Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Summer 2022 transfer rumours (Gilbey loan confirmed p513, a signing falls through last minute p541)
Comments
-
0
-
FishCostaFortune said:far too good for 23s so a loan move is needed.Put it this way, he won PL2 player of the season, which was won by Balogun the year before, who then was a regular starter on loan at Middlesbrough last season.0
-
mart77 said:
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.CAFCBourne said: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
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 anytimemart77 said:
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.CAFCBourne said: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 fast2 -
I like how he seems comfortable taking up positions centrally as well being able to take on people down the flanks. It’s something I’ve noticed about McKirdy when I’ve looked at his highlights, and it’s something I think we are missing as alluded to in my earlier post about Stockley.SouthWest_Addicks said:FishCostaFortune said:far too good for 23s so a loan move is needed.Put it this way, he won PL2 player of the season, which was won by Balogun the year before, who then was a regular starter on loan at Middlesbrough last season.Can’t remember once really seeing Kirk or CBT take up a central position.0 -
They were physical and talented.MuttleyCAFC said:He improved the team through that period. I'm not saying they were donkeys but they were a physical side and bullied teams. I saw it for myself. Nothing wrong with that btw. I like it.I don’t think just being athletic is enough anymore league 1 is worlds away from what it was 10 years ago in terms of talent and quality.
if we want to go up and stay up, I think we need to do it the right way, much like Wilder did, not with “one talented player” and some athletes.0 -
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....CAFCBourne said:mart77 said:
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.CAFCBourne said: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
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 anytimemart77 said:
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.CAFCBourne said: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
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?8 -
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.Cafc43v3r said:
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....CAFCBourne said:mart77 said:
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.CAFCBourne said: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
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 anytimemart77 said:
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.CAFCBourne said: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
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?
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.4 -
The difference is many people comment on Aneke once or twice, whereas you comment on Aneke multiple times, often daily and as you say, you have done since January.addick1956 said:
I said that last January and still get pelters now. People think I am obsessed with his inability to stay fit long enough for us not to need a photo to remember who he is. He can't complete a fucking game often and if there are two game in 4 days he cannot do that !CAFCBourne said: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
The same people have a go at Innis but he does complete games and is ready for another 4 days later. It is a shame he has problems.
Likewise Aneke but he just buggered off and then TS lumbered the team with Sick note 2.
Aneke is treated like the 2nd coming by some and is immobile to others. He is neither.
If he got fit ,properly fit, he would be off again I think.
Aneke is the best goal scoring substitute in this division and if he is used as such, we have the best.
What we clearly need to do is have sufficient strikers that Aneke is kept as the 30 min substitute.
The issue is not that we resigned one of the best goal scorers in the division, it's recruiting suitable back up for Stockley or to possibly start alongside Stockley.13 -
I think that is more DJs game and how he is used best. But he’s still not that good and Rak-Sakyi is probably a lot better. In the Colchester game I noticed a few times DJ looked like he was playing as an attacking midfielder with Clayden so far forward being the outlet on the left meaning DJ could drift centrallyFishCostaFortune said:
I like how he seems comfortable taking up positions centrally as well being able to take on people down the flanks. It’s something I’ve noticed about McKirdy when I’ve looked at his highlights, and it’s something I think we are missing as alluded to in my earlier post about Stockley.SouthWest_Addicks said:FishCostaFortune said:far too good for 23s so a loan move is needed.Put it this way, he won PL2 player of the season, which was won by Balogun the year before, who then was a regular starter on loan at Middlesbrough last season.Can’t remember once really seeing Kirk or CBT take up a central position.1 -
Chuks but that only works if he's fit enough to be on the bench.Cafc43v3r said:
You always have a striker on the bench. You bring them on 90% of the time.....CAFCBourne said:mart77 said:
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.CAFCBourne said: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
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 anytimemart77 said:
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.CAFCBourne said: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
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?
