radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
I wasnt so much pointing to the one game but the impact on the squad of having people in the first team that wont be there in 6months.
Match Thread, Forest v Middlesboro, are we on the up?
- Thread starter Old Red Fart
- Start date
I wasnt so much pointing to the one game but the impact on the squad of having people in the first team that wont be there in 6months.
in_the_top_one
Vital Football Legend
Have we still got a much better win/draw/lose ratio when Sow's on the team or has his magic faded?
forestonourwayback
Vital 1st Team Regular
You do have to wonder why the likes of Arter, Colback, Knockhaert, Freeman, Cafu and Taylor have underachieved so badly, after appearing to be good signings.
Some have had injuries, so there is surely more to come (Colback, Arter, Freeman). Cafu has done OK but he's not a no 10; so selecting a player who is not particularly creative in that position is not his fault. Cafu is more of a DCM.
Knockhaert is an interesting one, an enigma. When he first came in, he wasn't match fit and he appeared, almost, to be trying too hard, rather than concentrating on the simple things. Then he got gradually better and I was glad to see his loan deal extended. Yet last night it was back to the frustrated, ill-disciplined player. Almost like a wild horse!
If we are going to bring in players who have 'been around' at a higher level, we have to be sure they are here for the right reasons. That they are self-motivated and want to fight for Forest. Not their last pay day. Colback has had some serious injuries in the last year, but I do believe he has got that strong mental attitude. He will return stronger. Yates is improving and similarly has got it mentally. Arter, Christie, I'm not so sure. Taylor is a trier but he lacks discipline. Have we done our homework on these players, from the perspective of sheer desire to be successful?
Ameobi has great skill and has won matches on his own, but is inconsistent. That also may be down to his mental strength. But I maintain, as a free, he has been a good signing.
Skill is one thing but, equally, desire is a vital aspect of any player.
Some have had injuries, so there is surely more to come (Colback, Arter, Freeman). Cafu has done OK but he's not a no 10; so selecting a player who is not particularly creative in that position is not his fault. Cafu is more of a DCM.
Knockhaert is an interesting one, an enigma. When he first came in, he wasn't match fit and he appeared, almost, to be trying too hard, rather than concentrating on the simple things. Then he got gradually better and I was glad to see his loan deal extended. Yet last night it was back to the frustrated, ill-disciplined player. Almost like a wild horse!
If we are going to bring in players who have 'been around' at a higher level, we have to be sure they are here for the right reasons. That they are self-motivated and want to fight for Forest. Not their last pay day. Colback has had some serious injuries in the last year, but I do believe he has got that strong mental attitude. He will return stronger. Yates is improving and similarly has got it mentally. Arter, Christie, I'm not so sure. Taylor is a trier but he lacks discipline. Have we done our homework on these players, from the perspective of sheer desire to be successful?
Ameobi has great skill and has won matches on his own, but is inconsistent. That also may be down to his mental strength. But I maintain, as a free, he has been a good signing.
Skill is one thing but, equally, desire is a vital aspect of any player.
paz1967
Vital Football Legend
"Appearing" to who? Thats the point, to me they were a continuation of fkn awful signings of players going backwards that other clubs didnt want, old players who will never be as good as they were and we'd likely never sell. Who in thier right mind thinks they are good signings? Ivan Toney went for 5m, 23/24 years of age, all we have to do is buy one or two progressive hungry younger players like that and we buy cast offs on likely even higher wages too. Its a disgrace
Calvin Plummer
Vital Football Legend
Largely we still do.
BlackGold
Vital 1st Team Regular
Here are Forest's league results when Sow has started.
This doesn't indicate whether he was subbed off the field at any point:
Huddsersfield - lost - 0/3 points
Coventry - won - 3/6 points
Wycombe - won - 6/9 points
Norwich - lost - 6/12 points
Sheff Wed - won - 9/15 points
Millwall - draw - 10/18 points
Birmingham - draw - 11/21 points
Stoke - draw - 12/24 points
Preston - won - 15/27 points
Millwall - won 18/30 points
Middlesbrough - lost - 18/33 points
- So 54.5% of points gained when he's started.
- IF he could start every game, (unlikely now at his age) across an entire league season that equates to 75 points - a guaranteed play-off place.
- Forest have only picked up 7 other points elsewhere this season.
- He was subbed on at Blackburn, that was Hughton's first win with Lolley scoring around the 90th min mark (as i recall forest were under the cosh...maybe Sow made a difference with his inclusion?)
It could be argued, indirectly, Big Samba has been involved in 21 of the 25 points won by forest this season.
- Of his sub appearances, that's resulted in 1 win / 2 losses when subbed on, so 33.3% points gained.
Obviously(!) its a team game; and how individual players influence or interact with one another is .intangible.
But, just for fun :), i had a look at Yates stats in the same manner...
(the highlighted section is the run of games where Sow has started. Maybe "Young Ryan" is a positive influence on reckless Samba :)!
In short, Sow is essential to staying in the league this season...
This doesn't indicate whether he was subbed off the field at any point:
Huddsersfield - lost - 0/3 points
Coventry - won - 3/6 points
Wycombe - won - 6/9 points
Norwich - lost - 6/12 points
Sheff Wed - won - 9/15 points
Millwall - draw - 10/18 points
Birmingham - draw - 11/21 points
Stoke - draw - 12/24 points
Preston - won - 15/27 points
Millwall - won 18/30 points
Middlesbrough - lost - 18/33 points
- So 54.5% of points gained when he's started.
- IF he could start every game, (unlikely now at his age) across an entire league season that equates to 75 points - a guaranteed play-off place.
- Forest have only picked up 7 other points elsewhere this season.
- He was subbed on at Blackburn, that was Hughton's first win with Lolley scoring around the 90th min mark (as i recall forest were under the cosh...maybe Sow made a difference with his inclusion?)
It could be argued, indirectly, Big Samba has been involved in 21 of the 25 points won by forest this season.
- Of his sub appearances, that's resulted in 1 win / 2 losses when subbed on, so 33.3% points gained.
Obviously(!) its a team game; and how individual players influence or interact with one another is .intangible.
But, just for fun :), i had a look at Yates stats in the same manner...
(the highlighted section is the run of games where Sow has started. Maybe "Young Ryan" is a positive influence on reckless Samba :)!
In short, Sow is essential to staying in the league this season...
Last edited:
paz1967
Vital Football Legend
I said Sow was our best player and still think he maybe is. To me he's changed his game a bit this last batch, less hasty and rash. I think CH had a word. I think CH had a word with Mighten about his defensive duty, i.e the simple pass when defending so he does do some good stuff CH. I still have hope for him, who he buys really is going to have a big say on his success here
paz1967
Vital Football Legend
good effort btw
mao tse tung
Vital Champions League
This is just patent nonsense!
Statistics without context are just meaningless numbers, non more so than the preposterous assertion of how many points we would pick up if he played regularly.
Regardless of how many points we have picked up this season with Sow in the side, his performances in all but three of them have had relatively little positive impact on the result.
If you seriously believe the guff you have written I can only presume you have not watched too many games this season.
mao tse tung
Vital Champions League
Here is a summary of his actual performances this season, taken from various sources:
Huddersfield Away – Rating 5
A clumsy, erratic performance from Sow who on another night could have been sent off in the first half-an-hour.
Bristol City Home – Rating 5
68th minute substitute for Arter; little impact but the damage had already been done.
Blackburn Away – Rating ?
90th minutes substitution for Lolley
Coventry Home – Rating 6
A decent first half despite being booked in the first 15 minutes but faded towards the end of the half; lost his man which resulted in Coventry’s goal, substituted shortly after
Wycombe Home – Rating 5
Another clumsy and erratic performance which resulted in his substitution at Half Time; Sow appears to have fitness issues.
Reading Away – Rating 6
60th minute substitute for Arter; very good 30 minute cameo role compared to what had come before.
Norwich Away – Rating 5
Same old Sow! Booked after 25 minutes largely ineffectual thereafter.
Sheffield Wednesday Home – Rating 9
Fantastic performance; Sow at his very best
Millwall Away – Rating 7
Stood up well to MiIllwall’s physical threat, harshly booked; Christie slips, Sow loses his man and we are one down.
Birmingham Home – Rating 6
Battled and broke up play really well, disciplined performance; Birmingham could not get a foothold into the game whilst he was on the pitch – substituted on the hour mark
Stoke Away – Rating 7, possible 8
Much more like it from Sow, bossed the midfield and got better as the game progressed.
Preston Away – Rating 6
Back to type for Sow, booked after 20 minutes largely ineffective thereafter
Millwall Home – Rating 8
Great performance from Sow, won the physical battle in the middle of the park along with Yates; showed great tenacity to set up Ameobi’s first goal.
Middlesbrough Home - Rating 4
Shocking performance from Sow, early booking did not help but the ensuing headless chicken act was embarrassing to watch.
Even though the ratings are largely subjective, the comments are very much on the mark; which just goes to show the reality does not always match up to the myth.
Huddersfield Away – Rating 5
A clumsy, erratic performance from Sow who on another night could have been sent off in the first half-an-hour.
Bristol City Home – Rating 5
68th minute substitute for Arter; little impact but the damage had already been done.
Blackburn Away – Rating ?
90th minutes substitution for Lolley
Coventry Home – Rating 6
A decent first half despite being booked in the first 15 minutes but faded towards the end of the half; lost his man which resulted in Coventry’s goal, substituted shortly after
Wycombe Home – Rating 5
Another clumsy and erratic performance which resulted in his substitution at Half Time; Sow appears to have fitness issues.
