Jordan Rhodes - The Stats

[Almat]

2 hours ago, Slick. said:

It takes a special kind of manager to turn a goal machine like Rhodes, in the prime years of his football career, into a bit-part impact player.

 

Carvalhal's squad management leaves a lot to be desired IMO.

 

CC made a habit of knocking the stuffing out of confidence players last season,  look at Winnall as probably the most glaring example. Our current manager's man-management is baffling in the extreme...

Edited July 6, 2017 by Almat

[Indoor Owl]

3 hours ago, TomtheOwl95 said:

I really don't get people that are doubting Rhodes. I appreciate he didn't score as many as we all thought he would but lets look at the undeniable facts.

-Did we not score 28 of the last 29 goals with him on the pitch?

-Like others have mentioned Middlesbrough didn't utilise him properly at all. He made 4 appearances off the bench for Boro, there is no way he was anywhere near 'match fit' when he joined and yet still he contributed in his overall play.

-I know he's regarded as just a goal scorer but he isn't. His overall play is brilliant, that's already been very evident during his time here.

 

He'll do the business here I'm fairly certain of that.

 

He scored three goals in 24 appearances last season, 18 of those playing as a starter; and he didn't have the wherewithal or desire to take a penalty.

 

That is the skepticism.  

 

An awfully expensive player for what little we've seen, and he certainly wasn't sentenced to the bench and then loaned / transferred out of Middlesborough on account of how good he was performing...

 

 

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

3 hours ago, Slick. said:

It takes a special kind of manager to turn a goal machine like Rhodes, in the prime years of his football career, into a bit-part impact player.

 

Carvalhal's squad management leaves a lot to be desired IMO.

 

You misspelled Karanka.

[Mollymae's Dad]

8 hours ago, WayneTheOwl said:

Simple thing is, play them together and the goals will flow. To me they seem like a perfect partnership up front. Is Carlos going to play them together? I doubt it unless he's going to run with Fernando on wing with Boyd on the other (to me that is almost as good as you will get in our league, in full flow and working, and with Abdi pulling the strings in midfield).

I've lost count of the number of games I've been to watch, from international level right thru to Sunday league football.  Not once have I ever seen the aforementioned strings that continuously get mentioned.  Are they made out of the same silk as the emperors new clothes?

[Guest Ash76]

6 hours ago, Slick. said:

It takes a special kind of manager to turn a goal machine like Rhodes, in the prime years of his football career, into a bit-part impact player.

 

You've ignored the image of the stars haven't you. He converts 1 in chances when in form, last season it was 1 in 10.

 

5 hours ago, Holmowl said:

 

Its a long season.

 

Rhodes has a history of playing 40+ games a season, but Hooper and Fletch always miss several matches.

 

The key is pairing any two of Hooper, Fletch and Rhodes for as many games and as many minutes as possible thus season. With those three up top we will be absolutely flying.

 

Fair points, don't rule out Winnall though. All I'm trying to point out in this thread is that Rhodes isn't quite as good as what people believe. 

[StudentOwl]

7 hours ago, cowl said:

 

How do other teams manage to score goals in a 4-4-2 without Rhodes on the pitch? In fact, how did we before we signed him?

 

You go from saying it could be a coincidence to concluding that "it'd be complete madness not to start with Rhodes based on our record from February onwards"

 

Really? Complete madness? I saw us play in those four months week in, week out, and I can assure you, interesting stat though it is, the notion that we were such a more likely side with Rhodes on the pitch than off it is utter nonsense. Actually, in those last few months (no, practically all of last season) we weren't particularly convincing no matter who was on the pitch, but we did somehow often manage to get the job done. Sometimes a compelling stat really is just a coincidence.

 

I hope Rhodes shows the kind of form for us next season as he has done elsewhere in his career, and I also hope our team as a whole is able to put together more convincing performances, but if our football is anything like the stale dross of last season then we can forget it - and that's whether we start with Rhodes in the side or not.

As I said mate, I don't claim to know why it happened. 

"It seems to me that after Rhodes signed, for whatever reason (either by a subtle change in tactic from the first half of the season or another reason), we couldn't score without him on the pitch... the 'system' that came to fruition was one in which he was key to us sticking the ball in the net"

For whatever reason, certainly not an intentional one it's worth adding, that was just the case from February onwards. I know we were less than convincing regardless of whether Rhodes was on the pitch or not... but one goal in four months without him playing is just an inarguable fact. 

 

And as I also said, I don't think Rhodes is the messiah... I would rather we make signings and play a system that means we as a team score the most goals. The problem is, based on the one singular signing we have made at the minute, I'd expect that system to be 4-4-2 with little to no change of style from last season, and the second half of last season has shown us that if we're going to go with that system, Rhodes is integral. Not saying it's impossible for us to score goals without him playing (as you say, look at first half of season), but we have nearly half a season's worth of data points to show us that we do much better at scoring with Rhodes on the pitch than without. Until more signings are made, and until we get pre-season games out of the way to see what formation and style we're likely to play, I'm gonna have to stick with "We've got to play Rhodes". I'm hoping come August things will progress where I don't think like that, but for the time being, I've got to stick with it... it's just damn logic. 

