aaron wilbraham

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]This guy is a donkey! His goalscoring record is crap too! Is this the sort of signing that is classed as going for it?! Wilbraham must think all his birthdays and christmas have come at once. This is a very poor signing. Does lambert realise when signing a striker the aim is for them to score goals? Oli Johnson now Wilbraham i guess spotting talent in this particular area is not Lamberts strong point.[/quote]

That''s more like it. When you posted this http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/2377916/ShowPost.aspx the other day I nearly fell off my chair.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Yipedy doo da, yipedy day, my oh my, what a wonderful day

 

This guy is an average lower league striker.  He scores a goal just under 1 in every 4 games in the league.

 

There is no way Wilbraham has been bought for his goal scoring and IF we were to go up, I can''t see him featuring at all. He would be way out of his depth in the Premiership. 

 

I think that Wilbraham has been bought as cover for Holt on the cheap and as others have already suggested, saving money to strengthen in other areas.

 

Decent cover for Holt would cost upwards of £1m, money which we just don''t have, especially when you consider we are trying to bring in other players.  Wilbraham won''t score loads of goals for us. What Wilbraham will allow Lambert to do is to give him the option to sub Holt to rest him while keeping the same formation and also to play the same formation if Holt is injured/suspended or rested for a game.

 

I welcome Wilbraham here with open arms and I hope he does great for us.  However, I am suprised Lambert has signed him, however I think he has been brought in to do a specific job (cover for Holt).  It''s not a career making move for Wilbraham, I am not going as far as to saying we are using him, but help to get us promotion, good luck at your new club, champion, thanks very much.

 

 

[Boyo 0]

I said before it became official that I think we can get someone better and I still do, he hardly screams promotion does he?  I will see him play a few games before I pass my proper judgment though.  I suppose at 100k he''s not that bad as a back up player for Holt but I don''t expect him to score that many at all really.

 

And don''t worry about him being a replacement for Holt because if Holt was going we would buy someone a lot better than a 100k striker from MK Dons.

 

And as for why the rush for the QPR game I can see him coming straight into the team because otherwise there is no rush.

[Absent Friend 0]

" I suggest you check Jamie Lads record against Wilbrahams record and you will see light years between them".

Ricardo, that''s true enough.  I mentioned Jamie more as an example of someone who, for whatever reason, could hack it at a small club (even in the Championship) but somehow didn''t really manage it with a larger one (as he hadn''t when he first played for us). Is that a mentlity thing? 

If Wilbraham also turned out like that then it won''t work, though we did pay 6 or 7 times more to bring JC back, and almost certainly much higher wages.
 
But Lambert seems to do what many of our previous managers didn''t and that is look at a guy''s character as well as his fotballing skills.  So I am pretty sure he will have done his homewrok and like Russell Martin and Crofts it will be as much his personality as anything else that has brought him here.  It''s also why I suspect Chris "attitude problem" Martin should be looking nervously over his shoulder tonight.

[Stowmarket Canary (not Delia) 0]

At the end of the day Norwich always play best when we have a target man. Obviously Holt normally does that job very well, bringing others into play. However take Holt out and who else can do the target man role?? We look so lightweight up front without a big man. As for Wilbrahams scoring record, yes its not great, but Sidebe at Stoke has never got into double figures in his career, but Stoke wouldn''t be without him because of the other attributes he brings. Its 100k for 18 months its hardly going to bankrupt us!

[John 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="ricardo"]I''m glad so many people are excited by this signing but I remain totally underwhelmed by a 31 year old with only a very average record at a lower level. If this guy was ever going to be anything he would have done it by now. Don''t get me wrong, I hope he does well for all our sakes but if he has the talent to perform at a higher level he has certainly kept it well hidden for the last ten or so years.He can obviously put himself about but you need a bit more than that at this level and I for one can''t get excited about someone who will never be more than a stop gap. In the position we are in its time to be brave and this can hardly be called a brave signing. Perhaps PL is a genius and this guy will turn into a 20 goal a season striker but I''d lay long odds against it.[/quote]

All fair points Ricky but stop gap is exactly what he is. We bemoan the fact that we don''t have cover for Holty and that''s exactly what this guy is. Fresh legs at the end of the game or cover for injuries and suspensions. No twenty goal a season Championship striker would settle for a place on the bench and anyway Norwich can''t afford two Grant Holts.

