A terrible shame with his injury history as he would have been a fantastic asset if he'd have been able to manage 35 games a season.
But he would have been an asset for someone else then.
Why is that?
He's so unreliable from a fitness perspective and it's seen as he can only really be used sparingly as an impact sub. Along with him apparently being on high wages with us means teams are unlikely to take a risk. With his talents, and with strikers at a premium, if he had the fitness and reliability to go with it, a better team than us would have him.
The 38 app that Wikipedia have for the 20/21 season from memory was for the amount of times Chuks was in the 18 man squad and not the amount of games he got on the pitch. Definitely his best season for Aneke being available for selection.
Since his return when JJ played him for the full duration of a match when he scored a late equaliser on his return from Birmingham, CAFC have played about 118 matches and Chuks has only been available for 39 so he needs a change of fortune so our own cheat code can prosper.
No, he played in 38 league games. Often as a sub, but he played over 1500 minutes across 38 league games that season
15 goals in 1500 minutes 🤔
Thanks for the reminder that's where the Chuks scores a goal every 100 minutes he's on the field comes from. 20/21 season.
Pretty much a goal a game. Better than Alfie and many others.
It is a bit different though. I am a big Chuks fan but I think most strikers would post pretty good minutes to goals ratios if they only came on for the last 30 against tired defenders in most of their appearances.
It’s not just the goals with Chuks though, for me he can almost transform a whole team performance from poor/average to a good last half an hour single handedly. He causes havoc and his hold up/link up play is brilliant. He just makes the whole team better even in games where we’ve looked terrible until he’s come on (so most of his appearances in recent years). The Ipswich 4-4 stands out for me, he didn’t score/assist but changed that game and got us a result against the best team in the league
A terrible shame with his injury history as he would have been a fantastic asset if he'd have been able to manage 35 games a season.
But he would have been an asset for someone else then.
Why is that?
He's so unreliable from a fitness perspective and it's seen as he can only really be used sparingly as an impact sub. Along with him apparently being on high wages with us means teams are unlikely to take a risk. With his talents, and with strikers at a premium, if he had the fitness and reliability to go with it, a better team than us would have him.
Chuks needs a good season in terms of games because without that I think he’ll struggle to get even a pay as you play contract anywhere.
There is no such thing as a pay as you play contract.
Clubs have to pay a basic salary.
What club's can do is pay a lower basic wage and bigger bonus payments based on goals, apperances, etc.
I was told by a current director that many of the contracts they inherited were, in his opinion, too heavily weighted to a big salary and not enough to KPIs.
There’s some decent podcasts out there and some great interviewers. Then there are interviewers who wait 4 minutes to speak, only for their first question to be “can you rollerblade?”
There is no such thing as a pay as you play contract.
Clubs have to pay a basic salary.
What club's can do is pay a lower basic wage and bigger bonus payments based on goals, apperances, etc.
I was told by a current director that many of the contracts they inherited were, in his opinion, too heavily weighted to a big salary and not enough to KPIs.
I'm aware however this is what I mean Henry, bonuses based on games played and match fees, rather than on base pay.
I see the same narrative is creeping back in again, that somehow he isn't injury prone and has a great record. Playing in a game off the bench for 2 minutes at the end will never be the same as fit and ready to start a game, no matter how (or why) people want to push that story.
The bottom line is, we all love him when he's fit as he can be absolute mustard at this level. BUT, he's injury prone and that's why we are still having these conversations years after he joined.
Embrace him. Love him. All good.
Just don't try and pretend there isn't really an issue.
There is no such thing as a pay as you play contract.
Clubs have to pay a basic salary.
What club's can do is pay a lower basic wage and bigger bonus payments based on goals, apperances, etc.
I was told by a current director that many of the contracts they inherited were, in his opinion, too heavily weighted to a big salary and not enough to KPIs.
I'm aware however this is what I mean Henry, bonuses based on games played and match fees, rather than on base pay.
The downside of which is the player or his agent says "£2k PW plus maybe another £5k if I play and score at Charlton or £4k plus another £1k if I play at Northern FC?
I'm off up north, thanks."
Some will say good riddence given his fitness record but the club have to compete with other clubs in what they offer. We don't hold all the cards.
