Good to see Baldock back

[Hugo Rune]

The Baldock-Hemed partership is tried and tested. If Hemed goes to 1 goal in 2 games again with Sam, then they should both play. Our central midfielders and defenders need to score some more as well as Sam.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Perhaps the same thinking about running around for others should be applied to players like O'Grady and Colunga then and we should hang on to them as they are prolific as Baldock.

Were we top of the league and unbeaten when they were playing?

 

[WhingForPresident]

Why is it that some people seem to always need a player to actively dislike? If he didn't give a shit and moped around the pitch contributing nothing then I could understand some of the harsh words against him but it's certainly not the case with Baldock. His lack of goals is a worry but his overall contribution is overlooked somewhat, I feel.

I also can't understand the logic in getting on the back of any of our players that have contributed to our fantastic season so far in a positive manner. We haven't lost a single league game of the 16 he has featured in...

If I look like a fool when this thread is inevitably bounced for one reason or another, so be it. I haven't lost faith in him, as I've made quite clear before, and I will love it, LOVE IT, when he silences his critics.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

There's a wider debate buried in here that I find really interesting - should a striker be judged only by his scoring record?

People have been having the same debate about Jordan Rhodes, only Rhodes is the Yin to Baldock's Yang: a striker who scores lots of goals but doesn't do much else. He also attracts the same polarised opinions between people who just look at his record and people who take into account the other things he does.

Personally I can see the benefits of both but think the focus should be on THE TEAM scoring rather than the individual, in the same way coaches tell kids that you defend as a team you also score goals as a team. If Baldock is making runs that open up space for other players to score that should be taken onto account, just ball watching is a classic football supporter thing to do. In the early part of the season he was part of a system that was winning games, just because he wasn't the one putting the ball in the net it doesn't mean he's any less important.

Therein lies the beauty of football. It's a polarising game in so many ways, and so open to subjective opinion.

Personally I'm with you on this debate and on Baldock - I prefer multifunctional players who can do a number of things in a game, and therefore I'm willing to overlook his poor goalscoring record as long as we're winning games and CH believes he's got a clear part to play. Saying that, if people want a striker to only score goals and that's what they're going to judge all strikers on, then fair play to them. It's a tad archaic, but they've every right to hold that opinion.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

There's a wider debate buried in here that I find really interesting - should a striker be judged only by his scoring record?

People have been having the same debate about Jordan Rhodes, only Rhodes is the Yin to Baldock's Yang: a striker who scores lots of goals but doesn't do much else. He also attracts the same polarised opinions between people who just look at his record and people who take into account the other things he does.

Personally I can see the benefits of both but think the focus should be on THE TEAM scoring rather than the individual, in the same way coaches tell kids that you defend as a team you also score goals as a team. If Baldock is making runs that open up space for other players to score that should be taken onto account, just ball watching is a classic football supporter thing to do. In the early part of the season he was part of a system that was winning games, just because he wasn't the one putting the ball in the net it doesn't mean he's any less important.

So I guess you were in the CMS in camp then.

Gotcha.

Strikers are there to score goals. He doesnt. He fluffs his shots, misses sitters and yes he runs around and has a better ball control than CMS but nope i'm OUT.

 

[Hugo Rune]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wuLCM-w7MRk

Hopefully - this form and instinct could return?

 

[Billy the Fish]

So I guess you were in the CMS in camp then.

Gotcha.

Strikers are there to score goals. He doesnt. He fluffs his shots, misses sitters and yes he runs around and has a better ball control than CMS but nope i'm OUT.

I'm not in any camp. I find Baldock frustrating because if his eye for goal was a little bit better he'd be a brilliant player. I just don't think he deserves the criticism he gets from some people who ignore/can't see the things he does well and the benefit that has to the rest of the team. It's not just a case of running around it's where and when he runs to open the pitch up for other players.

CMS had his moments but ultimately wasn't the same player after the injury. He was wasted in Gus's system, playing as a lone striker didn't suit him at all. I don't think CMS's positional play was anywhere near as good as Baldock's, much of the time he'd run into dead ends or chase balls he was never going to get.

 

[Munkfish]

So I guess you were in the CMS in camp then.

Gotcha.

Strikers are there to score goals. He doesnt. He fluffs his shots, misses sitters and yes he runs around and has a better ball control than CMS but nope i'm OUT.

Name me the shots and sitters he has missed?

Pretty sure the goals he has scored have always been neatly finished, do you remember his run from kick off which set up Kayal for his goal against Hudds? No you probably don't as I would imagine no matter what he does you will decide to dislike him.