Don't think anyone else has mentioned it on CL but his fitness record isn't good, you know.
Chuks was due to have a scan today. We shall see soon enough if it was just a precaution or if he's going to miss games.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yeah indeed. I thought the same with the Kilmarnock game - almost felt like Aneke and DJ were playing behind Davison-Ponytail.NabySarr said:
I think that is more DJs game and how he is used best. But he’s still not that good and Rak-Sakyi is probably a lot better. In the Colchester game I noticed a few times DJ looked like he was playing as an attacking midfielder with Clayden so far forward being the outlet on the left meaning DJ could drift centrallyFishCostaFortune said:
I like how he seems comfortable taking up positions centrally as well being able to take on people down the flanks. It’s something I’ve noticed about McKirdy when I’ve looked at his highlights, and it’s something I think we are missing as alluded to in my earlier post about Stockley.SouthWest_Addicks said:FishCostaFortune said:far too good for 23s so a loan move is needed.Put it this way, he won PL2 player of the season, which was won by Balogun the year before, who then was a regular starter on loan at Middlesbrough last season.Can’t remember once really seeing Kirk or CBT take up a central position.3 -
The thing about the striker/forward situation for me is that I truly believe (however unlikely it is now looking), that we need/ed someone better than both Stockley and Aneke to get us out of this league.10
-
I agree but also agree it is looking increasingly unlikely.cabbles said:The thing about the striker/forward situation for me is that I truly believe (however unlikely it is now looking), that we need/ed someone better than both Stockley and Aneke to get us out of this league.
10th.
5 -
Wigan got promoted with both there main strikers scoring 15 and 12.cabbles said:The thing about the striker/forward situation for me is that I truly believe (however unlikely it is now looking), that we need/ed someone better than both Stockley and Aneke to get us out of this league.
Rotherham had 19 and 11
Sunderland 24 and 10.
Stockley if he remains fit and plays a full season could get 15, same with Aneke.
I think we need to see more goal contributions from our wingers and midfielders if anything. Which we may get under Ben Garner’s attacking football (though conversely we may get less goals from Stockley because of the system).0 -
Our strike force as it stands will be the reason we do not compete at the top of the division sadly. Asking Stockley to drop in,control, pass and then get himself into the box continuously in a game is a stretch to say the least, Aneke just don’t see the point on relying on him whatsoever, how many games do we expect Aneke to play for for his 15 goals, in fact it’s not even games it’s minutes.FishCostaFortune said:
Wigan got promoted with both there main strikers scoring 15 and 12.cabbles said:The thing about the striker/forward situation for me is that I truly believe (however unlikely it is now looking), that we need/ed someone better than both Stockley and Aneke to get us out of this league.
Rotherham had 19 and 11
Sunderland 24 and 10.
Stockley if he remains fit and plays a full season could get 15, same with Aneke.
I think we need to see more goal contributions from our wingers and midfielders if anything. Which we may get under Ben Garner’s attacking football (though conversely we may get less goals from Stockley because of the system).2 -
Can’t think of anyone else who has on the bench a player who can only ever do at most 30 minutes a week. Even so if that were the case it would be ok but he can’t be trusted to ever be fit to do so. And if he’s the only striker on the bench what happens when the one on the pitch gets injured after 10 minutes? Chuks would come on, saunter around like a big lump of wood, get petulant because he’s having to play too much football and get sent off so his fragile body can get a rest not just that game but for a few after. Whoever sanctioned his return, for a fee too, really needs to give his head a wobble. I never agree with @addick1956 on anything else but in this case he is spot on.Covered End said:
The difference is many people comment on Aneke once or twice, whereas you comment on Aneke multiple times, often daily and as you say, you have done since January.addick1956 said:
I said that last January and still get pelters now. People think I am obsessed with his inability to stay fit long enough for us not to need a photo to remember who he is. He can't complete a fucking game often and if there are two game in 4 days he cannot do that !CAFCBourne said: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
The same people have a go at Innis but he does complete games and is ready for another 4 days later. It is a shame he has problems.
Likewise Aneke but he just buggered off and then TS lumbered the team with Sick note 2.
Aneke is treated like the 2nd coming by some and is immobile to others. He is neither.
If he got fit ,properly fit, he would be off again I think.
Aneke is the best goal scoring substitute in this division and if he is used as such, we have the best.
What we clearly need to do is have sufficient strikers that Aneke is kept as the 30 min substitute.
The issue is not that we resigned one of the best goal scorers in the division, it's recruiting suitable back up for Stockley or to possibly start alongside Stockley.
5 -
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 score8
-
I'm actually surprised they're not looking to try and get him a championship loan. England U20 international, already made his PL debut, he should be very good in league one.Richard J said:Rak Sakri would be a great signing.He first impressed me at the friendly at Selhurst Park last season.0 -
Not a cheat code if he doesn’t score,gets frustrated like he does and either gets taken off or sent off. He is a complete luxury, but we haven’t got other forwards that should allow us that luxury. As it stands more of an own goal!!🤣Leuth said: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 score1 -
Mate apart from your view on Gilbey ( where we differ ) I normally agree with your posts. However this one is just silly ! How can you claim that if a player is on the pitch 20 mins out of a possible 270 is acceptable is beyond me ... sorryLeuth said: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 score1 -
Sponsored links:
-
I guess on your first loan, you're really looking to be given first team football and maybe that wouldn't be so guaranteed in the Championship. We have had a few first loans over the last few years and they do seem to do better when they are nearer home. It could definitely be one to suit all parties. We'll just have to swallow that we're in a position to be taking Palace youngsters...Chris_from_Sidcup said:
I'm actually surprised they're not looking to try and get him a championship loan. England U20 international, already made his PL debut, he should be very good in league one.Richard J said:Rak Sakri would be a great signing.He first impressed me at the friendly at Selhurst Park last season.
0 -
Aneke gets injured when he's required to play more than 30 mins, especially when he starts games.LargeAddick said:
Can’t think of anyone else who has on the bench a player who can only ever do at most 30 minutes a week. Even so if that were the case it would be ok but he can’t be trusted to ever be fit to do so. And if he’s the only striker on the bench what happens when the one on the pitch gets injured after 10 minutes? Chuks would come on, saunter around like a big lump of wood, get petulant because he’s having to play too much football and get sent off so his fragile body can get a rest not just that game but for a few after. Whoever sanctioned his return, for a fee too, really needs to give his head a wobble. I never agree with @addick1956 on anything else but in this case he is spot on.Covered End said:
The difference is many people comment on Aneke once or twice, whereas you comment on Aneke multiple times, often daily and as you say, you have done since January.addick1956 said:
I said that last January and still get pelters now. People think I am obsessed with his inability to stay fit long enough for us not to need a photo to remember who he is. He can't complete a fucking game often and if there are two game in 4 days he cannot do that !CAFCBourne said: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
The same people have a go at Innis but he does complete games and is ready for another 4 days later. It is a shame he has problems.
Likewise Aneke but he just buggered off and then TS lumbered the team with Sick note 2.
Aneke is treated like the 2nd coming by some and is immobile to others. He is neither.
If he got fit ,properly fit, he would be off again I think.
Aneke is the best goal scoring substitute in this division and if he is used as such, we have the best.
What we clearly need to do is have sufficient strikers that Aneke is kept as the 30 min substitute.
The issue is not that we resigned one of the best goal scorers in the division, it's recruiting suitable back up for Stockley or to possibly start alongside Stockley.
I think we'd all agree Aneke is unique with his fitness issue.
I agree you would need 2 strikers on the bench, Aneke pus A N Other.
But I don't see that as a big problem with 5 subs (I think) on the bench.
I'm still pleased we got him back, although I doubt anyone thinks it ideal.
