Taff - I must admit I thought he had scored more than 4 but the stats don't lie.......or do they? You're right in that it shouldn't be a Blobby v. Maynard debate but I suppose those are the 2 closest comparisons we have in recent years. Other than that it looks like Sparkey and I fall on Maynard's side in that his injury has made him a potentially big loss - if we assume he would have become a regular scorer if not injured - and you and others who disagree. No problem with that, we are all consenting adults and debate is healthy.
No sweat Bluey & Taff. Good debate - all opinions should be welcomed and not rubbished. Just a quick look at these "ratios" again though. Helguson scored 1 goal in his first 9 Championship games for us - that was a consolation job against the wurzels. On that basis, he'll only score 5 all season based on that goals to games ratio stat at the time. Strange thing is he's scored another 6 since then still with another 26 games to go. So I suppose using the same principle, he's now in line for 20 goals this season. Funny old world init? What Maynard would have scored is another matter, but I'd take a wager that he'd have outscored Heidar. It's great to talk about it even if we can't prove anything.
As you say Sparkey, all good debate. I still stand by Maynard is a big loss but we don't miss him (it makes sense to me anyway). If Maynard was fit Conway wouldn't have played against Wensday as we'd probably have had Bellamy on the left and Maynard up front. Soooooo, would we have drawn that game because Conway wasn't there to score the goal OR would we have won 4-1 because Ballamy and Maynard would have ripped them to shreds? fooook nose. Tell you what, lets play both options through football manager and see what happens.
For what its' worth here's my twopenneth Maynard is undoubtably a very good player and I don't think there's any disagreement that our team/squad would be better with him in it. However wherer he is a 'big loss' or not depends ultimately on whether we get promoted or not. If we do, then he is not a 'big loss' but if we miss out again then his absence would be seen as a contributory factor.
Thanks for the input guys. What you say is perfectly correct Whiffle, and it's already been said that the debate that's evolved on this thread as to whether he's a "massive loss" or not will be academic if we go up without him playing. I'm not sure why this thread has focused on that issue though. The original question was, knowing we've lost Maynard for the season, do we have enough fire power up front relying on Helguson and Rudy supported by a midfield combo capable of scoring enough goals to get us there? Always assuming that the right player becomes available for the second half of the season, should we push the boat out and go for him, or just assume we altready have enough options available? There was a marked lack of activity last January when we were looking good in second spot going into the New Year after just thrashing Reading at the CCS, and we all know what happened thereafter.
Wonder if Chelsea would want to loan out Torres to a championship club in order to regain his confidence
I think we have a better squad than last year and will fare better in the early months of next year than we did this. At least one full buck, preferably two are needed so we don't experience the issues we had at the back e few weeks ago again. As to a striker, I'm undecided as to whether we should be on the look out for a Maynardesque player or another hold up player / target man to share the workload with HH or give us something slightly different playing back to goal. Rudy is ok for cover but don't think he's the starting striker. Whoever we sign for whatever position needs to be on a short term deal or be someone that would be at least a squad player in the premiership. We don't want to sign someone who sits in the stands IF we get promoted. If they're not better than we already have, lets not bother.
That's just the point remote. On paper we had far more need to strengthen last January that this, yet it still didn't happen. That leads me to think it even less likely this year. There is one major caveat in all this. TG said in an interview at the start of this season that if we had got up last year, he would have taken it, BUT "this year we are ready". I see that as a major indication that TG and our ultimate paymaster VT will do everything necessary to reach the Prem this season. Given the financial committment they've already demonstrated, I don't think money is an object at all.
For me, if a fully fit Maynard (and he looked pretty spritely when I saw him at the game on Sunday) won't be back by the middle of February then I believe we should sign another striker of proven ability in the window. Ideally on loan but if TG/VT have to splash the cash then so be it. My only caveat being that Velikonja could be our best kept secret whom Malky will unleash on an unsuspecting Championship in January. It is really odd that he is not getting a look in. Malky said he had been watching him for some time before signing him so he must have seen something which will be an asset to the club. I would just like to know what it is!!!!
Is there a forward out there that would fill the role Maynard was brought in to do? If there is and he is better than Maynard, fit and available, then we should go for him but at what price? If there is a player but not quite as accoplished as Maynard then why would we bother. Our home games have been the main reason we are at the top. As we all know we need to start getting mor points from the away games. These are games played with the same group of players as the home games. So based on that we do not need another single striker. As has been mentioned in other threads, a better quality striker and 2 better quality defenders are something MM should (probably is) looking for. I think we all agree the midfield is pretty much sorted.
