Does anyone have any knowledge around what his "issues" exactly are? I remember seeing someone post a comment from Stockley about having belief in his body or something alone those lines?
Charlton Live mentioned “confidential” issues the other week. It’s intriguing, as injuries are normally reported on by clubs and are widely known about. I wonder if it’s something more personal/medical than the normal sorts of injuries that players suffer from.
Really hope it can be solved and that he stays here, he is a tremendous player when on the pitch and his minutes:goals ratio must be the best in the league for any player who has double figures.
Can only see the table for players with 11+ goals, but in that table you’re correct.
Aneke managed 102 minutes per goal.
Followed by Clarke-Harris with 126 mpg, Wyke at 140 mpg and Magennis with 142 mpg.
Out of interest, how comes so many people are against Aneke but nobody saying we should get rid of Inniss?
no one is against Aneke and I think you will find Inniss played 90 minutes on a number of occasions this season.
I'm happy to keep Aneke even if he can only do 30 minutes a game but what if at some point all the other strikers are injured and we have to play an hour with Aneke on the bench and no-one up top? It's a big gamble imo.
Does anyone have any knowledge around what his "issues" exactly are? I remember seeing someone post a comment from Stockley about having belief in his body or something alone those lines?
Charlton Live mentioned “confidential” issues the other week. It’s intriguing, as injuries are normally reported on by clubs and are widely known about. I wonder if it’s something more personal/medical than the normal sorts of injuries that players suffer from.
Really hope it can be solved and that he stays here, he is a tremendous player when on the pitch and his minutes:goals ratio must be the best in the league for any player who has double figures.
Can only see the table for players with 11+ goals, but in that table you’re correct.
Aneke managed 102 minutes per goal.
Followed by Clarke-Harris with 126 mpg, Wyke at 140 mpg and Magennis with 142 mpg.
Clarke-Harris scored 7 penalties as well, so if you did the stats without those then Aneke is absolutely miles clear.
I am happy to keep Chuks. I just don’t think unless we are pretty confident he can be fully rehabilitated that we should be offering any more than a year and on the same money.
Out of interest, how comes so many people are against Aneke but nobody saying we should get rid of Inniss?
no one is against Aneke and I think you will find Inniss played 90 minutes on a number of occasions this season.
I'm happy to keep Aneke even if he can only do 30 minutes a game but what if at some point all the other strikers are injured and we have to play an hour with Aneke on the bench and no-one up top? It's a big gamble imo.
I never said Inniss didn't, but that's my point. You've got Aneke who has been available for most of the season, but not to play for 90 mins. Then there's Inniss who yes when fit is capable of playing more minutes than Aneke, but his injury record speaks for itself. Personally I don't see a difference, both are risks to have the squad, it's just whether the positives outweigh the injury negatives.
One year deal on same money and only then if the medical staff think he can be rehabilitated. Can’t have a player permanently unfit to play, confidential issues or otherwise.
Why can't his role at our club be a 30-minute impact sub?
15 goals are not going to be easy to replace.
But that’s all he is. 30 minutes. No way to run a squad in my view.
So, if you were the Man United manager, you wouldn't have Cavani in your squad? After all, he is doing in the PL the same as Aneke is at League 1 level.
Cricket coaches are now not so much looking at averages but meaningful contributions. In the case of football, one could suggest that Aneke does just that as he is someone who does change games. He's the very last type of player a defender wants to be facing after an hour of being run ragged and there really aren't many players around who have that about them.
There also aren’t many professional footballers around who can only play 30 minutes a week.
So you wouldn't take Cavani at United?
Aneke was actually on the pitch for 1,527 minutes this season. That's an average of over 33 minutes for each and every one of the 46 games in a season. He only failed to make 8 appearances in any shape or form so he played an average of 40 minutes in the 38 games he did partake in. That's not a 5 minutes here and 5 minutes there.
15 goals and 2 assists. How many players get that many goals and assists in the course of a season let alone one every 90 minutes they play?
Proof indeed even if it wasn’t needed that the bloke is a talented footballer that can’t ever play a whole match or even half a match ever.
And proof that only a dozen players from the 24 clubs in the division scored more than the 15 goals he did. Another hundred or so forwards in the division failed to match him including all those at our disposal.
But if we can afford to buy someone who can do better than so be it. The trouble is there aren't that many around.
One year deal on same money and only then if the medical staff think he can be rehabilitated. Can’t have a player permanently unfit to play, confidential issues or otherwise.
Why can't his role at our club be a 30-minute impact sub?
15 goals are not going to be easy to replace.
I assume we'll be back to 3 subs next season, so can we afford players who can only come on for 30 minutes?
And what happens if Stockley (or another striker) limps off after 10 minutes, and we need a sub to play 80 minutes?
Chuks can come on for more than 30 minutes. That's not the issue in itself; after all Bowyer played him for 75 minutes a number of times and a couple of games the full 90, if I remember right.
