McCormack wants to join us and fee agreed with fulham

[Indy 3,288]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Selling Hooper was a mistake although Neil never really used him and no manager found a way to use him effectively so it was perhaps that which was more the mistake.

That does not mean that we should not sign MCCormack in the position we are in now. Yes he is perhaps slightly over priced but we are in the fortunate position where we only really need strengthening in one key area and need to get the best players at this level we can.[/quote]

And statistics point to Hooper!

What makes anyone think McCormack would be any different to Hoopers time here? It''s a desperate gamble, just because Fulham payed way over the odds doesn''t mean we should!

I really can''t find one positive given the money quoted and having sold a younger, better player in the same style for a quarter of the price 6 months ago!

It''s bonkers!

[Paul101 93]

Iam sorry but you made me login for the firstime for months

your whole Hooper theory is shot down by him being a pile of lazy crap when he played here

been watching vids of Ross and they are not the same type of player in any way shape or form

[Yellowbeagle 0]

Currently regardless of what happens, should Jerome get injured we would be in big trouble. We need a like for like player in the squad. If that happens and we get McCormack fine but if we just get McCormack and Jerome gets injured we are really going to struggle, MCormack is nt gong to lead the line. No 1 priority should have been to bring a centre forward in who can operate upfront on his own or in a two even if that player seems at first to be just a squad player (pretty much how lots of us saw Jerome when he first signed).

[Indy 3,288]

[quote user="Paul101"]Iam sorry but you made me login for the firstime for months

your whole Hooper theory is shot down by him being a pile of lazy crap when he played here

been watching vids of Ross and they are not the same type of player in any way shape or form[/quote]

Yes they are! And last seasons stats are above to prove Hooper is better!

Still don''t let your dislike of a player get in the way of facts.

Watch Hoopers videos during his time at Celtic, he''s just like McCormack.

[Chemical Bro 0]

We need 2 strikers

Mccormack being one and then another like like with Jerome.

It''s a long season, horses for courses and all that jazz

[Common Sense 0]

[quote user="Indy"]Yes but Naismith couldn''t play off the shoulder of McCormack, that''s the point, the last player in his style was Hooper, a far better player IMO, he was sold, so why now buy an older version for five times the price?[/quote]

The answer is that not only does McCormack score goals but he creates an awful lot too, something Hooper rarely did. Hence McCormack is a better"all round" footballer.

[Indy_Bones 441]

I''m with Indy on this one (god, it sounds weird saying that, bit like talking to myself!).Whilst there are some differences between McCormack and Hooper (work rate, movement area etc), they are pretty similar in many other aspects, particularly in the fact that neither are big, target men style strikers, both have tended to played in either a front 2 or off a lone striker, and both have excellent scoring records in the Champs.As I already posted previously, in terms if minutes to goal ratio, Hooper was actually the better of the two players last season, was only slightly worse in terms of assists, is 2 years younger than McCormack, and when you look at their overall performance records at this level - Hooper is still ahead of McCormack with a goal to game ratio of 2.57 compared to McCormack''s 2.64!Then we point out that we sold Hooper for a QUARTER of what we''re supposedly meant to be paying Fulham for McCormack (3 mil vs 12 mil), and suddenly the whole situation looks more and more ridiculous.Yes Hooper can be lazy and McCormack has a better work rate, but neither ideally suited/suit AN''s preferred system and either way it still doesn''t address the awful lack of cover we have for Jerome in the lone striker/target man role, nor the massively inflated price that McCormack has previously gone for (and that Fulham are asking now).Let me say it again for those that might have missed it or TL:DRHOOPER HAS A BETTER SCORING RECORD THAN MCCORMACK AT THIS LEVEL, IS YOUNGER, WAS SOLD FOR A QUARTER OF WHAT FULHAM WANT FOR MCCORMACK, AND NEITHER REALLY FITS AN''S PREFERRED SYSTEM - THEREFORE ANYONE WHO THINKS SIGNING MCCORMACK IS SENSIBLE OR GOOD VALUE FOR MONEY NEEDS A DOUBLE LOBOTOMY TBH...

[Indy 3,288]

In half the time, Hooper set up 4 goals and McCormack set up 9 all season, that''s on par, so that''s not actually true!

But hey what makes people think McCormack will be a success when Hooper wasn''t here? It makes no sense to sell the same type of player 6 months ago to buy an older worse version for four times the price.

