Today's game

[Indy_Bones 441]

Well, AN clearly doesn''t want RvW here if that setup is anything to go by.Awful supply whilst yet again being asked to play as a f**king target man, what does the guy have to do, to actually be given a fair chance in a tactical setup that plays to his admittedly somewhat limited strengths???You wouldn''t have asked Owen to play like Heskey, you wouldn''t ask Bojan to play like Crouch, so why the f**k is RvW being asked to play like Jerome/Mbokani????

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Indy wrote;

so why the f**k is RvW being asked to play like Jerome/Mbokani????

Maybe because he said he can ? no idea Indy, he certainly looks lost, can only think AN said this is the way I want to set my team up, are you up for it, what is the boy going to say ?

[hogesar 9,704]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Well, AN clearly doesn''t want RvW here if that setup is anything to go by.Awful supply whilst yet again being asked to play as a f**king target man, what does the guy have to do, to actually be given a fair chance in a tactical setup that plays to his admittedly somewhat limited strengths???You wouldn''t have asked Owen to play like Heskey, you wouldn''t ask Bojan to play like Crouch, so why the f**k is RvW being asked to play like Jerome/Mbokani????[/quote]

Please stop making excuse for a diabolical excuse for a striker.

He got decent service in the Peterborough game and fluffed at least two good chances.

He''s not good enough, we just can''t find anyone stupid enough to take him off our hands at the moment.

[CanaryOne 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]Result and performance literally mean naff all right now. Win or lose its not going to effect our season. If anything these tougher matches where we arent having it all our own way should help our fitness more.

Oh and Canaryone, top yourself.[/quote]Oh get you , really have to say thick (unts like you should be banned from public forums .

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Indy wrote;

so why the f**k is RvW being asked to play like Jerome/Mbokani????

Maybe because he said he can ? no idea Indy, he certainly looks lost,

can only think AN said this is the way I want to set my team up, are you

up for it, what is the boy going to say ?[/quote]I would expect any

professional player to be ''up for it'', and do the best they can in the

role they''ve been asked to play, but if it''s a role which clearly

doesn''t suit their attributes, that they are uncomfortable playing, and

more importantly - are highly ineffective at performing, do you blame

the player for doing as asked, or the manager for asking them to do it

despite knowing full well beforehand that it''s just not going to work?A

player like RvW will NEVER be able to perform a lone target man role

anywhere near someone like Jerome will, which means either you take a

different approach and play in a slightly different manner (more through

balls from the middle, more fast low balls crossed across the area

etc), or you simply don''t play the guy and move them on at the earliest

opportunity.[quote user="hogesar"]Please stop making excuse for a diabolical excuse for a striker.

He got decent service in the Peterborough game and fluffed at least two good chances.

He''s not good enough, we just can''t find anyone stupid enough to take him off our hands at the moment.[/quote]Really? A whole TWO good chances??? Despite not having played with the lads for the past season and being in a pre-season friendly which amounts to little more than a slightly enhanced training session??????Think back to when Liverpool signed Suarez, and for the first 2 seasons there (11/12 & 12/13) he had a mere 37% shot on target accuracy (with a nice low 12% shot conversion rate to boot), which means that almost TWO out of every THREE shots would miss or be off target and out of those 1 in 3 shots that was on target - only just over 1 in 10 of them would be a goal! With this in mind, I suppose you''d have called him a diabolical excuse for a striker as well then, as that''s no worse than RvW missing a couple of chances in an almost meaningless friendly??And it''s not that we can''t find anyone ''stupid'' enough to sign him, I''d argue that we can''t seem to find a manager that''s willing to set us out in more of the classic ''norwich way'', under which a player like RvW could theoretically perform extremely well...

[BroadstairsR 2,183]

I really think that it''s time that we gave up on the idea of RVW ever becoming a success at NCFC Indy.

Even if he does turn the corner somewhat he is unlikely to be that good in any case as he would seem to have such a long way to go before fully justifying his regular place in the attack of a side aspiring to Premier league football.

