You can’t get much better of a league one reserve forward than Aneke. Can’t stay on the pitch long enough so you don’t want him being your primary attacking option but as someone who comes on with 30 minutes to go and the occasional start when Stockley is injured or out of form, he is perfect for that role.
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 .
You can’t get much better of a league one reserve forward than Aneke. Can’t stay on the pitch long enough so you don’t want him being your primary attacking option but as someone who comes on with 30 minutes to go and the occasional start when Stockley is injured or out of form, he is perfect for that role.
This is the issue though. If Stockley is injured for 6 - 10 games, including some Saturday/Tuesdays - will Aneke be able to play 90 minutes without breaking down.
If not, who are we playing instead? We spending lots of money on a striker just as good, or throwing in a youth player instead?
In terms of someone affecting the game playing the last 25 minutes, you couldn’t hope for better. Not only does he score, and assist, but he is also bloody exciting to watch. Buts it’s a very rare commodity to have in a team, especially when you’re working towards a budget, and you would already hope we had a good enough first XI that we weren’t having to chase points anyway.
He shouldn’t start ever. The best ability is availability and if we start him, he’ll end up injured for another 10 weeks and miss 16 games. Sixteen substitute appearances could be half a dozen goals with his record.
We are going to have to go into next season carrying four strikers for two positions plus Aneke as a wildcard option. Three strikers on the bench when we have a full compliment is very strong.
He shouldn’t start ever. The best ability is availability and if we start him, he’ll end up injured for another 10 weeks and miss 16 games. Sixteen substitute appearances could be half a dozen goals with his record.
We are going to have to go into next season carrying four strikers for two positions plus Aneke as a wildcard option. Three strikers on the bench when we have a full compliment is very strong.
Stockley, Washington + 2 and Aneke
See this is where I am torn (not that it actually really matters because Aneke is on long term contract with us, and can’t see anyone coming in for him).
But hypothetically, would you compromise on the quality of one of those +2 strikers, because
1) Aneke takes up a large chunk of the budget 2) They may find playing time hard to come by and want guaranteed football
Say we could get both of (this year’s favourites) Alfie May and Cole Stockton, but it meant Aneke moving. Would you take that over only being able to have one of them and say a decent but unproven loan, and Aneke.
I’d probably take the latter and just hope that our 2 first choice strikers are not injured at the same time.
You can’t get much better of a league one reserve forward than Aneke. Can’t stay on the pitch long enough so you don’t want him being your primary attacking option but as someone who comes on with 30 minutes to go and the occasional start when Stockley is injured or out of form, he is perfect for that role.
This is the issue though. If Stockley is injured for 6 - 10 games, including some Saturday/Tuesdays - will Aneke be able to play 90 minutes without breaking down.
If not, who are we playing instead? We spending lots of money on a striker just as good, or throwing in a youth player instead?
In terms of someone affecting the game playing the last 25 minutes, you couldn’t hope for better. Not only does he score, and assist, but he is also bloody exciting to watch. Buts it’s a very rare commodity to have in a team, especially when you’re working towards a budget, and you would already hope we had a good enough first XI that we weren’t having to chase points anyway.
Ideal world Burstow goes back to Chelsea and Davison moves on, we sign up Washington and that gives us three strikers signed and two to bring in. At least one of those needs to be someone who is likely to be challenging/displacing Stockley or Washington anyway.
Aneke is left to do what he does best, which is rescue/consolidate results from the bench. If Stockley is injured, our hypothetical new signing is the like for like replacement.
Of course, this all depends on Sandgaard Jr getting a working tune out of the Black Box over summer so who knows what we'll actually end up with....
Yes if only choosing between the two options, I would take the latter in order to keep hold of Aneke and what he brings to the table.
Ideal world we get two proven quality players in but budgets / squad caps may not allow for that.
A solid competitor for Stockley (I’m on the Stockton train after watching him in the flesh last week) and a loan player to compete with Washington wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, as long as the loan player is more Ellis Simms than Mason Burstow.
He shouldn’t start ever. The best ability is availability and if we start him, he’ll end up injured for another 10 weeks and miss 16 games. Sixteen substitute appearances could be half a dozen goals with his record.
We are going to have to go into next season carrying four strikers for two positions plus Aneke as a wildcard option. Three strikers on the bench when we have a full compliment is very strong.
