Crouch our for the rest of the season ?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:22 am

May not play again according to this.

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/fo ... -1-9706983" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jedi_master · Post by **jedi_master** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:26 am

Sounds like he might get a one year deal to me, reading that.

I think Vydra and Wells will be loaned/sold and then probably Che Adams bought leaving us with Barnes, Wood, Crouch and Adams for 19/20.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:37 am

AndyClaret wrote:May not play again according to this.

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/fo ... -1-9706983" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

10 Million? Was it really

Goobs · Post by **Goobs** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:41 am

That's going to destroy the wet dreams a few on here were having about him scoring the goal that keeps us up

theroyaldyche · Post by **theroyaldyche** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:43 am

Goobs wrote:That's going to destroy the wet dreams a few on here were having about him scoring the goal that keeps us up

Them goals have already been scored

Goobs · Post by **Goobs** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:47 am

theroyaldyche wrote:Them goals have already been scored

I think we need at least a point on Saturday first. But even then he won't have scored any.

Swizzlestick · Post by **Swizzlestick** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:51 am

I’d be very surprised if we saw him again this season. The only way we should be offering a deal is if we feel he can offer something coaching wise.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:53 am

But did Stoke pay us 10 million for SV or was that the total package?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:53 am

jedi_master wrote:Sounds like he might get a one year deal to me, reading that.

I think Vydra and Wells will be loaned/sold and then probably Che Adams bought leaving us with Barnes, Wood, Crouch and Adams for 19/20.

Where the heck do you see any hint of a one year deal?

Or were you reading a different article?

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:05 am

Oh no! Just as I was thinking how important he would be on out difficult run in. His dressing room banter will be sorely missed.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:06 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Where the heck do you see any hint of a one year deal?

Or were you reading a different article?

reading a different agenda mate...

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:19 am

Hopefully he signs a new deal in the next few weeks. The usuals will explode

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:20 am

I certainly hope we don’t re-sign him next Season. He’s been largely ineffective in the short time he’s been here. Let’s not waste anymore money on him, next term.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:23 am

He gave us a lift, he won us a vital point v Saints and caused havoc v Leicester. His effect was pretty interesting. We then kicked on and produced the last couple, hopefully treble tomorrow, of wins we needed. Worth every penny.
Still not seen the Clancy girl yet which is a pity.

dougcollins · Post by **dougcollins** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:33 am

So which injured has-been striker are Stoke gonna offload to us next season?

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:33 am

Vokes ?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:08 am

He’s contributed to one positive result where we got one point against Southampton.
I doubt he will be on less than £40k a week - so whether that’s been value for money or not is questionable.

Obviously nobody could have predicted this injury and he has a good injury record....though not sure how relevant this is when it was pretty clear he was not fit enough to start a game or last longer than 15 mins.

We had to bring someone in because we sold Vokes - we didn’t have to sell Vokes though...not yet and not in the precarious position we were in

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:11 am

We are no longer in such a precarious position now so it's ended up being a good decision to sell Vokes.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:42 am

From reading that article it wouldn’t be a surprise to see him here next season.

If he is I hope it’s not as third choice. We can do better.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:03 am

South West Claret. wrote:But did Stoke pay us 10 million for SV or was that the total package?

Total package. I think it was £7m plus a £3m addon if we took Crouch in return

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:03 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:We are no longer in such a precarious position now so it's ended up being a good decision to sell Vokes.

If you think it was worth risking a sending off or injury to Barnes or Wood and a few million 6 months early. Seemed a big and unnecessary risk to me when they knew they’d be announcing a £30m plus profit

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:07 am

I think we knew when it was revealed what had happened that he would be unlikely to play again this season

burnmark · Post by **burnmark** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:16 am

We’ve been quick to replace.

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/new ... nent-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:33 am

I thought the club had already sunk as low as possible re transfers in the last 3 windows but giving Crouch a year's contract would be utter bonkers,

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:41 am

I'm in two minds about Crouch for next season.

The first question is whether or not he's got another year in him at the same level he's currently at. That's a physical/medical question for the club and its staff. Clearly we shouldn't be signing him up again if the answer is "no" (and I'm sure we wouldn't).

However, if he is up to it, then I can see the argument for it. His cameos against Southampton, Palace and Liverpool were fairly effective, and to some extent so was that against Leicester. He appears comfortable as an impact sub and capable of getting into the game quickly and adding a different - if slightly desperate at times - dimension. If Dyche wants another aerial option in the squad/on the bench, then this might be one way of doing it, whilst allowing ourselves to be spend our funds on a striker who adds the sort of pacey or creative dimension that I think we all really want to see.

