Fletcher & Rhodes - Impressive

[pazowl55]

7 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

I think you are probably right, but it’s a big mistake on Monk’s part if he does.

In a couple of months time. You will be doing the same thread for the Wickham and Fletcher partnership.

Wait and see.

[Nero]

Logically it's a good point. But its impossible for Monk to pick Rhodes in front of his own choices. He was done after the Blackburn cameo.

 

Today as it stands our strike force chances of starting up top are v roughly-

 

1 Fletcher 

2 Da Cruz

3 Wickham

4 Windass

5 Nuhiu 

6 Forrestieri 

7 Winall

8 Rhodes

9 Borukov

[The Batman]

My new Boss is a Blackburn fan.

 

We were talking about Rhodes the other day.

 

He says he can't understand why any Club would spend a relative fortune on Rhodes and then not play to his strengths.

 

He reckons Blackburn build their team around him, and that's why he got the goals he did for them.

 

Says whenever he sees him play, his movement is still there, but nothing much drops his way, as teams just don't play that way.

 

Does seem a waste. It's like buying a brilliant fullback, then playing a 3 4 3 or something.

Edited February 21, 2020 by The Batman

[HIGHERSTATE]

15 hours ago, theowlsman said:

moving forwards then.

You might find this easy...but Rhodes still struggles with it.

[York_Owl]

21 hours ago, Holmowl said:

Easy cliche.

 

Take issue with the stats.

OK, well to play two up front I think we would have to play 3-5-2.  We just don't have the right midfielders to play 4-4-2.

 

We'd then have to fight the right combinations for the back three, the wing backs (not Forestieri) and a central midfield three.

[Emerson Thome]

What are Rhodes-Fletcher's stats like together in the other seasons they've been here?

[Holmowl]

26 minutes ago, York_Owl said:

OK, well to play two up front I think we would have to play 3-5-2.  We just don't have the right midfielders to play 4-4-2.

 

We'd then have to fight the right combinations for the back three, the wing backs (not Forestieri) and a central midfield three.

 

We played 442 in those games where Rhodes-Fletcher we’re partnered,

 

That worked great.

[Holmowl]

21 minutes ago, Emerson Thome said:

What are Rhodes-Fletcher's stats like together in the other seasons they've been here?

 

I’ll take a look tomorrow but I think they’ve very rarely been in tandem. 

[Holmowl]

On 20/02/2020 at 20:01, McRightSide said:

Stats of Nuhiu alongside Fletcher?

Here you go.

 

This season:-

 

Fletcher-Nuhiu  - 471 mins - 11 team goals - goal every 40 mins

 

Fletcher-Rhodes  -  goal every 33 mins

 

Interestingly, when FF has been on the pitch, played wide with a Fletcher-Nuhiu partnership central, we’ve scored a goal every 27 minutes.

[Holmowl]

11 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

What are Rhodes-Fletcher's stats like together in the other seasons they've been here?

So glad you asked me to look at that. It’s remarkable.

 

First - quiz question...

• Since we signed Rhodes 37 months ago, how many games has he started with Fletcher?
   
• Answer - 3 times

16/17 away Rotherham - team goals 2 - Fletcher 2

19/20 away Derby - team goals 1 - Fletcher 1

19/20 away Forest - team goals 4 - Rhodes 3 Fletcher 1

 

In their 3 starts, 226 minutes played together, 7 team goals, unusually all 7 scored by the two strikers.

 

Overall, in partnership their record is staggering:-

 

16/17 - 245 minutes - 7 team goals - goal every 35 minutes

 

17/18 - 101 minutes - 3 team goals - goal every 34 minutes

 

19/20 - 266 minutes - 8 team goals - goal every 33 minutes

Carlos used Fletcher or Rhodes. It’s remarkable how many times one was subbed for the other. Clearly he never saw them as a pair, only starting them once.
 

Oddly, after the 2-0 win at Rotherham Carlos dropped Rhodes and started Hooper-Fletcher for the Newcastle home game. 58 minutes in we were 0-0. He put Rhodes on for Hooper and we scored twice. Still not persuaded, Carlos left Rhodes out v Cardiff and Derby. Home to Derby we were 0-1 when Rhodes came on and we scored twice in 25 minutes.

