Celtic: Gary Hooper good enough for England, says Neil Lennon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/footba...d&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sportsound
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/footba...d&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sportsound
Gary Hooper
- Thread starter Red Dreams
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
Well why not england dont have a great striking pool. He is still not top four class though.
with the greatest of respect, he needs to be in the PL scoring regularly there before his claim will be taken seriously
that's mint.I would agree in normal circumstances but our situation up front is pretty fecking dire when Rooney isn't available.
so you'd rather someone who scores goals in a mickey mouse league?
England have lots of options, they can even play in a different way with an extra midfielder
If he's scoring goals he's scoring goals. I don't see the harm of giving him a game in a friendly or at least calling him up to have a proper look.
He has 1 goal in 5 SPL games this season.
He is playing in the Scottish league, and he isn't that prolific. He scores there or thereabouts the same (probably a little more if I had to bet) than Anthony Stokes, and Stokes can get nowhere near the Ireland squad, and rightly so. If Hooper was any use, he wouldn't be plying his trade up there. England could do way better.
not even calling up Fraser Forster (GK), despite him 'being in Europe', etc. -- Hooper called up once for the 21s but pulled out due to injury.
That's the attitude that keeps England from progressing
The attitude that keeps England from progressing is giving new players an opportunity?
Righto!
Giving crap players a go. Hooper is not good enough for england. He's not even good enough yet to play for a top 6 club
Whether he's good enough to be an international player isn't really the point I'm making here. Just whether he's a better option than the likes of Crouch, Carroll, Bent et al.
The answer is no he's not. Crouch actually has a good record with england
Peter Crouch deserves a place in the English set-up just the same, alongside Rooney and Welbeck. Gary Hooper is one of the best finishers England has at the minute though. He'd be a much better option up top than Andy Carroll is that's for sure. Not exactly a ringing endorsement that mind but there you go.
Will be interesting to see if Liverpool do go for him, he's just what they need.
You're right, another mid-table signing
They need a natural finisher, that's what he is.
No offence intended but your attitude is poor.
"Only doing it in a mickey mouse league". So was Jelavic. Steven Fletcher wasn't good enough in a mickey mouse league now look at him. Hooper's a good goalscorer and he's the type of player that'd score in any league. Brilliant performance in the Champions League recently but that'll be ignored because it doesn't fit the agenda.
The attitude that is holding England back is giving a chance to a player that has scored 60 goals in his last 100 games? No, I'm sorry, the attitude that is holding England back is the arrogance where you won't even give a player a chance because of where he plies his trade.
Usually the acid test for SPL players is how they perform in Old Firm matches, Europe and at international level. Then there's the evidence of their technical ability - it was pretty clear Jelavic and Fletcher demonstrated touch and a calibre of finishing consistent with what is expected in the Premiership.
How many top level games does he play a year? 2? 3?
Until he gets himself out of that league and scoring in England there will always be doubts
Liverpool would be a good choice, mid table team, no pressure
Hooper's scored 6 goals in 13 European matches for Celtic. He scored 5 in 10 against Rangers.
I agree that you could see Jelavic had the class required to play at a high level in England but Fletcher? Have to disagree. He looked good for Hibs' standards but I can honestly say I never saw him becoming a £14m player and a top striker in the Premier League. Fletcher was nowhere near the player that Hooper is when he was in the SPL.
You're right that Fletcher wasn't anything special in the SPL, although his early talent was clear from his performances at under-19 level for Scotland in the 2006 Euros which prompted Real Madrid to take an interest in him.
He must have had something about him, I remember those stories linking him to RM
It'll be 6 at the minimum this season with possibly more depending on the finishing position of Celtic in the group stages.
Once you watch a player you should have an idea of whether or not he's a good player or whether the opposition just make him look good. I've watched Hooper enough times to believe that he's a natural goalscorer who'll score wherever he's playing. Just has that knack of being in the right place at the right time and his finishing is superb. Brilliant all round performance from him in Moscow a few weeks ago that even prompted Lineker to call for him to get a chance internationally so he's on the right track I feel.
I can understand why some have doubts but I just don't think they're logical. The same people doubted guys like Larsson during his time in Scotland for example.
He's better than Andy Carroll, nay doot aboot that.
Larrson was different, he was doing it at a reasonable level in Holland and at International level prior to joining Celtic.
Also i think the Scottish league was by far a stronger league then compared to now
Also i think the Scottish league was by far a stronger league then compared to now
I think he's a useful player but he wouldn't stand out in the PL. He'd score goals but for a mid-lower table club.
Nah, I think Hooper would score goals anywhere. I haven't seen anyone at Celtic in the last 35 years who's had quite the same capacity for slotting the ball home. Get it to him in the box and his first touch will create a wee bit of space, while his second will be a quick strike that hits the target. In that respect he seems to me to be a more natural finisher than Henrik was.
The question is whether that type of talent is really enough at the very top level. He's as strong as an ox and is becoming better at playing on his own up front, and with his back to goal, but he's still basically a poacher rather than a false 9, or an inverted winger, or whatever the must-have forward option is at the moment. A striker rather than a forward.
He would be good for someone like Swansea.
Skinny Dave Nugent. All round play nowhere near good enough. Tidy finisher.
The only way that poacher types will thrive in the Premiership is if they are exceptional in at least one of the qualities of touch, strength or pace. Jelavic has done well because technically he is very good, as shown by the fact something like 41 of his last 45 goals were scored with his first touch. As ruthless a finisher he is, I'm not sure what Hooper's got in his locker to lead the line at a top-half Premiership team.
Jelavic has done well because he is always in the right place at the right time. He has that sixth sense of knowing where the ball is going to be.
Kris Boyd had that as well...
Jelavic is just on a different level from Hooper.
Giving him a run out in a friendly wouldn't be the worst thing ever.
He's also the type of player I wouldn't mind Rodgers taking a punt on in Jan, as long as he signed another striker too.
He's also the type of player I wouldn't mind Rodgers taking a punt on in Jan, as long as he signed another striker too.
He was good in High Noon.
To be fair if you turned up with your boots at anfield you'd probably get a game