SVH

[cambridgeshire canary 6,755]

10 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I remember it well when i got jumped on for saying that i wouldn't look twice at Dennis Srbeny at Sloughbottom Park on a Sunday morning.

To give him credit he did score 30 odd goals for Paderborn in the 2nd German divison which anit that bad. And at least he will always have that one goal against Everton..

 

[The Real Buh 3,446]

3 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

To give him credit he did score 30 odd goals for Paderborn in the 2nd German divison which anit that bad. And at least he will always have that one goal against Everton..

 

I did actually enjoy the “not quite sure if it was 100% ironic or not” support for Srbeny.

[Paul101 93]

he is a young in striker terms player still learning his trade and currently 3rd choice people expect to much

 

he comes on does a job holds things up adds the odd assist or goal thats a win for now

 

think Jackson nothing more than a bit part player

Edited March 3 by Paul101

[hogesar 9,705]

1 hour ago, Mason 47 said:

Bit surprised at this thread from you, @hogesar. You've spent plenty of time wading into exactly these sorts of topic to defend Wagner, McLean, Gibson etc. Even on the current McLean thread, saying football fans have no patience.

The key difference being all of those have proven some level of ability at some point. 

And as I've said there's every chance SVH shows something soon. For me, he looks totally unsuited to what Wagner wants and you have to take into account the stick Wagner has already had for not giving him more gametime. I think its abundantly clear why he hasn't had it.

[BroadstairsR 2,185]

We could probably have done with not letting Jordan Hugill go, in retrospect.

Ooops!

Serious though, and that goal he scored against us in our worst result of the season (Plymouth included) cost us valuable points that have become vital.

No acclimatisation, settling in or lack of effort with him, as limited as he clearly was.

Edited March 3 by BroadstairsR

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,435]

Timing and hindsight aside we do appear to have a guy who is nowhere near the standard . Added to a strikeforce who have all been injured this year. A repeat of these injuries and we are knackered. 
 Idah wanted to go but replacing him with this lad at this stage of the season  is very odd. 
I hate to mention the Binners - but they have relaunched an apparently failing promotion campaign by singing an up to speed player from Bournemouth who seems to score or assist every time I reluctantly look at their score.  Presumably the Binners are paying his (premier league) wages or significant part thereof which I assume we now can’t afford to do. 
 

A team relying on Sydney isn’t getting where the play offs. See him kick the Sunderland player on the edge of our box yesterday? I had more control over his legs than he did . 
 

[Indy 3,307]

12 hours ago, hogesar said:

A real slim one. But I'm concerned there's a complacency within the club, perhaps Knapper, who doesn't understand how difficult getting to the play-offs are. And that we were willing to make mid-season sacrifices for the longer-term, whilst ignoring our short-term opportunity, sort of suggests that.

Say we miss out on the play-offs by 2 points and SVH doesn't improve from here on in. Every chance Idah could have been the difference. Then let's say we don't touch the playoffs for the next 2 seasons - it will look such a missed opportunity that was basically, unnecessary

Hogs, some of us were calling for Idah to be given more time on the pitch, I’m sure a big part of Idah’s decision to go was sitting on the bench watching Barnes a player in his last two seasons who’s not really contributing more than he did! So to say keeping Idah here would go against Wagners ideas of Sargent & Barnes! 
 

As for VH he isn't lighting up the pitch when he comes on then again twice now he’s come onto the pitch and the games changed to our advantage. While I totally agree he looks out of sharpness and a little lost, he’s only had 60 odd minutes of football with us, how can you seriously judge him on that! 
 

I am surprised by your thread here, you’re not normally one to be critical of anything Norwich, maybe a full 90 plating up top with chances being created might give us a better viewpoint, though you might be right he could just be a rubbish loan!

[Well b back 3,234]

11 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I want at the game, but it looked like it was chucking it down a lot of the time. That’s hardly going to bring out the best in any player, let alone one who’s had about 30 minutes so far.

Yes I explained this on another thread, torrential rain, hail, a swirling wind, freezing cold and puddles on parts of the pitch, ie Stacey and 1 of their players sliding near the dugouts, and it looked like they were in a paddling pool.

