Our Most Influential Player

Icy Gull · Sep 8, 2017

Machiavelli said:
So, it's just your opinion, rather than basing it on strategy, what the manager's said, etc.
Baldock may play as the one striker up-front (he may need to if the other two are injured). And we may play two up-front in certain match situations and against certain opponents and, if or when we do, I suspect we'll see Baldock then.

The manager is hardly likely to say we are going to play in a way we haven't got the players for is he? Yes it is just my opinion about Baldock too ,I have no inside knowledge but neither do I take what Hughton says as being set in stone for the season either.

I have not said Baldock would play every game either, just that we do need the option of Baldock to give us some variety in attack

Izquierdo may well bring this to the team but to suggest that we haven't missed Baldock is just plain daft, again imo.

perseus · Sep 8, 2017

Munkfish said:
Who?

Typo: Santi Cazorla

rippleman · Sep 8, 2017

Icy Gull said:
The manager is hardly likely to say we are going to play in a way we haven't got the players for is he?

Frank the farmer is at Palace............oh wait..................

perseus · Sep 8, 2017

False number 9, strikerless formation with Baldock, Groß, March/ Izquierdo, or Izzy Brown with all the three having no fixed positions. They take it in turns to run around at the front to conserve energy and give a bit of variation?

http://www.thefalse9.com/2013/09/football-tactics-for-beginnersthe-false.html

Hemed and Murray don't seem to be able to run around for a whole game, with Murray helping out in defence as well. One plays for an hour, but an early injury substitutions (e.g. v Man City) mucks up such plans or reduce the options if we go behind (e.g. v Man City).

Stat Brother · Sep 8, 2017

Icy Gull said:
There are some posters who will tell you that we don't and won't miss him because we will only be playing one upfront this season. Gross will be able to slot in there when needed....apparently or so I've read on here

It's nice to add a new name to the ever increasing list of players who 'can't play Baldock's position, but are cheaper than an actual replacement'.

perseus · Sep 8, 2017

Normski1989 said:
It lists the 10 most influential players in a table part way down the page. Stones is 6th with a rating of 2.3. Stones was about as influential as a vegan in a bacon eating contest.

I'm not disagreeing that Baldock was probably our most influential player last year and we're missing him now. But I think to say Murphy was by far out least influential player is a bit harsh.

Tottenham striker Vincent Janssen's score of exactly 0 informs us that his side did not do better when he was on the pitch - but they also did not suffer. He had a totally neutral impact.

Machiavelli · Sep 8, 2017

Icy Gull said:
The manager is hardly likely to say we are going to play in a way we haven't got the players for is he? Yes it is just my opinion about Baldock too ,I have no inside knowledge but neither do I take what Hughton says as being set in stone for the season either.

I have not said Baldock would play every game either, just that we do need the option of Baldock to give us some variety in attack

Izquierdo may well bring this to the team but to suggest that we haven't missed Baldock is just plain daft, again imo.

CH said when he arrived at the club that his favoured formations are 4-4-1-1 and 4-2-3-1; he has said soon after we got promoted that his preferred formation is 4-4-1-1; the recruitment has been based around 4-4-1-1; we've played it in pre-season, our three PL games and even the cup game.
And, please point out where I've said that we haven't missed Baldock. Discuss what's in front of you but, again, I'll go with what CH says and does over anybody's opinion on NSC.

Icy Gull · Sep 8, 2017

Machiavelli said:
CH said when he arrived at the club that his favoured formations are 4-4-1-1 and 4-2-3-1; he has said soon after we got promoted that his preferred formation is 4-4-1-1; the recruitment has been based around 4-4-1-1; we've played it in pre-season, our three PL games and even the cup game.
And, please point out where I've said that we haven't missed Baldock. Discuss what's in front of you but, again, I'll go with what CH says and does over anybody's opinion on NSC.

So how many have we recruited to play behind the main striker in a 4-4-1-1 then that can do a better job than Baldock could?

Izquierdo maybe, but he is primarily a winger and Gross looked well short of the quality required at Leicester and has he ever played there? ( genuinely don't know enough about him but he certainly didn't look at all comfortable there) Brown maybe?

NooBHA · Sep 8, 2017

A load of old Tosh those stats. I could take specific factors and chose them selectively which makes Gataen Bong the most effective player if I grade them in the correct manner. I could even make Elvis Manu the most effective although I might have to scratch around for quite a few variables for that one.

