Saw a comment above on how good Chuks minutes to goal ratio was in a previous season, just gone back and found the graph that I remember seeing, this was from Feb 2021. I sent this to a mate at the time and he missed Chuks on the sheet. This is what we have available if he can stay fit for the run in
Per 90 stats for Chuks for this season… hard to suggest anything from these since he’s played less than 400 minutes in total but still incredible to see him at the very top in almost every metric.
It’s taken long enough at the club to realise what we all knew ages ago. If you play Chuks for half an hour every game he’s one of the most talented players in the league.
You start him just once… he’s pointless as he’ll be out for months.
It’s taken long enough at the club to realise what we all knew ages ago. If you play Chuks for half an hour every game he’s one of the most talented players in the league.
You start him just once… he’s pointless as he’ll be out for months.
In his best season for us where he scored 15 goals, he started 11 games and subbed on in 27. I think Bowyer was pretty good at managing him and his minutes
I think Jones is a good manager to have for Chuks. He wants lots of running into channels and pressing from his strikers, which is why Kanu is doing so well. Chuks can’t do that, so I don’t think Jones will be too tempted to start Chuks or over-play him
“Pay as you play” deals are often spoken about but I’m not sure how often they actually happen in the professional leagues. But it might have to be something that Chuks considers if he wants to continue his career beyond this contract.
I do fear the right calf is the start of another injury to see out the season. Really need him to make it through the next three games and make a difference
I do fear the right calf is the start of another injury to see out the season. Really need him to make it through the next three games and make a difference
Whether or not he’s in the squad tonight will answer that one.
It’s a worry, but for now I’ll take to positive spin that we’re finally treating him correctly and using him when his body is right, and then sparingly. Better he plays 2 or 3 impactful half hours then misses one than he plays 5 or 6 including starting and them misses 3 months.
I do love every time when the conversation about Chuks comes around someone will say 'don't start him' or 'only play him 30 minutes max' - which will then get plenty of likes like its the most thoughtful, outside of the box, and well evidenced argument of all time.
Which, never mind how impractical it is from a tactical perspective to have a player you can only use sparingly like that - it just does not mirror how Chuks injuries have gone.
He has been injured during training, during the warm up for a game, after playing 6 minutes, 24 minutes, and guess what exactly 30 minutes. Many individuals seem to wax lyrical about how Bowyer managed him, yet he started 11 games under him.
I just wonder if people actually bother to look at the evidence in front of them sometimes.
I do love every time when the conversation about Chuks comes around someone will say 'don't start him' or 'only play him 30 minutes max' - which will then get plenty of likes like its the most thoughtful, outside of the box, and well evidenced argument of all time.
Which, never mind how impractical it is from a tactical perspective to have a player you can only use sparingly like that - it just does not mirror how Chuks injuries have gone.
He has been injured during training, during the warm up for a game, after playing 24 minutes, 6 minutes, and guess what exactly 30 minutes. Many individuals seem to wax lyrical about how Bowyer managed him, yet he started 11 games under him.
I just wonder if people actually bother to look at the evidence in front of them sometimes.
I think people (including myself here) are often guilty of remembering that he often breaks down when starting and conflating that with the idea he shouldn't start rather than that he just shouldn't start that soon. I genuinely think that if he is recovered properly after a good pre season then he can start games. Managers have just been too quick to build his minutes because he's just that good
I do love every time when the conversation about Chuks comes around someone will say 'don't start him' or 'only play him 30 minutes max' - which will then get plenty of likes like its the most thoughtful, outside of the box, and well evidenced argument of all time.
Which, never mind how impractical it is from a tactical perspective to have a player you can only use sparingly like that - it just does not mirror how Chuks injuries have gone.
He has been injured during training, during the warm up for a game, after playing 6 minutes, 24 minutes, and guess what exactly 30 minutes. Many individuals seem to wax lyrical about how Bowyer managed him, yet he started 11 games under him.
I just wonder if people actually bother to look at the evidence in front of them sometimes.
Started 11 games for Bowyer yes but subbed on in 27 not sure what your point is about him only starting 11 maybe Bowyer always saw Chuks as a finisher in the way he should be seen now?
I do love every time when the conversation about Chuks comes around someone will say 'don't start him' or 'only play him 30 minutes max' - which will then get plenty of likes like its the most thoughtful, outside of the box, and well evidenced argument of all time.
