Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Sam Baldock

2456711

Comments

  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,483
    edited July 2012

    Another point about BWP was that I thought our set up didn't help him all that much. Kermorgant often played deep and was the target man and with BWP playing off the shoulder of the last defender and stretching opponents defences out he didn't always see a lot of the ball. Get a partner alongside him that assists him and holds the ball and looks to bring BWP in then he will score laods more.

    Well given that we'll be continuing with Kermit, that looks a bit unlikely.

  • BlackForestReds
    BlackForestReds Posts: 17,952
    I've no problem with a Kermorgant-BWP (or Baldock) front line. The danger is that the goal scorer gets dragged deeper and the team loses their goalscorer and cutting edge. I'm just making the point that if you want to get more goals out of BWP you need to have the target man playing a bit further up the pitch, but we have a formula that works and until it stops working I wouldn't advocate changing it.
  • cafcnick1992
    cafcnick1992 Posts: 7,414
    I think this BWP criticism is a bit unfair. Fact of the matter is, he is brilliant at being in the right place at the right time.
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,646
    Rhodes and Evans were the penalty takers at their clubs.

    Take away their penalty goals, and their goal tally from outfield play is not significantly much different than BWP achieved.




    I think Rhodes only scored 1 penalty ..........against us !!



  • Stefco
    Stefco Posts: 848
    I think it's premature to write-off BWP. A number of strikers have stepped up over the past few years, most notably Holt & Lambert, who carried momentum with their teams.

    BWP still has some years to develop, & the fact that he gets himself in positions to score, shows he is getting better as he ages, & his goal ratios per season have improved as a consequence.

    If we don't manage to get Baldock, I won't be worrying, as I think Bradley will do a good job for us next year. He & Yann will be hungry, & determined to make the most of their 2nd bites of the Championship cherry.
  • Rothko
    Rothko Posts: 18,812
    We're in no position to sign Baldock at the moment
  • Stewart
    Stewart Posts: 2,451
    People that are knocking BWP need to get a life.
  • kishisaledge
    kishisaledge Posts: 247
    Rothko said:

    We're in no position to sign Baldock at the moment

    so much negativity
  • oohaahmortimer
    oohaahmortimer Posts: 34,170

    Rothko said:

    We're in no position to sign Baldock at the moment

    so much negativity
    Just for you kishaledge

    We could easily afford to sign anyone we want but we're playing a cagey game , don't forget what norwich and southampton did
  • vff
    vff Posts: 6,882
    BWP & KMG are great strikers. All strikers sometimes go off the boil, or are dealt with in specific games by specific opposition tactics. Having another different goal scoring striker, would mean that the opposition defence can't concentrate their attentions on one main goal scorer or gives another tactical possibility of the bench.

    It takes the pressure of the main goalscorer, and encourages them to play their best to keep their place in the team. It also means that the striker can be rested, lessening the risk of injuries and gives the manager another option of the bench. Relying one goal scoring striker is never good, whatever the percentage of goals / ratio.

    If we get Sam Baldock (or another decent striker) alongside CB cover, left back / midfield is covered with Lawrie Wilson and centre midfield engine (Kerkar). With improving players such as Michael Smith and Bradley Pritchard ( and some from the youth set up), I can see us competing for the play offs.

    We would have different styles of players to give us different options.

    Easy to spend someone elses money though, eh (or have an opinion on what they spend it on).

    BWP is great though, and I have lots of time for him, not just for the goals but for his work rate and what he does for the team.

  • Sponsored links:



  • TEL
    TEL Posts: 10,100
    Wouldnt be Charlton if we didnt knock or own......BWP top kiddy though....lots of teams would love to have him, we should just be grateful he is ours.
  • buckshee
    buckshee Posts: 7,868
    swap deal?
  • WSS
    WSS Posts: 25,070
    So unless we agree on a valuation for Lil Chris, it looks like we'll miss out.
  • Clem_Snide
    Clem_Snide Posts: 11,741
    This cant be right. I thought we'd already signed him and were just waiting for some cheques to clear.........
  • Plaaayer
    Plaaayer Posts: 9,001
    Maybe they bounced :-)
  • JT
    JT Posts: 12,348
    Full of quotes that article
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,235
    Cash-flow or no cash-flow problem, spending one and half mil on a player who is not proven in the Championship is a major gamble and personally I would rather have someone proven at that level at a much cheaper price.
  • I'm not sure we are in the market to spend £1.5m on anyone this summer.

    It would, in my opinion, put us in the position where we would start to need promotion to the Premier League to balance the books. I'd rather not go down that road again. It didn't work out too well last time.
  • WSS
    WSS Posts: 25,070
    But if we didn't have to "spend" to get the player but simply utilise Chris Solly then would it be better?

  • Sponsored links:



  • Folev the red
    Folev the red Posts: 2,087
    Jack Sullivan ‏@jsullivanwhu
    no bid has been accepted for Sam Baldock, contrary to newspaper talk. I hope to have more news later !!!!!!
  • WSS
    WSS Posts: 25,070
    That suggests that something will be happening later then.
  • Clem_Snide
    Clem_Snide Posts: 11,741
    WSS said:

    That suggests that something will be happening later then.

    Possibly related to late night discussions in Green Street.

  • Bubble
    Bubble Posts: 1,541
    Ian Abrahams ‏@Moose_talkSPORT
    Re Sam Baldock There is no denying the fact we have received offers but the club is yet to accept any offers.

  • Bubble
    Bubble Posts: 1,541

    Jack Sullivan ‏@jsullivanwhu
    no bid has been accepted for Sam Baldock, contrary to newspaper talk. I hope to have more news later !!!!!!

    How is that kid about 10? Seems very involved
  • sammy391
    sammy391 Posts: 3,783
    He's dad is David Sullivan
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,235
    WSS said:

    But if we didn't have to "spend" to get the player but simply utilise Chris Solly then would it be better?

    Yes, but ask for Nicky Maynard instead. Failing that ask Reading for Le Fondre on a seasons loan.
  • WSS said:

    But if we didn't have to "spend" to get the player but simply utilise Chris Solly then would it be better?

    It depends if we are getting more for Solly as a consequence, otherwise we are just selling a valuable asset (and probably before he matures) and still spending £1.5m of that money (that we will, obviously only get once) on another player.

    I guess it depends on how desperate the new owners are to get promoted, and how quickly they want to achieve it. If their business plan (assuming they have one) requires Premier League football within the next two seasons then they might start spending that sort of cash. If they are willing to take five seasons and get up without spending too much money then they might look for a cheaper less proven alternative, like Cook that we signed from Sunderland on a free.
  • daveaddick
    daveaddick Posts: 1,926
    It said in The People yesterday that Baldock was headed for Blackburn but CP was trying to hijack the move by offering him a £1m/yesr deal not sure if that's true either
  • Bubble
    Bubble Posts: 1,541
    WSS said:

    But if we didn't have to "spend" to get the player but simply utilise Chris Solly then would it be better?

    This is plausible, I'm not buying we've signed Wilson as back up. If we are struggling as strongly suggested on here in terms of transfer budget what is the logic in spending considerable money (I appreciate this might not be all up front but we'lll constitute an amount of the summer budget regardless) on someone who will not directly effect the first team.