When we brought in Alexander Isak, we didn’t actually buy the best striker in Europe | OneFootball

No individual at Newcastle United is bigger than the club. That’s what they keep telling us.

A few years ago I interviewed for, and was lucky enough to get, a much better position within the company I was already working for.

I would no longer be doing shift work and, being overseas, it came with quite a considerable hike in tax-free salary, and a move from a company provided two bedroom apartment of the “couldn’t swing a cat” school of architecture, to a nice spacious villa, with a mere six steps to traverse daily, rather than the previous 18 floor journey in what was often a rather aromatic lift.

We had the obligatory farewell do, during which Chas, who was by then my ex-boss, was asked, “so what are you going to do for a Deputy now that Jordi’s not going to be there to do all your work for you?”

Without missing a beat Chas replied, “I trained one monkey, I’ll just train another one.”

Believe me when I say this is not just delayed venting. This becomes relevant further down the page.

When Alexander Isak arrived from Real Sociedad for a record Toon fee, my immediate response was, “who?”, closely followed by “how much?”

If I’m perfectly honest that was pretty much the standard response garnered by most of Howe’s incoming transfers, with the possible exception of Trippier.

I’d actually heard of him!

You see, I’m a dyed in the wool Toon fan, and have been for decades, but I’m not an aficionado of the European scene, so when players were coming in from clubs like Lille, Lyon, Real Sociedad and AC Milan, “who?” was pretty much the default reaction.

And it didn’t help matters when the Real wasn’t Madrid and the Milan wasn’t Inter!

During Eddie’s first nine months in charge transfers made me feel like a kid who had just been given a Christmas present he wasn’t particularly impressed with.

Was I going to like it, or was it just going to be just another cheap stocking filler?

Turns out Eddie Howe knew what he was doing.

When we brought in Alexander Isak, we didn’t actually buy the best striker in Europe.

What we bought was a decent striker with potential.

And I think we all have to admit that at the time we all thought we had overpaid.

We bought the ingredients, then Eddie and his backroom team had to turn those ingredients into a cake.

Okay, admittedly, with the help of 20/20 hindsight it would appear that this particular cake may have only been half baked, but it was still a tasty cake!

Let’s not take anything away from Isak here, well, from a technical perspective at least.

It’s not like he didn’t contribute.

You can’t turn just any player into one of the best in Europe. The basics have to be there to begin with.

So let’s get back to my little reminiscence of a few inches back up the page.

While I certainly wouldn’t compare myself to Isak – though we do have similar ears – Eddie’s mission now will be the same as it was then, and the same as that of my less than generous ex-boss Chas, in as much as he and his team now have to use their talents to “just train another one!”

If you look back at that “first one” – Isak – prior to joining us from Real Sociedad his goal scoring record was less than impressive, and there was nothing about him that even hinted that he would become as prolific – and valuable – as he did.

If we’re honest that’s probably why, at the time, there wasn’t a lot of competition for him, but that doesn’t explain why we paid so much for him. The dreaded PIF tax possibly?

But anyway, Howe and Co saw something.

I must admit to being confused by our recent efforts at recruitment.

Whereas Howe had previously brought in obviously talented players (that I’d never heard of) with potential, and moulded them to play his way, back in July we suddenly seemed to be swinging for the fence.

Trying to buy the finished article.

Maybe aiming just a bit too high?

What was the driver for the change of business model?

Was it because back then we had to aim a bit lower, because few players saw the vision, or had the faith in Howe?

Back to Isak.

His goal tally in La Liga for the season 21-22 was “played 32, scored six” – hardly stats that would have you running out and breaking the bank to buy him, but as I said, Eddie and Co saw something.

Last season, Nick Woltemade managed 17 goals in 33 appearances for Stuttgart.

Statistically it would appear that the giant German, roughly the same age as the Swede was, comes in as a better striker.

If I’m actually going anywhere with this, it might be to outrageously suggest that maybe, with the significantly better ingredients as a starting point, we might end up with a better cake, depending of course on what the baker can do with it.

It may be that Woltemade is further on in his development than Isak was at that age, and the improvements that Howe and Co can realise may not be on a par with those made with Isak, but as I see it there’s nothing to be concerned about moving forward.

Eddie Howe has realised such huge improvements in so many players, it’s almost boring talking about it now!

Remember the bit at the beginning – no individual is bigger than the club?

Alexander Isak is gone and I’m sure we all believe that history will show the above to be true in his case.

He has been replaced, and yes, the quality of that replacement is yet to be determined.

But he has been replaced.

As for throwing Yoane Wissa into the equation, I have no desire to in any way try to tarnish the legacy of Wilson’s time at the club, so let’s just accept that his replacement is coming in with a significantly better fitness record.

With Isak and Wilson, we mostly played just one or the other up front, primarily because both rarely seemed to be fit at the same time. Woldemade and Wissa, however, both appear to be much less prone to injury so our options with regard to actually playing two strikers up front together seem to be greatly improved. Note; Don’t try knocking on wood with crossed fingers. It hurts.

While we may have paid well over the odds for two strikers, at least we got those two strikers in, and the Newcastle United owners didn’t balk at paying the money when it was absolutely necessary, which it was.

I’m sure we all had an uncomfortable last couple of days in the transfer window envisioning trying to get through what could be 60 plus games with just a single senior striker.

The whole Alexander Isak saga grew very tiresome very quickly, not helped by the vague nature of his statement, attempting to justify his stance.

Trying to look at it from a more neutral viewpoint, if a player signs a six year contract, that should mean something, but the change in Isak’s on-pitch performance seemed almost exponential, and maybe the club could have cut him off at the pass with a decent pay rise much earlier.

All the comments about promises being made? I would guess that was about salary and not a move. The club missed the boat there.

I have heard Isak’s behaviour compared to that of the club ditching Elliot Anderson to Forest with a number of years left on his contract. But it’s fine for the club to do that? Just saying.

Revisiting the six year contract thing – two of those contracts  and a player’s career is effectively over. If you are going to maximise your earnings potential you have to be moving between clubs long before that pesky inconvenient contract expires.

Surely Liverpool can see the irony of giving him a contract that is the same length as the one he was so quick to threaten to just rip up with us?

If they have any sense his new club have written some pretty brutal clauses into the new contract.