On the other hand, neither Barnes nor Wood are quite the sort of tall target man that Vokes was, and if Dyche wants a more natural like for like replacement for Vokes who can challenge to start games/play more than 20 minutes at a time, we'll have to put aside a fair old chunk of our summer budget (which will impact our recruitment in other areas) for bringing in that player - because it isn't Crouch.

On balance though, leaving aside his illness which no one could have foreseen and which could have affected anyone, I think with hindsight the signing has made more sense than it appeared at the time, even if in part that has been a result of the form and fitness of Barnes and Wood (touch wood).

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:45 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:We are no longer in such a precarious position now so it's ended up being a good decision to sell Vokes.

From what I have heard and understand, Vokes signed his contract extension on the promise he could leave if a club came in for him, because he wanted first team football - meaning we'd get a fee for him as opposed to nothing. He could have potentially left for nothing this summer had he stayed and not signed the extension.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:56 am

selling Vokes wasn't the problem. we should have got rid in the summer an upgraded to a better model. The issue was our ineptness at getting a suitable replacement.

Now had we had people like Defour and Lennon fit and Brady not struggling like he was or Dyche showing more trust in Vydra or been midtable you could have argued we could easily cope without Vokes with options to play 4-5-1 or Vydra from the start

As we were down to the bare bones in midfield and attack to sign an ageing striker struggling in the Championship who can offer 20 min cameos at best whilst we are in the middle of a relegation dogscrap was nothing short awful by a club in our financial postion

Papabendi · Post by **Papabendi** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:00 pm

Couch was spotted relaxing with his missus in Soho Farmhouse, Chipping Norton earlier in the week. Not a bad life.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:01 pm

TVC15 wrote:If you think it was worth risking a sending off or injury to Barnes or Wood and a few million 6 months early. Seemed a big and unnecessary risk to me when they knew they’d be announcing a £30m plus profit

I'm happier looking at the positives of it all.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:06 pm

If we sign Crouch for another year (and I wouldn't be at all surprised) it would be for use as a 20-minute max sub, when we are losing or drawing, so we can get the ball into the area and see what havoc ensues. For that purpose, his age doesn't matter; speed and stamina are scarcely relevant; the important things are his height, his awkwardness, his ball control, and his finishing. The first two don't fade, and from the bits we have seen, he may well still have the other two as well. Certainly the near miss (good save) at the end of one of the matches, can't remember which, was a good bit of skill.

jedi_master · Post by **jedi_master** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:18 pm

Bordeauxclaret wrote:From reading that article it wouldn’t be a surprise to see him here next season.

If he is I hope it’s not as third choice. We can do better.

Apparently you have an agenda if you think that article sounds like he might be here next season.

To the two who had a pop at me earlier for literally nothing, what on Earth?

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:21 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:selling Vokes wasn't the problem. we should have got rid in the summer an upgraded to a better model. The issue was our ineptness at getting a suitable replacement.

Now had we had people like Defour and Lennon fit and Brady not struggling like he was or Dyche showing more trust in Vydra or been midtable you could have argued we could easily cope without Vokes with options to play 4-5-1 or Vydra from the start

As we were down to the bare bones in midfield and attack to sign an ageing striker struggling in the Championship who can offer 20 min cameos at best whilst we are in the middle of a relegation dogscrap was nothing short awful by a club in our financial postion

That's not fair though, is it?

Our two first choice strikers were by that point Barnes and Wood. Those two were clearly the number one partnership. Neither of those worked effectively with Vokes, so it wasn't realistically likely that Vokes would replace either on the basis of form. More pertinently, it also meant that in the case of injury, the only way that Vokes was going to play was as a replacement as lone striker/partner for Vydra to which the remaining one of Barnes or Wood.

So...as a result, it meant that Vokes would have been retained as effectlvely second reserve, with very limited chance of starting unless both Wood or Barnes were injured. I can think of very few Premier League teams - if any - who have that sort of depth.

In addition, I'm really not sure the arguments about injuries elsewhere are relevant, because none of Vokes, Wood or (these days, I suspect) Barnes were going to find themselves on the wing. They're all centre forwards. Of course, in a situation where we really were down to the bare bones, we'd have had one less established first team player to pick from - but I can think of plenty of options (including Vydra) which we had in our back pocket that we could have used before we got to that situation.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:31 pm

jedi_master wrote:Apparently you have an agenda if you think that article sounds like he might be here next season.

