Rhodes

[Jim]

I think Rhodes will be off but only on loan initially.

 

Winnall won’t be moving on anytime soon due to injury.

 

Hooper and Fletcher probably have to prove their fitness before any other clubs will show an interest but Hooper would be easier to move on than Fletcher IMO.

 

I can see Nuhiu and Joao being Jos’ first choice pairing to begin with due to their exploits last season and understandably so. However I think there will be interest from elsewhere in Joao before the window closes.

[dorian gray]

6 hours ago, DJMortimer said:

 

LAST 2 SEASONS (SWFC ONLY)

MINUTES PER GOAL, LEAGUE GAMES

 

Nuhiu                 167

Forestieri            190

Hooper               211

Winnall               250

Fletcher              252

Joao                   262

Clare                  349

Rhodes               370

Lee                     425

 

 

For his first three months at the club, Luhukay had only 3 fit strikers with any experience. After rotating them all for a while, he settled on the two that were working and Rhodes got little action after that. He was even an unused substitute a number of times which is quite remarkable under those circumstances. When Forestieri returned, his playing time reduced further still. The manager was clearly thoroughly unimpressed. He clearly wasn't preoccupied with statistics from three years ago that have little bearing on his performances for us these last 18 months. 

rather than say he judged him over 18 months and not 3 years might be cherry picking, i prefer to think he judged him on what he saw as a package when onfield and in training.

interesting that your stats show 2 seasons and NOT last season's debacle isolated (i think that would have have been more telling statistic).

i'm not willing to slate any of our forwards over their performances in the last 2 seasons as they were starved of quality ball by our 'snail pace' build up play, and lack of professional fitness, but i will support jos in his decisions, though rather than sell rhodes for less than his worth, i'd like to see him loaned out, to try and increase his value to the club.

when rhodes was signed i didn't see our fanbase 'up in arms' at his procurement, we were more than happy to see this goal scoring monster join our ranks, i still clearly wince at the thought of his 4-4 draw with us.

[gurujuan]

3 hours ago, dnhc said:

rather than say he judged him over 18 months and not 3 years might be cherry picking, i prefer to think he judged him on what he saw as a package when onfield and in training.

interesting that your stats show 2 seasons and NOT last season's debacle isolated (i think that would have have been more telling statistic).

i'm not willing to slate any of our forwards over their performances in the last 2 seasons as they were starved of quality ball by our 'snail pace' build up play, and lack of professional fitness, but i will support jos in his decisions, though rather than sell rhodes for less than his worth, i'd like to see him loaned out, to try and increase his value to the club.

when rhodes was signed i didn't see our fanbase 'up in arms' at his procurement, we were more than happy to see this goal scoring monster join our ranks, i still clearly wince at the thought of his 4-4 draw with us.

Most of our fans are not the brightest However, that’s no excuse for the professionals to make such a gaff, especially if, as is quoted, it has put us in danger of breaching FFP

[Guest Arcadianrocket]

If we have to sell Bannan and FF due to FFP then this makes the signing of JR and his wages even more frustrating.

[dorian gray]

32 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Most of our fans are not the brightest However, that’s no excuse for the professionals to make such a gaff, especially if, as is quoted, it has put us in danger of breaching FFP

at the time, i didn't know anyone who thought that signing rhodes was a bad move, we were signing a monster goalscorer, a real predator (especially so at this level).

can you remember your feeling at that time?

for me we were signing something better than hooper, but maybe with the thought in the background that hirst and warhurst couldn't click together despite both being very prolific.

[cookeh]

12 minutes ago, dnhc said:

at the time, i didn't know anyone who thought that signing rhodes was a bad move, we were signing a monster goalscorer, a real predator (especially so at this level).

can you remember your feeling at that time?

for me we were signing something better than hooper, but maybe with the thought in the background that hirst and warhurst couldn't click together despite both being very prolific.

 

to be fair to Guru he's hated rhodes since day 1 :D

[dorian gray]

6 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

to be fair to Guru he's hated rhodes since day 1 :D

i'd love to know on what grounds? he isn't the type to ruffle the feathers of opposition supporters (other than by his goal scoring), clean player, not temperamental, not dirty, not a cheat.

[Daizan10]

27 minutes ago, dnhc said:

at the time, i didn't know anyone who thought that signing rhodes was a bad move, we were signing a monster goalscorer, a real predator (especially so at this level).

can you remember your feeling at that time?

for me we were signing something better than hooper, but maybe with the thought in the background that hirst and warhurst couldn't click together despite both being very prolific.

I wasn't hot on it. He was pish at boro and he wasn't a great age for resale and getting good value (in as far as games played for us) of him at his prime. But its easy to say that now. 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Daizan10

[dorian gray]

6 minutes ago, Daizan10 said:

I wasn't hot on it. He was pish at boro and he wasn't a great age for resale and getting good value (in as far as games played for us) of him at his prime. But its easy to say that now. 

but generally speaking transfer wise, were weren't looking to the future, we were buying players for the present day with the very odd exception.

he's only 28 now.

Edited June 13, 2018 by dnhc
addition to

[Daizan10]

2 minutes ago, dnhc said:

but generally speaking transfer wise, were weren't looking to the future, we were buying players for the present day with the very odd exception.

Yes and that was an issue for me generally. It's silly to buy something that will be worth a fraction of its value in 2 years, especially for 8-10m when you can buy something for a similar price that can be worth double, or at least hold its value, over the same period. Like Wolves did. They may have spent a fortune, but if they hadn't gone up Neves was still worth at least the amount they paid for him if they had to sell. 

