Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Chuks Aneke - speculation re 2023/24 season (p60)
Comments
-
Most of them coming off the substitutes bench for the last 30 minutes or so.Chunes said:He made 40 appearances in 20/21. He's hardly Ryan Inniss.
He's been Ryan Inniss this season for sure.0 -
His goals per minutes?SELR_addicks said:
His minutes per game?Chunes said:He made 40 appearances in 20/21. He's hardly Ryan Inniss.
People are saying he's always injured. Clearly that's not true when he can play in 40 games in a season. You'll struggle to find another one in our squad who has done that recently. If you want to say he can't play 90 minutes then that's something else.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Most of them coming off the substitutes bench for the last 30 minutes or so.Chunes said:He made 40 appearances in 20/21. He's hardly Ryan Inniss.
He's been Ryan Inniss this season for sure.2 -
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.1 -
I was happy to see him go, and gutted he came back!!!, no splinters in my arse on this one!!😂 ….. But that’s not to say I wish him any bad and I hope like any of our players he does well.🤷🏻♂️Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.0 -
Probably because he usually is!Chunes said:
His goals per minutes?SELR_addicks said:
His minutes per game?Chunes said:He made 40 appearances in 20/21. He's hardly Ryan Inniss.
People are saying he's always injured. Clearly that's not true when he can play in 40 games in a season. You'll struggle to find another one in our squad who has done that recently. If you want to say he can't play 90 minutes then that's something else.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Most of them coming off the substitutes bench for the last 30 minutes or so.Chunes said:He made 40 appearances in 20/21. He's hardly Ryan Inniss.
He's been Ryan Inniss this season for sure.
His first season with us ((19/20) he started only 2 league games and was sub in another 18. He was out injured from about October until the season resumed in May.
Ok last year he did start 11 league games and was sub in another 27. But it's just not true that no-one else played as many games. Amos, & Pratley did and there were loads of others who were just a few games behind eg Washington, Forster_caskey, Gunter, Maatsen.
And since he's come back this year its 4 starts and 1 sub appearance then he's injured again and supposedly out for the rest of the season.
No-one, least of all me, is saying a fully fit Aneke is anything other than a very good player, particularly at this level. If fully fit, he would walk into any team in this league. But he's not fully fit and it's hard to see unless something radically changes he ever will be. In those circumstances to give him 3.5 year deal was madness.2 -
Why would you pay a fee for a player that can only play a third of games?Dazzler21 said:
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.0 -
I didn't say nobody else played as many games, I said you'd struggle to find someone in our current squad who has played in 40 recently. Amos, Pratley and Maatsen don't play for us. Gunter didn't, did he?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Probably because he usually is!Chunes said:
His goals per minutes?SELR_addicks said:
His minutes per game?Chunes said:He made 40 appearances in 20/21. He's hardly Ryan Inniss.
People are saying he's always injured. Clearly that's not true when he can play in 40 games in a season. You'll struggle to find another one in our squad who has done that recently. If you want to say he can't play 90 minutes then that's something else.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Most of them coming off the substitutes bench for the last 30 minutes or so.Chunes said:He made 40 appearances in 20/21. He's hardly Ryan Inniss.
He's been Ryan Inniss this season for sure.
His first season with us ((19/20) he started only 2 league games and was sub in another 18. He was out injured from about October until the season resumed in May.
Ok last year he did start 11 league games and was sub in another 27. But it's just not true that no-one else played as many games. Amos, & Pratley did and there were loads of others who were just a few games behind eg Washington, Forster_caskey, Gunter, Maatsen.
And since he's come back this year its 4 starts and 1 sub appearance then he's injured again and supposedly out for the rest of the season.
No-one, least of all me, is saying a fully fit Aneke is anything other than a very good player, particularly at this level. If fully fit, he would walk into any team in this league. But he's not fully fit and it's hard to see unless something radically changes he ever will be. In those circumstances to give him 3.5 year deal was madness.
Looking at Stockley's career it's not that great minutes and appearances wise either, but we're happy to have him on a long-term contract. It's pretty similar minutes-wise to Chuks and they're both 28.
Like I say, I think a large proportion of this is just frustration at anything and everything the club are doing at the moment.1 -
After all this debate I'll stick a tenner on him for 20+ goals next season I think.1
-
Don't believe them Katrien, it's those pesky customers.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:Tunwellsaddick said:I`m still no wiser what his ongoing injuries are that keep him out for such long periods.