 

 

[/quote]I wouldn''t disagree with that analysis Nigel but perhaps I was looking for something a bit more exciting.I really hope the bloke does well but if people are expecting another Grant Holt they are likely to be mightily disappointed. Someone earlier in the thread was comparing Holt and Wilbrahams as failed championship strikers so I had a look at their respective records on Wikki and they are not even in the same ballpark.I repeat, I hope the guy does well and proves me wrong.[/quote]I don''t think you''ve looked closely enough Ricardo. Contrare to what you believe, he''s done more than Holt ever had at a higher level, although without a scoring ratio akin'' to Holts throughout the duration of his career.Though indeed if they''re not in the same ballpark, i''d say that Wilbraham comes out tops even, albeit at a much later age.Wiki is a fairly weak source, and you can derive far more of the deatils of his career by assessing these two:http://www.mkdons.com/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10420~8871,00.htmlhttp://www.stockportcounty-mad.co.uk/footydb/loadlghs.asp

For one, unlike Holt he has actually made an impact in the second tier. Having played a part of the Division 2 Stockport side for 6 seasons, he scored 20 goals at this level, his best of which came having scored 12 in 36 appearances (1 in 3 ratio).While of the target man mould also, he is a different type of striker to Holt, i.e. more of a Heskey than a Drogba per say. I know which one we''d all prefer, but when you lose the mainstay one of the two, you''re left with a weak plan B without the other as back-up.More than welcome in my mind, but some others on here are in desperate need of some perspective; it''s truly a shocking read in some cases.

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

Good cover for Holt at a modest price. also a good option on the bench and could enable us to very direct with him and Holt on occassions if needed. He may not score loads but neither does Martin. His physical presence could make opportunities for our midfield though

[drurys dodgy knee 0]

Were people seriously expecting us to sign a striker who would replace either of our regular starters? Scoring goals has not been a problem for us, conceding has.

We only need another big striker for when Holt isn''t available which is probably only one in every 10-12 matches. It therefore makes perfect sense to get a 6footplus striker in for cheap so that we can spend a bit more on midfield and defence to ensure that we concede fewer goals.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

Curious as to who those who are being so negative about this expected to come in to warm the bench for Holt, and at what cost? It has been clear we are majorly lacking in any sort of physical presence up front when Holt is not on the pitch, and we''ve struggled to break teams down. Lambert has plugged this gap at pretty good price. It''s not like this is a deadline day signing and he''s the last one through the door, calm down everyone and give him a chance.

[ron obvious 1,502]

Rummaging around the Dons sites, it would appear he''s well liked, although with a propensity for falling over. Also the fee is undisclosed, although (allegedly) the Mail or somesuch reckon it''s £75k.Saw his interview; looked a bit star struck. I don''t think he''ll suffer from ego inflation. "Just happy to be on the team" type player.

[kdncfc 27]

[quote user="Notts Canary"]I wonder though, this purchase strikes me as a little odd, I don''t really see why we need him. We don''t have too much trouble scoring with Martin, Holt and Hoolahan, plus we have plenty of backup strikers. So I''m leaning towards that this is not a cover purchase, but a replacement purchase and that leads me to think who might be most likely to leave.Otherwise personally I would prefer the money spent elsewhere such as our defence.[/quote]We may have a few strikers but we don''t have another one with the physical presence of Holt, whenever Holt has been missing we''ve struggled to score goals so this is an ok signing imo.

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

[quote user="Dan Druff"][quote user="First Wizard"]

If Lambert signed Wilbraham, that should be good enough for us.

I for one welcome him.[Y]

[/quote]

Same here, Wiz.

In Lambert we trust.

