Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 378
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Last season was his first full season after 2 years of Southampton's apparently rather decent coaching.

 

And can we drop this injury prone bollocks - he started 34 games.

 

He's goal-prone not injury prone.

 

 

He played injured didnt he as was mentioned numerous times by the management and on here

 

and apparently word is we are selling due to being injury prone

 

his career just doesnt shout goal prone does it? it screanms inconsistent.

 

Nobody can tell me how many assists last season so if the goals dry up is he worth it?

 

i want him to stay as i dont want Barnslwey getting him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a Latics tradition.

 

Beckett, Porter, Hughes, Davies, Abbott, Kuqi, Baxter, and now possibly Forte, all top scored for Latics in the last 10 years or so and all left, for vatious reasons, before or during the following season.

 

It is fine if players move on for good fee's and get replaced my a similar quality of player. Sadly at latics we do not do this and at best take a punt on a youngster in the hope that he will come good. If the player does turn out to be a good buy he will then be sold on for a profit and we find ourselves back to square one. It really is no wonder why we are stuck in this division with this never ending cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No he isnt

I think you mean, No he isnt FFS.

 

15 goals in 34 games is not "inconsistent"

 

Starting 34 games prior to being done by an opposition player is not being "injury prone"

 

Can we all agree on those two points?

 

I'll make it clearer then, 13 goals in 19 games is amazing. 2 goals in 18 is :censored:e.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people need to look at the bigger picture here instead of just seeing "15 goals, he's our Alan Shearer".

 

Yes, he scored 15 goals. I'll be the first person to say back in November when he'd stuck 13 away already that I was thinking "we've got a player on our hands here". As the season went on, and the goals started to dry up, it became obvious to me that it was simply a purple patch. A player that had flitted in and out of match-fitness throughout his career, scored 5+ goals in a single season only once prior to joining us, catching opposing teams unaware. Once teams cottoned on to him, and particular the fact our setup was mainly to try and get him on the end of everything, opposing teams began nullifying his threat or just took him out.

 

From December onwards (so more than half the season) he scored 2 goals. That right, 2. I have struggled to find his assists stats seeing as some people are peddling out the "he's a winger, not a forward" line, but I would hazard a guess that they're extremely minimal.

 

I can understand some of the frustration amongst us that we've been a team that has generally struggled for goals for a long time now, and therefore ask why we would consider letting one go who managed 15 goals in a single season only last year.

 

However I can also see the business sense in letting him go if we received an offer, if true, of £100k+.

 

£100k for an injury prone player with a questionable knee, who's main asset is pace that naturally only declines once you pass 30, who has, really, only enjoyed a purple patch once in his entire career IMO is fairly decent business.

 

Do I want us to sell him? No, not really.

Would I be arsed if we did? No, not really - especially for £100k.

 

Of course the question is what will we do with that money?

 

A free transfer in Gunning (who still has to impress)

A free transfer in Dunn (who, despite not being the fittest himself, still has that ability to stand out above the rest of the players on the pitch in a way Sheridan once did with us).

And maybe one or two more?

 

Who know. I just dont think it's as black and white in this instance to say "do not sell a player who scored 15 goals last season".

 

I'd be lying if I didn't say "Forte has been useless today" on a number of occasions last season (certainly December onwards).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since scoring 13 goals in the first third of the season Forte has suffered injury problems (however caused). It is speculation to think the injury situation will continue and also that he will be injury free and tucking them away again. The fans speculation is risk free but to the club it is an expensive gamble. If there was 50 to 100 grand on the table and it was my risk I would take the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since scoring 13 goals in the first third of the season Forte has suffered injury problems (however caused). It is speculation to think the injury situation will continue and also that he will be injury free and tucking them away again. The fans speculation is risk free but to the club it is an expensive gamble. If there was 50 to 100 grand on the table and it was my risk I would take the money.

If it was down to me I would keep him - top talent in my opinion who will score 15 plus goals a season if managed correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there are so many question marks over him, that selling Forte is understandable.

 

Agree it's a worry that we're potentially throwing away a few goals. But it's a typical simplistic fans' view that seeing him score lots goals for a few months clouds considered calm judgment of the wider picture.

 

An awkward one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot more pressure on the attackers now.

 

Is Murphy, Turner, Cassidy, Poleon and Croft, Philliskirk a strike force capable of scoring 50+ goals a season?

 

This 'attacking philosophy' Kelly has harked on about has lost its best player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not Corney's biggest fan in the slightest. However i think it's very harsh for people to critisise him this summer. We have the most consistent squad for years and have held on to our top players. The board deserve abit of credit for a change IMO

We are selling one of our top players...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not seen the confirmation, but presume that this is a deal that will go through.

 

 

Lies, damn lies and statistics springs to mind reading this thread. JF record at Latics can be made to look as good or as bad as you like, and that is without adding the positional agruments and injury concerns.

 

From reading the posts, I think that the opinion of the board is similar to mine......I wouldn't have chosen to get rid of him, but at the sametime I can understand why the club might choose to do so and think that we will survice and have done after losing better players than Forte. There is enough on the doubt side (inconsistent record last seasn / an average history of goals / injury concerns etc.) for me to accept that we have chosen some cash (and presumably a decent saving on wages).

 

Anyway I look forward to the weekly reports on this board about his goal-scoring & assists performance (or lack of) over the course of the next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...