Jump to content

Rate the Strike Partnerships


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Bulgaria said:

I wouldn't mind the long ball if we actually had players buzzing around to pick up the pieces.  At times I thought having Fletcher really slowed our game down and made us sooooo predictable.

 

I am old fashioned.... Just have a big lad an little un up top, 2 wingers getting the ball over and a speedy young lad as substitute to bring on if needed.

 

Easy this management lark!

 

I don’t think it’s old fashioned at all. Every now and then, a centre-forward and striker combination turns up and they tear up defences. Look at Kane and Son. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bulgaria
1 hour ago, shandypants said:

I don’t think it’s old fashioned at all. Every now and then, a centre-forward and striker combination turns up and they tear up defences. Look at Kane and Son. 

And we have Patterson and Windass.!!

 

🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, shandypants said:

Right, let’s say Rhodes has had two half decent performances this season; why is he out of the side now? Could it be that Monk doesn’t think he’s good enough to be a regular starter? Could it be that Monk doesn’t think those half decent performances were good enough? Could it be that Monk judges Rhodes in training? Could the above be similar for all of the other Owls managers that have worked with Rhodes?

 

Sometimes things occur too often for them to be a coincidence. My opinion is that Rhodes isn’t as good a player as some think he is and playing him is to the detriment of the team.  

Maybe Monk is wrong, his record here is hardly any justification for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

Maybe Monk is wrong, his record here is hardly any justification for you.

Oh come on pal. That’s just pathetic. So any manager that hasn’t played Rhodes before is wrong also? I’ll trust a professional football manager’s opinion over your opinion every day of the week. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shandypants said:

Oh come on pal. That’s just pathetic. So any manager that hasn’t played Rhodes before is wrong also? I’ll trust a professional football manager’s opinion over your opinion every day of the week. 

Rhodes has done well (as has the team) when Monk has brought him in only to be given no more than 2 or 3 games before being dropped. Monk has a habit of chopping and changing strikers unnecessarily.

Jos started Rhodes twice and he did well ( as did the team) . Won both games and Rhodes scored the winner and was man of the match in the second one before being dropped and then loaned out to Norwich where he won promotion. Unexplainable really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

Rhodes has done well (as has the team) when Monk has brought him in only to be given no more than 2 or 3 games before being dropped. Monk has a habit of chopping and changing strikers unnecessarily.

Jos started Rhodes twice and he did well ( as did the team) . Won both games and Rhodes scored the winner and was man of the match in the second one before being dropped and then loaned out to Norwich where he won promotion. Unexplainable really.

Managers see players in training day in/day out and will make judgements based on that also. 
 

The thing that you omit (maybe subconsciously because you don’t want to see it) is that Rhodes isn’t losing his place after good performances. He tends to have a stormer and then in subsequent games he’s an absolute passenger and, effectively, we are playing with 10 men.
 

When Rhodes does what he should do, certain OwlsTalkers rave on about it like he’s had a great game. Take this season, Rhodes made some runs to take away defenders - so has Windass and Kanchunga; it’s not brilliant play, it’s just what forwards should do; Rhodes scored a goal; brilliant! He’s paid to do that. He might have scored but when he doesn’t, he just goes through the motions. 
 

Football isn’t about show ponies that trot around anymore. Every single successful forward works their nuts off for their team - let’s face it, Rhodes doesn’t. With the advent of the ball playing goalkeeper, it’s like teams have 11 outfield players at times; we can’t afford to have players that don’t work hard. Rhodes is a luxury we can’t afford in my opinion. 

If Monk picks Rhodes then fair play but I wouldn’t be surprised if Rhodes is warming the bench for the rest of the season. 


 

 

Edited by shandypants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, shandypants said:

Managers see players in training day in/day out and will make judgements based on that also. 
 

The thing that you omit (maybe subconsciously because you don’t want to see it) is that Rhodes isn’t losing his place after good performances. He tends to have a stormer and then in subsequent games he’s an absolute passenger and, effectively, we are playing with 10 men.
 

When Rhodes does what he should do, certain OwlsTalkers rave on about it like he’s had a great game. Take this season, Rhodes made some runs to take away defenders - so has Windass and Kanchunga; it’s not brilliant play, it’s just what forwards should do; Rhodes scored a goal; brilliant! He’s paid to do that. He might have scored but when he doesn’t, he just goes through the motions. 
 

