Ross Barkley

[stewiek2]

It's clearly obvious that Barkley isn't match fit and was put into the starting lineup after being out so long far too soon rather then eased back into the side, especially when El Ghazi had hit some good form.

[cheltenham_villa]

2 hours ago, Thug said:

Check the stats I posted earlier.

We get pushed further into our own half, we have less possession, we have less shots and we concede more shots, and we concede more than twice as many goals when he plays.

I don’t know why people think that if you’re not creating enough, you need to throw on more attackers.  You can have 6 of them on there, but if you can’t get the ball to them, it’s not going to help.

We had 4 shots against Brighton, they had 26. We didn’t need more attackers on the pitch, we needed more control of the game.  Defence isn’t the problem - they managed to keep a clean sheet by some miracle.  Our midfield was allowing them the space to work shooting opportunities.  There were 2 midfielders running around like blue arsed flies, and one that watched the game go by offering nothing at either end.

The balance is wrong, and should have been changed MUCH sooner than when it was.

Interesting, hadnt seen the stats but support getting a better balance. What are your thoughts on Watkins, his goal scoring runs seem to correlate with Barkley playing at 10. I agree that we dont see the dynamism from Barkley but I do think his positioning helps those around him, in particular Watkins and Grealish.

If we bring in a replacement, I wouldnt want to see another box to box midfielder, people need to support Watkins.

[WooJung]

33 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said:

Interesting, hadnt seen the stats but support getting a better balance. What are your thoughts on Watkins, his goal scoring runs seem to correlate with Barkley playing at 10. I agree that we dont see the dynamism from Barkley but I do think his positioning helps those around him, in particular Watkins and Grealish.

If we bring in a replacement, I wouldnt want to see another box to box midfielder, people need to support Watkins.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. Watkins has had 2 goals canceled for marginal offsides, and has missed a couple of good chances in Barkley's absence, including a penalty. And sometimes as a striker you only need a goal to get going. Many strikers score on streaks rather than regularly. 

My point in short is that Watkins could easilu have had a few goals without Barkley, and that the goals he scored since Barkley coming back don't seem to have been impacted much by Barkley being on the field. 

[tomav84]

20 hours ago, WooJung said:

Do we actually know that these "must play if fit" clauses are actually a real thing? 

I'm honestly very skeptical about this, it seems like a terrible deal to get yourself into, they completely undermine a manager's authority.

What does "fit" even mean? Does it only mean not injured? What if a player is overweight? What if they are blowing after half an hour? What if the player trains hslf-arsedly? What if the manager is sacked and the new manager doesn't rate the player at all? What happens if they breach this alleged clause? 

Do we have any evidence of such clauses being used? Do they even have any legal validity?

I'm genuinely asking, I would love to know more about this. 

 

i don't think it is, for the reason you highlighted. if we said he was not fit but ross/chelsea said he was then you'd have to get independent physios in to assess whether he is 'fit' or not in order to work out of the contract has been broken. it just wouldn't happen. the reasons he is still playing is going to be one or all of the following:

• Whilst no clause in place, it keeps the villa/Chelsea relationship sweet. They might be reluctant to loan us players in the future if we stopped playing him
• Placate Jack by not pissing his mate off
• Smith is too stubborn to drop him
• Smith can't be arsed with Ross' tantrum if he drops him
• Smith doesn't rate Sanson

[YouUnastanFren]

43 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

 

• Whilst no clause in place, it keeps the villa/Chelsea relationship sweet. They might be reluctant to loan us players in the future if we stopped playing him

I think they'd be reluctant anyway. Villa are breathing down their necks

[TRO]

51 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

i don't think it is, for the reason you highlighted. if we said he was not fit but ross/chelsea said he was then you'd have to get independent physios in to assess whether he is 'fit' or not in order to work out of the contract has been broken. it just wouldn't happen. the reasons he is still playing is going to be one or all of the following:

• Whilst no clause in place, it keeps the villa/Chelsea relationship sweet. They might be reluctant to loan us players in the future if we stopped playing him
• Placate Jack by not pissing his mate off
• Smith is too stubborn to drop him
• Smith can't be arsed with Ross' tantrum if he drops him
• Smith doesn't rate Sanson

We have to accept at times....the manager simply doesn't agree with us as opposed to being stubborn.

[tomav84]

12 minutes ago, TRO said:

We have to accept at times....the manager simply doesn't agree with us as opposed to being stubborn.

whilst yes i do agree, when the statistics back up what the fans are saying, one does wonder what the manager sees that we do not

[TRO]

Just now, tomav84 said:

whilst yes i do agree, when the statistics back up what the fans are saying, one does wonder what the manager sees that we do not

The bigger picture of trying to get a talented player back on form.

We don't know the extent of that injury, physically or mentally.....we have to trust Dean on these things, whether we see the specific issue or not....perhaps he see's a wider/broader issue.

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

whilst yes i do agree, when the statistics back up what the fans are saying, one does wonder what the manager sees that we do not

The fans are saying different things as normal......opinions on football are seldom unanimous.

blimey, Barkley and Traore got a vote each for Motm against Brighton....opinions certainly vary.

[TRO]

On 15/02/2021 at 08:56, Thug said:

My biggest criticism, believe it or not, is not of him, but of Smith for starting him.

He shouldn’t be starting, based on the stats above, and also by what is plain to see with the eye.

Now, the stats actually show that we do better without him, even before the injury - but My eye told me different.  We looked good then, but now is a completely different matter.

He absolutely should not be starting, for the good of the team, and for his own confidence.