Perhaps someone out there has some knowledge of them? It would be good to know so we can get an idea of his future availability and not always live in hope.
If he is going to struggle to even come on as a "super sub" for 30 minutes on a regular basis, then the next 3 years are going to be a big disappointment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjgf-HQKRcE0 -
Don't think we need your crystal ball on this one, even Stevie Wonder could see this.golfaddick said:
I agree. I also dont think £300k was "wasted" on him, considering we got £2m for Bonne & £1.6m for Burstow.......and spent £500k on Kirk.Addick Addict said:I do think that we have been influenced by what Aneke is capable of doing rather than, historically, he has done and because of one or two good seasons at this level (primarily as a super sub for us). This is his full goal scoring record/appearances, season by season, as a pro:
1/13 (L1)
6/30 (L1)
14/40 (L1)
2/30 (Belgium)
2/11 (Belgium)
4/15 (L2)
9/31 (L1)
17/38 (L2)
1/20 (Championship)
15/38 (L1)
4/23 (Championship/L1)
That's 75 league goals in 11 seasons as a pro from 289 appearances. In the Belgium's Pro League it was 4 goals in 41 appearances and in the Championship it has been 3 in 38 so, from 7 goals in total from 79 appearances at a level higher than League 1, it is safe to say that he might well have not been a roaring success in that division next season even if we had been promoted at the end of this one.
Bowyer couldn't wait to get rid of Aneke and started him for just one of his 18 appearances at Birmingham and as I've said numerous times previously I really could not understand why he signed him for them in the first place. Bowyer was the very person who kept telling us he couldn't start games for us but must have thought that he would still been an impact sub and he was on a "free".
It's not as if we weren't aware of Aneke's issues either though he did, actually, go straight into the starting line up when he came back to us - for the first time in ages. But now he's out again and we are straddled with not being able to rely on not just one of our main two strikers but, probably, one of the highest paid players in the Club who is on a three and a half year contract.
It really does smack a bit like a £300,000 (plus wages) gamble in January to get us into the Play Offs that has, unfortunately, somewhat backfired. Every player has his ceiling and I believe League 1 is his but the hope has to be that he returns next season all guns blazing and that he produces a season similar to his last one with us at this level. It is that issue with having to manage his game time and ensuring that he stays fit that will be the one that will need to be addressed - once again. But those issues also mean that we have to carry that one extra striker. Just in case and of course those injuries impact even further when, as we have now, another one or two are out at the same time.
I hope for his as much as ours that Aneke finds a way of staying available for selection because, if he does, he will, almost certainly, be an asset and not a financial liability. But he remains very much a relatively expensive gamble.
As you say, he has shown that he really is just an impact player & going forward we need to realise this & play to his strengths, not lay him from the start and expect 90 mins from him.
In the summer we still need to sign a 20 goal striker. Stockley & Washington (with Aneke as back up) wont be enough for promotion. Mark my words.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Because you know what his potential is for scoring.SELR_addicks said:
Why would you pay a fee for a player that can only play a third of games?Dazzler21 said:
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.
I don't think anyone saw a long term injury coming to Chuks, they've always been little niggles.
I've heard we're paying the salary we offered to try and keep him anyway. So yes we've paid £300k for a player we failed to keep. I'm pleased he returned in the hope he can do it next season.5 -
Why not he was our leading scorer only playing half a game .. he passed his medical at Birmingham and had NO injuries .. he went through a very tough medical at CAFC and was even sent to a specialist for second opinions .. but again passed with flying colours… this injury is a new one nothing to do with previous problemsHartleypete said:3.5 fucking years what moron agreed that?
Sums up the shambles that is CAFC.6 -
It's not surprising you're gutted.SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.
You was the only person deluded enough to think Aneke would play 90 mins for 3 years injury free.3 -
Even you must believe every club should have a striker on the bench?SELR_addicks said:
Why would you pay a fee for a player that can only play a third of games?Dazzler21 said:
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.
If you have the top goal scorer in the league (per minutes played), on the bench I see that as a good thing.
The issue was Stockley getting injured and having no better alternatives to start.
2 -
For someone who clearly spends so much time in the gym, the way his body consistently breaks down whilst playing football is crazy.
0 -
In the Premier League you can waste money on a bench striker sure.Covered End said:
Even you must believe every club should have a striker on the bench?SELR_addicks said:
Why would you pay a fee for a player that can only play a third of games?Dazzler21 said:
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.
If you have the top goal scorer in the league (per minutes played), on the bench I see that as a good thing.
