The Squad (1 Viewer)

Skyblueabo1111 · Monday at 10:55 PM

shmmeee said:
Wright did it again the season after and scored more in the league. He’s a better striker all round.

Did you watch him against Sunderland?

shmmeee · Monday at 10:57 PM

Skyblueabo1111 said:
Did you watch him against Sunderland?

Did you watch Simms all last season?

Wright is a consistent 1 in 2 striker for us.

Skyblueabo1111 · Monday at 11:03 PM

shmmeee said:
Did you watch Simms all last season?

Wright is a consistent 1 in 2 striker for us.

Hard to judge..who has had the most minutes, on the pitch? I would guess Wright by a long stretch. In terms of goals v appearance..Wright 0.4 v Simms 0.33. However, I believe Wright has had many more minutes on the pitch. Whatever, I would start both. Haji left , Simms CF. The season they played together, they scored 38 goals! 2 players, both about 6'3 and it doesn't alter Frank's formation.

Skyblueabo1111 · Monday at 11:06 PM

shmmeee said:
Did you watch Simms all last season?

Wright is a consistent 1 in 2 striker for us.

Nowh

Skyblueabo1111 · Monday at 11:07 PM

Nowhere near 1 in 2. 78 appearances, 28 goals

shmmeee · Monday at 11:10 PM

Skyblueabo1111 said:
Hard to judge..who has had the most minutes, on the pitch? I would guess Wright by a long stretch. In terms of goals v appearance..Wright 0.4 v Simms 0.33. However, I believe Wright has had many more minutes on the pitch. Whatever, I would start both. Haji left , Simms CF. The season they played together, they scored 38 goals! 2 players, both about 6'3 and it doesn't alter Frank's formation.

Wright has a goal every 177 mins in the championship since signing. Simms every 264. So about a game worse than I think Simms big problem has been not playing tbh. I still find the pair of them frustrating as hell to watch. But agree if you’re going 433 you put them both in with Saka

shmmeee · Monday at 11:11 PM

Skyblueabo1111 said:
Nowhere near 1 in 2. 78 appearances, 28 goals

See above. Appearances mean nothing when they can be 1 min or 130 min.

Skyblueabo1111 · Monday at 11:15 PM

shmmeee said:
See above. Appearances mean nothing when they can be 1 min or 130 min.

Spot on. I don't get Frank .You have 2 players who scored 38 goals, in one season. Some in there cup..any other team in the Championship, would give their right arm for that. Main Clarke is good, but he isn't scoring 19 goals..

Skyblueabo1111 · Monday at 11:19 PM

Skyblueabo1111 said:
Spot on. I don't get Frank .You have 2 players who scored 38 goals, in one season. Some in there cup..any other team in the Championship, would give their right arm for that. Main Clarke is good, but he isn't scoring 19 goals..

You basically get 2 strikers, that fit into Frank's formation. Seriously, I don't get it.

LastChance · Tuesday at 9:08 AM

Skyblueabo1111 said:
Why is he playing,if injured?

Good question. It makes Simms not getting any time even stranger

Hobo · Tuesday at 10:46 PM

Skyblueabo1111 said:
Why is he playing,if injured?

Lots of players up and down the leagues are playing when not fully fit. Especially important and gifted players. Clubs don't declare players are playing with knocks and strains for obvious reasons.

The level of unfitness can vary greatly, from a painful bruise, a strain that is painful for 10 minutes until you get warmed up and then is really painful and hour after you have played. Then injuries players play through managed by injections.

Players sat on the bench with injuries is even more complex. The advantage of a psychological presence and they can cope with giving us 15 minutes.

When you are sat up in the stands the game looks a lot less physical than it actually is. Players carry knocks from one game to the next before the body has healed and repaired.

A really good example is Josh Eccles dead leg at Sunderland. Nobody said oh that's really bad. But it was.

Skyblueabo1111 · Tuesday at 11:05 PM

Hobo said:
Lots of players up and down the leagues are playing when not fully fit. Especially important and gifted players. Clubs don't declare players are playing with knocks and strains for obvious reasons.

The level of unfitness can vary greatly, from a painful bruise, a strain that is painful for 10 minutes until you get warmed up and then is really painful and hour after you have played. Then injuries players play through managed by injections.

Players sat on the bench with injuries is even more complex. The advantage of a psychological presence and they can cope with giving us 15 minutes.

When you are sat up in the stands the game looks a lot less physical than it actually is. Players carry knocks from one game to the next before the body has healed and repaired.

A really good example is Josh Eccles dead leg at Sunderland. Nobody said oh that's really bad. But it was.

Why would you play a player who is injured?

Hobo · Wednesday at 10:21 AM

Skyblueabo1111 said:
Why would you play a player who is injured?

Because they are still better than the alternative and football is a result business. Speak to any ex professional and they will tell you they played when not fully fit on many occasions.

Fans live in an idealistic world a lot of the time.

The Squad (1 Viewer)

Skyblueabo1111

Well-Known Member

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

Skyblueabo1111

Well-Known Member

Skyblueabo1111

Well-Known Member

Skyblueabo1111

Well-Known Member

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

Skyblueabo1111

Well-Known Member

Skyblueabo1111

Well-Known Member

LastChance

Well-Known Member

Hobo

Well-Known Member

Skyblueabo1111

Well-Known Member

Hobo

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

The Squad (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency