ARTICLE: Appendix operation forces Crouch out

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:43 pm

Crouch End

An area in North London isn't it?

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:47 pm

The best thing we can take form this (if we stay up) is a lesson.

Sure an appendix can happen to anyone of any age and fitness.

However when you look at the minutes that Walters, Crouch, Reid, Taylor, Robinson and co have played as a percentage of their time here it doesn't reflect well at all.

and when you then convert that into real monetary costs its scary.

anyway. Good luck crouchy. Hope we get to see him again when we are safe.

Bullabill · Post by **Bullabill** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:08 pm

claptrappers_union » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:17 am .........

"don't know about Appendix's (appendi?)..."

Appendixes.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:08 pm

fidelcastro wrote:Is that tumbleweed that I can hear?

Hello Fid

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:03 am

cricketfieldclarets wrote:The best thing we can take form this (if we stay up) is a lesson.

Sure an appendix can happen to anyone of any age and fitness.

However when you look at the minutes that Walters, Crouch, Reid, Taylor, Robinson and co have played as a percentage of their time here it doesn't reflect well at all.

and when you then convert that into real monetary costs its scary.

anyway. Good luck crouchy. Hope we get to see him again when we are safe.

Crouch was never intended to play for long. Nor was Robinson - do you mean the goalkeeper, or is there another Robinson that I've forgotten? Because to complain that Heaton's reserve didn't play much seems a bit odd - Robinson could only have played more if Heaton had played less.

paulus the woodgnome · Post by **paulus the woodgnome** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:21 am

Let's bin all of the players who don't play very much. A squad of 13 players would save us thousands.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:25 am

dsr wrote:Crouch was never intended to play for long.

As above. Wish Crouch well. Not the thread to criticise his signing really.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:31 am

cricketfieldclarets wrote:The best thing we can take form this (if we stay up) is a lesson.

Sure an appendix can happen to anyone of any age and fitness.

However when you look at the minutes that Walters, Crouch, Reid, Taylor, Robinson and co have played as a percentage of their time here it doesn't reflect well at all.

and when you then convert that into real monetary costs its scary.

anyway. Good luck crouchy. Hope we get to see him again when we are safe.

Does Alexander & Barton not come into that thought too given their age ?

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:05 am

cricketfieldclarets wrote:However when you look at the minutes that Walters, Crouch, Reid, Taylor, Robinson and co have played as a percentage of their time here it doesn't reflect well at all.

Taylor was a good signing, probably wouldn't have won the league without him.

claptrappers_union · Post by **claptrappers_union** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:53 am

cricketfieldclarets wrote:However when you look at the minutes that Walters, Crouch, Reid, Taylor, Robinson and co have played as a percentage of their time here it doesn't reflect well at all.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. I think for a footballer after the age of 32 you are recruited to do a particular job. Obviously a players fitness plays a strong part, however its not like when a player is in their 20's with the goal is to stay in the starting XI, the focus changes and its more about what a players experience and ability brings to a squad as a whole.

Ade Akinbiyi in his final seasons was probably more essential to the development of Jay Rodriguez
Ian Wright, Paul Gascoigne and Andy Cole gave the place a bit of lift
David Unsworth, Graham Alexander, Joey Barton were signed because they were leaders
Walters was to bring in realistic competition for the established strikers.
Robinson was an experienced backup keeper
Reid was an option and signed as a player-coach with Premier League experience
Crouch is an option on the bench - can probably carry on doing that job until he is in his 40's

I think when you have a squad of players, older players are never bad signings unless they are completely crocked or their hearts not in it anymore.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:13 am

A shocking signing from minute one.
I never did get it.
In my opinion he was always going to be of limited use to us... I was sorry to see Vokes go.

I never comment on transfers, I trust the manager.
That was not a good one though.

I of course wish Peter Crouch well in his recovery.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:22 am

It's an appendix...not major heart surgery!

Herts Clarets · Post by **Herts Clarets** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:40 am

How many minutes has he spent on the pitch? 20 max? At a rate of what, 40k per week? 800k over 5 months and we won't see him on the pitch again. So I make his hourly rate on the pitch 2.4m per hour.