I see the same narrative is creeping back in again, that somehow he isn't injury prone and has a great record. Playing in a game off the bench for 2 minutes at the end will never be the same as fit and ready to start a game, no matter how (or why) people want to push that story.
The bottom line is, we all love him when he's fit as he can be absolute mustard at this level. BUT, he's injury prone and that's why we are still having these conversations years after he joined.
Embrace him. Love him. All good.
Just don't try and pretend there isn't really an issue.
My view has always been that it’s not that he is more injury prone than any other player it’s that the way we often tried to play him inevitably caused the injuries. Put him up front with another player to play off or pass to and he’s unbeatable. Put him up front on his own and expect him to do what Alfie did and chase around and cover most of the pitch then he is going to stretch muscles and because he naturally twists and turns once he has the ball and an opposition player or two on his back then he inevitably injures himself.
I see the same narrative is creeping back in again, that somehow he isn't injury prone and has a great record. Playing in a game off the bench for 2 minutes at the end will never be the same as fit and ready to start a game, no matter how (or why) people want to push that story.
The bottom line is, we all love him when he's fit as he can be absolute mustard at this level. BUT, he's injury prone and that's why we are still having these conversations years after he joined.
Embrace him. Love him. All good.
Just don't try and pretend there isn't really an issue.
My view has always been that it’s not that he is more injury prone than any other player it’s that the way we often tried to play him inevitably caused the injuries. Put him up front with another player to play off or pass to and he’s unbeatable. Put him up front on his own and expect him to do what Alfie did and chase around and cover most of the pitch then he is going to stretch muscles and because he naturally twists and turns once he has the ball and an opposition player or two on his back then he inevitably injures himself.
So you’re saying that any player asked to play like that would be injured as much as he has ?
I see the same narrative is creeping back in again, that somehow he isn't injury prone and has a great record. Playing in a game off the bench for 2 minutes at the end will never be the same as fit and ready to start a game, no matter how (or why) people want to push that story.
The bottom line is, we all love him when he's fit as he can be absolute mustard at this level. BUT, he's injury prone and that's why we are still having these conversations years after he joined.
Embrace him. Love him. All good.
Just don't try and pretend there isn't really an issue.
My view has always been that it’s not that he is more injury prone than any other player it’s that the way we often tried to play him inevitably caused the injuries. Put him up front with another player to play off or pass to and he’s unbeatable. Put him up front on his own and expect him to do what Alfie did and chase around and cover most of the pitch then he is going to stretch muscles and because he naturally twists and turns once he has the ball and an opposition player or two on his back then he inevitably injures himself.
So you’re saying that any player asked to play like that would be injured as much as he has ?
Few players can seemingly turn on a sixpence like he does when he has the ball at his feet and a defender or two on his back that he’s shrugging off and setting up a pass or a shot at goal let alone a player of his build but if you find and ask another one to chase across the field, suddenly stop and do the same then chances are they will injure themselves
I see the same narrative is creeping back in again, that somehow he isn't injury prone and has a great record. Playing in a game off the bench for 2 minutes at the end will never be the same as fit and ready to start a game, no matter how (or why) people want to push that story.
The bottom line is, we all love him when he's fit as he can be absolute mustard at this level. BUT, he's injury prone and that's why we are still having these conversations years after he joined.
Embrace him. Love him. All good.
Just don't try and pretend there isn't really an issue.
My view has always been that it’s not that he is more injury prone than any other player it’s that the way we often tried to play him inevitably caused the injuries. Put him up front with another player to play off or pass to and he’s unbeatable. Put him up front on his own and expect him to do what Alfie did and chase around and cover most of the pitch then he is going to stretch muscles and because he naturally twists and turns once he has the ball and an opposition player or two on his back then he inevitably injures himself.
So you’re saying that any player asked to play like that would be injured as much as he has ?
Not any player but if you have a bad muscle injury then even once its healed its quite likely to be more prone to repeating itself, ESPECIALLY if you play the way that Chuks does. And thus it becomes a vicious circle (hence his availability/fitness seems to have actually decreased over time.)
I see the same narrative is creeping back in again, that somehow he isn't injury prone and has a great record. Playing in a game off the bench for 2 minutes at the end will never be the same as fit and ready to start a game, no matter how (or why) people want to push that story.