Stockley, Washington + 2 and Aneke
See this is where I am torn (not that it actually really matters because Aneke is on long term contract with us, and can’t see anyone coming in for him).
But hypothetically, would you compromise on the quality of one of those +2 strikers, because
1) Aneke takes up a large chunk of the budget 2) They may find playing time hard to come by and want guaranteed football
Say we could get both of (this year’s favourites) Alfie May and Cole Stockton, but it meant Aneke moving. Would you take that over only being able to have one of them and say a decent but unproven loan, and Aneke.
I’d probably take the latter and just hope that our 2 first choice strikers are not injured at the same time.
In this purely hypothetical situation I would probably take the latter option but with the caveat that Aneke goes nowhere until both are confirmed signings rather than getting rid and hoping it works out.
Doubt there’s a player anywhere in the league who over the last 2 seasons has scored or assisted so frequently when coming on as a sub.
More often than not substitutes don’t substantially change the course of a match, they just help preserve it by providing fresh legs. Chuks changes games more often than he doesn’t, at the moment, which is a rare thing.
If anything he’s better off the bench than he is when he starts. If using him as a sub also keeps him fit and available most matches then £300k will be a bargain.
What we have to get right is the rest of the strikers. Stockley and Washington are both good options for what they do, but we need that cherry on the cake. If we can sign that main man, we’ll have a fantastic squad of strikers for this level.
Adding more goals from midfield will also be key next season.
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 .
3 goals and an assist in 4.
He was out since Bolton away until two weeks or so ago which is a long period. You do not get promoted if a player misses that amount of time no matter how you dress it up. The same people who are in love with Aneke want Innis out. At the moment they are similar risks except Innis looks fitter and quicker. He has 4 starts only since his return and only 2 complete games. His first goal on return , left abandoned by Morecambe defenders for a free header. The assust at Cambridge was a complete fluke. The goal at Cheltenham was fortuitous tap in. The goal today was a decent header. He needs to get fit. All this stuff of coming off the bench over a season require fitness he has yet to show.
The difference is Aneke as a striker can still impact games by coming off the bench and scoring goals.
Centre backs can't be used in the same way, because of that Inniss isn't a risk worth taking.
We'll get promoted if the squad is strong enough. Having attacking subs who can impact games is part of that strength we should be aiming for.
Sometimes, no matter what people will never change their opinion and see the quality staring at them in the face. And that’s okay, we’re all allowed opinions.
However, for the life of me I cannot understand what a problem might be towards Aneke? He’s proved time and time and time again his ability and impact off the bench. In pretty much every game he plays he influences it by either scoring, assisting, or his presence causes havoc for the opponents. If you know what you’re getting, and this is it, you’d have to be mental to turn it down. We’d all love for him to start more games, but I’d prefer to have him doing the business every time he is out on the pitch and if that means averaging 40 appearances and only 12 of them are starts but he scores 15-20 goals, so be it. That’s invaluable.
Sometimes, no matter what people will never change their opinion and see the quality staring at them in the face. And that’s okay, we’re all allowed opinions.
However, for the life of me I cannot understand what a problem might be towards Aneke? He’s proved time and time and time again his ability and impact off the bench. In pretty much every game he plays he influences it by either scoring, assisting, or his presence causes havoc for the opponents. If you know what you’re getting, and this is it, you’d have to be mental to turn it down. We’d all love for him to start more games, but I’d prefer to have him doing the business every time he is out on the pitch and if that means averaging 40 appearances and only 12 of them are starts but he scores 15-20 goals, so be it. That’s invaluable.
Here here, Sage.
I posted a comment a week or so ago, reflecting your views saying " (He) Does what it says on the tin ."
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.
Read this again addick1956.
Up yours you creep....how dare you call me an arsehole. That is quite disgraceful. Something you would not dare do to my face.
My opinion is different to yours. It doesn't deserve disrespect. By the way I was eight days out with his injury period and you call me an arsehole for it. Sums up your mentality.
Dear addick1956 your inability to be able to read and understand what is written is always getting you into trouble.
You have quoted the wrong comment above. I didn't call you an arsehole.
You lied about what I said and added in the word January to create a false narrative. I'm not sure if your nonsense posts are deliberate or whether you struggle to read and understand what has be written?