The issue was Stockley getting injured and having no better alternatives to start.
In League One, spending six figures on a player that can't play 90 minute is mindless. What a waste.2 -
Worked out well so far.RonnieMoore said:
Why not he was our leading scorer only playing half a game .. he passed his medical at Birmingham and had NO injuries .. he went through a very tough medical at CAFC and was even sent to a specialist for second opinions .. but again passed with flying colours… this injury is a new one nothing to do with previous problemsHartleypete said:3.5 fucking years what moron agreed that?
Sums up the shambles that is CAFC.1 -
So would you have preferred not to sign Aneke and keep Davison instead?SELR_addicks said:
In the Premier League you can waste money on a bench striker sure.Covered End said:
Even you must believe every club should have a striker on the bench?SELR_addicks said:
Why would you pay a fee for a player that can only play a third of games?Dazzler21 said:
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.
If you have the top goal scorer in the league (per minutes played), on the bench I see that as a good thing.
The issue was Stockley getting injured and having no better alternatives to start.
In League One, spending six figures on a player that can't play 90 minute is mindless. What a waste.
If not Aneke who would you have signed in January and how much would you have paid?0 -
A sane person would have preferred we sign a striker who is fit enough to start football matches. It's as simple as that.Covered End said:
So would you have preferred not to sign Aneke and keep Davison instead?SELR_addicks said:
In the Premier League you can waste money on a bench striker sure.Covered End said:
Even you must believe every club should have a striker on the bench?SELR_addicks said:
Why would you pay a fee for a player that can only play a third of games?Dazzler21 said:
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.
If you have the top goal scorer in the league (per minutes played), on the bench I see that as a good thing.
The issue was Stockley getting injured and having no better alternatives to start.
In League One, spending six figures on a player that can't play 90 minute is mindless. What a waste.
If not Aneke who would you have signed in January and how much would you have paid?4 -
Josh Parker was available.2
- Sponsored links:
-
If you are reading this Thomas/Martin....................it's a joke.......move on!Dazzler21 said:Josh Parker was available.6 -
Yes, that's easy to say.J BLOCK said:
A sane person would have preferred we sign a striker who is fit enough to start football matches. It's as simple as that.Covered End said:
So would you have preferred not to sign Aneke and keep Davison instead?SELR_addicks said:
In the Premier League you can waste money on a bench striker sure.Covered End said:
Even you must believe every club should have a striker on the bench?SELR_addicks said:
Why would you pay a fee for a player that can only play a third of games?Dazzler21 said:
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.
If you have the top goal scorer in the league (per minutes played), on the bench I see that as a good thing.
The issue was Stockley getting injured and having no better alternatives to start.
In League One, spending six figures on a player that can't play 90 minute is mindless. What a waste.
If not Aneke who would you have signed in January and how much would you have paid?
But who were these excellent goal scoring strikers, that were fully fit and available in January for us to sign, preferably free or for less than £300K?
Plus of course they wanted to sign for us in our mid table nothing season?2 -
Why oh why? World of fantasy and lies, so sad.RonnieMoore said:
Why not he was our leading scorer only playing half a game .. he passed his medical at Birmingham and had NO injuries .. he went through a very tough medical at CAFC and was even sent to a specialist for second opinions .. but again passed with flying colours… this injury is a new one nothing to do with previous problemsHartleypete said:3.5 fucking years what moron agreed that?
Sums up the shambles that is CAFC.
No injuries, second opinion on a medical, that does not make sense.
You are a wum.
@a@AFKABartram and other mods, why do you not ban him??....again.
ITTA constantly pan here viaBexleyBoy/@RonnieMoore1 -
Is there any indication whether Chuks Aneke will be back ? - before the end of the season ?
0 -
cafcfan1990 said:
0 -
You're telling me there's not a single striker that would be available for 300k or less that is capable of playing 90 minutes and better than Davison?Covered End said:
Yes, that's easy to say.J BLOCK said:
A sane person would have preferred we sign a striker who is fit enough to start football matches. It's as simple as that.Covered End said:
So would you have preferred not to sign Aneke and keep Davison instead?SELR_addicks said:
In the Premier League you can waste money on a bench striker sure.Covered End said:
Even you must believe every club should have a striker on the bench?SELR_addicks said:
Why would you pay a fee for a player that can only play a third of games?Dazzler21 said:
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.
If you have the top goal scorer in the league (per minutes played), on the bench I see that as a good thing.
The issue was Stockley getting injured and having no better alternatives to start.
