Jordan Rhodes

[NorthernOwl]

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.

 

 

Yes you are right. We got 4 points from the 2 games he started. Definitely statistically significant.

 

Its obvious the ten men comment is a turn of phrase. Do you think he contributes much to the team when he isnt scoring?

[cookeh]

2 minutes ago, NorthernOwl said:

Its obvious the ten men comment is a turn of phrase. Do you think he contributes much to the team when he isnt scoring?

 

In those first two games he closed down as much as anyone. So.. yes.

[parajack]

2 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

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.

Its simple enough,whats not to undrerstand? & what do you mean he didnt feature under other managers?......what was he bought for than? He either wasnt picked,dropped,or on the bench with multiple managers....

[Emilianenko]

12 minutes ago, parajack said:

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

But the full sample size has been quoted and we are better off with him playing.

[Emilianenko]

12 minutes ago, NorthernOwl said:

 

Yes you are right. We got 4 points from the 2 games he started. Definitely statistically significant.

 

Its obvious the ten men comment is a turn of phrase. Do you think he contributes much to the team when he isnt scoring?

Yes I do

[Emilianenko]

17 minutes ago, 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 ...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..

I used to think you were a former paratrooper or summat.

Now I realise it stands for paraletic 

[Beauchief Owl]

Whatever JR achieves the rest of this season he will be lucky to get an offer of even 50% of his current wage.

However this does give him an incentive and hopefully he'll score a few more this season.

[parajack]

20 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

I used to think you were a former paratrooper or summat.

Now I realise it stands for paraletic 

Back to personal abuse?....ime just as entitled to express my opinion as are you....the difference is my jokes are better,& i dont play the man,i play the ball.....time will tell which of us is correct about JR but for the Club,& the teams sake,i hope its you....now why not show a bit of class & debate rather than insult?

[parajack]

35 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

But the full sample size has been quoted and we are better off with him playing.

53 games and nine goals? but you imagine stat quoting is proving more than that? Personally i like jackthehats analysis which includes his spell at Norwich....as i said to you earlier,i worry that an extended run for Rhodes ending(again) in failure would lead to us adding another issue to what is at current already a relegation battle.

 

I sincerely hope (if used) you are right about JR

[cookeh]

6 minutes ago, parajack said:

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

 

 

1 last try.. tho i imagine it'll all be too many word for you and you'll just say something unrelated to reality again.
(lifted much of it from someone elses post a few pages back)

 

First season under Carlos you can make a case for him not doing enough. Carlos seemed to think that being 6ft made him a target man and so tried to play Winnall off Rhodes over and over again. It didn't work which is of no surprise to anyone other than Carlos. Fletch, Nando and Hooper were all doing pretty well at the time (when fit) so Rhodes slipped out of the side. Carlos never actually used him as focus of our attacks, he was used to head ball on a lot, that was about it. No idea why.

 

Luhukay came in and Rhodes was rightly kept out by Nuhiu and Joao who hit a huge purple patch second half of the season. If you're scoring a goal a game, you keep basically anyone out of the team, that's just how it is.
 

Second season he was loaned out to Norwich. Sub appearances, playing second fiddle to the excellent Pukki. However he scored some huge goals for Norwich coming off the bench. So much so Norwich were wanting to sign him permanently.

 

Third season. Bruce goes. Bullen opted for 1 up top (Fletch), and Monk just kinda carried on doing that for the first couple of months he was here. Rhodes got a rare start and hit a hattrick against Forest. Monk was full of praise, saying how great he'd been in training and how fantastic his attiude was. Rhodes started the next game, didn’t score and then was dropped. Subsequently out of favour for the rest of the season while we plummet down the league. 
 

This season. Scores opening day, forms a decent partnership with Windass. Doesn’t score the next. Then dropped and hasn’t started a game this season.

 

Short version?

 

So why has Rhodes not had a run of more than 4 games?

Carlos - had 7 good strikers and seemed to misunderstand what kind of player Rhodes was.

Jos - rightly sidelined by Joao and Nuhiu scoring a goal a game.

Monk - was an prize-winning idiot and factually the worst manager we've had in 15 years.

 

Why might Rhodes do well under Pulis?
#1 Pulis knows who Rhodes is. Knows what kind of striker he is and what an asset he could be. He's already mentioned him in the presser, and Rhodes has been sent out to do interviews. This suggests that Rhodes will be Pulis' main man, much as he said Westwood would be.
#2 Rhodes tends to score when he's actually played. I don't think he's EVER scored for us when coming on as a sub.. yet under Monk 60% of his appearanced were off the bench. Under Monk he had 7 starts and scored 4 goals. It seems fairly obvious that Rhodes needs to start or not at all.

#3 Actually having a run in the side. Rhodes hasn't had one in literally years. That means no match sharpness, no understanding built with the midfield, no development of a relationship with a strike partner. Give him those things and he can only be better than he has been.

 

This is all very simple.. it's all very obvious.. there's no extrapolation from unsuitably small sample sizes.. there's no reaching for dreams here..

 

It's set up that Rhodes should get games under Pulis and Pulis should manage to get the team organised and making chances.
Those two things should go well together.. and I can't see it being worse than playing Kachunga and Paterson up top.
 

 

 

[cookeh]

26 minutes ago, Beauchief Owl said:

Whatever JR achieves the rest of this season he will be lucky to get an offer of even 50% of his current wage.

However this does give him an incentive and hopefully he'll score a few more this season.

 

If he's not put on the park, he can't score.

[Holmowl]

1 hour ago, Buckwheat said:

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

Where do you get those incorrect figures from?

[parajack]

6 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

 

1 last try.. tho i imagine it'll all be too many word for you and you'll just say something unrelated to reality again.
(lifted much of it from someone elses post a few pages back)

 

First season under Carlos you can make a case for him not doing enough. Carlos seemed to think that being 6ft made him a target man and so tried to play Winnall off Rhodes over and over again. It didn't work which is of no surprise to anyone other than Carlos. Fletch, Nando and Hooper were all doing pretty well at the time (when fit) so Rhodes slipped out of the side. Carlos never actually used him as focus of our attacks, he was used to head ball on a lot, that was about it. No idea why.

 

Luhukay came in and Rhodes was rightly kept out by Nuhiu and Joao who hit a huge purple patch second half of the season. If you're scoring a goal a game, you keep basically anyone out of the team, that's just how it is.
 

Second season he was loaned out to Norwich. Sub appearances, playing second fiddle to the excellent Pukki. However he scored some huge goals for Norwich coming off the bench. So much so Norwich were wanting to sign him permanently.

 

Third season. Bruce goes. Bullen opted for 1 up top (Fletch), and Monk just kinda carried on doing that for the first couple of months he was here. Rhodes got a rare start and hit a hattrick against Forest. Monk was full of praise, saying how great he'd been in training and how fantastic his attiude was. Rhodes started the next game, didn’t score and then was dropped. Subsequently out of favour for the rest of the season while we plummet down the league. 
 

This season. Scores opening day, forms a decent partnership with Windass. Doesn’t score the next. Then dropped and hasn’t started a game this season.

 

Short version?

 

So why has Rhodes not had a run of more than 4 games?

Carlos - had 7 good strikers and seemed to misunderstand what kind of player Rhodes was.

Jos - rightly sidelined by Joao and Nuhiu scoring a goal a game.

Monk - was an prize-winning idiot and factually the worst manager we've had in 15 years.

 

Why might Rhodes do well under Pulis?
#1 Pulis knows who Rhodes is. Knows what kind of striker he is and what an asset he could be. He's already mentioned him in the presser, and Rhodes has been sent out to do interviews. This suggests that Rhodes will be Pulis' main man, much as he said Westwood would be.
#2 Rhodes tends to score when he's actually played. I don't think he's EVER scored for us when coming on as a sub.. yet under Monk 60% of his appearanced were off the bench. Under Monk he had 7 starts and scored 4 goals. It seems fairly obvious that Rhodes needs to start or not at all.

#3 Actually having a run in the side. Rhodes hasn't had one in literally years. That means no match sharpness, no understanding built with the midfield, no development of a relationship with a strike partner. Give him those things and he can only be better than he has been.

 

This is all very simple.. it's all very obvious.. there's no extrapolation from unsuitably small sample sizes.. there's no reaching for dreams here..

 

It's set up that Rhodes should get games under Pulis and Pulis should manage to get the team organised and making chances.
Those two things should go well together.. and I can't see it being worse than playing Kachunga and Paterson up top.
   

 

 

Well i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for 'likes' for that load of &$**^"  Cant even argue your own debate but imagine cut & pasting someone elses views and adding your own conclusion is anything other than  massaging your own ego,and is anything but conclusive.

 

Quote:

This is all very simple.. it's all very obvious.. there's no extrapolation from unsuitably small sample sizes.. there's no reaching for dreams here..

It's set up that Rhodes should get games under Pulis and Pulis should manage to get the team organised and making chances.
Those two things should go well together.. and I can't see it being worse than playing Kachunga and Paterson up top.

 

Oh yeah? by whom? you? cos you say so?....Without a ball being kicked,or a team selected,you have Rhodes in it,and a team picked to play to create him chances.You have no idea if he will play 442,a lone striker,or indeed any other variation,nor do you know how he will set up.(let alone if it will work)

 

One can only speculate why on earth didnt Mr C save his self some money,and drop you line via Owlstalk,to get you to pick,and manage the team.

 

Heres a heads up,someone offering a different view,or disagreeing with yours,is what debate is about.Disagreeing with your view,isnt the same as not understanding it.....verstehe? it means your debate(like your insults) are unconvincing & poor...and not changing someones elses mind.