No, the problem is that Chuks can't then do the mid-week games. His body doesn't seem to recover in time. In League One the midweek games come thick and fast. And this season especially, condensed into a shorter time span, there were even more midweek games than a normal season.
So no risks with his fitness were taken.
Curiously, when Chuks did start his performances weren't so effective. Obviously the impact role suited him, against tiring defences or as an additional striker. Most of his goals as sub underlines that.
Really it was just about managing him to get the most effective performance from him.
His goal scoring feats for a 'part timer' are very impressive. He has struck up a partnership with Stockley and 2 big men together up front nowadays is both unusual and effective. He is well worth a new deal so long as it doesn't break the CAFC piggy bank. AND let's hope Stockley and PNE can be persuaded on a good deal for him to come to the Valley as one of ours
Out of interest, how comes so many people are against Aneke but nobody saying we should get rid of Inniss?
Aneke is out of contract, Inniss is not. So whatever the view on his fitness, Inniss is not going anywhere yet, Aneke could be.
Fair point, but players don't just move at the end of their contracts and it hasn't stopped people saying get rid of Gunter. The point was more about how people rave about Inniss can help lead us to promotion but don't really feel the same as Aneke. Like I said, personally I don't see a difference, I think both are major assets on the pitch but the concern is obviously just how much time we will see either.
Out of interest, how comes so many people are against Aneke but nobody saying we should get rid of Inniss?
Aneke is out of contract, Inniss is not. So whatever the view on his fitness, Inniss is not going anywhere yet, Aneke could be.
Fair point, but players don't just move at the end of their contracts and it hasn't stopped people saying get rid of Gunter. The point was more about how people rave about Inniss can help lead us to promotion but don't really feel the same as Aneke. Like I said, personally I don't see a difference, I think both are major assets on the pitch but the concern is obviously just how much time we will see either.
Sorry and I’m not trying to pick an argument but there are massive differences. Inniss has injury problems but when he’s fit, he’s fit and can play 90 minutes like any other professional footballer. Aneke also has injury issues but we’re told that even when he’s not injured and incapable of playing that he has issues that prevent him doing the most basic requirement of a professional footballer and that is playing for 90 minutes. Now I’d like to keep Chuks because he’s exciting and a good footballer who scores goals at our level but having him as purely a substitute causes it’s own problems for the squad.
If you had 3 forwards of the quality of Stockley, Washington and let's just say Lyle Taylor (c2019) would you want your 4th striker to be:
A) Chuks Aneke Josh Parker C) Ronnie Schwartz D) Josh Davison
Him coming off the bench must scare the shit out of center halves. If you have got a guy that can come off the bench and score 15-20 goals a season, I would strongly suggest that's what you do with him. No one else in this league has one.
He can't start, does it really matter? Stockley, Washington et Al aren't going to score 15 goals a season of they never start, Chuks will. Its like getting rid of your goal keeper because he can't play left back. Or are we planning on not using subs next season?
Chuks is a weapon on the bench that the oppo will know can more than do a job at this level. If people can suggest a player that will get us 20+ goals, play 90 mins week in, week out and be available to us.... please go ahead and name him.
Out of interest, how comes so many people are against Aneke but nobody saying we should get rid of Inniss?
Aneke is out of contract, Inniss is not. So whatever the view on his fitness, Inniss is not going anywhere yet, Aneke could be.
Fair point, but players don't just move at the end of their contracts and it hasn't stopped people saying get rid of Gunter. The point was more about how people rave about Inniss can help lead us to promotion but don't really feel the same as Aneke. Like I said, personally I don't see a difference, I think both are major assets on the pitch but the concern is obviously just how much time we will see either.
Any striker who scores 15 goals a season is surely worth a punt?
Even if his appearances are comprimised, those 15 goals are priceless any way you want to look at it. None of his goals were penalties either, which most 20 goal strikers include in their tallies.
In any case, in League One, how much is a new 15 goal striker going to cost?
If you had 3 forwards of the quality of Stockley, Washington and let's just say Lyle Taylor (c2019) would you want your 4th striker to be:
A) Chuks Aneke B ) Josh Parker C) Ronnie Schwartz D) Josh Davison
Him coming off the bench must scare the shit out of center halves. If you have got a guy that can come off the bench and score 15-20 goals a season, I would strongly suggest that's what you do with him. No one else in this league has one.
He can't start, does it really matter? Stockley, Washington et Al aren't going to score 15 goals a season of they never start, Chuks will. Its like getting rid of your goal keeper because he can't play left back. Or are we planning on not using subs next season?
If you had 3 forwards of the quality of Stockley, Washington and let's just say Lyle Taylor (c2019) would you want your 4th striker to be:
A) Chuks Aneke Josh Parker C) Ronnie Schwartz D) Josh Davison
Him coming off the bench must scare the shit out of center halves. If you have got a guy that can come off the bench and score 15-20 goals a season, I would strongly suggest that's what you do with him. No one else in this league has one.
He can't start, does it really matter? Stockley, Washington et Al aren't going to score 15 goals a season of they never start, Chuks will. Its like getting rid of your goal keeper because he can't play left back. Or are we planning on not using subs next season?