Football isn’t about show ponies that trot around anymore. Every single successful forward works their nuts off for their team - let’s face it, Rhodes doesn’t. With the advent of the ball playing goalkeeper, it’s like teams have 11 outfield players at times; we can’t afford to have players that don’t work hard. Rhodes is a luxury we can’t afford in my opinion. 

If Monk picks Rhodes then fair play but I wouldn’t be surprised if Rhodes is warming the bench for the rest of the season. 


 

 

You clearly haven’t seen Rhodes play this season if you don’t think he’s been working hard. As for training , Cameron Dawson did an interview recently and he stated that in training Rhodes is a lethal finisher and he can’t get close to saving his efforts. Luongo stated something similar also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

You clearly haven’t seen Rhodes play this season if you don’t think he’s been working hard. As for training , Cameron Dawson did an interview recently and he stated that in training Rhodes is a lethal finisher and he can’t get close to saving his efforts. Luongo stated something similar also.

Yes, I have seen every game this season, saw every home game last season and thirty odd seasons before that (I am a long time season ticket holder) and have seen a huge number of away games in that time also.
I’m sorry but Rhodes hasn’t worked hard this season in my opinion. 
 

So, we must presume that Rhodes is scoring in training if Dawson and Luongo say so but why isn’t he being picked for the first eleven? My guess is that he’s not being picked because he doesn’t offer enough to justify being a first choice player - his all round game is deficient and he is one dimensional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, shandypants said:

Yes, I have seen every game this season, saw every home game last season and thirty odd seasons before that (I am a long time season ticket holder) and have seen a huge number of away games in that time also.
I’m sorry but Rhodes hasn’t worked hard this season in my opinion. 
 

So, we must presume that Rhodes is scoring in training if Dawson and Luongo say so but why isn’t he being picked for the first eleven? My guess is that he’s not being picked because he doesn’t offer enough to justify being a first choice player - his all round game is deficient and he is one dimensional. 


If you are right, and Rhodes doesn’t do enough you’d expect our results without him would be much better than our results with him.
 

Here they are since he got into the side under Monk, starting with the 2-1 win v Brentford.

 

With Rhodes - W5. D3. L2 

 

Without Rhodes - W3. D5. L13

 

or, if you don’t want to take last season’s games into account:-

 

This season with W1. D1

 

This season without D1. L1

 

Ive counted games where he played 45 minutes or more as “with” and games where he played less than 45 mins as “without”.

 

I’m not saying for one minute he’s outstanding. I’ve got eyes. I was one of the few voices who didn’t even want Rhodes in the first place. He’s nowhere near as good as Hooper and  I knew it would lead to less time for the Fletcher-Hooper partnership.

 

But, I compare Rhodes with who we have NOW, and he’s the best we’ve got. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windass and Rhodes. 

 

Was that the one where we got 4pts from 6 in the opening 2 games? 

 

Pleased Monk broke that partnership up quickly to get us back on the form we had last season. 

Edited by poite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Holmowl said:


If you are right, and Rhodes doesn’t do enough you’d expect our results without him would be much better than our results with him.
 

Here they are since he got into the side under Monk, starting with the 2-1 win v Brentford.

 

With Rhodes - W5. D3. L2 

 

Without Rhodes - W3. D5. L13

 

or, if you don’t want to take last season’s games into account:-

 

This season with W1. D1

 

This season without D1. L1

 

Ive counted games where he played 45 minutes or more as “with” and games where he played less than 45 mins as “without”.

 

I’m not saying for one minute he’s outstanding. I’ve got eyes. I was one of the few voices who didn’t even want Rhodes in the first place. He’s nowhere near as good as Hooper and  I knew it would lead to less time for the Fletcher-Hooper partnership.

 

But, I compare Rhodes with who we have NOW, and he’s the best we’ve got. 

