Josh Sargent..

[canarybubbles 1,915]

1 minute ago, Branston Pickle said:

At the game today we were saying how both Sargent and Tzolis were rather disappointing and cost, what, £20m+.   At least with Sargent you can see that there’s a lot of effort going in, but I’m sadly not sure what Tzolis has done for his money yet.

Sat on his backside mainly because he hasn't been picked. In contrast, Sargent has started most of our games.

Having said that, Tzolis was just as bad today. But invisible rather than woeful.

[BobLoz3 492]

Tzolis, PLM and Sargent all pretty awful, for me, today. 

We were lucky to scrape through.

[ron obvious 1,501]

9 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

He’s certainly close for the money spent. Can’t trap the ball, awful first touch and panics when in front of goal. Today he looked the worst technical player on the pitch - but that said he certainly doesn’t deserve being singled out - because Gianoullis had a shocker, Byram gave away acres of space, the entire midfield were second best to Charlton and the defence looked panicky - it really was a poor showing - though we looked vastly improved once the goal went in and Rashica, Aarons and Pukki made the difference 

This is why it's so difficult to take fans' opinions seriously. 

It's always the same. A player does something awful ( or, more rarely, wonderful) & too many fans then base the whole of their opinion about that player around it, & invent all sorts of deficiencies (or attributes) to that player which are simply untrue.

Sargent is a player who is currently awful anywhere near goal. Any confidence he may have had is shot & he becomes palpably panicked anywhere near goal.

However.

He's got a decent leap & can win balls in the air. He's one of our stronger players & doesn't get knocked off the ball easily. He's not particularly quick, but he's quick enough. He can show a nice touch laying off passes, even when surrounded by players. He can chase down & harry the opposition into making mistakes. Don't forgot the game when he came on (to replace Todd?) & was instrumental in changing the game.

He had a poor game today, as will any young, inexperienced player player alongside other players in poor form.

He's certainly not a PL quality striker (or indeed any sort of striker at the mo) but he can be useful in the right situation. Attributing all sorts of deficiencies to him that he doesn't actually have is plain wrong & of zero help to him or to the club.

 

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

Tzolis point is fair- he does nothing…

[Capt. Pants 4,201]

6 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

Having said that, Tzolis was just as bad today. But invisible rather than woeful.

Hasn't learnt to impose himself on a game yet and it was against League One opposition. Surprising, as he has played at a reasonably high level.

What's more concerning is that his team mates don't feel inclined to pass to him....

 

[canarybubbles 1,915]

2 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

This is why it's so difficult to take fans' opinions seriously. 

It's always the same. A player does something awful ( or, more rarely, wonderful) & too many fans then base the whole of their opinion about that player around it, & invent all sorts of deficiencies (or attributes) to that player which are simply untrue.

Sargent is a player who is currently awful anywhere near goal. Any confidence he may have had is shot & he becomes palpably panicked anywhere near goal.

However.

He's got a decent leap & can win balls in the air. He's one of our stronger players & doesn't get knocked off the ball easily. He's not particularly quick, but he's quick enough. He can show a nice touch laying off passes, even when surrounded by players. He can chase down & harry the opposition into making mistakes. Don't forgot the game when he came on (to replace Todd?) & was instrumental in changing the game.

He had a poor game today, as will any young, inexperienced player player alongside other players in poor form.

He's certainly not a PL quality striker (or indeed any sort of striker at the mo) but he can be useful in the right situation. Attributing all sorts of deficiencies to him that he doesn't actually have is plain wrong & of zero help to him or to the club.

 

You're right in a way, but there really is no excuse for paying so much money for a player who quite obviously lacks any of the basic ball skills which are essential for a high-level footballer. I agree it is not Sargent's fault that Webber forked out 9m because the stats looked good on his spreadsheet, but Sargent just doesn't have the basic skills for the Prem and almost certainly will never have. We need to cut our losses.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

Let's face it Webber and his scouts are not up to the job. Appalling business this season just as it was last time. Difference last time we didn't sell the talisman and creator of most of our assists to fund it...