The most effective player all things considered had to be Dale Stephens because when he was out the team did not win. However, although some players had a better season than others, it was a collective squad performance and trying to find a few stats to fill a news column does nothing to alter that in my opinion.

Baldseagull · Sep 8, 2017

Machiavelli said:
I'm one of those that say (for the most of the season) we'll only be playing one up-front. I base this on:
-- how we've played in pre-season
-- how we've played in our first three games, and
-- more importantly, what CH has said and what (most of) our transfer activity was about
You, and SB, seem to think otherwise. What are your explanations?

Machiavelli said:
CH said when he arrived at the club that his favoured formations are 4-4-1-1 and 4-2-3-1; he has said soon after we got promoted that his preferred formation is 4-4-1-1; the recruitment has been based around 4-4-1-1; we've played it in pre-season, our three PL games and even the cup game.
And, please point out where I've said that we haven't missed Baldock. Discuss what's in front of you but, again, I'll go with what CH says and does over anybody's opinion on NSC.

Apologies for jumping in, but you gave 3 reasons for your assumption that we would play most of this season with one up front, and you posted in response to another who said "there are some who will tell you we don't, and we won't miss Baldock, as we will only be playing one up front"
By saying you were one of those that felt we would only play one up front, it implies somewhat that you also agree with the "won't miss Baldock" part of the post.

2 of those reasons you gave were how we played pre season, and how we have started out this season.
I think you have to concede that Baldock was not available pre season and at the start of this season, and there is no other player that can fulfill the role that he has played for us thus far under Hughton. Therefore you really just have one reason, what Hughton has said, which is open to interpretation as to how those positions are played, and whether you call one striker behind the other, just one up front.

Really it comes down to this question, do you think Baldock will play more often than not if fit?

The_Viper · Sep 8, 2017

I believe it, we look a much much better team with Sam playing.

B-right-on · Sep 8, 2017

Knocky. With him on the pitch you felt that there could be some magic that would spark things off. Ok sometimes he had a bad day and would go missing in the game, could throw his toys out the pram, etc.. but when he gets going i dont think anyone could get me out my seat quicker than Knocky on one of his mazy runs. Won Championship Player of the Season for a reason... Wasnt even in out top 3. Hemed who was bottom - we wouldnt be in the Prem without him.

Ninja Elephant · Sep 8, 2017

So really the reality is that he benefited from regular spells out of the team last season.

Stockdale, Duffy, Dunk, Bruno, Knockaert and Murray didn't miss much football so, naturally, on this scale, they're not influential. Which makes the scale inaccurate.

That said, it's a perfectly fair opinion that the team was better with Baldock in it. Whether you agree or not, it's a fair assessment.

Machiavelli · Sep 8, 2017

Baldseagull said:
Apologies for jumping in, but you gave 3 reasons for your assumption that we would play most of this season with one up front, and you posted in response to another who said "there are some who will tell you we don't, and we won't miss Baldock, as we will only be playing one up front"
By saying you were one of those that felt we would only play one up front, it implies somewhat that you also agree with the "won't miss Baldock" part of the post.

2 of those reasons you gave were how we played pre season, and how we have started out this season.
I think you have to concede that Baldock was not available pre season and at the start of this season, and there is no other player that can fulfill the role that he has played for us thus far under Hughton. Therefore you really just have one reason, what Hughton has said, which is open to interpretation as to how those positions are played, and whether you call one striker behind the other, just one up front.

Really it comes down to this question, do you think Baldock will play more often than not if fit?

You're more than welcome to jump in, although I'm not entirely sure what the majority of your post is trying to say.

But in answer to your last line: last season we played 4-4-2, Baldock (when fit) was obviously first choice for me of our strikers (above both Murray and Hemed) because he offered something different, and assisted Murray or Hemed; none of our strikers really fit the system that CH wants to play in the PL, so it's difficult to say how much Baldock will play when fit, but you can say the same for Murray and Hemed.

What you need when you play one up-top is someone like Lukaka, stylistically at least, while conceding we'd have to accept lesser quality. What he's got is good goalscoring ability, sheer pace, strength and power. The kind of striker we'd be looking at needs to have most of these qualities (we couldn't afford one with all) but pace is probably the most important. As an example, Javier Hernandez (now) at West Ham doesn't have much in terms of strength and power, but he makes up for it with his movement, is rapid, and his finishing is outstanding.

