Jo Or Santa Cruz, Which One Is Worse

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Rife slagging contest going on about Jo and Santa Cruz in different topics. Both are utter shite, think we all agree on that (well there's always some weirdo fanboy but most anyway) but which one is worse?

[Wonderwall]

struggling to remember a positive contribution from either of them to be honest. I went RSC anyway as at least Jo was able to be picked if we were suffering with injuries

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

I think winner of this contest can easily be awarded prestigious Worst Buy of The Century award.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

struggling to remember a positive contribution from either of them to be honest. I went RSC anyway as at least Jo was able to be picked if we were suffering with injuries

I went with Jo for the exact same reason. While both are shite, at least Jo is available for selection. Whether that's positive thing itself is up for debate though.

[ashton287]

There both bad but Jo is fucking horrendous. Atleast if santa cruz could stay injury free he would score a few in a season.

[Scatman]

I think winner of this contest can easily be awarded prestigious Worst Buy of The Century award.

He was a bad buy in football terms but in terms of enabling Shinawatra to get £18m of his soon to be frozen assets out of his bank account and into his other bank account it was a great signing.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

There both bad but Jo is fucking horrendous. Atleast if santa cruz could stay injury free he would score a few in a season.

Few is exactly how many he'd score though. Other than that one miracle season, best he has ever managed in proper league is five in a season. Then again, would Jo manage five goals? I don't know.

[Mike J]

Jo is fucking abysmal. santa cruz, on one of those rare occasions when he is fit does have a fair amount of football ability.

jo has zero ability.

[Alioune DVToure]

I have never seen Jo put in a performance at the level of RSC's performance AGAINST us for Blackburn in 2007/08. RSC also had a good game for us against Sunderland in Hughes's last game in charge.

If we're doing this on ability, Jo has to be considered the worst. RSC at least had physical presence, decent touch and understood how to lead the line. He just happened to be a busted flush. You might say 'one season wonder', but it's still a considerable feat to bag 19 Prem goals in a season. It shows the ability was there if he was used the right way.

Jo, well he had, errrrr .................. I'll get back to you.

[HeyMark]

Jo was worse, but just about. I've never seen a professional footballer more afraid of the ball than Jo.

[Chinners]

struggling to remember a positive contribution from either of them to be honest. I went RSC anyway as at least Jo was able to be picked if we were suffering with injuries

This

Jo wants to play but can't ... RSC just can't

[dazby]

Carlo Nash is worse.

[Douglas Higginbottom]

One puts effort in the other doesnt
One has ability the other hasn't
One was badly used,the other sadly was overused for a while

[Dubciteh]

One puts effort in the other doesnt
One has ability the other hasn't
One was badly used,the other sadly was overused for a while

agree, i personally think RSC got a raw deal from us.

[aaron bond]

RSC hands-down in my opinion is worse. At least Jo had a reasonable scoring record before joining and so there was a reason to believe there was potential. He unfortunately hasn't got much talent but he does put in a bit of effort and has been happy to be a squad player. RSC was shit his whole career, and has (somehow) become even worse since joining us. Even thinking about RSC makes me angry, as almost EVERYONE knew it was the most stupid signing ever. One good season, in an otherwise, pathetic excuse for a career.

[Crossie]

RSC has quality, he could have served a purpose here.

City fans just get pissed off with the money we spent on him, thats not his fault, his injuries have fucked up his entire career. RSC would have scored goals for us if fit.

Jo could not.

[the_georgian_genius]

There is a difference between being shite and being injury prone. Santa Cruz is not shite, nor has he ever been, he is an excellent player, the problem is he is never fit enough to show it.

As for Jo, he's an ok player, not good enough for us or other teams in the prem but will do ok in Brazil.

Santa Cruz was the worse signing for us though because of the outlay spent on him and for the little return we have had from him, but that is not his fault, that is Hughes' fault.

[Chinners]

One puts effort in the other doesnt
One has ability the other hasn't
One was badly used,the other sadly was overused for a while

agree, i personally think RSC got a raw deal from us.

City got the raw deal imo both on price, wages, goals and playing time. The MEN however saw far more of him than we did. I agree with you on Barry in the other thread btw, deffo starter for me

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

One puts effort in the other doesnt
One has ability the other hasn't
One was badly used,the other sadly was overused for a while

Honestly, I have no idea which is which. Neither puts any effort in, neither has ANY fucking ability whatsoever and both were overused in some stage although, luckily for us, different stages.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

There is a difference between being shite and being injury prone. Santa Cruz is not shite, nor has he ever been, he is an excellent player, the problem is he is never fit enough to show it.

As for Jo, he's an ok player, not good enough for us or other teams in the prem but will do ok in Brazil.

Santa Cruz was the worse signing for us though because of the outlay spent on him and for the little return we have had from him, but that is not his fault, that is Hughes' fault.

See, that's fucking massive load of steaming shite. Santa Cruz is "excellent player". Like I said in OP, there's always some fanboy about but "excellent player"???? Jesus shit.