We’ve been through this before when we discussed it last season. Stats can hide the truth and the truth is that the games we’ve won points in this season have been when Windass, Bannan, Brown, Lees and Iorfa were playing very well. Rhodes scored and took his goal well but that’s the only outstanding thing he did in that game (and Windass did the lion’s share of bringing about that goal) - the rest of that game, Rhodes did something between what you’d expect a forward to do and meh. In the other game where he didn’t score, again, he was largely meh with the odd bit of good stuff. 
 

Anyway, for the argument let’s ignore what I think and go with your argument about Rhodes’s inclusion in games bringing about the result; why has he not been picked since?  The answer must be that Monk doesn’t trust and believe in Rhodes and that must be because of what Monk sees not only in matches but also in training and what he has seen last season - it cannot be anything else. When Rhodes starts to impress himself on the manager, then he becomes a candidate to start. Rhodes isn’t good enough - that’s the truth. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, shandypants said:

We’ve been through this before when we discussed it last season. Stats can hide the truth and the truth is that the games we’ve won points in this season have been when Windass, Bannan, Brown, Lees and Iorfa were playing very well. Rhodes scored and took his goal well but that’s the only outstanding thing he did in that game (and Windass did the lion’s share of bringing about that goal) - the rest of that game, Rhodes did something between what you’d expect a forward to do and meh. In the other game where he didn’t score, again, he was largely meh with the odd bit of good stuff. 
 

Anyway, for the argument let’s ignore what I think and go with your argument about Rhodes’s inclusion in games bringing about the result; why has he not been picked since?  The answer must be that Monk doesn’t trust and believe in Rhodes and that must be because of what Monk sees not only in matches but also in training and what he has seen last season - it cannot be anything else. When Rhodes starts to impress himself on the manager, then he becomes a candidate to start. Rhodes isn’t good enough - that’s the truth. 

How did Windass do the Lions share of Rhodes goal? 

Rhodes won the free kick which led to the goal, Rhodes put the ball in the back of the net after Windass flicked it on. Confirmation bias at its finest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Emilianenko said:

How did Windass do the Lions share of Rhodes goal? 

Rhodes won the free kick which led to the goal, Rhodes put the ball in the back of the net after Windass flicked it on. Confirmation bias at its finest.

The flick on was the lions share of the work. However, if you read the rest of my post you will see in the second paragraph that I exclude my bias before replying to Holmowl - how can I be less biased by stating “for the argument let’s ignore what I think and go with your argument about Rhodes’s inclusion in games bringing about the result”?  The point is, whether Rhodes is or was good, bad or indifferent, he isn’t impressing himself enough on the manager to get a starting berth; that tells me that he’s not good enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, shandypants said:

The flick on was the lions share of the work. However, if you read the rest of my post you will see in the second paragraph that I exclude my bias before replying to Holmowl - how can I be less biased by stating “for the argument let’s ignore what I think and go with your argument about Rhodes’s inclusion in games bringing about the result”?  The point is, whether Rhodes is or was good, bad or indifferent, he isn’t impressing himself enough on the manager to get a starting berth; that tells me that he’s not good enough. 

I think the only person you are fooling with the lions share comment is yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/10/2020 at 09:01, scilly owl said:

I don’t want to dodge the question but once you’ve seen Bannister & Varadi  and Hirst & Williams it’s difficult to appraise the current crop.

Layne ( or indeed Ellis)  and Fantham was a fairly good partnership too...

 

I’m going to need another box of tissues...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Therealrealist
3 minutes ago, Elderly Owl said:

Layne ( or indeed Ellis)  and Fantham was a fairly good partnership too...

 

I’m going to need another box of tissues...

 

 

Noticed other day layneys boozer all shut up..probly been shu5 up ages don’t pass it very often..if I wer an ex top footballer I would be so bitter at this current mob gettin 200k a week

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Emilianenko said:

I think the only person you are fooling with the lions share comment is yourself.

You’re just completely fooling yourself to the point of delusion pal if you believe Jordan Rhodes is the answer. You can dress it up however you like but the truth is that Rhodes has failed at SWFC big time. He’s not impressing himself on Monk for some reason (I believe it’s because Rhodes is not very good) but the only person that can change that is Rhodes himself by either trying harder or changing or leaving the club. 
 

I’d like to see Rhodes score 15 to 20 goals for us this season because we need some value out of him but it isn’t going to happen until he impresses himself upon Monk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...