Do we miss N'Gog?

N'gog is more of an Elmander type of player. He links pay up well, and that's why we don't really employ him as a striker really. We ses him drift into the midfield linking up the play quite allot of the time.

Craig is more of a direct centre forward (11 goals this season), and is definitely more of a goal scoring threat.

Ngog is a striker who doesn't like to shoot. Hopefully we've seen the last of him and he's sold in the summer.

We did miss N'gog yesterday there is no question about it. Recently he has put in some good shifts and appears to have a bit of confidence.

Craig Davies and Eaves looked hungry but they both are a little in experienced and both lack quality on the ball. Now on to Sordell, he is just a lazy you know what. He looks unfit, uninterested and seem incapable of reading the game. I would start with Cdavies and eaves next week and off load Sordell in the summer. Anyone who thinks Sordell is our best striker needs to give their head a wobble.

Ngog frustrates me as he is the one striker we have with decent touch and works his socks off for the team, but I just wish he'd be more willing to shoot or beat players when he gets a chance. He'll never be an out-and-out goal-grabber but he could be greedier than he is if he wants to gain popularity with the fans.

Sluffy wrote:Miss him - people still can't even spell his bloody name right after two seasons with us - it's Ngog NOT N'Gog!

N'Gog: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ngog: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Google suggests both spellings are acceptable Sluffy, with the more common being N'Gog! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I'm sure he asked people to spell it Ngog.

He did.

That is why the club, Bolton (Evening) News, the BBC, etc spell his name as Ngog.

I did try to google the article that came out soon after he joined the club but I couldn't find it easily and I wasn't going to spend loads of time just to prove an internet point - but it is out there for anybody wanting to track it down.

The Elmander comparison is key.

I think it was only realised six months after he went that he was fairly important to our play. Typically, everyone was too loved up with KD at the time to see it. The idea that Sturridge was only a hit because he had Davies by his side was a personal favourite.
I couldn't understand the relief at getting Elmander off the wage bill, compared with the content at keeping Davies and Klasnic baring in mind what they also will have been on.

Like Elmander, though not a reliable scorer himself, taking Ngog out of the equation makes us a less convincing attacking unit.

Elmander wasn't quite good enough at any one thing to cut it in the prem IMO. Pushed off the ball easily, slow and not great in the air.

We didn't play to his strengths in fairness as he did show glimpses of clever play. But for the money we spent we needed a goalscorer with pace, he was a disastrous signing.

Elmander was one of the worst signings in our entire history.

Kevin Davies has been one of the best signings in our entire history.

If anyone thinks differently you're a fool.

doffcocker wrote:The Elmander comparison is key.

I think it was only realised six months after he went that he was fairly important to our play. Typically, everyone was too loved up with KD at the time to see it. The idea that Sturridge was only a hit because he had Davies by his side was a personal favourite.
I couldn't understand the relief at getting Elmander off the wage bill, compared with the content at keeping Davies and Klasnic baring in mind what they also will have been on.

Like Elmander, though not a reliable scorer himself, taking Ngog out of the equation makes us a less convincing attacking unit.

Are you trying out a new career as a forum WUM?

Elmander was a useless bastard, a worse finisher than Ngog if that's even possible. He contributed to the downfall of Owen Coyle, Coyle had too much faith in him.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Are you trying out a new career as a forum WUM?

Elmander was a useless bastard, a worse finisher than Ngog if that's even possible. He contributed to the downfall of Owen Coyle, Coyle had too much faith in him.

BDP makes a useful point in that players are often judged as signings rather than on what they actually bring to a team.
People would never have it that the biggest waste of money in the club's history was at the time a better option than the once excellent value for money Kevin Davies. If Elmander had been brought to the club on the cheap, people's perception of what he offered would undoubtedly be very different.

doffcocker wrote:If Elmander had been brought to the club on the cheap, people's perception of what he offered would undoubtedly be very different.

Of course, but that's not how the world works is it. If you buy something you expect to get value for money.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:If Elmander had been brought to the club on the cheap, people's perception of what he offered would undoubtedly be very different.

Of course, but that's not how the world works is it. If you buy something you expect to get value for money.

If he'd have been a cheaper option I doubt we'd have progressed with him so long. Having cost big money and undoubtedly having a big contract we were forced to try and make it work, we were never going to be able to sell him (prior to his half season purple patch).

Elmander was an okay player, but I actually think Ngog will be better. Neither are enough as a main striker though, we need goals.

Fwiw my opinion of Elmander was that he was played out of position for most of his time at the club and hence we never got anything like the best out of him.

To me his role was that of a second striker - the one that lies a bit deep and does all the fancy through balls and lay offs to his mobile and lethal finishing partner up front. Instead we either played him as a lone target man, with the idea that our slow and cumbersome midfield would run through to capitalise on his 'hold up' play or attempted to play a sort of hybrid partnership up front with Kevin Davies, who thrived off the target man, long ball game, whereas Elmander wanted the ball to feet to play with.

Clearly Elmander was not a natural goal scorer - his shoots at goal and one on ones with the keeper were dreadful considering the ball talent he clearly had.

I had to laugh though when in one interview he admitted he was scared of Megson - fuck me if I was on silly money each and every week, whether I played or not, I'd be the one telling Megson how to get the best out of my game - to make us both look good - after all he was the muppet that 'wasted' £8.2 million plus wages to get me to the club!

Thing is with footballers that many people seem to forget is that although they are much better than us at kicking a ball around, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have a brain to go with it most of the time!

Elmander was also scared of the Bolton fans. Fact.

I must be an idiot then. I agree that SKD was a great signing. But Elmander was a far better player than we gave hin credit for. As Doffcocker says,it was only after he'd gone that we realised that he was a good team player. Every game he covered every blade of grass on the pitch.

rammywhite wrote:I must be an idiot then.

At least we cleared that up.

rammywhite wrote:I must be an idiot then. I agree that SKD was a great signing. But Elmander was a far better player than we gave hin credit for. As Doffcocker says,it was only after he'd gone that we realised that he was a good team player. Every game he covered every blade of grass on the pitch.

He worked hard but he was often doing useless running and ended up in the wrong position when we were in possession, headless chicken came to mind.

As Sluffy says he would have been better in a second striker role with a pacy finisher ahead of him to get on the end of his link up play.

Trouble was we didn't have a pacy striker to allow him to act as an efficinent link man. His skills were wasted with us.