One way or another the player has done our club quite a bit of damage in raising false hopes, in poor performances and missed chances when much more was required and in high expenditure.

I would rather not prolong the agony, one way or another.

Sell him on the cheap. Loan him out. Failing that a ''mutual'' release whereby he gets a proportion of his pay off and then becomes a free agent to earn elsewhere.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]One way or another the player has done our club quite a bit of damage in raising false hopes, in poor performances and missed chances when much more was required and in high expenditure.[/quote]Sorry, but I think that''s just overly harsh BS to be honest.I appreciate I''m much more in the minority view here, but I squarely lay the blame of RvW''s underwhelming time with us at Hughton''s door, an issue which was then compounded by Adams and seemingly now AN, with minor situations inbetween which contributed to the overall problem (e.g. Snoddy''s famous decision to ''steal'' the pen off RvW which had he scored could have potentially kicked on from).NONE of them have played RvW in the correct way, ALL of them have tried to shoehorn him into a role that doesn''t and likely never will suit the player, and whilst of course RvW has to take a fair degree of responsibility, all he can do is work hard in the role he''s being asked to play - even when it''s clear to even Stevie Wonder that he''s never going to be able to do the target role in the way that someone like Holt or Jerome can.Even look at the Peterborough friendly the other day, virtually NONE of the final passes were in the areas that RvW works best in, and the couple of occasions they were, he at least got the shot off and on target, albeit if somewhat lacking in a bit of overall power to massively trouble the keeper.FFS, we have players like Wes who can play perfect through balls for days (Maddison is another with a great eye for a pass), but instead RvW is being told to hold the ball up a''la Jerome whilst Wes et al play balls out to the wing or even short into RvW where he can do very little with it - especially against a big, burly centre half (who wouldn''t have a chance against him on the turn)!How about instead of all this ''just move him on'' mutual release nonsense, we actually go back to playing the type of football Norwich were noted for in the 80''s and early 90''s, because I''m damn sure that RvW in our UEFA cup season would have been in heaven with the sort of supply he''d have got from Crooky, Foxy and Gossy...

[king canary 7,618]

So how about instead of playing the kind of football our manager wants and might suit the rest of the squad we change the entire style to fit someone who has scored one goal for us? Yeah, great.

Did Betis play him as a target man? Did St Etienne? Did they also have Hughton in charge? Or has he just spent the last three seasons being a bit shit?

Yes Hughton was rubbish and the football was terrible but Hooper still managed to bag a few. This desire from some to blame everyone else for his failings is just weird. So Snodgrass didn''t let him take a penalty? If he isn''t mentally strong enough to deal with that then he doesn''t have what it takes quite frankly.

[curious yellow 184]

I have always thought Wes would be the best player to get the best out of RVW. Well done Indy for trying to be constructive but you''re just going to get shot down here.

I don''t think it''s a good idea to give up on anybody, particularly someone so expensive and were not going to "get rid" of him this season unless someone comes in with an offer.

The last couple of seasons he has done quite well in the pre-season friendlies so we can''t really judge him on yesterday''s performance.

[hogesar 9,704]

[quote user="CanaryOne"][quote user="hogesar"]Result and performance literally mean naff all right now. Win or lose its not going to effect our season. If anything these tougher matches where we arent having it all our own way should help our fitness more.

Oh and Canaryone, top yourself.[/quote]Oh get you , really have to say thick (unts like you should be banned from public forums .[/quote]

What do you expect? You''re on a Norwich forum and consistently slate and criticise the club you supposedly support.

[hogesar 9,704]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="hogesar"]Please stop making excuse for a diabolical excuse for a striker.

He got decent service in the Peterborough game and fluffed at least two good chances.

