 4 years younger, and still a few years away from his prime. Would love to hear a case for why a non Newcastle/Villa fan would prefer Watkins. I rate both highly but it's an easy, albeit biased, choice for me.
Watkins is WAY better looking.
if we're eating chocolate... then the darker the berry, the sweeter the juice or however that saying goes 🍫💦
Username checks out
I'm a villa fan and I love Watkins, it's not just his ability but his whole attitude is perfect. He's a workhorse, super fit, rarely injured, completely grounded, a team player that is now also scoring loads of goals. If he was better at penalties he'd be elite. That said I really like Isak, I think he's absolutely class so as long as his attitude and injury record is ok (don't know enough about him to comment on either) I'd happily swap them (not that I think that's a remote possibility of course)
There are plenty of games where you do need to be able to carry Isak around. His hold up play is pretty much non-existent - often he seems to almost deliberately stand miles away from where the clearance will go. But I think Isak is far more likely to create something out of nothing, and he's absolutely lethal in front of goal. You won't see him for 60 minutes, he gets 1 chance, he scores. A bit like Aguero used to be (though he's not at that level yet)
Wouldn’t say Villa were good all season, we felt the impact of our own injuries late on, just probably not as badly crippled
Injury record. Most teams second striker isn't anywhere near as good. Watkins is never injured. I do rate both and the age of Isak does help but that also makes his injury record all the more worrying.
If I needed one season I’d go Watkins for the simple reason he doesn’t get hurt and Isak has missed time from injury. But I think if healthy Isak is probably the more complete player. Some of his dribbling is just impressive.
Surprised to hear that from a Newcastle fan, he did still play 30 games in the league last year. But he is certainly a bit more injury prone. Anyhow I think Watkins has periods where he goes hot and cold, whereas Isak always seems to be dangerous in the game. There aren’t many strikers who can create their own chances in the way Isak can and in general he’s a more complete player. Should get better once we sign a better RW and have a high quality midfield available this season.
With Wilson also having injuries and no third choice, we really felt Isak's absence. I'd still take Isak every day of the week but I'm biased.
I'd say for Wolves, I'd take Watkins, because his running seems to suit our style of play, and he's homegrown. However, both are great strikers that are definitely real assets to their clubs.
Isak
Isak
Isak is 24 and Watkins is 28. If you sign Watkins it's going to cost maybe £70M-80M in todays market to get a striker of his record. You'll sign him for 5 years at least but once players go past that 30 mark the resale value goes down a lot for a lot of players. That means you'll have a lot less money to reinvest and your squad value in the long term will drop as a result. If Newcastle were willing to sell Isak instead of putting a "fuck off" price on him then you're maybe looking at £90M-100M. He will be in his 20s still by the time his contract expires so his resale value isn't going to diminish. You could eventually sell him for a similar amount or more and put it back into the squad. Retaining squad value in the long term has to be a priority for any club in their transfers because with psr/ffp it will be harder to build it back up than to maintain the highest value you can. If you are a club in a position where immediate success is likely with a little more extra then Watkins could be a decent enough investment because you could regain the future lost value through prize money. However Isak still offers a similar level of quality so even in this regard hes going to be a better choice financially.
What a depressing way to look at it all.
Yep but thats realistically the state of things with psr/ffp now.
Watkins is 28?!?! I thought he was like 22-23!
Yeah, he's a lateish bloomer. Didn't play in the PL until we signed him at 24, he was a winger until 2019-20 at Brentford too. We signed him on the back of that shift to centre forward when he scored 25 in the Championship. The bloke has worked his way up the leagues, started with League Two Exeter, had a loan at Conference South Weston-Super-Mare, moved to Championship Brentford, then (hopefully,) finally Villa.
Isak, but im heavily biased. Lets be honest if you wernt a toon or villa fan and your club signed either you'd be made up. Wish we saw more of watkins in these euros though
Isak
I’d say take absolutely everything into account here… Age, (perceived) market value, ability, (potential) value to your club, experience, overall team contribution, injury record etc…
I'm obviously biased but right now I think Watkins is better, but Isak is 24 so will likely overtake Watkkns at some point
Assuming they can both stay fit the whole season, Isak, easily too imo. If you're getting what they gave this last season, which accounts for the fact that Watkins was fit and available for pretty much the whole season, you'd take the contribution of Watkins. Because it wins you more points. Isak's 24, so that and the fact that I think he's a better overall player trumps him being more injury prone if I were to sign one.
Having watched him rise up through Exeter’s side, I’d have a bias in picking Watkins.
Watkins doesn't get hurt and definitely had the better season. Potential wise Isak has a much higher ceiling
Isak
Isak all day long
Isak
As a biased Villa fan; I love Ollie and have for years so it's going to have to be him. Taking off my claret and blue glasses for a second; all other things being equal (Wage, Transfer fee etc.) I think who you'd want comes down to who else you already have; Ollie's older but barely misses a game and Isak's younger but has already shown an concerning injury record (which I hope he can put behind him) - both are absolutely a similar level of ability and separating them will essentially boil down to preference rather than ability (imo) If you can afford to miss a player of that quality for 10 games a season, then I'd go Isak - he's at the same quality as Ollie despite being 4/5 years younger so it's amazing to think where he could be in a few more years. But if you need someone who will be hardworking and reliable **right now** then I'd go Ollie but with the obvious understanding you'll probably need to start looking at a replacement in 4+ years time
People answer this question differently based on how they view it. If I was signing one now on a 4 year contract - it’s obviously Isak. He will go to the top and in a great team will do wonders. If I was a midtable team and had both and had a huge game this weekend but could only pick one to play - I’d give Watkins the edge. In my opinion - he is more complete, and improves a team more than Isak does. Isak is a deadlier finisher, but think Watkins edges him in his all round game (currently)
[удалено]
‘On the ball’ as in dribbling? Yes, I agree Isak is better. He is a better ‘pure’ footballer; technique, shooting, dribbling. There are other facets to playing as a striker… physicality, movement, all round hold up play, aerial ability, defensively with pressing etc as well. Watkins is better than Isak at all of this and all probably contributed to how Watkins finished top of the assists chart with 13, compared to Isaks 3. Plus I obviously rate Isak, I literally said I’d sign him with the chance of either. Hardly an ‘unreal take’.