In terms of our forwards, Hemed and Murray are similar. They have strength, power and are good finishers. Murray is a far better goalscorer, whereas Hemed has better skill and a better range of attributes. What neither of them have is pace, which is a real drawback. Baldock, on the other hand, has pace, great movement (although I'm not entirely convinced of his positioning in the penalty area). He doesn't have the strength and power, and I'm somewhat unsure of his finishing. First two seasons were a bit meh on this front, last season very good, although most of his goals from memory came from outside the area -- the problem here is that goalscorers tend to score the vast majority from inside the area, even inside the six yard box.

What this means is that none of our strikers are ideal for the formation we're due to play, which might explain why we were intending to sign two strikers, with Hemed being sold. I actually saw Baldock largely being on the bench, but coming on for those games that we were chasing a goal and perhaps changing our formation in order to get a goal, and going back to 4-4-2 to get that. The situation we're now in, when/if fit, he may actually be the best option that we have of our three strikers, but I'm ultimately really unsure who will shine. It might be any, some combination of, all or none of the three. We'll see.

NooBHA · Sep 9, 2017

Machiavelli said:
Baldock (when fit) was obviously first choice for me of our strikers (above both Murray and Hemed) because he offered something different

the problem here is that goalscorers tend to score the vast majority from inside the area, even inside the six yard box..

What a brilliant post

Normally I don't like to isolate points like I have above because it would normally take the whole point out of context but I hope you don't mind in this instance I would like to.

The first one is probably 100% true and I think it was [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION] who once said to me that he would like an ''upgrade'' on Baldock even though he liked him. For me the problem with that is. Sam is a great footballer and he does great things but there is so many things he cannot do. Where do you find an ''upgrade'' who is as good a footballer as he is but who also scores goals. I struggle to think of one but I am sure they are around somewhere if the recruitment team can find them. And if they do, they are probably worth millions.

The second point. There are players like that. In the past it was Gary Linneker, Steve Archibald and players ok that ''ilk'' - Tammy Abraham is that type of player and we lost out there.

Trying to find anyone who is a Sam Baldock and Tammy Abraham rolled into one.....................Man , that's a challenge - Mbeppe : I think he is that type of player but look at what he just cost. Trying to find someone who is mobile and who has physical strength at a young age is difficult because youngsters are not physically strong when they are young. It's only in the last 2 years that Harry Kane has become physically stronger.

The young ones who have strength and pace at an early age get spotted early and they cost a fortune to buy.

Machiavelli · Sep 9, 2017

NooBHA said:
What a brilliant post

Normally I don't like to isolate points like I have above because it would normally take the whole point out of context but I hope you don't mind in this instance I would like to.

The first one is probably 100% true and I think it was [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION] who once said to me that he would like an ''upgrade'' on Baldock even though he liked him. For me the problem with that is. Sam is a great footballer and he does great things but there is so many things he cannot do. Where do you find an ''upgrade'' who is as good a footballer as he is but who also scores goals. I struggle to think of one but I am sure they are around somewhere if the recruitment team can find them. And if they do, they are probably worth millions.

The second point. There are players like that. In the past it was Gary Linneker, Steve Archibald and players ok that ''ilk'' - Tammy Abraham is that type of player and we lost out there.

Trying to find anyone who is a Sam Baldock and Tammy Abraham rolled into one.....................Man , that's a challenge - Mbeppe : I think he is that type of player but look at what he just cost. Trying to find someone who is mobile and who has physical strength at a young age is difficult because youngsters are not physically strong when they are young. It's only in the last 2 years that Harry Kane has become physically stronger.

The young ones who have strength and pace at an early age get spotted early and they cost a fortune to buy.

Yup. Go along with all of that and, as you say, there's a reason why Mbappe has such a ridiculous price tag -- from the little I've seen of him, he looks the business though. One note of caution on the rapid young forwards: they often struggle with injuries -- hamstrings, predominantly -- with Michael Owen (who may have been that combination you were referring to) the obvious example, and maybe Sam Baldock too.

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

Our Most Influential Player

More options

Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster

perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe

rippleman

Well-known member

perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe

Stat Brother

Well-known member

perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe

Machiavelli

Well-known member

Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster

NooBHA

Well-known member

Baldseagull

Well-known member

The_Viper

Well-known member

B-right-on

Living the dream

Ninja Elephant

Doctor Elephant

Machiavelli

Well-known member

NooBHA

Well-known member

Machiavelli

Well-known member

Share this page

Forum statistics

Online statistics

Newest members

Share this page