He''s not good enough, we just can''t find anyone stupid enough to take him off our hands at the moment.[/quote]Really? A whole TWO good chances??? Despite not having played with the lads for the past season and being in a pre-season friendly which amounts to little more than a slightly enhanced training session??????Think back to when Liverpool signed Suarez, and for the first 2 seasons there (11/12 & 12/13) he had a mere 37% shot on target accuracy (with a nice low 12% shot conversion rate to boot), which means that almost TWO out of every THREE shots would miss or be off target and out of those 1 in 3 shots that was on target - only just over 1 in 10 of them would be a goal! With this in mind, I suppose you''d have called him a diabolical excuse for a striker as well then, as that''s no worse than RvW missing a couple of chances in an almost meaningless friendly??And it''s not that we can''t find anyone ''stupid'' enough to sign him, I''d argue that we can''t seem to find a manager that''s willing to set us out in more of the classic ''norwich way'', under which a player like RvW could theoretically perform extremely well...

[/quote]

No, because it was clear to see Suarez had quality. That''s not the case with RvW.

Whats your excuse for him not performing at St Etienne? What about Real Betis? Both clubs saw him as not good enough, and ended up on the bench more often than not. How come other strikers can score for those teams but RvW still has a terrible record?

If he''d performed well on loan then i''d be more willing to give him a chance, or at the very least we''d at least have some interest towards him. There''s a reason no other club seems to want him. He offers literally nothing.

Maybe no managers like to play to RvWs strengths because it''s not worth it? Jerome, Mbokani, Grabban even have all shown as being much better strikers than RvW. Elmander offered more than RvW.

I''m sure we''re hoping someone stupid will take him off our hands but it''s much more likely that the end result will be he''ll run his contract down and get a move to a League One - esque club.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="hogesar"]Whats your excuse for him not performing at St Etienne? What about Real Betis? Both clubs saw him as not good enough, and ended up on the bench more often than not. How come other strikers can score for those teams but RvW still has a terrible record? [/quote]Have a good guess what formation he was mainly played in at St.Etienne? A 4-2-3-1 with RvW the focal point at the top with Gradel and Hamouma on the wings and Corgnet more centrally...Now admittedly Gradel had an excellent season and weighed in with 17 goals and 3 assists (fancy taking a guess where St. Etienne focused their play?), but beyond that I''d argue that RvW was no better or worse than the others alongside him whilst STILL playing a role that didn''t really suit. For reference, Erdinc who tended to rotate with RvW managed 8 goals and 1 assist compared to RvW''s 5 goals and 4 assists with both playing approx 1600 mins each, which if extrapolated at those rates over a full season of 38 games would have given RvW 10 goals and 8 assists, again whilst playing in a lone striker role and with Corgnet behind him who makes BJ''s passing look like Crooky''s at times!Moving on to Betis, and yet again RvW found himself in a team which not only favoured a lone striker (Castro), but which focused and relied on Castro massively for goals. This however is where it gets interesting, because Castro is NOT a traditional target man, he''s far more of a poacher (albeit a fairly quick one) so arguably RvW should do ok here assuming he gets the same sort of supply that Castro does. However, the problem is that as far as Betis are concerned, Castro is almost undroppable which meant RvW''s pitch time was ALWAYS going to be limited if Castro was fit and on form, so whilst RvW was struggling for game time, and whilst a goal and and 2 assists in approx 600 mins is pretty rough, the key reason is because he was trying to move an almost immovable object, much like how if you went to Chelsea 10 years back and tried to remove Drogba you''d be pi$$ing in the wind!But all that aside, compare RvW to the other guys in that attacking line:Castro - 3378 mins - 19 goals, 4 assists (and EVERYTHING was focused around getting him the ball)Molina - 900 mins, 1 goal, 1 assist (and a 6% worse passing accuracy than RvW as well!)Joaquin (RW) - 1960 mins, 1 goal, 5 assists (but with a much better pass accuracy of 79% compared to RvW''s 70%)Cejudo (LW/RW) - 1877 mins, 1 goal, 2 assists (71.6% PA)So, it''s not like the Betis side he was playing in, had people around him who were making him look bad, in fact considering the lack of consistent game time and the fact that it was all about Castro, he didn''t do too badly, but why would Betis want to hold on to a player who is little more than a slightly different version of what they already have, and who is not going to replace the main striker who''s been their top scorer and main outlet for the past 3 years running???