Which, never mind how impractical it is from a tactical perspective to have a player you can only use sparingly like that - it just does not mirror how Chuks injuries have gone.
He has been injured during training, during the warm up for a game, after playing 6 minutes, 24 minutes, and guess what exactly 30 minutes. Many individuals seem to wax lyrical about how Bowyer managed him, yet he started 11 games under him.
I just wonder if people actually bother to look at the evidence in front of them sometimes.
How impractical is it then? It doesn't strike me as impractical at all based on the following:
We are now allowed 5 subs from 7.
Most subs don't get any more than 30 minutes.
No-one in our squad (and possibly none in the whole league) has the incoming impact that Chuks does.
What are we missing out on, by using Chuks as an impact sub?
What is the evidence you are offering, because it doesn't seem evident to me.
I do love every time when the conversation about Chuks comes around someone will say 'don't start him' or 'only play him 30 minutes max' - which will then get plenty of likes like its the most thoughtful, outside of the box, and well evidenced argument of all time.
Which, never mind how impractical it is from a tactical perspective to have a player you can only use sparingly like that - it just does not mirror how Chuks injuries have gone.
He has been injured during training, during the warm up for a game, after playing 6 minutes, 24 minutes, and guess what exactly 30 minutes. Many individuals seem to wax lyrical about how Bowyer managed him, yet he started 11 games under him.
I just wonder if people actually bother to look at the evidence in front of them sometimes.
How impractical is it then? It doesn't strike me as impractical at all based on the following:
We are now allowed 5 subs from 7.
Most subs don't get any more than 30 minutes.
No-one in our squad (and possibly not in the whole league) has the incoming impact that Chuks does.
What are we missing out on, by using Chuks as an impact sub?
What is the evidence you are offering, because it doesn't seem evident to me.
I didn't say there was an issue using him as an impact sub, but tell me which 'impact sub' for a football team, can't perform their duty in different scenarios when called upon. Ipswich successfully used Lapado as an impact sub last year, but he played plenty of 70+ minutes when he was needed.
What happens if your striker get injured/sent off in the first half and he is the only other option?
What happens if the plan was to keep it tight and play a defensive game for 60 minutes to bring him on, but we are already 2 - 0 down by 30 minutes?
What happens if you want to rest your other strikers during a busy period?
I do love every time when the conversation about Chuks comes around someone will say 'don't start him' or 'only play him 30 minutes max' - which will then get plenty of likes like its the most thoughtful, outside of the box, and well evidenced argument of all time.
Which, never mind how impractical it is from a tactical perspective to have a player you can only use sparingly like that - it just does not mirror how Chuks injuries have gone.
He has been injured during training, during the warm up for a game, after playing 6 minutes, 24 minutes, and guess what exactly 30 minutes. Many individuals seem to wax lyrical about how Bowyer managed him, yet he started 11 games under him.
I just wonder if people actually bother to look at the evidence in front of them sometimes.
Started 11 games for Bowyer yes but subbed on in 27 not sure what your point is about him only starting 11 maybe Bowyer always saw Chuks as a finisher in the way he should be seen now?
I think my point is quite obvious to be honest. He started 11 games under Bowyer and didn't get injured, so how does that tally with people saying he should only *ever* play 30 minutes max because he will get injured otherwise. When he gets injured whatever he does - I'd rather use him within reason for the minutes the team and tactics need. If that is an impact sub, fine, if he is also need to start again or play longer - also fine.
I think Jones needs to consider him as a sub only, or in other words, a squad player. I imagine Aneke knows what he is capable of and will settle for this solution.
What happens if your striker get injured/sent off in the first half and he is the only other option?
What happens if the plan was to keep it tight and play a defensive game for 60 minutes to bring him on, but we are already 2 - 0 down by 30 minutes?
What happens if you want to rest your other strikers?
1. That's why the fact that there's seven on on the bench is significant. If the manager thinks it's an issue then he can put another striker on the bench anyway.
2. Again, that's for the manager to decide. He might want to go all out and try to score three or more or he might decide to cut his losses and leave things as they are. I don't think I, or anyone else, can give a more definite answer than that to a hypothetical question.
3. If that's important, then you rest your other strikers and bring someone else from the squad in.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's ideal having a player whose condition means that they get limited game time, but he's our player and quality wise he's the best we've got. It's far better to manage Chuk's time in a sensible manner in order to maximise the return whilst minimising the risk of further injury, than it is to either leave him out entirely or play him 'til he breaks.
