Ngog and Sordell not good enough - Official(ish)

Michael Bolton wrote:I think n'gog at this level should be unbelievable. I like him, it was crazy how little he started at times last season. I think the main reason he didn't start so often as coyle and freedman were scared to drop kev until near the end.

He had enough game time to be declared "shit".

We aren't good enough to pick forwards who can't finish. I personally find it incredible a player can make a living as a striker when he can't even do the most basic thing - i.e. kick a football into a net from 6 yards.

I don't give a shit if he's good at holding the ball up or does a lot of running - forwards are there to score goals or at the very least create chances for others. He does neither.

If we persist with Ngog for a 3rd season we'll be mid-table again.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Michael Bolton wrote:I think n'gog at this level should be unbelievable. I like him, it was crazy how little he started at times last season. I think the main reason he didn't start so often as coyle and freedman were scared to drop kev until near the end.

He had enough game time to be declared "shit".

We aren't good enough to pick forwards who can't finish. I personally find it incredible a player can make a living as a striker when he can't even do the most basic thing - i.e. kick a football into a net from 6 yards.

I don't give a shit if he's good at holding the ball up or does a lot of running - forwards are there to score goals or at the very least create chances for others. He does neither.

If we persist with Ngog for a 3rd season we'll be mid-table again.

You're an idiot.

I'm surprised the winger Greg Wylde was never given more opportunities. I watched him pre-season against Morecambe and Crewe and I thought he had potential, but for some reason he just never got the chance to try and establish himself.

Ngog interestingly scored as many as Cardiff's top scorer. More if you count his fantastic finish against them in November that was wrongly disallowed. He only started basically half the matches and was brought off before an hour in many.

Looking at it solely in terms of who'll personally put away the most is just lazy thinking for the reason that the best goalscorers aren't always the best team players. You can dismiss hold up play etc as unimportant as much as you want. Fact is, it's important. It doesn't always result directly in a goal, but has a huge favourable impact right across the park. If we swapped Ngog for a twenty goaler that couldn't hold up the ball, it would cost us more than the 12 goal difference over a season.

doffcocker wrote: If we swapped Ngog for a twenty goaler that couldn't hold up the ball, it would cost us more than the 12 goal difference over a season.

Laughable. Absolute garbage.

Ngog missed a heap of chances, most spooned over the top or sliced wide. Put a proper stiker in those positions and we'd have scored 10 more goals over the season.

No striker should be picked just because he can hold a ball up. If you seriously think Ngog is more use to us than a 20 goal a season man you should top yourself.

Dinae Moe Humm wrote:

You're an idiot.

Tell you what - have a look at the stats over his career and tell me who the idiot is.

His scoring record is rubbish - we paid £4m for a striker who can't strike. That would be ok if he was creating chances but he actually had less assists than Alonso & Dawson. You know, the defenders.

So he can't score and can't create - but he's a bloody good holder-upper!!!

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Dinae Moe Humm wrote:

You're an idiot.

Tell you what - have a look at the stats over his career and tell me who the idiot is.

His scoring record is rubbish - we paid £4m for a striker who can't strike. That would be ok if he was creating chances but he actually had less assists than Alonso & Dawson. You know, the defenders.

So he can't score and can't create - but he's a bloody good holder-upper!!!

If all you cared about with strikers was goals, it'd mean you'd rather have Darren Bent than Dennis Bergkamp, or James Beattie instead of Eidur Gudjohnsson. Not every striker is an out and out goalscorer and pretending it's the only attribute a striker should be judged on is absurd.

It's not about how many goals your striker scores, it's about how many games your team wins. That's why the two teams that got automatic promotion had no player reach double figures. Burnley and Blackburn both had a 20+ goal a season player and were nearer relegation than promotion.

Dinae Moe Humm wrote:

If all you cared about with strikers was goals, it'd mean you'd rather have Darren Bent than Dennis Bergkamp, or James Beattie instead of Eidur Gudjohnsson. Not every striker is an out and out goalscorer and pretending it's the only attribute a striker should be judged on is absurd.

What a ridiculous argument.

A striker should be judged on two things:

1) Goals scored
2) Goals/chances created

Do you honestly think holding up the ball or running around like a headless chicken is more important?

Kevin Davies was hardly a goalscorer but he created a fair few in his time. I can't think of a single successful striker who didn't score and didn't create - can you?

I don't understand the Ngog lovers at all. Granted he hasn't started too many games but there's a reason for that, he's been bloody rubbish when he has started.

I've heard every excuse going for his poor showing - wrong tactics, wrong partner etc - but sometimes you just have to accept that some players can't hack professional football. I agree with Natasha, a player at this level should be able to finish. Good players shine under any tactics or with any partner.

Ngog has had his chance, I suspect Dougie will give him one more chance next season, but he won't take it.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Dinae Moe Humm wrote:

You're an idiot.

Tell you what - have a look at the stats over his career and tell me who the idiot is.

His scoring record is rubbish - we paid £4m for a striker who can't strike. That would be ok if he was creating chances but he actually had less assists than Alonso & Dawson. You know, the defenders.

So he can't score and can't create - but he's a bloody good holder-upper!!!

Dean Holdsworth could hold up the ball, how many would like his clone back at Bolton?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Dinae Moe Humm wrote:

If all you cared about with strikers was goals, it'd mean you'd rather have Darren Bent than Dennis Bergkamp, or James Beattie instead of Eidur Gudjohnsson. Not every striker is an out and out goalscorer and pretending it's the only attribute a striker should be judged on is absurd.

What a ridiculous argument.

A striker should be judged on two things:

1) Goals scored
2) Goals/chances created



Do you honestly think holding up the ball or running around like a headless chicken is more important?

Kevin Davies was hardly a goalscorer but he created a fair few in his time. I can't think of a single successful striker who didn't score and didn't create - can you?

Bit of woman's logic there DM, but then again, N has never kicked a ball in anger!

SKD was good at holding the ball up but he lacked pace. Sometimes, as a manager, you have to make do with the tools at your disposal.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
Ngog missed a heap of chances, most spooned over the top or sliced wide. Put a proper stiker in those positions and we'd have scored 10 more goals over the season.

You continuously miss the point, you stupid bitch.

Nobody contests that he's poor at converting chances. That doesn't necessarily make a player poor value and replacing him with a better finisher more efficient.

Because you're thick, you think of swapping an "8 goal a season striker" for a "20 goal a season striker" as a straight trade of 8 goals for 20. It's not always as simple as that. Many players score over 20 goals but offer precious little else. In such cases, other player tallies and the defense ultimately suffer, to the point where he essentially costs more goals than he brings.

doffcocker wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:
Ngog missed a heap of chances, most spooned over the top or sliced wide. Put a proper stiker in those positions and we'd have scored 10 more goals over the season.

You continuously miss the point, you stupid bitch.

Nobody contests that he's poor at converting chances. That doesn't necessarily make a player poor value and replacing him with a better finisher more efficient.

Because you're thick, you think of swapping an "8 goal a season striker" for a "20 goal a season striker" as a straight trade of 8 goals for 20. It's not always as simple as that. Many players score over 20 goals but offer precious little else. In such cases, other player tallies and the defense ultimately suffer, to the point where he essentially costs more goals than he brings.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Im afraid Natasha with Ngog is a bit like me with Pratley,no matter what anyone else says your opinion will not be changed. The only major difference is I am right about El Prat and Natasha couldnt see a good player if he came up and shat on her face.

There was one game when Ngog was played as a striker rather than a midfielder (Charlton at home?). He'd clearly been told to shoot on sight for once and was pushed up top. Think he scored two?
Next week the manager inexplicably reverted to the old system after 30 minutes, we lost at home to Sheff Wednesday and we didn't get another win for 2 months until we played Burnley. Ngog hasn't been given the striker role since.
There's a case to argue that if we had persisted with Ngog as striker we'd be in the prem now.

wanderlust wrote:
There's a case to argue that if we had persisted with Ngog as striker we'd be in the prem now.

There's a stronger case to argue that if we'd not signed the wanker we'd still be in the Premier League.

doffcocker wrote:

You continuously miss the point, you stupid bitch.

Nobody contests that he's poor at converting chances. That doesn't necessarily make a player poor value and replacing him with a better finisher more efficient.

Because you're thick, you think of swapping an "8 goal a season striker" for a "20 goal a season striker" as a straight trade of 8 goals for 20. It's not always as simple as that. Many players score over 20 goals but offer precious little else. In such cases, other player tallies and the defense ultimately suffer, to the point where he essentially costs more goals than he brings.

So you're saying a holder-upper who can't score is more important than a 20 goal a season man??

You are fucking stupid.

Ngog is useless. He doesn't help the defence, he doesn't create chances, he doesn't score. What is the point of him.

I absolutely guarantee you he'll never produce for BWFC. Dougie will no doubt give him another chance next season and after 3 or 4 games he'll be back on the bench.

He's shit.

Bernard Dennis Park wrote:He's shit.

He's misunderstood Bernard. It's the system/other players that are to blame

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
There's a case to argue that if we had persisted with Ngog as striker we'd be in the prem now.

There's a stronger case to argue that if we'd not signed the wanker we'd still be in the Premier League.

Except that our best run of form and results came around the turn of the year in a 4-5-1 with Ngog up top. Then Coyle inexplicably brought SKD back into the team and played a 4-4-2 when we were then beaten at home against Wigan. I honestly believe that if Ngog was played instead of SKD we'd have had a better chance of staying up.