Waghorn - staying at City ?

[Mark_w]

That 5 - 7 game period was actually 10 games

 

He started against Brum on October 20th (I think all present will fondly remember him scooping the ball over the bar from a couple of yards out) and started most games until December 8th. He didn't actually score until the 6th game of that 'excellent run' in the 6-0 demolition of Ipswich.

 

He didn't start against Watford. Between Birmingham and Barnsley (the 10 games), Waghorn started 9, we lost one game he started, we beat Ipswich 6-0 and Derby 4-1 during that spell and Foxes Talk posters voted him the Player Of The Month for November. He wasn't prolific, but in terms of all round performance he was brilliant and frankly, right now our strikers aren't prolific. Not saying Vardy or Nugent deserve to be dropped, but if required Waggy could easily slot in and do just as good a job, providing he gets a decent run in the team.

[LCCFox96]

That 5 - 7 game period was actually 10 games

He started against Brum on October 20th (I think all present will fondly remember him scooping the ball over the bar from a couple of yards out) and started most games until December 8th. He didn't actually score until the 6th game of that 'excellent run' in the 6-0 demolition of Ipswich.

Fine 10 games...actually discredits your point as he played better for a longer period of time.

Yes I went to the brum game and granted that was not a pretty moment. But I did say while he didn't score bountifully I and many others thought he played really well. I think that was more reasonable to expect given his circumstances (coming back from injury etc) at the time than a goal scoring run. No one doubted his performances and even NP openly said he was pleased with him.

This is the problem when you judge strikers purely on their goal scoring credentials. Whilst we expect them to score they first need a chance to get in the team and play well and then the goals will come as waghorn showed with his loan spell with us and eventually scoring against Ipswich before adding a few more.

[fleckneymike]

He didn't start against Watford. Between Birmingham and Barnsley (the 10 games), Waghorn started 9, we lost one game he started, we beat Ipswich 6-0 and Derby 4-1 during that spell and Foxes Talk posters voted him the Player Of The Month for November. He wasn't prolific, but in terms of all round performance he was brilliant and frankly, right now our strikers aren't prolific. Not saying Vardy or Nugent deserve to be dropped, but if required Waggy could easily slot in and do just as good a job, providing he gets a decent run in the team.

 

I'm aware that to some penalties don't count but Nugent's 12 goals in 26 looks quite good. Heck even Vardy's 7 in 24 is better than Waghorn's. 

 

The 'problem' most fans point to is our failure to convert chances, I fail to see how Martyn Waghorn (a man who has 8 goals in nearly 4 years) is the solution

[fleckneymike]

Fine 10 games...actually discredits your point as he played better for a longer period of time.

Yes I went to the brum game and granted that was not a pretty moment. But I did say while he didn't score bountifully I and many others thought he played really well. I think that was more reasonable to expect given his circumstances (coming back from injury etc) at the time than a goal scoring run. No one doubted his performances and even NP openly said he was pleased with him.

This is the problem when you judge strikers purely on their goal scoring credentials. Whilst we expect them to score they first need a chance to get in the team and play well and then the goals will come as waghorn showed with his loan spell with us and eventually scoring against Ipswich before adding a few more.

 

Well I think we can both discount the Birmingham game as he was complete shit in that.

[Guest Sharpe's Fox]

Struggling to see why people think Waghorn is a viable applicant for a starting place for a team at the top of the league, he is barely good enough to be in the match day squad. At least Schlupp can be cover across the left side.

[Hungry Hungry Fox]

Waghorn is L1 standard, bottom half championship standard at best

If we get an offer of 500k we should take it without hesitation

[Mark_w]

I'm aware that to some penalties don't count but Nugent's 12 goals in 26 looks quite good. Heck even Vardy's 7 in 24 is better than Waghorn's. 

 

The 'problem' most fans point to is our failure to convert chances, I fail to see how Martyn Waghorn (a man who has 8 goals in nearly 4 years) is the solution

 

I'm not saying that penalties don't count I'm just pretty sure someone else is capable of taking them just as well. Vardy's Championship record is no better than Waghorn's really, I mean dropping him would be stupid because he's our best striker right now, but if Waghorn was given a run of twenty odd games I think he's capable of similar. And this '8 goals in 4 years' stuff is just a lame way to discredit him, he's started less games than he did during his loan spell in those four years (because of injury and experiments with strikers who we couldn't afford to keep or who were no better).

[fleckneymike]

I'm not saying that penalties don't count I'm just pretty sure someone else is capable of taking them just as well. Vardy's Championship record is no better than Waghorn's really, I mean dropping him would be stupid because he's our best striker right now, but if Waghorn was given a run of twenty odd games I think he's capable of similar. And this '8 goals in 4 years' stuff is just a lame way to discredit him, he's started less games than he did during his loan spell in those four years.

 

Because he's shit.

[Mark_w]

Because he's shit.

 

No, because of injury and experiments with strikers who we couldn't afford to keep or who were no better.

[LCCFox96]

This is just over the top unfair criticism now. Hope he scores today.

[LCFC FOX]

Eight goals.

your point is?

If a striker doesn't score many goals but helps the team win what's the problem? Is Vardy not very good too then? and Wood?

[Mark_w]

your point is?

If a striker doesn't score many goals but helps the team win what's the problem? Is Vardy not very good too then? and Wood?

 

Wood's goalscoring record in the Championship is great.

[fleckneymike]

No, because of injury and experiments with strikers who we couldn't afford to keep or who were no better.

 

WTF?

 

He was kept out of the team by players we didn't want or who were worse? How does that logic work? Are you saying managers had a vendetta against him which meant they'd rather play strikers they didn't want or who they knew were worse just for shits and giggles?

[Mark_w]

WTF?

 

He was kept out of the team by players we didn't want or who were worse? How does that logic work? Are you saying managers had a vendetta against him which meant they'd rather play strikers they didn't want or who they knew were worse just for shits and giggles?

 

What the **** are you talking about? When did I say managers didn't want those players?

I was talking about Yakubu who we couldn't afford to keep. And the likes of Beckford who proved to be no better than Waghorn.

 

Is that difficult to understand?

[fleckneymike]

your point is?

If a striker doesn't score many goals but helps the team win what's the problem? Is Vardy not very good too then? and Wood?

 

My point is, the whole striker debate is centred around the fact we create lots and lots of chances but fail to convert them so quite why the epitome of a non prolific striker in Waghorn would be the solution is baffling. We have 'busy' strikers in Vardy and Nugent, they have the annoying unfair advantage over Waghorn of actually being able to score goals.

[fleckneymike]

What the **** are you talking about? When did I say managers didn't want those players?

I was talking about Yakubu who we couldn't afford to keep. And the likes of Beckford who proved to be no better than Waghorn.

 

Is that difficult to understand?

 

Well forgive me, but when someone says "experiments with strikers who we couldn't afford to keep or who were no better." I tend to read that as meaning strikers we didn't want (by virtue of us not being able to afford them) and strikers who weren't as good as Waghorn (by virtue of who were no better).

 

Now if what you meant to say was he was kept out of the side by players who were better then fair enough.

[Leicesterpool]

Struggling to see why people think Waghorn is a viable applicant for a starting place for a team at the top of the league, he is barely good enough to be in the match day squad. At least Schlupp can be cover across the left side.

Waggy's trouble is he simply hasn't got the pace, a number of times i've seen him in the past is he gets the ball, stands for about ten seconds trying to turn. Waghorn as probably got alot more power than the rest of our strikers but just doesn't have either the pace or keeping his shots on target! He simply too slow! He doesn't fit into our fast game we play, Dyer could go on a long run into the box, he'd cross and Waghorn would still be trotting from the halfway line. 

 

I agree we need someone to just put it into the back of net, but even Waghorn can't do that! hope he proves me wrong!

