Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Who wants a cameo player? Put it this way I bet BG would rather have his wages and the £300k to invest than be stuck with someone who unfortunately just cannot be relied on at anytime
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....
At 1-1 or 1-0 either way would you rather bring on Chuks, Washington or Davison? If your doing that 35 times a season what's the problem?
You do indeed. The thing is that striker you bring on 90% of the time also usually ends up filling in for 90 minutes when others are suspended, injured, or it’s a busy schedule and they need a rest.
Aneke cant do any of them. Aneke can’t even get through a pre season where there’s less intensity and his minutes were more managed than any other player.
That's why you need at least 1 more striker. Someone to replace/alternate with Stockley and that can play 90 mins week in & week out. Then you have Aneke to come off the bench for 20-30 mins. With 5 subs allowed to come on surely you can have 2 out & out strikers in your 7 man bench.
I agree, but the problem is that striker will need to get us goals because there may be periods of the season where they play the full 90 minutes of games. So we don’t want a Josh Parker. However which ‘prolific’ striker is going to want to come in knowing that they won’t get a chance off the bench because of Aneke and may only be used if the main striker is injured or suspended.
Of course maybe there may be someone young and hungry who wants to take that chance dislodging Stockley, but I expect most decent strikers will want to move somewhere where they will get lots of guaranteed minutes.
And how much of the budget do we spend on this player who may only have very limited game time? When we already have a good chunk of the said budget being spent on Stockley and a player who can’t play more than 20-30 minutes a game.
Aneke is a fucking cheat code and we are lucky to have him. If he plays 20 minutes every 3 games, that is 20 minutes where we are so much more likely to score
First Inniss now Aneke, this season's gonna be easy.
The lad has got some composure, bag of tricks twisting and turning, quick feet, acceleration and change of pace. It's in tight spaces that he does the damage - faced with packed defences; he's a tin-opener.
The lad has got some composure, bag of tricks twisting and turning, quick feet, acceleration and change of pace. It's in tight spaces that he does the damage - faced with packed defences; he's a tin-opener.
Come on now!!!…… it’s in tight spaces he does the damage!!, who is he Mandingo!!!!!……KENNETH!!!!!!!!🤣
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Who wants a cameo player? Put it this way I bet BG would rather have his wages and the £300k to invest than be stuck with someone who unfortunately just cannot be relied on at anytime
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....
At 1-1 or 1-0 either way would you rather bring on Chuks, Washington or Davison? If your doing that 35 times a season what's the problem?
You do indeed. The thing is that striker you bring on 90% of the time also usually ends up filling in for 90 minutes when others are suspended, injured, or it’s a busy schedule and they need a rest.
Aneke cant do any of them. Aneke can’t even get through a pre season where there’s less intensity and his minutes were more managed than any other player.
That's why you need at least 1 more striker. Someone to replace/alternate with Stockley and that can play 90 mins week in & week out. Then you have Aneke to come off the bench for 20-30 mins. With 5 subs allowed to come on surely you can have 2 out & out strikers in your 7 man bench.
I agree, but the problem is that striker will need to get us goals because there may be periods of the season where they play the full 90 minutes of games. So we don’t want a Josh Parker. However which ‘prolific’ striker is going to want to come in knowing that they won’t get a chance off the bench because of Aneke and may only be used if the main striker is injured or suspended.
Of course maybe there may be someone young and hungry who wants to take that chance dislodging Stockley, but I expect most decent strikers will want to move somewhere where they will get lots of guaranteed minutes.
And how much of the budget do we spend on this player who may only have very limited game time? When we already have a good chunk of the said budget being spent on Stockley and a player who can’t play more than 20-30 minutes a game.
You do know we have 2 fewer strikers than last season? Even if we only play with one striker/ goalscorer at a time ( which I am really not sure we should), we still need one more. None of Washington, Stockley or Aneke were guaranteed starts for long periods during the season due to injury, loss of form or suspension. That is why its a squad game.
If Stockley gets injured, suspended or loses form, who takes his starting place with the current squad? And please don't say Leaburn. (Or Aneke obviously)
Let's be honest if we had CBT on one side and that kid on the other, teams would absolutely hate playing us.
Hull won this league two seasons ago with Josh Magennis down the middle of a three, Stockley is better than him. If the wide men are dynamic enough it can be done.
Aneke is a fucking cheat code and we are lucky to have him. If he plays 20 minutes every 3 games, that is 20 minutes where we are so much more likely to score
First Inniss now Aneke, this season's gonna be easy.