To the two who had a pop at me earlier for literally nothing, what on Earth?

I merely asked how you came to your conclusion he was getting a one year deal.

If that's a pop, then so be it, but it was an odd thing to state.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:50 pm

jedi_master wrote:Apparently you have an agenda if you think that article sounds like he might be here next season.

To the two who had a pop at me earlier for literally nothing, what on Earth?

take it in jest mate, I wasn't having a pop at you at all... more at the way forum members usually read into so many different things from media links and I sometimes like to be lighthearted about it

JohnMac · Post by **JohnMac** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:11 pm

I think illness and injury are different categories regardless of the same end product.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:32 pm

claretspice wrote:That's not fair though, is it?

Our two first choice strikers were by that point Barnes and Wood. Those two were clearly the number one partnership. Neither of those worked effectively with Vokes, so it wasn't realistically likely that Vokes would replace either on the basis of form. More pertinently, it also meant that in the case of injury, the only way that Vokes was going to play was as a replacement as lone striker/partner for Vydra to which the remaining one of Barnes or Wood.

So...as a result, it meant that Vokes would have been retained as effectlvely second reserve, with very limited chance of starting unless both Wood or Barnes were injured. I can think of very few Premier League teams - if any - who have that sort of depth.

In addition, I'm really not sure the arguments about injuries elsewhere are relevant, because none of Vokes, Wood or (these days, I suspect) Barnes were going to find themselves on the wing. They're all centre forwards. Of course, in a situation where we really were down to the bare bones, we'd have had one less established first team player to pick from - but I can think of plenty of options (including Vydra) which we had in our back pocket that we could have used before we got to that situation.

Think you misunderstood my point on injurys elsewhere. If all our wingers and midfielders were fit then losing Barnes or Wood would not have been as greater loss as we could revert to a 4-5-1 with Hendirck or one of the wingers playing the umber 10 role. When we are struggling to put two wingers on the pitch and have no real back up in the middle the risk of not having a Striker who can play 90 mins becomes much more pertinent

On your first point Vokes and Barnes have played alongside each other successfully a fair bit and the idea that if Wood or Barnes got injured and Dyche didn't fancy Vydra that he would not play Vokes and the other striker up front is ridiculous. At this level of football we need back up and the hypocricy of the 'club can do no wrong brigrade' (not aimed at you) is really on show. When people criticised the signing of Bamford or Wells it was a case of you have to have a squad even if they aren't going to feature and now when you criticise us not replacing Vokes adequately suddenly the same people have the view of whats the point in replacing Vokes when he's only a squad member and unlikely to feature.

As initially said I think the offer for Vokes was excellent and I would have not been happy had we turned it down but I cant (alright I can with our recent history) believe we couldn't have done better than Crouch as replacement (short or long term)

Herts Clarets · Post by **Herts Clarets** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:57 pm

dsr wrote:If we sign Crouch for another year (and I wouldn't be at all surprised) it would be for use as a 20-minute max sub, when we are losing or drawing, so we can get the ball into the area and see what havoc ensues. For that purpose, his age doesn't matter; speed and stamina are scarcely relevant; the important things are his height, his awkwardness, his ball control, and his finishing. The first two don't fade, and from the bits we have seen, he may well still have the other two as well. Certainly the near miss (good save) at the end of one of the matches, can't remember which, was a good bit of skill.

How about we sign a couple of players that will improve the starting 11. Then maybe we wouldn't need to be wheeling out the likes of Crouch in the last 10 minutes when we aren't winning again. Radical suggestion I know but it may just work...

Failing that, anyone know what Kevin Francis and Ian Ormondroyde are up to these days?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:02 pm

Herts Clarets wrote:How about we sign a couple of players that will improve the starting 11. Then maybe we wouldn't need to be wheeling out the likes of Crouch in the last 10 minutes when we aren't winning again. Radical suggestion I know but it may just work...

Failing that, anyone know what Kevin Francis and Ian Ormondroyde are up to these days?

I don't think it matters if we sign 11 new players for the starting XI - there will still be times when we aren't winning in the last ten minutes.

jrgbfc · Post by **jrgbfc** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:16 pm

After 5 or 6 years of Premiership money I'd like to think we'll be looking to progress a bit more than signing a 38 year old who is capable of coming on as a sub for 20 minutes and trying to get lucky with hopeful punts upfield.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:04 pm

Herts Clarets wrote:How about we sign a couple of players that will improve the starting 11. Then maybe we wouldn't need to be wheeling out the likes of Crouch in the last 10 minutes when we aren't winning again. Radical suggestion I know but it may just work...

