Yorkie Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 19 league goals in 49 games. He's missed a lot of games yes, but when he plays, he's still almost up to 1 in 2 games. 18 goals in 61 games. 1 in 3 There's a lot worse, tbh. And i'd still, for cover - which a new striker would effectively be, rather go for that than for someone untried and untested in the Premiership. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Fat/Strong Inconsistent/Wrong Lazy/He's not that lazy when he plays, he scores plenty of goals Injury Prone/Would only be cover anyway Slow/Superb footwork Old/Experienced without being a fogey High earner/As would an £8m striker be I removed the things that meant the same thing, and balanced out the so called bad points. If you insist No point getting fussy about it, he's never going to sign for us since GR reckons its under 25's from now on. Aye, the GR that is giving 32-year old Sibierski a two-year contract. 233 starts, 24 subs appearances in almost 7 seasons (approx 37 games a season), 107 goals for Boro & Leeds. I'd take that for a so-called lazy, inconsistent, temperamental, slow, etc. striker any day of the week. 18 league goals in his ENTIRE boro career. He's one shit hot mutherfuker tbh. Like i say, he'd only be cover here anyway. When he plays, he scores goals. It's as simple as that really. Technically he can as he's already at the club Cover though? How much is that cover going to cost us in wages? Too many reasons not tbh. The same amount of wages as an £8m player will demand, who will probably turn out to be less effective anyway. Martins and Owen is going to be the partnership next season, it should work, and even though Roeder is bringing in another striker for definite - he shouldn't tamper with the system and try to fit three strikers in. Because it won't work. Therefore, whoever he brings in, is effectively going to be cover, atleast for the time being. And a £5-10m striker is likely to command similar wages to that of a Viduka. For cover, £0 transfer fee + £40k a week is better than... £5-10m transfer fee + £40k a week Which pretty much blows your cost problem out of the water. The player's right and the price is right as far as i am concerned. He'd be ideal for us. Na, am still not convinced. He'll want £2m+ sign on fee for starters. He'd moan about starts and if were not going to give him the 1st team football he wants, he wont give us the commitment needed. And its still Mark Viduka, it make me feel ill at the thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Fair enough, i see that i'm not going to be able to pursuade you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 19 league goals in 49 games. He's missed a lot of games yes, but when he plays, he's still almost up to 1 in 2 games. 18 goals in 61 games. 1 in 3 There's a lot worse, tbh. And i'd still, for cover - which a new striker would effectively be, rather go for that than for someone untried and untested in the Premiership. There is, true. But that was his peak, its all downhill from here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Fair enough, i see that i'm not going to be able to pursuade you. Na, its Mark Viduka FFS (and in that lies the problem. I hate the fat twat, and i know a lot of toon fans will feel the same about him. Just one of those palyers that grates on your tits, he really did at Leeds and moving to the Smogs topped it off) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Free transfer in July, get the f*cker in man. Roeder has hogtied himself to under twenty fives only. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 His link up play is what you'd buy him for, it's phenomenal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 This season he's been absolutely superb. Definitely changed my opinion of him. Always had the talent but now seems to be using it on a more consistent basis. shock, horror. But must admit I agree with this. Just goes to show that any player with talent, can apply himself, be quality if they do, and show how important real desire and motivation is. Yakubu too, alongside him, forms one of the best partnerships in the premiership. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Fat/Strong Inconsistent/Wrong Lazy/He's not that lazy when he plays, he scores plenty of goals Injury Prone/Would only be cover anyway Slow/Superb footwork Old/Experienced without being a fogey High earner/As would an £8m striker be I removed the things that meant the same thing, and balanced out the so called bad points. If you insist No point getting fussy about it, he's never going to sign for us since GR reckons its under 25's from now on. Aye, the GR that is giving 32-year old Sibierski a two-year contract. 