It's going to be a rough 3 months....

[shefcanary 2,388]

6 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

He can show a nice touch laying off passes, even when surrounded by players. 

 

Are you blind?  He needs 5 touches to bring the ball anywhere near under control.

[Ward 3 371]

We shouldve kept soto and given him a chance.....

[ron obvious 1,501]

Just now, canarybubbles said:

You're right in a way, but there really is no excuse for paying so much money for a player who quite obviously lacks any of the basic ball skills which are essential for a high-level footballer. I agree it is not Sargent's fault that Webber forked out 9m because the stats looked good on his spreadsheet, but Sargent just doesn't have the basic skills for the Prem and almost certainly will never have. We need to cut our losses.

Well that's not what I've seen. His skills look pretty decent at this level to me, certainly no worse than nearly all the rest of the squad & he has the virtue of greater strength. 

His huge problem is having complete panic attacks when near goal. How to cure it is the question - & it's up to Smith to find a solution (if there is one).

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

5 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Are you blind?  He needs 5 touches to bring the ball anywhere near under control.

Today he was in a wonderful position to score - I was stood  ten feet away- he twirled round and round and then staffed it wide…most L2 strikers would have shot and hit the target in seconds 

[ron obvious 1,501]

5 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Are you blind?  He needs 5 touches to bring the ball anywhere near under control.

That's not what I see. Sorry. 

I fear you are indulging in hyperbole, brought on by frustration.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

1 minute ago, ron obvious said:

Well that's not what I've seen. His skills look pretty decent at this level to me, certainly no worse than nearly all the rest of the squad & he has the virtue of greater strength. 

His huge problem is having complete panic attacks when near goal. How to cure it is the question - & it's up to Smith to find a solution (if there is one).

He’s better out wide as it takes pressure off 

[ron obvious 1,501]

Just now, Dean Coneys boots said:

Today he was in a wonderful position to score - I was stood  ten feet away- he twirled round and round and then staffed it wide…most L2 strikers would have shot and hit the target in seconds 

Precisely!

[ron obvious 1,501]

Just now, Dean Coneys boots said:

He’s better out wide as it takes pressure off 

That would certainly help in the short term I think. He needs help from the management team.

[Danke bitte 965]

19 minutes ago, BobLoz3 said:

Tzolis, PLM and Sargent all pretty awful, for me, today. 

We were lucky to scrape through.

… *looks at watch… 

Amd where exactly have you been whilst I’ve been desperately holding the fort?!! 

[Fuzzar 1,702]

Well, I feel sorry for him. He looked pretty downhearted in the changing rooms after... 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

1 hour ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

"Under the Consumer Rights Act you have a legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, and get a full refund - as long as you do this quickly. ... And if this isn't possible, or is unsuccessful, you have the right to receive a price reduction."

Unsatisfactory quality (zero goals)- check

unfit for purpose (can't trap a bag of cement) - check

or not as described (a striker? REALLY???) - check

OTBC

If we paid for him by credit card we'd be protected by section 75 of the consumer credit act and we'd be able to do a chargeback to Werder Bremen

'your credit card provider is jointly and severally responsible for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by a retailer or trader'

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

1 hour ago, Hoolahoop14 said:

He's the worst signing this club has ever made and ever will make. A dreadful, dreadful footballer. As someone said above, it's not his fault we paid 9 million pounds for him, but that doesn't mean we can't criticise him. I would be happy if he never played for us again. Get rid asap and take a loss. Truly think we'd be lucky to get 10% of what we paid for him back.

I keep expecting 4 kids and a great dane to turn up in a purple VW van and unmask him to unveil Ali Dia

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

1 hour ago, Danke bitte said:

Somewhere out there Ricky Van Wolfswinkel is quietly sipping on his camomile tea, relaxing in his recliner with a wry smile on his face… 

I've thought a lot about this. RvW only ever scored 1 goal for us, and went almost an entire season without scoring. Yet we always backed him and hoped he'd come good - and even now he is still thought of fondly. In one game he only touched the ball 17 times. There was his famous ghost pass, and he finished the season I believe ranked as the worst player in the division.

