Football Forum | Ticket Forum | Off-Topic Forum | All

Your mum 2:09 Tue Nov 22
Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

Interesting read, not sure if 100% accurate & would love to see how the stats compare, to say Spurs over the same period..

Just why do strikers seem to struggle with West Ham?

Under the Gold/Sullivan era at the club since 2010, the Hammers have recruited no less than 30 front men to score goals but the vast majority of them failing to do so.

Aside from Andy Carroll (when he's fit) and Ricardo Vaz Te have managed to score some goals but the rest of them, well, it's brutal.

Below is a list of the strikers Gold and Sullivan have brought in and their records. There are some absolute rogues in there for you to try and remember. In return for estimated outlay of more than £90 million - including loan fees - West Ham have scored just 115 goals in six years and around 300 matches according to Damien Lucas from HITC.

Pablo Berrera - £4m - 0 goals.

Wellington Paulista - loan - 0 goals.

Ilan - free - 4 goals.

Mido - loan - 0 goals.

Demba Ba - undisclosed (thought to be £3m) - 7 goals.

Carlton Cole - free (signed under Sullivan and Gold for a second time in 2013) - 8 goals.

Robbie Keane - loan - 2 goals.

Benni McCarthy - £3m - 0 goals.

Victor Obinna - loan - 3 goals.

Frederic Piquionne - £2m - 8 goals.

Sam Baldock - £3m - 5 goals.

John Carew - free - 2 goals.

Nicky Maynard - £2.5m - 2 goals.

Brian Montenegro - loan - 0 goals.

Frank Nouble - free - 1 goal.

Ricardo Vaz Te - £500k - 15 goals.

Andy Carroll - £18m - 23 goals.

Modibo Maiga - £5.5m - 4 goals.

Marco Borriello - loan - 0 goals.

Diafra Sakho - £3m - 15 goals.

Enner Valencia - £12m - 8 goals.

Mauro Zarate - free - 5 goals.

Emmanuel Emenike - loan - 2 goals.

Nikica Jelavic - £2.5m - 2 goals.

Victor Moses - loan - 1 goal.

Andre Ayew - £20m - 0 goals.

Jonathan Calleri - loan - 0 goals.

Ashley Fletcher - free - 0 goals.

Simone Zaza - loan with obligation to buy for £25m - 0 goals.

Hardly a list of successes, right? The Hammers are the second lowest scorers in the Premier League this season with those bottom four strikers on the list with zero goals between them. Michail Antonio leads the Hammers scoring charts with six.

They have been linked with a number of front men already ahead of the January transfer window, with the likes of Manolo Gabbiadini, Mauro Icardi and Daniel Sturridge all in the frame. You'd imagine that the board will make funds available to find that elusive front man who can fire the club to safety but would they be a success?

Your mum 2:10 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

Moses can come off of that list as not used as a striker..or include Antonio for parity..

Texas Iron 2:14 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

Definitely need a Director of Football..with a .proven record buying strikers...

Said so many moons ago...

Relying on manager's favourites Bilic... from distant leagues...waste of time...

Trevor B 2:16 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

Pablo Barrera was a striker?

Steven P 2:17 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

That OP is a bit tilted.

Moses is a winger as you have said. We are not obliged to pay for Zaza so that reduces the outlay. Ayew has only just got here, as has Calleri and Fletcher. Given a run Ayew, has proven he can score goals so you could deduct further the outlay.

So all in all its saying we spent £40m since 2010 on 25 plus players and there is your problem. Trying to do it on the cheap!

andyd12345 2:25 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

It does sum G&S up really. What they need to learn is that there is one position that you absolutely cant afford to scrimp on, and that is your strikers. Get a pool of 3 great strikers and you'll be a great team. Get a pool of 6 shit strikers and you'll struggle, regardless how good the rest of the team is.

They simply aren't willing to invest in decent quality up front, and that's why we've struggled.

Alex V 2:31 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

Ilan did well for us, Sakho has done relatively well, Cole also did well in his returning spell. Others didn't play up front - Vaz Te played wide for the vast majority of his games for us, as did Demba Ba, - Maynard, Valencia, Zarate and Sakho have played a bunch out wide too. Barrera, Obinna. Ayew and Moses are just bizarre inclusions. It would also help if strike rate were considered rather than goals alone.

All in all, a really bizarre bit of twisted nonsense that proves pretty much nothing.

Trevor B 2:36 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

"Cole also did well in his returning spell"

9 goals in 56 games is doing well? Do fuck off V.

