I would counter that by saying that it was often the other way round (in my view) as Garner would happily get involved in all the 'ugly' sides of the game, which allowed the likes of Waghorn, McGoldrick, Celina (or whoever was fit) to try and play some football. When Waghorn played up top on his own we looked better with the ball on the deck, but certainly weaker in the physical battles Garner was incredibly limited, but he seemed to know that and accept that he was a battering ram to allow others to flourish.
Where are we setting the bar? Are we setting the bar at least at Kuqi, Murphy, Mathie, Kiwomya, Counago - or are we setting the bar at Garner? If we're setting the bar at Garner then we deserve to be in League One. There's nothing wrong with falling below your target and underperforming but to set the target at that is pretty damning.
I think it's a little bit arrogant of us, considering how guff we've been this season, to be on about a bar and Joe Garner. I agree with Scowey, a limited player - your old fashioned harry and hassle kind of lad - but an absolute pain / good in the air / strong. If he'd scored 2 or 3 last season, ala Frank Nouble, then sure. However, given he played a good chunk of the season with various injuries I'm with Scowey on this. So we're going to compare Garner to various quality strikers we've had over time. Alright, well if we're going down that route, Jackson is like Rory Fallon / players like that.
I don't think Joey Garner is a striker you'd stake your season on. As people have mentioned in this thread, he was a technically limited player. However, I accept the observation that he did bring a different dimension up top, and had a 'nastiness' that our strikeforce pre-January completely lacked. I'd certainly prefer Garner over the likes of Jackson and Harrison, whom have struggled this season and don't seem to have made the step up to Championship football, but as Hampy said, Garner wanted to leave, so the argument is effectively redundant. I think Garner would've scored a few goals this season in this team, but last season he benefitted by having the creative talents of Waghorn and Celina in the squad, so realistically he would not have got double figures this season. Having said that, I think it's pretty evident that we have missed an element of his 'style' and experience - certainly pre-January.
As for Reading, I'll be going to the match and I'm cautiously optimistic we'll win - scrape a 2-1. I don't think we'll stay up, and I think we will lose the following two games (away at West Brom and Bristol City) and then that'll be us done.
Maybe, who knows. It’s like choosing between slightly mouldy Cheddar or slightly mouldy Red Leicester.
Because we sold Garner in order to sign Jackson... Garner's 10 goals in 32 appearances is the kind of goals/game ratio we can only dream of now. I'm not pining for Garner by any means, but (as I've said many times before) I think we've dropped a bollock by trying to change too much too soon and another season of Garner alongside (one of Harrison/Jackson) or Sears would have been far more fruitful in my opinion.
You're spot on Scowey, if any of this has any relevance its because Jackson, Harrison and Co were Garners replacements who have been abject failures brought in by an abject failure of a manager.
Correct Field, to date Harrison and Jackson have been nowhere near good enough at this level. Harrison I will give some slack - he's been injured for a while, and aged 24 when we purchased him, £750,000 isn't a bad price for a player who has done reasonably well at the level below. 14 goals in total for a bad Bristol Rovers side last season, worth a punt in my opinion. Jackson however, for over £1 mill for a player who hasn't done much in league 1, and had one good season at league 2 level is a lot of ££££ and to date he looks a very poor signing. Nowhere near strong enough, smart enough, and has a lot of work to do if he's going to score 10 + at league 1 level next season.
There is a bit of re-writing of history going on here. Garner left for personal reasons because he wanted to be back in the North of England presumably for family. Maybe he was told he couldn't go until we signed another striker, but he wasn't sold to provide funds so we could buy Jackson - we had just got the money for Waghorn the day before. Whether Jackson is good or not is another matter entirely. Personally I don't think Jackson or Harrison have been done justice by either of the two managers or the players around them this season to be able to see what they're capable of. Both of them definitely lacking in confidence and opportunities and both better than Quaner. It's hard for Jackson to rack up goals when he's not on the pitch, I'm not sure what you expect of him. Had he started all season he could have comfortably got to the 15 goal mark and in a lousy side as well.
Last season Garner started 29 league games and got 10 goals with Waghorn, McGoldrick, Celina around him. This season Jackson has started 10 league games and got 3 goals with no-one around him.
No Hampy, he's scored 1 in 10 starts - 2 of his league goals v Millwall + WBA were off the bench, so he scores on 10% of starts
So you're saying you'd prefer Jackson in the squad? Fair enough, it's your opinion. I'm sure a few on here, including myself, would prefer Garner considering Jackson's problems in front of goal this season. I don't think anyone is actually 'pining' about Garner leaving the club, but are simply making the observation that over the summer transfer window, we have seriously downgraded the quality of our strikers. I understand that Garner and Waghorn wanted to leave, and we were well remunerated for their departures, but unfortunately their replacements have underperformed and failed to convert chances. Statistics, results, and our league position have helped proved this.
