Jump to content

Scott Hogan


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

Said it before but I don't think Hogan, Hourihane, Lansbury or Bree were "Bruce signings"

I'm sure he OK'ed them, but I don't think it was him who scouted and brought them to the club.

He might have failed to get the best out of them last season, but I don't blame him for the money spent on them.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Would prefer him on the bench to having 17 right backs.

Well Bruce sent on Lansbury from the bench and he did something Hogan has repeatedly failed to do. Scored.  Im in no rush for Hogan to be back on the bench TBH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sne said:

Said it before but I don't think Hogan, Hourihane, Lansbury or Bree were "Bruce signings"

I'm sure he OK'ed them, but I don't think it was him who scouted and brought them to the club.

He might have failed to get the best out of them last season, but I don't blame him for the money spent on them.

I cant agree with this. Cant see bruce not authorising four signings espically 15m on hogan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

I cant agree with this. Cant see bruce not authorising four signings espically 15m on hogan

But i did say he authorised them (or OK'ed them)'

I just think that these ones were mainly chosen by our football people. Where as Johnstone, Samba, Terry, Snodgrass, Elmo, Whelan... are very much Bruce signings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, sne said:

But i did say he authorised them (or OK'ed them)'

I just think that these ones were mainly chosen by our football people. Where as Johnstone, Samba, Terry, Snodgrass, Elmo, Whelan... are very much Bruce signings.

I just cant see thav myself sne because bruce doesnt seem the kind of character would accept having little input in his signings.

The hogan signing was baffling however i do think bruce wanted him and the board got it done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sne said:

 

I'm sure he OK'ed them, but I don't think it was him who scouted and brought them to the club.

Purely my opinion, but I think the only "Scouting" we did on these players was looking at their stats for the current season.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jim said:

Purely my opinion, but I think the only "Scouting" we did on these players was looking at their stats for the current season.

Agree

They felt very much like "moneyball" signings rather than players signed to fit in a specific role for the team.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sne said:

Agree

They felt very much like "moneyball" signings rather than players signed to fit in a specific role for the team.

 

 

9 minutes ago, jim said:

Purely my opinion, but I think the only "Scouting" we did on these players was looking at their stats for the current season.

Bruce looked at taking either/both of them to Hull to boost their promotion chances before he got anywhere near VP. They wouldn't have fitted the 'style' he played there either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should have brought in an experienced  No9 in the summer a dominant particularly in the air forward( i.e Glenn Murray).......I think in playing Kieran, SB has found this out, but the lad is learning and his box work is still raw.

This is in no way critical of what Kieran has done.....but he adds muscle deeper down the pitch and helps to bring the midfield in.......I think a player like Niall Quinn or Peter Crouch ( only in terms of type) would benefit Scott where they would win ball in the box and bring Scott in where he could plan his position better.......similar to Kevin Phillips in his pomp.

I think Kodjia and Kieran are not right for Scott for various/differing reasons.

  • Kodjia is a lone wolf and does not link in well.
  • Keiran is not yet developed to winning the ball accurately & consistently in the box to bring Scott in.

I have not given up on him, but I am aware that a fair amount of water has now passed under the bridge.

Edited by TRO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sne said:

Agree

They felt very much like "moneyball" signings rather than players signed to fit in a specific role for the team.

 

Isnt that what Moneyball signings are?  Players who statistically fit a specific need?   I'd say careless, incompetant or lazy are better descriptions for those signings!

Edited by GREAT_BEARD_OF_ZEUS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LancsVillan said:

 

Bruce looked at taking either/both of them to Hull to boost their promotion chances before he got anywhere near VP. They wouldn't have fitted the 'style' he played there either

Didn't RDM sign McCormack for Villa not Bruce?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GREAT_BEARD_OF_ZEUS said:

Isnt that what Moneyball signings are?  Players who statistically fit a specific need?   I'd say careless, incompetant or lazy are better descriptions for those signings!

I think buying a striker on goal scoring record is different from buying a player purley on stats such as interceptions, completed passes etc.

Hogan was talked about as the best striker in the division at the time - but for whatever reasons he hasn't delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â