HatRicky

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Its Character Forming"]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]I always thought RVW was a luxury player pretty much out of fashion in the modern game. Not many teams can afford to play with 10 men, remember this is a player that holds the Premier League record for least number of touches in a game and I think statistically that season finished 5 off the bottom of about 600 players. Ricky seems to be effective in being the player who gets the final touch on essentially a goal created by others. Stick him up front for a team like Arsenal, I could see him scoring maybe 10 goals a season - I say this as Arsenel usually dominate possession and play the most expansive passing game, meaning players like Ozil would probably dump a few on a plate for him that he simply couldnt miss. Totally inappropriate player for us to replace Grant Holt with. Grant won us fouls, territory and was an outlet. To replace him with such a racehorse was a monumentally poor piece of judgement. I wonder who bears the responsibility for that. Is it Hughton 100%, or was poor scouting also to blame? Did his agent sweet-talk the board like a time-share salesman? Considering his hype, I''ve never been more disappointed in a signing. I so wanted him to be good[/quote]

 

I agree with this 100% - in a team with a lot of possession I could see him doing reasonably well and he had some good qualities as a footballer, he was just totally wrong for the role he was brought in to play with us.

 

If the blame for his signing is being pinned on Ewan Chester, my question would be what sort of remit was he given for the striker search ?  And I think the buck ultimately has to stop with Hughton for this one (anyway), because he knew the style of play he would be using and therefore should have know what sort of striker he needed - although my guess is that he underestimated Grant Holt (like many others) and thought that because players like RVW, Elmander and Hooper looked good on paper, they must be able to do as well as GH, which was a catastrophic misjudgement.

[/quote]But then he then had a season with St-Etienne - a good technical footballing side that finished 5th that year in the league supposed to be the least physically demanding of the top - and was a failure, ending up as an unused sub. And then at Real Betis, a team good enough to finish 10th, he failed again, scoring just one goal.I take the point about pure goalscorers  being out of fashion, but back when they were used they still had to have more about them than just being able to finish off everyone else''s work. And van Wolfswinkel had no other qualities. Technically he was nowhere near Premier League level. And he was hardly a genius (or near-genius) goalscorer worth a place on that alone. We had one of those in MacDougall and no Norwich City fan would choose van Wolfswinkel ahead of Ted.[/quote]RVW scored 3 goals in 8 starts for Betis (12 sub appearances).  He scored 9 goals in 35 (starts & sub) appearances at St. Etienne.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

The plummet in the world rankings of the Netherlands over the last couple of years could well be reflected in the current standard of Dutch football in general.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Its Character Forming"]
 

I think what you''re missing is that GMD said (and I agree) he was a luxury player, playing with him was like playing with 10 men, but he could do OK with a team that dominates possession.  Neither of us said anything about him being a near-genius or being worth a place.

I remember seeing RVW in that pre-season friendly against a Spanish side (Real Sociedad?) and there he showed really good movement off the defender, constantly running to look for a ball to be delivered on the floor into the channels, and showed good control for quick one-touch short passing interchanges .  The problem was that for Norwich City as managed by Hughton (but probably under any manager given our relative squad strength in the Prem that season) those qualities were virtually useless.  The passes were never delivered into the channels for him and gradually he stopped making those runs.  He rarely received the ball on the ground with other City players near him so never had the chance to do one-touch passes.  And while I think he was a reasonably good finisher by the standards of the Portuguese or Dutch leagues, with us he got so few chances that he was never going to score many goals.

In time of course his confidence wore away and the injury problem just made it worse so by the second half of the season what good qualities he had were no longer really on display.

Instead of RVW, we needed a tall and strong striker who could play up front on his own, keep possession under pressure (or force the defender to foul him to stop him keeping possession) and lay it off when support comes up, win a reasonably amount of long balls in the air, take a few chances in the box when they came up, and generally put the CBs under pressure.  RVW was simply unsuited to that role in every possible way.  I remember someone linking to the bleacher report website saying pretty much exactly this, in a report after he''d scored on his league debut against Everton, which was a pretty courageous piece of journalism - to say a player who''s just scored on his debut will not succeed in the Prem is not an easy thing to say, but of course it was absolutely spot on.

 

The fact that he''s presumably now recovered his confidence in the Dutch league, and is able to play to his strengths, changes none of this.

[/quote]

ICF, I wasn''t missing anything. My point was that unless you are a genius or near-genius pure goalscorer who in essence does nothing else then you cannot be justified even as a luxury player. And it is a myth that van Wolfswinkel was always played up front by himself. Elmander started 16 league games that season and came on 13 times as a sub. I don''t have the time to check how often the two started/played together but I remember from when I did do the research that it was much more often than I (or other posters who made the same point in van Wolfswinkel''s defence you do) had supposed.
[/quote]

 

Purple, what point do you think I am making in RVW''s defence ?  Did you miss the bits in my post where I said he was "totally wrong for the role he was asked to play for us" and that signing him was a "catastrophic misjudgement".  If that''s defending him, I hate to think what attacking him would look like...

