Ricky

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

I''d wager that RvW will never be a regular scorer and will soon be a forgotten man (if he isn''t already).The fact is that after 3 years, 3 clubs, 5 managers and 3 different leagues he still fails to perform.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Wes Hooly Fan"]I''d wager that RvW will never be a regular scorer and will soon be a forgotten man (if he isn''t already).The fact is that after 3 years, 3 clubs, 5 managers and 3 different leagues he still fails to perform. [/quote]

So scoring two goals in a competitive game is failing to perform. I see....

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

So if Ricky was just to score 2 goals this season would you class that as a success?Would you class 1 goal in 26 Premier League games good?His record in France wasn''t much cop either.These goalscoring stats could be excused if he offered anything else. Which he doesn''t. The  biggest contribution he''s made to us is selling a few shirts and being the poster boy of an embarrassing marketing campaign.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Wes Hooly Fan"]So if Ricky was just to score 2 goals this season would you class that as a success?Would you class 1 goal in 26 Premier League games good?His record in France wasn''t much cop either.These goalscoring stats could be excused if he offered anything else. Which he doesn''t. The  biggest contribution he''s made to us is selling a few shirts and being the poster boy of an embarrassing marketing campaign.[/quote]

No, his record was not good, but you said "he still fails to perform".  After last night that is an inaccurate statement.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

One swallow doesn''t make a summer mate.I he scores a few more by the end of the season I''ll come back and admit I''m wrong.

[grefstad 0]

RvW was a bad purchase, yes. And I guess it did cost the chief scout his job.

No other teams were interested at the time, at the price quoted, so it is fair to assume our scouts saw something others failed to do...

The signing was made worse by the fact that he was not suited to play as a lone striker, when this was Hughton''s favoured system.

I still think RvW got goals in him, but he is heavily reliant on good service, and he did not get it here.

I have not checked on his loans in France and now in Spain, but I guess he has not had a lot of game time (at least not in Spain), but he did play a bit in St.Etienne.

He seems to fit into an attacking 4-3-3 setup, but few teams play this way nowadays.

French football is all about wing play, so should fit RvW quite good, but it did not, and his failures in the last seasons must be more than just a confidence thing.

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="grefstad"]RvW was a bad purchase, yes. And I guess it did cost the chief scout his job.

No other teams were interested at the time, at the price quoted, so it is fair to assume our scouts saw something others failed to do...

The signing was made worse by the fact that he was not suited to play as a lone striker, when this was Hughton''s favoured system.

I still think RvW got goals in him, but he is heavily reliant on good service, and he did not get it here.

I have not checked on his loans in France and now in Spain, but I guess he has not had a lot of game time (at least not in Spain), but he did play a bit in St.Etienne.

He seems to fit into an attacking 4-3-3 setup, but few teams play this way nowadays.

French football is all about wing play, so should fit RvW quite good, but it did not, and his failures in the last seasons must be more than just a confidence thing.[/quote]I''m not sure whether you are being sarcastic there, but I think the truth is not that Hughton saw something others did not. It was that others saw much more clearly than he did that van Wolfswinkel was only a pure goalscorer (and possibly not even a good enough one at the top level) in an era when such players are out of fashion, not just with us but generally, and that it would be a vain hope to expect him to fit into current systems. If, as seems likely, Hughton believed he could play as a lone striker (leaving aside the question of whether he would be out of his depth in a top-five league) then that only emphasises the flawed thinking behind the transfer.If you had taken the trouble to check you would have found that van Wolfswinkel did have plenty of game time (he started or came on in 35 games) in France, in Ligue Un, in the Coupe de France, the Coupe de Ligue and the Europa League. By the end he was sometimes (as now in Spain) an unused substitute.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="grefstad"]RvW was a bad purchase, yes. And I guess it did cost the chief scout his job. No other teams were interested at the time, at the price quoted, so it is fair to assume our scouts saw something others failed to do... The signing was made worse by the fact that he was not suited to play as a lone striker, when this was Hughton''s favoured system. I still think RvW got goals in him, but he is heavily reliant on good service, and he did not get it here. I have not checked on his loans in France and now in Spain, but I guess he has not had a lot of game time (at least not in Spain), but he did play a bit in St.Etienne. He seems to fit into an attacking 4-3-3 setup, but few teams play this way nowadays. French football is all about wing play, so should fit RvW quite good, but it did not, and his failures in the last seasons must be more than just a confidence thing.[/quote]

I''m not sure whether you are being sarcastic there, but I think the truth is not that Hughton saw something others did not. It was that others saw much more clearly than he did that van Wolfswinkel was only a pure goalscorer (and possibly not even a good enough one at the top level) in an era when such players are out of fashion, not just with us but generally, and that it would be a vain hope to expect him to fit into current systems.

