Jordan Rhodes

[Guest T Hardy]

Just now, Holmowl said:

I really don’t 

I thought you said you knew his family on here once.

 

FWIW I might disagree with you about Rhodes but I think you’re sincere. If I had a brief connection to someone or anything like that personally, I’d want that player to have a fair hearing from the fans, and I think I’d be doing the same as you, it’s easy when you have no connection to chat crap and not think there’s humans involved when you don’t know them. 

[Holmowl]

4 minutes ago, T Hardy said:

I thought you said you knew his family on here once.

 

FWIW I might disagree with you about Rhodes but I think you’re sincere. If I had a brief connection to someone or anything like that personally, I’d want that player to have a fair hearing from the fans, and I think I’d be doing the same as you, it’s easy when you have no connection to chat crap and not think there’s humans involved when you don’t know them. 

Andy R is a near neighbour but I’ve never so much as said hi. 
 

My daughter served him and Mrs R pizza. Does that count?

[Guest T Hardy]

1 minute ago, Holmowl said:

Andy R is a near neighbour but I’ve never so much as said hi. 
 

My daughter served him and Mrs R pizza. Does that count?

ha

 

Apologies I obviously got the wrong end of the stick, feels like it’s got too personal 

[Holmowl]

Just now, T Hardy said:

ha

 

Apologies I obviously got the wrong end of the stick, feels like it’s got too personal 

not for me.

 

Purely he is far and away the best (only) striker of a paltry bunch. And we’ve (IMO) wasted our best chance with halfarsed pseudo pretend strikers who were never going to score us enough.

[Guest T Hardy]

1 minute ago, Holmowl said:

not for me.

 

Purely he is far and away the best (only) striker of a paltry bunch. And we’ve (IMO) wasted our best chance with halfarsed pseudo pretend strikers who were never going to score us enough.

I meant comments about you maybe having a connection that with hindsight were unnecessary. But yeah back to football, I agree now he’s our best option. He has to start on Wednesday and I’m sure he will, I’d like to think he’ll be fired up against them

[Guest]

7 hours ago, bladeshater said:

He maybe the best of a very poor bunch personally I wouldn't keep one of them

 

Got to agree with this. He is said to be on around £30K a week and has been for four years.

 

He is the best we currently have and I would imagine we would be better off in terms of points this season if he had started more games, certainly couldn't have been much worse off. 

 

He hasn't been and still isn't worth the outlay though and would not be worth keeping on half the wage he is said to have been getting. 

[Marro]

The main problem with Rhodes is that since he joined he has not been given enough game time.  It has been stop and start.

 

 He also needs the right type of service in the box.  It’s not his fault the others have not created chances for him. Bottom line is that over the last 4 years the midfield/wingers have created diddly squat for the strikers.  People may say how good Bannan is or Reach is etc but as a collective they haven’t performed.

 

 A succession of managers have badly managed Rhodes.  Tragic waste of £8 million spent on a player.

[S72 Owl]

I’ve been a big critic of Rhodes since we signed him. But he should have started 95% of our games this season. He’s the only proper centre forward we have. 

[Guest T Hardy]

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Got to agree with this. He is said to be on around £30K a week and has been for four years.

 

He is the best we currently have and I would imagine we would be better off in terms of points this season if he had started more games, certainly couldn't have been much worse off. 

 

He hasn't been and still isn't worth the outlay though and would not be worth keeping on half the wage he is said to have been getting. 

I think this thread shows that Wednesday fans will forever argue about whether or not he was given a proper chance here - but I think we could probably all agree it is time for him to move on. We can’t justify that salary in League One, and I’m sure there will be a few Championship clubs willing to take him and offer him a good salary, better than what we could in League One. 
 

We need to be thinking long term, ideally we want to build with players next season who will help get us promoted and then really help us compete in the Championship in 2 seasons time.

 

Another point with Rhodes - I know some might say he was a success at Norwich, he got a medal and they wanted to sign him, but I really wanted him to go on loan to League One that season instead, he could have been the key man for any team and got 25-30 goals and come back here hungry to do it again.

[0742]

34 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

Tiresomely misleading “stats” about his Boro time. 
 

Though either way it doesn’t matter a jot.