We don’t need a number 10, and if we did, there many better (more consistent?) ones out there.  I am 100% convinced that our problems at the moment is that our midfield is getting over run - and my eyes tell me (even without stats) that one of our three midfielders just isn’t cut out for the job.

We have enough firepower in Watkins, Grealish, and Traore.  We don’t need a fourth.  We get enough shots (indeed MORE) without a fourth dedicated attacker.

shoe-horning him into the team makes us less able to get the ball up to the front, less able to keep the ball out of our third, and as a result we concede more shots (almost 40% more) and concede more than twice as many goals.

The problem isn’t necessarily Ross Barkley, the problem is that putting him in the team upsets the defence/attack balance - to a demonstrably  significant amount.

He just can’t provide the necessary help to our other 2 midfielders.  The answer is either to have a more dedicated defensive midfielder to make up for RBs lack of input, or to replace RB with a more defensive player.

The answer for me has to be the latter with our current personnel, and Sanson replacing him will improve us vastly in my opinion. The alternative is Jack back to the middle with AEG back on the left - but he has consistency issues of his own.

I think he can’t be part of a three man midfield, and possibly trying him out as part of the front three is an option worth considering before we tick this experiment off as a complete failure.

 

 

 

 

 

So am I.

I am also convinced that our midfield is not good enough to play with a 2......Barkley is a passenger, right now, despite his undoubted talent, we need industry in their to help McGinn and Luiz....Sanson should come in.

I am also convinced we need to sign a dedicated DM in the summer of the Ndidi quality....just to give us more variety of option.

You are totally right....Someone has to feed the front three and that means having the ball to do so.

Edited February 16, 2021 by TRO

[WooJung]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

We have to accept at times....the manager simply doesn't agree with us as opposed to being stubborn.

While I would never presume to be anywhere near as knowledgeable as a manager, sometimes they too mess up and it is clear to see.

An example of that would be Bruce playing Jedinak at CB, Tuanzebe at RB and send elphick out on loan. Or him licking Nyland over Steer. 

Just disagreements, or stubbornness? Hard to say, but I'd guess if it carries on and the results aren't showing for it, then it's probably the latter. 

But sometimes stubbornness pays off. 

Oh well, we'll see how it plays out with barkley. Hopefully it will be for the best 

[Awol]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

 Barkley and Traore got a vote each for Motm against Brighton....

Good to know they’re on the forum.

[villalad21]

3 hours ago, TRO said:

The bigger picture of trying to get a talented player back on form.

We don't know the extent of that injury, physically or mentally.....we have to trust Dean on these things, whether we see the specific issue or not....perhaps he see's a wider/broader issue.

But this is the problem isn't it.. 

Too much talent and not enough physicality and graft in the team 

[PaulC]

3 hours ago, TRO said:

The fans are saying different things as normal......opinions on football are seldom unanimous.

blimey, Barkley and Traore got a vote each for Motm against Brighton....opinions certainly vary.

I'm sure they were joke votes. 

[TRO]

1 hour ago, villalad21 said:

But this is the problem isn't it.. 

Too much talent and not enough physicality and graft in the team 

In my opinion, yes.

I am loathe to say one or the other, because every player at this level requires talent....but i do think we have too many technical players at the expense of  workrate and graft.

in truth, we want all 10 players to have both.

[villalad21]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

In my opinion, yes.

I am loathe to say one or the other, because every player at this level requires talent....but i do think we have too many technical players at the expense of  workrate and graft.

in truth, we want all 10 players to have both.

Ideally yes.

But if i had to choose between a more talented player who lacked work rate or a hard working player i'd pick the latter.

You see it all the time. Less talented players go on to have better careers than more talented players. 

In the case of Barkley I think he is having a bad influence on the team. Just a feeling i get.

[gwi1890]

18 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Ideally yes.

But if i had to choose between a more talented player who lacked work rate or a hard working player i'd pick the latter.

You see it all the time. Less talented players go on to have better careers than more talented players. 

In the case of Barkley I think he is having a bad influence on the team. Just a feeling i get.

Yes and no you need technical ability if the team is to progress, There are plenty of grafters with limited ability across the leuage you only have to look at Sheffield utd this season the team is full of grafters but with no technical ability, we do struggle because we are a bit to neat and tidy at times and lack the steel for a fight agreed but Im also glad that we try to be positive. 

[ender4]

18 hours ago, WooJung said:

Bruce playing Jedinak at CB, Tuanzebe at RB and send elphick out on loan. Or him licking Nyland over Steer. 

Did Nyland have kebab juice dripping down his body?

Edited February 17, 2021 by ender4

[birdman]

7 hours ago, gwi1890 said:

we do struggle because we are a bit to neat and tidy at times and lack the steel for a fight

Yes we play good looking football. I just wish at times we could be more brutal and direct rather than trying to pass the ball into the net. Quick running, couple of passes and then shoot. Sometimes we just faff too much! 

[sparrow1988]

16 hours ago, WooJung said:

While I would never presume to be anywhere near as knowledgeable as a manager, sometimes they too mess up and it is clear to see.

An example of that would be Bruce playing Jedinak at CB, Tuanzebe at RB and send elphick out on loan. Or him licking Nyland over Steer. 

Just disagreements, or stubbornness? Hard to say, but I'd guess if it carries on and the results aren't showing for it, then it's probably the latter. 

But sometimes stubbornness pays off. 

Oh well, we'll see how it plays out with barkley. Hopefully it will be for the best 

I know that Nyland is a good looking chap but that is a bit much.