[hogesar 9,705]

28 minutes ago, Indy said:

Hogs, some of us were calling for Idah to be given more time on the pitch, I’m sure a big part of Idah’s decision to go was sitting on the bench watching Barnes a player in his last two seasons who’s not really contributing more than he did! So to say keeping Idah here would go against Wagners ideas of Sargent & Barnes! 
 

As for VH he isn't lighting up the pitch when he comes on then again twice now he’s come onto the pitch and the games changed to our advantage. While I totally agree he looks out of sharpness and a little lost, he’s only had 60 odd minutes of football with us, how can you seriously judge him on that! 
 

I am surprised by your thread here, you’re not normally one to be critical of anything Norwich, maybe a full 90 plating up top with chances being created might give us a better viewpoint, though you might be right he could just be a rubbish loan!

I'm not normally critical so it should speak volumes that I am in this case. It's very rare I've seen a player come in and look so out of place in our side, despite the limited minutes. 

It's worth noting because when we drew against QPR the entire fanbase slammed Wagner for not bringing on SVH to force their defence back and offer a more offensive threat.

Based on the evidence Wagner was totally right not to bring him on.

Hopefully,  with match sharpness he will look a lot better but he's certainly not been signed as a similar mould to Sargent.

Again I'd say it sort of only makes sense for him to play the Barnes role which he did when he came on but only touched the ball 5 times all game and wins less in the air and didn't win a single ground duel. So understandable Barnes gets in ahead of him there.

[Indy 3,307]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

I'm not normally critical so it should speak volumes that I am in this case. It's very rare I've seen a player come in and look so out of place in our side, despite the limited minutes. 

It's worth noting because when we drew against QPR the entire fanbase slammed Wagner for not bringing on SVH to force their defence back and offer a more offensive threat.

Based on the evidence Wagner was totally right not to bring him on.

Hopefully,  with match sharpness he will look a lot better but he's certainly not been signed as a similar mould to Sargent.

Again I'd say it sort of only makes sense for him to play the Barnes role which he did when he came on but only touched the ball 5 times all game and wins less in the air and didn't win a single ground duel. So understandable Barnes gets in ahead of him there.

I agree but your first paragraph misses out Hwang, he was utterly useless and lost, scored a screamer and suddenly everyone saw a different player!

[hogesar 9,705]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

I agree but your first paragraph misses out Hwang, he was utterly useless and lost, scored a screamer and suddenly everyone saw a different player!

The difference was I saw a tiny bit of reasoning with Hwang. He did have the engine and the size to press from the front and he did that - not as good as Sargent of course but he was that mould of striker. So whilst you're right he did look lost - he marginally improved to being useful at times. During a play off push it seems bizarre to me to send him back, Idah away and start all over again in Feb with a striker who doesn't fit the mould of our style at all (unless I've got it completely wrong and he actually will end up fitting in perfectly)

[Indy 3,307]

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

The difference was I saw a tiny bit of reasoning with Hwang. He did have the engine and the size to press from the front and he did that - not as good as Sargent of course but he was that mould of striker. So whilst you're right he did look lost - he marginally improved to being useful at times. During a play off push it seems bizarre to me to send him back, Idah away and start all over again in Feb with a striker who doesn't fit the mould of our style at all (unless I've got it completely wrong and he actually will end up fitting in perfectly)

You saw maker than me the first two games Hwang did less than VH has!

Anyhow, a lot of people said the same about Sargent so who knows how good VH will turn out, or not but 60 minutes certainly isn’t enough time to be so critical.

[Channon’s Windmill 327]

Slightly different stance and I am showing my age here, I think good old Reserve team football would have been good for the likes of SVH and a few before him. Yes, I know he can be played as an over age in the U-23, but that’s definitely not the same. He needs minutes of on pitch football to adapt. Hard to judge him properly atm.

[Indy 3,307]

6 minutes ago, Channon’s Windmill said:

Slightly different stance and I am showing my age here, I think good old Reserve team football would have been good for the likes of SVH and a few before him. Yes, I know he can be played as an over age in the U-23, but that’s definitely not the same. He needs minutes of on pitch football to adapt. Hard to judge him properly atm.

