SVH

[Google Bot 3,329]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

The vitriol that would have been directed at Webber had he loaned out a goal-scoring fit striker and got in someone who looked so massively short of any level of fitness to the naked eye after just 5 minutes of watching him (which has now been backed up by the manager) would have been off the scale.

Good point that actually, particularly with Idah scoring at Celtic.   What makes this more puzzling is that I don't see SVH as either a Wagner player, nor if we're applying the Arsenal principles as being Knapper's core, someone he would actively seek either.

SVH undoubtedly will be a threat in the box, and that's where his strength lies.  But the more I ponder this move, the more i'm sure it's a chess play to raise Idah's value in order to have some kind of protection that if Sarge wants to stay, we can generate money to make that financially viable.

That said, we are starting to put balls in the box in recent games which means we can attack through different avenues and maybe the plan is to make us more dynamic than restricted to a certain style.

[hogesar 9,760]

12 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Good point that actually, particularly with Idah scoring at Celtic.   What makes this more puzzling is that I don't see SVH as either a Wagner player, nor if we're applying the Arsenal principles as being Knapper's core, someone he would actively seek either.

SVH undoubtedly will be a threat in the box, and that's where his strength lies.  But the more I ponder this move, the more i'm sure it's a chess play to raise Idah's value in order to have some kind of protection that if Sarge wants to stay, we can generate money to make that financially viable.

That said, we are starting to put balls in the box in recent games which means we can attack through different avenues and maybe the plan is to make us more dynamic than restricted to a certain style.

I suspect this is Knapper planning longer-term for a post-Wagner world. But normally you'd do that when you've got nothing to play for or when there's no downside for the first team. That's really my problem with it. He's obviously hideously short of match sharpness which is why I agree with others who's saying it's pretty brutal to judge him now. But we can judge him as a signing, so to speak.

[Paul101 94]

Idah playing week in week out can only benifit us

SVH is not refined from the small glimpses but looks a handful and will create things

Sarges current form and the style of his goals has boosted him into the 30-40m bracket if he continues like this he will be Hot Hot property and with all the new USA eyes on the product he could be a nice marketing goldmine

[hogesar 9,760]

Really hoping someone can point to me what this guy  . I thought Aboh looked to have a bit more about him than Sydney just in those few minutes.

Sydney had 13 touches, didn't win anything in the air again and lost possession 4 times.

[Branston Pickle 3,696]

14 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Really hoping someone can point to me what this guy  . I thought Aboh looked to have a bit more about him than Sydney just in those few minutes.

Sydney had 13 touches, didn't win anything in the air again and lost possession 4 times.

(Why) Are you deliberately missing out his goalbound shot that was blocked for a corner?

Edited March 9 by Branston Pickle

[Indy 3,322]

26 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Really hoping someone can point to me what this guy  . I thought Aboh looked to have a bit more about him than Sydney just in those few minutes.

Sydney had 13 touches, didn't win anything in the air again and lost possession 4 times.

Yeh but Barnes was outstanding wasn’t he! Give the lad a chance Hogs!

[hogesar 9,760]

15 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

(Why) Are you deliberately missing out his goalbound shot that was blocked for a corner?

I'm not sure a 0.1xG blocked shot was worth a mention but if it makes the difference go for it!

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yeh but Barnes was outstanding wasn’t he! Give the lad a chance Hogs!

I mean he was considerably better than Sydney although I accept that's a low bar. 

But Barnes had higher passing accuracy, 2 key passes, and as usual won a higher % of ground duels and aerial duels (I understand that's easier to do when Sydney won 0 of either)

[cambridgeshire canary 6,821]

Love how we can win 5 nill and yet we still have people moaning

 

This place never changes

[Branston Pickle 3,696]

15 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I'm not sure a 0.1xG blocked shot was worth a mention but if it makes the difference go for it!

I mean he was considerably better than Sydney although I accept that's a low bar. 

But Barnes had higher passing accuracy, 2 key passes, and as usual won a higher % of ground duels and aerial duels (I understand that's easier to do when Sydney won 0 of either)

How is a goalbound flick from only a couple of yards out not more than 0.1xg?  I’ve often wondered how these stats can possibly be consistent: I am pretty certain that they aren’t anything like as infallible as you want them to be.