The bottom line is, we all love him when he's fit as he can be absolute mustard at this level. BUT, he's injury prone and that's why we are still having these conversations years after he joined.
Embrace him. Love him. All good.
Just don't try and pretend there isn't really an issue.
with potentially 5 subs from a choice of 6 or even 7 outfield players on the bench Chuks could make the matchday 18 for every league game after everything we've seen, over all the years, starting him has to be ruled out as a possibility, even if we're down to no fit strikers over the age of 19 his impact on tiring defenders can be devastating, he is undoubtedly blessed with skills and upper body strength, starting a game and slugging away for 100 minutes is the recipe for 3 months out.
IF he's played 15 to 20 minutes at the end of half a dozen games, been involved in a couple of result changing goals, it might then be worth sticking him on with half an hour to go in a game when we're already 2 or more goals to the good, just to get more miles into him, build partnerships and rest whichever starter needs it
As far as contracts and wages go, we're stuck with him and that's down to the danish twat. Obviously he's available at the right price and if the buyer offers him something he likes but there can be no realistic possibility that a club in tier 3 or above is going to take a punt. Chuks is within his rights to stay earning bundles at Charlton while not playing much. If playing and starting is important to him, he'll have to take it on the chin, accepting that only comes at a lower level on very different pay.
If he gets 10 league goal involvements this season, Charlton will be in the top 2 having been there or thereabouts throughout, winning several matches very comfortably. Could happen...
I see the same narrative is creeping back in again, that somehow he isn't injury prone and has a great record. Playing in a game off the bench for 2 minutes at the end will never be the same as fit and ready to start a game, no matter how (or why) people want to push that story.
The bottom line is, we all love him when he's fit as he can be absolute mustard at this level. BUT, he's injury prone and that's why we are still having these conversations years after he joined.
Embrace him. Love him. All good.
Just don't try and pretend there isn't really an issue.
with potentially 5 subs from a choice of 6 or even 7 outfield players on the bench Chuks could make the matchday 18 for every league game after everything we've seen, over all the years, starting him has to be ruled out as a possibility, even if we're down to no fit strikers over the age of 19 his impact on tiring defenders can be devastating, he is undoubtedly blessed with skills and upper body strength, starting a game and slugging away for 100 minutes is the recipe for 3 months out.
IF he's played 15 to 20 minutes at the end of half a dozen games, been involved in a couple of result changing goals, it might then be worth sticking him on with half an hour to go in a game when we're already 2 or more goals to the good, just to get more miles into him, build partnerships and rest whichever starter needs it
As far as contracts and wages go, we're stuck with him and that's down to the danish twat. Obviously he's available at the right price and if the buyer offers him something he likes but there can be no realistic possibility that a club in tier 3 or above is going to take a punt. Chuks is within his rights to stay earning bundles at Charlton while not playing much. If playing and starting is important to him, he'll have to take it on the chin, accepting that only comes at a lower level on very different pay.
If he gets 10 league goal involvements this season, Charlton will be in the top 2 having been there or thereabouts throughout, winning several matches very comfortably. Could happen...
Could happen but won’t . His last productive season was 4 years ago
I dont really care for stats with Chuks, Its about the eye test for me. When he comes on in the 70+ minutes he offers something different and you can tell defense's often struggle with him even if we dont get anything from the match (last season).
All that said though when his contacts up we need to say bye, also for all this nonsense about selling him or releasing him, just give it up. We can't sell him and even if we could give him away no one is paying him what we are. As for releasing him there isnt any point we would have to pay him every penny of his contract so we may aswell let him be part of the squad as he may offer a couple of goals and doesnt seem to be a disruptive influence.
I dont really care for stats with Chuks, Its about the eye test for me. When he comes on in the 70+ minutes he offers something different and you can tell defense's often struggle with him even if we dont get anything from the match (last season).
All that said though when his contacts up we need to say bye, also for all this nonsense about selling him or releasing him, just give it up. We can't sell him and even if we could give him away no one is paying him what we are. As for releasing him there isnt any point we would have to pay him every penny of his contract so we may aswell let him be part of the squad as he may offer a couple of goals and doesnt seem to be a disruptive influence.
Hes a free agent next summer but before we get to that let’s see what and how much he contributes this season.
There is no such thing as a pay as you play contract.
