I don't have it in front of me but per 90 mins stats are complete crap unless you put a floor on it. If you have players who have played 20 mins here and 30 mins there their per 90 stats will be hugely over egged. It's not 'fair' to judge Slater against players like that, is it?
Yeah not sure where that comment comes from, was he injured when he first joined us? I thought he was just a late addition and got worked into the side at a time when we had a lot of options we were flicking between - Sinik, Tetteh, etc. - and looked ok when he did play.
Rosenior was so frustrated he met with the ref after the game, evidently he didn't think Allison got every decision correct.. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sam-allison-referee-hull-city-8164783
Do you understand how averages work? If a player - let's use Harvey Vale as an example - plays 90 minutes worth and has 2 shots in that time vs a player who has 8 shots in 10 games, who has had the greater impact?
You'll need to define 'impact' in order to prevent this from dragging on for 20 pages like everything else does... If the argument is genuinely that Slater is better than Tufan then I honestly don't even know how to respond to that. Not knocking Slater as he's a workhorse, but in terms of contribution and quality, I'd take Tufan's impact and the effect he's had on our games over most of our other midfielders. They're all needed though.
Of course I do, was a simple remark. Average player who I see being replaced in the summer before inevitably leaving the club within 2 years.
That really isn't even a controversial statement. Slater plays almost every game, the only exception being a 3-game week in which pretty much everyone was rested at some stage, whereas Tufan is in and out of the team, which tells you a lot. And as I showed earlier on, Slater's stats in terms of quality on the ball are actually better than Tufan's. For a scrappy, reliable midfielder to have more key passes per 90 than the luxury, technical midfielder should be really damning on the latter, but people keep ignoring it.
People want to always compare Tufan to Doc/Slater when in reality non of them play the same role in the squad. This was shown on Saturday really. Slater didn't replace Tufan and has only been used in an advanced role in a pinch. In the same way I wouldn't ask Tufan to do what Doc or Slater does due to his slight inconsistency
Slater averages 0.7 a game, Tufan averages 0.6. You’re talking as if he’s teaching him a lesson. Key passes is a flawed stat anyway. Slater’s a decent player, clever, neat on the ball. Nothing outstanding about his game, nothing particularly poor about his game. Think he’s at his ceiling now from a personal perspective and will likely be fizzled out over the next season but for now he’s a good squad option but with everyone fit and sharp I don’t see him being a regular
Stats play a role. But maybe we need to use our eyes a bit more when judging players. Saying that, anyone got the distance covered numbers from the game?
Yes, they're very similar figures, but that's damning on Tufan. He's supposed to be loads better. Slater is supposed to be limited and boring and English and League 1. Tufan is supposed to be technically amazing, multi-million pound signing, international, miles better than Slater, creative genius. Yet he has less key passes per 90 and gives it away more often. That is absolutely damning. Slater has other strengths but creativity is meant to be the one area Tufan excels and it turns out he really doesn't.