Imo the jury is out on SvH but he hasn’t been given much of a chance yet - today wasn’t particularly useful to judge anything as we weren’t exactly going full pelt after the hour mark.

Edited March 9 by Branston Pickle

[hogesar 9,760]

15 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

How is a goalbound flick from only a couple of yards out not more than 0.1xg?  I’ve often wondered how these stats can possibly be consistent: I am pretty certain that they aren’t anything like as infallible as you want them to be.

Imo the jury is out on SvH but he hasn’t been given much of a chance yet - today wasn’t particularly useful to judge anything as we weren’t exactly going full pelt after the hour mark.

Because the defender was always in a position to block it - Sydney wasn't quick enough to get a yard to make it a decent chance.

I get the impression Sydney is one of those strikers defenders in England are going to love defending against, unfortunately.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,864]

I've seen quite a lot of Bologna this season and I did say this just before we signed him:

It's looking like the same old story here, unfortunately. He did well in the Netherlands when he was playing every week, but he seems ineffective as an impact sub and anonymous when he starts after not playing much. 

If Sargent gets injured, god forbid, he might start to play himself into form or fitness, but in that situation we're probably screwed anyway. 

Hopefully I've just tempted fate and he pops up with a late winner against Ipswich in the playoff semis...

 

38 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yeh but Barnes was outstanding wasn’t he! Give the lad a chance Hogs!

We play much better with Barnes in the team and I don't think it's a coincidence.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 477]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Really hoping someone can point to me what this guy

We can point to how rubbish Sargent looked when he was bedding in.

[hogesar 9,760]

11 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I've seen quite a lot of Bologna this season and I did say this just before we signed him:

It's looking like the same old story here, unfortunately. He did well in the Netherlands when he was playing every week, but he seems ineffective as an impact sub and anonymous when he starts after not playing much. 

If Sargent gets injured, god forbid, he might start to play himself into form or fitness, but in that situation we're probably screwed anyway. 

Hopefully I've just tempted fate and he pops up with a late winner against Ipswich in the playoff semis...

 

We play much better with Barnes in the team and I don't think it's a coincidence.

Yes I remember reading your post at the time but was optimistic he could show something over here.

Thus far your impressions from Italy unfortunately seem spot on. My question is why, even if he had been better, we've gone for thus profile striker?

[JonnyJonnyRowe 477]

39 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Love how we can win 5 nill and yet we still have people moaning

I know absolutely ridiculous isn't it 

Win 5-0, opposition has zero shots on or off target and still have somebody finding a reason to moan about a player who came on when the game was already dead and buried.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 477]

22 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Yes I remember reading your post at the time but was optimistic he could show something over here.

Thus far your impressions from Italy unfortunately seem spot on. My question is why, even if he had been better, we've gone for thus profile striker?

He's here on trial, we have an option.

If he doesn't do very well we don't sign him.

If he does then we do.

Celtic have no option to buy Idah, so if we decide in the summer that we'd prefer to keep Idah then that option is there also.

Beats handing him a four year deal, which is what we did the last time we signed an expensive young Dutch striker with an impressive surname only to find that he struggled with the rigours of English football.

I know you are trying to pin this on Knapper as a poor bit of business, but it really is rather easy to argue the opposite. I wish that we'd signed Van Wolfswinkel on a loan with an option to buy, would have saved ourselves a good £8m.

Edited March 9 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Really hoping someone can point to me what this guy  . I thought Aboh looked to have a bit more about him than Sydney just in those few minutes.

Sydney had 13 touches, didn't win anything in the air again and lost possession 4 times.

I must agree with the thoughts of @JonnyJonnyRowe, @cambridgeshire canary, @Indy and @Branston Pickle.

Very strange comments, especially coming from you.

The lad's played about 100 odd minutes for us so far and you've already written him off.

That said, I have the feeling that your comments might really be more about who bought him, rather than player himself.

I think you need to give both Sydney and Knapper the same chance you've given to other players and sporting directors who have served the club.

OTBC

[Capt. Pants 4,284]

If we don't sign SVH then it is of no significance whatsoever. Thank God it was just a loan and try before you buy.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 477]

2 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

I must agree with the thoughts of @JonnyJonnyRowe, @cambridgeshire canary, @Indy and @Branston Pickle.

Very strange comments, especially coming from you.

The lad's played about 100 odd minutes for us so far and you've already written him off.

That said, I have the feeling that your comments might really be more about who bought him, rather than player himself.