 

[B.W.]

I know football is about opinions but some of the stuff I read on here is laughable.
People saying Baldock is no better than CMS for starters. Ok Baldock has not scored a great deal of goals for us, but anyone can see he's a much better footballer than CMS. Great first touch, and more of a football brain. He isn't just running around like CMS either, he's making runs which was pulling teams apart at the start of the season. He himself will know he needs to improve on his goal scoring for us, but not ever striker needs to score loads of goals.

Yes, but 1 striker does have to score enough goals. Sam B has 2, Hemed 8. As I said before, given their respective game time, neither is scoring enough. The comparison with CMS is a red herring, but nobody said he is a better player, just that he scored more (which is a fact). You are therefore the one offering the laughable comments.

 

[B.W.]

Any chance you could show a bit of support to one of our players after a long lay off? He might not be the most prolific striker but he is still another option for Hughton in this crucial run in.

Yes, definitely, I never said he is a poor option, but certainly not a starter IMHO.

 

[B.W.]

There's a wider debate buried in here that I find really interesting - should a striker be judged only by his scoring record?

People have been having the same debate about Jordan Rhodes, only Rhodes is the Yin to Baldock's Yang: a striker who scores lots of goals but doesn't do much else. He also attracts the same polarised opinions between people who just look at his record and people who take into account the other things he does.

Personally I can see the benefits of both but think the focus should be on THE TEAM scoring rather than the individual, in the same way coaches tell kids that you defend as a team you also score goals as a team. If Baldock is making runs that open up space for other players to score that should be taken onto account, just ball watching is a classic football supporter thing to do. In the early part of the season he was part of a system that was winning games, just because he wasn't the one putting the ball in the net it doesn't mean he's any less important.

Let's put it this way... how much did Boro' pay for JR? And how much would they pay for SB? There is your answer.

 

[B.W.]

The Baldock-Hemed partership is tried and tested. If Hemed goes to 1 goal in 2 games again with Sam, then they should both play. Our central midfielders and defenders need to score some more as well as Sam.

Hmmm. Not if we have far better options now in Wilson and Sir Bob.

 

[B.W.]

Were we top of the league and unbeaten when they were playing?

No, so what?

 

[B.W.]

Why is it that some people seem to always need a player to actively dislike? If he didn't give a shit and moped around the pitch contributing nothing then I could understand some of the harsh words against him but it's certainly not the case with Baldock. His lack of goals is a worry but his overall contribution is overlooked somewhat, I feel.

I also can't understand the logic in getting on the back of any of our players that have contributed to our fantastic season so far in a positive manner. We haven't lost a single league game of the 16 he has featured in...

If I look like a fool when this thread is inevitably bounced for one reason or another, so be it. I haven't lost faith in him, as I've made quite clear before, and I will love it, LOVE IT, when he silences his critics.

Bounce this comment if he does 'silence his critics'. He won't. And, believe me, I wish he would.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Yes, but 1 striker does have to score enough goals. Sam B has 2, Hemed 8. As I said before, given their respective game time, neither is scoring enough. The comparison with CMS is a red herring, but nobody said he is a better player, just that he scored more (which is a fact). You are therefore the one offering the laughable comments.

1! Sam Baldock has scored 1! Why are we just allowing him to double his tally with an own goal he horrendously missed?!

I'd love it if he started scoring the occasional goal, I'm happy for it to be bounced every few seconds but it won't happen because the guy is crap in the Championship and should be 5th choice when/if Murray arrives. If he has a good attitude around the place and helps the squad, then by all means keep him around but if not, get him out on loan to League 1 where he does score goals because defenders aren't as good and goalkeepers aren't quite so pesky - and it would make selling him in the summer that little bit easier.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Name me the shots and sitters he has missed?

Pretty sure the goals he has scored have always been neatly finished, do you remember his run from kick off which set up Kayal for his goal against Hudds? No you probably don't as I would imagine no matter what he does you will decide to dislike him.

I have seen enough of him this season and last to know how ineffective he is in front of goal thank you very much. There is one spectacular fluffed shot this season I forget who because I dont keep a database.

So I will use goals scored ONE.

And THREE last year in a team where Dunk got EIGHT.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wuLCM-w7MRk

Hopefully - this form and instinct could return?

