Sargent is clearly better than Hugill

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

Seen quite a few people suggest otherwise.

Against Brighton I thought Sargent actually played quite well, got his head to things. Missed an absolute sitter of course, a miss which may well have lost Farke his job, but did excellently to win the ball in that situation.

I don't think we needed a player as raw as him in a 'must stay up' season, we needed a proven goalscorer, its a bit of a ludicrous signing considering the clubs stance seems to be that we can't afford to mess around doing another yo-yo...

... But as bad as Hugill? Seriously? Not for me,

[The Real Buh 3,765]

[Terminally Yellow 2,614]

I would put them at similar levels. The difference is, Sargent is 21 and has the capacity to improve significantly. Hugill is 29 and has probably reached his peak. 

[Nora's Ghost 157]

A young lad a long way from home and probably trying too hard.

 

 

[Newtopia 573]

I think he is just the fall guy for the recent results.  He reminds me of Ewan Roberts when he first joined us.  Trying to fit into a system that was not built for him.  I can see why people are rude, he is not twinkle toed, yet he works hard and gets in good positions.  

I suspect his confidence is shot and if he reads this thread he will probably head straight back to Germany.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

2 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

I would put them at similar levels. The difference is, Sargent is 21 and has the capacity to improve significantly. Hugill is 29 and has probably reached his peak. 

Sargent is already better technically. He's very good with his feet and quite quick, but as others have pointed out he looks raw and easily loses confidence.  He will become a very good player however. 

[Mengo 852]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

Sargent is already better technically. He's very good with his feet and quite quick, but as others have pointed out he looks raw and easily loses confidence.  He will become a very good player however. 

Foot (the right one). 😏 

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

I quite like Sargent. He's not what we needed for this season, but will surely become a fan's favourite should we find ourselves in back in the Chumps first time around.

However, he needs to be taught how to score  on a (fairly) frequent basis. Or even on a (fairly) infrequent basis. He, panics, freezes and misses in that order.

Perhaps it is a confidence thing. Perhaps one strike will breach the dam, Dulcoease-like.

He's a far better all-round option than Hugill and much younger too, but Hugill might well have had a couple of vital goals to his credit by now.

Edited November 9, 2021 by BroadstairsR

[Commonsense 802]

12 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I quite like Sargent. He's not what we needed for this season, but will surely become a fan's favourite should we find ourselves in back in the Chumps first time around.

However, he needs to be taught how to score  on a (fairly) frequent basis. Or even on a (fairly) infrequent basis. He, panics, freezes and misses in that order.

Perhaps it is a confidence thing. Perhaps one strike will breach the dam, Dulcoease-like.

He's a far better all-round option than Hugill and much younger too, but Hugill might well have had a couple of vital goals to his credit by now.

These needs are all well and good in a player coming through the youth system. Not sure that in our position we can afford to sp*nk £10m up the wall on a player who needs to be taught the basics.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Commonsense
Spelling

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

6 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

These needs are all well and good in a player coming through the youth system. Not sure that in our position we can afford to sp*nk £10m up the wall on a player who needs to be taught the basics.

Like I said, not what we needed this season.

How do we know he cost that much, btw? Was it ever revealed, except by press guesswork?

Excessive if so.

[TheGunnShow 7,377]

He gives us height, strength, some pace, and a happy willingness to leg it after anything vaguely sent in his direction. His touch is hit and miss, and his finishing is also hit and miss. That said, he does take up some good positions and puts himself about.

He suffers a bit in that he's often shunted on a wing for running his legs off. Suspect he'd look a different player if you had Rashica and Tzolis sending crosses in instead of chasing channel balls.

[canarybubbles 2,199]

1) He cost us a lot more than Hugill (about three times as much?) so I think we are justified in expecting basic ball skills

2) The fact that he is being compared with Hugill does not suggest the fans see him entering the Hall of Fame any time soon

3) The first thing his supporters say is, 'He works hard'. This is like your manager at your annual appraisal at work beginning his report by saying that 'X is always very punctual.'

[yellow_belly 227]

12 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

1) He cost us a lot more than Hugill (about three times as much?) so I think we are justified in expecting basic ball skills

2) The fact that he is being compared with Hugill does not suggest the fans see him entering the Hall of Fame any time soon

3) The first thing his supporters say is, 'He works hard'. This is like your manager at your annual appraisal at work beginning his report by saying that 'X is always very punctual.'