Nice work if you can get it.

Still at least he can carry on with his media duties and blog to supplement his earnings......

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:46 am

Herts Clarets wrote:How many minutes has he spent on the pitch? 20 max? At a rate of what, 40k per week? 800k over 5 months and we won't see him on the pitch again. So I make his hourly rate on the pitch 2.4m per hour.

Nice work if you can get it.

Still at least he can carry on with his media duties and blog to supplement his earnings......

Way off the mark with 20 minutes and, of course, we all knew that he was going to have an appendix operation, even though the man himself and our medical team must have been unaware. Too many people in the wrong job if they can predict when people need operations, they should be saving lives.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:48 am

Herts Clarets wrote:How many minutes has he spent on the pitch? 20 max? At a rate of what, 40k per week? 800k over 5 months and we won't see him on the pitch again. So I make his hourly rate on the pitch 2.4m per hour.

Nice work if you can get it.

Still at least he can carry on with his media duties and blog to supplement his earnings......

Are you ignoring the fact that he replaced someone else who was by your view doing nothing sat on the bench surely Vokes deserves the nice work if you can get it label too. What about that Nick Pope he must be a real one in your eyes he doesn't even sit on the bench currently.

Herts Clarets · Post by **Herts Clarets** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:49 am

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:Way off the mark with 20 minutes and, of course, we all knew that he was going to have an appendix operation, even though the man himself and our medical team must have been unaware. Too many people in the wrong job if they can predict when people need operations, they should be saving lives.

Not suggesting that, simply highlighting the huge cost of signing another player of advanced years who ends up costing us a fortune. Meanwhile we plead relative poverty in the world of PL football and fail to capture a player who may well improve the starting 11 and have sell on value.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:54 am

Herts Clarets wrote:Not suggesting that, simply highlighting the huge cost of signing another player of advanced years who ends up costing us a fortune. Meanwhile we plead relative poverty in the world of PL football and fail to capture a player who may well improve the starting 11 and have sell on value.

He is a stop gap for a few months not a 5 year deal

Herts Clarets · Post by **Herts Clarets** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:00 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:He is a stop gap for a few months not a 5 year deal

True. We save such monumental wastes on a player like Defour who has spent half his career out injured.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:19 pm

Herts Clarets wrote:How many minutes has he spent on the pitch? 20 max? At a rate of what, 40k per week? 800k over 5 months and we won't see him on the pitch again. So I make his hourly rate on the pitch 2.4m per hour.

Nice work if you can get it.

Still at least he can carry on with his media duties and blog to supplement his earnings......

He got 20 minutes in one game against Leicester, and he's not likely to be on as much as £40k a week.

If you have to make stuff up to justify your criticism, it's probably not justifiable in the first place.

alf_resco · Post by **alf_resco** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:43 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
If you have to make stuff up to justify your criticism, it's probably not justifiable in the first place.

OK fair enough, he's exaggerated a little. He's actually spent 73 mins on the pitch for us but I still believe he'll not be on less than £35k a week.
Still an awful lot of dosh for pitifully little return (no goals and possibly one assist). Highly doubtful he'll be seen in a Burnley shirt again.
Sure, no-one could foresee an appendix job but the facts remain.
When you add this business to giving Defour a contract extension, along with Lennon, Wells and Walters then it's hardly surprising that eyebrows are raised.
As I said on another thread, I hope Mike Rigg has got all his ducks in a row come June.

PS - I wish Crouch a full and speedy recovery.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:57 pm

Surely the eyebrows were lowered by giving the likes of Tarkowsi & McNeil or are the owners of those eyebrows only looking for negatives

Swizzlestick · Post by **Swizzlestick** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:03 pm

We shouldn't need to learn the lesson that signing a 38 year old who couldn't get in to a struggling Championship team is probably going to be a poor use of funds.

Anyway, hope all goes well and everything. Surprised if we ever see him in a Burnley shirt again.