[ChinaOwl]

23 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

to be fair to Guru he's hated rhodes since day 1 :D

 

Hate or just didn't rate?

 

To be fair to Guru, there is a clear difference.

[dorian gray]

47 minutes ago, Daizan10 said:

Yes and that was an issue for me generally. It's silly to buy something that will be worth a fraction of its value in 2 years, especially for 8-10m when you can buy something for a similar price that can be worth double, or at least hold its value, over the same period. Like Wolves did. They may have spent a fortune, but if they hadn't gone up Neves was still worth at least the amount they paid for him if they had to sell. 

at the end of the day (for me) it was the inexperience at the club at that time, alarm bells should have been ringing, and someone needed to raise the issue of if we're 'buying for today' what happens if we're still here tomorrow?

if anyone did they were drowned out, or ignored.

[gurujuan]

1 hour ago, cookeh said:

 

to be fair to Guru he's hated rhodes since day 1 :D

I certainly don’t hate Rhodes In fact, there is a huge part of me who really feels for the guy

A thouroughly decent guy, by all accounts, joining his dad, at the club he supported as a youngster, it was probably his dream move For me though, the move was 4 or 5 years too late 

It’s not hindsight, I warned of the perils of signing Jordan Rhodes, when it was first mooted Not everyone agrees with this, and that’s fair enough, but I feel football at this level has moved on and left players like Jordan behind Unless he can adapt to the modern game, he will find his options at this level, increasingly slim He has become a victim of footballs fads and trends

[Quist]

20 hours ago, cookeh said:

 

Which season was that?

The year they went down they had a really poor side, with an average age which was probably over 30, including a 36 year old wes brown.
Their strikers weren't the worst, but central midfield and central defense were pretty terrible. I don't rate Jason Steele as a keeper either.

Could also point to Mowbray not being a very good manager..

And that they were playing 442, not 352. They're very different beasts in the current 'formation meta'.

 

It was when they wete in mid table and cairney was in imidfield. At the time many on here were indicating we should go after several Blacburn layers saying how good they were. The tactics they were using were from a bygone age. Football mirrors life it is forever changing if you do not adapt you do not survive.They played 4 4 2 and used old fashioned poacher and system failed.

[Guest Arcadianrocket]

37 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

I certainly don’t hate Rhodes In fact, there is a huge part of me who really feels for the guy

A thouroughly decent guy, by all accounts, joining his dad, at the club he supported as a youngster, it was probably his dream move For me though, the move was 4 or 5 years too late 

It’s not hindsight, I warned of the perils of signing Jordan Rhodes, when it was first mooted Not everyone agrees with this, and that’s fair enough, but I feel football at this level has moved on and left players like Jordan behind Unless he can adapt to the modern game, he will find his options at this level, increasingly slim He has become a victim of footballs fads and trends

Whilst we both agree on the fact Rhodes is no longer good enough, I don't think it's football has changed - it's more he has. Most of Fletcher and Nuhiu goals over past two seasons are chances he would have buried a few years ago. It's a simple case of a player going on the decline a lot earlier than most, which is why when our fans see his age they can't accept this reasoning.

 

Yes, strikers these days have to do a lot more than just score and formations have moved away from 4-4-2. However we have played 4-4-2 for a lot of Rhodes time, created a lot of chances and he's missed majority, some of them easy chances. The game changing and evolving does not change the size of the goal, the ability to score a goal, the confidence to ask for the ball - for me it's more he is just not the same player then the game is changing.

 

Rhodes was never Messi but he would score goals on a regular basis. We have created numerous chances for the bloke and excuses. It's a shame to see a player on the declie but we saw it with Loovens. Rhodes is playing like a 35 year old not a 28 year old.

[np pontefract]

3 hours ago, gurujuan said:

Most of our fans are not the brightest However, that’s no excuse for the professionals to make such a gaff, especially if, as is quoted, it has put us in danger of breaching FFP

 As you consider the majority of our fans to be, " not the brightest", do  you think that your views are more important and relevant  than the rest, due to your superior intellect ?

 

Just asking, for the sake of clarification,  you understand.

 

                                     

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, np pontefract said:

 As you consider the majority of our fans to be, " not the brightest", do  you think that your views are more important and relevant  than the rest, due to your superior intellect ?

 

Just asking, for the sake of clarification,  you understand.

 

                                     

No, I think you missed his point slightly. He is being extremely admirable in highlighting is own weaknesses on this site. He probably aspires to be one of the select few on here. Don't we all

[np pontefract]

3 minutes ago, CLswfc said:

No, I think you missed his point slightly. He is being extremely admirable in highlighting is own weaknesses on this site. He probably aspires to be one of the select few on here. Don't we all

 

I don't want to be " one of the select few on here"

 

   I'm not prepared to compromise on my principles    !!!!

 

                                  . 

[dorian gray]

On 13/06/2018 at 13:41, np pontefract said:

 As you consider the majority of our fans to be, " not the brightest", do  you think that your views are more important and relevant  than the rest, due to your superior intellect ?

 

Just asking, for the sake of clarification,  you understand.

 

                                     

he may have been correct to say 'most of our fans' are not as knowledgeable on football or swfc as himself, but he would have been correct if he said 'some of our fans barely know anything about football'.

you only need £40 to get into a football ground, there is no exam to pass, if driving licences were dished out in the same fashion they'd be a write off on every street corner, even under the present regime you have to watch for the 'romulans' driving slowly in their 'warbird' in the outside lane.