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.

By the same logic we haven't missed Laursen recently either.

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.

Ok.. stats can be manipulated to read WHATEVER you what them to.

For example...

Liverpool:

______________PL___W__D___L___F___PTS___Gls/Game___Pts/Game

Torres Plays____10___6___4___0___13___22___1.3________2.2

No Torres______11___7___3___1___22___24___2.0________2.18

According to 'STATISTICS' Liverpool score a LOT more when FERNANDO TORRES plays NO part in the game

Therefore, TORRES is TURD.

Some people need to get a grip about how stats work - particularly how they can be manipulated to prove what you want them to.

Please can someone show me how to do a proper table? Thanks.

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?

By the same logic we haven't missed Laursen recently either.

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.

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?

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.

we won the game but I felt that we could have put the game to bed with half an hour with Carew up front with Gabby.

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?

Laursen1977 here is a question for you which I think will show you why I think your arguement is flawed.

Are we missing Bouma? Yes or no? Honest answer please.

Because we are doing significantly better than last season yet I would argue that we are really missing him at left back and we would be an ever better side if he were fit. Yet we have more points than we did when he was playing last season.

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.

Its looks like you're on a nice little crusade here.. What did Big John ever do to you?

The stats you put forward do show an improved run of form without Carew. However, the period in which Carew has been injured has not included games vs Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool (the 3 superpowers in the Premier League). This same period has, in my opinion, seen Milner begin to settle into the team following his move. Has co-incided with Gareth Barry putting the summer shenanigans to the back of his head. Also, MON has taken to playing Luke Young at left back and Cuellar at right back. Brad Friedel has also stopped spilling his saves, and that always helps.

So, in the time that Carew has been injured, our midfield has settled and is working as a unit much better than it was at the start of the season. Our back 5 is also looking a lot less pourous than it was previously.

In summation, the statistics you quote give the impression of a team playing better without Carew. I agree that they are playing better, but I believe that is happening in spite of the absence of Big John, not because of it. In fact, I'm quite excited about the prospect of Carew rejoining the team in it's current vein of form.

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

Well I'd rather have Carew in the side over Sidwell at the moment and play 442 especially at home.

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.

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.

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.

There have been loads of balls pumped into the box in recent weeks where there has been nobody there. Just the sort of place I can see Carew being to bury the ball in the net. or at other times, it has been sidwell or Barry on the end of it, and whilst reasonable, they are no John Carew.

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.

Look with Carew in our team it's dangerous for teams to sit deep to defend against our pace because Carew can win balls launched into the box. Simply put he's an asset to our team.

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

Vs Arsenal, Fulham and even yesterday we would have scored more

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?

Yeah we are coping well without him, but I still think we miss him in terms of we can only play one way now. Carew is very good at holding up the ball and I think then, we don't have to rely on our pace and counter attacking power.

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.

We still miss him.

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?

Yes we still miss him. Stats can be manipulated to favour any argument.

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??

me in hamburg outside the st.pauli ground day after the game ...

How many people did you murder that day?

Ashley Young.

Not even a debate.

He's incredible.

Anyway 6 isn't the average. Its about 5 and a half.

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 ****