Spike · Post by **Spike** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:11 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:On his latest Podcast he is talking about retiring during this series and how they'll do a Podcast on his retirement. We wont see Peter pull on a Burnley shirt again, unless its for publicity. Listen from about 9 minutes in...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p075brxk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is Appendicitis a thing that you become more likely to get whilst sat on your arse podcasting?

JTClaret · Post by **JTClaret** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:29 pm

Hart's Burnley career is certainly one of the strangest, if not the signing of him.

When he signed we had 2 goalkeepers injured... Only question this asks for me, is what on earth was the point of Lindergaard.
The 2 injured goalkeepers also happened to be England internationals, and 1 wasn't expected to be a long-term injury.
Hart played and appeared to be doing very well, winning MOM awards and even being talked about for a possible England recall.
Results failed to get better, and Hart became one of the reasons, not his keeping skills, but his commanding skills.
Hart was replaced by Heaton, who gave the entire club a massive lift - The result of being captain and a fan-favourite.
Heaton showed why he was captain, and organised the defence in a way I'd forgotten he did.
Results changed dramatically.
Heaton called into the England squad.
Hart became rubbish again, despite not playing (just like Brady became a world-beater when he was injured).
I'd be very surprised if Hart plays for us again.

As for Crouch, he appeared to be a cheap, high-profile replacement for Vokes, who like Vokes, was never going to play much.

One of these days we'll get another good transfer window.

claptrappers_union · Post by **claptrappers_union** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:14 pm

Herts Clarets wrote:True. We save such monumental wastes on a player like Defour who has spent half his career out injured.

To be fair, that's why he is playing for Burnley Football Club. If he wasn't injury prone, he'd still be playing for the best teams in Europe.

jojomk1 · Post by **jojomk1** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:20 pm

Was one of the top earners at Stoke so maybe around £60k per week - he will not have come to us on any less than his contract with them
Add to that he was not part of the Vokes deal - we just needed cover
Considering the ridiculous amount of money we got for Vokes it could be seen as financially acceptable

claptrappers_union · Post by **claptrappers_union** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:28 pm

I still think that Crouch is a decent signing. If you don't think so, I think you have misunderstood why he was signed him in the first place. It was never a like-for-like or improved replacement.

I'd still rather have Crouch than call back Wells

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:35 pm

Everyone keeps saying that the Crouch business was "okay" because he took Sam Vokes spot on the bench. Sam Vokes chipped in with goals from that position. Crouch has not done, and it looks likely now that he wont. Replacing one striker who contributes (even from the bench) with one who does not, is poor business no matter what anyone says.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:37 pm

claptrappers_union wrote:To be fair, that's why he is playing for Burnley Football Club. If he wasn't injury prone, he'd still be playing for the best teams in Europe.

Sorry... What...? you mean he wasn't...!

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:38 pm

boyyanno wrote:Everyone keeps saying that the Crouch business was "okay" because he took Sam Vokes spot on the bench. Sam Vokes chipped in with goals from that position. Crouch has not done, and it looks likely now that he wont. Replacing one striker who contributes (even from the bench) with one who does not, is poor business no matter what anyone says.

lets ignore the penalty he helped win...

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:42 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:lets ignore the penalty he helped win...

He was involved in a long ball that hit the defenders arm, if you want to say he helped win a penalty then fair enough but my point still stands. He has and will contribute far less than Vokes. Vokes wasn't our best striker, but you don't improve a team by bringing in worse players than you already have.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:01 pm

boyyanno wrote:Everyone keeps saying that the Crouch business was "okay" because he took Sam Vokes spot on the bench. Sam Vokes chipped in with goals from that position. Crouch has not done, and it looks likely now that he wont. Replacing one striker who contributes (even from the bench) with one who does not, is poor business no matter what anyone says.

Sam Vokes' last league goal from the bench was just a year ago this weekend, against Watford. Since then he came on as sub in 15 league games without scoring.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:02 pm

dsr wrote:Sam Vokes' last league goal from the bench was just a year ago this weekend, against Watford. Since then he came on as sub in 15 league games without scoring.

