A good post Sage, not everyone was laughing at you when he said how much of an impact he could have, some of us agreed. No doubt he is a bit unreliable but doesn't mean he can't be an asset.
Although your maths is way out so the comparison with Gilbey and Dobson can't be drawn.
In all competitions last season he played in 41 games, this season so far has been 27.
This season Dobson has played 39 in all competitions and Gilbey 36.
Aneke has also missed 2 months of the season so in comparison it’s actually very similar and by playing the last 4 games in some capacity, he’ll average the same amount of involvement as they have this season.
The point was, some saying he’s always injured or whatever it might be is false. He is usually available most of the time, he just doesn’t start games very often.
Being available to be picked and not available for picking have to come in to the numbers because Dobson was available and not picked (I don’t know if he’s missed any through suspension or injury ) and Aneke has missed how many through suspension or injury , that’s the issue here
Aneke has featured in 68 games so far in the last 2 seasons, that could be 72 by the end of the season if he features in each of the last 4. That would average 36 games a season and guess what, that’s the same number as Dobson and Gilbey this season and is anyone saying about their lack of availability? Who cares if he doesn’t start games often at all? The moment he steps on the pitch he impacts it and more often than not will create a chance for himself or others, we don’t have anywhere near enough players with that ability. Aneke scored 15 league goals last season, 9 of them from the bench. His goal per minute ratio was around one every 100 minutes. Incredible record whatever way you want to dress it up.
He started 4 games in a row on his return to us because we had no other option, we gained 10 points from those 4. He also had a week to recover between each game other than when we went from Monday to Saturday with Portsmouth to Wimbledon. The following game was a midweek and so he was on the bench. We simply had to play him that much from the start, but it worked didn’t it? Without him and his presence, we would not have gained those points. People focus so much on the outputs of starts or whatever but not on the outcomes and influence on the pitch and that’s what really matters. But the outputs he has are still respectable anyway because even if he has missed a chunk in the last 2 months, he’s actually very rarely ‘unavailable’.
He’s a top player at this level. I said it before the start of last season, got laughed at, and yet was proved right. I said we didn’t replace him this season, Adkins wanted to go with Davison and look what happened. Not good enough, won’t be here next season. Aneke’s now back and next season when we have 4 good strikers, he won’t be required to be pushed through starting all the time but he will play when he’s ready and needed and he’ll score and impact games in the way we know he will.
Genuinely so tired of reading the same nonsense about him. You don’t have to agree on the length of contract, fine, but you don’t know the details behind it, his salary, the terms, his living situation, you only know he’s a recent new father but you don’t know him as a person, you don’t know him as a teammate, you don’t know him medically, emotionally, physically, nothing. The only thing you can do is judge him on his ability when he steps onto the pitch and that has been proven to be influential at this level and that is, simply, all we really should care about because that’s all you’re ever going to know and get.
Look forward to seeing him back out doing the business so these threads can be about how good he is because that’s all that really matters.
Wanted to, or wasn't given any other option?
Wanted Aneke, didn’t resign so pursued with Davison whilst focusing on other positions because he was only ever planning on one up top and that was Stockley so he went with Davison as back up.
Being available to be picked and not available for picking have to come in to the numbers because Dobson was available and not picked (I don’t know if he’s missed any through suspension or injury ) and Aneke has missed how many through suspension or injury , that’s the issue here
But it’s shown over the last two seasons he has been available for the most part. He’s been as available as Stockley and Washington but it’s often put under a microscope with Aneke because he doesn’t often start games but he could if there is a week between games.
Being available to be picked and not available for picking have to come in to the numbers because Dobson was available and not picked (I don’t know if he’s missed any through suspension or injury ) and Aneke has missed how many through suspension or injury , that’s the issue here
But it’s shown over the last two seasons he has been available for the most part. He’s been as available as Stockley and Washington but it’s often put under a microscope with Aneke because he doesn’t often start games but he could if there is a week between games.
If Stockley was injured and out for 6 - 10 games in a row. Do you think Aneke could play the 90 minutes to cover them without breaking down.
Don’t get people questioning his ability, because he is quiet obviously very good, but that’s my issue with him. It’s all well and good saying he has been available to play 25 - 30 minutes of a match, but if he can’t cover the strikers when needed, then we are left having to spend a big chunk of the budget on having someone who can.
Otherwise you inevitably end up two strikers down if your main striker is out for 10 games, and then Aneke out after 4 because he breaks down again.