233 starts, 24 subs appearances in almost 7 seasons (approx 37 games a season), 107 goals for Boro & Leeds. I'd take that for a so-called lazy, inconsistent, temperamental, slow, etc. striker any day of the week. 18 league goals in his ENTIRE boro career. He's one shit hot mutherfuker tbh. Like i say, he'd only be cover here anyway. When he plays, he scores goals. It's as simple as that really. Technically he can as he's already at the club Cover though? How much is that cover going to cost us in wages? Too many reasons not tbh. The same amount of wages as an £8m player will demand, who will probably turn out to be less effective anyway. Martins and Owen is going to be the partnership next season, it should work, and even though Roeder is bringing in another striker for definite - he shouldn't tamper with the system and try to fit three strikers in. Because it won't work. Therefore, whoever he brings in, is effectively going to be cover, atleast for the time being. And a £5-10m striker is likely to command similar wages to that of a Viduka. For cover, £0 transfer fee + £40k a week is better than... £5-10m transfer fee + £40k a week Which pretty much blows your cost problem out of the water. The player's right and the price is right as far as i am concerned. He'd be ideal for us. Na, am still not convinced. He'll want £2m+ sign on fee for starters. He'd moan about starts and if were not going to give him the 1st team football he wants, he wont give us the commitment needed. And its still Mark Viduka, it make me feel ill at the thought. Do you remember Rob McDonald, Billy Rafferty, Ian Baird, Frank Pingel, Dave Mitchell and Tony Lormor ? Have you even heard of them ? Good job our shit board doesn't set their sights on top players like those, eh ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Every thread Leazes, why? It's like spam. This thread is about Mark fucking Viduka, not the board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Fat/Strong Inconsistent/Wrong Lazy/He's not that lazy when he plays, he scores plenty of goals Injury Prone/Would only be cover anyway Slow/Superb footwork Old/Experienced without being a fogey High earner/As would an £8m striker be I removed the things that meant the same thing, and balanced out the so called bad points. If you insist No point getting fussy about it, he's never going to sign for us since GR reckons its under 25's from now on. Aye, the GR that is giving 32-year old Sibierski a two-year contract. 233 starts, 24 subs appearances in almost 7 seasons (approx 37 games a season), 107 goals for Boro & Leeds. I'd take that for a so-called lazy, inconsistent, temperamental, slow, etc. striker any day of the week. 18 league goals in his ENTIRE boro career. He's one shit hot mutherfuker tbh. Like i say, he'd only be cover here anyway. When he plays, he scores goals. It's as simple as that really. Technically he can as he's already at the club Cover though? How much is that cover going to cost us in wages? Too many reasons not tbh. The same amount of wages as an £8m player will demand, who will probably turn out to be less effective anyway. Martins and Owen is going to be the partnership next season, it should work, and even though Roeder is bringing in another striker for definite - he shouldn't tamper with the system and try to fit three strikers in. Because it won't work. Therefore, whoever he brings in, is effectively going to be cover, atleast for the time being. And a £5-10m striker is likely to command similar wages to that of a Viduka. For cover, £0 transfer fee + £40k a week is better than... £5-10m transfer fee + £40k a week Which pretty much blows your cost problem out of the water. The player's right and the price is right as far as i am concerned. He'd be ideal for us. Na, am still not convinced. He'll want £2m+ sign on fee for starters. He'd moan about starts and if were not going to give him the 1st team football he wants, he wont give us the commitment needed. And its still Mark Viduka, it make me feel ill at the thought. Do you remember Rob McDonald, Billy Rafferty, Ian Baird, Frank Pingel, Dave Mitchell and Tony Lormor ? Have you even heard of them ? Good job our shit board doesn't set their sights on top players like those, eh ? Aye fantastic band, were excellent live. Shame about the drummer though, terrible things do happen when you mess about with alcohol, drugs and midgets, but that's ROCK & ROLL for you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 My stance on him remains the same: he'd do a job for us and I'd be eager to see him partnered with Martins/Owen. Can't see it happening with Shola's return, Sibierski's new contract and the potential of Dyer and Owen being involved a lot more than usual. I also share people's scepticism about him settling as a "backup" player - even if he did fancy it he'd be an outrageously expensive one, at that, wages-wise. But if we can afford to pay Luque £40k p/w for nowt, then it could be feasable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 My stance on him remains the same: he'd do a job for us and I'd be eager to see him partnered with Martins/Owen. Can't see it happening with Shola's return, Sibierski's new contract and the potential of Dyer and Owen being involved a lot more than usual. I also share people's scepticism about him settling as a "backup" player - even if he did fancy it he'd be an outrageously expensive one, at that, wages-wise. But if we can afford to pay Luque £40k p/w for nowt, then it could be feasable. Good post, i'd agree with that. I see the club keeping Ameobi and Sibierski, trying to hold on to Martins and hoping with all their will that Owen can continue. That's their plans for the next season at least imo, and not-withstanding injuries (!) I think that will do us in good stead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest magpies_rawk Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Ain't make no sense to buy viduka in the light of ameobi and owen coming back. yes we do need a strong striker who has good link up play and provides a physical presence both in and outta the box. however, with sibbers being offered a new contract and assuming he does sign i do not see why and how roedent will accomodate 5 strikers. besides, we should be concentrating our efforts at getting 2, possibly 3 full backs and a proper centre back for once! keep an eye out for carroll as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delima Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 We already have Martins Owen Ameobi Sibierski Carroll Dyer Viduka on a free why not. But transfer efforts should be concentrated on somewhere else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 on a free, why not. for money, no. On a side note, has anyone noticed how all the Australian players have absolutely blossomed since the WC? Shows how Hiddink can really bring out the potential in a player. ...Oh wait, except for Craig Moore.