Would the sale of Ernie be a disaster?

[Salopian 1]

He says he wants to stay and has no intentions of leaving, the club have said nothing. If we could get a reasonable sum, say £3m, would it be a disaster?He is a proven goal scorer, and 19 in almost half a season is good, but...He misses an awful lot of chances - O.K yesterday he was a little rusty, and he did score a cracker, but count the chances he has missed this season. Robson, who sold him to us, was not impressed by his conversion rate of chances to goals. Someone like Cureton probably converts more.He is limited by stature, and does not reckon to score many with his head. We now have how many wingers - Croft, Chadwick, Smart, Hux, Lappin, Eagle, who cannot cross in the air because he will be on the end. We have Hux ditto, also a virtual non-header. The two of them dictate and limit our types of attack.He contributes little to build up play - his game is dart quickly towards goal and chase. How often do we see him making goals for others?If we could get something like what we paid, and I suspect that''s a big if, would we be better with a more orthodx striker, perhaps not so quick but good with head and feet?

[ZLF 271]

As a footballer he is not strong but he knows where the back of the net is.

The biggest question is whether we as a team play better with or without him.  Both our results and performances were better once he was out injured and hux went up front,  his prodigious number of goals simply werent missed...

On that basis a reluctant sale - but what price those goals IF we can get the rest of the team up to a promotion chasing standard? 

[Gentleman Jim 0]

In my opinion it would only be a disaster if the whole transfer fee was not put in the managers budget, and equally disastrous if the manager did get it then did not spend it wisely. For three million quid two or three very good players could be bought, but I fear the temptation would be to get half a dozen average (ish) players of whom we are already overrun with.

[Iwan is God 0]

If we sold Earnie the money would not be reinvested into the team & we would be without a potential 30 goals plus striker next season. Earnie scored 19 goals in half a season this tern & imho we''re better off with him than without him! If a big striker is played along side him next year our goals forward column will look very healthy indeed.

Anyway, I''d miss his summersauts too much if he did leave FCR. [:D]

[canary cherub 1]

We''ve never seen the best of Earnie imo because he''s never had a regular partner (despite the manager''s efforts to sign one - but you know my views on that subject . . . No, wait, I haven''t finished yet.  If we''d shelled out on a target man to play alongside him, his performance - and therefore his monetary value - would have been better than it is now imo.  MUPPETS!). 

Realistically he''s not going to stay.  Whether or not it''s a disaster depends on who we manage to attract as a replacement.

 

[fonejacker 0]

Sell Earnie and that really would be the end of it. Who exactly would be get to replace him?

For once we get a 20 goal a season man, and we want to sell him off to get more players the standard of Brown and his ilk. And it sounds as if he wants to stay, so what''s the problem?

Anyway this thread has been done to death before, sorry, it just incensed me to see it.

[Rasputin was a C... 0]

I agree. If we can get between 3-4 million and a large percentage of that goes on strengthening the team then we should definately consider it. Yes we''d lose out on his goals but I think with a more balanced team we''d be able to attack more effectively and the goals would come by being spread throughout the team. I do think we probably played some better football whilst he was injured. The players just seem to rely too heavily of the long ball when he''s upfront as they think give it to Earnie and he''ll score. Sadly thats not the case. If we played to his strengths then maybe that wouldn''t be such an issue but we don''t have the quality through the team to do that successfully which is why we need the money to sort that issue out.  Its a bugger but sadly he''ll have to go if that is going to happen.

[EadiesRight Foot 0]

Selling a guaranteed 20 goal a season striker (and one that missed 3 months of the season at that) is football suicide.

When we have sold people in the past, Bellars, Sutton, Robins, Ashton - they are bloody hard to replace. If we are serious about moving the club forward, then selling our best asset is not the right way about it. I can see people''s reasoning behind it - get some money to strengthen other areas of the team, but I dont think we would be able to get the personnel we need in to not only replace Earnie, but with the left over money.

It would be like having a Ferrari engine in an Escort Cosworth, but then selling the engine so we can get nice windscreen wipers and hub caps.

In regards to him not scoring with headers - its stating the obvious. I reckon we should be looking at other target men / strikers who can hold the ball up. Izzy McLeod from MK Dons would be good. Someone like Billy Sharp, but he is destined for the Prem. Maybe Luke Varney, Nicky Maynard?

[lucky green trainers 0]

unless we can get a striker who can score 19 goals in half a season, then yes. given his strike rate and proven prem ability £3m looks cheap in my view - £4-5m for me.  as for robsons opinion, wba went down - he could have done with earnie coming off the bench and saving his skin, ellington did zilch.

[First Wizard 0]

In my opinion Salopian, it would rank alongside Custers Last Stand as a disaster!.

You say if we could get £3 million for him, £3 million?, for the divisions 3rd top scorer? (without injury who knows, he''d have been top!) I''d want at least £5 million.

But with todays inflated prices............................£6 million wouldn''t be out of the question.

And how much do you have to cough up to replace someone of his proven ability?.

A disaster?.

Without doubt.................and a bloody big one at that mate!!.

