-
Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Is it true he's Warnocks main target - soon find out :hehe:
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Could be a good fit.
He has a worse scoring record than zohore at this level though
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Remember when he was a highly rated 17 year old at Ipswich? Not a lump who never scores a goal?
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
If that's the case, I'd hope it's a loan. Injury prone.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Haven't seen his name doing the rounds for a while.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Warnock mentioned 2 strikers on Saturday. A main target (which there are 2 in particular) from abroad and then a loan closer to the end of the window from the Prem. At least I think that's what he was suggesting.
Hopefully this would just be the loan!
He's too injury-prone to be spending £££ on.
Good player though.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
21 goals in 87 appearances at Championship level. Not our 20 goal a season saviour I think. No better than Madine and lays injured.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
I'd rather keep Madine and Bogle.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Not better than what we have. Would be a dreadful signing
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ccfcwelshlad
Warnock mentioned 2 strikers on Saturday. A main target (which there are 2 in particular) from abroad and then a loan closer to the end of the window from the Prem. At least I think that's what he was suggesting.
Hopefully this would just be the loan!
He's too injury-prone to be spending £££ on.
Good player though.
Do we have any idea who these targets are?
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cardiff55
I'd rather keep Madine and Bogle.
Heard Bogle is off to Oxford as part of Whyte deal.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
We won’t sign anyone for the sake of it
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
goats
We won’t sign anyone for the sake of it
Good because that would be stupid.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
if he is that bad why did Palace renew his contract ??
Crystal Palace:
On 3 August 2015, Wickham joined Crystal Palace on a five-year deal for an undisclosed fee, £7 million /rising to a potential £9 million depending upon his performance.
Wickham made his debut on 8 August 2015 as a second-half substitute in the 3–1 win at Norwich City.
In November 2016, Wickham sustained a serious knee injury which kept him out of first-team action until October 2018. ( almost two years out )
He did not make an appearance in the starting line-up until January 2019 , scored in a 2–0 fourth-round FA Cup win against Spur.
May 2019, Wickham signed a one-year extension to his existing contract keeping him at Palace until June 2021
Worth a punt, think he is a improvement on Bogle and Madine if you consider is overall career path https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connor_Wickham??
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
if he is that bad why did Palace renew his contract ??
Crystal Palace:
On 3 August 2015, Wickham joined Crystal Palace on a five-year deal for an undisclosed fee, £7 million /rising to a potential £9 million depending upon his performance.
Wickham made his debut on 8 August 2015 as a second-half substitute in the 3–1 win at Norwich City.
In November 2016, Wickham sustained a serious knee injury which kept him out of first-team action until October 2018. ( almost two years out )
He did not make an appearance in the starting line-up until January 2019 , scored in a 2–0 fourth-round FA Cup win against Spur.
May 2019, Wickham signed a one-year extension to his existing contract keeping him at Palace until June 2021
Worth a punt, think he is a improvement on Bogle and Madine if you consider is overall career path
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connor_Wickham??
He isn’t a bad player at all.
He was a teenager when he started in the Championship and I think the figures people are mentioning are a bit harsh considering his age when he broke through.
What the doom mongers fail to mention is that he’s scored a lot more in the PL than any of our current crop of strikers have put together but apparently he’s no better than Madine according to the experts.
Who are people expecting? Suarez?
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Bob Banker Spanker
He isn’t a bad player at all.
He was a teenager when he started in the Championship and I think the figures people are mentioning are a bit harsh considering his age when he broke through.
What the doom mongers fail to mention is that he’s scored a lot more in the PL than any of our current crop of strikers have put together but apparently he’s no better than Madine according to the experts.
Who are people expecting? Suarez?
Wickham has played 14 games in 3 years. That's why people are negative.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pedro de la Rosa
Wickham has played 14 games in 3 years. That's why people are negative.
But has now played in 4 of 6 pre-season games for Palace.
If he’s fit then I think it’ll be a good signing and better than what we’ve got.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Bob Banker Spanker
He isn’t a bad player at all.
He was a teenager when he started in the Championship and I think the figures people are mentioning are a bit harsh considering his age when he broke through.
What the doom mongers fail to mention is that he’s scored a lot more in the PL than any of our current crop of strikers have put together but apparently he’s no better than Madine according to the experts.
Who are people expecting? Suarez?
None of our current strikers have played in the PL (aside from Danny Ward who has scored more PL goals than Wikcham has in the last 2 years :hehe:), Wickham's record isn't relevant.
He's injury prone and aside from a purple patch with Sunderland, he's largely failed to make an impact in the PL. People are hanging onto his time at Ipswich which was almost 10 years ago now. Would you be happy if we ended up replacing Zohore with another out of form and injury prone striker?
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pedro de la Rosa
Wickham has played 14 games in 3 years. That's why people are negative.
I think it's okay to be cautious but remember we signed Frazier Campbell who at the time had only played 25 games and scored 2 goals in the three previous years. He did okay.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
If he is who we are targeting - no wonder we’re miles away. Unlike us, palace won’t be selling a striker with Zaha’s future seemingly in the balance.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
I think Conor Wickham would be decent and certainly suits our play.
Quick scan on wiki shows in his most recent championship spell (loan at Wedenesday) he bagged 8 in 11.
He’s only 25 too incredibly
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhyllisStant
I think it's okay to be cautious but remember we signed Frazier Campbell who at the time had only played 25 games and scored 2 goals in the three previous years. He did okay.
Yes he did but you've got to be very, very careful with players like Wickham. Campbell had the same injury twice, and so you can see the strength of it. Wickham has injured his calf, groin, hammy, knee, back etc. Wickham might be fine but if I was to spend any money on him, I'd expect him to pass the mother of all medicals.
-
Re: Conor Wikham - interesting!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kitman
If he is who we are targeting - no wonder we’re miles away. Unlike us, palace won’t be selling a striker with Zaha’s future seemingly in the balance.
I'm not so sure about that. If they sell Zaha they would have trouble placating their fans by saying it's ok we have got Connor Wickham.
They would be immediately in the market for a replacement