[/quote]Agreed, half the people in here complaining about 100k for a backup player are dumb.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="John"]I don''t think you''ve looked closely enough Ricardo. Contrare to what you believe, he''s done more than Holt ever had at a higher level, although without a scoring ratio akin'' to Holts throughout the duration of his career.Though indeed if they''re not in the same ballpark, i''d say that Wilbraham comes out tops even, albeit at a much later age.

For one, unlike Holt he has actually made an impact in the second tier. Having played a part of the Division 2 Stockport side for 6 seasons, he scored 20 goals at this level, his best of which came having scored 12 in 36 appearances (1 in 3 ratio).[/quote]What a bargain then. gotta be worth £3m if Holt is worth £2Wow! 20 goals in six seasons at this level. He obviously attended the "Robert Rosario Goalscorers Academy"No amount of selective stats will ever convince me or anyone else that Wilbrahams is or ever was in the same class as Grant Holt. I guess we will have to differ on this one and if he nets half a dozen league goals by the end of the season I will be more than happy to eat my words

[Trent Canary 0]

Fine by me. No point spending big money on a player who is only coming in as a back-up, and a Back-up for Holt we could certainly do with. Save the money for other areas. Cant remember who it was earlier getting all hot and bothered because this does not show we are ''Going for it'' - Seeing as though its not even January yet Id suggest waiting until the transfer window is closed before passing judgement. Naturally if this is the only purchase we make then that would be appalling, I doubt that will be the case.

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

[quote user="ricardo"]What a bargain then. gotta be worth £3m if Holt is worth £2Wow! 20 goals in six seasons at this level. He obviously attended the "Robert Rosario Goalscorers Academy"No amount of selective stats will ever convince me or anyone else that Wilbrahams is or ever was in the same class as Grant Holt. I guess we will have to differ on this one and if he nets half a dozen league goals by the end of the season I will be more than happy to eat my words

[/quote]

What did you think of Grant Holt after the Colchester game ?As " What a waste of money " wrang out from the villagers I was inclined to agree with them.

Give the bloke a chance hes not here to set the league on fire thats obvious, so I dont understand why people are crying about lack of ambition or the need to gamble ?!Some inbred even said " looks like the old Norwich signings" christ man, look at our team at the moment ?! None of them are "names" or "world beaters"  What did you lot expect ?? Some up and comer for 1m ( *cough* Dean Ashton ? *cough* )He''s been bought here to do a job, not break into the England squad.

[Divs crew! 0]

Got it in 1 nexus................couldn''t have said better myself! [:D]

[John 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="John"]I don''t think you''ve looked closely enough Ricardo. Contrare to what you believe, he''s done more than Holt ever had at a higher level, although without a scoring ratio akin'' to Holts throughout the duration of his career.Though indeed if they''re not in the same ballpark, i''d say that Wilbraham comes out tops even, albeit at a much later age.

For one, unlike Holt he has actually made an impact in the second tier. Having played a part of the Division 2 Stockport side for 6 seasons, he scored 20 goals at this level, his best of which came having scored 12 in 36 appearances (1 in 3 ratio).[/quote]What a bargain then. gotta be worth £3m if Holt is worth £2Wow! 20 goals in six seasons at this level. He obviously attended the "Robert Rosario Goalscorers Academy"No amount of selective stats will ever convince me or anyone else that Wilbrahams is or ever was in the same class as Grant Holt. I guess we will have to differ on this one and if he nets half a dozen league goals by the end of the season I will be more than happy to eat my words

[/quote]Wahoooo with the attitude there Ricardo. Keep it calm fella, i was simply trying to make a point.I''m talking about there respective careers prior to arriving at Carrow Road. I thought that was the template you were going with in the comment i quoted, and i''d of assumed it was relatively clear that when comparing the two as of now, Holt has the edge, if we''re going solely on the goalscoring department. As i suggested however, it really doesn''t take a genius to figure out they''re are two different types of target men, and on some levels they are perhaps not fairly compared, goalscoring more than likely being one.As for his goalscoring exploits at this level, he only once played near to a full season. His ratio wasn''t consistently great at this level as a youngster in a poor side (surely understandable?), but he had shown ability to compete in it on an even keel at the best of times.This transfer is entirely appropriate to our situation at the moment, both economically, and concerning the practicalities of what is happening on the pitch. Lambert has made an ''inspired'' move, one might say.