Failing that, anyone know what Kevin Francis and Ian Ormondroyde are up to these days?

This is of course, precisely the argument for keeping Crouch. No point in chucking money after another tall striker to sit on the bench, given we've two physical strikers who are first choice - spend the money on someone who offers something different and complimentary to those two, or who can play a different role alongside those two, and therefore enhance the first eleven.

We don't have an unlimited budget, so some "stop-gap" players to add options to the squad are inevitable alongside what ought to be serious investment on a limited number of players in order to enhance the first eleven.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:10 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Think you misunderstood my point on injurys elsewhere. If all our wingers and midfielders were fit then losing Barnes or Wood would not have been as greater loss as we could revert to a 4-5-1 with Hendirck or one of the wingers playing the umber 10 role. When we are struggling to put two wingers on the pitch and have no real back up in the middle the risk of not having a Striker who can play 90 mins becomes much more pertinent

On your first point Vokes and Barnes have played alongside each other successfully a fair bit and the idea that if Wood or Barnes got injured and Dyche didn't fancy Vydra that he would not play Vokes and the other striker up front is ridiculous. At this level of football we need back up and the hypocricy of the 'club can do no wrong brigrade' (not aimed at you) is really on show. When people criticised the signing of Bamford or Wells it was a case of you have to have a squad even if they aren't going to feature and now when you criticise us not replacing Vokes adequately suddenly the same people have the view of whats the point in replacing Vokes when he's only a squad member and unlikely to feature.

As initially said I think the offer for Vokes was excellent and I would have not been happy had we turned it down but I cant (alright I can with our recent history) believe we couldn't have done better than Crouch as replacement (short or long term)

Vokes and Barnes played together successfully once, away at Palace two years ago. I don't think they ever had another occasion when they started a game together and were effective. We certainly tried it a number of times in pre-Christmas without success. They just weren't a complimentary partnership because they were too similar in too many ways.

I did understand your point about the lack of depth in midfield and the fact that if we can't play 4-4-2 due to lack of bodies, we'd need 5 available midfielders rather than 4. It's a valid point, but of course the fact that Vydra (a more natural foil for Wood or Barnes than Vokes) was in the squad demonstrates we weren't quite down to those bare bones quite yet.

jojomk1 · Post by **jojomk1** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:18 pm

I can't believe there are people talking seriously about wanting the club to give Crouch another year
We have to move forwards this summer not backwards - surely our poor record in previous windows shows that
We need to be bringing in improvements on either Wood or Barnes, Cork, Ward, a RB and pace out wide
Nothing personal, but Crouch should be nowhere near this club next season
Also, he wasn't an integral part of the deal with Vokes - we could not miss out on such money for Sam but Dyche wanted short term cover for him and hopefully Crouch was just that and nothing more

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:46 pm

claretspice wrote:Vokes and Barnes played together successfully once, away at Palace two years ago. I don't think they ever had another occasion when they started a game together and were effective. We certainly tried it a number of times in pre-Christmas without success. They just weren't a complimentary partnership because they were too similar in too many ways.

I did understand your point about the lack of depth in midfield and the fact that if we can't play 4-4-2 due to lack of bodies, we'd need 5 available midfielders rather than 4. It's a valid point, but of course the fact that Vydra (a more natural foil for Wood or Barnes than Vokes) was in the squad demonstrates we weren't quite down to those bare bones quite yet.

They started together 4 times including a win and a draw against Man City compared to Barnes and Wood starting 6 matches together last season so its hardly a massive difference.

If anything it highlights what ive been saying for the last couple of years that our strike force has been unbalanced and too much the same. This was seen the first half of this season where Dyche didn't seem to know who he wanted up top.

There's no doubt that Wood and Barnes are first choice but suggesting Vokes couldn't play with either of those two is just nonsense and Vokes and Barnes have combined brilliantly together many a time when both on the pitch in later stages of the games.

Anyhow I'm not trying to build a case for Vokes as I'm glad we got some good money for him but making out like Wood and barnes are a dream pairing and that Vokes had no more than Crouch as some one to chuck on as a sub is over selling the quality of Barnes and Wood and doing Vokes a disservice

jrgbfc · Post by **jrgbfc** » Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:12 pm

I'm hoping we're going to sign a striker who is certa8nly the equal of Barnes and Wood and serious competition for them, even if it means spending 20 million quid.