Being available to be picked and not available for picking have to come in to the numbers because Dobson was available and not picked (I don’t know if he’s missed any through suspension or injury ) and Aneke has missed how many through suspension or injury , that’s the issue here
But it’s shown over the last two seasons he has been available for the most part. He’s been as available as Stockley and Washington but it’s often put under a microscope with Aneke because he doesn’t often start games but he could if there is a week between games.
If Stockley was injured and out for 6 - 10 games in a row. Do you think Aneke could play the 90 minutes to cover them without breaking down.
Don’t get people questioning his ability, because he is quiet obviously very good, but that’s my issue with him. It’s all well and good saying he has been available to play 25 - 30 minutes of a match, but if he can’t cover the strikers when needed, then we are left having to spend a big chunk of the budget on having someone who can.
Otherwise you inevitably end up two strikers down if your main striker is out for 10 games, and then Aneke breaks down after 4 because he breaks down again.
It's why we, and any team that plays two up front, need 5 strikers. Chuks is more effective off the bench, there's no doubt. What we need is Stockley and a back-up for Stockley alongside a partner for him and that player's back up. Chuks is the impact sub we can bring on every game for 20 mins where needed. He's proven he can score a lot of goals for us that way, and within that if we do get injuries we've always got enough strikers to start with and one to bring off the bench if we need to change a game. You can't really plan for injuries beyond 5 strikers, so that's your limit. Chuks can do a lot across the frontline so we're pretty well covered if we can bring in two more decent strikers to compete with the current front two
Being available to be picked and not available for picking have to come in to the numbers because Dobson was available and not picked (I don’t know if he’s missed any through suspension or injury ) and Aneke has missed how many through suspension or injury , that’s the issue here
But it’s shown over the last two seasons he has been available for the most part. He’s been as available as Stockley and Washington but it’s often put under a microscope with Aneke because he doesn’t often start games but he could if there is a week between games.
If Stockley was injured and out for 6 - 10 games in a row. Do you think Aneke could play the 90 minutes to cover them without breaking down.
Don’t get people questioning his ability, because he is quiet obviously very good, but that’s my issue with him. It’s all well and good saying he has been available to play 25 - 30 minutes of a match, but if he can’t cover the strikers when needed, then we are left having to spend a big chunk of the budget on having someone who can.
Otherwise you inevitably end up two strikers down if your main striker is out for 10 games, and then Aneke breaks down after 4 because he breaks down again.
It's why we, and any team that plays two up front, need 5 strikers. Chuks is more effective off the bench, there's no doubt. What we need is Stockley and a back-up for Stockley alongside a partner for him and that player's back up. Chuks is the impact sub we can bring on every game for 20 mins where needed. He's proven he can score a lot of goals for us that way, and within that if we do get injuries we've always got enough strikers to start with and one to bring off the bench if we need to change a game. You can't really plan for injuries beyond 5 strikers, so that's your limit. Chuks can do a lot across the frontline so we're pretty well covered if we can bring in two more decent strikers to compete with the current front two
The squad cap makes it difficult. If we have 5 strikers one of them will probably have to be U21.
I can see us going with four senior strikers with Kanu, Gavin and Leaburn battling to be next in line. Stockley and Chuks as the physical striker and Washington and a signing as a pacey striker.
Ideally I’d like 5 senior strikers but the club have to balance expectations of playing time, the squad cap, the budget and having a pathway for youngsters.
Proved yet again that he will be an important part of the match day squad for next season. The key will be making sure we have 2 worthy strikers fit for the starting 11 most of the time.
A 4th striker of a similar calibre will therefore also be required to ensure we can manage Chuks carefully to get the best from him. That coupled with the tactical inflexiblity of the manager was the issue this season when he arrived in Jan. Washy and Stocks were injured and Burstow, quite understandably, is some way short of the other 3.
I can't recall us having a better impact sub than Chuks since I started watching CAFC in the early 80s.
Proved yet again that he will be an important part of the match day squad for next season. The key will be making sure we have 2 worthy strikers fit for the starting 11 most of the time.
A 4th striker of a similar calibre will therefore also be required to ensure we can manage Chuks carefully to get the best from him. That coupled with the tactical inflexiblity of the manager was the issue this season when he arrived in Jan. Washy and Stocks were injured and Burstow, quite understandably, is some way short of the other 3.
