Jordan Rhodes

[NorthernOwl]

4 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Well at least you're clearly right behind Jordan and giving him a fair crack under a new manager

 

Of course I'm right behind him and want him to succeed.

 

I'm not going to pretend I think he's amazing though when all evidence suggests otherwise.

 

You've criticised the appointment of Pulis (like I have). I'm sure it doesn't mean you dont want him to succeed though. Its the same principle.

[NorthernOwl]

1 minute ago, Holmowl said:

In the last 9 games without him:-

 

P9. W2. D2. L5

 

Strikers have scored 1 goal

 

Team has scored 4 goals 

 

And you think playing with him is like playing with ten men? 

 

I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes we have other players that aren't very good.

 

I'm not sure how that is some kind of endorsement of Rhodes though.

[Guest wilyfox]

9 hours ago, quinnssweetshop said:

He might be a " Nice bloke "  But that's not what he's paid for. 

 

Nowt wrong with calling a nice bloke a nice bloke. I already said I was not defending his performance here. He needed to get stronger and didn’t do it.

[Guest Jack the Hat]

11 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

The desperate lengths people will go to, to defend Jordan Rhodes. Several otherwise sensible posters trying to lump his Norwich stats in with his Wednesday career to pad out his goals per game ratio at Wednesday. Pretty desperate stuff.

 

At Norwich

At Norwich, he started the first 6 games of the season, he scored a couple of goals, but the team only got 5 points in 6 games. After that, they dropped Rhodes (he started only 3 more games in the league in the whole season) and Norwich won 88 points from 40 games from these 40 games. Their biggest wins that season:

 

4-0 at Hillsboro (Rhodes ineligible)

4-0 at Bolton (unused sub)

4-0 vs QPR (Rhodes brought on in 89th minute)

4-1 at Swansea (Rhodes brought on in 89th minute)

3-0 vs Ipswich (Rhodes brought on in 88th minute)

 

In fact, they didn't pick him to start for a single game in the league after October and of the 21 sub appearances he made after October, five were for 1 minute, four were for 2 minutes and 3 were for 3 minutes. Pretty clear he wasn't rated, and Norwich were a much worse team when he played.

 

At Wednesday

People keep saying he scored a goal in x game and then 2 matches later he was dropped, as if the player that can't hold the ball up, runs like he has treacle in his boots and, since January 2018, has scored in 3 games (out of 33) and contributed no assists in that time would have been a world beater if only he had been given a chance.

 

 

I would love nothing more than a Lazarus-like resurrection for Rhodes, but if there is a fully functioning footballer within there, he's kept it well hidden so far. I'd rather see Marriott given more games, at least he can run.

It seems to me its you using irrelevant stats against him. Your last sentence is funny though.

[Holmowl]

3 hours ago, cowl said:

 

Yeah, they were including the cup, but he's not actually missed any games this season because he's been named in the 18 every time.

 

Long thought the same about Rhodes' lack of impact from off the bench though. He's made a lot of sub appearances now, and I can only think of maybe two or three games in his almost-40 sub appearances where he's affected the game positively. He starts or doesn't play for me also.

Here’s his most recent starts for Wednesday. And our others for comparison.

 

Rhodes

This season -1 in 2

This and last season - 4 in 10

Since start of 17/18 - 9 in 26

 

Windass

This season - 1 in 9

This and last season - 4 in 16

 

Paterson - 1 in 6

 

Kachunga - 0 in 5

 

Marriott - 0 in 4

 

I’ve included any game where the player played at least 45 minutes. 

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by Holmowl

[Guest]

13 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

They didn't freeze Rhodes out though did they to keep him away from the squad they just didn't play him because they didn't think he was good enough. 

And what good did that do them ? 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Sergeant Tibbs said:

Because nobody will take him off our hands.

Not strictly true is. Norwich wanted him but they didnt get him. But dont let the truth get in the way of your agenda. 
 

So we carry on playing Marriot or Patterson up front then, they’re prolific aren’t they ! 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

3 hours ago, NorthernOwl said:

 

I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes we have other players that aren't very good.

 

I'm not sure how that is some kind of endorsement of Rhodes though.

It's not an endorsement of him but it means the opportunity cost of playing him is minimal. He wouldn't be playing if we still had Fletcher, Hooper, Joao, FF etc but we don't

[Emerson Thome]

1 minute ago, punkassmofo said:

Not strictly true is. Norwich wanted him but they didnt get him. But dont let the truth get in the way of your agenda. 
 

So we carry on playing Marriot or Patterson up front then, they’re prolific aren’t they ! 

 

Did they really want him? We've been trying to get him off the books for ages. I'm sure if they had been willing to match his wages we'd have bitten their hands off.

 

Think that was just paper talk. He played less and less the longer he was at Norwich.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

Did they really want him? We've been trying to get him off the books for ages. I'm sure if they had been willing to match his wages we'd have bitten their hands off.

 

Think that was just paper talk. He played less and less the longer he was at Norwich.

Yes they did want him, is that what want to hear ? 
 

fact of the matter is he’s scored something like 190 goals in something like 350 games and is a Wednesday Player currently. 
 