[Emilianenko]

25 minutes ago, parajack said:

53 games and nine goals? but you imagine stat quoting is proving more than that? Personally i like jackthehats analysis which includes his spell at Norwich....as i said to you earlier,i worry that an extended run for Rhodes ending(again) in failure would lead to us adding another issue to what is at current already a relegation battle.

 

I sincerely hope (if used) you are right about JR

I was right about Monk

[Emilianenko]

39 minutes ago, parajack said:

Back to personal abuse?....ime just as entitled to express my opinion as are you....the difference is my jokes are better,& i dont play the man,i play the ball.....time will tell which of us is correct about JR but for the Club,& the teams sake,i hope its you....now why not show a bit of class & debate rather than insult?

Playing the victim again 

[parajack]

Just now, Emilianenko said:

Playing the victim again 

Attempted labeling is crude,it didn't work when you tried belittling me about spelling & grammar,and it wont work now....As soon as the first insult hits the thread,i know  the person doing it,has run out of debate....debate the post,not the person posting it...

[parajack]

4 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

I was right about Monk

Right about what?...other than him getting the sack & results at S6,both a matter of record,everything else is either unknown(unless you know all the facts) or a matter of opinion.

 

What none of us know is why the players underperformed for so long,and so spectacularly at S6,or why even now so many managers have been unable to turn it around.

 

I would hold my fire if i were you & see if this latest appointment can do any better

[cookeh]

6 minutes ago, parajack said:

Well i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for 'likes' for that load of &$**^"  Cant even argue your own debate but imagine cut & pasting someone elses views and adding your own conclusion is anything other than  massaging your own ego,and is anything but conclusive.

 

Quote:

This is all very simple.. it's all very obvious.. there's no extrapolation from unsuitably small sample sizes.. there's no reaching for dreams here..

It's set up that Rhodes should get games under Pulis and Pulis should manage to get the team organised and making chances.
Those two things should go well together.. and I can't see it being worse than playing Kachunga and Paterson up top.

 

Oh yeah? by whom? you? cos you say so?....Without a ball being kicked,or a team selected,you have Rhodes in it,and a team picked to play to create him chances.You have no idea if he will play 442,a lone striker,or indeed any other variation,nor do you know how he will set up.(let alone if it will work)

 

One can only speculate why on earth didnt Mr C save his self some money,and drop you line via Owlstalk,to get you to pick,and manage the team.

 

Heres a heads up,someone offering a different view,or disagreeing with yours,is what debate is about.Disagreeing with your view,isnt the same as not understanding it.....verstehe? it means your debate(like your insults) are unconvincing & poor...and not changing someones elses mind.

 

Ok, you really just aren't that smart.

 

"Cant even argue your own debate but imagine cut & pasting someone elses views"

It's called agreeing. And when other people agree and no one agrees with you, maaybe you should wonder whether you're wrong. just sayin.

 

"someone offering a different view,or disagreeing with yours,is what debate is about"

You're not offering an alternate position, or debating what's being said tho.. you're jsut posting over and over about "two games" and thinking you're golden.

 

If you want to debate, debate. But you're not. so i'll just leave you to make yourself look even sillier.

 

[pazowl55]

25 minutes ago, cookeh said:

So why has Rhodes not had a run of more than 4 games?

Carlos - had 7 good strikers and seemed to misunderstand what kind of player Rhodes was.

Jos - rightly sidelined by Joao and Nuhiu scoring a goal a game.

Monk - was an prize-winning idiot and factually the worst manager we've had in 15 years.

Basically all this proves is what I said that he wasn't deemed good enough to play infront of any of them. 

 

You may see it as some sort of reasoning but we was expecting Rhodes to come in and be our number one striker above everyone else. Sart 40 odd games a season and try and get us close to 20 goals. But every manager we have had and even the one at Norwich decided he wasn't capable of that.

 

Could it be different under Pulis. Of course it could, but all I am saying is hope for it, don't expect it.

[parajack]

1 minute ago, cookeh said:

 

Ok, you really just aren't that smart.

 

"Cant even argue your own debate but imagine cut & pasting someone elses views"

It's called agreeing. And when other people agree and no one agrees with you, maaybe you should wonder whether you're wrong. just sayin.

 

"someone offering a different view,or disagreeing with yours,is what debate is about"

You're not offering an alternate position, or debating what's being said tho.. you're jsut posting over and over about "two games" and thinking you're golden.

 

If you want to debate, debate. But you're not. so i'll just leave you to make yourself look even sillier.

 

Your leaving because your a one trick pony,the longer you go on,the more of a *** you will look,that i guarantee you..whats up,run out of things to cut & paste...? I dont change my views they have been consistent throughout my time on here,thats whats getting under your skin isnt it?...

I wont accept or worship the  alleged false idols of WW or JR....