For me, it only seems to be flat-out cynicism that people are looking to emphasise needless concerns in a relatively low key transfer. Tiresome and pointless.

[Erik the Viking 0]

The fact of the matter is if we want to improve as a club we need 4 good striking options and Wilbrahams record suggests he is not that player, look at Hull for example who have just signed Aaron McLean from Peterborough who has bagged 14 goals this year compared to our new signings 3 (yes THREE!) plus also are on the verge of signing Matty Fryatt who is a proven championship striker from Leicester.

Lets hope our two other signings are far superior in stature & quality to this one or perhaps that "little ole Norwich" still applies.... 

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Nexus_Canary"][quote user="ricardo"]What a bargain then. gotta be worth £3m if Holt is worth £2Wow! 20 goals in six seasons at this level. He obviously attended the "Robert Rosario Goalscorers Academy"No amount of selective stats will ever convince me or anyone else that Wilbrahams is or ever was in the same class as Grant Holt. I guess we will have to differ on this one and if he nets half a dozen league goals by the end of the season I will be more than happy to eat my words

[/quote]

What did you think of Grant Holt after the Colchester game ?As " What a waste of money " wrang out from the villagers I was inclined to agree with them.

Give the bloke a chance hes not here to set the league on fire thats obvious, so I dont understand why people are crying about lack of ambition or the need to gamble ?!Some inbred even said " looks like the old Norwich signings" christ man, look at our team at the moment ?! None of them are "names" or "world beaters"  What did you lot expect ?? Some up and comer for 1m ( *cough* Dean Ashton ? *cough* )He''s been bought here to do a job, not break into the England squad.[/quote]Read Ricardo''s report 22/08/2009 and you will see what I thought about Holt. If I knew how to do a link I''d do it but what I said was that Holt looked a handful throughout but we need to play to his strengths. I was probably one of the very few who didn''t think he was a waste of money.As to what I expected well I would have to say, something closer to a Dean Ashton than a Dean Coney.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="John"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="John"]I don''t think you''ve looked closely enough Ricardo. Contrare to what you believe, he''s done more than Holt ever had at a higher level, although without a scoring ratio akin'' to Holts throughout the duration of his career.Though indeed if they''re not in the same ballpark, i''d say that Wilbraham comes out tops even, albeit at a much later age.

For one, unlike Holt he has actually made an impact in the second tier. Having played a part of the Division 2 Stockport side for 6 seasons, he scored 20 goals at this level, his best of which came having scored 12 in 36 appearances (1 in 3 ratio).[/quote]What a bargain then. gotta be worth £3m if Holt is worth £2Wow! 20 goals in six seasons at this level. He obviously attended the "Robert Rosario Goalscorers Academy"No amount of selective stats will ever convince me or anyone else that Wilbrahams is or ever was in the same class as Grant Holt. I guess we will have to differ on this one and if he nets half a dozen league goals by the end of the season I will be more than happy to eat my words

[/quote]Wahoooo with the attitude there Ricardo. Keep it calm fella, i was simply trying to make a point.I''m talking about there respective careers prior to arriving at Carrow Road. I thought that was the template you were going with in the comment i quoted, and i''d of assumed it was relatively clear that when comparing the two as of now, Holt has the edge, if we''re going solely on the goalscoring department. As i suggested however, it really doesn''t take a genius to figure out they''re are two different types of target men, and on some levels they are perhaps not fairly compared, goalscoring more than likely being one.As for his goalscoring exploits at this level, he only once played near to a full season. His ratio wasn''t consistently great at this level as a youngster in a poor side (surely understandable?), but he had shown ability to compete in it on an even keel at the best of times.This transfer is entirely appropriate to our situation at the moment, both economically, and concerning the practicalities of what is happening on the pitch. Lambert has made an ''inspired'' move, one might say.

For me, it only seems to be flat-out cynicism that people are looking to emphasise needless concerns in a relatively low key transfer. Tiresome and pointless.[/quote]lamberts inspiration remains hidden from me John.I pray that I will be guided to light come Easter.

[Mister Chops 7]

Coming to this late, but in the games where Holt has been missing, we''ve looked toothless.  Portsmouth would be the best example, Hull was another (I believe Holt missed that game too).  Nobody expects Wilbraham to have Holt''s charisma or leadership, but he offers a similar type of player for us to pair either Martin or Jackson with.  For £100k, I''d say it''s a pretty good insurance policy.

[Iwan=legend 0]

Surely with better players around him, Wilbraham can only improve?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

The wisdom or otherwise of this signing can only be judged at the end of January, when we see who else comes in (and in which positions) and how much they''ve cost. In other words what percentage of Lambert''s transfer window budget has gone on Wilbraham. Context in this case is everything.

 

 

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="ricardo"]

What did you think of Grant Holt after the Colchester game ?[/quote]And this is what I said after his second game.

. Man of the match for me was Grant Holt. I thought he was a league three trundler and was just an old fashioned centre forward with strength and not much skill but he has revealed himself to be so much more than that. He has two good feet and pretty decent passing and control for a big man. I can''t see how he can possibly fail to net at least 20 goals if he keeps fit.

[John 0]

[quote user="Iwanlegend"]Surely with better players around him, Wilbraham can only improve?[/quote]That too, absolutely. [Y]One could look at Clive Platt this season at Coventry. Colchester fans had far worse things to say about Platt than any Dons fan has had to say about Wilbraham prior to his move, and going by scoring records alone, Wilbraham boasts the better of the two. Yet, however, Platt has been a revelation of sorts for Coventry this season. No record of his would deem him capable of impressing at this level, but the actuality of the matter is that he has.Why it should be beyond Wilbraham is beyond reason. For football is a madly inconsistent game, and it would only be reasonable to treat it as such.

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

The wisdom or otherwise of this signing can only be judged at the end of January, when we see who else comes in (and in which positions) and how much they''ve cost. In other words what percentage of Lambert''s transfer window budget has gone on Wilbraham. Context in this case is everything.

 

 

[/quote][Y]

[John 0]

re: Ricardo

ricardo wrote:

What did you think of Grant Holt after the Colchester game ?

And this is what I said after his second game.. Man of the match for me was Grant Holt. I

thought he was a league three trundler and was just an old fashioned centre

forward with strength and not much skill but he has revealed himself to be so

much more than that. He has two good feet and pretty decent passing and

control for a big man. I can''t see how he can possibly fail to net at least

20 goals if he keeps fit.---

All due respect Ricardo, surely that is something you should have learnt

from? I mean that in no uncertain terms should you open your mouth

until the player has exhibited what he has to offer after having played

in the yellow and green jersy?Well done on a fine assessment by the way, but i''m simply confused as to why that stands as a point made, when it seems to utterly undermine the rest of your argument on Wilbraham?

[Michael Starr 519]

I''m completely stunned... people on here are already judging and writing him off as a bad signing. Way to knock a player before he kicks a ball.Personally - Good signing. You don''t win things with 11 players, you win things with a squad of players. This guy will add strength on the bench! In the mold of Holt, and a steal at 100k, what''s wrong with people? Lambert still has two other players to sign! In Lambert we should trust people!

[John 0]

In all fairness Ricardo, all i gathered from that retort is that we shouldn''t be taking your word on any player prior to you having seen them isn''t worth acknowledging.I apologise if that sounds harsh, but could it now indicate that it''s best that you, and the rest of Lamberts critics in this deal, take a massive step back and let things play out, at the very least until after Saturday? Because this is exactly what i meant by ''needless''.

[Guest]

Very unimpressed.

Thankyou and goodnight.[|-)]