You can’t argue with this.

I understand that Josh always turns up on time for the coach, so is better than Michael Theo (the goalkeeper formerly known at Michael Theoklitos)!

 

[Mr Angry 2,017]

I think he’s been criticised partly for the same reason that Ed Sheeran, Mick Hucknall and Geri Halliwell are/were.

[TheGunnShow 7,377]

Just now, Mr Angry said:

I think he’s been criticised partly for the same reason that Ed Sheeran, Mick Hucknall and Geri Halliwell are/were.

He can't sing either? 😉

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

58 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Like I said, not what we needed this season.

How do we know he cost that much, btw? Was it ever revealed, except by press guesswork?

Excessive if so.

He didn't, he made it up.

Rashica and Tsoliz cost more at just under £10m a piece.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

47 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

2) The fact that he is being compared with Hugill does not suggest the fans see him entering the Hall of Fame any time soon

He's being compared with Hugill because it is Hugill he replaced in three squad, good grief. 

[TIL 1010 5,246]

33 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

I think he’s been criticised partly for the same reason that Ed Sheeran, Mick Hucknall and Geri Halliwell are/were.

[pete 371]

If we continue in crossing into the box and not passing through the middle to feed Pukki we are going to need Hugill next season, of course not if we stay up.  But flying pigs are being seen at Carrow Rd.  I can see Hugill and Sargent as being a possibility as a couple for our wingers to cross.  Not a combination much seen at Norwich lately.  Hugill has a job to do in the Championship. 

[AJ 1,359]

The thing Sargent has over Hugill is potential, and that's why the club moved him on and bought in Josh.

[Berks canary 2]

The issue with Sargent is that he is not a striker and will not score many goals . He never has .

He has scored 20 goals in 100 senior games at a much lower level , so however much he runs around he will not score many goals . You would have thought that Stewart Webbers first thought would be to check out his strike record before wasting £10m. So we are left with Puuki hho is not up to Premier level , Sargent and Hugill who will not score and Idah who again is not up to Premier level.

So where are the goals coming from ?  They aren't and thats why we will go down. We have wasted a lot of money on Sargent and Hugill when all we needed was one at say £20m who had some sort of goal record.

[canarybubbles 2,199]

27 minutes ago, Berks canary said:

The issue with Sargent is that he is not a striker and will not score many goals . He never has .

He has scored 20 goals in 100 senior games at a much lower level , so however much he runs around he will not score many goals . You would have thought that Stewart Webbers first thought would be to check out his strike record before wasting £10m. So we are left with Puuki hho is not up to Premier level , Sargent and Hugill who will not score and Idah who again is not up to Premier level.

So where are the goals coming from ?  They aren't and thats why we will go down. We have wasted a lot of money on Sargent and Hugill when all we needed was one at say £20m who had some sort of goal record.

I disagree when you say Pukki is not up to Premier level. I think last time he got 11 goals, which isn't great, but OK for a team who amassed 21 points overall. This year he's on target for about the same number while the team are also heading for a similar points total. 

Last season many people were saying Toney was so much better than Pukki, but he's also finding scoring is much more difficult in the Prem. At the moment he has two goals.

For me, the problem is less Pukki's ability but the lack of creativity in the midfield. Let's hope it's sorted out soon.

[daly 551]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

 

[daly 551]

Just now, daly said:

 

That gingerbread man can’t sing supports Ipswich and is one ugly RICH xucker

[Mullet 293]

3 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

He looks like a goldfish that's just noticed the floating fish flakes

[Yobocop 1,444]

What Sargent will achieve in his career will far outweigh anything bloody Jordan ‘all the bubbles’ Hugill ever will 

[Capt. Pants 5,008]

Will be interesting to see if and how the new manager utilises him. I suspect the main brief will be to create chances for Pukki to score.

[Berks canary 2]

Fine but Pukki cannot score all our goals and he is missing more chances than scoring. 
We have neglected this vital position and we can’t change anything until the transfer window

[Yobocop 1,444]

53 minutes ago, Berks canary said:

Fine but Pukki cannot score all our goals and he is missing more chances than scoring. 
We have neglected this vital position and we can’t change anything until the transfer window

Name me a striker who doesn’t