Jump to content

Ashley Westwood


Nabby

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, astonaidan said:

I dont know how anyone can still defend Westwood. All the excuses at the start of the last season have followed to this season. Cant ye just admit hes rubbish. I cant be he only one sick of hearing hed be perfect for a 3 if our dm and am were better. What sort of bullshit reasoning is that. When has he ever shown that would be the case. If Westwood wasnt English he would be nowhere near starting and would have been sold years ago

Is there anybody, at all, in the thread who isn't admitting that he's rubbish? I can't see anybody saying anything except that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way I see it only 9 touches would have only 9 chances to lose possesion, conceed a goal

So for me, 30+ touches are far too many

0 touches would be perfect meaning if they made the bench they wouldnt get on the pitch at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Is there anybody, at all, in the thread who isn't admitting that he's rubbish? I can't see anybody saying anything except that. 

A few posts back I read that he could be fine in a 3 man midfield if we had a better dm and am. So yes

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I don't think data entry errors count as 'post truth'.

However rags like the Birmingham Mail (BM) jumping on it does. The press and 'other' outlets are far too keen to pump stories out almost in real time, purely to solicit and strong response from those reading them (and thus visits, clicks etc), than to actually take a step back and reflect whether the story is garbage or not. Anyone who bothered to watch even 15 minutes of the match would have seen him take more than 3 touches, surely BM would have had a reporter there watching the game? That would have been a simple phone to call to debunk the story. 

All stats agencies make errors, even the ONS does, so surely OPTA **** up from time to time, analysts can make mistakes, algorithms can wig out, it happens. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet there are people in this thread who have posted the following on Facebook;

"It's just so hard"

It's like click bate articles "OMG I DIDN'T KNOW OMEGA 3 OIL GIVE YOU CANCER, READ THIS AND TELL THE SCIENTISTS TO STFU".

Anyway.. Westwood has been poor for a while now.  He's ineffective both statistically and from actual viewing.. He needs to be dropped, replaced or sold.. I think he needs to get out of here for his own sake really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

So a post I had to go back three pages to find, from a poster who clearly presents a balanced opinion and also says 'really the only thing he has to his game is keeping possession and passing' and 'We need someone who will pitch in with more tackling and ball winning than Westwood does and also pitches in with more incisive passing and chance creating than Westwood does' and 'he just doesn't do enough to justify being in our midfield in it's current state' and 'we don't NEED someone who is only good at recycling possession, which is all Westwood . . . on a good day'

You're looking for an argument that doesn't exist. 

Im not looking for a argument at all, Im merely pointing out that there is no good side to his game. The fact it even gets mentioned that maybe he could be fine in a 3 man midfield in any terms I disagree with. As Ive said for years if he wasnt English he woudlnt be at the club

That isnt the post I saw, but I do think it was in reply to it

Edited by astonaidan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Which one? The former is unlikely but the latter I'd say is very probable.

Post-truth news essentially is created out of carelessness.

Debate for another thread but I don't think so. It is born of either confirmation bias or malpractice. The likes of the Birmingham Mail make a conscious decision to either print lies or not take the time to fact check because the lack of facts suits their click-bait agenda, rather than it being a misjudgment or an 'accident'. They're not careless at all, they know exactly what they're doing.

Regardless, I don't think whoscored.com are guilty of any of the above! 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â