[quote]If he''d performed well on loan then i''d be more willing to give him a chance, or at the very least we''d at least have some interest towards him. There''s a reason no other club seems to want him. He offers literally nothing.[/quote]Based on the situations and chances he was given he actually did do reasonably well, and whilst I''ll fully agree that neither loan showed him as being as potent as the guy we hoped we''d signed, there is genuine talent in there but which requires the right approach to get it out, and sadly we don''t look like taking that approach any time soon.

[quote]Maybe no managers like to play to RvWs strengths because it''s not worth it? Jerome, Mbokani, Grabban even have all shown as being much better strikers than RvW. Elmander offered more than RvW.[/quote]No, they''ve all shown that they''re much better TARGET MEN than RvW, and you''re trying to compare apples to oranges and it''s just not right.Ask virtually ANY goalpoacher style striker to play as a traditional target man, and see how many fail miserably to not only score anywhere near as many as before, but who genuinely would struggle to provide very much of anything of great value because it''s just not what they''re good at. I don''t ask my mechanic to tune my guitar, my doctor to fix my boiler, or my daughter''s school teacher to come and lay tarmac on my drive, so why the f**k is it sensible to ask a goalpoacher to play as a target man, and then bee-hatch about it afterwards when unsurprisingly he doesn''t do a good job, and certainly not as good a job as someone like Jerome or Mbokani who ARE target men and DO have the physicality to play that game????

[quote]I''m sure we''re hoping someone stupid will take him off our hands but it''s much more likely that the end result will be he''ll run his contract down and get a move to a League One - esque club.[/quote]And that would not only be a crying shame, but would also clearly demonstrate how badly mis-managed this player has been and how ''stupid'' our club were to sign a player who didn''t fit the system we wanted to play, yet at no point have the club ever made a concerted effort to do anything about this and instead the guy gets farmed out on loan and unfairly written off as a very expensive mistake...

[morty 0]

You are Ricky''s mum, and I claim my £5.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="morty"]You are Ricky''s mum, and I claim my £5.[/quote]Damn, foiled again [:D]

[hogesar 9,704]

Woah Indy, credit it to you for that post but I ain''t gonna be responding anything like in as much detail.

I think the first sticking point is you say RvW done reasonably well on loan, I say he didn''t. He began the season at St Etienne starting, they soon thought they had better option and as the season went on he tended to end up on the bench and his minutes became limited. Also, key thing to note is neither of the clubs he''s been at have shown any intent to sign him. On top that, neither has anyone else really.

Which kind of suggests the talent you see isn''t seen by professionals in the game. Certainly not currently, anyway.

I don''t see, even if we did change the system to accomodate him (which I think would be to a massive detriment of the team anyway), I don''t see he is showing too much.

He hasn''t, in the past 3 years, demonstrated he''s a ''clinical'' finisher. He''s missed several one-on-ones in friendlies and cup games whenever he''s come back here, against poor opposition too.

He hasn''t got the greatest amount of pace. He''s not slow, but he''s not quick either.

He isn''t great at distributing play when he has his back to goal.

He doesn''t have a great range of passing.

He''s incredibly weak and pushed off the ball easily.

The only real thing i''ve ever noticed is, in his first season here, I thought he made intelligent runs, but we never gave him the ball in those situations. But Jerome can run in behind, Jerome can latch onto through balls, but also has the pace and strength to get past a defender. Grabban was quicker and looked more dangerous than RvW ever has for Norwich.

[Tumbleweed 106]

I think there is something in Indy''s assertions re Neil, Adams and Hughton''s way of playing not suiting him, none have come across as tactical geniuses. But you can''t really have a player that fits into such a limited combination of players around him and structure which makes him effectively a very niche offering. This club and the ones he has been to on loan have tried to find the best for him but it hasn''t happened and there is almost no evidence to suggest it will change. Time to move on and accept it as just one of those things.