 

Unlike Carlos, Monk fell onto this pairing sooner. Home to Brentford, 0-1 down, he put Rhodes on alongside Fletch and started the pairing in the next two games, at Derby and Forest - we scored 7 goals in 198 minutes.

 

Then we lost Fletcher.

[The Night-Owl]

I'd personally like to see Fletcher and Wickham together upfront (if only they were both fully fit). The stats are surprisingly good for Fletcher and Rhodes but other than Fletcher, all of our other forwards have been poor and too inconsistent for the past couple of seasons.

 

Our best option would seem to be playing Forestieri and Murphy or Windass or another combination of the wide players, spear-headed by Fletcher when he's fit again, with Wickham as cover or to rotate with Fletcher.

 

Our main issues are the fitness and inconsistency of all of our forwards, which makes it tricky to be pick any combination and to stick with it. We also look ineffective as a team without Fletcher upfront or Monk seems unable to adapt without Fletcher.

 

 

[Holmowl]

16 minutes ago, The Night-Owl said:

I'd personally like to see Fletcher and Wickham together upfront (if only they were both fully fit). The stats are surprisingly good for Fletcher and Rhodes but other than Fletcher, all of our other forwards have been poor and too inconsistent for the past couple of seasons.

 

Our best option would seem to be playing Forestieri and Murphy or Windass or another combination of the wide players, spear-headed by Fletcher when he's fit again, with Wickham as cover or to rotate with Fletcher.

 

Our main issues are the fitness and inconsistency of all of our forwards, which makes it tricky to be pick any combination and to stick with it. We also look ineffective as a team without Fletcher upfront or Monk seems unable to adapt without Fletcher.

 

 

Why Fletcher-Wickham, which might work, rather than Fletcher-Rhodes, which does work?

 

BTW, with Fletcher up top on his own in a 433 we score a goal every 75 minutes.

[The Night-Owl]

1 minute ago, Holmowl said:

Why Fletcher-Wickham, which might work, rather than Fletcher-Rhodes, which does work?

 

BTW, with Fletcher up top on his own in a 433 we score a goal every 75 minutes.

 

Not debating the minutes or even the stats. Just think it's quite clear and obvious we're a more effective team with Fletcher than without and Rhodes doesn't seem to suit our team. He may have worked sporadically alongside Fletcher (our only proven consistent forward of recent seasons) but can't you see that Rhodes, just like all of our other forwards, can't be relied upon for consistency?

 

I don't know if Fletcher and Wickham will work together or not, I just said I'd like to see it. I'm not sure we'll see the best of Wickham this time to be honest. I was excited when he re-joined on loan and hoped he'd compensate for Fletcher's absence. Can see Fletcher getting brought back in soon but we'll still be scratching around for combinations and we'll still probably see the same inconsistencies from the rest of our forwards.

 

Moving forward next season, that's something we'll have to improve upon, the combinations and link up's within the team. If we address that across the team and get some more legs in the team, then I think we'll start seeing some more effective and consistent performances again. 

[Holmowl]

23 minutes ago, The Night-Owl said:

 

Not debating the minutes or even the stats. Just think it's quite clear and obvious we're a more effective team with Fletcher than without and Rhodes doesn't seem to suit our team. He may have worked sporadically alongside Fletcher (our only proven consistent forward of recent seasons) but can't you see that Rhodes, just like all of our other forwards, can't be relied upon for consistency?

 

I don't know if Fletcher and Wickham will work together or not, I just said I'd like to see it. I'm not sure we'll see the best of Wickham this time to be honest. I was excited when he re-joined on loan and hoped he'd compensate for Fletcher's absence. Can see Fletcher getting brought back in soon but we'll still be scratching around for combinations and we'll still probably see the same inconsistencies from the rest of our forwards.

 

Moving forward next season, that's something we'll have to improve upon, the combinations and link up's within the team. If we address that across the team and get some more legs in the team, then I think we'll start seeing some more effective and consistent performances again. 

I can understand “Rhodes doesn’t seem to suit our team” without Fletcher, but how does he possibly not suit it with Fletcher? 
 

You want consistency:-

 

16/17 - goal every 35 mins

17/18 - goal every 34 mins

19/20 - goal every 33 mins

 

Without this pairing - goal every 75 mins

 

That is both consistent and stunningly prolific.

