The wolf

[Scott]

Guess I'm going to have to change my username now ?

 

[Bill and ben]

What's the betting that the wolf will be the subject of various debates this year? The type where we debate whether we were rught to sell or not based on his performance for his new club

 

[Indy_Bones]

Even I'd argue that you'd have to take the potential results with a pinch of salt though.

We all know and accept that the Dutch league isn't the best (currently ranked 7th out of top flight Euro leagues behind both Ligue 1 & Portuguese Liga), so a possible hatful of goals has to be tempered against this knowledge.

However, if it can be clearly seen that the system Vitesse are using is designed to get the best from RvW and thusly his goalscoring goes back to previous levels, I think it would be fair to say that this is an incredibly strong indication that we (and to some extent St.Etienne & definitely Betis), simply didn't correctly utilise the player, and that had we done so, we would likely have seen a far better goal return than we did.

This doesn't mean that he'd have finished with the golden boot, or that we'd have walked the league, or anything along similar lines, but a simple vindication that he IS a good player, that he can pose a very dangerous and genuine goal threat, and that we just used him totally wrong which lead to the 3 year saga that did nothing for us - or him....

 

[Canaryboy]

All you are basically saying is that if we'd designed a system entirely around helping Van Wolfswinkel to score as many goals as possible then he would have scored more goals, sounds like you are stating the obvious to me really and could apply the same logic to literally any striker at any club and in any league, but that doesn't mean it would be to the benefit of the team or the teams results, I don't see how he is good enough to build a team around personally and I don't see how he'd have been any more worthy of building a team around than Gary Hooper, another player who was the victim of Hughton tactics but showed a little more invention and was capable of creating his own chances now and again or making something out of a half chance. 

Perhaps it says as much about Van Wolfswinkel's lack of adaptability than it does about his team mates not getting the best out of him. It was patently obvious that he was lacking in strength for example, and couldn't compensate with pace, yet we never saw him attempt to add bulk. Could have worked on changing his own game if he wanted, and bulking up, and making amends in his second season. Instead he didn't change one iota abd considered the Championship beneath him, I think its a two way street really, he didn't make the best of his opportunity here whether that was made difficult for him or not. 

 

[GJP]

He's just not good enough. I remember my initial thoughts on him being "works hard but needs to sharpen up his touch" . 

Since then the list of weaknesses has very much outweighed the strengths. 

 

[Indy_Bones]

All you are basically saying is that if we'd designed a system entirely around helping Van Wolfswinkel to score as many goals as possible then he would have scored more goals, sounds like you are stating the obvious to me really and could apply the same logic to literally any striker at any club and in any league

Yes and no.

What I mean is that RvW would have thrived on certain types of balls and not others, we gave him far too many of the latter and virtually none of the former.

Where were the through balls for him to quickly turn and take a snapshot? Where were the flashing crosses low down for him to stick a toe on and divert into the corner? In fact, where was ANY supply that didn't either leave him trying to hold the ball up or somehow grow an extra foot whilst somehow outmuscling a guy who's 3 times his strength???

My argument is this, just because a teammate plays a good ball across, you still need the striker be in the right position and making the right runs to take advantage of it, and this in itself is an attritbute that quite a lot of strikers don't always have in their locker, in contrast, RvW was making an awful lot of good runs and getting in good positions, but then receiving jack all supply in exchange.

Whilst there are differences, and whilst RvW isn't the player they were, and that the modern game has indeed changed, nobody would have called the likes of Lineker and Muller *bleep* just because they worked in a niche area and required certain balls to score as prolifically as they did, instead they were rightly lauded for having that knack of being in the right place when the right balls came in. In fact, I'd argue that both those players frequently offered almost zero to the team overall - apart from giving them the knowledge that if they provide the supply, goals will come. RvW asked for the same and got f**k all in return...

 

[Canaryboy]

Any striker in the Premier League can only really expect 1 good chance in any game unless playing for one of the top sides, if he needs a specific type of chance to convert then that just makes him completely unsuitable, can't be picky you just need to try and make the best out of what you get and I think Hooper did that to some extent for the first half of that season at least. 

Was time for him to move on anyway, whether his start was hindered or not, he hasn't been a frequent goalscorer for years and is damaged goods now. Yeah, we probably damaged him, but Alex Neil obviously didn't fancy trying to fix him and so somebody else can give it a go. 

 

[Bill and ben]

Good on the lad, He is back firing. 4 in 4 or something for vitesse so far.  Hope he can prove a thing or two to the doubters.

now we need to prove that his sale was the right move for us.  Not ideal to wait until deadline day but the situation is recoverable.