 

The point anyone sensible fan with eyes would agree with is that he is better up front, right now, than any other option we can field.

 

If you want to use the History Chanel to refute that so be it. 

 

I'll ignore the low end insult attempt. 

 

If he was good enough, then Boro would have A) Played him more & B) not sold him. For a player they splashed £9m on, he was very quick to be sidelined and hawked out for loan/sale back to the Championship. 

 

My eyes work fine, i agreed previously in the thread that he's the only striker we have and based on that he should be playing. He's still poor and we'd still be getting relegated though, the only difference is you'd pipe down with your goals per minute chat. 

 

For 6 seasons, 3 clubs and god knows how many manager's he's never been trusted. 2 of those clubs were promoted, one shipped him out as soon as they could and the other wouldn't spend any cash on signing him. 

 

Jordan Rhodes is not very good. Saying he's better than anything at the club proves nothing, we are second bottom. 

[DJMortimer]

7 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

You're comparing apples and oranges really, as they're very different players with very different attributes. Given that he's a penalty-box predator whose game is predominantly based around getting on the end of chances, you'd expect Rhodes to have a better goals per minute ratio than the likes of Paterson or Windass, who tend to be more involved in the build-up play.

 

Take yesterday's game for example: despite being one of Rhodes' best all-round performances of the season, he only touched the ball 19 times compared to Windass' 54 due to the different roles they were asked to play. Both performed their roles well for the most part, but whereas Rhodes was largely tasked with getting on the end of chances in the area, Windass was deployed deeper and towards the right flank.

 

Rhodes' contribution to the team can be more easily (though not entirely) measured in pure goalscoring terms because that's usually his primary contribution to a game, unlike our other players who tend to perform different roles.

 

Having said that, I wonder how Paterson and Windass compare when played purely as strikers rather than as attacking midfielders or out on the wing?

 

I'm repeating myself, but what the hell?  

 

Some of the old myths just won't die; like the one about 'not getting the service' TM or not having a lengthy run in the team. Look up his pathetic return when he first arrived and was almost ever present for approaching half a season. In those first two and a half seasons at the club, (when we actually used to threaten the opponent's goal from time to time) every other forward we had outperformed him in the one department in which he was supposed to be the difference maker. Did we only create chances when Rhodes wasn't out there?

 

Even his otherwise prolific time at Blackburn ended modestly with 4 goals in 17+1 appearances (and one of those against lower league opposition in the FA Cup). Although he scored a few in the promotion run in at Middlesbrough, he made no difference to their points per game average or goals scored (both almost exactly the same rate as before he joined, even to two decimal places) or league position. Once they got to the top flight he wasn't much more than a spectator. Even his loan spell at Norwich, often cited as a great success, does not look so impressive under closer scrutiny. He started the first few games and the team was struggling just above the relegation zone. Only when he was dropped (starting only 2 league games after November) did they take off and storm to the title. In a quarter of those matches, he didn't even get on the pitch at all. It would be silly to claim this was singly down to whether Rhodes lined up for the opening kick off or not, but it is an interesting observation that may give some perspective as to why he has started so few games (average of 15 per year in all competitions despite no significant injuries) in the last five years, at three different clubs and under numerous managers.

 

Minutes per goal is so limited a perspective. It's a bit like saying Manchester City must have the worst goalkeeper in the Premier League this season and West Brom the best because of their respective save statistics. For example, Adam Le Fondre, Kilechi Iheanacho and Ivan Klasnic feature in the top twenty in Premier League history in that regard. His overall time at the club has been dismal and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Statistics in football are always of limited value because they rarely have any context and fail to account for the randomness and vagaries, but when they are applied to so few games (as has been done in this thread), they become even more unreliable. Scoring anomalies happen, even for centre backs...

 

Andy Pearce scored in 3 consecutive games in January 1994, but got only 1 in his other 80 appearances.

Ritchie Humphreys scored 3 in the first 4 games of 1995/6, but just 5 in the other 78.

Dominic Iorfa scored 3 in his first 7 games for us, then 2 in 52 since.

Adam Reach scored 9 in 35 a couple of seasons ago, but managed a meagre 13 in the other 185 games here.

