[Archived] Jordan Rhodes

[thenodrog]

No it isn't. Gestede is 25 and has something like 19 career goals to his credit. There's nothing at all to suggest either he or anyone else in the squad can find the net on a regular basis.

Good point Simon .... however turn the clock back 30 years and from what I have seen recently if I was playing CH against us I know who I'd rather mark.

[Tom]

Gestede has to perform like he did on Saturday with some consistency now

Against Birmingham he won a lot in the air and worked back well but needs to rough defenders up like he obviously can

[FGS5635]

The reality is there isnt a plyer in world football these days that isnt for sale. So many mega rich owners willing to blow insane amounts of cash, that every player ultimatley has his price

[Amo]

So you're acknowledging we have done it once, if we have done it once we can do it again.

Not really, hence the term 'one-off'.

You can't take one or two performances and extrapolate them into such a broad generalization. Gestede offers something Rhode doesn't, and vice-versa. They both have individual strengths and weaknesses. There will be times when we rue Rhodes's lack of presence, and times when we rue Gestede's lack of finishing. If there's some way we can forge them into a strike duo, then problem solved. I don't see why it has to be a case of either-or.

[jonv]

The reality is there isnt a plyer in world football these days that isnt for sale. So many mega rich owners willing to blow insane amounts of cash, that every player ultimatley has his price

Hence why we've ended up with the player in the first place

[FGS5635]

Hence why we've ended up with the player in the first place

lol good point

[RevidgeBlue]

According to the LT Rhodes scored more League goals in 2013 than anyone else in English professional football. - 30.

GB saying he is no Carol Vorderman but we paid 8m for Rhodes, he has scored more goals than anyone else, more than Suarez yet apparently he's still valued at 8m, something doesn't quite add up!

Nice one Gary, good point well made.

[rhodie]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that any other team in the championship that wants Rhodes is also restricted by FFP, never mind how wealthy their owners are. I am not absolutely sure about Forrest`s accounts but they will more than likely also need to keep the books streamlined.

[Gav]

According to the LT Rhodes scored more League goals in 2013 than anyone else in English professional football. - 30.

GB saying he is no Carol Vorderman but we paid 8m for Rhodes, he has scored more goals than anyone else, more than Suarez yet apparently he's still valued at 8m, something doesn't quite add up!

Nice one Gary, good point well made.

Its good to hear the manager saying he'll not be sold on the cheap.

Its long been a topic that most of us have agreed on over the years, it always seems from our perspective that players have been sold on the cheap, but when we've bought we've often paid over the odds.

[Majiball]

Not really, hence the term 'one-off'.

You can't take one or two performances and extrapolate them into such a broad generalization. Gestede offers something Rhode doesn't, and vice-versa. They both have individual strengths and weaknesses. There will be times when we rue Rhodes's lack of presence, and times when we rue Gestede's lack of finishing. If there's some way we can forge them into a strike duo, then problem solved. I don't see why it has to be a case of either-or.

The first point is a point of perspective as the saying I used wouldn't have come to fruition either without substance.

Check back through the debate to see who added in black or white. We now have two examples, rhodes second half at brum and City, both points raised by Den now carry weight (substance) as he's been shown to be right as both have been achieved. But now the response is you've got to do it for longer and over time, strange how shades of grey have appeared as the debate has swung. Sounds like straw clutching to me to save face as opposed to going yes, fair enough you were right it is possible.

[RevidgeBlue]

I thought the argument was that we could do it without Rhodes if we had a hold up merchant instead.

No-one scored second half against Birmingham except Rhodes who scored 2. That doesn't back up your argument at all.

[DE.]

So you're acknowledging we have done it once, if we have done it once we can do it again.

PS they just did it against one of the 2 biggest teams in the country and now you want to trial it at a lower level? OR

Have you just added in the new criteria to change the debate as you're well aware it's 2-0 to Den?

Not really, hence the term 'one-off'.

You can't take one or two performances and extrapolate them into such a broad generalization.

When you've got an agenda you can damn well try.

[Stuart]

Good point Simon .... however turn the clock back 30 years and from what I have seen recently if I was playing CH against us I know who I'd rather mark.

This is a stupid argument when you consider his goal record.

Unless your surname is Cowans... and even then...

[Steve Moss]

16 million to release Rhodes? Good stuff, he won't be going anywhere soon.

