Jordan Rhodes

[Belfast Owl 2]

3 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

He’s only started 7 and he really did make a difference.

 

Cardiff 2-0 

Watford 0-0

Swansea 1-0

Wycombe 1-0 

Stoke 0-0

Brentford 0-3

Norwich 1-1

 

That's the scores when he was subbed. Apart from Wycombe it’s a very tough set of opponents, yet AS A TEAM, we did extremely well with him leading the line.
 

I will never understand why he’s played 800 minutes, with Paterson, Windass, Kachunga and Marriott as our alternatives.

 

 

 

It always has been and always will be a game of plenty of variables and off field poo costs us as well.

 

Playing Jordan Rhodes more won't compensate for that. 

 

Repeating tired stats which ignore so much other stuff won't cut it.

 

Ill make a promise not to debate the issue with you again as it frustrates the poo out of me.

 

Please do the courtesy of not replying to my posts as well.

 

 

 

 

[Emilianenko]

33 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

He’s only started 7 and he really did make a difference.

 

Cardiff 2-0 

Watford 0-0

Swansea 1-0

Wycombe 1-0 

Stoke 0-0

Brentford 0-3

Norwich 1-1

 

That's the scores when he was subbed. Apart from Wycombe it’s a very tough set of opponents, yet AS A TEAM, we did extremely well with him leading the line.
 

I will never understand why he’s played 800 minutes, with Paterson, Windass, Kachunga and Marriott as our alternatives.

 

 

It’s like playing with ten men apparently 

[Emilianenko]

1 hour ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Correlation doesn't imply causation, of course.

 

Why do you think all these managers chose not to play Rhodes more regularly than they did?

I have no idea why?

The same managers assume because of his build that Paterson can play the hold the ball up big man role when he clearly can’t , it’s baffling 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

3 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

I have no idea why?

The same managers assume because of his build that Paterson can play the hold the ball up big man role when he clearly can’t , it’s baffling 

 

Fair enough.

 

It's a strange phenomenon that we have a few posters on Owlstalk who are adamant that Rhodes should start every single game no matter what, whilst a series of professional football managers, whose understanding of the game dwarfs ours, have used him more selectively.

 

There must be a reason why.

[OWLERTON GHOST]

8 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

There must be a reason why.

"Neighbours 

Everybody needs good Neighbours" ......

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

5 minutes ago, OWLERTON GHOST said:

"Neighbours 

Everybody needs good Neighbours" ......

 

[OWLERTON GHOST]

Just now, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

And here's me thinking you were one of the more intelligent ones on here .......

Go figure Einstein.....

 

[Emilianenko]

22 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Fair enough.

 

It's a strange phenomenon that we have a few posters on Owlstalk who are adamant that Rhodes should start every single game no matter what, whilst a series of professional football managers, whose understanding of the game dwarfs ours, have used him more selectively.

 

There must be a reason why.

Nobody thinks he should play every game no matter what. But he has performed well this season and been our best striker and deserves more starts. I don’t even want him to sign a new contract unless on vastly reduced terms.

[OWLERTON GHOST]

[Tommy Crawshaw]

27 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Fair enough.

 

It's a strange phenomenon that we have a few posters on Owlstalk who are adamant that Rhodes should start every single game no matter what, whilst a series of professional football managers, whose understanding of the game dwarfs ours, have used him more selectively.

 

There must be a reason why.

 

The reason for me is he's the best finisher at the club and we need to score goals. 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

Just now, Tommy Crawshaw said:

The reason for me is he's the best finisher at the club and we need to score goals. 

 

That's not a reason why a series of professional football managers have chosen to use him more selectively though, is it?

[Tommy Crawshaw]

Just now, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

That's not a reason why a series of professional football managers have chosen to use him more selectively though, is it?

 

I've no idea why some managers haven't played him much but I don't rate Monk, Pulis or Jos as managerial geniuses.

 

In the here and now when we have been desperate for goals and wins he is the best finisher we've got. Who else is going to score the goals besides him and Paterson. Marriott, Kachunga, Reach who doesn't look bothered or the invisible man Green?

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

7 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

Nobody thinks he should play every game no matter what.

 

Really? 

 

 

3 hours ago, WalthamOwl said:

Surely he won’t drop Rhodes, he should start every game until the end of the season imo. 

 

On 07/03/2021 at 19:24, BIG D said:

Oh and Rhodes should start every game that much is obvious. 

 

On 24/02/2021 at 10:55, Dutch McLovin said:

Jordan Rhodes should start every game from now until May if fit.

 

On 22/02/2021 at 12:44, Owlinator said:

Rhodes has to start every game.

 

On 21/02/2021 at 13:08, Steve Down South said:

As I see it there’s absolutely no alternative and Rhodes has to start every game.

 

On 20/02/2021 at 18:24, Rev Owl said:

I think Rhodes should start every game and if he's not up to it physically because games cone too fast then subbed off around 70 minutes.

