Thug Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Also, ALL that your stats show is that we have improved since we moved to 4-5-1/4-3-3 whatever you want to call it. You COULD argue, that with JC's better goals/minute ratio, we would be even better if we dropped Gabby and played JC upfront. Doubt it. Gabby makes goals out of nothing. Carew doesn't. Based on what stats? The stats CLEARLY show John Carew to score more often than Gabby when he's on the pitch. Look, I'm making a point here - I too would also start Gabby ahead of John Carew. That is because of what I have seen so far this season. NOT because of what stats do and don't say. In fact, you just blew your whole arguement out of the water and proved me right. You're using STATS to 'prove' we are a better team without John Carew (as it suits your personal opinion) When the STATS 'prove' John Carew to be more effective than a player you favour... you choose to ignore them. Point proven. End of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 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. I did not say that opposition was of lesser quality with him in the team. I say you have to look at the opposition when you compare. I was pointing out the shortcomings of your stats. But most of all you have to prove that the results are related to Carew. You are assuming the results come as a consequence of Carew playing or not. I can't see how you have proven that they do. With stats someone else have proved that it is of no consequence for Liverpool wether Torres play or not. If you choose to look at simpe stats they way you do, you at least need to accept your own logic is either always right or always wrong. As I said I do not think it's a coincidence teams are run by ex players instead of mathematicians. You reply that they use ProZone. Yes, stats are important. That's why they use specially designed computer software instead of an Excel spreadsheet. But it's just one of many tools available to a manager. It's not developed to replace managers. And it's used to get insight in what's not obvious to the naked eye at first sight. Not to do team selection. Then you say possesion is irrelevant. That's not true. Your percentage of possesion tells you something about how likely you are to score a goal. And it's not the more the better either. Goals are most of the time scored by attacking fast, and most goals are scored by the player receiving the 7th pass. Passing the ball 15 times or more means you are facing a balanced defence and you are less likely to score.These kind of stats are important. Your stats are too simple to build any opinion on. You could just as well argue that there is no need for another goalkeeper on the bench by the same statistics, and it would be equally true. Yet we do have one every game. And that's even though MON has access to ProZone and game stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Hierro Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 We lost to Boro, Stoke and Newcastle with Carew. Now we're just splitting hairs, but he scored one and assisted one against Stoke, I fail to see how it's his fault we lost that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulTheVillan Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Our form says we doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villabromsgrove Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 We have 17 games left this season and the quicker Carew gets fit the better chance we have of finishing 4th. We have done really well playing five in midfield since he's been out, but having the option again of playing route one and going for set pieces against teams that "park the bus" will cause more problems for the opposition whoever they are. Over a full season Carew has to be a vital component of a successful Villa squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 A very good argument has been put forward, but I think I'd welcome him back in the team as I'd also welcome Bouma back. Over the long haul we'd be better with them in the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I would really liek to think so ... but the fact is we knwo little abotu what is wrong that leads to the kind of speculation I have mentioned but nothing like that on Vital Ian you have been told many times its a prolapsed disc.....I'm sorry to disaapoint you but the Lap dancing junk is a what it is junk. ....it seems like that you just don't beleive a simple explanation. Another thing that might annoy you is that he a very popular guy at the club. I have been told nothing by the club but by you as an ITK, sorry but we all take ITKs with a pinch a salt on here and why would that annoy me ? check out what I have said about Carew and you will find the basic difference is that I simply do not rate him as highly as some, but no way would I want him to go without a better replacement. that goes for every player I'm not sure what an "In The Know" supposed to mean.... this is a forum for the very purposeof villa fans telling others what they know and some folk will know more than others by definition.....It is also helpful to reassure fans who happen to rate Carew. If you choose to be selective and want a written statement with the stamp of runnymede on it well thats up to you. My suggestion is have a bit of faith when folk tell you that a substantial player for Aston Villa has no agenda attached to him. I am not the next door neighbour to Martin O'Neill, but even if i was i wouldn't tell distrusting souls like you. Incidently, if you read tonights Birmingham Mail you will read Martin O'Neills endorsement that he is missing Carew..... no sinister plot there then.... who can we find next? ps ....