How can a professional sportsman be able to play so little?
Just what is wrong with him?
And I still would love to know. Who was responsible for signing him on a 3.5 year contract?
I despair of our current journalists. Will someone not ask Anthony Hayes the question "why did you take off Aneke at half time ?" Was he injured (didn't appear to be). Was it tactical ?
i think its probably time for cheat code chucks to find his way down the leagues to a place he can manage his breath enough to play a full game.
genuinely hurts me to say that but enough is enough
he couldn't last more than a half against a league two team. I think there's probably a fair few on this forum that could do that fitness wise and it ain't their job.
We pay a wage for a proper go, not the nonsense this guy is pulling on us.
chucks comes on on Saturday, scores in the 93rd minute and the tone changes to super sub, what a player to have on the bench etc
Very much so. Ultimately having a bloke who only has 20 - 30 minutes running in him, just feeds into the wider issue as why this club has been on a downward spiral for a long time.
People talk about how amazing an option he is off the bench, but ultimately if we had two/three consistent goal scoring options then he would never be needed.
I always ask the question which other team have an impact sub, who also can’t cover injuries and suspensions by playing 90 minutes when required - and never get a response.
What is the reason that Chuks simply can’t play 90 minutes?
No one knows because no one will ask the question openly at a press conference. Its always shrouded in "its personal" and then it's not pushed anymore. Someone on here has hinted that they know why but, again, wont elaborate.
What is the reason that Chuks simply can’t play 90 minutes?
Some reasons;
He ceases to become effective after 30 mins. It's almost a waste of time having him on the pitch for longer than 30 mins.
It's therefore more useful to have him as an impact sub. To be fair, he's easily the most effective impact sub in the club's history.
He becomes more susceptible to long-term injury once he enters the "red zone" of too much time on the pitch (his previous injury issues compound this problem....makes further injury more likely).
He's probably a naturally unfit bloke anyway. This has meant that he has picked up the injuries that have in turn made him more injury-prone.
He MIGHT lack heart. I say might because I don't know the bloke and see a lot of effort when he knows he's only got 20 mins ahead of him. And who knows how injuries can dishearten a player? I've had tons of injuries and it can wear you down...and I speak as someone who definitely doesn't lack heart. You could even argue he's shown a lot of heart by coming back each time (albeit for a lot of money....)
What is the reason that Chuks simply can’t play 90 minutes?
No one knows because no one will ask the question openly at a press conference. It’s always shrouded in "its personal" and then it's not pushed anymore. Someone on here has hinted that they know why but, again, wont elaborate.
Its strange as:
a) if enough people know about the issue, whatever it is, I would have guessed that it was broadly know amongst the fan base (these things will almost always get out). That doesn’t seem to the the caee
b) if it was a persistent medical issue I would be surprised that he’s passed medicals + we’ve got insurance when we signed him (twice)
It’s a really odd situation. It must be incredibly frustrating for him personally too as a fully fit Chuks would be playing at a much higher level than the pathetic standard we are currently at.
Signing him back from Brum must have been the result of the whole "recruitment team" (WTF?) smoking some serious weed and probably tripping Paying any sort of fee, let alone the biggest fee for years, and a multiyear contract is criminal. On a par with the fiasco of that Danish washed up striker at the start of skintgaard's egotrip.
Even Chuks has now realised how far from a credible 3rd division professional he is He sees how pisstakers like Kirk and chumps like Lavelle often get selected thinks he's untouchable and based on last night he's actually given up
Can you imagine what he could do if we could get one full season out of him?
One full game would be a start.
Yea he'd have to start to play the full game! But seriously, he managed less minutes last night than the first Stockport game - has his fitness declined over 11 days?
At what point do we have grounds to cancel his contract?
What is the reason that Chuks simply can’t play 90 minutes?
No one knows because no one will ask the question openly at a press conference. Its always shrouded in "its personal" and then it's not pushed anymore. Someone on here has hinted that they know why but, again, wont elaborate.
Golfie, you were quite vocal in demanding he start and I'm not knocking you in stating that we signed him to play so he should play but looking at his two starting performances, I can't see him starting again, he's bloody shocking.
he can't be accused of nicking living cos some deluded idiot decided it was a good idea to sign him to a longish contract .. bad enough when players on the books turn out to be injury prone, just ridiculous to willingly sign a known glassman
he can't be accused of nicking living cos some deluded idiot decided it was a good idea to sign him to a longish contract .. bad enough when players on the books turn out to be injury prone, just ridiculous to willingly sign a known glassman
It is often fans default line of argument that players are hiding, nicking a living, mentally weak, or don’t care when their team is doing awful.
Sadly, I just think combined our squad is just not very good. Yes it’s a couple of levels below the premiership, but it’s still elite level sport and competition, and you’re never going to thrive in that when you team is run in such a disjointed way.
So where as we have some individually talented players, and can sometimes put on respectable performances and runs of games - there’s so many holes that the chances of it happening on a consistent bases are pretty much zero.
We have 3 players who are prone to injury/niggles/illness in Innis, CBT and Aneke, we have no cover left back and striker and have lost two important cogs of our settled defence in Egbo and O’Connell.
It’s no shock that when you want to build from the back, if you don’t have good players that can play that way at the back - you’re not going to do well or look competent.
And thus we are coming up against well resourced or even team at least with some consistency behind them and at this high level it just leads to falling apart at nearly every challenge.
It was a strange performance from Aneke last night. The service to him was poor but the only real time he came to life was when he received a through ball and out sprinted the defence only to finish it with a goal attempt with his left foot that even Church would have been embarrassed about.