[Mr Angry 1,555]

Good point TIl, and I guess you could infer from that, that the reason he is doing so well is because the standard of the Eredivisie has dropped. But then his goal return now is pretty similar to the 10/11 season for Utrecht-and Holland were World Cup runners up in 2010, and he had a similar goal return for Sporting in the 11/12 & 12/13 seasons, and Portugal were Euro semi-finalists in 2012.

It''s indisputable that he didn''t perform for us, but I''m happy for him that he is scoring again.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]this is my 37th season and I stand by that.....how would any of those offered "less" when RVW offered absolutely nothing?.

....and thats before we discuss the fee we paid for him.

most of those strikers you mentioned would have at least ONE strength about their game....RVW in the time we saw him here had no pace,was physically weak,offered nothing in the air,was bullied by defenders,couldnt link up with other players, couldnt finish one-on-ones, wouldnt come deep to receive the ball, couldnt run with the ball, couldnt create his own chances.......am I missing anything?[/quote]Yes, you''re missing the fact that if you have have players that can deliver a dangerous ball into the box instead of a high hopeful punt then RVW would very likely arrive at the right time and place to tuck it away.Strange that such a poor Dutch league has such players whilst we had ''premier league'' players that couldn''t.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]RVW scored 3 goals in 8 starts for Betis (12 sub appearances).  He scored 9 goals in 35 (starts & sub) appearances at St. Etienne.[/quote]Three of his goals for St-Etienne were against lower-league cup teams. It is league statistics that matter. In his three seasons playing in three of the top-five European leagues he made 39 starts and came on as a substitute 20 times, and scored just 7 goals - one for us, five for St-Etienne, and one for Real Betis.

[hogesar 9,658]

Have to say I completely agree with Purple who''s made the exact points I would, albeit more eloquently.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Why the hell are we still talking about this bloke? He''s left us now so completely irrelevant how he gets on.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,749]

[quote user="Creative Midfielder"][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]this is my 37th season and I stand by that.....how would any of those offered "less" when RVW offered absolutely nothing?.

....and thats before we discuss the fee we paid for him.

most of those strikers you mentioned would have at least ONE strength about their game....RVW in the time we saw him here had no pace,was physically weak,offered nothing in the air,was bullied by defenders,couldnt link up with other players, couldnt finish one-on-ones, wouldnt come deep to receive the ball, couldnt run with the ball, couldnt create his own chances.......am I missing anything?[/quote]Yes, you''re missing the fact that if you have have players that can deliver a dangerous ball into the box instead of a high hopeful punt then RVW would very likely arrive at the right time and place to tuck it away.Strange that such a poor Dutch league has such players whilst we had ''premier league'' players that couldn''t.[/quote]

.

aahh but thats only half the story isn''t it?

I''d suggest the standard of defenders in the English Premier League is significantly greater than in the Dutch League....thus able to defend such "dangerous balls" ??

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="hogesar"]Have to say I completely agree with Purple who''s made the exact points I would, albeit more eloquently.[/quote]Every time this subject comes up I tell myself not to get involved, but then...Ron Obvious is fond of saying how scientists believe there are many universes. Well, in one or more of them van Wolfswinkel may be a half-decent footballer. Just not in this one.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="hogesar"]Have to say I completely agree with Purple who''s made the exact points I would, albeit more eloquently.[/quote]Every time this subject comes up I tell myself not to get involved, but then...Ron Obvious is fond of saying how scientists believe there are many universes. Well, in one or more of them van Wolfswinkel may be a half-decent footballer. Just not in this one.[/quote]There''s even one where Ed Balls is a better dancer than Fred Astaire.[Y]

[lake district canary 4,531]

RVW''s chief supplier of dangerous crosses at Norwich......Snodgrass. No more needs be said.

[Nuff Said 5,131]

The thing is LDC, most of us will take the opposite conclusion from your post than the one you clearly intend.

RVW != Snodgrass in this universe or any other parallel universe, no matter how many there are.

P.S. ICF, James Kent wrote for the Bleacher Report, so I would be wary of citing them as any sort of knowledgeable source.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Nuff Said"]The thing is LDC, most of us will take the opposite conclusion from your post than the one you clearly intend. RVW != Snodgrass in this universe or any other parallel universe, no matter how many there are. P.S. ICF, James Kent wrote for the Bleacher Report, so I would be wary of citing them as any sort of knowledgeable source.[/quote]

 

I wasn''t making any sort of general point about the Bleacher Report, and James Kent didn''t write the article I am referring to. 