I think you need to give both Sydney and Knapper the same chance you've given to other players and sporting directors who have served the club.

OTBC

It would be a bit odd to have a problem with Knapper solely because you are upset that Webber has left, if that is what is happening here with Hogesar.

Considering that Webber led the search for his own replacement, and that the search led to the club hiring Knapper, who Webber then publicly backed.

[hogesar 9,760]

15 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

It would be a bit odd to have a problem with Knapper solely because you are upset that Webber has left, if that is what is happening here with Hogesar.

Considering that Webber led the search for his own replacement, and that the search led to the club hiring Knapper, who Webber then publicly backed.

 

20 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

I must agree with the thoughts of @JonnyJonnyRowe, @cambridgeshire canary, @Indy and @Branston Pickle.

Very strange comments, especially coming from you.

The lad's played about 100 odd minutes for us so far and you've already written him off.

That said, I have the feeling that your comments might really be more about who bought him, rather than player himself.

I think you need to give both Sydney and Knapper the same chance you've given to other players and sporting directors who have served the club.

OTBC

I'm not sure what Webber has to do with this?

Knapper needs his time to mould a squad he wants but does that mean we can't comment on his first attempt at bringing a player into the club?

Can we not discuss a player until he's played a certain amount of minutes?

My ultimate problem is we let one of the most effective strikers from the bench in the championship go out on loan and we replaced him with a completely different mould of player who so far, despite limited minutes, looks unsuited to Championship football - who's also no where near match fit and not ready to help us.

All of the above in the midst of a play off push. I imagine Wagner isn't delighted with the hand he was dealt in January and he made some subtle warning comments about the direction the window was going in.

[Grumpy 123]

I am with Hogesar on this one although not quite so vociferously.My concern is Sydney is not fit,has very little athleticism and has not displayed many noticeable football skills

[Paul101 94]

he  broke twice while on the shoulder but both times the pass had to much on it

[hogesar 9,760]

2 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I know absolutely ridiculous isn't it 

Win 5-0, opposition has zero shots on or off target and still have somebody finding a reason to moan about a player who came on when the game was already dead and buried.

It's not ridiculous considering I'm regularly mocked on here for being too positive about the club / team / players.

It's literally a discussion about a new signing. A totally legitimate one. It does not detract from the great win and performance. Its a discussion about a player on a Norwich football forum.

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,042]

I am still reserving judgement on him.....................

[JonnyJonnyRowe 477]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

My ultimate problem is we let one of the most effective strikers from the bench in the championship go out on loan and we replaced him with a completely different mould of player who so far, despite limited minutes, looks unsuited to Championship football - who's also no where near match fit and not ready to help us.

All of the above in the midst of a play off push. I imagine Wagner isn't delighted with the hand he was dealt in January and he made some subtle warning comments about the direction the window was going in.

The bit that isn't being considered perhaps is that Adam Idah was unhappy with his role here, and he told Wagner he wanted to move to get starts.

As there appeared to be only loan offers on the table, rather than decent cash offers which would give us money to buy somebody, we were limited to replacing with a loan player, and that no doubt left our options limited.

Wagner himself said that it made no sense to keep Idah, and that signing Van Hooijdonk was the "perfect scenario", so are you sure Wagner was unhappy about this? Sounds like he very much gave it the green light.

"We have to say after Adam made his point clear that he likes to go on loan, for me what was clear that when we can find an alternative it makes no sense to keep someone who is desperate to go on loan.

"I totally respect Adam’s decision and his thoughts.

"At the right moment I backed this because our aims and targets are too high and we have to have a group who's committed 100 percent.

"The chance popped up quite late to get maybe Sydney (van Hooijdonk) on loan, and then with an option to buy as well, so it was the perfect scenario.

“I got Adam’s point. And this is why I backed this decision. Even if I would have been fine if he wanted to stay and fight for his spot.

[Samwam27 532]

I think we have to give svh a chance. He will only get better and adjust to the english game with time. If he doesnt then we dont have to buy him. 

Sarg was berated when he first arrived (albeit in the premiership) and lets face it weve been waiting for Idah to.come good, or go on loan for five years!

[hogesar 9,760]

14 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

The bit that isn't being considered perhaps is that Adam Idah was unhappy with his role here, and he told Wagner he wanted to move to get starts.