Curbs always talks about “finishers” and older readers will remember Liverpool’s David Fairclough…
Chuks started and played the full 90 and scored a last minute equaliser in his second debut for us at Cheltenham in January 2022 so I’m hoping to see him score tonight for all 3 points.
What happens if your striker get injured/sent off in the first half and he is the only other option?
What happens if the plan was to keep it tight and play a defensive game for 60 minutes to bring him on, but we are already 2 - 0 down by 30 minutes?
What happens if you want to rest your other strikers?
1. That's why the fact that there's seven on on the bench is significant. If the manager thinks it's an issue then he can put another striker on the bench anyway.
2. Again, that's for the manager to decide. He might want to go all out and try to score three or more or he might decide to cut his losses and leave things as they are. I don't think I, or anyone else, can give a more definite answer than that to a hypothetical question.
3. If that's important, then you rest your other strikers and bring someone else from the squad in.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's ideal having a player whose condition means that they get limited game time, but he's our player and quality wise he's the best we've got. It's far better to manage Chuk's time in a sensible manner in order to maximise the return whilst minimising the risk of further injury, than it is to either leave him out entirely or play him 'til he breaks.
This is slightly getting away from my original point, but tell me which other team in the world is so tactically flexible and has incredible squad depth that they have a match winning player that they only play for 30 minutes max?
Your response to 1 and 3 just makes no sense to me ‘Just bring another squad player or option in’. Like football is that simple over a demanding 46+ season.
Back to my original point. What for you is managing Chuks time in a sensible manner? If he has been injured in training, in the warm up before a match, after 6 minutes, 24 minutes, and 30 minutes in a game.
Indeed if he has been injured more not starting a game then he has starting.
When Chuks starts games any more frequently than the odd one here and there, then he invariably gets injured. It might in the match he starts, it might be in training, it might be a in a subsequent substitute appearance, but, to me, it seems that playing him in anything more than short bursts builds strain in his body and eventually something goes pop. It seems Chuks body will always be under a certain amount of strain and therefore something can always potentially go pop at anytime, but it's about managing his minutes to keep him out of the red zone so he can contribute without raising the risk of injury too high. You get that by using him as a sub when his body is right. You have to use the tools you have correctly, and not try and force them into being the tools you wish you had.
I think there's also an argument to say that Chuks usually looks more dangerous as a sub than when he starts.
@FishCostaFortune, sorry, I can't tell you what other clubs do because I only follow Charlton. All I'm saying is that if the medical wisdom is that he only has a certain amount of minutes in him, I'd want him used as an impact sub. I'd be far more interested to know what alternative you're suggesting, because this exchange started out with you criticising people who want him played for 30 minutes, but I genuinely don't know whether you're suggesting we start him and see what happens, stop including him in the squad at all, or something else.
@FishCostaFortune, sorry, I can't tell you what other clubs do because I only follow Charlton. All I'm saying is that if the medical wisdom is that he only has a certain amount of minutes in him, I'd want him used as an impact sub. I'd be far more interested to know what alternative you're suggesting, because this exchange started out with you criticising people who want him played for 30 minutes, but I genuinely don't know whether you're suggesting we start him and see what happens, stop including him in the squad at all, or something else.
My criticism is that people seem to think playing him for 30 minutes means he will avoid injury, and the reason he does gets injured is because we play him for longer.
I think I laid that out clearly enough, and the evidence as I suggested is there to prove that, that the length of time he plays does really impact whenever he will get injured or not.
You, along with other posters suggest you think he should only be used as an impact sub. My point is that absolutely no team in the world has the luxury of just being able to have a player in their squad over a demanding season, especially with the quality of Chuks, who can be afforded to be used in this way.
As I mentioned, I would use him in a way that the situation demands. If that means bringing him on at half time, starting him, or not playing him at all then so be it.
I would ‘manage’ his minutes if we had some fixture congestion, as this is done with plenty of other players. But I sure as hell wouldn’t stick to this arbitrary 30 minute number people seem to have come up with.
Maybe we're closer on this that I first thought. I don't think there's something magical about the 30 minute mark. I'm just trusting that that's (roughly) how he's been managed to date, and that that's the reason for it.
Whenever I see Chuks start a game he looks bang average. Whenever I see him come on as a sub he looks far more effective against tiring defenders. So as well as managing his minutes we also get more out of him rather than starting him. That's how I see it.