Lawrie Madden scored 3 in 5 games during October 1983, but got only 2 in his other 256 appearances.

Andy Sinton scored 3 goals in his first 2 games in September 1993, then 0 in the other 63.

Nigel Pearson scored 12 goals in 51 games during 1990/1 but only 8 in his other 166 appearances.

Regi Blinker scored 2 on his debut in March 1996, then only 1 in his other 44 appearances.

 

In the best scoring season by any player of our's in the last half century, David Hirst managed only 2 in 17 league games at one point despite getting 32 in all competitions.

 

I consider this season completely different. Firstly, he does appear to have found a new determination that wasn't there previously, but also the standard of those competing for his position has plummeted in the last couple of years. Had players of the calibre of Hooper, Fletcher, Joao and Forestieri still been here, not many would be concerned at his semi-permanent place on the bench. This team has too many problems to have been saved by someone possibly scoring a half dozen more goals, but it's difficult to imagine we could have done much worse than persisting with the likes of Marriott and Kachunga in particular.

 

 

[Guest T Hardy]

5 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

I'm repeating myself, but what the hell?  

 

Some of the old myths just won't die; like the one about 'not getting the service' TM or not having a lengthy run in the team. Look up his pathetic return when he first arrived and was almost ever present for approaching half a season. In those first two and a half seasons at the club, (when we actually used to threaten the opponent's goal from time to time) every other forward we had outperformed him in the one department in which he was supposed to be the difference maker. Did we only create chances when Rhodes wasn't out there?

 

Even his otherwise prolific time at Blackburn ended modestly with 4 goals in 17+1 appearances (and one of those against lower league opposition in the FA Cup). Although he scored a few in the promotion run in at Middlesbrough, he made no difference to their points per game average or goals scored (both almost exactly the same rate as before he joined, even to two decimal places) or league position. Once they got to the top flight he wasn't much more than a spectator. Even his loan spell at Norwich, often cited as a great success, does not look so impressive under closer scrutiny. He started the first few games and the team was struggling just above the relegation zone. Only when he was dropped (starting only 2 league games after November) did they take off and storm to the title. In a quarter of those matches, he didn't even get on the pitch at all. It would be silly to claim this was singly down to whether Rhodes lined up for the opening kick off or not, but it is an interesting observation that may give some perspective as to why he has started so few games (average of 15 per year in all competitions despite no significant injuries) in the last five years, at three different clubs and under numerous managers.

 

Minutes per goal is so limited a perspective. It's a bit like saying Manchester City must have the worst goalkeeper in the Premier League this season and West Brom the best because of their respective save statistics. For example, Adam Le Fondre, Kilechi Iheanacho and Ivan Klasnic feature in the top twenty in Premier League history in that regard. His overall time at the club has been dismal and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Statistics in football are always of limited value because they rarely have any context and fail to account for the randomness and vagaries, but when they are applied to so few games (as has been done in this thread), they become even more unreliable. Scoring anomalies happen, even for centre backs...

 

Andy Pearce scored in 3 consecutive games in January 1994, but got only 1 in his other 80 appearances.

Ritchie Humphreys scored 3 in the first 4 games of 1995/6, but just 5 in the other 78.

Dominic Iorfa scored 3 in his first 7 games for us, then 2 in 52 since.

Adam Reach scored 9 in 35 a couple of seasons ago, but managed a meagre 13 in the other 185 games here.

Lawrie Madden scored 3 in 5 games during October 1983, but got only 2 in his other 256 appearances.

Andy Sinton scored 3 goals in his first 2 games in September 1993, then 0 in the other 63.

Nigel Pearson scored 12 goals in 51 games during 1990/1 but only 8 in his other 166 appearances.

Regi Blinker scored 2 on his debut in March 1996, then only 1 in his other 44 appearances.

 

In the best scoring season by any player of our's in the last half century, David Hirst managed only 2 in 17 league games at one point despite getting 32 in all competitions.

 

I consider this season completely different. Firstly, he does appear to have found a new determination that wasn't there previously, but also the standard of those competing for his position has plummeted in the last couple of years. Had players of the calibre of Hooper, Fletcher, Joao and Forestieri still been here, not many would be concerned at his semi-permanent place on the bench. This team has too many problems to have been saved by someone possibly scoring a half dozen more goals, but it's difficult to imagine we could have done much worse than persisting with the likes of Marriott and Kachunga in particular.