 

There are plenty more where that came from,  too.

 

As for the rest of your post, I think Rhodes has generally performed well this season. Some games he's made a real difference and others he's been fairly anonymous. Such is the lot of the penalty-box poacher, I suppose.

 

It depends on the game as to whether it will suit him or not, really, If we're able to get into positions where we can get decent deliveries into the box, then he's a useful asset; if we're looking to play on the counter or need some energy to close down from the front, then he's often struggled to impose himself on games.

 

Having said that, he did an admirable job of it alongside Windass and Reach on Sunday, and Thompson recently discussed the newfound aggression that he's added to his game, so perhaps we might see similar from him a bit more consistently now?

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

4 minutes ago, Tommy Crawshaw said:

I've no idea why some managers haven't played him much but I don't rate Monk, Pulis or Jos as managerial geniuses.

 

In the here and now when we have been desperate for goals and wins he is the best finisher we've got. Who else is going to score the goals besides him and Paterson. Marriott, Kachunga, Reach who doesn't look bothered or the invisible man Green?

 

Managerial geniuses? No.

 

But they're all experienced football managers who've forgotten more about the game than us lot on here ever knew.

 

There must be a reason why they used him selectively rather than as a guaranteed starter as suggested by some posters.

 

Personally, as I said above, he suits some games; not so much others.

[Holmowl]

5 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Managerial geniuses? No.

 

But they're all experienced football managers who've forgotten more about the game than us lot on here ever knew.

 

There must be a reason why they used him selectively rather than as a guaranteed starter as suggested by some posters.

 

Personally, as I said above, he suits some games; not so much others.

What sort of opponent in your view?

 

These managers you mention picked him to play 6 teams in the top half - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 11th but only one team, Wycombe, in the bottom half.
 

Do you think that he should have been picked against Rotherham, Birmingham, Luton, Coventry, Forest, Wycombe away ?

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

8 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

What sort of opponent in your view?

 

These managers you mention picked him to play 6 teams in the top half - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 11th but only one team, Wycombe, in the bottom half.
 

Do you think that he should have been picked against Rotherham, Birmingham, Luton, Coventry, Forest, Wycombe away ?

 

There isn't a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. From memory, I know there have been some games that I felt Rhodes should have started when he didn't, and others that he started where I felt he probably shouldn't have.

 

But then those picking the team know a heck of a lot more about football than me, so I'm sure they had their reasons.

 

 I'm not about to start analysing each opponent or gameplan right now, though - I'm off to bed!

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by areNOTwhatTHEYseem

[daveyboy66]

We've got 10 games left I don't care if Rhodes does nothing but get in the area at every opportunity in the forlorn hope that we managed to knock some balls into the box. If he does and we manage to do that there may be a glimmer of a chance

 

[DJMortimer]

Accepted wisdoms, especially when there is so much evidence against the conclusion they are lazily used to bolster, really frustrate me.

 

Rhodes has averaged 15 starts for 5 whole years now, and this includes the period when he first arrived here and was near enough ever present for those first 20 games or so. It simply isn't good enough to flippantly dismiss the 6 permanent and 2 caretaker managers who have all been unconvinced by him and expect to retain any credibility.

 

For those old enough to remember it...

 

 

Edmund Blackadder : Look, there's no need to panic. Someone in the crew will know how to steer this thing.
Captain Redbeard Rum : The crew m'lord?

Blackadder : Yes, the crew.
Rum : What crew?
Blackadder : I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew.
Rum : Opinion is divided on the subject.
Blackadder : Oh, really? [starting to get the picture]
Rum : Yes. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't.

 

[shandypants]

7 hours ago, Holmowl said:

So your view is that by starting Rhodes more we wouldn’t have more points than we’ve got from preferring Windass, Paterson and Kachunga up front?

 

Interesting but very minority view.

No. I was referring to his entire career with us - it has been dismal. 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

7 hours ago, DJMortimer said:

Accepted wisdoms, especially when there is so much evidence against the conclusion they are lazily used to bolster, really frustrate me.

 

Rhodes has averaged 15 starts for 5 whole years now, and this includes the period when he first arrived here and was near enough ever present for those first 20 games or so. It simply isn't good enough to flippantly dismiss the 6 permanent and 2 caretaker managers who have all been unconvinced by him and expect to retain any credibility.

 

For those old enough to remember it...

 

 

Edmund Blackadder : Look, there's no need to panic. Someone in the crew will know how to steer this thing.
Captain Redbeard Rum : The crew m'lord?

Blackadder : Yes, the crew.
Rum : What crew?
Blackadder : I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew.
Rum : Opinion is divided on the subject.
Blackadder : Oh, really? [starting to get the picture]
Rum : Yes. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't.

 

 

Funnily enough, I was watching that just two nights ago.

 

I'm sure there's an episode where Baldrick has a cunning plan which involves starting Rhodes in every game.