[FilletTheFishWife . 0]

3M would be nice but if you think the full amount would be reinvested in the playing squad you would have a very short memory.

[Bovril 219]

in a simple word .... yes

the money (and i''m not being anti-board type) would not all be invested back in the team, for example say we got the £3mill you suggested,at most £1.5mill of this will be put back into the team, by the time you take wages away from this and any potential agent fess, youre looking at maybe just under £1million for transfer fees... which of course used wisely can get you a decent player ala doyle for reading, kightly for wolves and the old one eastwood for southend.. however

if you watch earnshaw during a whole match its very decieving, for me he is very similiar to owen, his general link up play throughout the match is fairly poor and he is often isolated for most of the match and will miss chances, though most importantly you can pracitally can guarentee injury-free he will knock in 20-30 goals a season and this is absolutely priceless and for me is why he cannot be sold... i agree with the wingers point though and for once we dont have any targetmen and too many wingers!

[SM 0]

It would not be a total disaster, but it would be a big dent in our plans for next season. 

How many players that are proven in the championship and regularly score 20 goals a season can you get for £3million. Contrary to what many people believe he does convert a lot of chances he has and does score the odd cracker aswell. Size is not always an issue, you can be small but strong, lots of small players have great upper body strength. If you play the ball to feet he should be okay. There are 2 options as partners for earnie, firstly he can play with a target man such as brown who can hold the ball up and play him in or just flick it on. Secondly, he can play with a link man such as like McVeigh but who plays for the whole season. If we do play down the wings our wingers must learn to go to the byline and either take a cross-shot or cut it back for midfield runners, this will take out the height issue. Van Nistelrooy, although bigger than earnie never made any chances for anyone else but still helped man utd win the title by scoring countless tap-ins.

So i think we shoud be trying to keep him for at least 1 more season to see if we can get anywhere near the top 6.    

[blahblahblah 2]

In an ideal world we''d spend a million or two on a target man to play up front with him, and lay off balls for him to get onto.

Do we live in an ideal world ?

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Salopian"]He says he wants to stay and has no intentions of leaving, the club have said nothing. If we could get a reasonable sum, say £3m, would it be a disaster?

He is a proven goal scorer, and 19 in almost half a season is good, but...

He misses an awful lot of chances - O.K yesterday he was a little rusty, and he did score a cracker, but count the chances he has missed this season. Robson, who sold him to us, was not impressed by his conversion rate of chances to goals. Someone like Cureton probably converts more.
He is limited by stature, and does not reckon to score many with his head. We now have how many wingers - Croft, Chadwick, Smart, Hux, Lappin, Eagle, who cannot cross in the air because he will be on the end. We have Hux ditto, also a virtual non-header. The two of them dictate and limit our types of attack.
He contributes little to build up play - his game is dart quickly towards goal and chase. How often do we see him making goals for others?

If we could get something like what we paid, and I suspect that''s a big if, would we be better with a more orthodx striker, perhaps not so quick but good with head and feet?

[/quote]

I think that you are substantially correct.

There is also the point that neither Earnie nor Hucks ''does defence''. To have both of them in the same weakish team is, in my view, suicidal given the realities of modern football.

My preference , given all the circumstances, would be to strengthen the defensive set-up first. Success in football is based firstly on clean sheets (Roy Keane). I agree.

And it is better to have our goals spread around rather than to overly rely on a ssomewhat limited star striker.

OTBC

[Bigmarkcanary 0]

Yes the sale of Earnshaw would be a disaster. As you say, he scored 19 goals, even though he was out for three months with a serious injury and wasn''t initially expected to make another appearance this season. If he hadn''t have been injured, there''s a very good chance that he would''ve hit the 30-goal mark, and we would probably have been much closer to a play-off place.

If a Prem club comes in for him during the summer, I think we''ve got to be asking £6m for him - £3m is what we got him for, remember?

Earnie is a proven goalscorer at this level and at Prem level - they don''t come cheap y''know!

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

As a footballer he is not strong but he knows where the back of the net is.

The biggest question is whether we as a team play better with or without him.  Both our results and performances were better once he was out injured and hux went up front,  his prodigious number of goals simply werent missed...

On that basis a reluctant sale - but what price those goals IF we can get the rest of the team up to a promotion chasing standard? 

[/quote]

The biggest disappointment for me is that on the evidence of the last few games Hucks and Earnie are no real threat together up front. For me this means that we either play 433 or Hucks has to go wide left in a 442 or they don''t both start.

I agree our performances looked better, even against Wolves with Thorne and Hucks than they have with Earnie and Hucks. But I still think we played some of our best football of the season in the first few games with Earnie in the side.

Huckerby''s best position is up front free to drift wide either side and cause havoc. So maybe a conventional 433 is the way forward with Hucks Earnie and Brown. This wouldn''t be the 451 we played early this season though so could the midfield be strong enough? Maybe Croft Safri Etuhu? Not sure it would work!

Alternatively it''s 442 with one of Hucks or Earnie on the bench!