 

 

Agree with that.

 

With stats in football, you can come out with any statement you want and you’ll always find a stat to back it up. 

Alex Ferguson was an overrated manager - 2 Champions League trophies at Manchester United in 27 years. 
 

Alex Ferguson is the best manager ever - 13 Premier League trophies.

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

4 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

I'm repeating myself, but what the hell?  

 

Some of the old myths just won't die; like the one about 'not getting the service' TM or not having a lengthy run in the team. Look up his pathetic return when he first arrived and was almost ever present for approaching half a season. In those first two and a half seasons at the club, (when we actually used to threaten the opponent's goal from time to time) every other forward we had outperformed him in the one department in which he was supposed to be the difference maker. Did we only create chances when Rhodes wasn't out there?

 

Even his otherwise prolific time at Blackburn ended modestly with 4 goals in 17+1 appearances (and one of those against lower league opposition in the FA Cup). Although he scored a few in the promotion run in at Middlesbrough, he made no difference to their points per game average or goals scored (both almost exactly the same rate as before he joined, even to two decimal places) or league position. Once they got to the top flight he wasn't much more than a spectator. Even his loan spell at Norwich, often cited as a great success, does not look so impressive under closer scrutiny. He started the first few games and the team was struggling just above the relegation zone. Only when he was dropped (starting only 2 league games after November) did they take off and storm to the title. In a quarter of those matches, he didn't even get on the pitch at all. It would be silly to claim this was singly down to whether Rhodes lined up for the opening kick off or not, but it is an interesting observation that may give some perspective as to why he has started so few games (average of 15 per year in all competitions despite no significant injuries) in the last five years, at three different clubs and under numerous managers.

 

Minutes per goal is so limited a perspective. It's a bit like saying Manchester City must have the worst goalkeeper in the Premier League this season and West Brom the best because of their respective save statistics. For example, Adam Le Fondre, Kilechi Iheanacho and Ivan Klasnic feature in the top twenty in Premier League history in that regard. His overall time at the club has been dismal and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Statistics in football are always of limited value because they rarely have any context and fail to account for the randomness and vagaries, but when they are applied to so few games (as has been done in this thread), they become even more unreliable. Scoring anomalies happen, even for centre backs...

 

Andy Pearce scored in 3 consecutive games in January 1994, but got only 1 in his other 80 appearances.

Ritchie Humphreys scored 3 in the first 4 games of 1995/6, but just 5 in the other 78.

Dominic Iorfa scored 3 in his first 7 games for us, then 2 in 52 since.

Adam Reach scored 9 in 35 a couple of seasons ago, but managed a meagre 13 in the other 185 games here.

Lawrie Madden scored 3 in 5 games during October 1983, but got only 2 in his other 256 appearances.

Andy Sinton scored 3 goals in his first 2 games in September 1993, then 0 in the other 63.

Nigel Pearson scored 12 goals in 51 games during 1990/1 but only 8 in his other 166 appearances.

Regi Blinker scored 2 on his debut in March 1996, then only 1 in his other 44 appearances.

 

In the best scoring season by any player of our's in the last half century, David Hirst managed only 2 in 17 league games at one point despite getting 32 in all competitions.

 

I consider this season completely different. Firstly, he does appear to have found a new determination that wasn't there previously, but also the standard of those competing for his position has plummeted in the last couple of years. Had players of the calibre of Hooper, Fletcher, Joao and Forestieri still been here, not many would be concerned at his semi-permanent place on the bench. This team has too many problems to have been saved by someone possibly scoring a half dozen more goals, but it's difficult to imagine we could have done much worse than persisting with the likes of Marriott and Kachunga in particular.

 

Good post. It might take me a while to fully digest, though!

 

 

The question I keep coming back to with Rhodes is: why have successive managers not chosen to play him more regularly than they have?

 

You'll get the usual flippant answers suggesting that a series of professional football managers know less about football than us lot on here, but they can be dismissed straight out of the gate.

