Wilfried Bony

[Canaryboy]

And that 50:50 is generous because he came from the Portuguese league, after United landed Cristiano Ronaldo the Premier League imported numerous overpriced players like Bosingwa. For every Ricardo Carvalho there has been multiple Anderson's (or Bebe's). 

The continental transfer market is a minefield though isn't it, Jozy Altidore is a similar build, similar age, and was similarly prolific in the same two seasons in the same league as Wilfried Bony. 

18 months later and one goes to Man City for £25m, and the goes to the MLS as a make weight for a 32 year old. 

 

[BroadstairsR]

Nobody has mentioned tha RVW was a Dutch international, albeit not regularly. To achieve this is an accolade and this combined with his goal scoring at Sporting suggested that his pedigree was worth the money we paid for him. Mostr of us thought that the Club had done well to land him.

I do remember, though, the first time I saw him was in a Dutch international game which was televised and after his signing for us but prior to his arrival at Carrow Road. He came on for the second half and I remember thinking how ineffective he was and hoping that he would put on a better showing for us. He never did and I don't believe he has been selected for Holland since.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

I agree CanaryBoy with your premise and vigorously argued the point on that nest of rats that we've all left for the better life here.

Ricky was part of a syndrome and not some unique failure of Hughton's or McNally's. Many foreign strikers fail. Some fail completely like those you've mentioned and similar like Helenius at Villa and Soldado at Spurs. Others come in and make an early splash usually because of their novelty value but run out of steam quickly when the novelty wears off and teams work them out. Jelavic and Michu spring to mind though I do wonder if Benteke also comesinto that group.

Credit to Bony for making it. The attrition rate is remarkably high and I think City fans are far too critical of both Ricky and the Club. Any rational view would suggest it was always no better than 50:50 that he'd make it.

Think its sad really when smaller clubs have 'one season wonders' and fail to cash in properly. Swansea could have made an £18m profit on Michu had they sold, such was his impact. They didnt and now his value has evaporated. We lost 8.5m minus whatever we can recoup for him. But how would we feel if he'd had a great first half of the season, had wowed the league and teams like Man Utd made offers of say 20m and we turned it down, only for RvW to return to base and then us only being able to sell him for whatever we get from St Etienne (if they take up the option)?

In theory we'd have missed out on more money that way. Would that be harder to take?

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Nobody has mentioned tha RVW was a Dutch international, albeit not regularly. To achieve this is an accolade and this combined with his goal scoring at Sporting suggested that his pedigree was worth the money we paid for him. Mostr of us thought that the Club had done well to land him.

I do remember, though, the first time I saw him was in a Dutch international game which was televised and after his signing for us but prior to his arrival at Carrow Road. He came on for the second half and I remember thinking how ineffective he was and hoping that he would put on a better showing for us. He never did and I don't believe he has been selected for Holland since.

Worth remembering that Michael Ricketts got an England cap once. Im sure there are worse one cap wonders, but he was the one that sprung to mind first

 

[Canaryboy]

Nobody has mentioned tha RVW was a Dutch international, albeit not regularly. To achieve this is an accolade and this combined with his goal scoring at Sporting suggested that his pedigree was worth the money we paid for him. Mostr of us thought that the Club had done well to land him.

The Holland team may well typically have four or five world class players in it at any one time, but that doesn't mean you have to be world class to get a game for them. Same applies to all of the top International sides. Sheffield Wednesday had a player with a Holland cap on the bench when I went to Hillsborough earlier in the season.

Whilst England are second rate in comparison, we all know that third rate players have got a few caps for us over the years. Steve Guppy, David Nugent, etc. 

Nugent even has an England goal, even if he did steal it from Jermaine Defoe (bet he doesn't regret that in hindsight, he'll always be able to tell people he has scored for England).

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

RVW just didn't have the physical attributes required to become a success at the top level of English football. I still have my doubts about whether he'd be much of a success in this division, and I think he'd still have been a flop if he'd signed for Liverpool. 

We all thought that we'd signed a £20m player for £9m. Frankly though, if he were a £20m player then he'd have signed for a club willing to pay £20m for him, and those types of clubs - Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Man Utd, Man City, clearly didn't consider him good enough for their teams. 

That's because he wasn't and isn't.  I think it remains tough for some people to accept that we wasted our money on him, but it happens every year to several Premier League teams, Sunderland wasted £8m their money on Altidore, Cardiff £8m for Cornelius, Liverpool £11m on Balotelli, this year it is Brown Ideye for £9m. 

They were all signed by their clubs in the belief that they would bring goals, and then they failed to deliver them. Happens all the time, RVW was just another flop. Norwich fans clung on to the hope that he was going to come good and start delivering but there were actually people calling it pretty early on.....

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1744071-why-ricky-van-wolfswinkel-will-be-a-premier-league-flop-with-norwich

The person in the link above stuck his neck out and predicted that he'd flop after his goalscoring debut, and was proved entirely correct. That was what the outside were seeing looking in, whilst we all looked at Van Wolfswinkel through a pair of yellow tinted specs. He was, unfortunately, just rubbish for us.