As there appeared to be only loan offers on the table, rather than decent cash offers which would give us money to buy somebody, we were limited to replacing with a loan player, and that no doubt left our options limited.

Wagner himself said that it made no sense to keep Idah, and that signing Van Hooijdonk was the "perfect scenario", so are you sure Wagner was unhappy about this? Sounds like he very much gave it the green light.

"We have to say after Adam made his point clear that he likes to go on loan, for me what was clear that when we can find an alternative it makes no sense to keep someone who is desperate to go on loan.

"I totally respect Adam’s decision and his thoughts.

"At the right moment I backed this because our aims and targets are too high and we have to have a group who's committed 100 percent.

"The chance popped up quite late to get maybe Sydney (van Hooijdonk) on loan, and then with an option to buy as well, so it was the perfect scenario.

“I got Adam’s point. And this is why I backed this decision. Even if I would have been fine if he wanted to stay and fight for his spot.

I wouldn't take what a manager says publicly as anything legitimate.

As an example, Farke never spoke out against Pritchard being sold but after the event Webber revealed he was absolutely fuming.

I assume Idah wanted to go. Depends if you think that means he had to go. Emi and Webber situation springs to mind.

Even if Idah did want to go we went for a striker who the manager has said himself is miles away from the fitness level required. If it was a pre-season signing fair enough. Or if we had nothing to play for. 

[repman 635]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

I wouldn't take what a manager says publicly as anything legitimate.

As an example, Farke never spoke out against Pritchard being sold but after the event Webber revealed he was absolutely fuming.

I assume Idah wanted to go. Depends if you think that means he had to go. Emi and Webber situation springs to mind.

Even if Idah did want to go we went for a striker who the manager has said himself is miles away from the fitness level required. If it was a pre-season signing fair enough. Or if we had nothing to play for. 

To be fair I wouldn't take what a manager says publicly about fitness as anything legitimate either. It's the easiest fallback excuse imaginable, you can't really refute it. 

[ged in the onion bag 857]

Why not let Idah go and promote Aboh into the third striker option...   Have to agree with Hoggy, SVH does look a good distance away from competing for a start.  Aboh is fit.

? How long does it take to get fit?    He's been here 6 weeks now which is a pre-season... Yes, match fit is different but then he's not contributing in the minutes as a sub.     Diabolical signing when Aboh is more ready for a chance since he's fit!   

Edited March 9 by ged in the onion bag

[hogesar 9,760]

27 minutes ago, repman said:

To be fair I wouldn't take what a manager says publicly about fitness as anything legitimate either. It's the easiest fallback excuse imaginable, you can't really refute it. 

No but when you see him physically blowing 8 minutes into his cameo appearances you don't need a manager to say anything.

22 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Why not let Idah go and promote Aboh into the third striker option...   Have to agree with Hoggy, SVH does look a good distance away from competing for a start.  Aboh is fit.

? How long does it take to get fit?    He's been here 6 weeks now which is a pre-season... Yes, match fit is different but then he's not contributing in the minutes as a sub.     Diabolical signing when Aboh is more ready for a chance since he's fit!   

Yes I thought Aboh used his body well.

[BroadstairsR 2,209]

Nothing against SVD, although he certainly hasn't set the woods on fire by any stretch of the imagination. He seems somewhat overwhelmed and too anxious to impress, but why sign a player on loan who is not up and running? It makes no sense, and it was the same thing with Hwang. I thought that the opposite was supposed to be the case with loan signings. Now we are talking about a youngster being more suited on the basis of 15 minutes on the pitch. 

If the intention with SVD was just long-term with an option to buy, I still don't get it. It means he needs assessing over a period of game time, which he won't get. Seems a strange way of signing a player for the future, and might well be yet another example of p-ssing money against the wall.

Adam Idah wanted out and needed out, and we all know the reasons why. There was no alternative. I, personally, was glad to see the back of him and the ending of that particular long-running sage, but SVD seems to be a poor replacement at the moment. 

Meanwhile, ITFC get Keiffer Moore on loan, who seems to have made a massive impact.

Overall, why do we seem to get such little value for (loan) money over recent seasons? Hardly any have impressed and dating back to Skipp. I suppose Williams was decent, but he seems to be a costly and complicated issue down at the Loo, atm, and blotted his City copy book on social media.

 

Edited March 10 by BroadstairsR