I actually think they would do a great job playing together. I'm a villa fan so I will always pick ollie because he was outstanding last year and to be honest, he seems like a really lovely guy. Ollie has missed maybe 2 games through injuries in the past 3 years. I think that's massive. You would expect someone with his build, pace etc to pick up way more muscle injuries, but to be honest, even when he's had those, he's played through them. Was injured before the ajax home game, scored, game done, off early. I really like isak too, I'd say from a stylistic point of view, he's one of the more watchable footballers in the league. Was super impressed in that euros before he came to England, and when he's been fit, he's a joy to watch. Great control, good finisher, got flair, a bit of pace, physical enough when he needs to be. Great player. I like the fans of both teams are backing their guy
Isak will always look to get a shot away on goal if he can, he just finds a way there's a sense of inevitability when he gets the ball that he will do something dangerous with it if he can just stay fit and available, he can be one of the best around
It’s difficult to compare players without having watched them both live in person in a range of different games, and TV gives you a limited view. So I am comparing one player I know well with another I see on TV. Ollie is the complete team player, sometimes to his own detriment. He is an excellent instinctive striker, who on occasion can get a bit snatchy if the service gets very sparse. It’s a mindset he still works on, and an understandable response. You keep the service up and he will create and finish all day long. In those conditions he is world class. Obviously those conditions don’t exist at England, and after we lost Kamara, he didn’t get as much service at Villa. If he had, I don’t think we would be having this discussion. His team play and temperament brings out the best in others too. I’ve been very impressed by Isak from afar, and at 24 might yet improve still further, which I would enjoy watching, so let’s see next season.
Watkins, I hate Isak
Watkins. I love his running. Isak probably a better finisher but so many chances are created from Watkins's movement alone.
As a neutral, numbers wise they’re incredibly similar, as in goals scored But I’d rather have Isak any day, he has that bit of magic about him, more technically gifted etc, he’s easier on the eye to watch and makes the game more exciting. Plus he’s younger so could only get better
Watkins. Isaks faster and probably a bit better one on one but Watkins is way more versatile and if needs be can even play on the wing
So can Isak, did you not see him run around Everton.
Isak more technically gifted, Watkins more athletic
Pick Isak barely
Isak is clearly the more talented. But Watkin's has the durability- which is arguably more important than anything.
As a Villa fan we already have one Ollie Watkins, so I think we'll have another one. Thank you.
The quality of Isaks’ finishing is just so good it’s a genuine surprise if he fails to score and I don’t doubt that he is going to get better. Defo Isak for me.
Watkins, just look at the amount of assists he has.
Villa fan here. I would give Isak the edge here. I think overall a better quality forward in terms of ability and is younger so still not yet at his peak whereas I think Ollie probably is peaking currently. One area that people might overlook is injury record. Ollie is incredibly durable (touch wood) and you can generally rely on him to play almost every game and rarely needs resting.
I’d go for Watkins just because you know you can rely on him. Isak has had too many injuries so far to be worth the gamble. I do believe Isak has a higher ceiling, is a better player when fit and is much younger but I’d still go for Watkins
Isak and I really like Watkins. Isak can take over a match all on his own.
Watkins is in his prime now, Isak has a few years before he reaches his peak, so I’ll take Watkins today, Isak in ~3 years
This is a silly point to make as Isak is already better than Watkins and hasn’t even peaked yet. So you obviously take Isak.
The reality is that depressing. This is what capitalism has done to the sport, and it’s just…. Sad. It doesn’t have to be this way, but it will stay this way unless we can make sufficient changes in society and political process. I’d like to believe that’s possible, but I’m also far from convinced it’s going to get any better. Edit: ooops I forgot this was supposed to be a friendly discussion. I went and brought my world weary cynicism where it wasn’t needed.
You ok mate?
Fiercely debatable.
Isak unless my medical team has concerns
Unless that medical team works for Newcastle, then you'll not only buy Isak but his legs will explode on a fortnightly basis for no reason at all.
As a Man Utd fan I would take either of them , but for myself personally I prefer Isak he has some serious skills and Newcastle will do well to keep him
Watkins Isak looks like a guy that comes off the flank as opposed to a number 9. Both would be a great partnership
Isak and it's not even close, one of the best forwards in the world
Easily Isak
Isak couldn't do the hold up Watkins does. Watkins for tactics. Isak for penalties. That's for us anyway.
I read isak as isagi
As a Newcastle fan, I'm inclined to say Isak, but only if he stays fit all season. The worry for us is that he's made of glass. If we're after a striker that's fit all season. Give me Watkins, and we'll give you Callum Wilson.
Isak
Not watkins
Isak. Forgive me Ollie!