Canaryboy
Well-Known Member
He didn't exactly thrive at Betis either though did he.
Funny that the two times he has played in real top level leagues he has failed to make an impact isn't it.
I think if you are a striker and you are completely ineffective in a team which plays a certain way, then you are just a million miles away from being a top striker... he's a 90's player basically, when you had 'poachers' and 'target men'. Now everybody wants a 'complete striker' like Kane, Lukaku, Benteke.
In the case of Benteke, he has managed to score goals in two very poor sides now. If you are a striker who relies entirely on the other 10 players on your side to create golden chances for you to score goals, then you aren't a Premier League striker. Van Wolfswinkel actually did miss numerous easy chances.
There is some truth in what he says, he was just completely the wrong striker for our team and a lot of that is on us for making such a stupid signing, but leaves a bit of a poor taste in the mouth that he is complete denial about just how poor he was for us. Lets not forget that Gary Hooper probably wasn't thrilled with our setup either but managed to grab a few goals out of half chances.
I'd be happier to concede that he is correct in his assessment if he'd at least scored 3 or 4 goals that season. It wasn't all down to Hughton or his team mates, a large part of it was down to his lack of mental strength. He lost confidence rapidly and seem to get more and more desperate... think some of it is down to his temperament to be honest.
Elmander also failed to score in that team but managed to get on with it without looking like he was going to cry every game. I think sharing the blame 50-50 is much fairer than just allowing him to *bleep* us off every couple of months.
In hindsight us fans were stupid to celebrate signing what we thought was some £20m super striker, he'd been watched by numerous Premier League clubs for years and nobody else made the move. Teams always want a top goalscorer, clearly nobody else was convinced that he was one. The winner in all of this was his 10% man.
Funny that the two times he has played in real top level leagues he has failed to make an impact isn't it.
I think if you are a striker and you are completely ineffective in a team which plays a certain way, then you are just a million miles away from being a top striker... he's a 90's player basically, when you had 'poachers' and 'target men'. Now everybody wants a 'complete striker' like Kane, Lukaku, Benteke.
In the case of Benteke, he has managed to score goals in two very poor sides now. If you are a striker who relies entirely on the other 10 players on your side to create golden chances for you to score goals, then you aren't a Premier League striker. Van Wolfswinkel actually did miss numerous easy chances.
There is some truth in what he says, he was just completely the wrong striker for our team and a lot of that is on us for making such a stupid signing, but leaves a bit of a poor taste in the mouth that he is complete denial about just how poor he was for us. Lets not forget that Gary Hooper probably wasn't thrilled with our setup either but managed to grab a few goals out of half chances.
I'd be happier to concede that he is correct in his assessment if he'd at least scored 3 or 4 goals that season. It wasn't all down to Hughton or his team mates, a large part of it was down to his lack of mental strength. He lost confidence rapidly and seem to get more and more desperate... think some of it is down to his temperament to be honest.
Elmander also failed to score in that team but managed to get on with it without looking like he was going to cry every game. I think sharing the blame 50-50 is much fairer than just allowing him to *bleep* us off every couple of months.
In hindsight us fans were stupid to celebrate signing what we thought was some £20m super striker, he'd been watched by numerous Premier League clubs for years and nobody else made the move. Teams always want a top goalscorer, clearly nobody else was convinced that he was one. The winner in all of this was his 10% man.
Last edited by a moderator:
Canaryboy
Well-Known Member
ps. Stick Cameron Jerome in the Eredivisie for a year and I bet he'd bang in 20 too. He can't score goals in the Premier League either.
Canaryboy
Well-Known Member
pps. Van Wolfswinkel should have a bit more respect for a club which gave him a singing on fee of probably £1m, paid him what is likely to be by far his largest ever salary, and then sold him for an £8m loss. Its not like we have particularly fond memories of that deal either is it. When we got relegated his agent also had to cheek to keep going in the paper and saying that the Championship is beneath him, but Neil Adams then got stick for taking the number 9 shirt off him... we don't owe him anything.
G
gerryinromania
Well-Known Member
I was unlucky to see him on the pitch on one of my trips back. He was like a frightened school boy trying to hide from the big boys, not too clever on his loan moves either
G
GJP
Well-Known Member
Just sounds like a whingey little bitch.
morty
Moderator
Staff member
Don't disagree we weren't playing well, but kick and rush? Makes me think of Wimbledon in the crazy gang era, playing ugly football.
Why is he even still bitching anyway?
Why is he even still bitching anyway?
Canaryboy
Well-Known Member
Because he's still embarrassed
hogesar
Well-Known Member
I still don't think we played THAT directly under Hughton, if anything we were more direct under Lambert. Kick and Rush kind of goes against everything Hughton stands for as a coach.
Anyway, he's a bang average striker who's failed in the top leagues but will make a decent career as a poacher in the lesser leagues. Which is reflected in his entire career path.
Anyway, he's a bang average striker who's failed in the top leagues but will make a decent career as a poacher in the lesser leagues. Which is reflected in his entire career path.
Din
Well-Known Member
I think there is a half-decent player in there. His first game against Everton he was immense and he played well in 3-4 matches after that until he got injured against Stoke for about a month. After that his confidence just drained and he was quite frankly awful, and wasn't helped by Hughton's hoofball. Our football under Hughton didn't suit him at all however as CB points out it didn't suit Gary Hooper either yet he still got 8 goals that season. I think when we signed him he was capable of getting 8-10 goals in a season under the right system, however it just wasn't to be.
Why he's still talking about this 4 years later is beyond me. It's boring to be honest and everything that can be said about it has been said.
Why he's still talking about this 4 years later is beyond me. It's boring to be honest and everything that can be said about it has been said.
G
GJP
Well-Known Member
Described as "pony" by a fellow player while at the club together.
Canaryboy
Well-Known Member
I think a large part of his problem was that he was a bit of a wimp to be honest, and whining about the past doesn't do anything at all to change that perception.
I've used this example when talking about Jacob Murphy, but at Man Utd a few of their alpha's spent 6 months kicking lumps out of Cristiano Ronaldo in training when he was 18 to toughen him up and make him suitable for English football, and Cristiano Ronaldo now concedes that this treatment basically made him as a player.
That's probably what Van Wolfswinkel needed when he was 18/19.
I've used this example when talking about Jacob Murphy, but at Man Utd a few of their alpha's spent 6 months kicking lumps out of Cristiano Ronaldo in training when he was 18 to toughen him up and make him suitable for English football, and Cristiano Ronaldo now concedes that this treatment basically made him as a player.
That's probably what Van Wolfswinkel needed when he was 18/19.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sit with the City fans who turn up
Free to join, free to read. Introduce yourself, pick a player thread, and get stuck into the next match thread.