IMO however a 10 mill cash deal with half paid upfront would probably get the player and those thinking that 10 to 12 million in the Championship as anything other than massive money are a bit giddy with their Rhodes love in.

I thought there are massive sell on fees due Huddersfield? If so, 10-12 million would actually put very little in GB's transfer budget or Venkys' pocket. Looking at a raw number is tempting, but they real issue is how much Rovers get not how much he sells for. And the way the initial deal was structured may be a blessing in disguise, as it removes most of the economic incentive to sell. If that's right, we may owe a thank you to Shebby.

[pick32]

Rhodes is on 40k and would cost 12million, Ings won't be on half that and would probably go for under 10. You could probably the get the worlds greatest footballer for less than 12million. (Obviously Bendtner)

[AggyBlue]

This is a stupid argument when you consider his goal record.

Correct.

As a side note, how many other managers would jump at the chance to have Rhodes up front in our division?

Anyone?

I'd wager 23.

[Tom]

Here's a somewhat scary stat in case we did entertain selling

League goals since we went down

Rhodes - 43

Rochina (second top) - 5

http://twitter.com/AndyLR/status/420607561898160128/photo/1

[thenodrog]

Not really, hence the term 'one-off'.

You can't take one or two performances and extrapolate them into such a broad generalization. Gestede offers something Rhode doesn't, and vice-versa. They both have individual strengths and weaknesses. There will be times when we rue Rhodes's lack of presence, and times when we rue Gestede's lack of finishing. If there's some way we can forge them into a strike duo, then problem solved. I don't see why it has to be a case of either-or.

Me neither as long as we can play 12! Who would you drop?

Be bloody harsh and probably stupid) dropping anyone from midfield the way they are playing and there's still Dunn and Evans to acommodate! Having said that playing 4-3-3 worked at Leeds didn't it?

[Plastics]

So you're acknowledging we have done it once, if we have done it once we can do it again.

PS they just did it against one of the 2 biggest teams in the country and now you want to trial it at a lower level? OR

Have you just added in the new criteria to change the debate as you're well aware it's 2-0 to Den?

I remember Andrews having an awesome performance at centre half once.

[Majiball]

Lol, OK we'll go by your vernacular and use the term one-off or fluke. By pure fluke our team upped its game in a one of scenario and drew with City because without JR we're pants and only by chance could we get a result like that!. .

[Plastics]

Lol, OK we'll go by your vernacular and use the term one-off or fluke. By pure fluke our team upped its game in a one of scenario and drew with City because without JR we're pants and only by chance could we get a result like that!. .

I'm simply attempting to highlight that if it is possible for a system that is clearly not good to work (Andrews one) then it is wholly possible for a system that has promise to be less successful than the current one we are using. and that being the case the current one should not simply be thrown out on the basis of one game.

If we were down in 18th place it might be needed.

[tonyoz]

If we can't put the ball in the net, nothing else matters.

Rhodes 16

Spurr 2

Dunn. 2

Best. 2

Cairney. 1

King. 1

Marshall. 1

Kane. 1

Evans. 1

Lowe. 1

Gestede. 1

Campbell. 0

Rhodes is a goalsoring phenomenon and we should appreciate the fact as long as he is here. It has been mentioned that he sccored more goals than anyone in England in 2013 - he achieved a similar feat in 2011-12 when he scored 36 in the league. Geatade may make him even more effective but he scored 7 in 55 for Cardiff.

[DE.]

No pol, the criteria is now that we judge everything on one FA cup game, not something ridiculous like proven past history or consistent performances.

[patrickvalery]

Im at a complete loss to explain this argument. Bowyer said we needed a big presence up top because in some games it gives us other options. Well, he was bang on the money. We signed one and in one of those aforementioned scenarios it paid dividends. So what exactly are some folk demanding? That we ditch all other options or that those who have questioned Rhodes receive apologies? Because it would seem pretty logical to me that the balance of options is the real key in any future success. Just ask West Ham fans what it feels like to only have one effective means of attack. We are fortunate to have the options of Rhodes and Gestede. Sometimes one will come up trumps and sometimes the other will. Sometimes neither will. So what are we to do when that happens? Goodness knows what we'll find to talk about.

[Ricky]

You can't tell who could step up as a goal scorer. Ings had 4 last season and nobody thought he'd score the goals to replace Austin but he has.