Why does anyone rate Shola?

I've just seen yet another article in the paper today, stating Shola is a doubt for Spurs clash.

Why do people even give a **** about Shola? Why is his absence even important?

Surely Pardew understands that we've improved a lot since Shola got injured. We have an up front pair that are both quite technical, work well together and can link up with the rest of the team well.

Shola is the biggest striker we have, yet he wins the least amount of headers, and can't hold the ball up nearly as well as Best can, and his work rate is pathetic most of the time. On top of all this he gets injured far too often for a bloke with such a pathetic work rate, he fouls players for no reason and walks back onside instead of getting his arse moving.

Plus the biggest thing about Shola, is that his upfront partner isn't effective as he's waiting for Shola to pass or knock one down for him, but it rarely comes. Best has looked better than ever with a good partner in Ba.

Did you notice that when Shola got injured last season, Best played with a decent all round player, Lovenkrands, and started scoring quite frequently? Lovenkrands isn't a great striker, but he was a good partner for Best as he could supply him, create chances for him and link up with him quite well. Whenever he's played with Shola he's been average, and not really as good as he can be. When he started playing with Ba he looked back in great form.

Shola can't be far enough away from the first team IMO.

I don't hate Shola, there's a part of his personality and character I'll always love, and I love him for being a mackem slayer, but we can all see how **** he is and how playing him in the first team will just slow our progress. We should only play him if we have no other choice.

 

we rate out of surprise. That a player with his lack of ability can get so many games.

 

I dont think I've seen anyone "rate" Shola.

And do you expect newspapers to not report injury news? Or is a player who's been a first teamer for 10 years not important enough to take notice of?

 

no arguments there... he's a legend but god is he ****e

 

This. Tash did you watch the seasons when Ameobi was actually any ''good''.. 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2005-2006..

 

I understand why it would be mentioned, but the amount of articles I've seen about it now is just silly. He's been a part of the first team, but offers next to nothing to it.

The absence of Shola from the Spurs game is un-important, as i doubt he would have started, and we all would play at least 3 players as a sub before Shola.

Our managers have all rated Shola to an extent because he's gotten far too many games. I know injuries have allowed him to get into the starting 11 quite a lot but still, how many times have we been pissed off when we heard Shola was starting instead of someone else?

I'd say it would be bigger news and more interesting news if they reported and put more emphasis on one of Spurs key players being injured, as it will effect the game a lot more than Shola being fit or not.

 

he was never great even back then atleast he had some pace. a career scupered by injury unfortunatly

 

He never really was any good. He had his games, but i would have never described him as a good player, except when he was just starting his career and looked lively and promising. Lets hope Sammy doesn't follow the same route.

 

No one says he's good, or important, but he's a senior figure at the club and outside Newcastle is seen as a key player so the media report it as a significant return.

 

They shouldn't waste the ink. The only thing I'd say Shola offers us really is team spirit and perhaps a bit of leadership and advice to the younguns, but he can do that when he's fit or not.

I'd like him to stay at the club because team spirit is important, but in terms of his fitness and availability, i don't care.

 

Shola being a doubt can only be a good thing.

 

Why do you rate Lovenkrands?

 

As a striker i dont rate him, but as an overall player and as a grafter, i do rate him a bit.

 

This.

 

But striker is where he plays! What the **** do you mean you rate him as an overall player?!

 

He passes well, can whip in a decent ball into the box, has a good pair of feet and is quite a technical player.

He's wasted as a striker, if he was played in an attacking mid position or in a free role, we'd see the best out of him.

He got 6 assists last season, all were crosses or good passes.

He can support strikers. There are plenty I'd play before him, but he has a lot of quality that goes unpraised. Just because he's known as a striker doesn't mean you have to play him there.

 

I rate him, however very low

 

Lovenkrands and Shola are more than surplus to requirements in my book... I always sell them on on Fifa career mode.

 

It says it's Sammy that's injured in the Mirror?