Waghorn to the Sheep

[Brown Nose]

I think Waghorn is suffering from the 'second season syndrome' that a lot of emerging players go through.

He's a known opponent now and defenders have played against him and know his strengths. Added to that he has a burden of a price tag and he has to come to terms with that.

It's far from unusual for a player like Waghorn to go off the boil. However we saw enough last season to see that he is a talented lad with enough potential to have made most fans very happy when he signed permanently. He is still the same player he was in August.

I say keep him on the bench for the rest of this season. Batter him with hard work and expectation in preseason and if he doesn't come good, offload then. Making any decision on him now would be premature.

 

[FryattFox]

I say keep him on the bench for the rest of this season.

Surely sending him out on loan would be more productive?

 

[Brown Nose]

Surely sending him out on loan would be more productive?

I don't think so. We either send him to a team competing with us and potentially harm our own chances or to an inferior lower league team.

Waghorn just needs good coaching, time and stability to develop. He's had plenty of football over the last 18 months.

 

[beaumontfox]

Surely sending him out on loan would be more productive?

I think you should ask Jeff if you can change your username:icon_razz

 

[Jeff]

I think you should ask Jeff if you can change your username:icon_razz

From the FAQ:

"It's not recommended that you use the names of players/managers, or your age etc in your user name, as players get sold, and you have birthdays. So I will be annoyed if I need to change your name for this reason. "

 

[Miles Away]

From the FAQ:

"It's not recommended that you use the names of players/managers, or your age etc in your user name, as players get sold, and you have birthdays. So I will be annoyed if I need to change your name for this reason. "

But does that mean you won't do it?

 

[Jeff]

But does that mean you won't do it?

I consider each case individually.

 

[indierich06]

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co....eve-Bruce/article-2617162-detail/article.html

Is "staggering" amount of money a polite way of saying "silly money"

I don't read it that way personally. People seem to be forgetting that this is the same man that weeks before he sold the player said:

Bruce said: "All of the Championship want Waghorn. It would only be a loan – I would never contemplate selling him.

So when Sunderland were offered £2mil with add ons - not an excessive fee for a top end Championship player these days - the offer suddenly becomes 'staggering' and one that he can't refuse.

It seems to me that you can't take anything that Steve Bruce says at face value and the facts are that he wanted to sell Waghorn to fund the purchase of Gyan. The comments he made after the sale went through are obviously meaningless platitudes, designed to pacify disgruntled fans that are angry about their club selling off young assets on the cheap to fund other signings, rather than developing their own players.

I still fail to see anything in that article that suggests to me that Steve Bruce thinks we paid 'silly money' - and if he did think that, I would be inclined to disagree - or that he was 'laughing all the way to the bank'.

 

[spionfox]

I consider each case dependent on how much money is offered.

Fair enough.

 

[David Gwilliam]

There has been a theme to Sven's time here. He places a greater emphasis on pace than either Pearson or Sousa did. Whatever Waghorn's qualities he is not blessed with great pace. There has also been the arrival of Yakubu. I can see Vassell fitting in well with Yakubu and could have seen Fryatt doing so. However, I cannot see Waghorn (or Howard) as the Yak's striking partner.

Waghorn has not been starting games. Now with Yakubu coming one of the regular attackers - Vassell or more likely Gallagher or Dyer - will be dropped reducing Waghorn's opportunities still further.

Waghorn was bought when we were in the bottom three and (if I remember correctly) we had lost at home. The crowd were unhappy and my guess is that Milan thought Waghorn was worth the money in giving the team and the crowd a boost - especially (again if I remember correctly) as it was no longer his money.

I.

 

[Micky]

At this moment in time, Vassell is streets ahead of Waghorn. I firmly believe that this is down to ability but also mainly experience. Vassell's use of the ball and hold up play is so intelligent and often enables us to support the front man and gain territory. Waggy is a little bit of a headless chicken. Whilst he has good assets and would definately pose a threat in this league I don't think he would consistently provide us with a good outlet ball. I am sure over time Waggy will become a good first team player but it looks as though he will have to be satisfied with the impact role at the moment.

 

[fitz]

Scumderland sold Waggy to fund the Gyan deal, Bruce was only allowed a certain amount to spend and Gyan was slightly over it. Dunno how much of the £3m he needed, but he needed some of it.

 

[spionfox]

I am sure over time Waggy will become a good first team player but it looks as though he will have to be satisfied with the impact role at the moment.

Which would be great. Apart from the odd goal he hasn't made much impact this time around though.

 

[city-faithful]

Waghorn displayed a maturity above his years when he replaced Fryatt, rather successfully, as a goalscoring forward for us last season. As a young inexperienced professional to do that, considering the expectations of our fans, is no mean feat. It is for this reason I would definately be loath to part with Waggy, he knows he can do it and doesn't shirk from the task. I'd bet a pretty penny that, despite not being in the team, he's still the hardest and most enthusiastic trainer and will continue to be until he gets a chance to show it on a Saturday....(or sunday, monday, tues etc. subject to Murdochs choice).

 

[Filthy Rich]

Waghorn displayed a maturity above his years when he replaced Fryatt, rather successfully, as a goalscoring forward for us last season. As a young inexperienced professional to do that, considering the expectations of our fans, is no mean feat. It is for this reason I would definately be loath to part with Waggy, he knows he can do it and doesn't shirk from the task. I'd bet a pretty penny that, despite not being in the team, he's still the hardest and most enthusiastic trainer and will continue to be until he gets a chance to show it on a Saturday....(or sunday, monday, tues etc. subject to Murdochs choice).

Yes, blah blah, but to think he was worth paying anything close to £3 million pounds for is simply ridiculous. No wonder Sunderland bit our hand off.

If we were to get anything like what we paid for him we should take it.

 

[indierich06]

Yes, blah blah, but to think he was worth paying anything close to £3 million pounds for is simply ridiculous. No wonder Sunderland bit our hand off.

If we were to get anything like what we paid for him we should take it.

Ahhh what a compelling argument, you've really shown how much more intelligent you are than the rest of us with that post.

We haven't paid anything close to £3 million pounds. We paid £2 million pounds up front, with add-ons related to appearances. Waghorn scored 12 goals in the league last season, goals that won us much needed points - goals that saw us into the playoffs. Do you really think £2 million for a player, who had already done so much and had (and still has) the potential to be a great player, is too much?

Also, have you intentionally ignored my response to your post earlier in this thread about 'silly money' and 'laughing all the way to the bank'? Because I think I summed up my sentiments there as well.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Tbf, I do think £2mil is too much, but then I seem to have a very different idea about player valuations than others, judging by my surprise of everyone saying £1mil for James Vaughan would be a steal this summer, whereas I thought it was over the odds. I still think £1mil is a lot for a player at this level and would have to be spent on a player who would be a star player in this league.

 

[Micky]

2 million does seem quite a lot when you consider what we got Michael Lamey for.

 

[RHYDAL]

Break his leg then send him on loan.

Harsh but fair.

 

[drummindefender]

Sven says loan only