Perhaps you can't be bothered to read and understand what has been written? I said you're as thick as arseholes, which is old fashioned SE London terminology.
PS Chucks scores again, he's the best sub you could have in this division, if you're looking to get a goal.
Sometimes, no matter what people will never change their opinion and see the quality staring at them in the face. And that’s okay, we’re all allowed opinions.
However, for the life of me I cannot understand what a problem might be towards Aneke? He’s proved time and time and time again his ability and impact off the bench. In pretty much every game he plays he influences it by either scoring, assisting, or his presence causes havoc for the opponents. If you know what you’re getting, and this is it, you’d have to be mental to turn it down. We’d all love for him to start more games, but I’d prefer to have him doing the business every time he is out on the pitch and if that means averaging 40 appearances and only 12 of them are starts but he scores 15-20 goals, so be it. That’s invaluable.
I find it hard to believe that so many of our fans criticised his signing. If I could choose any of the 400/500 L1players to have on our bench it would be Aneke.
Should Aneke had scored the header after coming on? Looked like he miss timed his jump leading to a weak header at the back post.
I thought he should've headed it back towards the side the keeper was coming from (as my old u16s manager always used to say you should do for crosses like that) then it still would've gone in regardless of the pace on it.
In the last 71 minutes he has been on the pitch, he’s scored 3 and had the shot that came off Washington’s head to go in.
Since joining he has a goal ratio of 1 goal per 101 minutes.
He’s featured in 8 games, 4 of those have been starts. We’ve picked up 16 points in the 8 games.
I could go on but have already made the case time and time again.
Top player at this level.
Such a great headed goal yesterday. He outmuscled two defenders to get his head on the ball, and the power generated to beat the keeper at his near post was phenomenal. He also looked classy on the ball.
Sometimes, no matter what people will never change their opinion and see the quality staring at them in the face. And that’s okay, we’re all allowed opinions.
However, for the life of me I cannot understand what a problem might be towards Aneke? He’s proved time and time and time again his ability and impact off the bench. In pretty much every game he plays he influences it by either scoring, assisting, or his presence causes havoc for the opponents. If you know what you’re getting, and this is it, you’d have to be mental to turn it down. We’d all love for him to start more games, but I’d prefer to have him doing the business every time he is out on the pitch and if that means averaging 40 appearances and only 12 of them are starts but he scores 15-20 goals, so be it. That’s invaluable.
Sage - I've never doubted Aneke's ability and the excitement of having a potential game changer on the bench but have certainly questioned his fitness record and ability to play minutes and preform consistently, season after season and the associated costs of having him in the squad simply because it is a gamble knowing which Aneke will turn up in any given season. And I'm struggling to see on what basis you have come to the conclusion that he's going to be "averaging 40 appearances" or, for that matter, the 12 starts or the 15-20 goals.
Aneke has never, in any single season in his 11 year career, achieved 40 League appearances. His actual average is 26 League appearances and his highest number of goals is 17 and that was in League 2. If you want to take out the early years in his career because of his age at that time and just count, say, the last six seasons (working backwards his appearances per season are 26-38-20-38-31-15) then that average rises to almost 28 but still nowhere near 40. In League 1 for us he's averaged 30 appearances at around about the 12 goal per season mark. He has also only made 18 starts in his last three seasons of football so an average of exactly six not 12 per season.
You also say that "In the last 71 minutes he has been on the pitch, he’s scored 3 and had the shot that came off Washington’s head to go in." That is no sample for a consistent trend. What influence on the result have Aneke's contributions actually made? The Cheltenham goal got us a point, the goal against Bolton was in defeat, the goal against Morecambe was in defeat, the assist against Cambridge was in a game we were winning anyway and his goal against Shrewsbury was also in a game that we were already in front in. So Aneke has been directly responsible for one point in half a season of football for us. If we apply the same criteria to the goals he scored in League 1 for us then he actually earned us nine points. And that was one of, if not his best, seasons in 11 years as a pro footballer.
We cannot go into next season with just Stockley, Washington, A N other and Aneke because he cannot start. Equally, if two of the others are out and Aneke does start, then we have no impact sub bar, perhaps, one of the 18 year olds that many of us are currently pinning their hopes on - and if Aneke doesn't start then the youngster will have to do so instead but, as we found with Burstow, that really isn't any guarantee to make the difference- Burstow hasn't scored in his last nine appearances. We also shouldn't underestimate the work of Stockley and Washington in softening those defenders that Aneke comes on to face.