 

To me the answer is obvious, but it would be interesting to hear what those who believe he should start every game think.

[Guest T Hardy]

Just now, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Good post. It might take me a while to fully digest, though!

 

 

The question I keep coming back to with Rhodes is: why have successive managers not chosen to play him more regularly than they have?

 

You'll get the usual flippant answers suggesting that a series of professional football managers know less about football than us lot on here, but they can be dismissed straight out of the gate.

 

To me the answer is obvious, but it would be interesting to hear what those who believe he should start every game think.

And that’s the killer blow for me. 
 

This would be boring if we just said the managers must always be right, but how many managers is it now that have seen him every day in training and decide they don’t want to play him regularly? Let’s challenge our managers and scrutinise them, but it’s way too far fetched that they’d all get it wrong I think about the same player.
 

I will always add though, I’d be delighted to see him go on a great run. Sadly though I think even a top form Rhodes won’t save us now, and it’d be for nothing. 

[DJMortimer]

Jordan Rhodes (entire Wednesday career in all competitions) : 49+52 appearances, 17 goals, 2 assists.

Atdhe Nuhiu (16th January - 6th May 2018) : 16+6 appearances, 13 goals, 4 assists.

 

 

[Holmowl]

1 hour ago, 0742 said:

 

I'll ignore the low end insult attempt. 

 

If he was good enough, then Boro would have A) Played him more & B) not sold him. For a player they splashed £9m on, he was very quick to be sidelined and hawked out for loan/sale back to the Championship. 

 

My eyes work fine, i agreed previously in the thread that he's the only striker we have and based on that he should be playing. He's still poor and we'd still be getting relegated though, the only difference is you'd pipe down with your goals per minute chat. 

 

For 6 seasons, 3 clubs and god knows how many manager's he's never been trusted. 2 of those clubs were promoted, one shipped him out as soon as they could and the other wouldn't spend any cash on signing him. 

 

Jordan Rhodes is not very good. Saying he's better than anything at the club proves nothing, we are second bottom. 

Apologies for the low sarcasm. Uncalled for. 

[Holmowl]

53 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Good post. It might take me a while to fully digest, though!

 

 

The question I keep coming back to with Rhodes is: why have successive managers not chosen to play him more regularly than they have?

 

You'll get the usual flippant answers suggesting that a series of professional football managers know less about football than us lot on here, but they can be dismissed straight out of the gate.

 

To me the answer is obvious, but it would be interesting to hear what those who believe he should start every game think.

I’ll have a go.

 

He should start every game because:-

 

1. He scores far more regularly than our other striker options 

2. Our team goals and team results are better when he starts than when he doesn’t. 
 

I could add stuff like ‘we look a better team’ ‘he holds the ball up better’ etc, but that’s subjective and ultimately meaningless.

 

 

[Holmowl]

53 minutes ago, T Hardy said:

And that’s the killer blow for me. 
 

This would be boring if we just said the managers must always be right, but how many managers is it now that have seen him every day in training and decide they don’t want to play him regularly? Let’s challenge our managers and scrutinise them, but it’s way too far fetched that they’d all get it wrong I think about the same player.
 

I will always add though, I’d be delighted to see him go on a great run. Sadly though I think even a top form Rhodes won’t save us now, and it’d be for nothing. 

“all”

 

Jos

Monk

Pulis

 

(Carlos played him lots)

 

I have (or at least had) great respect for Pulis. Not got a whole lot of respect for Monk & Jos here. 

[MARTY BOY]

44 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

Jordan Rhodes (entire Wednesday career in all competitions) : 49+52 appearances, 17 goals, 2 assists.

Atdhe Nuhiu (16th January - 6th May 2018) : 16+6 appearances, 13 goals, 4 assists.

 

 

Statistics in football are always of limited value. 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

28 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

I’ll have a go.

 

He should start every game because:-

 

1. He scores far more regularly than our other striker options 

2. Our team goals and team results are better when he starts than when he doesn’t. 
 

I could add stuff like ‘we look a better team’ ‘he holds the ball up better’ etc, but that’s subjective and ultimately meaningless.

 

Yes, we know why you think he should start every game.

 

That wasn't my question, though.