Clubs have to pay a basic salary.
What club's can do is pay a lower basic wage and bigger bonus payments based on goals, apperances, etc.
I was told by a current director that many of the contracts they inherited were, in his opinion, too heavily weighted to a big salary and not enough to KPIs.
I'm aware however this is what I mean Henry, bonuses based on games played and match fees, rather than on base pay.
The other issue with this, of course, are players saying they are fit and fine to play, just to pick up apperaence money, when they are not...and then having to be subbed off.
I dont really care for stats with Chuks, Its about the eye test for me. When he comes on in the 70+ minutes he offers something different and you can tell defense's often struggle with him even if we dont get anything from the match (last season).
All that said though when his contacts up we need to say bye, also for all this nonsense about selling him or releasing him, just give it up. We can't sell him and even if we could give him away no one is paying him what we are. As for releasing him there isnt any point we would have to pay him every penny of his contract so we may aswell let him be part of the squad as he may offer a couple of goals and doesnt seem to be a disruptive influence.
Hes a free agent next summer but before we get to that let’s see what and how much he contributes this season.
Of course and i hope he turns it around has an injury free season and bags 15+ goals for us, but we all know the reality is he will have cameo roles intercepted with numerous injuries if we are lucky they will just be little tweaks and he will be out a few weeks here and there. Also even if he has a good season i really dont think he will be worth the risk considering his history, plus if he somehow shows the worst is behind him and he has a miracle season he would probably get an offer elsewhere.
I haven't done any research into this (not sure how easy it would be anyway) but seems like the first time in a while Chuks has played so many minutes in pre-season. Seems like a real positive development
In many respects I think it’s perhaps unfortunate that the style and tempo that Jones demands is probably the very worst it could be for Chuks. Hopefully the new medical team have worked some magic but I’m no more than 50/50 that we won’t see Chuks pull up at some point.
You could see that Chuks was a class apart as soon as he came on yesterday. Didnt get many chances but he seemingly effortlessly created space for himself, without having to bully defenders,which he is quite capable of doing.
Comments
15 goals in 1500 minutes 🤔
Thanks for the reminder that's where the Chuks scores a goal every 100 minutes he's on the field comes from.
20/21 season.
Clubs have to pay a basic salary.
What club's can do is pay a lower basic wage and bigger bonus payments based on goals, apperances, etc.
I was told by a current director that many of the contracts they inherited were, in his opinion, too heavily weighted to a big salary and not enough to KPIs.
The bottom line is, we all love him when he's fit as he can be absolute mustard at this level. BUT, he's injury prone and that's why we are still having these conversations years after he joined.
Embrace him. Love him. All good.
Just don't try and pretend there isn't really an issue.
I'm off up north, thanks."
Some will say good riddence given his fitness record but the club have to compete with other clubs in what they offer. We don't hold all the cards.
after everything we've seen, over all the years, starting him has to be ruled out as a possibility, even if we're down to no fit strikers over the age of 19
his impact on tiring defenders can be devastating, he is undoubtedly blessed with skills and upper body strength, starting a game and slugging away for 100 minutes is the recipe for 3 months out.
IF he's played 15 to 20 minutes at the end of half a dozen games, been involved in a couple of result changing goals, it might then be worth sticking him on with half an hour to go in a game when we're already 2 or more goals to the good, just to get more miles into him, build partnerships and rest whichever starter needs it
As far as contracts and wages go, we're stuck with him and that's down to the danish twat. Obviously he's available at the right price and if the buyer offers him something he likes but there can be no realistic possibility that a club in tier 3 or above is going to take a punt. Chuks is within his rights to stay earning bundles at Charlton while not playing much. If playing and starting is important to him, he'll have to take it on the chin, accepting that only comes at a lower level on very different pay.
If he gets 10 league goal involvements this season, Charlton will be in the top 2 having been there or thereabouts throughout, winning several matches very comfortably.
Could happen...
All that said though when his contacts up we need to say bye, also for all this nonsense about selling him or releasing him, just give it up. We can't sell him and even if we could give him away no one is paying him what we are. As for releasing him there isnt any point we would have to pay him every penny of his contract so we may aswell let him be part of the squad as he may offer a couple of goals and doesnt seem to be a disruptive influence.