[pazowl55]

55 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

I can understand “Rhodes doesn’t seem to suit our team” without Fletcher, but how does he possibly not suit it with Fletcher? 
 

You want consistency:-

 

16/17 - goal every 35 mins

17/18 - goal every 34 mins

19/20 - goal every 33 mins

 

Without this pairing - goal every 75 mins

 

That is both consistent and stunningly prolific.

There has got to be things that you are not seeing that all the other managers are or it would be used more.

 

Are we winning all them games they play.? 

 

Fletcher clearly gets the best out of Rhodes, but at what cost to the team. Blackburn and Huddersfield ultimately got the best out of Rhodes but it never got them anywhere did it.

 

Also Wickham has been brought in to play games. So it looks very likely that we see him and Fletcher alot more now to the end of the season than any other strike partnership.

Edited February 22, 2020 by pazowl55

[Holmowl]

12 minutes ago, steveraper said:

I teach Statistics. Is it OK if I use this as a class example of how to use selective statistics to "prove" a non-existent relationship?

Genuine question.

 

Please explain in fan-friendly terms what you mean, and why this is not a good example.

 

Genuine. Thanks.

[shandypants]

On 20/02/2020 at 19:24, Holmowl said:

Righto let’s look at your logic.

 

Their record as a partnership this season:-

 

P6. W3. D2. L1. GF8. GA3. Pts11

 

and the only time we “lost” when playing as a pair was that 30 minutes when Fletcher came on home to Hull after he’d spent 10 days with Delhi Belly.

 

But you ignore results and back a hunch?

A statistician would remove the outlier (i.e. the forest game) to create the statistic as it (the outlier) is out of the ordinary and would skew the result. Remove the Forest game and you have:

 

P5, W2, D2, L1, GF4, GA3, Pts8

 

a good return but not spectacular. 
 

Also, I think we could say without much argument that Rhodes was pretty invisible in those five games and that the real star was Fletcher. 
 

We all want Rhodes to be a roaring success but, sadly, he is the most expensive flop we ever had (even at the lower estimate of his purchase price). 

Edited February 22, 2020 by shandypants

[Holmowl]

14 minutes ago, steveraper said:

Your sample is just too small to make any comparisons:

You include one game where Rhodes scored 3 goals, he's scored zero the rest of the season. Exclude that game and what's the ratio? Whatever it is, it's based on less than two full games of play. 

Do the same for Dawson/Fletcher and Westwood/Fletcher - Dawson and Fletcher make a much better partnership than Westwood / Fletcher. Therefore, don't pick Westwood if Fletcher is playing.

Fletcher and Rhodes together against teams in the second half of the alphabet have a goal in about 20% of the time as against teams in the first half of the alphabet. Therefore, only pick them together when playing teams in the second half of the alphabet.

I could probably find lots more of these. Sorry.

 

Thanks Steve.

 

However, as an amateur...

 

Yes it’s a small sample, but it’s all there is. It’s EVERY minute that they played in partnership v every minute they didn’t. Over 3 seasons. 
 

Surely a goal every 34 minutes v a goal every 75 minutes, over every game, has some merit?

 

I know your partnering keeper + striker and alphabet points are tongue in cheek. No stat teacher would really compare those with the out and out strike partnership data.

[Holmowl]

16 minutes ago, shandypants said:

A statistician would remove the outlier (i.e. the forest game) to create the statistic as it (the outlier) is out of the ordinary and would skew the result. Remove the Forest game and you have:

 

P5, W2, D2, L1, GF4, GA3, Pts8

 

a good return but not spectacular. 
 

Also, I think we could say without much argument that Rhodes was pretty invisible in those five games and that the real star was Fletcher. 
 

We all want Rhodes to be a roaring success but, sadly, he is the most expensive flop we ever had (even at the lower estimate of his purchase price). 

 

Why do you care which of the two did better in a particular game? Why do you care why something works? Isn’t it enough that it works?

 

Look around on OT today, at all the different combos fans are saying we should try. Yet heres a combo that has been tried and has worked fantastically.

 

Its almost as if people want Rhodes to fail.

[Sonny]

People don’t want him to fail, they’ve just seen him fail so consistently. Now you’re saying the only variable required to change him (and the team) into a big success is to pair him with Fletcher.

 

You need more data or more variables, otherwise you’ve just found an interesting coincidence.