We can blame Hughton for signing him, but I'm not sure we can blame him for 'ruining' him. The truth is that he was an overrated player with very little to his overall game who was out of his depth in this league and didn't even seem to attempt to punch above his weight. He always looked like a bit of a wimp to me, Hooper is the better striker.  

At Man Utd they used to kick lumps out of Cristiano Ronaldo in training to try and toughen him up. Van Wolfswinkel needed his teammates to do the same here.

I remember reading that article last year and thinking it was very telling. At a point most people were still spaffing their pants over RvW (and note the reference to MOTD eulogising over him) this article got it spot on. You would think it was a report on our season, not a prediction.

It also makes the same point I made earlier about having spent all our money on two players not intended to play at the same time.

I wonder if we'd have managed to get Hooper in the January window prior whether we would have ever signed RvW. Did we sign Hooper simply because we failed to get him before and wanted to get our man this time? The decision to sign them both seemed a bit brainless - maybe we still had the Hooper hangover and then were presented with the opportunity to sign RvW and had a rush of blood to the head. I'll never really understand the decision to buy them both - they were never likely to complement each other, so were seemingly in competition with each other, which is a strange use of resources for a team in our position

 

[eatonparkboy]

If you can remember how many decent foreigners who contributed and improved NCFC then you are doing well. I don't means Brits or Eire but since the EU and Bosman rules were applied.

 

[splutcho]

I must say, I saw RVW 4 or 5 times for Sporting, before there was even any mention of us being interested, and thought "Christ, this kids good". I don't know what happened with us, but at some point, he could definitely play. I saw it with my own eyes.

 

[Dandy Mountfarto]

I must say, I saw RVW 4 or 5 times for Sporting, before there was even any mention of us being interested, and thought "Christ, this kids good". I don't know what happened with us, but at some point, he could definitely play. I saw it with my own eyes.

I imagine we watched the same games if it was post signing announcement and I totally agree.

What stuck out for me was his movement and the thing is, at the start of his Norwich career he was picking up the same positions and finding acres of space only to have no-one on the same wavelength. He'd peel back off the defender and expect the sort of cutback crosses he was getting from Capel at Sporting only to see Redmond shank it into the stands or an aimless ball punted into the 6 yard box.

Regardless of whether you think he was good enough we never gave him a chance with inverted wingers, midfielders barely allowed to cross the half way line, and expecting him to play with his back to goal like he was Holt.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11709/9569009/van-wolfswinkel-reveals-hurt

This article implies the same. I remember people commenting during the early games that RvW was taking up positions but wasnt being found, with noone even seemingly trying to play him in. As you say, Redmond shanking it into the crowd or Snodgrass tying himself in a knot or dawdling before finally inswinging a feeble ball to an RvW now surrounded by markers.

We didnt use him correctly, and after an extended period of this he was bound to either stop doing the things nobody was accessing, or attempt to do things he was not strong at. We bought a particular type of player, then didnt load him properly.

He was expected to fit in to our system (which he didnt - which raises the question why did we buy him and not someone else), rather than us building a team around ou marquee and anticipated star player.

Ricky had the potential to be our star player - yet we allowed him to rot. Is it simply a case that he was too good for us? We didnt have the calibre of player around him needed to get the best out of him?

As I've said before, if you have a prize orchid, but dont adequately fertilize or water it and it then withers and dies - do you blame the species, or do you blame the gardener?  I wonder how well RvW could have done at a team like Arsenal for instance

 

[GJP]

Absolutely no chance RVW was too good for us.

 

[splutcho]

Must be a reason he's scored everywhere but here.

 

[hogesar]

Rvw too good for us is the funniest thing ive heard today

 

[Din]

I think even Bony would've struggled last season in the system we played tbh. 

 

[GJP]

Well Bony is cut out to play upfront by himself. He's has a presence, carries a threat.

That wasn't true of RVW up on his own. Same for Hooper.

 

[Canaryboy]

Is it simply a case that he was too good for us? We didnt have the calibre of player around him needed to get the best out of him?

Perhaps Johan Elmander is world class too then. It is frankly unbelievable that RVW comes out of an utterly *bleep* season and is able to deflect responsibility onto his teammates. A situation that I suspect he is very comfortable with. The truth is that he was right up there with the worst of our players last season, and yet some of our better players get the blame for his complete inadequacy. 

RVW's failure to succeed in the Premier League is a huge part of the reason why we got relegated last season, yet still people seem to think that he's good enough to play for somebody like Arsenal. Its laughable.

So RVW only scored 1 goal because he's "too good", and Gary Hooper scores 7 because he was mediocre enough to fit in? Van Wolfswinkel had 44 shots last season and scored 1 goal. That means that 43 of his attempts failed to hit the back of the net. 

Gary Hooper had 42 chances in the league and buried 6 of them.

So lets discard this popular myth that nobody was good enough to understand Van Wolfswinkel, whilst Hooper thrived on quality service because he was easier to understand and wasn't too good. 

One buried some of his chances, and the other didn't. Perhaps if RVW had buried a few more of his we'd still be in the Premier League, lets not forget that. 

