Chris Wood (now playing for Nottingham Forest)

[huss9]

Just now, Ronaldo said:

All the young, pacy, talented strikers in Europe and beyond we could’ve had for £25m or so, and we end up with Chris Wood. 

 

not when we were second bottom and were facing burnley without a fit striker in a couple of days time.

i understand what you're saying though and think we will still get that young pacy striker in before the end of january.

[MrRaspberryJam]

3 minutes ago, Ronaldo said:

All the young, pacy, talented strikers in Europe and beyond we could’ve had for £25m or so, and we end up with Chris Wood. 

 

 

Name 5. 

[Bellars]

Thought he did his part. Was a physical presence up front that occupied the other side and opened up space for ASM, Frazer, and Wlilock. Also put in a shift defensively towards the end.

 

The whole team plays like they feel the pressure on their shoulders and know how high the stakes are every time they touch the ball. 

 

 

[oldtype]

We supposedly have infinite money so really, what do you care what his transfer fee was. He could have cost 2.5 mil and it would be of no difference to us. Just a few more quid going out of a bottomless bank account in the Cayman Islands somewhere.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I thought was alright, he wins loads of duels. Also thought ASM seemed to be trying to cross more, which was interesting to see. 

I think he’ll be handy. He’s better than Gayle and the alternative is a Cambridge-like XI.

[Thiago]

He's an option. Even if he ends up being our roll the dice in the last 20 I'd rather have him over Gayle. 

[Happinesstan]

I think he'll contribute over the rest of the season. 

[thorin]

Obv. he will contribute, he's another player/slot. But he's looked subpar +++ the matches he's played.

My conclusion is that we did it to "hurt" Burnley, end of :P (at least that's the end result)

 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by thorin

[MarkyMark]

£25m to sink Burnley and give us a centre forward until Wilson returns is money well spent as far as I’m concerned.  Even his presence and positioning - and the fact his goal threat is bigger than Gayle’s - means that lesser opposition are forced to pick him up at least.

 

Hopefully he’ll get the odd goal between now and Wilson’s return.  But having a proper centre forward makes the side more cohesive.  If people are expecting the lad to be smashing them week in week out otherwise ‘he’s a waste of money’ then we’re on a hiding to nothing

[Anderson]

I don't think anyone expected him to smash them in week in, week out. I was expecting his general hold up play to be better & for him to provide a better outlet though. Ball seemed to bounce off him a lot today. Hopefully the extended break will do him the world of good and he & the team can begin to play to his strengths. 

[Guest HTT II]

He was signed with one eye on the Championship IMO (too).

[Superior Acuña]

I reckon his role is definitely significant beyond his goals - we're structured better with him there, similar to the way Rafa liked playing Joselu despite him being little goal threat (at the time).

[Guest]

He’s a one in three striker, a goal against Everton next and we’re getting what we paid for.

[christ]

9 minutes ago, Inferior Acuña said:

I reckon his role is definitely significant beyond his goals - we're structured better with him there, similar to the way Rafa liked playing Joselu despite him being little goal threat (at the time).

I mean it is but then acknowledging that would prevent people from shitting their pants.
 

It’s the same way people flip their lid and want ASM dropped the minute he has an off day, ignoring the fact his presence immediately has teams sitting five yards deeper.

[Fantail Breeze]

Looks very much like a striker who was scoring goals because the team he was playing for were just set up to hoof long balls and crosses at him.

 

Maybe he’ll get better but it’s not a surprise he only has three goals this season.

[christ]

1 minute ago, POOT 2.0 said:

Someone else who can't make a point without it being an insult to other people's opinions. 

 

So 2 games is too little time to judge Chris Wood the striker. But 2 games is enough time to spew some theory about him not being bought mainly for goals...but more for structure  Goals being something we've seriously lacked.

 

And people who can't see this are "shitting their pants"?   

 

You can understand how having an actual striker who knows how to play that position at this level may mean we’re better set up than not, aye?

[STM]

He might give us 5% more chance of us winning a game from his aerial threat and the one or two times he holds up the ball and links up the play, as well as his ability occupy 2 CBs. 5% is massive.

 

It's not always about becoming twice the team over night, it's about edging our likelihood of winning, through every signing.

 

Trippier might have added 10%, Wood might add 5%, maybe just 3%, but he adds something.

 

 

[TRon]

40 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

He’s a one in three striker, a goal against Everton next and we’re getting what we paid for.

 

I'm glad you put that out there, otherwise I was wondering, like others, could we have saved £25m and just kept Carroll on? He's just as good in the air, and has better hold up play. 

[ponsaelius]

1 hour ago, oldtype said:

We supposedly have infinite money so really, what do you care what his transfer fee was. He could have cost 2.5 mil and it would be of no difference to us. Just a few more quid going out of a bottomless bank account in the Cayman Islands somewhere.

 

With financial fair play you can't just write off money in the same way anymore - so this isn't entirely true.

 

Everton have loads of money too but basically haven't been able to spend this season without shifting players first because of FFP.

 

We have a lot of leeway because of past frugality and we needed a forward in our situation - but that doesn't mean you can't judge the fee.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by ponsaelius

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

I'm glad you put that out there, otherwise I was wondering, like others, could we have saved £25m and just kept Carroll on? He's just as good in the air, and has better hold up play. 

We’d have got maybe 300 minutes max in 18 games if we were lucky. 

[Fantail Breeze]

5 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

I'm glad you put that out there, otherwise I was wondering, like others, could we have saved £25m and just kept Carroll on? He's just as good in the air, and has better hold up play. 

 

Yup. I don’t get it trying to make it out like he’s a positive as he gives us “shape” by being an actual striker.

 

By that logic we could have purchased any big bulky striker and they’d have had the same impact as Wood for £25m.

 

I’m hoping he comes good as I do with all of our signings but I’ve seen nothing from him so far to suggest he will.

[TRon]

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

We’d have got maybe 300 minutes max in 18 games if we were lucky. 

 

Well that's a fair point as well.

[TRon]

6 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Yup. I don’t get it trying to make it out like he’s a positive as he gives us “shape” by being an actual striker.

 

By that logic we could have purchased any big bulky striker and they’d have had the same impact as Wood for £25m.

 

I’m hoping he comes good as I do with all of our signings but I’ve seen nothing from him so far to suggest he will.

 

As Nut pointed out though, we bought Wood for goals, and he does have a decent record. I just hope he's still got some juice left, he looks really lethargic. 

[Clockwork Cheese]

Thought he was utter shite today, offered no threat whatsoever. 

 

Llorente and Struijk won pretty much everything sent up to him, and can't ever remember him involving himself in any link up with Joe/Willock/ASM. 

[Gottlob]

He occupied their defenders and was a presence up front. At half time he polished off the last of the oranges, and he was a warm body on the bus back home.