I can't recall us having a better impact sub than Chuks since I started watching CAFC in the early 80s.
Not interested in impact subs. If he can't manage high intensity 90 minutes then bin him.
Proved yet again that he will be an important part of the match day squad for next season. The key will be making sure we have 2 worthy strikers fit for the starting 11 most of the time.
A 4th striker of a similar calibre will therefore also be required to ensure we can manage Chuks carefully to get the best from him. That coupled with the tactical inflexiblity of the manager was the issue this season when he arrived in Jan. Washy and Stocks were injured and Burstow, quite understandably, is some way short of the other 3.
I can't recall us having a better impact sub than Chuks since I started watching CAFC in the early 80s.
Not interested in impact subs. If he can't manage high intensity 90 minutes then bin him.
Fed up with this bollocks
Agreed. Can't believe we're even having this conversation all over again.
People trying to pretend there isn't really a problem with his fitness and pointing to the number of appearances he's made - as if a 10 min cameo as a sub really counts.
We all know there's a great player in there and on his day he can be unplayable. But surely we should be aiming a bit higher than "impact sub"?
Proved yet again that he will be an important part of the match day squad for next season. The key will be making sure we have 2 worthy strikers fit for the starting 11 most of the time.
A 4th striker of a similar calibre will therefore also be required to ensure we can manage Chuks carefully to get the best from him. That coupled with the tactical inflexiblity of the manager was the issue this season when he arrived in Jan. Washy and Stocks were injured and Burstow, quite understandably, is some way short of the other 3.
I can't recall us having a better impact sub than Chuks since I started watching CAFC in the early 80s.
Not interested in impact subs. If he can't manage high intensity 90 minutes then bin him.
Fed up with this bollocks
He back up to Stockley that’s is position one the squad so will be on the bench most of the season
Proved yet again that he will be an important part of the match day squad for next season. The key will be making sure we have 2 worthy strikers fit for the starting 11 most of the time.
A 4th striker of a similar calibre will therefore also be required to ensure we can manage Chuks carefully to get the best from him. That coupled with the tactical inflexiblity of the manager was the issue this season when he arrived in Jan. Washy and Stocks were injured and Burstow, quite understandably, is some way short of the other 3.
I can't recall us having a better impact sub than Chuks since I started watching CAFC in the early 80s.
Not interested in impact subs. If he can't manage high intensity 90 minutes then bin him.
Fed up with this bollocks
Agreed. Can't believe we're even having this conversation all over again.
People trying to pretend there isn't really a problem with his fitness and pointing to the number of appearances he's made - as if a 10 min cameo as a sub really counts.
We all know there's a great player in there and on his day he can be unplayable. But surely we should be aiming a bit higher than "impact sub"?
While an impact sub player can be REALLY useful, it's not practical to have a player who can only play that role. Or someone who can't start every game.
Stockley gets sent off, and misses 3 games - Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday. We need someone to play the majority all 3 matches, and not be further juggling the side so that he's rested for the midweek game just in case he gets inured.
add somebody like stockton - a natural goalscorer - and i think chucks, stockley and washington make up 4 that should be good enough for a promotion challenging team - washington has grown on me as a very useful channel runner / link up man, stockley is a decent target man but needs a good rest over the summer and chucks is chucks - capable of being a real danger man but has issues
Someone has to be on the bench. Might as well be a player who comes on and scores.
Exactly! Bowyer managed him perfectly, Jackson just needs to do the same next season. Better Chuks on the bench than an untried kid or loanee….
Usually the people on the bench can manage more than a 35 minute amble round the park. Also the need to be athletic. Not a poor imitation of Chicago Bears 'The Fridge' from 35 or so years ago .
Rather someone who can do 10-15 mins and score most of those times than someone who runs around a lot for longer but doesn't
Someone has to be on the bench. Might as well be a player who comes on and scores.
Exactly! Bowyer managed him perfectly, Jackson just needs to do the same next season. Better Chuks on the bench than an untried kid or loanee….
So much so that he signed him for Birmingham where Aneke found the net just twice in 18 appearances and Bowyer couldn't wait to get rid of him at the first possible opportunity. He also managed Aneke the previous season we were in the Championship when he scored just once for us all season.