Yes in LEAGUE ONE

 

[Easy 10]

The fact of the matter is, Sam Baldock simply joins a loooooong list of non-goalscoring centre forwards we've had at the club in the Amex era. The ONLY striker of any note we have had here since getting back into the Championship is Ulloa. Other than him, the goalscoring records of pretty much every striker we have signed, allowing for the fact BZ is now 53, has been at best BANG average, and for the most part, pitiful. Take a look.

Ulloa, 23 in 50 (0.46) – speaks for itself
Zamora, 7 in 22 (0.31) – the old warhorse is doing us proud
Hemed, 8 in 29 (0.27) – average to poor
Barnes, 22 in 92 (0.24) – decent considering he was usually played wide
CMS, 21 in 109 (0.19) – piss poor
Colunga, 3 in 17 (0.17) – piss poor
Baldock, 4 in 26 (0.15) – piss poor
Dobbie 2 in 15 (0.13) – piss poor
Rodriguez, 1 in 10 (0.10) – piss poor
Hoskins, 1 in 18 (0.05) – never really had a chance
COG, 1 in 31 (0.03) – speaks for itself

That’s without bothering to mention the pitiful on-loan “contributions” from the likes of Paynter, Obika, Lita, and probably half a dozen other strikers so nondescript I’ve forgotten all about them. About the only loan striker who came in and did anything was Darren Bents 2 in 5 for us, but that was far too short a spell to make it worthwhile including.

When we sign a striker who isn’t ENTIRELY shit, but still basically can’t score for toffee, we fall back on the old “works hard, makes good runs, creates space for others, holds the ball up” mantras and excuses. Which is fine, its a team game after all. And maybe not having one particular striker to be feared (other than Leo) has stood us in pretty good stead, being as only 1 of the 5 seasons so far at the Amex has been a complete HORROR show. But wouldn’t it be great to get a proper goalscorer through the door one day. Someone who you could hang your hat on getting 20 goals. Leo really has been the only one in the last 5 years.

In summary, we've had 9 transfer windows at the Amex, and only signed 1 decent striker. That's it.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

The fact of the matter is, Sam Baldock simply joins a loooooong list of non-goalscoring centre forwards we've had at the club in the Amex era. The ONLY striker of any note we have had here since getting back into the Championship is Ulloa. Other than him, the goalscoring records of pretty much every striker we have signed, allowing for the fact BZ is now 53, has been at best BANG average, and for the most part, pitiful. Take a look.

Ulloa, 23 in 50 (0.46) – speaks for itself
Zamora, 7 in 22 (0.31) – the old warhorse is doing us proud
Hemed, 8 in 29 (0.27) – average to poor
Barnes, 22 in 92 (0.24) – decent considering he was usually played wide
CMS, 21 in 109 (0.19) – piss poor
Colunga, 3 in 17 (0.17) – piss poor
Baldock, 4 in 26 (0.15) – piss poor
Dobbie 2 in 15 (0.13) – piss poor
Rodriguez, 1 in 10 (0.10) – piss poor
Hoskins, 1 in 18 (0.05) – never really had a chance
COG, 1 in 31 (0.03) – speaks for itself

That’s without bothering to mention the pitiful on-loan “contributions” from the likes of Paynter, Obika, Lita, and probably half a dozen other strikers so nondescript I’ve forgotten all about them. About the only loan striker who came in and did anything was Darren Bents 2 in 5 for us, but that was far too short a spell to make it worthwhile including.

When we sign a striker who isn’t ENTIRELY shit, but still basically can’t score for toffee, we fall back on the old “works hard, makes good runs, creates space for others, holds the ball up” mantras and excuses. Which is fine, its a team game after all. And maybe not having one particular striker to be feared (other than Leo) has stood us in pretty good stead, being as only 1 of the 5 seasons so far at the Amex has been a complete HORROR show. But wouldn’t it be great to get a proper goalscorer through the door one day. Someone who you could hang your hat on getting 20 goals. Leo really has been the only one in the last 5 years.

In summary, we've had 9 transfer windows at the Amex, and only signed 1 decent striker. That's it.

:doffscap:

I do think Hemed should be classed as average (as opposed to poor) because its his first season and he is only 3 behind Rhodes as it stands.

 

[Munkfish]

I have seen enough of him this season and last to know how ineffective he is in front of goal thank you very much. There is one spectacular fluffed shot this season I forget who because I dont keep a database.

So I will use goals scored ONE.

And THREE last year in a team where Dunk got EIGHT.

Dunk hasnt scored once this season. Baldock has One. Does this mean he has improved.

Looking forward to Baldock banging in a few goals for us and this thread being bumped.