They're both titanic forces in League One. If their bodies weren't cruel to them they'd be Championship at least. You can't always use the cheat code, but it's nice when you can. With a teensy-weensy asterisk about Inniss' ability to Garnerball it from the back
The lad has got some composure, bag of tricks twisting and turning, quick feet, acceleration and change of pace. It's in tight spaces that he does the damage - faced with packed defences; he's a tin-opener.
Come on now!!!…… it’s in tight spaces he does the damage!!, who is he Mandingo!!!!!……KENNETH!!!!!!!!🤣
Lol ..... I just meant to point out that he's not a CBT direct speed merchant but by comparison, twists and turns his way into the box, tight control, etc. He's only really done it U23 level, of course. But he'd have League One defenders pressing the panic button around the box.
I could see him fitting in with Garnerball.
But of course, it's only a rumour or even just a wind up.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Who wants a cameo player? Put it this way I bet BG would rather have his wages and the £300k to invest than be stuck with someone who unfortunately just cannot be relied on at anytime
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....
At 1-1 or 1-0 either way would you rather bring on Chuks, Washington or Davison? If your doing that 35 times a season what's the problem?
You do indeed. The thing is that striker you bring on 90% of the time also usually ends up filling in for 90 minutes when others are suspended, injured, or it’s a busy schedule and they need a rest.
Aneke cant do any of them. Aneke can’t even get through a pre season where there’s less intensity and his minutes were more managed than any other player.
That's why you need at least 1 more striker. Someone to replace/alternate with Stockley and that can play 90 mins week in & week out. Then you have Aneke to come off the bench for 20-30 mins. With 5 subs allowed to come on surely you can have 2 out & out strikers in your 7 man bench.
I agree, but the problem is that striker will need to get us goals because there may be periods of the season where they play the full 90 minutes of games. So we don’t want a Josh Parker. However which ‘prolific’ striker is going to want to come in knowing that they won’t get a chance off the bench because of Aneke and may only be used if the main striker is injured or suspended.
Of course maybe there may be someone young and hungry who wants to take that chance dislodging Stockley, but I expect most decent strikers will want to move somewhere where they will get lots of guaranteed minutes.
And how much of the budget do we spend on this player who may only have very limited game time? When we already have a good chunk of the said budget being spent on Stockley and a player who can’t play more than 20-30 minutes a game.
You do know we have 2 fewer strikers than last season? Even if we only play with one striker/ goalscorer at a time ( which I am really not sure we should), we still need one more. None of Washington, Stockley or Aneke were guaranteed starts for long periods during the season due to injury, loss of form or suspension. That is why its a squad game.
If Stockley gets injured, suspended or loses form, who takes his starting place with the current squad? And please don't say Leaburn. (Or Aneke obviously)
You do know that you’ve completely missed my point right? I’ve not said at any point that we don’t need another striker.
I’ve made a comment arguing that I think it will be difficult to get a decent striker because they will effectively be seen as third choice, and only used to cover games that Stockley is suspended, injured, or needs resting from, due to them not getting a chance during normal games as Aneke will be put on in front of them.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Who wants a cameo player? Put it this way I bet BG would rather have his wages and the £300k to invest than be stuck with someone who unfortunately just cannot be relied on at anytime
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....
At 1-1 or 1-0 either way would you rather bring on Chuks, Washington or Davison? If your doing that 35 times a season what's the problem?
You do indeed. The thing is that striker you bring on 90% of the time also usually ends up filling in for 90 minutes when others are suspended, injured, or it’s a busy schedule and they need a rest.
Aneke cant do any of them. Aneke can’t even get through a pre season where there’s less intensity and his minutes were more managed than any other player.
That's the missing player though isn't it, Chuks or no Chuks?
If you had, Stockley, Stockton and Aneke, you would still bring Chuks off the bench more often than not. It's not, or shouldn't be, an and/or argument.
Stockton would change the mood in an instant. My mood at least. Then a lot of things that don't make sense to me will start to.
What Sandgaard hasn't worked out is that until youngsters break through they should not be expected to. You plan as if they won't and if they do it is a bonus. But if they did, they would be sold in January anyway.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Who wants a cameo player? Put it this way I bet BG would rather have his wages and the £300k to invest than be stuck with someone who unfortunately just cannot be relied on at anytime
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....
At 1-1 or 1-0 either way would you rather bring on Chuks, Washington or Davison? If your doing that 35 times a season what's the problem?
You do indeed. The thing is that striker you bring on 90% of the time also usually ends up filling in for 90 minutes when others are suspended, injured, or it’s a busy schedule and they need a rest.
