Good to see Baldock back

Nixonator · Feb 17, 2016

kevo said:
Precisely. CH knows best.

Our record (all games) with Baldock in the starting line-up this season:

W 9 D 6 L 0.

Our record (all games) without Baldock in the starting line-up:

W 7 D 6 L 6

Listing the results of the games he played in is exactly the same principle to incite an argument as quoting his goal return.

Manure (not so much England) probably had a decent record with Phil Neville in their team, doesn't mean anyone understood why he was there.

On topic, I like Baldock and his return will definitely strengthen our squad which is great news. Personally though, I think we have better options since the January window. Will be interesting to find out how Chris sees it over the next few games.

1066familyman · Feb 17, 2016

Nixonator said:
Listing the results of the games he played in is exactly the same principle to incite an argument as quoting his goal return.

Manure (not so much England) probably had a decent record with Phil Neville in their team, doesn't mean anyone understood why he was there.

On topic, I like Baldock and he will definitely strengthen our squad which is great news. Personally though, I think we have better options since the January window. Will be interesting to find out how Chris sees it over the next few games.

Well said!

kevo · Feb 17, 2016

1066familyman said:
Yes of course, I have more football knowledge than CH

Same tired old retorts when someone has a differing opinion.

The stats you quoted don't paint the full picture and well you know it. They do very little to support your view. If you believe Baldock is a good player at this level then that's fine, it's your opinion, just as I have mine. No need to use dodgy stats to try to justify your opinion.

I never said he was the reason we didn't lose any of those games, but it is still interesting that we didn't lose a match when he started. The fact that CH consisently picked him in the starting XI during our great start to the season surely tells us something.

1066familyman · Feb 17, 2016

kevo said:
I never said he was the reason we didn't lose any of those games, but it is still interesting that we didn't lose a match when he started. The fact that CH consisently picked him in the starting XI during our great start to the season surely tells us something.

Yeah, it tells us we didn't have many more options with no Wilson around and Zamora not ready.
At least that's my opinion and no more than that.

It will be interesting to see how much game time he gets now. CH may well have him as first choice again and I'll trust him on that as I have great faith in our manager. If he does though I still won't rate Baldock unless I see a lot more from his all round game, and yes, goals.

Tony Meolas Loan Spell · Feb 17, 2016

Hughton said:
Hemed will score more with Baldock

Well its 3 without and 5 with (I think) so I reckon nope he will score more without Baldock.

sussex_guy2k2 · Feb 17, 2016

Ninja Elephant said:
It isn't the first time this "understanding of the game" line has been trotted out in this thread, but it's about time it was screwed up and thrown in the bin. Do you think Pep Guardiola "understands" the game any better than Sir Alex Ferguson did? Or Carlo Ancelotti, Jose Mourinho, Arsene Wenger, etc? They all have different ideas about football and they all "understand" it in a different way so who is to say what is the right way and what is the wrong way? When a club pays £2million for a striker it expects that striker to score the odd goal here and there. Baldock and many other of our striker signings have taken the phrase "here and there" far too literally and helped themselves to a pathetic number of goals. Every position is measured differently and while it's fair to say that Baldock spent a lot of time out left last season, that was pretty much exclusively because he wasn't scoring any goals anyway so we didn't lose anything through playing him there. And what he did was prove he's no Ashley Barnes, who himself is a fairly ordinary yard stick.

There are a few main flaws in your argument in this instance.

1) I've said at other points in this thread that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that football is subjective (you can go back through the thread and see if you'd like), albeit I'm very much pro multifunctional players who don't just score goals, or don't just defend, or don't just make flying saves. If you want to judge strikers just on goals, then so be it. I won't be doing that, but you're entitled to. But what is clear is that the understanding of how to be successful in football has developed as the game has - there are different formations and different tactics in which to be successful, but ultimately football is a developed and mature game that has been analysed to death by smarter people than you or I, and what's clear to anyone with a brain is that we're currently at a stage where multifunctional players who offer more than one attribute to the team are the norm. For example, Jamie Vardy couldn't score in a whore house last season, but he offered a lot to their side beyond goals, regained his place in the second half of the season and they've enjoyed the rewards of that faith this season. As a further example, you wouldn't just judge a goalkeeper by the amount of clean sheets he was making - there's more to the game than that simple statistic - otherwise Simone Mignolet would be recognised as one of the top 2-3 keepers in the country, yet he's not because his all round game simply isn't as developed as that of players such as De Gea, Courtois, Cech etc. In the Baldock case, a lot on here are arguing he offers enough to the side to warrant his place even though his goal output isn't great. Maybe they're wrong to do that, but maybe you're wrong to criticise those people for looking beyond one simple statistic and actually analysing Baldock's overall game to see what he brings to the side in terms of movement, pace, work rate etc. Saying that their opinion needs to be "screwed up and thrown in the bin" because they're looking beyond that one statistic in order to truly understand Baldock's role in the side actually reflects more poorly on you than it does them.