[king canary 7,618]

So because my work is quite boring at the moment I also dug into some stats (this is really nerdy) to have a look at RVW.

So here is the breakdown.

Over the last three seasons RVW has played in 70 league games- 39 starts and 31 sub appearances. He''s scored 7 goals and picked up 7 assists (most of those at St Ettiene where he got 5 goals and 4 assists).

He has spent a total of 3620 minutes on the pitch in this time.

This means over the last three seasons he has averaged just under a goal every 6 games.

While at Norwich and Betis there are arguments that he was playing in low scoring teams- Betis for instance finished 10th but had the lowest amount of goals scored that season, while Norwich finished 18th and also scored the lease goals of any team. However as Indy has mentioned, other strikers managed to score more in these teams. Castro got 19 league goals for Betis while Hooper managed 6. In the season with us he was outscored by Hooper, Snodgrass, Fer, Howson and Johnson, showing while goals were hard to come by in this team they were not impossible.

Indy talks about RVW''s role as a goal poacher- which is fine but fast going out of style in the modern game. In todays game a striker has to offer more than just finishing. Very few teams can carry a player who offers nothing outside of the box- even Man U couldn''t when you look at Javier Hernandez. Ironically I''d argue Hooper is also a goal poacher (no idea why we signed two in one window) and he managed 6 goals.

For RVW to flourish we''d have to entirely change our style and formation, probably go back to a 4-4-2 and even then we don''t have any guarantees it would work.

[A Load of Squit 5,183]

Do you have any stats on how may fouls he committed and how much running around he did?

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="king canary"]While at Norwich and Betis there are arguments that he was playing in low scoring teams- Betis for instance finished 10th but had the lowest amount of goals scored that season, while Norwich finished 18th and also scored the lease goals of any team. However as Indy has mentioned, other strikers managed to score more in these teams. Castro got 19 league goals for Betis while Hooper managed 6.[/quote]Agreed, but then Castro played more games and more minutes than ANY other player at Betis last season, was a far and away nailed on dead cert to start EVERY game when fit, and when you''re only really playing with 1 central striker, I''m not sure how anyone expects RvW to be able to compete when he simply didn''t get the minutes to do otherwise.The Hooper situation is a bit more complex. Let''s not forget that Hooper was actually our most played striker that season, and not only did he play 7 games more than RvW that season, but also had 627 minutes more on the pitch to affect the game, and he started more games to boot (22 vs 16). The strike partnership and tactical setup also contributed to this as well, but here''s some interesting info:Elmander was easily our best option aerially, winning more headers per game than Hooper and RvW combined, yet his shots per game were far less than either as well (0.9 vs 1.3 for both RvW & Hooper), as was his passing accuracy (68% vs 79% for RvW and 85% for Hooper), so if we wanted a big target man who''s only job was to win headers then Elmander was the right choice, and indeed Hooper did benefit fairly well at times from those knock downs. But in truth I think we''d have done far better with Hooper/Wes playing slightly behind RvW and focusing more on central play and through balls, rather than the appalling crosses to no-one that happened almost constantly in many games.[quote]In the season with us he was outscored by Hooper, Snodgrass, Fer, Howson and Johnson, showing while goals were hard to come by in this team they were not impossible.[/quote]All of whom got a lot more playing time than RvW did, and virtually none of whom were being asked to perform a role they didn''t suit or normally perform, so hardly a fair comparison is it?[quote]Indy talks about RVW''s role as a goal poacher- which is fine but fast going out of style in the modern game. In todays game a striker has to offer more than just finishing. Very few teams can carry a player who offers nothing outside of the box- even Man U couldn''t when you look at Javier Hernandez. Ironically I''d argue Hooper is also a goal poacher (no idea why we signed two in one window) and he managed 6 goals.