LeroysBoots 2:36 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

That's quite a damning stat

LeroysBoots 2:39 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

Let's face it, West Ham as a club have ALWAYS done things on the cheap, way before Sullivan and Gold turned up.

It's just who we are, if we were a car dealership it would be the dodgy one on the corner buying and selling value motors.

We have reached for the stars with the stadium move yet we STILL have the same 2 bob people in charge......throughout the club.

I've always said it, we are a professional club run by amateurs

andyd12345 2:43 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

Since G&S arrived we have had 5 seasons of Premier League football. In that time we have had ONE striker that has hit double figures in the league, Diafra Sakho scoring exactly 10 goals in 2014. Every other striker has failed miserably.

Its an absolutely pathetic collection of strikers, and I really hope more of these types of articles start appearing to shine the light on quite how cheap our Billionaire owners really are.

Alex V 2:51 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

Well the 4 seasons since promotion our first choice striker has been Carroll, who we spent an absolute fortune on. And he can't stay fit - that's the basic story of our strikers over the last 4 seasons. That's the major issue. The lesser issue is that Allardyce preferred a direct approach and target men up front - you're not likely to get strikers scoring massive hauls playing that system.

hornchurchsteve 2:51 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

That is grim reading.

LeroysBoots 2:53 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

Spot on

Thing is, top strikers cost top dollar, we have never been interested in spending massive...."debt...blah blah"

Huge noise when they spent 20 million on a 2nd rate winger cum striker...reality is 20 million buys you nothing anymore

The amount of money they are making currently is silly, new prem league deals left right and centre with overseas money coming in lately.

Increased gate receipts, marketing stuff, sale of the Boleyn

Literally rolling in it yet they are reluctant to go big

LeroysBoots 2:53 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

£15 mill ?

Absolute fortune ?....................hmmmm

Alex V 2:56 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

They went big on Carroll and then Valencia. Poor signings who didn't work out. Huge amount of money wasted.

What Nouble or Wellington Paulista did or didn't do is fairly irrelevant I think. It amazes me how hung up people get on the cheap punts that don't matter. Perspective required.

andyd12345 2:57 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

V - we didn't spend 'an absolute fortune' on him, we spent £18m on him.

Bournmouth have spent £16m on Jordan Ibe
Palace spent £27m on Benteke
Leicester spent £30m on Slimani
Stoke spent £19m on Imbula
Sunderland spent £14m on Ndong
Swansea spent £16m on Baston
Watford spent £14m on some bloke called Success

£18m is the going rate for a middle of the road player. £40m guarantees you a good player,£15m gives you a chance. Arguably all of the above (bar perhaps Benteke) have been shit, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that Carroll has been a disaster as well. If you think we can spend £18m on 1 player 3 years ago and expect that to be good enough then I'm afraid youre still living in 2002.

Trevor B 2:58 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

12m isn't big. They tried to 'go big' this summer, and found themselves knocked back by anyone of quality. the reality is that for a team in our position, unless we are lucky enough to unearth a gem, we have to often take a risk on a player, or pay over the odds for someone that probably doesn't offer value.

Your mum 3:00 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

"What Nouble or Wellington Paulista did or didn't do is fairly irrelevant I think. It amazes me how hung up people get on the cheap punts that don't matter. Perspective required."

Calm your tits

Alex V 3:04 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

>>> V - we didn't spend 'an absolute fortune' on him, we spent £18m on him.

Not true. We gave him a 6 year contract and we broke the wage structure to give him what, for us, was a huge wage (somewhere in the £80-100k range). It's somewhere I would guess near a £40-50m investment, ie a Summer transfer budget, or maybe two at the time. Whether you think that's a 'fortune' or not it represents probably the biggest transfer in our history (Ayew might possibly be more this Summer) and it fell flat. That's why we've struggled up front - because we put all our eggs in one basket and it broke!

Categorically the problem is not that we signed Wellington Paulista or Victor Obinna on loan. Clubs will always bring in cheap players as an cheap bet.

Agreed this Summer fees went mad. Add Ayew for £20m to the list. But fees are probably less important than contracts. Valencia was an awful signing but by some accounts we don't pay him much - I can excuse that.

andyd12345 3:08 Tue Nov 22
Re: Strikers of the Gold & Sullivan era..

V - you cant lump on salary as well. The £18m would have no doubt been payable over 4 years, and his contract would have been payable over the 6 year term. All the players on my list would have been paid a salary as well, funnily enough, so the same applies.

The point remains, in this day and age £18m on a striker is not a fortune. Liverpool spent £37m on Mane and £40m on Firminho. That's a fortune. £18m is not. Not anymore anyway.

Page 1 - Next