Aneke cant do any of them. Aneke can’t even get through a pre season where there’s less intensity and his minutes were more managed than any other player.
That's the missing player though isn't it, Chuks or no Chuks?
If you had, Stockley, Stockton and Aneke, you would still bring Chuks off the bench more often than not. It's not, or shouldn't be, an and/or argument.
Which team in league one has the budget to have Stockley, Stockton and Aneke?
Why is Stockton potentially going to come here to potentially sit on the bench when he could play week in week out, or at least be used as a sub somewhere else.
The lad has got some composure, bag of tricks twisting and turning, quick feet, acceleration and change of pace. It's in tight spaces that he does the damage - faced with packed defences; he's a tin-opener.
Come on now!!!…… it’s in tight spaces he does the damage!!, who is he Mandingo!!!!!……KENNETH!!!!!!!!🤣
Lol ..... I just meant to point out that he's not a CBT direct speed merchant but by comparison, twists and turns his way into the box, tight control, etc. He's only really done it U23 level, of course. But he'd have League One defenders pressing the panic button around the box.
I could see him fitting in with Garnerball.
But of course, it's only a rumour or even just a wind up.
I know exactly where you were coming from,😜👍,,, I couldn’t help it sorry.😂, if he can have a good influence on the team and we aren’t just helping palace give him minutes, he looks quite exciting a prospect.
Aneke is a fucking cheat code and we are lucky to have him. If he plays 20 minutes every 3 games, that is 20 minutes where we are so much more likely to score
First Inniss now Aneke, this season's gonna be easy.
They're both titanic forces in League One. If their bodies weren't cruel to them they'd be Championship at least. You can't always use the cheat code, but it's nice when you can. With a teensy-weensy asterisk about Inniss' ability to Garnerball it from the back
They both have the turning circle of the titanic!!
The lad has got some composure, bag of tricks twisting and turning, quick feet, acceleration and change of pace. It's in tight spaces that he does the damage - faced with packed defences; he's a tin-opener.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Who wants a cameo player? Put it this way I bet BG would rather have his wages and the £300k to invest than be stuck with someone who unfortunately just cannot be relied on at anytime
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....
At 1-1 or 1-0 either way would you rather bring on Chuks, Washington or Davison? If your doing that 35 times a season what's the problem?
You do indeed. The thing is that striker you bring on 90% of the time also usually ends up filling in for 90 minutes when others are suspended, injured, or it’s a busy schedule and they need a rest.
Aneke cant do any of them. Aneke can’t even get through a pre season where there’s less intensity and his minutes were more managed than any other player.
That's the missing player though isn't it, Chuks or no Chuks?
If you had, Stockley, Stockton and Aneke, you would still bring Chuks off the bench more often than not. It's not, or shouldn't be, an and/or argument.
Which team in league one has the budget to have Stockley, Stockton and Aneke?
Why is Stockton potentially going to come here to potentially sit on the bench when he could play week in week out, or at least be used as a sub somewhere else.
I think if Stockton came he would oust the others as starter so not a problem for him. I’m basing that on mobility and playing style.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Who wants a cameo player? Put it this way I bet BG would rather have his wages and the £300k to invest than be stuck with someone who unfortunately just cannot be relied on at anytime
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....
At 1-1 or 1-0 either way would you rather bring on Chuks, Washington or Davison? If your doing that 35 times a season what's the problem?
You do indeed. The thing is that striker you bring on 90% of the time also usually ends up filling in for 90 minutes when others are suspended, injured, or it’s a busy schedule and they need a rest.
Aneke cant do any of them. Aneke can’t even get through a pre season where there’s less intensity and his minutes were more managed than any other player.
That's the missing player though isn't it, Chuks or no Chuks?
If you had, Stockley, Stockton and Aneke, you would still bring Chuks off the bench more often than not. It's not, or shouldn't be, an and/or argument.
Which team in league one has the budget to have Stockley, Stockton and Aneke?
Why is Stockton potentially going to come here to potentially sit on the bench when he could play week in week out, or at least be used as a sub somewhere else.
For money? I guess what you are really saying is that we are too poor financially to get promoted. And you may well be right.
The lad has got some composure, bag of tricks twisting and turning, quick feet, acceleration and change of pace. It's in tight spaces that he does the damage - faced with packed defences; he's a tin-opener.
HE’D BE A FUCKING CHEAT CODE IN LEAGUE ONE! .