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Viduka is a very good striker, but fuck him, only a matter of time before he goes awol to Australia because his dad's lost his teeth or whatever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 As has been highlighted in this thread, Viduka isn't s*** and has never been s***, the problem is his reputation for a bad attitude and his apparent laziness. What he actually does on the field has shown for sometime now that he's a decent player but the attitude thing causes some people to call him s**** when he isn't, but that's what some people do, like. That would give us 3 strikers, which is better than just 2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Yes, yes, fucking yes! Brilliant player, would love him here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I'd prefer a younger, hungrier player, one on the up rather than down - Viduka is a good player, but I question for how much longer. I also think striker is still a priority as Sibierski and Dyer aint strikers - good fill ins at times but not strikers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Fat/Strong Inconsistent/Wrong Lazy/He's not that lazy when he plays, he scores plenty of goals Injury Prone/Would only be cover anyway Slow/Superb footwork Old/Experienced without being a fogey High earner/As would an £8m striker be I removed the things that meant the same thing, and balanced out the so called bad points. If you insist No point getting fussy about it, he's never going to sign for us since GR reckons its under 25's from now on. Aye, the GR that is giving 32-year old Sibierski a two-year contract. 233 starts, 24 subs appearances in almost 7 seasons (approx 37 games a season), 107 goals for Boro & Leeds. I'd take that for a so-called lazy, inconsistent, temperamental, slow, etc. striker any day of the week. 18 league goals in his ENTIRE boro career. He's one shit hot mutherfuker tbh. Like i say, he'd only be cover here anyway. When he plays, he scores goals. It's as simple as that really. Technically he can as he's already at the club Cover though? How much is that cover going to cost us in wages? Too many reasons not tbh. The same amount of wages as an £8m player will demand, who will probably turn out to be less effective anyway. Martins and Owen is going to be the partnership next season, it should work, and even though Roeder is bringing in another striker for definite - he shouldn't tamper with the system and try to fit three strikers in. Because it won't work. Therefore, whoever he brings in, is effectively going to be cover, atleast for the time being. And a £5-10m striker is likely to command similar wages to that of a Viduka. For cover, £0 transfer fee + £40k a week is better than... £5-10m transfer fee + £40k a week Which pretty much blows your cost problem out of the water. The player's right and the price is right as far as i am concerned. He'd be ideal for us. Na, am still not convinced. He'll want £2m+ sign on fee for starters. He'd moan about starts and if were not going to give him the 1st team football he wants, he wont give us the commitment needed. And its still Mark Viduka, it make me feel ill at the thought. Do you remember Rob McDonald, Billy Rafferty, Ian Baird, Frank Pingel, Dave Mitchell and Tony Lormor ? Have you even heard of them ? Good job our shit board doesn't set their sights on top players like those, eh ? To think Gemmill had the cheek to call you boring!! In regards to Viduka yes he would be a good signing on a free, can score goals, is strong and has great link up play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 playing for a move maybe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marko1892 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I went to the albion game tonite and he was superb. Possibly best player boro had tonite. How did Curtis Davies cope against him? Davies had a good game in all fairness, he seems comfortable and confident on the ball. Saying that though woodgate was the best defender on the pitch by a mile. If Davies is worth £12m then Woodgate is worth double that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 If Woodgate could stay consistantly fit he would easily command that aswell. If Rio went for £30m (?) then Woodgate would go for at least the same imho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin doyle Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Did Woodgate hold opposing players by the hand and drag them to the ground last night? Did that on saturday to Lita on numerous occaisions alas the ref missed all of them. Annoyingly Viduka was playing well though he and Yakabu were slightly cannier than Reading's centre-backs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now