 

Ultimately though, I'm with you on your last point... something needs to change this season from essentially all of last season

[Daavies;]

I can't believe the amount of scepticism in this thread. The guy is our most expensive signing ever and has played half a season for us. Let's get behind him and believe he's going to be the guy to get 25 goals for us this year.  Some of the comments are as if a lot of you are hoping he fails so you can come out and say "I told you so". A full pre season with the team, a new brilliant winger to supply the energy and quailoty (Boyd) and a fresh start we might see a whole new Jordan Rhodes. I can't wait for the season to start to go again!

[Blue and white]

3 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

You misspelled Karanka.

Karanka treatment of Rhodes was nothing short of scandalous, Carlos just didn't play to his strengths and did little to boost his confidence.

[Tamworthowl]

I'm no supporter of the signing of Rhodes. We should have been looking to midfield creativity not another striker. That said, I love a few stats. Like most stats, you can conclude whatever you want, especially if the stats are a bit selective. For example, how do the goals per minute compare (I've genuinely no idea)?

 

The conclusion drawn, seems to be that Rhodes needs a lots more shots in order to generate a goal, hence he's an inferior player to Hooper. Could the conclusion be that Hooper is a bit shot shy? Does Hooper only shoot when a goal is a near certainty? Conversely, could it be that Rhodes' superior abilities create a lot of half chances which, whilst he has the confidence to take on, has a lower probability of conversion?

 

We're each entitled to our opinion but those stats prove nothing other than that both players had a poor 16/17 season.

[gurujuan]

1 hour ago, StudentOwl said:

As I said mate, I don't claim to know why it happened. 

"It seems to me that after Rhodes signed, for whatever reason (either by a subtle change in tactic from the first half of the season or another reason), we couldn't score without him on the pitch... the 'system' that came to fruition was one in which he was key to us sticking the ball in the net"

For whatever reason, certainly not an intentional one it's worth adding, that was just the case from February onwards. I know we were less than convincing regardless of whether Rhodes was on the pitch or not... but one goal in four months without him playing is just an inarguable fact. 

 

And as I also said, I don't think Rhodes is the messiah... I would rather we make signings and play a system that means we as a team score the most goals. The problem is, based on the one singular signing we have made at the minute, I'd expect that system to be 4-4-2 with little to no change of style from last season, and the second half of last season has shown us that if we're going to go with that system, Rhodes is integral. Not saying it's impossible for us to score goals without him playing (as you say, look at first half of season), but we have nearly half a season's worth of data points to show us that we do much better at scoring with Rhodes on the pitch than without. Until more signings are made, and until we get pre-season games out of the way to see what formation and style we're likely to play, I'm gonna have to stick with "We've got to play Rhodes". I'm hoping come August things will progress where I don't think like that, but for the time being, I've got to stick with it... it's just damn logic. 

 

Ultimately though, I'm with you on your last point... something needs to change this season from essentially all of last season

 

He certainly played his part in our late run, albeit mainly from the subs bench. If he wants to be a regular starter, in my mind, he needs to get ahead of Fletcher. At the moment, Fletcher is in the box seat.

[WayneTheOwl]

1 hour ago, Mollymae's Dad said:

I've lost count of the number of games I've been to watch, from international level right thru to Sunday league football.  Not once have I ever seen the aforementioned strings that continuously get mentioned.  Are they made out of the same silk as the emperors new clothes?

 

I don't think there was any point in posting this do you? What happens when the players hit the woodwork that is mentioned all the time ??? I've never seen this done on a football pitch either.

[HirstWhoScoredIt]

10 hours ago, Ash76 said:

So the Nixon thread is the latest that's turned in to a Rhodes thread.

 

I acknowledge his past goals but also share some concerns with others that he's not done that for around 2 years now. 

 

I keep hearing that if we play to his strengths he'll do the business. I'm not so sure considering what I've seen of him. I know he's had chances for us so thought i'd go and have a look at the stats. I've included Hooper for comparison too.

 

 

*Stats from squawka.com

** Hooper 13/14 stats in Premier League

 

This is what I mean when I say people can't see past his past goals tally. Anyway on that he's not scored over 20 in 2 years now. I think what is particularly telling on the figures is he actually needs a lot more chances than people think, his goals to chances aren't great and his shot accuracy isn't either.

 

This isn't to bash him, granted I didn't want us to sign him but the purpose is to open peoples eyes to the fact he isn't the magic wand and blaming the manager would be wrong.

 

His goals to games was great for Blackburn but he's yet to replicate that at the top end of the championship or higher, personally I think that will be difficult without risking our number of defeats column.

 

Anyway I wish him luck, I hope he can prove me wrong

 

 

So in conclusion he has scored twice as many goals as Hooper in the last 4 years.