Indeed, you almost need that second team set up as they have in some other countries!

[Capt. Pants 4,262]

It would have made more sense for SVH to have had a run out for the U21s rather than looking so off the pace for the 1st team. If he could have a bagged a couple and got a full 90 mind it could work wonders. Likewise Aboh could have come on yesterday instead, boosting his confidence and who knows encourage him to sign a new deal!

The issue I'm furious about is loaning out Idah mid-season in the midst of a supposed play-off push. Absolutely crazy leaving us with 1 striker and Barnes. We need to pray Sargent stays fit else this season is over.

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,032]

I am not one to write a player off with so little game time. Personally I think you can tell if a player has got a "little something about them" (I felt that with Sarge, Sainz, Sara and Nunez), I have not got that feeling with SVH but I personally will wait until he has a lot more game time before forming an opinion on him.............

Edited March 3 by Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB

[hogesar 9,705]

10 minutes ago, Indy said:

You saw maker than me the first two games Hwang did less than VH has!

Anyhow, a lot of people said the same about Sargent so who knows how good VH will turn out, or not but 60 minutes certainly isn’t enough time to be so critical.

For comparison, in Hwangs first 30 minutes off the bench from us he touched the ball twice as many times as Sydney, won 2 aerial challenges vs Sydneys 0, had a shot on target.

He then got 22 minutes against the best side in the league in Leicester, won 2 ground duels, 2 aerial duels, touched the ball twice as much as SVH again etc etc.

And I agree with you he was poor. But even in the above, its offering more to the team

[daz 72]

He couldn't even make a tackle on the guy who then went on to hit the bar yesterday 😳

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,032]

44 minutes ago, hogesar said:

For comparison, in Hwangs first 30 minutes off the bench from us he touched the ball twice as many times as Sydney, won 2 aerial challenges vs Sydneys 0, had a shot on target.

He then got 22 minutes against the best side in the league in Leicester, won 2 ground duels, 2 aerial duels, touched the ball twice as much as SVH again etc etc.

And I agree with you he was poor. But even in the above, its offering more to the team

I know the game was won but didn't SVH get an assist shortly after coming of the bench against Cardiff...........

[Branston Pickle 3,667]

I’m astonished that anyone would write off a player who has barely played the equivalent of half a game so far.  Utterly ridiculous.

[hogesar 9,705]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

I’m astonished that anyone would write off a player who has barely played the equivalent of half a game so far.  Utterly ridiculous.

I think there's a difference between writing off and judging if that type of player is suitable for the way we play, or for English football in general. 

I think we have to also consider context. If this was a summer signing, or if we had kept Idah and brought SVH in to get used to English football on a long-term prospect - then that makes sense to me, we've not weakened our forward options in the mean time. Or, if we had nothing to play for you could also see perfect logic in it.

[Big Vince 318]

16 hours ago, yellowrider120 said:

You're absolutely right but the pertinent question is (and assuming SVH does NOT 'come good'), the scouting recommendation has to come under intense and critical analysis. Knapper himself said...........'we have been after him for sometime'!. If this is the result of Kanppers first foray into he transfer market then the prospects are poor (to put it kindly).

Knapper was brought here just so that he can agree with Delia, not because he is any good.

[Big Vince 318]

58 minutes ago, daz said:

He couldn't even make a tackle on the guy who then went on to hit the bar yesterday 😳

Do any players make proper tackles these days? 

[Indy 3,307]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

For comparison, in Hwangs first 30 minutes off the bench from us he touched the ball twice as many times as Sydney, won 2 aerial challenges vs Sydneys 0, had a shot on target.

He then got 22 minutes against the best side in the league in Leicester, won 2 ground duels, 2 aerial duels, touched the ball twice as much as SVH again etc etc.

And I agree with you he was poor. But even in the above, its offering more to the team

You can’t compare because game circumstances are so different and players on the pitch too! So stats aren’t really comparable in terms of a players 30 minute performance.