If, as seems likely, Hughton believed he could play as a lone striker (leaving aside the question of whether he would be out of his depth in a top-five league) then that only emphasises the flawed thinking behind the transfer.

If you had taken the trouble to check you would have found that van Wolfswinkel did have plenty of game time (he started or came on in 35 games) in France, in Ligue Un, in the Coupe de France, the Coupe de Ligue and the Europa League. By the end he was sometimes (as now in Spain) an unused substitute.
[/quote]

 

Greffy gets stats wrong.

 

 

[Katie Borkins 1]

I think we need to recall Ricky and sign Rafael van der Vaart.  He seems to be getting the best out of "Winky".

Let''s see what he can do in the Seville derby today.

Ricky van Wolfswinkel had a good three months waiting for his first goals in the service of Real Betis, but that did not diminish the joy.With two goals, the Dutchman helped his club on Tuesday for the eighth finals in the tournament for the Copa del Rey.

Rafael van der Vaart took the assist for his account with the first goal of Dutch origin.No coincidence, Van Wolfswinkel said afterwards on the club. "We do not often come together in action, but we have a good click."

The striker was speaking after the 3-3 draw of a perfect evening. "It was hard, because Gijón has a good team." Nevertheless Gijon in Seville was already passed out 2-0 in the next game, so a draw was enough for Betis.

The goals will come for Van Wolfswinkel, who only came to four appearances in the Spanish league, as called. Saturday awaits the city of Seville derby. Number eleven Betis takes in-house against the city rivals, which is seventh in the Primera Liga. Van Wolfswinkel not venture a prediction. "It''s an important game for us. I do not know what to expect, but a derby always lives with the players and supporters. "

[grefstad 0]

Ricky coming on for Betis now. 70 mins played. Feisty derby, still 0-0

[TIL 1010 4,746]

It ended 0-0.

[Katie Borkins 1]

If Ricky had started then they would have won. I can prove this using ''distance run" statistics.

[hogesar 9,672]

Can you imagine if we had RvW upfront instead of Jerome today?

Even with the current lacklustre United we''d have lost 4-0. The people on the Facebook pages etc who pine for ricky to come back just quite simply do not understand football.

[grefstad 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]Can you imagine if we had RvW upfront instead of Jerome today?

Even with the current lacklustre United we''d have lost 4-0. The people on the Facebook pages etc who pine for ricky to come back just quite simply do not understand football.[/quote]

Easy picking, eh?

Jerome did well, but since others did not play, we do not know how well they would eventually have done. Maybe won 3-1 instead of 2-1?

[grefstad 0]

[quote user="Bor"]If Ricky had started then they would have won. I can prove this using ''distance run" statistics.[/quote]

Deluded must be your middle name. Useless the surname.

[A Load of Squit 5,164]

[quote user="grefstad"][quote user="Bor"]If Ricky had started then they would have won. I can prove this using ''distance run" statistics.[/quote]

Deluded must be your middle name. Useless the surname.[/quote]

This looks like a ''smug oneliner'', I thought you were better than that!

[Samwam27 527]

If he''s such a forgotten man, why are people on here obsessed about talking about him.

As for different leagues, different managers, and he never gets played, sounds like Laffs all over again (but the latter at least scores at international level)

As for he only scores against poor defending (and premier goalies would have saved them), Man U had been tight defensively at home, yet Tettey''s goal was a toe punt, and Jermomes was straight at DeGea (who many argue is a great keeper) and he saved neither!

A goal is a goal. He wasn''t played to his strengths here, and no-one but no-one played well that season (crickey Hoops was our top goalscorer that season and we all know what everyone on here thinks about him)

If he''s forgotten let him stay forgotten and lets move on!