 

[Pyro Pete 1,889]

I don''t think it would be a disaster, providing the transfer fee was spent in its entirety on quality replacements. But who would that be?Earnie''s injury showed us the team faired no better or worse without him. It transpired that we are more than capable of scoring regularly without Earnie. In fact Huckerby''s form improved no end, and young Martin was given the chance to shine. It''s keeping the goals out the other end that proved considerably harder. Earnie is what he is, a goal scorer. Not a great team player, and. not a link man. Not someone who will hold the ball up, or help build attacks. If we had the money to buy a quality partner for Earnie, to do all the things Earnie doesn''t, then we could have quite an attack. But we seemingly don''t have that money, and Chris Brown certainly isn''t that man.

[Broken_hearted_canary 0]

seriously are you people for real?  only 3-4 million for Earni when we paid at least 3m for him!

yes his team play is poor but he scores goals for fun - he is an exceptional championship striker, not a ''good'' one as i read some muppet described him as.

a player who plays with a team as shockin as ours and being out for 3-4 months is still in the top 3 top scorers in the division!

could you have imagined the damage he''d have done if sunderland had bought him at the start of the season.

5.5-6 is the bare minimum i''d accept only on the promise that is all goes on new players.

[Smeg 0]

id be more wearly about how much PG would see, in respect of a probable healthy sell on clause with WBA, look at crewe, the got £3 Mill then another £1.5 mill sell on!

[Ulf Ottosson 0]

Nutty Nigel the nail being hit on head well and truely - Every strike partnership needs someone to link the attack and midfield either a target man a la Roberts or a someone dropping off and getting the ball into feet a al McVeigh. Neither Huckerby or Earnshaw do this - Huckerby is not an option on the left - it cripples us defensively. 4-3-3 isn''t an option because Earnshaw needs to hold the ball up. The only compromise is perhaps a diamond in midfield with Huckerby at the top.

I would suggest that the question in this post could be reversed Would selling Huckerby be a disaster?

[Stevie Wonder 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="Salopian"]He says he wants to stay and has no intentions of leaving, the club have said nothing. If we could get a reasonable sum, say £3m, would it be a disaster?

He is a proven goal scorer, and 19 in almost half a season is good, but...

He misses an awful lot of chances - O.K yesterday he was a little rusty, and he did score a cracker, but count the chances he has missed this season. Robson, who sold him to us, was not impressed by his conversion rate of chances to goals. Someone like Cureton probably converts more.
He is limited by stature, and does not reckon to score many with his head. We now have how many wingers - Croft, Chadwick, Smart, Hux, Lappin, Eagle, who cannot cross in the air because he will be on the end. We have Hux ditto, also a virtual non-header. The two of them dictate and limit our types of attack.
He contributes little to build up play - his game is dart quickly towards goal and chase. How often do we see him making goals for others?

If we could get something like what we paid, and I suspect that''s a big if, would we be better with a more orthodx striker, perhaps not so quick but good with head and feet?

[/quote]

I think that you are substantially correct.

There is also the point that neither Earnie nor Hucks ''does defence''. To have both of them in the same weakish team is, in my view, suicidal given the realities of modern football.

My preference , given all the circumstances, would be to strengthen the defensive set-up first. Success in football is based firstly on clean sheets (Roy Keane). I agree.

And it is better to have our goals spread around rather than to overly rely on a ssomewhat limited star striker.

OTBC

[/quote]

BBB - I couldn''t have put it better. I have posted something similar on the Transfer WIndow thread. The key to promotion is letting in less thn goal a game and you need to be scoring goals from all areas of the pitch. When we won the league only Hux got into double figures and he scored 14. Neither Sunderland & Brum had anyone near the top of the scoring charts (neither did Derby or Wolves).

Having Earnie & Hux in the same team is a luxury we cannot afford and I know which of those 2 would be easier to replace!

[Time to go Delia 0]

Huge mistake , without Earnshaws goals we would be playing in League 1 next season .

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

We covered this not long ago - those who think we ''need'' a 20 goal a season striker ought to look at the stats: neither of the sides in the top two had anyone score more than 14 (that was McSheffrey who I always had as more of an attacking midfielder), Sunderland''s top striker mustered just 12....and as I recall we did not have anyone close to getting 20 when we won the title at a canter.   Having one guy scoring doesn''t always make the difference - in this division it is usually more a case of not letting goals in that is the key.  

Derby are proof that if you don''t let one in you can always nick it - they won something like 11 games 1-0 this season and a similarish number 2-1, and but for a poorish end of season run they (thankfully) didn''t get into the top two; WBA a few seasons ago bored everyone in winning God-knows how many games 1-0, but they didn''t care as they got promoted. 

I''m 50:50 as to whether Earnie leaving would be good or bad - I suppose it would depend on the fee and whether it was fully reinvested: £5m+ and we would be talking, this could buy 4 quality players for this division which would make a massive difference to the whole side.  Of course we''d miss his goalscoring ability, but it is important to spread goals around rather than having only one real outlet - and when Earnie plays, it does seem that others go into their shells re: goalscoring, which is not a good thing.  Most people I know were of the opinion we were more of a ''team'' when Earnie wasn''t playing - this is not a criticism of him, more the way we played with him in the side.