I’ve yet to see VH to say he’s not going to be any good or not, but I do think he’s got to be given real game time and I’m sure it’ll come! 

[Indy 3,307]

20 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think there's a difference between writing off and judging if that type of player is suitable for the way we play, or for English football in general. 

I think we have to also consider context. If this was a summer signing, or if we had kept Idah and brought SVH in to get used to English football on a long-term prospect - then that makes sense to me, we've not weakened our forward options in the mean time. Or, if we had nothing to play for you could also see perfect logic in it.

I think we need agree Idah pushed to go, I don’t think he’d have been loaned out with his record of goals and assists. The club probably didn’t have an option.

I think it shows either two things, we don’t have much money to get top quality strikers in to push Sargent or we don’t have the trust in Wagner to waste money in January and keeping the funds for the new coach come summer.

We shall see Hogs but if we are to seriously consider buying VH we need to see him or he certainly won’t be staying and as you say a wasted opportunity possibly of pushing for promotion.

[repman 635]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

For comparison, in Hwangs first 30 minutes off the bench from us he touched the ball twice as many times as Sydney, won 2 aerial challenges vs Sydneys 0, had a shot on target.

He then got 22 minutes against the best side in the league in Leicester, won 2 ground duels, 2 aerial duels, touched the ball twice as much as SVH again etc etc.

And I agree with you he was poor. But even in the above, its offering more to the team

I think you're cherrypicking though to suit your argument, on the flipside SVH came on and completed 6/6 passes and generated 0.1 xA from the ball through to Sargent. The progressive distance of his passes was 52 yards, Barnes had 57 for the game and in Hwang's first game he had just 6 yards. So not only was he looking after the ball well he was getting it forwards a lot too.

Also of course in the 30 minutes he had the last 10 was spent doing a pretty thankless task of defending, it's not like we did anything remarkable in possession after we scored. It was roughly a 50/50 split in terms of possession until the goal, wherefrom then until the end of the game Sunderland had 70% of the ball. 

Also the point about aerial duels, I can remember him winning one header and I've just gone and watched it back. The reason it doesn't count as an aerial duel is because he basically holds the Sunderland player off enough so much so he doesn't even attempt to challenge for a ball. 

[BigFish 1,988]

The point is we have twelve games left and right now SVH is a clear downgrade on Idah. Idah was supposedly the best sub in the division, SVH is clearly not. The lack of that impact from the bench may cost us, and it would be worse if Sarge or Branes get injured.

[TheGunnShow 5,955]

He's a downgrade so far, but he's rusty and you'd think he can only get better. Hwang became serviceable with time, and we need SVH to get there too.

[Capt. Pants 4,262]

Well we have 11 games left, 4 this month, including Rotherham and Plymouth at home. You'd hope he can get on the scoresheet soon.

I was hoping Idah could return for the play-offs but the SPL doesn't finish until May 19th and the Scottish Cup Final the week after.

I hope we a wrapping Josh up in cotton wool between matches!

[hogesar 9,705]

34 minutes ago, repman said:

I think you're cherrypicking though to suit your argument, on the flipside SVH came on and completed 6/6 passes and generated 0.1 xA from the ball through to Sargent. The progressive distance of his passes was 52 yards, Barnes had 57 for the game and in Hwang's first game he had just 6 yards. So not only was he looking after the ball well he was getting it forwards a lot too.

Also of course in the 30 minutes he had the last 10 was spent doing a pretty thankless task of defending, it's not like we did anything remarkable in possession after we scored. It was roughly a 50/50 split in terms of possession until the goal, wherefrom then until the end of the game Sunderland had 70% of the ball. 

Also the point about aerial duels, I can remember him winning one header and I've just gone and watched it back. The reason it doesn't count as an aerial duel is because he basically holds the Sunderland player off enough so much so he doesn't even attempt to challenge for a ball. 

Yes he did win one header but over his entire career he wins less % than Barnes despite being taller. 

I'd also expect him to look after the ball if he's only going to have 5 touches in 30 minutes whilst putting little to no pressure on the opposition, and falling over the one time he had some proper defending to do.