An alternative player with his goal scoring ability would likely cost £500K minimum.
We had the opportunity to re-sign the player with the best or second best goal scoring record per minutes played in the division and took it.
I can't think of another L1 goal scorer who can change/win a game and would be happy to sit on the bench.
I'd rather Chuks on the bench than say Davison.6 -
There’s a lot of focus on Stockley or him his replacement, but if we use Swindon’s team from last season as a template McKirdy is the type of player we’re really missing.
Davison replaced Simpson as their main striker, between them they scored 18 league goals.
When they used 4-3-3 McKirdy played out wide and he scored 21 in the league.
Our wide players all have their strengths and I think we can get more goals out of them but I’m not confident any of them would get anywhere near 15+.
It’s probably one reason we’ve never consistently made a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 formation work, at best we’ve had someone like Holmes or Fosu get around double figures, but either scoring around 20 never felt realistic.
You can see why the young Palace player is someone we’re looking at, a wide forward who seems to be a natural goalscorer.
Getting that player would take this team up a level or two and Stockley’s limitations wouldn’t be such a concern. Hopefully we’re looking for an alternative to Stockley too, and perhaps a player who can play both LB and LCB to save us bringing in two defenders.
11 -
There's 5 subs to be used this year and Aneke will be one of them.
He's proven to make an impact from the bench, a game changer even - there's goals in that boy and often opponents find him unplayable.
Okay, fitness is an issue and his new manager even said that Chuks is "deconditioned".
But assuming he stays away from long term injury and only as available as his previous full season here, he's likely to be available for a large number of games.
Sure, some people will say that I'm making an assumption ...... but it's no more or less valid than those saying he'll never be fit enough to make an impact.
Let's see how it pans out.
3 -
Lots of talk about Anekes effectiveness from the bench. In the past he has been effective when he has come on for the last 30 minutes against a tiring defence. I wonder how effective is he going to be this season when with 5 subs available, that defence might not quite so tired as previously?0
-
Scoham said:
When they used 4-3-3 McKirdy played out wide and he scored 21 in the league.
.
You don't score 21 from out wide unless you take up fairly central position when it comes in from the opposite flank. Unless your Mahrez ! Would need to check out to see if he did pick up the ball wide and what angle he shot from. Definitely a goal scoring forward who can go wide and central like a Grant, Taylor did and Mckirdy sounds like he fits the bill.0 -
Get CBT on the right. Let Kirk/DJ battle out the left.
Who would compete with CBT for the right forward spot?0 -
He scored a lot of poachers goals inside the box. If we sign him or similar then on paper they’ll be playing one of the wide roles in the front three.soapboxsam said:Scoham said:
When they used 4-3-3 McKirdy played out wide and he scored 21 in the league.
.
You don't score 21 from out wide unless you take up fairly central position when it comes in from the opposite flank. Unless your Mahrez ! Would need to check out to see if he did pick up the ball wide and what angle he shot from. Definitely a goal scoring forward who can go wide and central like a Grant, Taylor did and Mckirdy sounds like he fits the bill.
https://youtu.be/p-Yc6bFuW-U
0 -
One thing is for sure, we are going to need goals from the midfield. The only players who might get a lot and I use the word might are Gilbey and or Payne for me. Primarily Gilbey, as he buys a ticket more than most. JFC gives you shots/free kicks. But two of those probably won't start.0
-
Assuming Chuks would be up against one of the opposing teams centre backs then i'm not sure they would be subbed. I've no figures to back this up at all but i'm sure most teams don't tend to sub their centre backs. Unless they were injured or having a shocker in which case we'd likely be winning and Aneke might not even need to be on.church-lane said:Lots of talk about Anekes effectiveness from the bench. In the past he has been effective when he has come on for the last 30 minutes against a tiring defence. I wonder how effective is he going to be this season when with 5 subs available, that defence might not quite so tired as previously?3