Two seasons ago, when we were in the Championship, Aneke made 20 appearances and managed just 745 minutes on the pitch in total with one goal and one assist to his name. We did not recruit him to be an asset in League 1 - we bought him to do the business in the Championship! How much did that one goal and one assist cost us in terms of budget - perhaps as much as £500,000 - and a nil contribution to our survival.
Equally, our recruitment model, allegedly, is based on buying players good enough to play not just in League 1 but in the Championship too so, from the perspective, does it make any sense to take him on a second time? Aneke has consistently proven that he cannot hack it above League 1 level so we will have to try and offload a then soon to be 30 year old or continue to pay his wages for another two years. And being able to make any number of appearances will also be directly linked to how many minutes he actually manages next season. Be it as a result of lack of fitness or discipline - he has almost as many cards to his name as he does goals for us!
I will be ecstatic if he gets us 15-20 goals because that will mean that with Stockley, Washington and hopefully two other strikers doing the business we will be near to promotion. You say that some people "can't see the quality staring at them in the face". But others, equally, can't see that you can have all the quality in the world but if that quality is sitting on the bench or, even worse, in the stands then the "quality" becomes irrelevant. And that's what makes Aneke an expensive gamble. Which, if one tots up the wages on his first coming and £300k and salary this season is exactly what he has been. I fail to see how anyone could argue otherwise.
Comments
A nervy draw on the cards? Bring him on and wait to score a winner.
Down by one and really need an equaliser? Chuks is your man.
3 goals and an assist in 4.
If not, who are we playing instead? We spending lots of money on a striker just as good, or throwing in a youth player instead?
In terms of someone affecting the game playing the last 25 minutes, you couldn’t hope for better. Not only does he score, and assist, but he is also bloody exciting to watch. Buts it’s a very rare commodity to have in a team, especially when you’re working towards a budget, and you would already hope we had a good enough first XI that we weren’t having to chase points anyway.
We are going to have to go into next season carrying four strikers for two positions plus Aneke as a wildcard option. Three strikers on the bench when we have a full compliment is very strong.
Stockley, Washington + 2 and Aneke
1) Aneke takes up a large chunk of the budget
2) They may find playing time hard to come by and want guaranteed football
Say we could get both of (this year’s favourites) Alfie May and Cole Stockton, but it meant Aneke moving. Would you take that over only being able to have one of them and say a decent but unproven loan, and Aneke.
Aneke is left to do what he does best, which is rescue/consolidate results from the bench. If Stockley is injured, our hypothetical new signing is the like for like replacement.
Of course, this all depends on Sandgaard Jr getting a working tune out of the Black Box over summer so who knows what we'll actually end up with....
Ideal world we get two proven quality players in but budgets / squad caps may not allow for that.
A solid competitor for Stockley (I’m on the Stockton train after watching him in the flesh last week) and a loan player to compete with Washington wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, as long as the loan player is more Ellis Simms than Mason Burstow.
Centre backs can't be used in the same way, because of that Inniss isn't a risk worth taking.
We'll get promoted if the squad is strong enough. Having attacking subs who can impact games is part of that strength we should be aiming for.
However, for the life of me I cannot understand what a problem might be towards Aneke? He’s proved time and time and time again his ability and impact off the bench. In pretty much every game he plays he influences it by either scoring, assisting, or his presence causes havoc for the opponents. If you know what you’re getting, and this is it, you’d have to be mental to turn it down. We’d all love for him to start more games, but I’d prefer to have him doing the business every time he is out on the pitch and if that means averaging 40 appearances and only 12 of them are starts but he scores 15-20 goals, so be it. That’s invaluable.
I posted a comment a week or so ago, reflecting your views saying " (He) Does what it says on the tin ."
You have quoted the wrong comment above.
I didn't call you an arsehole.
You lied about what I said and added in the word January to create a false narrative.
I'm not sure if your nonsense posts are deliberate or whether you struggle to read and understand what has be written?
Perhaps you can't be bothered to read and understand what has been written?
I said you're as thick as arseholes, which is old fashioned SE London terminology.
PS Chucks scores again, he's the best sub you could have in this division, if you're looking to get a goal.
with 30 minutes to go would you rather see Chuks come on for us or for the opposition?
If I could choose any of the 400/500 L1players to have on our bench it would be Aneke.
Since joining he has a goal ratio of 1 goal per 101 minutes.
He’s featured in 8 games, 4 of those have been starts. We’ve picked up 16 points in the 8 games.
I could go on but have already made the case time and time again.
Top player at this level.
He also looked classy on the ball.
© Leuth #kissofdeath
Sage - I've never doubted Aneke's ability and the excitement of having a potential game changer on the bench but have certainly questioned his fitness record and ability to play minutes and preform consistently, season after season and the associated costs of having him in the squad simply because it is a gamble knowing which Aneke will turn up in any given season. And I'm struggling to see on what basis you have come to the conclusion that he's going to be "averaging 40 appearances" or, for that matter, the 12 starts or the 15-20 goals.
Aneke has never, in any single season in his 11 year career, achieved 40 League appearances. His actual average is 26 League appearances and his highest number of goals is 17 and that was in League 2. If you want to take out the early years in his career because of his age at that time and just count, say, the last six seasons (working backwards his appearances per season are 26-38-20-38-31-15) then that average rises to almost 28 but still nowhere near 40. In League 1 for us he's averaged 30 appearances at around about the 12 goal per season mark. He has also only made 18 starts in his last three seasons of football so an average of exactly six not 12 per season.
You also say that "In the last 71 minutes he has been on the pitch, he’s scored 3 and had the shot that came off Washington’s head to go in." That is no sample for a consistent trend. What influence on the result have Aneke's contributions actually made? The Cheltenham goal got us a point, the goal against Bolton was in defeat, the goal against Morecambe was in defeat, the assist against Cambridge was in a game we were winning anyway and his goal against Shrewsbury was also in a game that we were already in front in. So Aneke has been directly responsible for one point in half a season of football for us. If we apply the same criteria to the goals he scored in League 1 for us then he actually earned us nine points. And that was one of, if not his best, seasons in 11 years as a pro footballer.
We cannot go into next season with just Stockley, Washington, A N other and Aneke because he cannot start. Equally, if two of the others are out and Aneke does start, then we have no impact sub bar, perhaps, one of the 18 year olds that many of us are currently pinning their hopes on - and if Aneke doesn't start then the youngster will have to do so instead but, as we found with Burstow, that really isn't any guarantee to make the difference- Burstow hasn't scored in his last nine appearances. We also shouldn't underestimate the work of Stockley and Washington in softening those defenders that Aneke comes on to face.
Two seasons ago, when we were in the Championship, Aneke made 20 appearances and managed just 745 minutes on the pitch in total with one goal and one assist to his name. We did not recruit him to be an asset in League 1 - we bought him to do the business in the Championship! How much did that one goal and one assist cost us in terms of budget - perhaps as much as £500,000 - and a nil contribution to our survival.
Equally, our recruitment model, allegedly, is based on buying players good enough to play not just in League 1 but in the Championship too so, from the perspective, does it make any sense to take him on a second time? Aneke has consistently proven that he cannot hack it above League 1 level so we will have to try and offload a then soon to be 30 year old or continue to pay his wages for another two years. And being able to make any number of appearances will also be directly linked to how many minutes he actually manages next season. Be it as a result of lack of fitness or discipline - he has almost as many cards to his name as he does goals for us!
I will be ecstatic if he gets us 15-20 goals because that will mean that with Stockley, Washington and hopefully two other strikers doing the business we will be near to promotion. You say that some people "can't see the quality staring at them in the face". But others, equally, can't see that you can have all the quality in the world but if that quality is sitting on the bench or, even worse, in the stands then the "quality" becomes irrelevant. And that's what makes Aneke an expensive gamble. Which, if one tots up the wages on his first coming and £300k and salary this season is exactly what he has been. I fail to see how anyone could argue otherwise.
If my maths is correct, the difference is only 2.
1 will always be a center foward.
Almost every game this season, even during the Adkins spell, have been either level or one goal either way after 70 minutes.
Who, realistically, would you rather come off the bench than Chuks? Football isn't a 11 aside game any more.
Not having that option because he can't start is akin to jogging on Dobson because he can't play left wing back.