I want to start this by saying Connor isn't worth 60,000 per week.. BUT. If the figure is correct, then I'm still happy with this. If we want to start competing at the right end of the table instead of scraping relegation every week, we need to higher our wage bracket. Wickham is only 21 years old and has shown plenty to say he's going to be a very good player. The sort of player who we should be keeping at our club. We average 40,000 a game, and our fans deserve to keep their best players, we are a massive massive club, and it's about time the board start spending some money to get a team that exite us. So if he's signed for 60,000 per week, then well done Ellis short, you've kept a young English player with bags of quality, and if you continue in the same fashion by signing more quality players for big money, we will average 50,000 a week. The more money our club spends, the more supporters will turn up, and the more money the club will generate through us. If safc started competing for trophies, there's no doubt we could average 60,000+. Keep spending Ellis, and let's get a team in the north east we can all be proud of. Haway.
We've now supposedly got AJ and Connor on 60k a week. By all means pay 60k a week but not to lads who's attitude and desire is often questioned and whose performances merit about 15k a week.
The lad can't pass for s**t. Yet again let our passing average down. Game after game but folk don't seem to notice how bad his passing game is. Vs Liverpool Larsson-90% Bridcutt-89% Johnson-87% Brown- 87% Gomez-80% Vergini-77% Reveillere-77% O'Shea-74% Altidore-73% Wickham-60% In fact, f** it, here's all his passing averages for the season. f**ing s**te. Connor Vs Citih- 62% worst Connor Vs Chelsea- 77% 2nd worst Connor Vs Leic- 80% 4th worst Connor Vs Everton- 59% worst Conner Vs Palace- 73% 5th best Connor Vs Arsenal- 40% worst Conner Vs Soton- 60% worst Conner Vs Swansea- 64% 2nd worst Conner Vs Burnley- 50% worst Conner Vs Spurs- 67% worst Conner Vs QPR- 59% worst Conner Vs Man U- 67% 2nd worst Conner Vs Wba- 57% can we guess? Yep, Worst. He even makes Jozy look a good passer. Sorry, nothing in the world is going to convince me the 5 year contract for Connor is any good for a team who strives to pass the football.
I'm still not convinced about Whickham but I don't trust statistics very much. Perhaps somebody can explain if you can compare all players fairly this way or not. Perhaps backs make more short safe passes, midfielders tap it about and strikers try more dangerous, exciting , penetrating passes with more going astray. If that's the case we need more players trying to do the difficult things that can upset the opposition because we are desperate for goals and tapping safe , predictable passes isn't enough. Do top strikers have very high pass success rates?
Very good questions, i don't know but i saw Jozy spray a beautiful ball from touchline to touchline yesterday, boardering on majestic
Has Ellis Short taken to crystal meths? He must have done is he's prepared to pay 60k a week. Think i'll send him a copy of the song, 'drugs don't work'.
Connor often receives the ball in tight situations under pressure and with little support. Of course his pass completion is going to be lower than the others.
I'm pleased we look like we might keep him. Gives us a little strength in depth at present who might come good with the right players around him in the future. However I suspect this might prevent us getting a better striker in the January transfer window. Means we might have to wait till the summer before we get the striker, whoever that may be, that we are all hoping for. I think it'll take the pressure off us if we still search for another forward in January mind. It means any team we try to sign a striker from wont have us by the short and curlies on the negotiation table. We wont be as desperate as we will be getting an additional forward and not a replacement! Whatever the case, if we are paying him 60K, he better get his finger out of his arse! He's only 21, so theres still time for him to come good!
He's what 21? Over the course of 10 or so games he seems to flashes of quality in amongst a morass of below par jogging around but he has the ability to perform very well on occasion. To the outsider they see the striker that rescued you last season, that scored against Chelsea this season and tested Liverpool at the weekend. He is probably going to get better with the game time he is now getting and that is what you are investing in. I look at Colback and see a player you weren't that fussed about letting go and we weren't that fussed about receiving but the guy has been a lot better than I was expecting - was running the middle of the park against Chelsea for us (see our second goal). I think keeping hold of Wickham is a good thing for you so long at it doesn't signal players not coming in.
That's a ****ing expensive way of doing business mate, at "60k" a week! I think 60k a week could've been better spent myself.
On the plus side we keep Wickham and it costs us 720,000 per year (minus advertising and promotion/general branding costs). On a 5 year contract that would cost us 3.5 million. With just 1 year left on his contract we could have sold him for 5-6 million this summer ...and better than letting him go for a freebee. On the negative side, he will have to show us a lot more to convince ...well, me too that he's worth those wages, when so many struggle to pay for their football at the Stadium. If he flops, we'll never be able to sell him and we'll still be paying those wages if we loan him out.
It's 60k per week mate not per month (if the papers are to be believed) = over £3million/year, damn near £16m for the duration of the contract is he really worth it? As you say, if he flops we're stuck paying him the full amount...
Yes it's very accurate. It's the most accurate data collector in the game. If you go to the sight, not only will you find passing acuracy, you can see where every pass has been made by every player at any point in time. No only is it accurate, it who the the sport uses for al it's statistics,. It's OPTA, Connor can't pass to save his life, doesn't matter which way he's passing it. He's ****. Long passes, back passes, short passes, sideways passes, forward passes. He's can't pass. http://www.squawka.com/>Click Sunderland on the League table> open the match you want to see from the fixture bar>enjoy
That's the only one it happens to does it. Everyone gets space but Connor? Righto mate. Excuses excuses. He's not a good enough passer, go and see for yourself rather than just dismiss fact. I've put the link and directions. Go and see for yourself that he struggles all round with his passing
I think we desperately need a footballing striker, one that composed and comfortable on the ball, one who can contribute to build up play with a good touch and basic passing skills, can't see us getting one in now.
My question is how does he compare with top strikers not with other positions? If you frequently have to pass into a packed penalty area to one or two possible friendly faces can you expect the same rate of success as Wes Brown passing back to the keeper? So what do other strikers manage?
Well you tell me who you want to be compared and in what areas and I'll knock you up a visual for on here. I can use the Comparison Matrix. Won't do forward/back passes though for two reason, 1 it shouldn't matter for a striker as most passes go backward, and 2 there's no angle spectrum for sideways passing so an angle as little as 1degree either side of 180degrees cross field can change a forward pass to a backwards pass when in reality it's a sideways pass.
