Jordan Rhodes has got a huge part to play

[Indoor Owl]

11 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

Rhodes can’t score from the stands. 
 

For the life of me I can’t understand his absence. It’s plain to the blind that we need goals, yet Windass (also goal every 367 minutes) gets in before Rhodes.

 

 

Yep, see my follow on comments as well - might as well run the last bit of football out of him at this point, but as I have alluded to in other posts, something more has to be there.

Every manager comes in positive, but then he just doesn't get games, and we've yet to have a satisfactory answer to why.

 

He should be a better striker than Paterson:  Paterson is an attacking fullback that's transitioned because he was such a threat.  But the Jordan Rhodes we have riding the pine is not the Rhodes of six or seven years ago, and Paterson is at least a multi-dimensional player.  My main thing is that I can't fathom why the opinion seems to be that we want to cut Paterson loose. 

 

Lunacy.  Pair him with a more creative striker.  I would have loved to be able to go back in time and have Paterson and Hooper up front, or Paterson and Forestieri.  As it stands now, Rhodes and Paterson is the best attacking option we have.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Indoor Owl

[Holmowl]

1 minute ago, Indoor Owl said:

 

Yep, see my follow on comments as well - might as well run the last bit of football out of him at this point, but as I have alluded to in other posts, something more has to be there.

Every manager comes in positive, but then he just doesn't get games, and we've yet to have a satisfactory answer to why.

 

He should be a better striker than Paterson:  Paterson is an attacking fullback that's transitioned because he was such a threat.  But the Jordan Rhodes we have riding the pine is not the Rhodes of six or seven years ago.

Agreed.

 

Though he is twice the striker that Paterson is.

[Indoor Owl]

2 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

Agreed.

 

Though he is twice the striker that Paterson is.

 

Ha, fine, fine. 

 

Twice the striker I'll concede.  Not 10x  

[Holmowl]

Just now, Indoor Owl said:

 

Ha, fine, fine. 

 

Twice the striker I'll concede.  Not 10x  

I should have started at 5x and negotiated.

 

Want to buy a gourd?

[wilfsmith]

Let’s hope the ‘huge part’ he’s going to play doesn’t include taking a penalty in any play-off games. 

[Guesswhosback]

Rhodes was finished 4 years ago never mind now. 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 hour ago, Indoor Owl said:

Total

Rhodes:  100 games, 16 goals, 4 assists.

 

At first glance, that looked way too low, considering how long he's been at the club, but nope - that's his record.

 

14 in the league, and three of them in a 37 minute period against Forest!

 

What a truly odd period of his career Wednesday has been for Rhodes.

[edwinowl]

Will always perplex me this one.  
Fail to see how a side not scoring goals and at the bottom of the table leave him out. 
It’s bizzare. 

[Bouncing Owl]

Just a load of waffle by Moore! I know he wants to be positive etc but I’m not gullible to this rubbish. 

[trev]

2 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

At first glance, that looked way too low, considering how long he's been at the club, but nope - that's his record.

 

14 in the league, and three of them in a 37 minute period against Forest!

 

What a truly odd period of his career Wednesday has been for Rhodes.

 

Wonder how many of those were 90 mins?

 

Still a pretty poor record but the stats don't always tell the whole story.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

5 minutes ago, trev said:

Wonder how many of those were 90 mins?

 

Still a pretty poor record but the stats don't always tell the whole story.

 

No doubt.

 

It just seems crazy that Paterson and Windass have already scored as many goals between them as Rhodes has in his Wednesday career, and when combined have almost played as many minutes as him, too.

[Wakefield owl]

Where was that composure when it came to taking decisive penalties?

[robowl4life]

Hudds player soon. Hearts always been there and clearly is now. Small club hero. Can’t hack it at bigger clubs or a higher level hence he’s never cut it in PL.

[Guest Therealrealist]

3 hours ago, Bouncing Owl said:

Just a load of waffle by Moore! I know he wants to be positive etc but I’m not gullible to this rubbish. 

Same..it’s been like waffle central today...just go and beat Norwich..I’m not interested in owt else tbh

[Holmowl]

8 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

No doubt.

 

It just seems crazy that Paterson and Windass have already scored as many goals between them as Rhodes has in his Wednesday career, and when combined have almost played as many minutes as him, too.

Always enjoy chewing the fat with you on things like this.

 

Would you agree it’s reasonable to discount the 16/17 and 17/18 seasons as having any relevance to the current logic of playing Rhodes or leaving him out? For example, over a similar period the now God-like Joao scored six for us at a rate of one every 404 minutes. Yet more recently he scores at one every 140 so is rightly feted as a superb success.