Reading Away – Rating 6
60th minute substitute for Arter; very good 30 minute cameo role compared to what had come before.
Norwich Away – Rating 5
Same old Sow! Booked after 25 minutes largely ineffectual thereafter.
Sheffield Wednesday Home – Rating 9
Fantastic performance; Sow at his very best
Millwall Away – Rating 7
Stood up well to MiIllwall’s physical threat, harshly booked; Christie slips, Sow loses his man and we are one down.
Birmingham Home – Rating 6
Battled and broke up play really well, disciplined performance; Birmingham could not get a foothold into the game whilst he was on the pitch – substituted on the hour mark
Stoke Away – Rating 7, possible 8
Much more like it from Sow, bossed the midfield and got better as the game progressed.
Preston Away – Rating 6
Back to type for Sow, booked after 20 minutes largely ineffective thereafter
Millwall Home – Rating 8
Great performance from Sow, won the physical battle in the middle of the park along with Yates; showed great tenacity to set up Ameobi’s first goal.
Middlesbrough Home - Rating 4
Shocking performance from Sow, early booking did not help but the ensuing headless chicken act was embarrassing to watch.
Even though the ratings are largely subjective, the comments are very much on the mark; which just goes to show the reality does not always match up to the myth.
BlackGold
Vital 1st Team Regular
You've said this stuff is subjective: correct.
Stats are not. I said IF he could stay fit, and the points gained with Sow starting a match was replicated over an entire season the STATS show a 75 point tally.
Would Sow play 46 games? Probably not, however, the numbers and returns are correct.
Compare this to his numbers last season, and they're broadly in line.
The only myth here is you believing that subjective opinion is not a myth!
mao tse tung
Vital Champions League
No the myth is that Sow's inclusion in the team is in some way connected to us winning games when for most of the time that is clearly not the case.
There have been many instances were we have won games despite him being in the side and not because of it.
When is head is right he is a good player; unfortunately those days are few and far between.
Attempting to draw a comparison between him being in the side and picking up points, without analysing his individual performances during those games, is just lazy, facile, and in this instance, massively inaccurate.
BlackGold
Vital 1st Team Regular
Everything you've said is entirely subjective.
Try and understand that all the numbers show is a correlation between his inclusion and a points return.
Do you have anything to say regarding Yates' numbers?
Should they too be disregarded?
Again, i flagged that an individuals impact within a team environment is intangible...all i was demonstrating here is a statistical correlation: and, conversely, a correlation in the opposite way with Yates.
mao tse tung
Vital Champions League
Yes but that does not matter; and it certainly does not matter how players perform.
What matters is how long we can perpetuate the myth that we win games when Sow is in the side and we dont when he is not, and completely over look his actual contribution in those games, which is, on the whole, incredibly suspect.
If, and if is a huge fucking word in this instance, Sow turned in performances at around 70% of his capabilities he would be close to being the first name down each week, unfortunately that happens only 5 or 6 times a season.
He struggles to perform to 30% of his capabilities most of the time and I think that is the catalyst for his stupid behaviour in those games.
Out of his 14 appearances this season, only 4 have been anything like good enough, 6 have been totally unacceptable, with 3 appearances from the bench 2 of which were reasonable.
mao tse tung
Vital Champions League
Serious question: Do you actually go to the games? (or watch them on ifollow during the lockdown)
Calvin Plummer
Vital Football Legend
Is it it a myth if the data strongly suggests otherwise? How does the rest of the team play when he's in the side?
BlackGold
Vital 1st Team Regular
mao tse tung
Vital Champions League
In the context quoted the data is ludicrous.
The rest of the team played well enough at Preston when he was quite poor, they were not too bad against Wycombe when he was atrocious, it took his removal from the side to get us back into the game against Coventry - there's three wins this season where the sum total of his contribution was gifting Coventry their equaliser.
There is no question he has a huge positive impact on the side when he plays with a degree of intelligence, we just do not see that too often; not often enough.
There is also no question of the negative impact he has when he plays badly and that is something we cannot afford to carry; Wednesday nights antics were unacceptable and its not the first instance.
But dont let that stop you manipulating meaningless data; he probably has telepathic qualities we do not know about, or could it be the players have out of body experiences when he is close by, whatever it is, it is not related to his performances.
BlackGold
Vital 1st Team Regular
Don't take this the wrong way, but i think you're entirely missing the point of data sets and statistical analysis.
Its irrefutable what the data shows, how you choose to interpret it is subjective, as i've flagged.
I've shown that when Sow starts Forest have gained 18 points. If that same data is transposed over a 46 game season, the net result is 75 points. That is a fact.
However, you're applying a wholly subjective set of values to appraising performance data, but at the same time suggesting this subjective set of values is somehow objective...
