Andy Cook and his future at City (with Poll)

I think people have misunderstood or misinterpreted what Humphrys was saying in that interview, he never said he doesn't want to be a striker. He said he doesn't want to be a target man which he isn't in this role as we don't play with one. He wants to play as a 9 who can get on the ball and dribble more or run in behind which is what the role of the 9 is in the system we play. It wasn't the position he was talking about, he was talking about the role of that position.

 

Wait, are you saying Cooks only contribution to the team is goals?

I like Jordan, would have a fit Andy Cook as my starting striker over any of our other options without a moments hesitation. It's not even close.

 

The arguments been done a million times on here. I don't think he contributed 'just goals' but I thought we were far more dangerous in an attacking sense throughout the rest of the side without him. I can't believe people consider having him back in the side at this stage.

 

Its clear as mud to some.

 

It's also been pointed out numerous times that we became more dangerous in an attacking sense prior to Cooky's injury, thanks to the return of Sarc and Patto. Had he stayed fit, there is nothing to suggest that wouldn't have continued.

 

He was still our top scorer (yet again!) despite missing half a season. Why wouldn't people want him back?

He'd scored 15 in just 29 appearances and was on for another 25+ goal season. That sort of striker is incredibly rare at VP and for me, if he continues that sort of scoring form then he's the first name on my teamsheet again, just as he had been since he joined the club.

 

Precisely this, to hint our form would have been worse had Cook played in place of Kavanagh is perplexing.

People are writing Cook.odf way too early. It's going to take more than one (great) performance from Humphreys for me to consign Cook to the history books.

 

I never said to pick him solely on one thing because that's all a striker should offer. The question was asked would Cook get in saturdays team and the answer is yes, because he is a natural finisher with a careers worth of goals under his belt and on saturday we missed some very very good chances to put that game to bed.

We were a far better team in L2 when Cook and his support were fit as people are pointing out, i have no doubts it should be the same in L1. Btw i'm not saying Humphrys played bad at all, he had a good game for sure. But Humphrys had at least 3 great chances and a few half chances, one lead to Sarce goal, but of the 3 good chances I'd say Cook bags at least one or two because he has the experience of doing so.

 

If Cook is playing well enough to merit a place in a winning team - great.
If Cook can't get in a winning team because others are playing better - great.
Win-win.

 

Add Adaramola, Khela, Leigh and Lapslie to the ranks as well. Coupled with them 2 returning, we had half a new team.

But Cook getting injured was the only change...

 

Cooks last full game against Colchester (didn't include Barrow as he only featured 6 mins)

Look at that bench.

 

Nah it wasn't the 'only' change. I can picture Cook coming back into that side. He'd still get his impressive goal tally and I've no doubt he'd still get a goal every other game but the goals throughout the rest of the side would decrease to the point that there'd be a net loss in total goals. I think we'd lose the dynamism we had in our attacking play and the opportunities to press and create chances further up the pitch.

 

Even the poll options miss the point. Why are the judgements about how effective he would be linked to the amount of goals he will score?

Humphrys didn't score on Saturday. Does that mean he was ineffective and failed to provide material value to the final result?

 

Not really...goals per game are pretty much the same. Thank Sarc and Patts for the slight increase.

With Cook - 29 goals in 21 games = 1.38 gpg (failed to score in 4 games)
Without Cook - 35 goals in 25 games = 1.4 gpg (failed to score in 8 games)

 

I voted for successful impact sub, although I'm now thinking against my better judgement. Every time someone has taken his spot he's come back with a vengeance, reclaimed his spot and scored a bucket load of goals.

 

That we're even having this conversation is positive and proves the greater attacking strength and options we now have. I voted for 'impact sub' but assuming he recovers well I could also see him starting a fair few. It'll depend on several factors - form, fitness and the style / strengths / weakness of our opponents. Based on Saturday I wouldn't want to drop Humphrys so would probably move him to the side of the attacking three to accommodate Cookie. That would be pretty harsh on Pointon (I wouldn't contemplate benching Sarc) but he would be a great option to have on the bench. Looking at Serena Weigman's concept of 'starters and finishers' - it proves how games can be changed in the last 20 - 30 by subs.

Best case scenario is that Cookie carries on at a similar level of goalscoring and gives GA a real headache around who to pick.

Also need to factor in Kav and how he might fit in when fully fit.

 

You're making this into a straight choice of Humphrys OR Cook though when it's clearly not the case and slightly misleading.

There's absolutely no doubt that both could share the pitch, perhaps even both play up front together with a slight change of shape although I doubt we'll see too much of that.