Sargent does at least put in a shift sometimes, yet we havent warmed to him in the same way.

So there are a few possible explanations: 

1. We remember RvW and are less forgiving with obvious duds

2. We were all taken in by RvW's marketing. All the 'Feed the Wolf' stuff and the idea we'd stolen him from under the noses of the big boys. Sargent came with no such reputation.

3. Maybe an extension of 2. but we couldnt shake the perception we had bought a World-Class player and somehow we just needed to unlock him. Fans of other clubs genuinely thought we'd bought a baller.

4. We had broken our transfer record and were genuinely excited. Sargent came with a similar fee but didnt break any records. And we'd also done a similar thing with Naismith.

5. RvW was pretty.

[Commonsense 618]

1 hour ago, Hoolahoop14 said:

He's the worst signing this club has ever made and ever will make. A dreadful, dreadful footballer. As someone said above, it's not his fault we paid 9 million pounds for him, but that doesn't mean we can't criticise him. I would be happy if he never played for us again. Get rid asap and take a loss. Truly think we'd be lucky to get 10% of what we paid for him back.

Awful though he is, you have to remember that we signed Naismith for a similar amount and he didn’t even care.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

59 minutes ago, Yellow Wal said:

7 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

I've thought a lot about this. RvW only ever scored 1 goal for us, and went almost an entire season without scoring. Yet we always backed him and hoped he'd come good - and even now he is still thought of fondly. In one game he only touched the ball 17 times. There was his famous ghost pass, and he finished the season I believe ranked as the worst player in the division.

Sargent does at least put in a shift sometimes, yet we havent warmed to him in the same way.

So there are a few possible explanations: 

1. We remember RvW and are less forgiving with obvious duds

2. We were all taken in by RvW's marketing. All the 'Feed the Wolf' stuff and the idea we'd stolen him from under the noses of the big boys. Sargent came with no such reputation.

3. Maybe an extension of 2. but we couldnt shake the perception we had bought a World-Class player and somehow we just needed to unlock him. Fans of other clubs genuinely thought we'd bought a baller.

4. We had broken our transfer record and were genuinely excited. Sargent came with a similar fee but didnt break any records. And we'd also done a similar thing with Naismith.

5. RvW was pretty.

Rvw was clearly a decent enough player stuck in the wrong system devoid of confidence. Sargent looks like a Sunday league player out of his depth. A better comparison would be Dean Coney! 

[canarybubbles 1,915]

5 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

I've thought a lot about this. RvW only ever scored 1 goal for us, and went almost an entire season without scoring. Yet we always backed him and hoped he'd come good - and even now he is still thought of fondly. In one game he only touched the ball 17 times. There was his famous ghost pass, and he finished the season I believe ranked as the worst player in the division.

Sargent does at least put in a shift sometimes, yet we havent warmed to him in the same way.

So there are a few possible explanations: 

1. We remember RvW and are less forgiving with obvious duds

2. We were all taken in by RvW's marketing. All the 'Feed the Wolf' stuff and the idea we'd stolen him from under the noses of the big boys. Sargent came with no such reputation.

3. Maybe an extension of 2. but we couldnt shake the perception we had bought a World-Class player and somehow we just needed to unlock him. Fans of other clubs genuinely thought we'd bought a baller.

4. We had broken our transfer record and were genuinely excited. Sargent came with a similar fee but didnt break any records. And we'd also done a similar thing with Naismith.

5. RvW was pretty.

There are similarities, I think. Both players tried very hard for all their limitations and it's hard not to feel sympathy for them, even as we trash them on sites like this.