For RVW to flourish we''d have to entirely change our style and formation, probably go back to a 4-4-2 and even then we don''t have any guarantees it would work.[/quote]I fully agree.The goalpoacher IS becoming a rarity and something not really utilised anywhere near as much in the modern game, but we knew that when we signed RvW, and STILL did nothing to actually utilise him correctly and play to those strengths. If anything RvW is an even more polarised poacher than Hooper (much like Inzaghi was a pure goalpoacher), and whilst Hooper had that bit of extra adaptability that served him well, RvW simply didn''t/doesn''t have that and we should have either adjusted our style of play to accomodate more, or simply dropped him altogether (although not signing him if we weren''t going to use him right would have made FAR more sense), instead we did neither and rather forced him to play a role he doesn''t suit, isn''t good at and never will be...I think this is why I put so much of the blame ref RvW on Hughton, because I''ve rarely seen a manager so badly mis-manage strikers the way Hughton did, which is why previously strong performing goalscorers struggled massively under the clown - regardless of the type of player they were. Holt, Becchio, Hooper and even Pilks all suffered badly under Hughton, and none of them were as specialised a player as RvW was, so I don''t see why so many fans are so keen to slate RvW when almost everything that happened when he came here conspired against him (unfamiliar/unsuited role, THAT penalty steal by Snoddy, the long term injury just as he seemed to be finding his feet, the pressure of being our record signing etc).He''s maintained his professionalism (even if his agent hasn''t), has always been respectful about the club, has always tried hard to perform (too hard at times), and all whilst he could see his career stuttering (often through little fault of his own) but still not a bad word about us or a training ground bust up.RvW is a victim of circumstance, and we have the ideal opportunity this season to rectify that, give him the supply and opportunity he''s deserved since he first arrived here, and show the rest of the world that we didn''t buy a donkey, we just bought a racehorse and shoehorned it into a donkey costume....

[king canary 7,618]

There is a lot of what you say I agree with but I think where we differ is that you think it is worth changing our style to see if we can get more out of him whereas I don''t. I see too many fundamental flaws in his game for him to succeed with us, or any team in England. His lack of physicality, heading ability or pace mean to me he just isn''t suited to football here. We''re not good enough to carry a pure poacher and he simply lacks any adaptability.

Compare RVW to Mbokani for instance. Mbokani is the kind of striker we needed in that he knows where the goal is but also has the physicality to hold the ball up, win headers and bring others more into the game. If you''re not going to do that then you need someone like Defoe who is fast enough to stretch defenders and move them about. RVW can''t do any of that and instead is reliant on everyone else to play exactly to his strengths and make things happen for him. If you''re going to do that then you best have a bloody great striker to make it all worthwhile and Ricky isn''t that.

It isn''t his fault and I think the key sentence you''ve said that I agree with is ''although not signing him if we weren''t going to use him right would have made FAR more sense.'' I think what bugs me is the amount of excuses some people want to make for him. The Snodgrass penalty is for me a total non issue. Sure he might have scored it and gone on to score 15 goals that season. Or he might have missed it. Or he might have scored it but done nothing for the rest of the season like he actually did. Good players can overcome limitations in a team. Look at Charlie Austin banging in goals for QPR while they got relegated, or Danny Ings getting 11 goals in a Burnley team that was always destined to go down. Even in a terrible Villa team Jordan Ayew grabbed 7 goals.

For me he is simply the wrong player, in the wrong place at the wrong time and none of that has changed.

[hogesar 9,704]

It might have been worth changing our style had he shown this clinical goal poacher type of striker in the past 3 seasons. He hasnt.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="hogesar"]It might have been worth changing our style had he shown this clinical goal poacher type of striker in the past 3 seasons. He hasnt.[/quote]Catch 22 situation there Hog.How can he show himself as a clinical goal poacher when he''s not been played as one, has been asked to do a totally different role, and at least whilst playing here, received nothing but god awful supply that even the likes of Van Persie and Aguero would have struggled to make much happen with...???He didn''t even really get a chance at Betis as there was NO chance he''d be usurping Castro''s place (short of long-term injury). and at St.Etienne he was STILL being played as a lone striker whilst they focused most of their play through Gradel on the left!Until such point as RvW has been given a run of games whilst receiving good supply, and playing in the role that suits his abilities, then I don''t think any criticisms or harsh comparisons can be either fair or representative of the player, and so far he''s NEVER been given that opportunity since signing for us.

