Sheffield Wednesday Fan
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About davetherivelinowl

  • Rank
    Sheffield Wednesday Youth Team

Recent Profile Visitors

108 profile views
  1. Early on in his time here I wrote a piece saying I thought he was poor. My point was that he offered no attacking threat. I then reassessed and argued that Carlos kept picking him because he fitted his chosen system - hard-working 'wingers' who tuck in and defend the space in front of the back 4 making us very hard to break down. It hasn't been pretty to watch but we've consistently picked up points over the last few months so who am I to slag off a player who is integral to what we do? BUT, and I've watched him very carefully ever since, he really is frustratingly average at best. The number of times we have a lovely flowing move going until it gets to Reach then, oh dear, he's cocked it up again. Now we're all saying that the system has been too negative - if we abandon that system then Reach has nothing to offer. Yes he works hard but 2 strikers up top can't do it on their own and cant do anything without service. Reach has never been useful to them. Please lets ditch the system and Reach with it.
  2. OK, here's some more stats. I looked at how many games were missed by the 'key players' in each team. How did I determine who the 'key players' were? I looked at the performance stats in whoscored.com. They rate each player in each game with a score out of 10 based on tackles made, shots saved, assists, key passes, pass accuracy, headers won etc. I excluded players who had played less than 10 games as their average score was based on a low sample size - this excluded Fox for Wednesday, Maenpaa and Hunemeier for Brighton and Mbemba for Newcastle (almost certainly not 'key players'). Here's how many games were missed by the 'top 6' performers on each side. Number of games Newcastle Brighton Huddersfield Reading Leeds Owls missed by… Clark 9 Knockaert 1 Schindler 1 Kermogant 4 Janssen 11 Forestieri 10 Hayden 13 Dunk 3 Mooy 1 Moore 6 Bartley 1 Hutchinson 9 Richie 2 Duffy 10 Palmer 16 McLeary 3 Hernandez 11 Lees 10 Shelvey 4 Murray 1 Hogg 8 McShane 12 Ayling 4 Pudil 19 Lascelles 1 Stephens 7 Van la Parra 5 Al Habsi 0 Berardi 19 Reach 6 Gayle 10 Bong 19 Kachunga 0 Van den Berg 15 Wood 2 Lee 18 Total games missed 39 41 31 40 48 72 OK, the figures are distorted because Pudil, for instance was available for many of the games 'missed' but I think you can see that Forestieri, Hutchinson and Lee missed a lot more games than Murray, Knockaert, Dunk, Shelvey, Gayle, Mooy, Kermorgant, Wood etc. Even if you don't think this tells us anything about injury problems you might just like to see who are the top-rated players in each team according to whoscored.com
  3. I've said 'starting 11' in inverted commas because it's based purely on the 11 players who have played the most games. I haven't tried to be sophisticated and work out who the starting 11 for each team ought to have been - I'm not even sure what our starting 11 ought to be! It's true that not all the missed games were due to injury or suspension - some, at least, could be just down to rotation as in Hunt(ley) and Palmer. Sometimes Carlos has rotated his team by choice and this will have an impact on these figures. Still, it would have been nice to have had 8 players playing almost every game of the season like Huddersfield have had.