It''s like selling your Ford Focus RS then buying a two year older Focus SE for four times the price, just daft!

[Highland Canary 76]

We should never have given Hooper away for the equivalent of 76p and a bag of crisps. Other than Redmond he was the only player in the side last season who knew what a goal looked like. But I guess we can''t afford the market valuation for Hooper now.

[ron obvious 1,501]

I think the main difference between Hooper & McCormack may be attitude.

A player who doesn''t really care, doesn''t give his all, is bad news, as it can become infectious. Football is a team game, & the dynamics & interrelationships within the team are extremely important. Often players can accept others with big egos, providing they''re doing their best to win the match (Snodgrass fell into this category). Hooper too often looked like he was only interested when it was easy. And he was the flabbiest footballer I''ve ever seen.

[Samwam27 519]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]I''m with Indy on this one (god, it sounds weird saying that, bit like talking to myself!).Whilst there are some differences between McCormack and Hooper (work rate, movement area etc), they are pretty similar in many other aspects, particularly in the fact that neither are big, target men style strikers, both have tended to played in either a front 2 or off a lone striker, and both have excellent scoring records in the Champs.As I already posted previously, in terms if minutes to goal ratio, Hooper was actually the better of the two players last season, was only slightly worse in terms of assists, is 2 years younger than McCormack, and when you look at their overall performance records at this level - Hooper is still ahead of McCormack with a goal to game ratio of 2.57 compared to McCormack''s 2.64!Then we point out that we sold Hooper for a QUARTER of what we''re supposedly meant to be paying Fulham for McCormack (3 mil vs 12 mil), and suddenly the whole situation looks more and more ridiculous.Yes Hooper can be lazy and McCormack has a better work rate, but neither ideally suited/suit AN''s preferred system and either way it still doesn''t address the awful lack of cover we have for Jerome in the lone striker/target man role, nor the massively inflated price that McCormack has previously gone for (and that Fulham are asking now).Let me say it again for those that might have missed it or TL:DRHOOPER HAS A BETTER SCORING RECORD THAN MCCORMACK AT THIS LEVEL, IS YOUNGER, WAS SOLD FOR A QUARTER OF WHAT FULHAM WANT FOR MCCORMACK, AND NEITHER REALLY FITS AN''S PREFERRED SYSTEM - THEREFORE ANYONE WHO THINKS SIGNING MCCORMACK IS SENSIBLE OR GOOD VALUE FOR MONEY NEEDS A DOUBLE LOBOTOMY TBH...[/quote]

Bones think you''re just sore that RVW (best thing since sliced bread according to you) is now gone, and you can''t argue his case anymore.

I always liked Hoops, but other than his goal poaching instinct, he didn''t bring a lot else to the game, or others. MC does do that. £11m is crazy, but appears to be the going rate for prolific Champ strikers, something our naive board failed to understand and let Hoops go for peanuts.

But with RVW gone I agree we need 2 strikers now

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="ron obvious"]And he was the flabbiest footballer I''ve ever seen.[/quote]I think Micky Quinn would like a few words with you... [:D]

[Indy_Bones 441]

And then when he''s finished, Paddy Kenny and Kevin Pressman will be round to finish what''s left off!!!

[djc 0]

I guess if we announced McCormack signing this morning more tickets would have been sold for the match this afternoon 😊

[Alex Moss 2,165]

I''ve got a funny feeling we''ll sign McCormack, keep Lafferty as cover for Jerome, Morris will go out on loan, and we''ll also sign a striker with more experience than Morris on loan - that''s my guess anyway.

[Indy 3,288]

But this attitude argument falls flat as Hooper since moving to Sheffield Wed hasn''t got a lazy attitude.

Funny but the same can be said for a heck of a lot of players recently coached at Norwich, so the question should be why do we appear to allow this to happen with some players? Do our coaching staff not motivate players, Naismith, Mulumbu, Vadis and Bassong spring to mind from last season!

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I know a few Wednesday fans that disagree.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]I know a few Wednesday fans that disagree.[/quote]And I know a few that would disagree with that as well [;)]What they don''t disagree on is in regards to his goalscoring record, which laziness or anything else aside - is still better than McCormack''s at this level.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Alex "]I''ve got a funny feeling we''ll sign McCormack, keep Lafferty as cover for Jerome, Morris will go out on loan, and we''ll also sign a striker with more experience than Morris on loan - that''s my guess anyway.[/quote]

Hope you''re right mate!