Spot on. Assuming we can get Stockley signed then Chuks as the option of the bench is a strike force right up there in this division. It also forces the opposition in thinking about how you deal with it knowing that you'll have the physical element of Stockley and the running of Washington to handle for an hour and then tiring defenders having to deal with Chuks for 30 mins.
Does anyone have any knowledge around what his "issues" exactly are? I remember seeing someone post a comment from Stockley about having belief in his body or something alone those lines?
Yes and not pleasant from what I've heard.
Nothing to do with his levels of fitness, stamina or injury.
I just can't imagine for the life of me what it might be!
As I can't see anything physical when he's on the pitch (Maybe I'm blind?!), I would assume it is mental health related. However, whenever he's come on he's been quite aggressive in his hold up play and movement and can't be accused of not getting stuck in.. So can't see it being a fear of getting injured, a fear that he's body will give up or fear of the opposition? Perhaps worried he'll catch Covid again..
What it ever it is, I wish him all the best on his recovery regardless of his contract situation. He's been a great player for us this year and a personal favourite from the last few years.
Does anyone have any knowledge around what his "issues" exactly are? I remember seeing someone post a comment from Stockley about having belief in his body or something alone those lines?
I don't but he hot injured early on in August or September 2019 after he signed for us and hasn't been right since it seems to me.
He got injured in the Chris Solly testimonial match against Aston Villa, hamstring injury.
I take that picture to mean he is off. I'm really torn on Chucks and can see all sides of the argument going on here. Whatever happens he should have our best wishes
If you had 3 forwards of the quality of Stockley, Washington and let's just say Lyle Taylor (c2019) would you want your 4th striker to be:
A) Chuks Aneke B ) Josh Parker C) Ronnie Schwartz D) Josh Davison
Him coming off the bench must scare the shit out of center halves. If you have got a guy that can come off the bench and score 15-20 goals a season, I would strongly suggest that's what you do with him. No one else in this league has one.
He can't start, does it really matter? Stockley, Washington et Al aren't going to score 15 goals a season of they never start, Chuks will. Its like getting rid of your goal keeper because he can't play left back. Or are we planning on not using subs next season?
No brainer.
Even if he commands the same salary as your No.1 striker? Or maybe it's acceptable because he scores as many goals as the others from a quarter of the pitch time.
Comments
no one is against Aneke and I think you will find Inniss played 90 minutes on a number of occasions this season.
I'm happy to keep Aneke even if he can only do 30 minutes a game but what if at some point all the other strikers are injured and we have to play an hour with Aneke on the bench and no-one up top? It's a big gamble imo.
But if we can afford to buy someone who can do better than so be it. The trouble is there aren't that many around.
That's not the issue in itself; after all Bowyer played him for 75 minutes a number of times and a couple of games the full 90, if I remember right.
No, the problem is that Chuks can't then do the mid-week games. His body doesn't seem to recover in time.
In League One the midweek games come thick and fast. And this season especially, condensed into a shorter time span, there were even more midweek games than a normal season.
So no risks with his fitness were taken.
Curiously, when Chuks did start his performances weren't so effective. Obviously the impact role suited him, against tiring defences or as an additional striker. Most of his goals as sub underlines that.
Really it was just about managing him to get the most effective performance from him.
A) Chuks Aneke
C) Ronnie Schwartz
D) Josh Davison
Him coming off the bench must scare the shit out of center halves. If you have got a guy that can come off the bench and score 15-20 goals a season, I would strongly suggest that's what you do with him. No one else in this league has one.
He can't start, does it really matter? Stockley, Washington et Al aren't going to score 15 goals a season of they never start, Chuks will. Its like getting rid of your goal keeper because he can't play left back. Or are we planning on not using subs next season?
Even if his appearances are comprimised, those 15 goals are priceless any way you want to look at it.
None of his goals were penalties either, which most 20 goal strikers include in their tallies.
In any case, in League One, how much is a new 15 goal striker going to cost?
Any self respecting player would have surely put a picture of them in our RED kit.
As I can't see anything physical when he's on the pitch (Maybe I'm blind?!), I would assume it is mental health related. However, whenever he's come on he's been quite aggressive in his hold up play and movement and can't be accused of not getting stuck in.. So can't see it being a fear of getting injured, a fear that he's body will give up or fear of the opposition? Perhaps worried he'll catch Covid again..
What it ever it is, I wish him all the best on his recovery regardless of his contract situation. He's been a great player for us this year and a personal favourite from the last few years.
I'm really torn on Chucks and can see all sides of the argument going on here.
Whatever happens he should have our best wishes
Just need to find players who can cross the ball.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/chuks-aneke/leistungsdaten/spieler/122694/plus/0?saison=2017
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/chuks-aneke/leistungsdaten/spieler/122694/plus/0?saison=2018
Started 11-times for us this season
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/chuks-aneke/leistungsdaten/spieler/122694/plus/0?saison=2020