 

The article about RVW  just after he scored on his debut against Everton was a well-reasoned analysis of why he was not suited to the Premier League as a player (which was pretty much borne out by the rest of that season), which should be praised as a courageous and intelligent piece of writing.  Most sports journalists would not be willing to go out on a limb like that.  As such I don''t care who writes for the website otherwise - it''s easy to say RVW was poor with hindsight, but to say it at the start of the season, when he''d just scored and had just arrived with much fanfare as our record signing, is much more difficult.

Here''s a link to the article for anyone who is interested :  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1744071-why-ricky-van-wolfswinkel-will-be-a-premier-league-flop-with-norwich

 

[hogesar 9,658]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="hogesar"]Have to say I completely agree with Purple who''s made the exact points I would, albeit more eloquently.[/quote]Every time this subject comes up I tell myself not to get involved, but then...Ron Obvious is fond of saying how scientists believe there are many universes. Well, in one or more of them van Wolfswinkel may be a half-decent footballer. Just not in this one.[/quote]

I try to do the same but it''s difficult because the evidence is so overwhelmingly stacked against RvW being anything close to a good striker that it seems unfair, even by my standards where I''m happy to lay blame at Hughton for some terrible football, to blame him for RvW''s lack of goals. Blame Hughton et al for signing him by all means but not for what followed.

Like you say, he wasn''t good enough for St Etienne and that league is seen to be much less physically demanding (one of the several obvious limitations of Ricky) and looking at the few goals he did score for them it''s very much a case of being given what would be regarded as a criminal amount of time in our leagues in the penalty area. He then struggled a second time on loan.

To put the league he''s playing into perspective even more than some already have, last season Vincent Janssen, the now Spurs forward who, in a very good team, has scored 1 goal in a total of approx 24 apps, was the leagues top scorer with 27 goals. And that''s a player who at least has the physical presence for the Premier League, is in a top team, and still struggling. Also worth noting he was only 21 years old when he notched those 27 goals.

So whilst RvW is doing relatively well in that league now, it''s a little absurd to think he''d be anywhere near the levels of Jerome or Oliveira in this league, or the one above.

[hogesar 9,658]

[quote user="lake district canary"]RVW''s chief supplier of dangerous crosses at Norwich......Snodgrass. No more needs be said. [/quote]

You''re right, no more needs to be said

Look at their respective career paths.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="lake district canary"]RVW''s chief supplier of dangerous crosses at Norwich......Snodgrass. No more needs be said. [/quote]

You''re right, no more needs to be said

Look at their respective career paths.

[/quote]

Ok. RVW recovered his confidence and scoring goals for fun - mostly from quality crosses and good service to back up his intelligent runs and positioning. Snodgrass - in a failing team at Hull, whose results have now improved since he left, funny, that.Moved to West Ham......dropping down the table....oh, he did manage an assist against Swansea at the weekend, his first goal invovlement in the ten games he''s been there.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Nice to see the same old agendas are still going strong ☺️.

Both players no longer play for Norwich and are completely irrelevant. Let it go, man.

[hogesar 9,658]

Do you think West Ham are going to buy RvW as a backup striker any time soon then?

[hogesar 9,658]

And Hull''s upturn in form was probably down to y''know, the change in manager.

Oh, and for Hull Snodgrass left with 7 goals and 3 assists in 19 Premier League starts.

Poor old Ricky would kill for those kind of results in one of the top leagues.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Also note that Snodgrass did not "drop down the league" Lakey. West Ham were above Hull when he left and remain so.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Also note that Snodgrass did not "drop down the league" Lakey. West Ham were above Hull when he left and remain so.[/quote]

I didn''t say he did.  I said West Ham have dropped down the league. RVW''s success in restoring his career at a decent level is a pleasing thing to see - no he''s not a PL player and probably never will be, but there is some credence in what I say about his time at Norwich - for whatever reason, he did not recieve the service he required to score in the manner in which he is capable.  Hardly any decent crosses delivered at the right time - and  on the pitch, there was one main culprit.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Redmond and Pilkington also played as wingers that season so unfair to lay all the blame at Snodgrass'' door. At the end of the day the whole squad underperformed that season, mostly down to mismanagement. However, Ricky was embarrassingly bad and remains one of the most ineffective Norwich strikers I can remember, and albeit for a much higher price tag than some of our other failing strikers. One of the worst signings, in respect of price tag, hype and excitement, that Norwich have ever made.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

That''s it - RVW wouldn''t have been such a disaster if we''d picked him up on a free transfer (he''d have just been quietly sidelined), but such a fanfare was made about how we''d signed him up months before the end of the previous season and what a coup it was for us, that we were expecting someone a bit special.

 

Personally I would not lay any real blame to any of his team mates - I just don''t think he had the qualities to succeed in a team like City which needed a striker capable of playing up front on his own.  And he is just not a good enough finisher for a better Prem team to want him. 