[Branston Pickle 3,662]

Harsh comparisons? In three years here, at St Etienne and at Real Betis he has been given ample opportunity, under a myriad of managers, to show what he can do and sadly hasn''t shown anything of note. However you look at it, it is a transfer that has not worked out for either him or us.

[Yellow Wal 314]

RvW has certainly been a square peg in a round hole and hasn''t fitted in too well anywhere ............ but I do tend to agree with Indy to some degree.

What he probably needs is a square hole to fit into!

Then we would truly see whether he can or he can''t.

[Branston Pickle 3,662]

What he needs is a spell in somewhere like Austria, where the league standard is much lower. No doubt he''ll find his level and we will get regular reports of his scoring feats albeit against sides equivalent to Colchester (no disrespect to them!).

[? 0]

Re RVW, a bit geeky I know, but if you look at the slideshow of photos on the front page, he is the only outfield player not wearing a Statsport monitoring vest. Most players seem to have their vest personalised with their squad number on but nothing for him. There must be a spare vest available as Jarvis would surely of had one and he''s out for a while so his could have be adapted to RVW I''m sure. Just makes me feel he is excluded to a certain extent, he will no doubt be loaned out again if we can find someone to take him on.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]Harsh comparisons? In three years here, at St Etienne and at Real Betis he has been given ample opportunity, under a myriad of managers, to show what he can do and sadly hasn''t shown anything of note. However you look at it, it is a transfer that has not worked out for either him or us.[/quote]Nothing of note?He played just over 1600 mins (half a season''s worth of games) at St.Etienne scoring 5 league goals, 1 Europa League goal and assisting in 4 goals, which over a full season would be 10 league goals, 2 Europe League goals and 8 assists - might not be world beating stuff, but it''s certainly not ''Nothing of Note'' either. Particulary when you consider that most of their play was focused through Gradel and he was still basically being asked to play as a lone striker in the process!And you seriously think a mere 600 minutes (and just 6 starts) at Betis in a FULL season when stuck behind one of their star players is giving the guy an AMPLE opportunity to perform?Seriously Branston, we both know that''s utter ballcocks.He did perfectly OK at St.Etienne, and was given little to no opportunity to perform at Betis, and frankly the way we played him here and the lack of supply etc was a complete disgrace.So whilst I can fully agree that the transfer really hasn''t worked out for him or us, the truth is that very little of this is his fault and until he''s genuinely been given a fair chance in the right circumstances, any claims about his poor performance are just utterly unfair and completely unjustified...

[king canary 7,618]

@Indy

Do you not see the issue in what you say? He needs to play in a very particular style and position so in order to see if he can make it your asking the team to tear up everything just to suit him. Why would we do that?

[Tetteys Jig 830]

To be honest, I hope we give him a handful of games in the championship to finally see the answer to the (rather hopeful) theory.

Either we know 100% he is a lost cause to us or we have a hell of a player on our hands without forking out another £10m. The only saving grace is how there have been some really free scoring strikers at this level who looked pretty hopeless in the premiership (grabban, Jerome for example)

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="king canary"]@Indy

Do you not see the issue in what you say? He needs to play in a very particular style and position so in order to see if he can make it your asking the team to tear up everything just to suit him. Why would we do that?[/quote]Maybe because what we have been doing simply isn''t working?NONE of our strikers even hit double figures last season, with Jerome only getting 3, and the highlights being Redmond & Mbokani (with 6 & 7 respectively) - neither of which are even here anymore!We struggled for possession, focused far more down the flanks than centrally and generally made things tough for whoever was playing upfront for us.Does that lot not suggest that MAYBE a different approach is worth considering?