  4. Was it Napoleon who was asked what he wanted his generals to be like and he said 'lucky'. Those who criticise Carlos (and have wanted him replaced by someone like Jaap Stam or David Wagner) should bear in mind how unlucky we have been this year with injuries - having gone chunks of the season without Forestieri, Hutchinson, Lees and Lee (arguably our 4 most important players), not to mention Hooper, Fletcher, Abdi etc. (and Matias, Buckley...) The standard counter-argument would be to say that all teams get injuries over a season. So I looked to see if it was true and put together these stats for this season so far. This looks at how many games have been missed by the 11 players in each side who have clocked up the most appearances, in theory those making up their 'starting 11' Number of games missed by… Newcastle Brighton Huddersfield Reading Leeds Owls …..Player with most appearances 1 1 0 0 0 2 Player with 2nd most appearances 1 1 1 0 1 2 Player with 3rd most appearances 2 1 1 3 2 4 Player with 4th most appearances 4 3 2 4 4 6 Player with 5th most appearances 6 4 2 5 4 6 Player with 6th most appearances 8 7 3 5 7 9 Player with 7th most appearances 9 9 4 6 10 10 Player with 8th most appearances 9 10 5 9 11 10 Player with 9th most appearances 9 10 8 10 11 12 Player with 10th most appearances 10 11 8 11 11 12 Player with 11th most appearances 13 11 16 11 12 15 Total no of games missed by 'starting 11' 72 68 50 64 73 88 As you can see, our 'starting 11' have missed quite a few more games than those of any other team. And Huddersfield have enjoyed a particularly settled season, with 8 of their players missing no more than 5 games. Reading have been lucky too with 6 players missing 5 or less games. We've only had 2 outfield players (Bannan and Wallace) who have missed less than 5 games. Key players like Kieran Lee and Almen Abdi aren't even in this 'starting 11' because they've missed even more games. No other team has had to cope with so many absentees. If we can still make the top 6 despite all this, I think Carlos will have done well.
  5. And here are my thoughts... We're all criticising Carlos for: Not playing our wide midfield players as wingers Sitting too deep Launching long balls to Jordan Rhodes We did all of this in the first half and it was shocking to watch and we went in 2-0 down at HT. So why had be been so cautious? Because that's exactly how we've been playing for the last 2 months or more during which we've picked up more points than almost anyone in the league. THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN WORKING. We've all moaned because it hasn't been pretty but that's the style that has been getting us points. Yes, we might create more chances with proper wingers or with two strikers and Fessi out wide but we've been grinding out wins by shackling our 'wingers' in the middle of the park. If we played with two wingers, with Hutch sitting so deep that leaves just one central midfield player outnumbered on his own. Instead the 'wingers' beef up the midfield and we become a unit that's hard to break down. Reach with his energy and discipline is great for that role. Bannan should be perfect too but today at least he tended to sit too wide leaving Abdi exposed. I haven't enjoyed watching it but it has been getting results so who's to argue. Even in such a dire first half: Fessi might have had a pen Abdi had two serious strikes on goal Rhodes nearly converted Abdi's clever pass Rhodes hit the bar from Palmer's cross. ANY OF THOSE COULD HAVE BEEN GOALS In reply they dominated us with pretty football but didn't really threaten apart from the two set-pieces. So, even in the dire first half, Plan A could easily have worked. I'm not advocating Plan A but just trying to understand it. It'll be more of the same against Leeds.
  6. At half time Sky did a little sequence of his runs into space in which the passes were intercepted by last ditch tackles. Sometimes those will come off. And the way he made himself available when Sasso broke through was superb. Won more headers than Nuhiu - usually finding an Owls player too. Great assist. Finished 90 mins. Lots to be optimistic about
  7. Should have passed to Jordan Rhodes who had pulled off perfectly into space. Anyone else in the side would have been more likely to spot that.
  8. Oh and by the way, he's no more a winger than Bannan is when asked to play wide left.
  9. I got a lot of stick on here for slagging him off but since then I've rather warmed to him. He had a good game at Brighton and has been fine since. I like his energy, his willingness; he doesn't do anything outstanding but is an important cog in the system - starting to be a bit like Kieran Lee in that respect. If he gave the ball away sometimes then SO DID EVERYONE ELSE in midfield, especially Jones. Leave him alone.
  10. On another thread I've said that Reach was nowhere to be seen. As we regularly sing 'he's everywhere and nowhere baby'
  11. For me he's starting to show glimpses of what he's incapable of. Without Lee or Abdi we have no-one in the middle who gets forward so the wingers need to offer a greater threat. He offers no threat at all. How many crosses has he made since he arrived? He just stands still near the half-way line and lets Pudil charge up and down the wing past him. Pudil was playing left back and left wing today while Reach did nothing. When he did get the ball he gave it away more often than not 0 but most of all he barely touched the ball - offered nothing. Like everyone else I'd love him to turn into the player someone thinks he is but for me his honeymoon period is over.