[LCFC FOX]

How do you know Waghorn wouldn't convert these chances if he hasn't been given a chance? Regular game time could see the form we seen with him when he was on loan

[Mark_w]

 

Well forgive me, but when someone says "experiments with strikers who we couldn't afford to keep or who were no better." I tend to read that as meaning strikers we didn't want (by virtue of us not being able to afford them) and strikers who weren't as good as Waghorn (by virtue of who were no better).

 

Now if what you meant to say was he was kept out of the side by players who were better then fair enough.

 

Yakubu was better but we couldn't afford to pay his wages (when I said afford what I meant was we didn't have enough money to sign them because we're not actually the richest club in the world - see what I was getting at?)

 

Sven clearly thought that Beckford was miles ahead of Waghorn but he was wrong. Both are probably on a similar level but Beckford cost a lot more in terms of wages.

 

Isn't that pretty much what I said originally. I'm finding it very difficult to see what confused you?

[lcfc will]

My point is, the whole striker debate is centred around the fact we create lots and lots of chances but fail to convert them so quite why the epitome of a non prolific striker in Waghorn would be the solution is baffling. We have 'busy' strikers in Vardy and Nugent, they have the annoying unfair advantage over Waghorn of actually being able to score goals.

Rubbish. You seem to be going round in circles, we have established that Waghorn has the ability to score goals if given a run in the team. You keep making the same point over and over and its getting slightly irritating. Nugent has actually scored 4 in 26 (not including penos, I know full well that they count but others could score them too) which is in no way better than Waghorn's 8 in 21.

[ithuriel]

Waggy is decent but not in  the formation we usually play.

In is first season with us he shone when Fryatt was injured and he was playing as a virtual lone striker holding the ball up, waiting for support from the wings or from King.

Playing as a front two, running from deep he is very wasteful but then again our strikers tend to waste a lot of chances, needing about ten attempts for one goal it seems :xmaslaugh:

Obviously he has no future here since we have better options up front and any new striker coming in would have to be better than what we currently have.

[kingfox]

Fookin hell, I knew you liked Waghorn Mark, but sticking up for him the way you have today, is a bit too extreme.

 

I'm starting to think, you and Waghorn have actually had a proper fling. 

[fleckneymike]

Rubbish. You seem to be going round in circles, we have established that Waghorn has the ability to score goals if given a run in the team. You keep making the same point over and over and its getting slightly irritating. Nugent has actually scored 4 in 26 (not including penos, I know full well that they count but others could score them too) which is in no way better than Waghorn's 8 in 21.

 

Hang on. To make Waghorn look good we're having to discount Nugent's penalties? 

 

If anyone could score those penalties I'd have guessed that Nugent would be straight out of the side and penalty duties given to someone else whilst a 'better' striker was put in the side.

 

Waghorn's ability to score goals is rooted in one season in 09/10 when he scored 12. TWELVE, you know, the amount that Nugent currently has in December (or one more than the lazy unaffordable Yakubu scored in 20 games). I actually think Nugent is playing quite badly BUT I'd still take him at his worst over Waghorn.

 

This is not a vendetta against Waghorn, he just isn't good enough, much in the same way that Beckford wasn't good enough (he scored 15 by the way, but 6 of those were cup goals and like penalties don't count)

[Mark_w]

Fookin hell, I knew you liked Waghorn Mark, but sticking up for him the way you have today, is a bit too extreme.

 

I'm starting to think, you and Waghorn have actually had a proper fling. 

 

Well plenty of others are arguing it that strongly in this thread. Waggy must really get around.

 

---

 

Fleckney did I call Yakubu lazy? No. Did I say he is miles better than Waghorn? Yes.

 

Are you putting words in peoples mouths to try and discredit their argument? Yep.

[fleckneymike]

Well plenty of others are arguing it that strongly in this thread. Waggy must really get around.

 

---

 

Fleckney did I call Yakubu lazy? No. Did I say he is miles better than Waghorn? Yes.

 

Are you putting words in peoples mouths to try and discredit their argument? Yep.

 

Have you put Waghorn's cock in your mouth? Yup.

 

With reference to Yakubu, I believe I was replying to someone else and merely stated two opinions. You have chosen to believe (somewhat arrogantly) that I was referring to you, I wasn't.