We are now "pot committed" with Aneke - a long term contract means that we are stuck with him. We know now that he cannot start games, something which Bowyer was totally aware of when he signed for Birmingham which is why 17 of his 18 appearances were as sub for them. It is also a gamble as to which Aneke will turn up next season - the game changing impact sub or the one that spends more time on the side lines than on the pitch. These are his season by season returns:
Aneke will be 29 before the start of next season and this is his 11th season as a pro during which time he has scored a total of 76 goals i.e. an average of 7 per season. It's all very well using goals per minute as a justification for shelling out a hefty salary for a striker who is so prolific when judged on that basis alone but the overall issue is that in those 11 years he has only had three successful seasons - one of those was in L 2 for MK Dons and another was for Crewe in L 1 back in 2013-14 when he actually started 34 games (plus 6 as sub) and scored 14 times. The third successful season was for us in L 1 when, in addition to his 15 goals, he managed to pick up 11 yellow cards and two red cards - if we lauding him for his goal per minute ratio then we have to question his inability to avoid being booked.
So, in summary, we are stuck with Aneke and have to make the best use of him. But we also have to sign two other strikers because having two from the other three out (as we had with Stockley and Washington) and Aneke on the bench means we have to have two viable other alternatives to start the game. Or find goals from other areas but as we are 43 games in to the season and our 3rd top scorer has three goals that isn't looking likely from our present squad.
Comments
This season Dobson has played 39 in all competitions and Gilbey 36.
Aneke has also missed 2 months of the season so in comparison it’s actually very similar and by playing the last 4 games in some capacity, he’ll average the same amount of involvement as they have this season.
The point was, some saying he’s always injured or whatever it might be is false. He is usually available most of the time, he just doesn’t start games very often.
because Dobson was available and not picked (I don’t know if he’s missed any through suspension or injury )
and Aneke has missed how many through suspension or injury , that’s the issue here
Ideally I’d like 5 senior strikers but the club have to balance expectations of playing time, the squad cap, the budget and having a pathway for youngsters.
Does JUST what it says on the tin.....
It was about 10 mins I think.
He will be vital next season coming off the bench.
A 4th striker of a similar calibre will therefore also be required to ensure we can manage Chuks carefully to get the best from him. That coupled with the tactical inflexiblity of the manager was the issue this season when he arrived in Jan. Washy and Stocks were injured and Burstow, quite understandably, is some way short of the other 3.
I can't recall us having a better impact sub than Chuks since I started watching CAFC in the early 80s.
Fed up with this bollocks
People trying to pretend there isn't really a problem with his fitness and pointing to the number of appearances he's made - as if a 10 min cameo as a sub really counts.
We all know there's a great player in there and on his day he can be unplayable. But surely we should be aiming a bit higher than "impact sub"?
Stockley gets sent off, and misses 3 games - Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday. We need someone to play the majority all 3 matches, and not be further juggling the side so that he's rested for the midweek game just in case he gets inured.
We are now "pot committed" with Aneke - a long term contract means that we are stuck with him. We know now that he cannot start games, something which Bowyer was totally aware of when he signed for Birmingham which is why 17 of his 18 appearances were as sub for them. It is also a gamble as to which Aneke will turn up next season - the game changing impact sub or the one that spends more time on the side lines than on the pitch. These are his season by season returns:
1 (L 1)
6 (L 1)
14 (L 1)
2 (Belgium)
2 (Belgium)
4 (L 1)
9 (L 1)
17 (L 2)
1 (Championship)
15 (L 1)
5 (Championship/L 1)
Aneke will be 29 before the start of next season and this is his 11th season as a pro during which time he has scored a total of 76 goals i.e. an average of 7 per season. It's all very well using goals per minute as a justification for shelling out a hefty salary for a striker who is so prolific when judged on that basis alone but the overall issue is that in those 11 years he has only had three successful seasons - one of those was in L 2 for MK Dons and another was for Crewe in L 1 back in 2013-14 when he actually started 34 games (plus 6 as sub) and scored 14 times. The third successful season was for us in L 1 when, in addition to his 15 goals, he managed to pick up 11 yellow cards and two red cards - if we lauding him for his goal per minute ratio then we have to question his inability to avoid being booked.
So, in summary, we are stuck with Aneke and have to make the best use of him. But we also have to sign two other strikers because having two from the other three out (as we had with Stockley and Washington) and Aneke on the bench means we have to have two viable other alternatives to start the game. Or find goals from other areas but as we are 43 games in to the season and our 3rd top scorer has three goals that isn't looking likely from our present squad.