At no point has he had a prolonged run, more than 10 consectutive starts I’d bet that he’s had less than 5 consecutive starts in the side, couple this to the fact he’s hardly ever injured and available for me means he’s a worth risking a run in the side. 
 

The argument that previous managers haven’t rated him doesn’t mean anything when they are the very managers that have failed in their tasks, so for those who say previous managers didn't rate him I ask the question how do you rate those managers ? 

[sherlyegg]

22 minutes ago, Emerson Thome said:

Did they really want him? We've been trying to get him off the books for ages. I'm sure if they had been willing to match his wages we'd have bitten their hands off.

Yep, seems madness not selling...

Except Gibbo had a sell on clause of £1m within 4yrs of the sale, regardless what we got for him. Hence the £10m wanting price was negotiated down to £8m.

So we could have sold for £1m and passed it straight on to Gibbo.

That's why he hates us, cos we wouldn't sell.

 

[Buckwheat]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

Here’s his most recent starts for Wednesday. And our others for comparison.

 

Rhodes

This season -1 in 2

This and last season - 4 in 10

Since start of 17/18 - 9 in 26

 

Windass

This season - 1 in 9

This and last season - 4 in 16

 

Paterson - 1 in 6

 

Kachunga - 0 in 5

 

Marriott - 0 in 4

 

I’ve included any game where the player played at least 45 minutes. 

 

Rhodes 53 games 9 goals. Not bad for £10.4 million and record salary payments. Get rid asap.

[DIPPS_S.W.F.C]

Let him have a good run in side,maybe with Windass and Izzy behind him,make him stay central,down middle and see what happens...make him number 1 confidence and belief in him  is everything as a forward...

UTO

COME ON JORDAN,LETS BE HAVING YA!!!!

[Emilianenko]

4 hours ago, NorthernOwl said:

Unfortunately Rhodes all round game is simply not good enough for the championship. When he plays it's like having 10 men on the pitch.

 

He would have to score a hell of a lot of goals to compensate for the fact he contributes nothing else to the team. Once upon a time he was capable of doing that but those days have long since passed.

 

I suspect Pulis will give him a chance given his lack of alternative options. But I also suspect he'll be back on the bench in short order when he realises he's simply not up to championship football anymore.

The old playing with ten men cliche.

Games we have started with Rhodes this season we have averaged 2 points per game.

Games where he hasn’t started this season we average 0.88 points per game.

 

[Emerson Thome]

12 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

The old playing with ten men cliche.

Games we have started with Rhodes this season we have averaged 2 points per game.

Games where he hasn’t started this season we average 0.88 points per game.

 

 

Two games is a silly sample size, but stretch this out over his whole Wednesday career and you make a fair point:

 

With Rhodes starting = 61 points from 41 games = 1.49 points per game

Without Rhodes = 145 points from 108 games = 1.34 points per game

 

There must be something in the thumbs up that gives confidence to the rest of the team. Go get 'em Jordan.

[cookeh]

22 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

Thats not what I am saying though is it I am saying why does he constantly keep getting dropped if he is that good.

Never had a run of games more than 4 since Carlos at the start. Why is this? what are the managers seeing in him that he can't play more games than this.

 

This has been answers 4000 times, including this thread.
If you didn't read it before why would you bother reading it now if i were to repeat it?

[Emilianenko]

3 minutes ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

Two games is a silly sample size, but stretch this out over his whole Wednesday career and you make a fair point:

 

With Rhodes starting = 61 points from 41 games = 1.49 points per game

Without Rhodes = 145 points from 108 games = 1.34 points per game

 

There must be something in the thumbs up that gives confidence to the rest of the team. Go get 'em Jordan.

So it’s really not like playing with ten men then?

[parajack]

23 hours ago, Emilianenko said:

Why do you keep stating it’s risking relegation by starting Rhodes?

When he has started games this season we have averaged 2 points per game.

Without him starting we have averaged 0.88 points per game.

 

I have told you why,quoting the minimal game time he has had this season,than somehow trying to use that as evidence that he will be able to reproduce it,consistently,and regularly,is the issue ...He never has,has he?.....& were we to use him and it not work,we would likely go on a run (another) of losing games....

 

We simply risk relegation to do so....where apart from Rhodes minimal gametime he hasnt had it in him,to be the player to score goals regularly

 

Cant speak for TP but if it was my shout i wouldnt play a lone striker, & would play 442...Windass & A.N.Other  or Rhodes (if he has impressed)....thats the only way forward for JR to give him another chance,without risking too much.

 

Lone striker,i would go with Windass...or push Patterson up  Niether are ideal for the role..

[cookeh]

Just now, parajack said:

I have told you why,quoting the minimal game time he has had this season,than somehow trying to use that as evidence that he will be able to reproduce it,consistently,and regularly,is the issue ...

 

That's nothing to do with why Rhodes didn't feature under preious managers.

You're arguing with someone about something, I'm not sure anyone else know what it is tho.

[parajack]

21 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

The old playing with ten men cliche.

Games we have started with Rhodes this season we have averaged 2 points per game.

Games where he hasn’t started this season we average 0.88 points per game.

 

Its nowhere near a big enough sample size to have any statistical significance at all........