He's got a better goals per minutes / touches record than that bloke at Man City.
A third tier, injury prone Haaland is a great comparison to be fair.
No it really isn't.
Haaland is a monster in a league of his own obviously. But Chuks has been scoring better than a goal every 100 minutes for almost three years now. That's freakish in itself.
20/21 - a goal every 102 mins 21/22 - a goal every 111 mins 22/23 - a goal every 15 mins
Why isn't it a good comparison?
Not sure it is "almost three years"? That would be going back to October 2019 during which time Aneke has scored 22 goals. Haaland has scored 20 in 10 weeks.
MINUTES PER GOAL
Please don't shout Dazzer. The point I am making is that if we are going back three years for goals per minute then we have to include 2019-20 albeit from October onwards. Aneke didn't score a single goal from October onwards that season. Ignoring the first 9 games, he played for 431 minutes with zero goals.
League above. Covered by the "Third Tier" part of the comment.
Then it's not three years is it? You can't have it both ways unless we are calling this one game "a year"
Pendant. :-)
Call it two years if you want, I only said almost three because 20-21 started in 2020 and 22-23 will end in 2023.
Well I sincerely hope he stays fit and carries on scoring at that rate because we still have 33 games to the end of 22-23
He's got a better goals per minutes / touches record than that bloke at Man City.
A third tier, injury prone Haaland is a great comparison to be fair.
No it really isn't.
Haaland is a monster in a league of his own obviously. But Chuks has been scoring better than a goal every 100 minutes for almost three years now. That's freakish in itself.
20/21 - a goal every 102 mins 21/22 - a goal every 111 mins 22/23 - a goal every 15 mins
Why isn't it a good comparison?
Not sure it is "almost three years"? That would be going back to October 2019 during which time Aneke has scored 22 goals. Haaland has scored 20 in 10 weeks.
MINUTES PER GOAL
Please don't shout Dazzer. The point I am making is that if we are going back three years for goals per minute then we have to include 2019-20 albeit from October onwards. Aneke didn't score a single goal from October onwards that season. Ignoring the first 9 games, he played for 431 minutes with zero goals.
League above. Covered by the "Third Tier" part of the comment.
Then it's not three years is it? You can't have it both ways unless we are calling this one game "a year"
Pendant. :-)
Call it two years if you want, I only said almost three because 20-21 started in 2020 and 22-23 will end in 2023.
This is reminding me of this online argument. Classic.
Delighted for him tonight. Got the third and helped in the build up for the 4th. Also delighted the fans there gave him such a good reception which was a mile away from the misery guts on this thread.who seemed to revel in the odd counting of games he had not played a part in. Hope he can stay fit, we are a different proposition when he is on the pitch.
The reaction to Chuks warming up tonight and also when he came on showed he is still a very popular player outside the social media sphere.
Nobody has ever said he isn't popular. Just because some rightly question his injury record and subsequent availability doesn't mean they don't like him. Even tonight the natural time to have brought him on was when Leaburn went off, 26 minutes to go, but he's obviously not fit enough for even that at the moment so had to wait a bit longer. Just lucky we weren't chasing the game.
The reaction to Chuks warming up tonight and also when he came on showed he is still a very popular player outside the social media sphere.
Nobody has ever said he isn't popular. Just because some rightly question his injury record and subsequent availability doesn't mean they don't like him. Even tonight the natural time to have brought him on was when Leaburn went off, 26 minutes to go, but he's obviously not fit enough for even that at the moment so had to wait a bit longer. Just lucky we weren't chasing the game.
There's about 25+ pages of people saying we should never have signed him. I don't think you can call that 'popular'!
The tequila song being sung for him wasn’t it . I knew the aiden mcgeedy version , is it just replaced by a chuuucks aneeeeke it just didn’t sound that clear anyone have a video of it so I can get my timing right rather than guessing it
The reaction to Chuks warming up tonight and also when he came on showed he is still a very popular player outside the social media sphere.
Nobody has ever said he isn't popular. Just because some rightly question his injury record and subsequent availability doesn't mean they don't like him. Even tonight the natural time to have brought him on was when Leaburn went off, 26 minutes to go, but he's obviously not fit enough for even that at the moment so had to wait a bit longer. Just lucky we weren't chasing the game.
There's about 25+ pages of people saying we should never have signed him. I don't think you can call that 'popular'!
And I'm one of them. But it doesn't mean I don't like him. His ability isn't in question.