2) All the managers you've mentioned, whilst seeing football and tactics in different ways, are able to appreciate multi-functional players who offer more than simply one attribute to their team I.e. Scoring goals - as I said, this isn't the 50s. Mourinho, for example, used Drogba as a pivot striker when he first bought him to England and continued to play him in spite of the criticism Drogba got for a lack of goals (and he cost £24m-ish when that was still massive money). Wenger supported Giroud even when he's faced criticism about his lack of goals (as well as buying Welbeck who isn't exactly famed for his goal output) because of what he brought to the team, and he's being handsomely repaid. I could list many, many examples of the managers you're talking about sticking by forward players when their output wasn't as good as expected, and the reason, in almost all of those situations, is likely to have been because of what they brought to the team beyond goals. In this instance, I'd suggest that CH sees or believes that Baldock brings enough to the side to have continued to play him when he's fit - and I've seen enough of Baldock to think that's the right decision, even if he doesn't get dozens of goals every season. Again, you're entitled to believe otherwise, but in this situation I trust CH if he wishes to continue to pick Baldock, as I've trusted him when he's continued to pick Hemed despite Hemed not looking like a footballer at times, even though Hemed has the whole side set up to create opportunities just for him.

3) £2m, unless you have a brilliant scouting department and you uncover a gem, is essentially now an irrelevant amount in Championship striking terms if you want to guarantee goals. And what does his transfer fee have to do with it anyway? It's not like Baldock set that!

4) So you spoke to Hughton last season and asked him why he was playing Baldock wide left did you? And his answer was because he wasn't scoring enough... Even when we had CMS and COG up front... You know... Not scoring enough? It had nothing to do with the fact that Baldock is an intelligent footballer with pace and clever movement, and that he's more adaptable to such a position than the other forward options were at the time?

5) He's no Ashley Barnes in your opinion.

Ninja Elephant · Feb 17, 2016

sussex_guy2k2 said:
There are a few main flaws in your argument in this instance.

1) I've said at other points in this thread that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that football is subjective (you can go back through the thread and see if you'd like), albeit I'm very much pro multifunctional players who don't just score goals, or don't just defend, or don't just make flying saves. If you want to judge strikers just on goals, then so be it. I won't be doing that, but you're entitled to. But what is clear is that the understanding of how to be successful in football has developed as the game has - there are different formations and different tactics in which to be successful, but ultimately football is a developed and mature game that has been analysed to death by smarter people than you or I, and what's clear to anyone with a brain is that we're currently at a stage where multifunctional players who offer more than one attribute to the team are the norm. For example, Jamie Vardy couldn't score in a whore house last season, but he offered a lot to their side beyond goals, regained his place in the second half of the season and they've enjoyed the rewards of that faith this season. As a further example, you wouldn't just judge a goalkeeper by the amount of clean sheets he was making - there's more to the game than that simple statistic - otherwise Simone Mignolet would be recognised as one of the top 2-3 keepers in the country, yet he's not because his all round game simply isn't as developed as that of players such as De Gea, Courtois, Cech etc. In the Baldock case, a lot on here are arguing he offers enough to the side to warrant his place even though his goal output isn't great. Maybe they're wrong to do that, but maybe you're wrong to criticise those people for looking beyond one simple statistic and actually analysing Baldock's overall game to see what he brings to the side in terms of movement, pace, work rate etc. Saying that their opinion needs to be "screwed up and thrown in the bin" because they're looking beyond that one statistic in order to truly understand Baldock's role in the side actually reflects more poorly on you than it does them.

2) All the managers you've mentioned, whilst seeing football and tactics in different ways, are able to appreciate multi-functional players who offer more than simply one attribute to their team I.e. Scoring goals - as I said, this isn't the 50s. Mourinho, for example, used Drogba as a pivot striker when he first bought him to England and continued to play him in spite of the criticism Drogba got for a lack of goals (and he cost £24m-ish when that was still massive money). Wenger supported Giroud even when he's faced criticism about his lack of goals (as well as buying Welbeck who isn't exactly famed for his goal output) because of what he brought to the team, and he's being handsomely repaid. I could list many, many examples of the managers you're talking about sticking by forward players when their output wasn't as good as expected, and the reason, in almost all of those situations, is likely to have been because of what they brought to the team beyond goals. In this instance, I'd suggest that CH sees or believes that Baldock brings enough to the side to have continued to play him when he's fit - and I've seen enough of Baldock to think that's the right decision, even if he doesn't get dozens of goals every season. Again, you're entitled to believe otherwise, but in this situation I trust CH if he wishes to continue to pick Baldock, as I've trusted him when he's continued to pick Hemed despite Hemed not looking like a footballer at times, even though Hemed has the whole side set up to create opportunities just for him.

3) £2m, unless you have a brilliant scouting department and you uncover a gem, is essentially now an irrelevant amount in Championship striking terms if you want to guarantee goals. And what does his transfer fee have to do with it anyway? It's not like Baldock set that!

4) So you spoke to Hughton last season and asked him why he was playing Baldock wide left did you? And his answer was because he wasn't scoring enough... Even when we had CMS and COG up front... You know... Not scoring enough? It had nothing to do with the fact that Baldock is an intelligent footballer with pace and clever movement, and that he's more adaptable to such a position than the other forward options were at the time?

