Champagneblade
Stop moaning and get on with it
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 14,869
- Reaction score
- 42,205
Starting to feel a little sorry for the guy to be honest.
He's spent all his career working his way up the leagues after learning his craft, very similar to what Wilder has done.
He came as someone with flair, a definite goal scoring record and someone well known as a real grafter with a number of POTY behind him.
For reasons beyond me, he's been given just 132 minutes across 5 different appearances to show what he can do. When Brooks went down with glandular fever, it seemed an ideal time to introduce him, yet he made one start against Wolves, then was somewhat jettisoned.
The strange thing for me was that, despite the nature of that game, losing convincingly 3-0, he looked to be our main threat and had a decent game in contrast to some of his more established colleagues and this alone accounted for 71 of those 132 minutes.
I'm sure the history of United is littered with players we bought and were not given a chance but in hindsight were perhaps not up to it at the level we were at - take Luke Beckett as an example.
I know we hate to be fobbed off with the "Brooks' replacement is already here" nonsense, but the guy clearly has some end product. In the season up to joining us, he'd already amassed 6 goals and 7 assists in 26 matches. The previous season, 13 goals and 6 assists in 38 matches. 19 goals and 13 assists in 64 matches - a goal impact every other match.
At the same level, our own Mark Duffy managed 6 goals and 9 assists in 44 games; a goal impact one in every three matches. Last year Duffy got 3 goals and 9 assists in 39 matches, a similar ratio.
So why not give him a chance? Our reliance on our strikers to get the Lion's share of the goals alone would suggest he's worth some game time.
He's spent all his career working his way up the leagues after learning his craft, very similar to what Wilder has done.
He came as someone with flair, a definite goal scoring record and someone well known as a real grafter with a number of POTY behind him.
For reasons beyond me, he's been given just 132 minutes across 5 different appearances to show what he can do. When Brooks went down with glandular fever, it seemed an ideal time to introduce him, yet he made one start against Wolves, then was somewhat jettisoned.
The strange thing for me was that, despite the nature of that game, losing convincingly 3-0, he looked to be our main threat and had a decent game in contrast to some of his more established colleagues and this alone accounted for 71 of those 132 minutes.
I'm sure the history of United is littered with players we bought and were not given a chance but in hindsight were perhaps not up to it at the level we were at - take Luke Beckett as an example.
I know we hate to be fobbed off with the "Brooks' replacement is already here" nonsense, but the guy clearly has some end product. In the season up to joining us, he'd already amassed 6 goals and 7 assists in 26 matches. The previous season, 13 goals and 6 assists in 38 matches. 19 goals and 13 assists in 64 matches - a goal impact every other match.
At the same level, our own Mark Duffy managed 6 goals and 9 assists in 44 games; a goal impact one in every three matches. Last year Duffy got 3 goals and 9 assists in 39 matches, a similar ratio.
So why not give him a chance? Our reliance on our strikers to get the Lion's share of the goals alone would suggest he's worth some game time.