Delighted for him tonight. Got the third and helped in the build up for the 4th. Also delighted the fans there gave him such a good reception which was a mile away from the misery guts on this thread.who seemed to revel in the odd counting of games he had not played a part in. Hope he can stay fit, we are a different proposition when he is on the pitch.
I started counting the games because I was told he didnt have an injury problem.
I dont think anyone has doubted his ability and I'm sure we are all pleased, and relieved, hes now finally made an appearance.
But let's not pretend all is suddenly rosy or the wisdom of the signing is instantly justifiable.
Delighted for him tonight. Got the third and helped in the build up for the 4th. Also delighted the fans there gave him such a good reception which was a mile away from the misery guts on this thread.who seemed to revel in the odd counting of games he had not played a part in. Hope he can stay fit, we are a different proposition when he is on the pitch.
I started counting the games because I was told he didnt have an injury problem.
I dont think anyone has doubted his ability and I'm sure we are all pleased, and relieved, hes now finally made an appearance.
But let's not pretend all is suddenly rosy or the wisdom of the signing is instantly justifiable.
In fairness, him being out injured and missing a string of games isn’t common.
The reaction to Chuks warming up tonight and also when he came on showed he is still a very popular player outside the social media sphere.
Nobody has ever said he isn't popular. Just because some rightly question his injury record and subsequent availability doesn't mean they don't like him. Even tonight the natural time to have brought him on was when Leaburn went off, 26 minutes to go, but he's obviously not fit enough for even that at the moment so had to wait a bit longer. Just lucky we weren't chasing the game.
There's about 25+ pages of people saying we should never have signed him. I don't think you can call that 'popular'!
Just realised that you were one of the people saying his injury record wasn't bad. What do you think now?
(And I don't mean that in a confrontational or "told you so" way. Just interested to see if you've changes your mind at all.)
Here’s the acid test though if Leaburn is out for an extended period of time will we ever feel confident to start Chuks in a game?
If not we won’t be able to go 4-4-2, and will likely have to revert back to the 4-3-3 and hope that we are still in the game by the time we can bring Chuks on for his cameo.
Hopefully we could stick CBT up front as a makeshift forward if needed. Because Stockley really needs someone who can run beyond.
If CBT could improve his composure when shooting that could be a great shout Calum, pace up top, I like it.
Here’s the acid test though if Leaburn is out for an extended period of time will we ever feel confident to start Chuks in a game?
If not we won’t be able to go 4-4-2, and will likely have to revert back to the 4-3-3 and hope that we are still in the game by the time we can bring Chuks on for his cameo.
Hopefully we could stick CBT up front as a makeshift forward if needed. Because Stockley really needs someone who can run beyond.
If CBT could improve his composure when shooting that could be a great shout Calum, pace up top, I like it.
No. Putting CBT/JRS/Kirk up top will be as effective as Karel Fraeyes famous four-left back (and one on the bench) formation.
The reaction to Chuks warming up tonight and also when he came on showed he is still a very popular player outside the social media sphere.
Nobody has ever said he isn't popular. Just because some rightly question his injury record and subsequent availability doesn't mean they don't like him. Even tonight the natural time to have brought him on was when Leaburn went off, 26 minutes to go, but he's obviously not fit enough for even that at the moment so had to wait a bit longer. Just lucky we weren't chasing the game.
this - christ it would seem he wasn't even fit enough for 25 mins!.
desperate for him to stay fit and do well though, he's a proper handful when he plays and would be the difference between a potentially good season and a shit one
The reaction to Chuks warming up tonight and also when he came on showed he is still a very popular player outside the social media sphere.
Nobody has ever said he isn't popular. Just because some rightly question his injury record and subsequent availability doesn't mean they don't like him. Even tonight the natural time to have brought him on was when Leaburn went off, 26 minutes to go, but he's obviously not fit enough for even that at the moment so had to wait a bit longer. Just lucky we weren't chasing the game.
There's about 25+ pages of people saying we should never have signed him. I don't think you can call that 'popular'!
Just realised that you were one of the people saying his injury record wasn't bad. What do you think now?
(And I don't mean that in a confrontational or "told you so" way. Just interested to see if you've changes your mind at all.)
I know it wasn't aimed at me but FWIW I think both sides of the argument have a point.
Until this particular stretch he's not actually been injured and unable to play AT ALL for extended periods very often.... BUT that's because he seems only/best able to play for half a game at best (though when he is on the pitch he's one of the best/most effective we have.)
He doesn't get injured notably more often than the average but when he DOES get injured, he seems to take longer than usual to recover.
