Charlie Austin on a free

The life of a football coach.

Fact is, in 134 years of football I doubt the Reds have had five or six strikers on the books at the same time who each average double figures for goals. In fact, you’d be hard pressed trying to find any football club with such a luxury.

You could win the league scoring just 23 goals theoretically.

 

Not since brexit unless they're already internationals, and if they are they're not coming here.

 

Chaplin has only ever scored 17 goals for us.

Not that I'm advocating we sign Austin. He clearly doesn't fit our model. The club showed they are flexible with that model when they brought Matty James in on loan and I hope they'd do something similar if we're struggling with a particular position. But I can't think of any reason why we'd throw out the model completely to sign a 30 plus year old striker who, although I rate highly, doesn't fit in with our style of play.

Wish we'd bought him 10 years ago though.

 

Damn Brexit, utterly stupid.

But we have a Poland international at CB.

We've just loaned a USA international.

Ok we're not getting Frances star striker but we definitly can get internationals

 

We dont get internationals, we make internationals.

 

If Helik had already been in the Poland team he wouldn't have come here. He wasn't an international when we signed him. And we won't be able to sign players like that anymore.

And you're going to be disappointed if you think we're going to be signing internationals.

 

Similar to Dike.

 

Depends on the country though doesnt it.

There are plenty of national sides with championship or L1 level players

 

Only alongside not conceding any in 46 I reckon.

 

Plucked out of non-league by Danny Wilson wasn't he? Had a cracking career going right through the leagues and like you say, a decade ago he'd have been perfect for our current model.

But whilst I'm a couple of goals out with CC, it was a good base for comparison, in response to the poster who referred to him. I read criticism of him all the time, yet in two years at this level, he's scored a similar amount of goals as Charlie Austin, who West Brom signed for £4,000,000 the same summer we signed Conor, seven years younger for around half a million, on a fifth of Charlie's wage.

I don't believe he or Frieser played as strikers this season, under Valérien. More of a wide forward with defensive responsibilities. Up front in a two, I think he gets double figures. He did the year previous. And so there's a very fair debate to be had about whether he suits this system 'now' and could we find better?

 

In terms of goals, absolutely. But using any other meaningful, BFC-centred metric? No.

 

Correct. 92 points. Gets you automatically promoted usually.

 

In fact intrigued. It's only 1 goal theoretically

 

It's all based on a points system now. Depends on the reputation of the league you're bringing them in from, how many games they've played etc. Extra points if an international or played continental football.

In essence, the likes of Mads Andersen and Michał Helik would have been eliminated from the spreadsheet.

No coincidence our last two permanent deals were English lads from Norwich and MK Dons.

 

You've lost me.

I was basing it on 23 wins (1-0).

And 23 draws (0-0).

 

I can't, and don't want to, criticise Chaplin's effort. He gives everything he's got and should be applauded for it.

In his first season his goal return was excellent and I'd be surprised if there weren't a few assists too as I recall a number of little flicks and touches in the box.

This season, despite his efforts, I think he's been poor and it's been no surprise to me that he's featured less and less as the season went on. The position he's been asked to play requires more than just hard work. The hard work he provides, the rest he's been found wanting.

In the 18 yard area I think Chaplin is a good player. He scores and creates goals. Outside it I don't think he has a lot to offer other than work rate. As we're asking him to play in a position where he's predominantly outside the penalty box I don't think he's the right player for us. Or us for him.

 

I think that's a fair enough assessment. I'd keep him. He has a couple of years left and is a useful squad player. More than useful if we altered the shape at some point. Which I would, personally.

 

I based the original on normal no. Of points required.
But theoretically. 1x 1-0 win. 45 x 0-0 draws. every other teams games in the league a draw, regardless of goals
48 points wins league.

 

The team at the foot of the table completing the season on 45 points, 1 point from safety, 1 point outside the playoffs, 1 point from automatic promotion and 3 points from the title.

 

When the shape and style that our opponents adopt allows our team to press, we need players in the front 3 whose can close down, and to do that, our players need to be able to run and run. Chaplin is ideal in that situation, and consequently VI picks him when he expects the opposition to play that way. That is why he played against Norwich City. He also scored. He is less effective when the opposition adopts a system that does not allow the press, that is, they do not play football from the back. But then again, Ismael's plan B, which he uses against that sort of team (Swansea City for example), is less effective anyway. The problem with Ismael's system is that it requires players who can work their nuts off, but also who then have the steadiness to take their chances when they come. Personally, I do not think that player exists for a price we can afford. All of our front 3 offer a compromise, in one way or another.