 

I guess the reality is that he''s found his level and is doing well there this season, but it''s just a shame we blew that transfer budget on a player that was useless for us. 

[Mason 47 1,379]

I always felt that Snodgrass did have a large affect on RvW''s time with us.

He was our main attacking outlet almost all the time, and with his relatively slow speed for a wide man would cut back to cross- and inevitably it would be a high, looping cross than a driven ball. Grant Holt loved a high, looping cross to attack and could battle with the defenders in the area.

RvW needed the pace generated for him and couldn''t hold his own in a physical contest- as people have said, he''s pretty much built a career on being the final touch on a suitable attacking move, and not much more.

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

Good luck to him first good season since leaving Portugal. A signing which was a disaster for player and club

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Mason 47"]I always felt that Snodgrass did have a large affect on RvW''s time with us.

He was our main attacking outlet almost all the time, and with his relatively slow speed for a wide man would cut back to cross- and inevitably it would be a high, looping cross than a driven ball. Grant Holt loved a high, looping cross to attack and could battle with the defenders in the area.

RvW needed the pace generated for him and couldn''t hold his own in a physical contest- as people have said, he''s pretty much built a career on being the final touch on a suitable attacking move, and not much more.[/quote]Absolutely right Mason.We NEVER played to RvW''s key assets (which were his runs and final finish given a decent ball), instead we demanded he try to be our version of Andy Carroll and surprise, surprise - it didn''t work (and would NEVER have worked).What gets me most though, is that he had been scouted by Hughton MONTHS before signing for us, everyone knew what type of player he was and what he could offer, and Hughton STILL insisted on asking him to play in a completely unsuited manner. He did exactly the same with Hooper most of the time, and Holt''s goals near enough HALVED when Hughton got his defensive minded hands on him. Let''s also not forget Becchio who had been banging them in for fun at Leeds who couldn''t get a game (even though Kei Kamara could) and it should be blindingly obvious to even the biggest RvW haters that the key problem was the man in change rather than the man upfront, but instead the pitchfork crew is out for RvW again...Sigh...

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Mason 47"]I always felt that Snodgrass did have a large affect on RvW''s time with us.

He was our main attacking outlet almost all the time, and with his relatively slow speed for a wide man would cut back to cross- and inevitably it would be a high, looping cross than a driven ball. Grant Holt loved a high, looping cross to attack and could battle with the defenders in the area.

RvW needed the pace generated for him and couldn''t hold his own in a physical contest- as people have said, he''s pretty much built a career on being the final touch on a suitable attacking move, and not much more.[/quote]

Absolutely right Mason.We NEVER played to RvW''s key assets (which were his runs and final finish given a decent ball), instead we demanded he try to be our version of Andy Carroll and surprise, surprise - it didn''t work (and would NEVER have worked).What gets me most though, is that he had been scouted by Hughton MONTHS before signing for us, everyone knew what type of player he was and what he could offer, and Hughton STILL insisted on asking him to play in a completely unsuited manner. He did exactly the same with Hooper most of the time, and Holt''s goals near enough HALVED when Hughton got his defensive minded hands on him. Let''s also not forget Becchio who had been banging them in for fun at Leeds who couldn''t get a game (even though Kei Kamara could) and it should be blindingly obvious to even the biggest RvW haters that the key problem was the man in change rather than the man upfront, but instead the pitchfork crew is out for RvW again...Sigh...[/quote]

Surely the blame lies with the players too.  Inability to cross accurately and early enough was an issue that affected us throughout. Redmond tried to improve his delivery and he did - eventually, but too late to help us in the PL.  Eliot Bennett - a player with pace who could deliver what was needed - was injured in the first game of the second season and we then relied on Snodgrass as the player to provide - and we all saw how he would hang on to the ball too long in most situations.

[king canary 7,605]

Can''t believe this is still going on.

Indy is right to an extent that a fair amount of the blame goes to Hughton and out scouting team for some reason thinking Ricky would work in the system we wanted to do play.

However I doubt he would have been a success under any other manager. He was remarkabley lightweight and even his biggest fans seem to admit he needs pretty much everything done for him.

[Nuff Said 5,131]

It''s like an itch you can''t help scratching, even though it''s best left...

There seem to be two camps formed here. One who believes that Ricky was a Premier League-class player surrounded by Championship quality players and management (or being a little fairer, he was a square peg in a round hole), and the other that thinks that it taken him several seasons to sink to his level.

For me, his subsequent career trajectory says all you need to know. Not only did he not suit the way we played at the time, no other team in this country thought he suited them either. But I''m going to do my best to back away from this thread now, as it''s turning into a pantomime "oh yes he was", ,"oh no he wasn''t" debate. Funny how we still care...