  12. I take your point. But have we got anyone else who can do it better? Jones is steady but not as creative. I'm sure if I'd done the same analysis v Cardiff then Abdi's stats would have been abysmal.
  13. It's amazing how opinions differ. One post said 'Anyone who gives Bannan more than 3/10 knows nothing about football'. In general Bannan has come in for a lot of stick on here since Saturday and some are calling for him to be dropped. I didn't think he had that bad a game. Poor by his standards but still pretty good by anyone else's. Did I miss something? Was I not watching carefully enough? So I tortured myself by watching the entire match again on Wednesday Player and tried to log who did each good thing - a progressive pass, shot, header, tackle, interception etc - and who made the errors - bad passes and losses of possession. These were the stats I came up with, ordered according to who did the most good things relative to their errors. Good play Errors % Good Lees 21 2 91 Jones 20 3 87 Bannan 28 7 80 Wallace 3 1 75 Hooper 12 5 71 Hutch 14 6 70 Hunt 13 6 68 Lee 14 7 67 Abdi 2 1 67 Pudil 10 6 63 Fletch 14 9 61 Fessi 7 7 50 Reach 4 9 31 Westwood 0 3 0 So, Bannan did more good things than any other Owls player. Lees and Jones also did lots of good things and made fewer errors. Bannan made at least 7 errors but so did Lee and Fessi. Reach and Fletcher made even more mistakes (9 each). Only Reach and Westwood had more errors than good things. Reach had a shocker. Westwood had no saves to make but made three kicks which went nowhere near an Owls player. Most people voted Hutch man of the match but he made less of a contribution, and made more errors, than Lees. Hunt has been widely pilloried but made a more positive contribution than Pudil. Hooper was generally more successful on the ball than Fletch. The main criticism from Saturday was that we kept passing it back and square all the time. I agree that's the problem but I'm not sure that dropping Bannan would be the answer. For each player on the pitch, how many positive passes did they make, relative to their number of touches? Progressive passes Total touches % progressive Hooper 12 35 34 Fletch 13 39 33 Wallace 3 9 33 Jones 16 67 24 Bannan 20 86 23 Fessi 6 27 22 Hunt 11 79 14 Reach 3 31 10 Pudil 8 90 9 Lee 5 58 9 Abdi 1 12 8 Lees 6 101 6 Hutch 2 104 2 Westwood 0 48 0 'Progressive' passes were any that were played to one of our players in an advanced position (not back or square) and not just hoofed forward (hence none from Westwood). Once again, Bannan made more progressive passes than anyone else with Jones not far behind but both of them were constructive with only 1 in 4 of their touches. However, only Fletch and Hooper were more consistently constructive in their play. Pudil, Lee, Abdi, Lees and Hutch were non-constructive with over 90% of their touches. I'm not sure why Hutch gets so much man-love when Lees was more effective and less than 2 % of Hutch's touches were constructive. I was surprised how little impact Kieran Lee had; not many touches few constructive passes. However he made more tackles/interceptions than any of the midfielders (Lee 9, Bannan 8, Jones 4, Reach 1). If Jones is a midfield enforcer these stats don't bear it out. The criticism that Bannan has been getting recently reminds me of the time some Owls fans started booing John Sheridan (yes, sweet Sheri). Yes, he makes mistakes but don't overlook the fact that he's the one most likely to produce the pass that gets us up the pitch constructively and he does more than his share of tackling back. He's the best player I've seen at Hillsborough for years. He doesn't need the fans on his back. Yes we were rubbish but don't scapegoat Bannan. John Pearson in commentary said Bannan was probably our best player on the day. Maybe he knows nowt about football either.