[Tamworthowl]

10 hours ago, Ash76 said:

 

His goals to games was great for Blackburn but he's yet to replicate that at the top end of the championship or higher, personally I think that will be difficult without risking our number of defeats

 

I find this comment interesting, and confusing.

 

It seems to suggest that it's easier to score for a team outside the top end of the championship. Surely the lower a team is in any given division the harder it is to score? A good player might well get a good run of games to help form/confidence, but with a lesser set of team mates around him, chances will be considerably fewer.

Irrespective of where Blackburn were in the league, they played the same teams that everyone else played. So, ignoring form/injuries etc of the opponents, Rhodes at Blackburn faced teams and defences no better, no worse, than any other forward in the league. 

[gurujuan]

41 minutes ago, Tamworthowl said:

 

I find this comment interesting, and confusing.

 

It seems to suggest that it's easier to score for a team outside the top end of the championship. Surely the lower a team is in any given division the harder it is to score? A good player might well get a good run of games to help form/confidence, but with a lesser set of team mates around him, chances will be considerably fewer.

Irrespective of where Blackburn were in the league, they played the same teams that everyone else played. So, ignoring form/injuries etc of the opponents, Rhodes at Blackburn faced teams and defences no better, no worse, than any other forward in the league. 

 

Rhodes has always been a prolific scorer of "consolation" goals, improving his own stats, without necessarily improving the fortunes of his team. It's a different ball game for him here, and it's about whether, and how quickly, he can adapt

[Tamworthowl]

2 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

 

Rhodes has always been a prolific scorer of "consolation" goals, improving his own stats, without necessarily improving the fortunes of his team. It's a different ball game for him here, and it's about whether, and how quickly, he can adapt

 

That may be true: I've never really seen records on how many consolation goal any player score, but on the other hand, Rhodes doesn't boost his stat with penalties.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

31 minutes ago, WayneTheOwl said:

 

I don't think there was any point in posting this do you? What happens when the players hit the woodwork that is mentioned all the time ??? I've never seen this done on a football pitch either.

 

Equally, I'm always slightly disappointed not to see someone performing twists and twirls with a hat when they score three goals.

[Almat]

So Rhodes only really scores consolation goals? Just when you think the internet can't surprise you anymore lol...

 

We obviously need a new column in the stats now. Or maybe another column describing the weather conditions at the time of the goal? Type of celebration? Muted because it was a consolation? 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Almat

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

11 hours ago, Ash76 said:

So the Nixon thread is the latest that's turned in to a Rhodes thread.

 

I acknowledge his past goals but also share some concerns with others that he's not done that for around 2 years now. 

 

I keep hearing that if we play to his strengths he'll do the business. I'm not so sure considering what I've seen of him. I know he's had chances for us so thought i'd go and have a look at the stats. I've included Hooper for comparison too.

 

 

*Stats from squawka.com

** Hooper 13/14 stats in Premier League

 

This is what I mean when I say people can't see past his past goals tally. Anyway on that he's not scored over 20 in 2 years now. I think what is particularly telling on the figures is he actually needs a lot more chances than people think, his goals to chances aren't great and his shot accuracy isn't either.

 

This isn't to bash him, granted I didn't want us to sign him but the purpose is to open peoples eyes to the fact he isn't the magic wand and blaming the manager would be wrong.

 

His goals to games was great for Blackburn but he's yet to replicate that at the top end of the championship or higher, personally I think that will be difficult without risking our number of defeats column.

 

Anyway I wish him luck, I hope he can prove me wrong

 

 

 

A definition of "shots" would be good. Does Rhodes shoot on sight and Hooper only shoot when he sees an opening, for instance?

 

Only remember Rhodes having two, what I would call shots, for us in 4 months last season - vs Cardiff and Forestieri headed in the rebound and vs Leeds which from the spot saved by Green. Honestly struggling to remember any other genuine shots. All Rhodes' goals came with his head if I remember rightly?

 

PS, look how clinical Hooper was in 2014/15! Wow!!

[StudentOwl]

44 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

 

Rhodes has always been a prolific scorer of "consolation" goals, improving his own stats, without necessarily improving the fortunes of his team. It's a different ball game for him here, and it's about whether, and how quickly, he can adapt

Best check that mate... Off the top of my head (I'm out at the moment and definitely can't be bothered), about 75% of Rhodes' limited goals for Boro made the difference in the number of points they would have got

 

At a guess you're talking absolute rounduns, but I'll be more than happy to check this evening

[Earlsfieldowl]

11 hours ago, WayneTheOwl said:

Simple thing is, play them together and the goals will flow. To me they seem like a perfect partnership up front. Is Carlos going to play them together? I doubt it unless he's going to run with Fernando on wing with Boyd on the other (to me that is almost as good as you will get in our league, in full flow and working, and with Abdi pulling the strings in midfield).

 

Totally agree and I can see it costing CC in the end.

 

These players can thrive here in the right setup, but imo that will probably happen with someone else at the helm based on what we have seen so far 

 

CC gets it right when he is forced to make changes, rather than by design.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Earlsfieldowl