Perhaps the reason why we're down near the bottom of the table is that we're constantly relying on a player that plays 200 minutes a season to save us.
Yes he's a great player for a single game. No, he's not someone you can build a team around for a season.
Once his contract runs out it will be interesting to see where he goes.
I imagine he'll have some sort of performance related tie in to it.
Wouldn't be surprised to see him stay with us. He'll be 32 so can't see many other clubs willing to take a punt on him
Well if everything goes to plan next season and we get promotion don’t think Aneke will be up to playing in Championship. Come to that we would have to offer him a new contract. He is a luxury we can not afford.
At this point in the season, given the amount of time that he was out, I’d be surprised if he could really go 90 minutes and be effective. His fitness levels must have been impacted. I also agree with what others have said, in that he looks much more effective coming on later, than starting. I’d be inclined to keep it that way for now, and then let the new performance team see if they can find a solution to his injury issues, with a view to him playing a full 90 next season.
Comments
You start him just once… he’s pointless as he’ll be out for months.
I think Jones is a good manager to have for Chuks. He wants lots of running into channels and pressing from his strikers, which is why Kanu is doing so well. Chuks can’t do that, so I don’t think Jones will be too tempted to start Chuks or over-play him
I imagine he'll have some sort of performance related tie in to it.
Which, never mind how impractical it is from a tactical perspective to have a player you can only use sparingly like that - it just does not mirror how Chuks injuries have gone.
He has been injured during training, during the warm up for a game, after playing 6 minutes, 24 minutes, and guess what exactly 30 minutes. Many individuals seem to wax lyrical about how Bowyer managed him, yet he started 11 games under him.
I just wonder if people actually bother to look at the evidence in front of them sometimes.
- We are now allowed 5 subs from 7.
- Most subs don't get any more than 30 minutes.
- No-one in our squad (and possibly none in the whole league) has the incoming impact that Chuks does.
What are we missing out on, by using Chuks as an impact sub?What is the evidence you are offering, because it doesn't seem evident to me.
I didn't say there was an issue using him as an impact sub, but tell me which 'impact sub' for a football team, can't perform their duty in different scenarios when called upon. Ipswich successfully used Lapado as an impact sub last year, but he played plenty of 70+ minutes when he was needed.
What happens if your striker get injured/sent off in the first half and he is the only other option?
What happens if the plan was to keep it tight and play a defensive game for 60 minutes to bring him on, but we are already 2 - 0 down by 30 minutes?
What happens if you want to rest your other strikers during a busy period?
I think my point is quite obvious to be honest. He started 11 games under Bowyer and didn't get injured, so how does that tally with people saying he should only *ever* play 30 minutes max because he will get injured otherwise. When he gets injured whatever he does - I'd rather use him within reason for the minutes the team and tactics need. If that is an impact sub, fine, if he is also need to start again or play longer - also fine.
2. Again, that's for the manager to decide. He might want to go all out and try to score three or more or he might decide to cut his losses and leave things as they are. I don't think I, or anyone else, can give a more definite answer than that to a hypothetical question.
3. If that's important, then you rest your other strikers and bring someone else from the squad in.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's ideal having a player whose condition means that they get limited game time, but he's our player and quality wise he's the best we've got. It's far better to manage Chuk's time in a sensible manner in order to maximise the return whilst minimising the risk of further injury, than it is to either leave him out entirely or play him 'til he breaks.
Chuks started and played the full 90 and scored a last minute equaliser in his second debut for us at Cheltenham in January 2022 so I’m hoping to see him score tonight for all 3 points.
Back to my original point. What for you is managing Chuks time in a sensible manner? If he has been injured in training, in the warm up before a match, after 6 minutes, 24 minutes, and 30 minutes in a game.
Indeed if he has been injured more not starting a game then he has starting.
I think there's also an argument to say that Chuks usually looks more dangerous as a sub than when he starts.
I think I laid that out clearly enough, and the evidence as I suggested is there to prove that, that the length of time he plays does really impact whenever he will get injured or not.
I would ‘manage’ his minutes if we had some fixture congestion, as this is done with plenty of other players. But I sure as hell wouldn’t stick to this arbitrary 30 minute number people seem to have come up with.
Whenever I see him come on as a sub he looks far more effective against tiring defenders.
So as well as managing his minutes we also get more out of him rather than starting him.
That's how I see it.
Yes he's a great player for a single game. No, he's not someone you can build a team around for a season.