( we all take ITK's with a pinch of salt)....speak for yourself not on behalf of everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laursen1977 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 Also, ALL that your stats show is that we have improved since we moved to 4-5-1/4-3-3 whatever you want to call it. You COULD argue, that with JC's better goals/minute ratio, we would be even better if we dropped Gabby and played JC upfront. Doubt it. Gabby makes goals out of nothing. Carew doesn't. Based on what stats? The stats CLEARLY show John Carew to score more often than Gabby when he's on the pitch. Look, I'm making a point here - I too would also start Gabby ahead of John Carew. That is because of what I have seen so far this season. NOT because of what stats do and don't say. In fact, you just blew your whole arguement out of the water and proved me right. You're using STATS to 'prove' we are a better team without John Carew (as it suits your personal opinion) When the STATS 'prove' John Carew to be more effective than a player you favour... you choose to ignore them. Point proven. End of discussion. For a fair comparison, you'd need to see Carew play in this formation. Personally I think he'd struggle, whereas Gabby has thrived. What the stats show is, Carew scores more goals than Gabby when they're paired together, which isn't the point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 John is another element of that fear-factor with our team. Defenders hate playing on him and obviously it's hard to double team Gabby with him there too. He can rip teams apart on his day and for that reason he directs attention away from other players. In addition our set-pieces are nowhere near as dangerous without him IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yep, in certain games. We're looking very solid with the 451 but we're winning games in pretty dull fashion to be honest. We're a lot like Everton of a year or two back. Effective but not particularly great to watch. When we play 442 (even if we're sometimes more inclined to play the long game), we're far more open but the games are more exciting. If we can get Carew back to his early form from this season, we'll look a much better side IMO. The 451 has worked well though, and it's certainly better in some games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamparius Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 which isn't the point... the point is, 211 people think you're wrong. maybe time to realise you just may ... be wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thug Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 For a fair comparison, you'd need to see Carew play in this formation. Personally I think he'd struggle, whereas Gabby has thrived. What the stats show is, Carew scores more goals than Gabby when they're paired together, which isn't the point... I am actually baffled by this post. You've actually just tried to explain to ME, what EVERYONE has been telling YOU over the last 9 pages. For a fair comparison, you'd need to see Carew play in this formation YET you saw fit to start a thread with this opening statement 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. Talk about doing a full circle and contradicting your previous 8 pages of posts. You've obviously failed to grasp what I've been trying to say to you all along... I'm NOT saying JC is better than GA I'm NOT saying Fernando Torres is a poor striker What I, and nearly everyone else in this thread is saying to you, is that the stats you quoted don't mean ANYTHING. John Carew being out the side is only ONE factor amongst MANY (Milner,Sidwell,Shorey,the formation, the weather etc. etc.) that have changed in between the two sets of results you have quoted. Yet you chose to use those stats to blame HIM. Now, you think Gabby has thrived playing up there by himself? How about If I told you that he has scored in only 2 of 10 games where Carew has been missing? He had 6 goals in 10 games before Carew got injured... I guess at the end of the day, the most obvious statistic is at the top of this page... 94% think we miss him. Goodnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overdubber Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Do we miss Carew? Yes we do, and we don`t need a polll to answer that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 For a fair comparison, you'd need to see Carew play in this formation. Personally I think he'd struggle, whereas Gabby has thrived. What the stats show is, Carew scores more goals than Gabby when they're paired together, which isn't the point... I am actually baffled by this post. You've actually just tried to explain to ME, what EVERYONE has been telling YOU over the last 9 pages. For a fair comparison, you'd need to see Carew play in this formation YET you saw fit to start a thread with this opening statement 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. Talk about doing a full circle and contradicting your previous 8 pages of posts. You've obviously failed to grasp what I've been trying to say to you all along... I'm NOT saying JC is better than GA I'm NOT saying Fernando Torres is a poor striker What I, and nearly everyone else in this thread is saying to you, is that the stats you quoted don't mean ANYTHING. John Carew being out the side is only ONE factor amongst MANY (Milner,Sidwell,Shorey,the formation, the weather etc. etc.) that have changed in between the two sets of results you have quoted. Yet you chose to use those stats to blame HIM. Now, you think Gabby has thrived playing up there by himself? How about If I told you that he has scored in only 2 of 10 games where Carew has been missing? He had 6 goals in 10 games before Carew got injured... I guess at the end of the day, the most obvious statistic is at the top of this page... 94% think we miss him. Goodnight. .......I think you are flogging a dead horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunther Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Do we miss Carew? Yes we do, and we don`t need a polll to answer that. Too right. I miss him to bits. If he was on the end of a few of the headers that Barry and Sidwell have missed since Carew's been out (not slagging them off... fair play to getting into the positions they got in), then my fingernails wouldn't be in such a state, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laursen1977 Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 To any of the smart arses saying we should never have changed from 4 - 5 - 1.... .....just read this thread, nobody was saying we should stick with 4 - 5 - 1 apart from myself. So I don't think anybody can criticise MON for the formation change...(apart from me obviously) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Absolute joke that Heskey is in the team ahead of this fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondaken Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I remember a few month ago the praises Heskey was getting for one goal. It really is a fickle world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonBourne Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Of course we miss him. He scores, Heskey doesn't. It's a simple game really. PLAY THE BLOKE WHO SCORES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 16, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2009 How heskey starts ahead of carew I will never ever know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts