Buckwheat Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 16 hours ago, Loppy said: Id say the deal ties with giving him a 3 year deal at 31... That's insane if he's still getting decent money. Doesn't need the money with all he's creamed from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briggowl Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 3 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said: The unhappy marriage between Wednesday and Rhodes was evident from very early on, when Carvalhal was discussing trying to adapt his game: “Jordan, it’s not difficult to explain, he played all the time in one way, the Championship played in one way for a long time but the Championship is changing. “Typical British football, very few teams play like that now. “Centre backs played more longer to the attackers but there are a lot of teams, 80% maybe who play differently from the back. “Centre backs start building the attack. If you don’t have players in attack who don’t understand this, to block the opponents, they will go inside of you and score goals and make you a weak team. The attackers are very important. “If you play all your life one way, then you must change something, it takes time. “When you have one way that you play, the players must adapt, the team must not adapt to the player." Then as recently as this February, Thompson was still talking of adding "a bit of aggression" to his game. At no point did it seem like the coaches were totally satisfied with what they were getting from Rhodes, which when you consider somebody forked out £10m and jeopardised the club's future in return for him, is a ridiculous situation to end up in. Very interesting, I never saw this at the time. So WTF did we sign him? DC? Got to be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areNOTwhatTHEYseem Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 13 minutes ago, briggowl said: Very interesting, I never saw this at the time. So WTF did we sign him? DC? Got to be. Your guess is as good as mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogers Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 Anyone remember David Graham. He definitely makes the top 10; but I think Rhodes is worse, for to the costs involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewings Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 16 hours ago, Dexter Morgan said: Went on to be the worlds most expensive player for a short while Didn't tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Morgan Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 On 21/05/2021 at 21:35, unkastav said: Pound for pound? No I guess pound for pound Rhodes is on a different level 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Morgan Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 8 hours ago, Bluewings said: Didn't tho. Are you sure? I thought he was the most expensive player when he went to Juventus? Must have mis read that somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewings Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 24 minutes ago, Dexter Morgan said: Are you sure? I thought he was the most expensive player when he went to Juventus? Must have mis read that somewhere It was Christian Vieri for £31m when Kovacavic signed for Juve.... Tell you what tho, people moaning Rhodes didn't get a chance... Imagine the meltdown on here if Owlstalk was around when Pleat didn't play Kovacavic. Shocking manager. Signs a player with obvious quality, doesn't play him and he then goes on to play for one of the biggest clubs in Europe via Spain, couldn't make it up! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronio Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 Pound for pound would be Abdi followed by Urby Emmanuelson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dukeries Owl Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 (edited) On 20/05/2021 at 20:00, mildatheart67 said: You might be right on this. The other Yugoslavian left on a free David Pleat left him out so much he lost his work permit by about 2 games. He went on to have avery successful career after leaving us. Dejan Stefanovic. Go on look up his career stats, Pleat was a moron. Edited May 22, 2021 by The Dukeries Owl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJMortimer Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 39 minutes ago, The Dukeries Owl said: David Pleat left him out so much he lost his work permit by about 2 games. He went on to have avery successful career after leaving us. Dejan Stefanovic. Go on look up his career stats, Pleat was a moron. Danny Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Since 1971 Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 Pound for pound Rhodes is one of our worst signings of the Chansiri era. Worst of all time? He's not even in my top ten. Pound for pound, expectation, overall output........ Andy Sinton cost £2.3m just in transfer fee. That was approx 76% of the British transfer record at the time. In today's money that's £65m. Do I need to continue? My personal obsession on this theme is Chris Woods. Expectation and overall output. Would we have got to two cup finals without Woods in the team? Yes. Would we have won at least one of them without Woods in the team? Most probably yes. Would we have breached financial regulations and got relegated if we hadn't signed Rhodes? Yes. He's not the problem. And don't we all just know, if we get them in the cup at Hillsborough, Rhodes is going to score at least one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darra Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 Could be worse. United bought Brewster for 23 million. So far he's cost them minus wages 23 million a goal or he will have when he actually scores one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 I honestly believe that the DECISION to sign him was actually worse than the signing itself. What I mean by that is if the finances were sufficiently robust to bring him on board, he was the type of player that may have gotten us promotion. However, we later discovered that the club were already on the brink of exceeding ffp limitations. The fans wouldn't have known this but the club must have as the board are in possession of a set of accounts. The position the club is now in emanated from what turned out to be a reckless gamble. It wasn't as though we actually needed to bring in a striker. We had about five or six to pick from at the time. The form that Rhodes has showed since can be written off as 20:20 hindsight. The decision to sign him under those circumstances wasn't hindsight. It was putting the club's future at stake based on the player's past reputation for goals and it has cost the club big time! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmowl Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 (edited) I was one of the few against signing him. I was 100% convinced that Fletcher-Hooper, if paired together every week, would see us promoted. However, it’s reasonable to argue that Rhodes was a key factor in dragging us upto 4th in the 16/17 season. Hooper got injured mid-season and only got back for that magical run of 6 in 6 wins. Prior to that we’d tanked and were looking almost certain to miss a top six position. Fletcher hadn't scored since Christmas! I’d forgotten that until I looked back. Then, for those six amazing games, we gelled. Remarkably, we could not score a single goal in that wonderful run without Rhodes being on the pitch. All ten goals came when he was on the pitch, some as a starter, some as a sub. Four years later I can fully understand threads like this; financially it’s impossible to say the purchase of Rhodes was anything but a failure (though I would say it’s the managers who failed him, not vice-versa). However, without Rhodes its highly unlikely that we’d have made the 16/17 play-offs, and but for CC unbelievable stupidity in the play-offs it could well have been a different thread, where Rhodes’ is viewed as one of the most profitable pieces of business in recent history, having helped us to the riches of the Premier League. Edited May 24, 2021 by Holmowl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 The answer to the "why did we sign Jordan Rhodes" question is no more complicated than our owner not having the first clue what he was doing, then, now and unfortunately tomorrow..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmowl Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 3 minutes ago, Morepork said: The answer to the "why did we sign Jordan Rhodes" question is no more complicated than our owner not having the first clue what he was doing, then, now and unfortunately tomorrow..... Agreed. And the really really worrying word is ‘tomorrow’. I shudder to think what we will look like in August. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areNOTwhatTHEYseem Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Holmowl said: I was one of the few against signing him. I was 100% convinced that Fletcher-Hooper, if paired together every week, would see us promoted. However, it’s reasonable to argue that Rhodes was a key factor in dragging us upto 4th in the 16/17 season. Hooper got injured mid-season and only got back for that magical run of 6 in 6 wins. Prior to that we’d tanked and were looking almost certain to miss a top six position. Fletcher hadn't scored since Christmas! I’d forgotten that until I looked back. Then, for those six amazing games, we gelled. Remarkably, we could not score a single goal in that wonderful run without Rhodes being on the pitch. All ten goals came when he was on the pitch, some as a starter, some as a sub. Four years later I can fully understand threads like this; financially it’s impossible to say the purchase of Rhodes was anything but a failure (though I would say it’s the managers who failed him, not vice-versa). However, without Rhodes its highly unlikely that we’d have made the 16/17 play-offs, and but for CC unbelievable stupidity in the play-offs it could well have been a different thread, where Rhodes’ is viewed as one of the most profitable pieces of business in recent history, having helped us to the riches of the Premier League. Correlation doesn't imply causation. How anyone can take an unbiased look at the source of our goals during those six games and conclude that Rhodes was the central figure is staining at the limits of credulity: Fletcher: 4 goals Pudil: 1 goal, 2 assists Hooper: 1 goal, 1 assist Wallace: 2 assists Rhodes: 2 assists Forestieri: 1 goal Reach: 1 goal Lee: 1 goal Lees: 1 goal Hunt: 1 assist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmowl Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 1 minute ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said: Correlation doesn't imply causation. How anyone can take an unbiased look at the source of our goals during those six games and conclude that Rhodes was the central figure is staining at the limits of credulity: Fletcher: 4 goals Pudil: 1 goal, 2 assists Hooper: 1 goal, 1 assist Wallace: 2 assists Rhodes: 2 assists Forestieri: 1 goal Reach: 1 goal Lee: 1 goal Lees: 1 goal Hunt: 1 assist Who said “central”? I said “a key” @ll 10 goals when one of our strikers was on the pitch, and you DONT agree he was a key? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areNOTwhatTHEYseem Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 3 minutes ago, Holmowl said: Who said “central”? I said “a key” @ll 10 goals when one of our strikers was on the pitch, and you DONT agree he was a key? Honestly? I think you went looking for something to try and suit a preconceived notion. These discussions about Rhodes became tiresome a long time ago, as there's little balance on either side of the debate: I understand that much of the criticism goes way overboard, but your attempts to lionise him in response are just as blinkered, I'm afraid. A player being on the pitch when his teammates score or set up a goal doesn't mean they directly contributed to it or played a significant role in its creation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now