5) He's no Ashley Barnes in your opinion.

A very well considered and thought out post. I would query your application of my "screw it up and throw it in the bin" quote though, that wasn't about people's opinions, that was about the phrase "understanding of football" and in this specific case, it's about using that phrase to suggest someone knows less than someone else. To me, it's not about football knowledge, it's a game of interpretation and, again in my opinion, it's why football is so popular amongst observers. Stand in a concourse before/during/after a match and there's lively debate, that's what I like about football.

What value is clever movement if you're not able to apply it in a productive way?

I wonder what the majority think - whether Baldock is as good as Barnes or not. I suspect the majority would vote NO.

Hughton · Feb 17, 2016

EDIT wrong post quoted

Hughton · Feb 17, 2016

Tony Meolas Loan Spell said:
Well its 3 without and 5 with (I think) so I reckon nope he will score more without Baldock.

We will see, personally I don't care as long as goals are going in and points are being racked up, I have complete trust in CH, I do however think Baldock brings something to games that goes unnoticed by many.

TheDuke · Feb 18, 2016

I remember a Hammers fan saying that Baldock was the unsung hero in their promotion push. He's certainly got loads more between his ears than CMS and I'm deep into the camp that says CH knows best.

WhingForPresident · Feb 24, 2016

Well done Sam, I've been looking forward to this:

:bounce:

Now for a few more.

Munkfish · Feb 24, 2016

Tony Meolas Loan Spell said:
I have seen enough of him this season and last to know how ineffective he is in front of goal thank you very much. There is one spectacular fluffed shot this season I forget who because I dont keep a database.

So I will use goals scored ONE.

And THREE last year in a team where Dunk got EIGHT.

Yep useless pal.

WhingForPresident · Feb 24, 2016

Games in which Baldock & Hemed have started together front:

Won 10
Drawn 5
Lost 0

Games in which Hemed & Baldock haven't started together up front:

Won 6
Drawn 7
Lost 5

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

martin tyler · Feb 24, 2016

In my eyes I think he plays as in a 4-4-2 he stretches the game and gives all 10 other players on the pitch a great out ball. He finds and creates space at a great ease and he is very good at what he does. At this level he is not likely to bang in 20 plus goals i'm afraid but its not coincidence that when he plays we have a much better record than when he doesn't. Personally i feel in the 4-4-2 system he is one of the 1st names on the sheet for the reasons highlighted above. I don't think he is our best striker and i would go as far to say out of the current 4 he is most likely the weakest finisher, but for the final 13 games left i would love a similar record to his first 13 games with Hamed this season of won 9 drawn 4 and finish on 91 points than i would be worrying about whether he scores again this season. If he makes us tick for whatever reason, even if we don't understand why or what he even does, lets forget that and let him do whatever he is currently doing

Albumen · Feb 24, 2016

B.W. said:
Well, we'll have to disagree then. Check out his past record at Championship level. A great league 1 striker, but has not and will not make it at our level. I know it's not ALL about goals but, really, that is his main job, and he has CONSISTENTLY failed to deliver in the Championship. In all honesty, I hope he doesn't have to start for us again this season.

Ouch.

Tony Meolas Loan Spell · Feb 24, 2016

Munkfish said:
Yep useless pal.

Yep. Bristol City are a L1 side in theory and L1 is is his level.

Scoring TWO goals all season. im NOT giving him the platant OGGY v Brizzle at our place.

PAL

Tony Meolas Loan Spell · Feb 24, 2016

I will eat my words when he scores 15 over the next 15 games. As thats what HE SHOULD BE ON.

WATFORD zero · Feb 24, 2016

Tony Meolas Loan Spell said:
I will eat my words when he scores 15 over the next 15 games. As thats what HE SHOULD BE ON.

If he starts the next 15 games and we get promoted i couldn't give a toss if he doesn't score again. He will have been an integral part of the team that got us promoted. I believe that means he has done the job he was bought for.

Tony Meolas Loan Spell · Feb 24, 2016

WATFORD zero said:
If he starts the next 15 games and we get promoted i couldn't give a toss if he doesn't score again. He will have been an integral part of the team that got us promoted. I believe that means he has done the job he was bought for.

True. At least he wont feature in the prem.

Munkfish · Feb 24, 2016

Tony Meolas Loan Spell said:
Yep. Bristol City are a L1 side in theory and L1 is is his level.

Scoring TWO goals all season. im NOT giving him the platant OGGY v Brizzle at our place.

PAL

He has scored 3 league goals, don't worry if he gets to 15 I will be getting a tattoo of his face on my foot. and if Hemed gets to 20 I will be doing the same BUDDY.

I love it that you are coming across a right arse about one of our own players scoring goals.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Good to see Baldock back

Well-known member

Radio User

Well-known member

Radio User

Slut Faced Whores

Well-known member

Doctor Elephant

New member

New member

Well-known member

.

Well-known member

.

Well-known member

Don't wait for me!

Slut Faced Whores

Slut Faced Whores

Well-known member

Slut Faced Whores

Well-known member

Share this page