Stop bringing facts into it

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:13 pm

Actually, after seeing all the well reasoned arguments above: you've convinced me Crouch was a great signing.

Lets try harder guys.

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:16 pm

dsr wrote:Sam Vokes' last league goal from the bench was just a year ago this weekend, against Watford. Since then he came on as sub in 15 league games without scoring.

In Crouch's last 28 league games. 23 at Championship level, he's contributed to one penalty and got one goal. These facts can show anything.

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:21 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Stop bringing facts into it

You mean stop bringing half the facts into it. See my post above. Crouch has had 23 league games in the decision below and 5 off the bench in the prem but got one goal (in the league below).

Conroy92 · Post by **Conroy92** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:58 pm

yorkyclaret wrote:So you would be happy to start a Premier League season with only 1 fit keeper, who was returning from a long term, serious injury. Amazing that you havn't got a job as manager in the Premier League really.

Please tell me where I said that?

I'll wait.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:05 am

boyyanno wrote:You mean stop bringing half the facts into it. See my post above. Crouch has had 23 league games in the decision below and 5 off the bench in the prem but got one goal (in the league below).

How many has Vokes scored since his move to the league below ?

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:05 am

Maybe it was the right time to let Sam Vokes go, but that doesn't make bringing Peter Crouch in a good bit of business.

dandeclaret · Post by **dandeclaret** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:27 am

boyyanno wrote:You mean stop bringing half the facts into it. See my post above. Crouch has had 23 league games in the decision below and 5 off the bench in the prem but got one goal (in the league below).

Looks like the relevant facts to me. You said Vokes contributes from the bench, the facts countered that somewhat.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:26 pm

During this season Sam has started 10 PL games in which he has scored 3 goals in 744 minutes on the pitch. He has come on as sub in 10 PL games and played 160 minutes with 0 goals. In addition, he started 3 Europa League games spending 262 minutes on the pitch with 0 goals. He also came on as sub in 1 game for 65 minutes and scored 1 goal. He started 1 FA Cup match completing 74 minutes with 0 goals and he came on as sub in the Carabao Cup for just 9 minutes without scoring.
At Stoke he has started 6 games and played a total of 447 minutes with 1 goal.

Peter Crouch started 2 Championship games for Stoke and played 170 minutes. He came on as Sub in 21 Championship games (10 of which were for less than 10 minutes) playing for a total of 281 minutes with 1 goal. He started 1 FA Cup game and came on as sub in another completing 106 minutes and scoring 1 goal (as a sub). He started 1 Carabao Cup match and completed 55 minutes. At Burnley he has made 5 sub appearances and completed 73 minutes without scoring.

Basically, Sam has completed 1294 minutes and scored 4 goals whilst Peter has completed 685 minutes with 2 goals --nothing much to chose between them except Sam scored against Cardiff in our win, Huddersfield in our 1-1 draw and Newcastle in our defeat.

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:30 pm

dandeclaret wrote:Looks like the relevant facts to me. You said Vokes contributes from the bench, the facts countered that somewhat.

The facts only mean something if you have something to compare them to, and the perfect comparison is with Crouch, the player who replaced him, that's why it's half the facts. As someone has said above, I'm not arguing it wasn't time for Vokes to leave, just that Crouch shouldn't have come in.

The facts have been detailed above and they have both made similar contributions for their respective teams recently, the main difference being that Vokes was playing in the premier league and Crouch below. I still think Crouch contributes less than Vokes, I think the full facts back me up.

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:31 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:How many has Vokes scored since his move to the league below ?

More than Crouch.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:39 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:
"How many has Vokes scored since his move to the league below ?"

boyyanno replied:-
"More than Crouch."

Very marginal really because Sam has played 447 minutes in the Championship this season and scored 1 goal whilst Peter has played 451 minutes in the Championship and has scored 1 goal.

dandeclaret · Post by **dandeclaret** » Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:36 pm

boyyanno wrote:The facts only mean something if you have something to compare them to

I think you’re mixing up facts and a comparison. A comparison definitely only means something g she. You have something to compare to. Facts are facts.