Laursen1977

He didn't start those games. Barring the game immediately after he got injured, we're unbeaten without him despite facing Everton, Arsenal x 2, Man Utd... With him we lost to Stoke, Newcastle and Chelsea. So 75% of our losses have come with him, despite him only starting 9 out of 21. Our results are just obviously better without him.

19 games vs 2 games. Not a fair comparison. 12 vs 9 is fair. You can't just pick A and B randomly and say because A has happened without B then we don't need B to achieve C. There are other factors as well. Opposition. Their form. Other players form. Do we dominate in terms of possesion more or less without Carew than with him. And prove that what you come up with is related to Carews absence and nothing else. And even if you do prove it has been true, you also have to prove it will continue to be true in the future. By exactly the same logic as you I can say that he would have been top scorer for us had he not been injured. I am pretty sure he has a better goal per minute played ratio than Gabby. At least in the league, but I can't be bothered to look it up. I'm sure there is no coincidence that football clubs are being managed by experienced former players and not by mathematicians. As I said with regards to opposition... We lost to Boro, Stoke and Newcastle with Carew. We got 8 points from Everton away, Arsenal home/away and Man Utd without him. So opposition critique does Carew no favours. Possession is irrelevant. The object of the game is to score more than the opposition, not to keep the ball more. I think it's no coincidence that all managers use pro zone, statistics are very important in football.

So what you're saying is... Liverpool get more points when Torres plays. How is that similar to our massive points gains when Carew doesn't play?

19 games vs 2 games. Not a fair comparison. 12 vs 9 is fair.

I think we'll take 4th. But I also fancy us to leapfrog either Chelsea/Liverpool into 3rd. Bit I'll stick with 4th.

Conversely, we were 2-1 up at Villa Park vs WBA with 40 minutes to play without Carew.. Why didn't we put the game to bed with half an hour to go? I wasn't the one that said we should/would have.

Imaginary and embellished... By the way, we were 2 - 1 up at hawthorns with a whole second half to play with Carew and Gabby up front.....why didn't we put the game to bed with half an hour to go?

Difference here is though, we have with Carew/without Carew stats from this season.......whereas Bouma has never had the chance to play with Friedel/Milner/Cuellar/Luke Young/Sidwell....and never had the chance to play in a 4 - 5 - 1 without Carew.

We've played Man Utd, Arsenal away/home and Everton away without Carew.

That just flies in the face of what we've done this season though. It's like me saying Mike Tyson and Ashley Young are going to punch you. Then explaining to you with stats that despite what you actually think, Young's punch will break your jaw, whereas Tyson's will have no effect.....and you still choosing to be punched by Young.

There is nothing you can say or stat you can quote that will convince me that we are better off without having the option of Carew. Nothing. If you think the threat Carew poses is imaginary and embellished take a look at opposition message boards and see what their fans were saying about him when we played them earlier in the season, I suggest you start with WBA's. I wouldn't mind the option of Carew on the bench. I'm referring to people who would put him back in the first XI when everything shows we're better without him.

kidlewis, but it's about what you perceive we should be doing vs actual results. It's a bit like Mowbray. 'We play football the right way....Villa don't.......we're going to finish bottom, they're going to finish in the top 4' Villa SHOULD be holding the ball up, but when they have somebody who does that, they get 14 points from 9.......when they DON'T hold the ball up, they get 27 points from 12. I'd rather not hold the ball up.

Look at my post above yours. As I said, he is an imaginary and embellished threat. Cross comes in, people think 'Carew would have had that'......but the Carew I know wasn't burying 6 goals a game from crosses.

Rocafella.... We lost to Stoke, Newcastle and Boro with him.... ...got 8 points from Everton, Arsenal x 2 and Man Utd without him.... ...you do your little predictions things, I don't think it will come out in Carew's favour...

Trent, to me his threat seems a bit imaginary and embellished. Along the lines of......a cross comes in, just avoids everybody and people think in their heads 'Argh, if Carew was there, he would have nodded that in'.....and before you know it, there are 5 headers a game that Carew supposedly would have put away. When you look at it based on results, we look a much better side without him. There was another run either last season or the season before where we played our best football/got our best results when he was out.

Obviously not that dangerous, because we score less and gain less points when he plays?

And Carew would have helped us how?? The stats show we score a lot more when he's not in the team, so I don't see how he would have helped us score more past these teams?

So we miss this imaginary thing called a 'plan b' Plan A has got us 27 points from 12, which is title winning form....I'll stick with that, thanks.

In which way? Results? Nope, we get a lot more points. Goals? Nope, we score a lot more. Defence? Nope, we even concede less. What do we miss then?

That's not manipulating anything. That's a very good number of games in which to make a judgement. We get way more points and a lot more goals without him, we don't miss him.

9 starts from Carew, 12 goals. 12 games where he didn't start, 21 goals. 9 starts from Carew. 14 points. 12 games where he didn't start. 27 points. Can people stop saying we miss him please.

avfcinwales avfc1982 trl where are they now??

How many people did you murder that day?

Ashley Young. Not even a debate. He's incredible.

Isn't that what people who're a bit on the small side say to themself to make themself feel a bit better? Just messing with ya! We could make a very interesting thread on this subject. Although it would probably be full of compltete rubbish Yeah, I'm sure everyone would be in the 6"+ range. And a few taking the piss that put about 3". What do ya mean taking the piss, ya cheeky ****