In League One, spending six figures on a player that can't play 90 minute is mindless. What a waste.
If not Aneke who would you have signed in January and how much would you have paid?
But who were these excellent goal scoring strikers, that were fully fit and available in January for us to sign, preferably free or for less than £300K?
Plus of course they wanted to sign for us in our mid table nothing season?
Dion Charles for one. Better goalscoring record than Aneke, able to play 90 minutes. Went for a similar amount of money and suits Jackson's 3-5-2 formation.
But no we had to get the 30 minute wonder instead for 3 and a half years.1 -
leading scorer only playing half a game ??? Times really are bad !RonnieMoore said:
Why not he was our leading scorer only playing half a game .. he passed his medical at Birmingham and had NO injuries .. he went through a very tough medical at CAFC and was even sent to a specialist for second opinions .. but again passed with flying colours… this injury is a new one nothing to do with previous problemsHartleypete said:3.5 fucking years what moron agreed that?
Sums up the shambles that is CAFC.0 -
Dion Charles would not come down this way as has already been mentioned a few times so scratch that one off your list. We benefitted from it ourselves in 2018 when Lyle chose us over Sunderland.SELR_addicks said:
You're telling me there's not a single striker that would be available for 300k or less that is capable of playing 90 minutes and better than Davison?Covered End said:
Yes, that's easy to say.J BLOCK said:
A sane person would have preferred we sign a striker who is fit enough to start football matches. It's as simple as that.Covered End said:
So would you have preferred not to sign Aneke and keep Davison instead?SELR_addicks said:
In the Premier League you can waste money on a bench striker sure.Covered End said:
Even you must believe every club should have a striker on the bench?SELR_addicks said:
Why would you pay a fee for a player that can only play a third of games?Dazzler21 said:
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.
If you have the top goal scorer in the league (per minutes played), on the bench I see that as a good thing.
The issue was Stockley getting injured and having no better alternatives to start.
In League One, spending six figures on a player that can't play 90 minute is mindless. What a waste.
If not Aneke who would you have signed in January and how much would you have paid?
But who were these excellent goal scoring strikers, that were fully fit and available in January for us to sign, preferably free or for less than £300K?
Plus of course they wanted to sign for us in our mid table nothing season?
Dion Charles for one. Better goalscoring record than Aneke, able to play 90 minutes. Went for a similar amount of money and suits Jackson's 3-5-2 formation.
But no we had to get the 30 minute wonder instead for 3 and a half years.1 -
Sure but you can't say that we couldn't sign ANYONE else when literally one of the best strikers in the division went for the same money that Aneke did.Callumcafc said:
Dion Charles would not come down this way as has already been mentioned a few times so scratch that one off your list. We benefitted from it ourselves in 2018 when Lyle chose us over Sunderland.SELR_addicks said:
You're telling me there's not a single striker that would be available for 300k or less that is capable of playing 90 minutes and better than Davison?Covered End said:
Yes, that's easy to say.J BLOCK said:
A sane person would have preferred we sign a striker who is fit enough to start football matches. It's as simple as that.Covered End said:
So would you have preferred not to sign Aneke and keep Davison instead?SELR_addicks said:
In the Premier League you can waste money on a bench striker sure.Covered End said:
Even you must believe every club should have a striker on the bench?SELR_addicks said:
Why would you pay a fee for a player that can only play a third of games?Dazzler21 said:
You know we(the club) thought exactly that?SELR_addicks said:
Gutted he wasn't replaced and disappointed we bought him back thinking he would play 90 minutes for 3 years injury free.Chunes said:Strange how everyone was gutted he left and now disappointed he has returned.
Just general frustration again, IMO.
If you have the top goal scorer in the league (per minutes played), on the bench I see that as a good thing.
The issue was Stockley getting injured and having no better alternatives to start.
In League One, spending six figures on a player that can't play 90 minute is mindless. What a waste.
If not Aneke who would you have signed in January and how much would you have paid?
But who were these excellent goal scoring strikers, that were fully fit and available in January for us to sign, preferably free or for less than £300K?
Plus of course they wanted to sign for us in our mid table nothing season?
Dion Charles for one. Better goalscoring record than Aneke, able to play 90 minutes. Went for a similar amount of money and suits Jackson's 3-5-2 formation.
But no we had to get the 30 minute wonder instead for 3 and a half years.
Someone better, younger, fitter and more prolific than Aneke went for the same money in the same window.0
This discussion has been closed.