He's a very useful asset to have, though his value for money is perhaps more open to debate.
The reaction to Chuks warming up tonight and also when he came on showed he is still a very popular player outside the social media sphere.
Nobody has ever said he isn't popular. Just because some rightly question his injury record and subsequent availability doesn't mean they don't like him. Even tonight the natural time to have brought him on was when Leaburn went off, 26 minutes to go, but he's obviously not fit enough for even that at the moment so had to wait a bit longer. Just lucky we weren't chasing the game.
There's about 25+ pages of people saying we should never have signed him. I don't think you can call that 'popular'!
I think the majority of people would agree we shouldn't have signed him. We're pretty much skint but spent 300k (i think) and gave a 3 year deal to an injury prone striker who can't start games. Ultimately it was bad business.
But that doesn't mean we don't like the guy, of course we all want him to play and score goals. He's become a cult figure and he got one of the biggest cheers of the night when warming up so he's definitely popular.
If he'd been fit all season i'm confident at least a couple of our 7 draws would've been wins and then we'd be level with the play off spots.
The reaction to Chuks warming up tonight and also when he came on showed he is still a very popular player outside the social media sphere.
Nobody has ever said he isn't popular. Just because some rightly question his injury record and subsequent availability doesn't mean they don't like him. Even tonight the natural time to have brought him on was when Leaburn went off, 26 minutes to go, but he's obviously not fit enough for even that at the moment so had to wait a bit longer. Just lucky we weren't chasing the game.
There's about 25+ pages of people saying we should never have signed him. I don't think you can call that 'popular'!
Just realised that you were one of the people saying his injury record wasn't bad. What do you think now?
(And I don't mean that in a confrontational or "told you so" way. Just interested to see if you've changes your mind at all.)
At the time I posted that, I think he averaged 33-36 games per season (can't be bothered to find the post and check). That was comparable to other players (I think Gilbey, Matthews etc..) who weren't derided for their injury records.
Chuks could still play in 33 games this season. Which would more or less keep his average as it is.
So no, I don't think 35 games per season is a 'bad injury record' when other players on similar averages aren't held to the same standard, and especially when you compare that to the likes of Ryan Innis (guesstimating an av. of around 10 games per season over his career) or Johnny Williams (av. around 19 games per season).
But obviously, recency bias will play a big part in discussions here, as the guy has just got injured twice in a row and missed our opening 13 games.
Just watching the highlights and Chuks first time backheel flick to CBT on the 4th goal is ridiculously good. That’s the kind of quality link up play we’ve been missing with Stockley up front
Comments
Shots: 1
Goals: 1
Average songs per game: 3
Hope he can stay fit, we are a different proposition when he is on the pitch.
I knew the aiden mcgeedy version , is it just replaced by a chuuucks aneeeeke
it just didn’t sound that clear
anyone have a video of it so I can get my timing right rather than guessing it
I dont think anyone has doubted his ability and I'm sure we are all pleased, and relieved, hes now finally made an appearance.
But let's not pretend all is suddenly rosy or the wisdom of the signing is instantly justifiable.
(And I don't mean that in a confrontational or "told you so" way. Just interested to see if you've changes your mind at all.)
desperate for him to stay fit and do well though, he's a proper handful when he plays and would be the difference between a potentially good season and a shit one
Until this particular stretch he's not actually been injured and unable to play AT ALL for extended periods very often.... BUT that's because he seems only/best able to play for half a game at best (though when he is on the pitch he's one of the best/most effective we have.)
He doesn't get injured notably more often than the average but when he DOES get injured, he seems to take longer than usual to recover.
He's a very useful asset to have, though his value for money is perhaps more open to debate.
Net Goals: 0
Not good enough
But that doesn't mean we don't like the guy, of course we all want him to play and score goals. He's become a cult figure and he got one of the biggest cheers of the night when warming up so he's definitely popular.
If he'd been fit all season i'm confident at least a couple of our 7 draws would've been wins and then we'd be level with the play off spots.
Chuks could still play in 33 games this season. Which would more or less keep his average as it is.
So no, I don't think 35 games per season is a 'bad injury record' when other players on similar averages aren't held to the same standard, and especially when you compare that to the likes of Ryan Innis (guesstimating an av. of around 10 games per season over his career) or Johnny Williams (av. around 19 games per season).
But obviously, recency bias will play a big part in discussions here, as the guy has just got injured twice in a row and missed our opening 13 games.
only the next couple?, is that because he'll be injured again after that
sorry couldn't resist - only kidding Chuks!