What was obvious though is that he cannot defend for us from the front. His attempts to close down were somewhat half hearted and it looked like he was saving himself in order to last the distance. Which he didn't anyway. He won very few headers up top and at least twice he lost important ones in our box, the first of which he followed up by turning sideways rather than making a legitimate attempt to block the shot that resulted in the goal.
Many of us questioned his signing but mainly because of the duration of the contract and in the knowledge that, even if we had gone up, he had anything but proven himself at Championship level. So now we have at best a League 1 super sub. Which isn't so much an issue if you have another three or four forwards. Which we don't.
It’s also truly pathetic that our strategy since he returned is try and be in the game come 70 minutes and throw him on for the last 20 in the hope he scores. That’s literally how we’ve been playing since he came back
It’s also truly pathetic that our strategy since he returned is try and be in the game come 70 minutes and throw him on for the last 20 in the hope he scores. That’s literally how we’ve been playing since he came back
It’s also truly pathetic that our strategy since he returned is try and be in the game come 70 minutes and throw him on for the last 20 in the hope he scores. That’s literally how we’ve been playing since he came back
With there now being 5 subs allowed, why shouldn't this be part of the strategy
he can't be accused of nicking living cos some deluded idiot decided it was a good idea to sign him to a longish contract .. bad enough when players on the books turn out to be injury prone, just ridiculous to willingly sign a known glassman
It is often fans default line of argument that players are hiding, nicking a living, mentally weak, or don’t care when their team is doing awful.
Sadly, I just think combined our squad is just not very good. Yes it’s a couple of levels below the premiership, but it’s still elite level sport and competition, and you’re never going to thrive in that when you team is run in such a disjointed way.
We've heard from three managers that there are professionalism and discipline problems at Charlton. A lot of players have come and gone, so that says to me that we are bringing in the wrong characters, or not considering character at all.
When we've signed people like Marcus Maddison then that is pretty clear.
It’s also truly pathetic that our strategy since he returned is try and be in the game come 70 minutes and throw him on for the last 20 in the hope he scores. That’s literally how we’ve been playing since he came back
With there now being 5 subs allowed, why shouldn't this be part of the strategy
It isn’t part of the strategy, it literally has been the strategy. 70 ineffective minutes of Mr Tickle having the ball bounce off of him, hope it’s 0-0 and then throw on the cheat code.
Comments
How can a professional sportsman be able to play so little?
Just what is wrong with him?
And I still would love to know. Who was responsible for signing him on a 3.5 year contract?
genuinely hurts me to say that but enough is enough
he couldn't last more than a half against a league two team. I think there's probably a fair few on this forum that could do that fitness wise and it ain't their job.
We pay a wage for a proper go, not the nonsense this guy is pulling on us.
Get rid
chucks comes on on Saturday, scores in the 93rd minute and the tone changes to super sub, what a player to have on the bench etc
People talk about how amazing an option he is off the bench, but ultimately if we had two/three consistent goal scoring options then he would never be needed.
I always ask the question which other team have an impact sub, who also can’t cover injuries and suspensions by playing 90 minutes when required - and never get a response.
He ceases to become effective after 30 mins. It's almost a waste of time having him on the pitch for longer than 30 mins.
It's therefore more useful to have him as an impact sub. To be fair, he's easily the most effective impact sub in the club's history.
He becomes more susceptible to long-term injury once he enters the "red zone" of too much time on the pitch (his previous injury issues compound this problem....makes further injury more likely).
He's probably a naturally unfit bloke anyway. This has meant that he has picked up the injuries that have in turn made him more injury-prone.
He MIGHT lack heart. I say might because I don't know the bloke and see a lot of effort when he knows he's only got 20 mins ahead of him. And who knows how injuries can dishearten a player? I've had tons of injuries and it can wear you down...and I speak as someone who definitely doesn't lack heart. You could even argue he's shown a lot of heart by coming back each time (albeit for a lot of money....)
a) if enough people know about the issue, whatever it is, I would have guessed that it was broadly know amongst the fan base (these things will almost always get out). That doesn’t seem to the the caee
b) if it was a persistent medical issue I would be surprised that he’s passed medicals + we’ve got insurance when we signed him (twice)
It’s a really odd situation. It must be incredibly frustrating for him personally too as a fully fit Chuks would be playing at a much higher level than the pathetic standard we are currently at.
Paying any sort of fee, let alone the biggest fee for years, and a multiyear contract is criminal. On a par with the fiasco of that Danish washed up striker at the start of skintgaard's egotrip.
Even Chuks has now realised how far from a credible 3rd division professional he is
He sees how pisstakers like Kirk and chumps like Lavelle often get selected thinks he's untouchable and based on last night he's actually given up
At what point do we have grounds to cancel his contract?
Sadly, I just think combined our squad is just not very good. Yes it’s a couple of levels below the premiership, but it’s still elite level sport and competition, and you’re never going to thrive in that when you team is run in such a disjointed way.
So where as we have some individually talented players, and can sometimes put on respectable performances and runs of games - there’s so many holes that the chances of it happening on a consistent bases are pretty much zero.
And thus we are coming up against well resourced or even team at least with some consistency behind them and at this high level it just leads to falling apart at nearly every challenge.
What was obvious though is that he cannot defend for us from the front. His attempts to close down were somewhat half hearted and it looked like he was saving himself in order to last the distance. Which he didn't anyway. He won very few headers up top and at least twice he lost important ones in our box, the first of which he followed up by turning sideways rather than making a legitimate attempt to block the shot that resulted in the goal.
Many of us questioned his signing but mainly because of the duration of the contract and in the knowledge that, even if we had gone up, he had anything but proven himself at Championship level. So now we have at best a League 1 super sub. Which isn't so much an issue if you have another three or four forwards. Which we don't.
When we've signed people like Marcus Maddison then that is pretty clear.