Norwich want Rhodes

[Nero]

11 hours ago, Blue and white said:

Still think he would be like a new signing under Bruce and that Bruce is the man to get him back to his best.

Bruce has proved he can do it with Fletcher why can't he do it with Rhodes.

Play off v Huddersfield. Fletcher was superb, MoM and game changed when Rhodes came on for him to mince about ineffectively up front. And refuse to take a pen.

The difference between those players is nowt to do with Bruce.

Ones a warrior ones not.

[Inspector Lestrade]

Just now, gurujuan said:

I certainly would, though I might dress it up a little

 

So you wouldn't  

 

 

[prowl]

14 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

All the while he remains here, he wears the mantle of “our worst ever signing” Better to take whatever’s on offer, and move on

You must be joking. Abdi takes that prize.

[gurujuan]

2 minutes ago, Suzuki_San said:

 

We've been a bit forced to use our wide players that way, as it seems most are bloody left footed. 

 

I can't remember ther last time we had a good right footed right winger?

 

One of the reasons we do that, is to supplement the midfield. A central two would get overrun in most games. Carlos took that ploy to extremes

[Blue and white]

10 minutes ago, Peacenocchio said:

Play off v Huddersfield. Fletcher was superb, MoM and game changed when Rhodes came on for him to mince about ineffectively up front. And refuse to take a pen.

The difference between those players is nowt to do with Bruce.

Ones a warrior ones not.

That match was lost before we kicked off and that was all down to clueless as was the reason why Rhodes was mincing about upfront and being ineffective.

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

Would rather Rhodes had a chance under Bruce than simply giving him away. Wouldn't transferring him now also trigger a change in how we can spread his transfer fee over the accounts and impact our P&S numbers?

 

Obviously, if we are talking a few million. then we have to think about it. Even if that money sorts the P&S issue mentioned above, at least we'll have his salary off the books. Can't imagine any sale would give us substantial movement under P&S (whether that's a problem with the rumoured stadium sale, who knows!).

[gurujuan]

4 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said:

Would rather Rhodes had a chance under Bruce than simply giving him away. Wouldn't transferring him now also trigger a change in how we can spread his transfer fee over the accounts and impact our P&S numbers?

 

Obviously, if we are talking a few million. then we have to think about it. Even if that money sorts the P&S issue mentioned above, at least we'll have his salary off the books. Can't imagine any sale would give us substantial movement under P&S (whether that's a problem with the rumoured stadium sale, who knows!).

I think it would be a backward step to try and incorporate him into the side, a modern day side at this level, simply can’t do that. If we can’t offload him, then there is some merit in using him the way Norwich have used him, giving him the last ten minutes from the bench

Edited May 20, 2019 by gurujuan

[Nero]

9 minutes ago, Blue and white said:

That match was lost before we kicked off and that was all down to clueless as was the reason why Rhodes was mincing about upfront and being ineffective.

At least you didn't ignore the subject of the thread and post to bang on about your own agenda.

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

11 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

I think it would be a backward step to try and incorporate him into the side, a modern day side at this level, simply can’t do that. If we can’t offload him, then there is some merit in using him the way Norwich have used him, giving him the last ten minutes from the bench

 

Sure Bruce will have a good idea if he's capable of playing the way he wants us to play. I don't think football has changed that drastically, I just don't think Rhodes can play the lone striker role. There will always be a place in football for natural goalscorers who is in good confidence.

[gurujuan]

Just now, oh_weds_we_love_you said:

 

Sure Bruce will have a good idea if he's capable of playing the way he wants us to play. I don't think football has changed that drastically, I just don't think Rhodes can play the lone striker role. There will always be a place in football for natural goalscorers who is in good confidence.

Yes I’m confident that Bruce will make the right decision However, I do think the game has changed in these last 2 or 3 years, if not drastically, then enough to make it harder for players like Rhodes to thrive. Although I was always against his signing, I never believed he had lost his ability, just that his skill set, now wasn’t enough. This has been compounded by a lack of confidence as his frustration at not being able to adapt grew. 

There was a time, when I would have been over the moon had we signed Jordan Rhodes. Now however, at this level, I think the game has moved on.

[TrickyTrev]

1 hour ago, Bulldog said:

"Proven 20 goal a season"

He last did that with Blackburn 2014 / 2015 season. In his following season with them he got 11.

I just dont think hes got it anymore- either way I'd trust SBs judgement 

That’s fair enough pal although I would say that his last 3 managers have been Karanka, Carlos and Jos, all 3 of which play very negative slow build up football.

 

If we get the ball forward quicker, employ some pace out wide and play at a higher tempo, I believe Bruce will get the best out of Rhodes.

 

He is the only striker we have that has 20 goals a season in his locker and at 29, there’s no reason why he can’t do it again.

 

Like you though, I’ll trust Bruce’s judgement.

[gurujuan]

2 minutes ago, TrickyTrev said:

That’s fair enough pal although I would say that his last 3 managers have been Karanka, Carlos and Jos, all 3 of which play very negative slow build up football.

 

If we get the ball forward quicker, employ some pace out wide and play at a higher tempo, I believe Bruce will get the best out of Rhodes.

 

He is the only striker we have that has 20 goals a season in his locker and at 29, there’s no reason why he can’t do it again.

 

Like you though, I’ll trust Bruce’s judgement.

Didn’t Forestieri get 20 goals in his first season for us, or near enough? For me that’s the difference, with Rhodes, you might just get the goals, with Forestieri, you get so much more

[PortlandOwl]

When he's actually played, he's still had chances and fluffed them. Not worked out, get rid.

[shezzas left peg]

43 minutes ago, Suzuki_San said:

 

We've been a bit forced to use our wide players that way, as it seems most are bloody left footed. 

 

I can't remember ther last time we had a good right footed right winger?

 

I belive second season Carlos insisted on playing narrow wingers and expecting the likes of fox to suddenly turn into Ashley Cole lol.

Seriously though, It's been a while bud, that said Dosent it once again fall squarely at the feet of the DC. CC. Doyen shambolic recruitment as to why we havnt had one. The percentage of good right footed wingers compared to left is massive, so looking for a right winger isn't normally to difficult, unless your those named above. 

[Bulldog]

41 minutes ago, TrickyTrev said:

That’s fair enough pal although I would say that his last 3 managers have been Karanka, Carlos and Jos, all 3 of which play very negative slow build up football.

 

If we get the ball forward quicker, employ some pace out wide and play at a higher tempo, I believe Bruce will get the best out of Rhodes.

 

He is the only striker we have that has 20 goals a season in his locker and at 29, there’s no reason why he can’t do it again.

 

Like you though, I’ll trust Bruce’s judgement.

I concur with your comment on the managers. The fact he scored half the number of goals in his following season in 2016 (a feat he's possibly not managed since??) pretty much does it for me

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

6 hours ago, DuttyTeabags said:

2-3m, wages off payroll, use cash to buy Hector go towards paying off the 4 million still owed to Middlesborough, ban all future Rhodes threads on Owlstalk thus finishing total number of Rhodes threads at 6,538,901 and total replies at 242,487,424. 

 

More than enough for anybody in a lifetime. 

 

 

[matthefish2002]

I find it very surprising that Norwich are wanting to keep Rhodes, got the impression his season there was not terrible but not great either.
Think Rhodes would jump at the chance of moving there, if so would let him move on.

[Guest addedtime]

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

Didn’t Forestieri get 20 goals in his first season for us, or near enough? For me that’s the difference, with Rhodes, you might just get the goals, with Forestieri, you get so much more

Certainly do.....injuries......bizarre attitude at times......refusal to play when he doesn't get his way...........

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

3 hours ago, bigrbuk said:

 

I like stats, they're awesome. Norwich also scored 93 goals compared to our 60 and had an average of 15.4 shots per game compared to our 11.5. Does that mean Rhodes should have scored more often based on the chances Norwich created? Did those chances not come in the last 10 minutes when the game was won and Rhodes came on? Where do you stop?

 

I dunno, dude.

 

I was just providing the stats requested by another poster!

 

[nbupperthongowl]

If we can break even on this with the loan fees etc. This may be our only realistic chance to make decent £s and help ffp