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]Hope you''re right mate![/quote]Really?You''d be happy with the only real cover for Jerome being Lafferty, who is not even close to Jerome in terms of what he offers, is currently on a charge for illegal betting, is a constant red card waiting to happen, can''t hold the ball up for toffee, has poor link-up play, and who we''ve been trying to get rid of for the past year at least?That''s what you''d be happy with???Have our expectations really dropped that much!?!

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

This love-in for Hooper is pretty ridiculous - for whatever reason he was very ordinary for us, looking lazy and disinterested. If he''s found his feet at Sheff Weds then fine, but he is not as good as McCormack - in terms of record, general game play and also in fees paid.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

It''s what I think will happen Indy, not necessarily what I want to happen. However, I think Lafferty will prove to be far better back up than Ricky van Wolfswinkel - once he''s served his suspension from the FA that is 😉

Am sure Morris will go out on loan, with us replacing him with another striker on a season long, think we''ll leave ourselves in a position to assess where we are at the end of the season and all being well will of course sign the next RvW to lead our charge in the Premier League. Not overly concerned as I think our midfield will chip in with more than their fair share this season - I think our team has goals running right through it at Championship level.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]but he is not as good as McCormack - in terms of record[/quote]Sorry, but I''ve got to pull you up on this one Branston.McCormack = 306 games in Champs, with 116 goals = 2.64 games per goalHooper = 113 games in Champs with 44 goals = 2.57 games per goalMcCormack = 53 games in SPL with 9 goals = 5.89 games per goalHooper = 95 games inm SPL with 63 goals = 1.51 games per goalMcCormack = 19 games in L1 with 5 goals = 3.8 games per goalHooper = 62 games in L1 with 28 goals = 2.21 games per goalHooper also has 13 Champions League games with 5 goals = 2.6 games per goalSo, tell my again about this better record McCormack has, because all I can see is that Hooper has consistently outperformed him in terms of games per goal, and whilst McCormack may have a higher total of goals in the Champs, that''s simply because he''s played 3 times as many games there than Hooper has, but if they both had exactly the same amount of games and with the games to goals ratio they both have, Hooper would again be infront.

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

Oh right, i forgot the only measure of record a goals per game ratio - which is often the most misleading. My 9 year old would score 15 a season playing for Celtic.

[kick it off 1,948]

Think you''re being harsh on your 9 year old there Branston. I''d back him/her for double figures in the SPL.

[kick it off 1,948]

Misread the post but point still stands, I think 15 is low for a 9 year old at Celtic

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]Oh right, i forgot the only measure of record a goals per game ratio - which is often the most misleading. My 9 year old would score 15 a season playing for Celtic.[/quote]Oh right, so even though Hooper has a better goals per game ratio than McCormack at this level, and even though he had a better goals to minute ratio last season at this level as well, you want us ignore these 2 key metrics in favour of what?Work rate?Desire to drift more out wide?Level of Scottishness????Whether you rate Hooper personally or not, or whether you think he played well whilst here or not, what can''t be argued is that at this level, Hooper statistically performs better than McCormack in terms of goal returns for either minutes per goal (as shown last season) and games per goal (as shown by total games played at this level), and seeing as how all I keep hearing is that we want McCormack because he''s a proven striker at this level, why is it that when I point out that Hooper is the better of the two in this respect - I get shot down...just wtf???

[whoareyou? 0]

To be fair, McCormack didn''t play for Celtic in the SPL and neither has his time in the Championship been with clubs at the top of the league.I''m sure the club will have done their due diligence on him before offering £10million especially after the RVW debacle.

[OzzieBudgie 0]

McCormack also brings the bonus of having ability to convert set pieces, someone we need considering redders has left. Every team let''s people go that turn out to be good in the long run look at Lukaku and Pogba however Hooper didn''t fit our system and was pretty sure he wasn''t happy being a third choice striker behind Grabban and Jerome, maybe even fourth if we include Mbokani.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]This love-in for Hooper is pretty ridiculous - for whatever reason he was very ordinary for us, looking lazy and disinterested. If he''s found his feet at Sheff Weds then fine, but he is not as good as McCormack - in terms of record, general game play and also in fees paid.[/quote]

Most fans recognise that Hooper was a decent player with def weaknesses but was a total bad fit for how we play, so not to much uproar when we sold. Now however we want to go and make the same mistake again but for a lot more money, that''s plainly stupid.