But I think one difference is that there was a sense that there was a good player there in RvW. Until the 'ghost pass', he rarely looked comically incompetent in the way that Sargent sometimes does. And some of us - and I have to admit I was one of them - laid a lot of the blame on Hughton (for not having any idea how to make the most of the player) and/or Snodgrass (for being a totally selfish player who deliberately tried to freeze out a colleague who might become more important than he was).

I don't discount #5 by the way. RvW's cute little TinTin quiff was definitely more becoming in a footballer than Sargent's ginger Shirley Temple locks. 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

4 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Rvw was clearly a decent enough player stuck in the wrong system devoid of confidence. Sargent looks like a Sunday league player out of his depth. A better comparison would be Dean Coney! 

Oh...go on then, I might as well:

Watch out for my name sake for our 2nd goal, taking opponents  on and beating them for LOLs. "Skin 'im Dale!"

OTBC

[Danke bitte 965]

12 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

I've thought a lot about this. RvW only ever scored 1 goal for us, and went almost an entire season without scoring. Yet we always backed him and hoped he'd come good - and even now he is still thought of fondly. In one game he only touched the ball 17 times. There was his famous ghost pass, and he finished the season I believe ranked as the worst player in the division.

Sargent does at least put in a shift sometimes, yet we havent warmed to him in the same way.

So there are a few possible explanations: 

1. We remember RvW and are less forgiving with obvious duds

2. We were all taken in by RvW's marketing. All the 'Feed the Wolf' stuff and the idea we'd stolen him from under the noses of the big boys. Sargent came with no such reputation.

3. Maybe an extension of 2. but we couldnt shake the perception we had bought a World-Class player and somehow we just needed to unlock him. Fans of other clubs genuinely thought we'd bought a baller.

4. We had broken our transfer record and were genuinely excited. Sargent came with a similar fee but didnt break any records. And we'd also done a similar thing with Naismith.

5. RvW was pretty.

From memory, the teeth gnashing regarding RVW only happened towards the end of that season when things were drastically going south. Don’t forget penaltygate either. I think both RvW and Sargent have come across as nice guys but I think the main factor with fan ire at Sargent is the patience being less now than before because of all the yo yoing and Webber’s sabre rattling pre season.

Plus there’s all this retrospective talk about how RvW could have fitted into a Farke side etc. Plus RvW had a pretty stellar rep in Portugal (forget which side, Benfica??), we just ruined him. 

Sargent came with a fairly average rep and for all of the ‘could come goods’ just appears pretty bad. 

Either way, as much as I empathise with him, he has a job to do and isn’t. So I’d be inclined to try and cut our losses with him in summer. Unless he does, of course, come good.

[Newtopia 517]

The managers must see something, he seems to play all the time, whilst Tzolis has had very few minutes.

[Deptford Yellow 258]

Rubbish as Sargent is he is probably offering more on the right than Dowell if today is anything to go by ….

[Samwam27 519]

I suppose one counter argument (not that there is one) is Southampton paid over £15m for Adam Armstrong. He scored on his debut and hasn't scored since (I believe) 

I'm at a loss re: our signings. What do you do with them. Every time we play Sargent, Tzolis, PLM they look pretty awful. What are our options. We play others, like Dowell, or Idah, who look equally awful, and just no one seems to want to take their opportunity

 It's not like we've got many alternatives, such is the depth of our squad. And we end up complaining about Mclean, who most despise, and yet he's one of our most consistent performers who only plays averagely every game, which says something about our squad.

I pity what Smith has walked into. This seasons recruitments are awful and woefully wide of the mark for a Premiership season, or to even improve upon what we've got. Webber and the scouts have failed abysmally this season  

[Mello Yello 2,281]

Shouldn't just become target fixated on young Josh, the lad's having a torrid time of it.....There are others, and not just players - but I include non-playing staff and those involved in our upper club echelons.....

[Samwam27 519]

1 minute ago, Mello Yello said:

Shouldn't just become target fixated on young Josh, the lad's having a torrid time of it.....There are others, and not just players - but I include non-playing staff and those involved in our upper club echelons.....

Care to elaborate?