He would get kicked all over the park in League One
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Chucks is an absolute shambles for our club the decision to bring him home was a shocker. How we are going into the season relying on this injury prone player says we are not going anywhere fast
Chuks will be ideal for 30 minute cameos, especially with 5 subs now being allowed. The thing that a lot of us seem to feel is that we need at least one other striker who can play a whole game. FWIW I think we’ll sign a striker and an attacking forward/winger but we’ll have to make a couple of tough calls to balance the books. Ultimately I think we have to back Garner.
Who wants a cameo player? Put it this way I bet BG would rather have his wages and the £300k to invest than be stuck with someone who unfortunately just cannot be relied on at anytime
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....
At 1-1 or 1-0 either way would you rather bring on Chuks, Washington or Davison? If your doing that 35 times a season what's the problem?
You do indeed. The thing is that striker you bring on 90% of the time also usually ends up filling in for 90 minutes when others are suspended, injured, or it’s a busy schedule and they need a rest.
Aneke cant do any of them. Aneke can’t even get through a pre season where there’s less intensity and his minutes were more managed than any other player.
That's the missing player though isn't it, Chuks or no Chuks?
If you had, Stockley, Stockton and Aneke, you would still bring Chuks off the bench more often than not. It's not, or shouldn't be, an and/or argument.
Which team in league one has the budget to have Stockley, Stockton and Aneke?
Why is Stockton potentially going to come here to potentially sit on the bench when he could play week in week out, or at least be used as a sub somewhere else.
For money? I guess what you are really saying is that we are too poor financially to get promoted. And you may well be right.
Well of course there’s an element of that because no team has an unlimited budget, but either way building a squad is not really as black and white as people want to make it out to be.
At the end of the day every team has a budget to work within, and we’ve chosen (I expect) to spend much of that on Stockley and a player in Aneke who can only play 30 minutes a game.
Sure we could spend a large chunk of our budget on another quality striker, if they would want to come to us, and not a place where they were guaranteed first team football, but then we would perhaps have to sacrifice a better player somewhere else in the team. So maybe we wouldn’t have got McGrandles or Payne or O’Connell for instance.
Anyone able to tell me how many league games this kid from the stripeys has played and how many goals he has scored?
And anyone able to explain what a cheat code is?
I am 67 so I might well have this wrong but I think a cheat code is to do with gaming when you you obtain a code to move up a level or kill a zombie or suchlike. It basically means he would be too good for our division (I think).
Comments
Of course maybe there may be someone young and hungry who wants to take that chance dislodging Stockley, but I expect most decent strikers will want to move somewhere where they will get lots of guaranteed minutes.
And how much of the budget do we spend on this player who may only have very limited game time? When we already have a good chunk of the said budget being spent on Stockley and a player who can’t play more than 20-30 minutes a game.
The lad has got some composure, bag of tricks twisting and turning, quick feet, acceleration and change of pace. It's in tight spaces that he does the damage - faced with packed defences; he's a tin-opener.
If Stockley gets injured, suspended or loses form, who takes his starting place with the current squad?
And please don't say Leaburn. (Or Aneke obviously)
I tend to agree with you Golfie but if this guy does know the the Left footed Left Back Jack Shit can he be given Ben Garner's number.
Cheers.
He's only really done it U23 level, of course. But he'd have League One defenders pressing the panic button around the box.
I could see him fitting in with Garnerball.
But of course, it's only a rumour or even just a wind up.
I’ve made a comment arguing that I think it will be difficult to get a decent striker because they will effectively be seen as third choice, and only used to cover games that Stockley is suspended, injured, or needs resting from, due to them not getting a chance during normal games as Aneke will be put on in front of them.
If you had, Stockley, Stockton and Aneke, you would still bring Chuks off the bench more often than not. It's not, or shouldn't be, an and/or argument.
What Sandgaard hasn't worked out is that until youngsters break through they should not be expected to. You plan as if they won't and if they do it is a bonus. But if they did, they would be sold in January anyway.
Why is Stockton potentially going to come here to potentially sit on the bench when he could play week in week out, or at least be used as a sub somewhere else.
.
And you may well be right.
At the end of the day every team has a budget to work within, and we’ve chosen (I expect) to spend much of that on Stockley and a player in Aneke who can only play 30 minutes a game.
Sure we could spend a large chunk of our budget on another quality striker, if they would want to come to us, and not a place where they were guaranteed first team football, but then we would perhaps have to sacrifice a better player somewhere else in the team. So maybe we wouldn’t have got McGrandles or Payne or O’Connell for instance.
And anyone able to explain what a cheat code is?
Made 2 Prem appearances for Palarse, last season - including starting v Man Utd.
Capped 5 times last year for England U20.
Chelsea reject. Only been at Palarse since 2019.