Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Chuks Aneke - speculation re 2023/24 season (p60)
Comments
-
That’s pretty much every thread on this forum. Something related will happen, people will use that to argue for or against there’s or other view point points.Covered End said:Ridculous thread, people saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and0 -
Like you keep going on about other people when you are doing the same yourself.1
-
I can't see the thread title on the homepage without becoming furious; albeit that's nothing compared to my mood when actually opening the thread!0
-
Don’t know why I keep opening this thread1
-
The dishonesty annoys me. He is going to be back imminently blah blah blah like they know it looks bad if they tell us the truth. You could tell by Garner's post match interview he isn't going to be ready for Tuesday so this minor knock is becoming less minor and we all knew it. Maybe we have magical powers.1
-
"Chuks Aneke came into some training yesterday. Tomorrow is probably going to be too soon but I would certainly expect him to be available for Saturday. "
5 -
I wouldn't want to put money on it.1
-
Part of the problem is that even when hes "available" or even plays, hes coming back from injury and so isn't fully up to speed.
I mean, technically he didnt have a full pre-season did he? So will be playing catch up from the off.0 -
FFS if he trained for 2 days, surely he can at least be on the bench and manage 10 minutes if we're chasing a goal.Off_it said:"Chuks Aneke came into some training yesterday. Tomorrow is probably going to be too soon but I would certainly expect him to be available for Saturday. "0 -
And risk him injuring himself again? What's the point in risking him if he is not ready, the guy is made of glassChris_from_Sidcup said:
FFS if he trained for 2 days, surely he can at least be on the bench and manage 10 minutes if we're chasing a goal.Off_it said:"Chuks Aneke came into some training yesterday. Tomorrow is probably going to be too soon but I would certainly expect him to be available for Saturday. "0 - Sponsored links:
-
Be handy if somebody counted the pre season minutes.Off_it said:Part of the problem is that even when hes "available" or even plays, hes coming back from injury and so isn't fully up to speed.
I mean, technically he didnt have a full pre-season did he? So will be playing catch up from the off.
0 -
Iirc he played one 30 min match & got injured in his second one.mendonca said:
Be handy if somebody counted the pre season minutes.Off_it said:Part of the problem is that even when hes "available" or even plays, hes coming back from injury and so isn't fully up to speed.
I mean, technically he didnt have a full pre-season did he? So will be playing catch up from the off.0 -
Injury record is such a shame, but he will have a big impact on our season still.. Someone like Chuks coming on last 20 minutes of games, not many have players that can make such an impact!
0 -
Most other top teams in the league, like we saw from Wednesday this weekend, have quality on the bench that they can bring on to affect a game - who also happen to be fit, and able to play 90 minutes when required as well.DubaiCAFC said:Injury record is such a shame, but he will have a big impact on our season still.. Someone like Chuks coming on last 20 minutes of games, not many have players that can make such an impact!2 -
I’d really like to know at what intensity Chuks trains ? Is it the same as all the other players or does he hold back or is told to hold back. I’m just not sure how a player who plays so infrequently and for such short match minutes ever really integrates into the team. I do believe he can still play an important roll but after resting all summer and doing a pre season it’s not encouraging to see him miss the opening month of the season. Hope we see a lot of him this season but I’m not holding my breath.DubaiCAFC said:Injury record is such a shame, but he will have a big impact on our season still.. Someone like Chuks coming on last 20 minutes of games, not many have players that can make such an impact!1 -
Right, how did we end up as the only club in the world with a player with a history of injuries.FishCostaFortune said:
Most other top teams in the league, like we saw from Wednesday this weekend, have quality on the bench that they can bring on to affect a game - who also happen to be fit, and able to play 90 minutes when required as well.DubaiCAFC said:Injury record is such a shame, but he will have a big impact on our season still.. Someone like Chuks coming on last 20 minutes of games, not many have players that can make such an impact!1 -
Can you think of another successful club who have had essentially their best striking option as constantly injured and unable to play for 90 minutes when they are fit?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Right, how did we end up as the only club in the world with a player with a history of injuries.FishCostaFortune said:
Most other top teams in the league, like we saw from Wednesday this weekend, have quality on the bench that they can bring on to affect a game - who also happen to be fit, and able to play 90 minutes when required as well.DubaiCAFC said:Injury record is such a shame, but he will have a big impact on our season still.. Someone like Chuks coming on last 20 minutes of games, not many have players that can make such an impact!0 -
Now £25K in wages since he tweaked his muscle.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Good post. Exactly my take on the matter.Addick Addict said:
I've never said I dislike the guy. I'd have to be a blind man not to recognise what is capable of at League 1 level but I've questioned why we bought him back when there were known issues about his fitness (and this has been going on for years) and locked him into a three and a half year deal too and also have extreme doubts about his ability to be successful should we go up. I questioned why Birmingham signed him for the same reasons at the time.Chunes said:
I don't want to get into a general argument about Aneke again because you obviously dislike the guy. Which is fair enough, I have players I dislike! (Fortunately they've all now left the club). But I just wanted to correct the record on his appearances and goals. I will also just say that re: his record as a midfielder and how many assists he got... Well he's a striker now. Not sure what his record as a midfielder says about his ability as a striker, more than his record as a striker does.Addick Addict said:
So if he wasn't playing as an out and out striker then, by definition, he has to be a provider because he has never been a defender or a defensive midfielder as far as I'm aware? I can also only see that he has ever provided 3 assists in League 1 for us. If those stats are correct then his record for CAFC for League 1 goals and assists totals 22 - so he scores or assists once in every 286 minutes or less than once every three games we have played in League 1. Which is why I do not also understand this "impact sub" defence. Even saying that his average wage wasn't £5k per week in the Championship but say £4K per week and he only cost us £150,000 and not the reported £300,000 from Birmingham then they still work out at £20,000 each. And those stats do not even take into account his disastrous first season with us in the Championship when his 1 goal and 2 assists would have cost us in the region of £70,000 each (at just £4k per week).Chunes said:
When you posted this last time it was pointed out that he wasn't playing as a striker for a portion of those games. His goalscoring record since converting to one is outstanding.Addick Addict said:
Surely the correct statistics are based not on how many goals per minute he's scored when playing but how many goals per minute he's scored during the time he's been at the Club. I won't even take into account his horrendous record above this level (one goal for us in the Championship and two for Birmingham) but these are the relevant stats:Chris_from_Sidcup said:
I don't disagree with what you've said and we all know he's liable to break down at any time, but there's also a counter argument that having Chuks available even for 30 games at this level is better than another striker for all 46.FishCostaFortune said:Chris_from_Sidcup said:Fuck me we're only 2 games into the league season and we have 4 points, not like we've really missed him. Even if he was fit, he probably wouldn't be starting.
As Garner says no point risking him. He can get 15 minutes as sub v Plymouth, then probably 30 minutes v Cambridge.*Caveat this is not me denying how much quality Chuks has as a player, which for some reason people seem to think you are saying if you don’t think he is good for the overall team.The whole point is not about how well we are doing now, after 2 games.
It’s that we have a player, who had his minutes managed more than everyone else over pre season because of his injury history, not able to make it through it without picking up an injury that has kept him out for at least 4 weeks.
Of course there’s a chance it won’t happen again this season. However with Chuks there’s a very big chance that it will, and we could be left short of options up front - like we were last season.I have no idea what we are spending on Chuks budget wise. But over a tough 46 game season, I’d much rather we used that money on someone who can consistently play and is fit and available in times when they are needed - which Chuks has shown he is not.
At this level he's played 1966 minutes for us and scored 19 goals. A goal every 103 minutes.
70 League 1 games played by CAFC
19 goals
One goal from Aneke every 332 minutes we have played
Not on pitch for 229 minutes out of every 332 minutes so we have had to replace him with someone else playing for more than two out of every three minutes he's been at the Club in League 1
Cost of each goal scored by Aneke in League 1 estimated at approximately £40K (that's using £5K per week average salary plus £300,000 transfer fee) - happy to be corrected on these figures but he was signed originally when we were in the Championship
The previous discussion is only on page 25 so probably doesn't need to be done again!
In the previous thread (and I should, admittedly, have picked this up at the time) you also said that "it has been established that his injury record isn't that bad". He has actually made, in League football, 166 starts and 124 sub appearances in 11 years i.e. an average of 15 starts and 11 sub appearances per season. Which is bad enough because it means that he misses half a season on average but if we take the last three seasons then it amounts to a total of 18 starts and 67 sub appearances - which equals an average of 6 starts and 22 sub appearances per season. And those stats do not even include this season. These injury issues have been going on for years. This is from an article in an interview published on 19th May 2019 in his final season at MK Dons ironically a matter of weeks before he signed for us:
The striker, signed back in July 2016, endured tough times during his first two campaigns at Stadium MK - sidelined due to injuries in his first before suffering relegation in 2017/18.
“On a personal level, I’ve had problems with injuries and this has been my first injury-free season for a very long time, which is pleasing. I’ve played lots of football and scored lots of goals and chipped in.”
Then last season again I questioned, at the time, why the hell Bowyer wanted Aneke at Birmingham given his scoring and fitness level and he managed just 2 goals and no assists in half a season. It turned out to be a panic, but fee free, acquisition by Birmingham given the state of that club but Bowyer couldn't wait to get rid of him in January - and we were only to happy to pay a fee and give him a three and a half year contract too. It's not just the taking him back and the gamble in doing so that is just the issue, it is the fact that he is taking a space and will be doing so 'til he is 32 that I didn't get at the time we re-signed him and still don't now.
The fact that he might prevent us from signing another striker for another 3 seasons is as much the issue as it is the cost. Saying that he will score 15 goals from the bench is also ridiculous because he can't be on the bench if he is sitting in the stands. And maintaining that had he been playing for us for the whole season he would have scored "X" is equally ill founded. Because he might well have been injured.
Injuries occur at whatever level you play at. Even park football if you are susceptible to them. And unfortunately he is more susceptible to them than most. I hope he proves me wrong. For his and our sakes. He's a fantastic asset if fit. But that really is the big issue. His fitness and ability to stay fit.
We don't know the budget but it's fair to say that Aneke wouldn't have signed a deal that long for peanuts. Unless he knows, in his heart, that he isn't capable of playing many games a season. So we have to have four strikers and if Stockley gets injured, loses form or is suspended we have no one with experience. Even bringing one more in might not be enough because you can't put pressure on an 18 year old to produce from the off. He needs to be the icing on the cake and not the cake itself. But then having five strikers for one position seems excessive as well as expensive.
So having Aneke on the books is, potentially, limiting those options especially as he cannot start a game. Rremember what he said in 2019 "this has been my first injury-free season for a very long time" and what then happened the following season (his first with us) - he played the grand total of 542 minutes.
Let's suppose Aneke is on 5k a week. Probably not an unreasonable guestimate. Since he tweaked his muscle in a pre-season friendly, he will have had £20k in wages out of us before he he might possibly be fit to play. Nice work if you can get it.
I've asked this question before but no-one has ever answered it. Who sanctioned his move back to us on a 3.5 year deal? TS himself, Gallen? Did Jackson push hard for it? I'd love to know the answer.
Meanwhile, if what I read elsewhere is true, a loyal member of staff is made redundant.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Oh dear. I very much doubt this style of play will suit him or his body sadly. He'll break down from the intensity required.0
-
Frustrating but this will focus minds on getting another more reliable option to Stockley in the door. Then Chuks becomes a bonus ball option when he is available, which was always the best way to use him.5
-
He's almost switching roles with Leaburn, with Chuks the bonus ball as you say and Leaburn the supersub and occasional starter.Exiled_Addick said:Frustrating but this will focus minds on getting another more reliable option to Stockley in the door. Then Chuks becomes a bonus ball option when he is available, which was always the best way to use him.0 -
You'd hope so, but I'm not holding my breath there.Exiled_Addick said:Frustrating but this will focus minds on getting another more reliable option to Stockley in the door. Then Chuks becomes a bonus ball option when he is available, which was always the best way to use him.
1 -
Leaburn has done very well, but he looked a bit ineffective through the middle vs Sheff W. He can bully your average sized fullback physically but a street wise burley centre back won’t be so easily pushed around. That’s my worry, but yes, he’s proving a good option off the bench.Garner is definitely benefiting that a few promising youngsters are coming of age at about the same time, we haven’t had a great deal come through for a couple of seasons.1
-
Only two more seasons on his contract after this one, I'm sure we will see him at least once before then.2
-
0/50
-
Of course he has - never in any doubt!Scoham said:0 -
Convinced it's entirely in his head at this pointScoham said:5 -
Surely a new striker is now incoming.
We might have won well tonight & had 5 different goalscorers but you simply cant go into a 46 match season with 1 seasoned striker & a lad playing his first ever season.10
This discussion has been closed.