 

Would you pick Rhodes on more recent form, compared to the available alternatives?

 

Rhodes last two seasons for us = goal every 235 mins

Paterson = goal every 367

Windass = goal every 367

 

For comparison, Fletcher and Forestieri scored at one every 256 and 240 respectively over their careers for us.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

.

Edited March 13, 2021 by areNOTwhatTHEYseem

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

Always enjoy chewing the fat with you on things like this.

 

Would you agree it’s reasonable to discount the 16/17 and 17/18 seasons as having any relevance to the current logic of playing Rhodes or leaving him out? For example, over a similar period the now God-like Joao scored six for us at a rate of one every 404 minutes. Yet more recently he scores at one every 140 so is rightly feted as a superb success.

 

Would you pick Rhodes on more recent form, compared to the available alternatives?

 

Rhodes last two seasons for us = goal every 235 mins

Paterson = goal every 367

Windass = goal every 367

 

For comparison, Fletcher and Forestieri scored at one every 256 and 240 respectively over their careers for us.

 

I wasn't discussing the logic of playing Rhodes, though; I was discussing how surprised I was when I realised how few goals he's scored during his Wednesday career. Like I say, the fact that Paterson and Windass have already scored as many goals as Rhodes has during his stint with us seems crazy.

 

For what it's worth, if you want to look at goals per minute over the past two seasons for us, then that would dictate that Rhodes would start every game, with Windass as a backup or as his partner (Windass averages a goal every 269 minutes for us in the past two seasons), but no manager would choose a team based on that alone.

 

If Moore wants to play one up top, then he needs to decide who best suits that role - elements such as hold-up play, link-up play, passing ability, physical stature, movement etc... all probably come into play. If he wants to play two up top, then again he'll consider which players are best able to execute the game-plan that he settles on for a particular game, which could include all sorts of factors - ability to quickly close down opposition defenders, pace to get in behind a high defensive line, aerial ability against a suspect centre-half etc... The list goes on.

 

If it were up to me (who admittedly knows a LOT less about setting up a football team than Darren Moore), I'd pick Rhodes for some games - of the strikers available, he's our best penalty-box finisher and he poses a threat in the air in those rare games when we consistently put decent deliveries into the box. In other games, he's probably not the man to go with.

[Holmowl]

13 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

I wasn't discussing the logic of playing Rhodes, though; I was discussing how surprised I was when I realised how few goals he's scored during his Wednesday career. Like I say, the fact that Paterson and Windass have already scored as many goals as Rhodes has during his stint with us seems crazy.

 

For what it's worth, if you want to look at goals per minute over the past two seasons for us, then that would dictate that Rhodes would start every game, with Windass as a backup or as his partner (Windass averages a goal every 269 minutes for us in the past two seasons), but no manager would choose a team based on that alone.

 

If Moore wants to play one up top, then he needs to decide who best suits that role - elements such as hold-up play, link-up play, passing ability, physical stature, movement etc... all probably come into play. If he wants to play two up top, then again he'll consider which players are best able to execute the game-plan that he settles on for a particular game, which could include all sorts of factors - ability to quickly close down opposition defenders, pace to get in behind a high defensive line, aerial ability against a suspect centre-half etc... The list goes on.

 

If it were up to me (who admittedly knows a LOT less about setting up a football team than Darren Moore), I'd pick Rhodes for some games - of the strikers available, he's our best penalty-box finisher and he poses a threat in the air in those rare games when we consistently put decent deliveries into the box. In other games, he's probably not the man to go with.

Thanks for that. Really interesting backed-up views as usual.

 

I’ll leave it there except to add to your final point.

 

Norwich home 2017.

Rhodes header 10 yards from a beautiful FF cross

Rhodes header 10 yards from a gorgeous BB curler

 

Norwich away 2017.

Rhodes header 6 yards from a lovely Reach curler

 

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 minute ago, Holmowl said:

Thanks for that. Really interesting backed-up views as usual.

 

I’ll leave it there except to add to your final point.

 

Norwich home 2017.

Rhodes header 10 yards from a beautiful FF cross

Rhodes header 10 yards from a gorgeous BB curler

 

Norwich away 2017.

Rhodes header 6 yards from a lovely Reach curler

 

That settles it then - he simply must start against Norwich.

 

Guaranteed goals.

 

[Holmowl]

5 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

That settles it then - he simply must start against Norwich.

 

Guaranteed goals.

 

Well, the point I was making was in agreement with your view “he's our best penalty-box finisher and he poses a threat in the air in those rare games when we consistently put decent deliveries into the box.”