 

[Dandy Mountfarto]

Lets not pretend Hooper was a rousing success in Hughton's system, he scored 6 league goals in 32 games, at least one of which was a penalty, thats a worse record than Holt had under Hughton and worse than Morison had under Lambert.

He was better than RVW sure, but they are different players, as I said, a stroppy Holt in a supposedly worse team, who wanted to leave and seemed to try to get sent off every match, was better than Hooper.

Different players work better in different systems, if you put Javier Hernandez up front on his own in Hughton's system he'd play about as well as RVW did, doesn't mean he's a bad player.

edit: Now that I think of it one of Hooper's goals came for Adams

 

[Canaryboy]

It is true that every striker to play under Hughton struggled, in both of his two seasons, I'll give you that.  

But I still don't think we saw anything at all from RVW to suggest that he could ever be a success in the Premier League, whether that's because he isn't the right type of player for it or because he simply isn't good enough.

The fact that he couldn't wait to jump ship probably suggests that he too realises this, because he must surely know that the only way that he could have redeemed himself and become a success in English football would be to have remained here and gone back up with us.

No Premier League team is going to sign RVW for any amount of money, the only thing that could have fixed that would have been scoring 20+ goals on route back to the Premier League and then becoming more successful at the second attempt. 

His desire to move on a permanent to St Etienne, knowing that he will never get the chance in England again, does suggest that he himself has written off his chances of making it in England. This is the best paid league in the world, so that isn't a decision that a 25 year old would have made lightly.

He knew he didn't have what it takes, and he realised it pretty early on in my opinion. 

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Well Bony is cut out to play upfront by himself. He's has a presence, carries a threat.

That wasn't true of RVW up on his own. Same for Hooper.

This is exactly my point. Why did we sign players who werent cut out for the way Hughton had us set-up. Bony would have been. People have suggested we had that opportunity. This thread was started to ask whether thats true, or rhubarb?

If we genuinely could have had Bony then massive fail. I wonder if RvW might have been more suited to Swansea's style..?

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Perhaps Johan Elmander is world class too then. It is frankly unbelievable that RVW comes out of an utterly *bleep* season and is able to deflect responsibility onto his teammates. A situation that I suspect he is very comfortable with. The truth is that he was right up there with the worst of our players last season, and yet some of our better players get the blame for his complete inadequacy. 

RVW's failure to succeed in the Premier League is a huge part of the reason why we got relegated last season, yet still people seem to think that he's good enough to play for somebody like Arsenal. Its laughable.

So RVW only scored 1 goal because he's "too good", and Gary Hooper scores 7 because he was mediocre enough to fit in? Van Wolfswinkel had 44 shots last season and scored 1 goal. That means that 43 of his attempts failed to hit the back of the net. 

Gary Hooper had 42 chances in the league and buried 6 of them.

So lets discard this popular myth that nobody was good enough to understand Van Wolfswinkel, whilst Hooper thrived on quality service because he was easier to understand and wasn't too good. 

One buried some of his chances, and the other didn't. Perhaps if RVW had buried a few more of his we'd still be in the Premier League, lets not forget that. 

My point is that van Wolfswinkel is probably one of those 'luxury' players. Somebody who will do well at a top club because the rest of the team carry him and he's there to finish the move. Was it Anthony MacNamee that was also described as a luxury player? Wes is also somewhat of a luxury player - superb in the right situation but not what you need in others.

I genuinely believe that there are some players, preening peacocks, who are only suited for top teams - teams who will control possession and be on the front foot most of the time. Also there are players who do well at struggling clubs.

Take someone like Andy Cole - was always said he needed 5 opportunities to score 1 goal. Stick him in a dominant Newcastle team or a Man Utd and he will have multiple chances carved out for him, and eventually he will take one and everyone will say how good he is based on how often he scores.

Id like to know RvW's chance conversion rate at Sporting Lisbon.

If he were up front for Arsenal, they would carry him, his job would be easier. Wilshere and Ozil would be putting it on a plate for him several times a match. So I absolutely beleive in circumstances like that RvW could score a reasonable amount.

Look back on our complaints about RvW - was it the hatful of opportunities he scuffed, wasted or spooned week after week? Or was it the fact that he was totally anonymous every week?

We bought totally the wrong type of player. We needed someone like Grant Holt - robust, resilient, a fighter. Grant Holt carved out every inch of territory he had, he muscled his way into the game and in doing so dragged us up as well. 

This was the type of player we needed to replace the real Grant Holt, because in the Premiership we were always on the backfoot, usually outgunned, and we needed someone who could fight his way into the game.

This is not RvW. RvW is a player who finishes good team moves. He is a race horse, not a work horse and totally the wrong player for us to have gone out and bought. Again I ask the question - why the hell did we sign this kind of player for the way we were set up?

I repeat - RvW seems a pretty brainless signing.

That I think he could do well at Arsenal is simply a reflection of my belief he is a luxury player, that can succeed when carried by the right team. We were never in a position to carry a striker. We needed a striker who was going to carry us. Grant Holt was exactly the player we needed. Deciding to replace him arguably showed a lack of wisdom (maybe he was faltering - he still outscored all the others), who we replaced him with showed a total lack of understanding of how we had been successful previously. A brainless signing