Far from being logical, focussing on a single variable (i.e. the presence or absence of Sargent) while ignoring all other variables in play, is the height of illogicality. I made, and illustrated, this point some weeks ago, apparently to no avail.
You believe what you want to believe, Robbie. I'll believe what I see with each match played. Leave it at that.
I agree, let’s stick with the logic of Occam’s Razor, rather than some increasingly tortured explanation in a vain attempt to try to justify an irrational opinion.
If someone was to say the mere presence or absence of Sergeant on the pitch was the only difference between success and failure, then that would be a single variable, but no one is saying that. You are doing your old trick of trying to win an argument by deliberately and inaccurately framing the alternative view to yours and then arguing against a false view that no one holds (Strawman). Clearly it is not Sergeant's mere presence that makes the difference, but what he does, what his contribution allows his team mates to do and the effect his contribution has on the opposition. Sergeant playing the way he does brings hundreds of variables to the team. We all understand that every game has a wide range of variables and every difference contributes to the success or otherwise of the team, but on the evidence available only a fool would suggest that the inclusion or exclusion of Sergeant in the team was not at least very significant / game changing. An even greater fool would be blinded to crediting our better performances / results when Sergeant plays to when he doesn't, as being down to other changes, whilst ignoring the obvious (Occam's Razor). For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the message was lost. For want of a message the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. Maybe Sergeant is our nail.
Yes, adding that does change the picture quite significantly. We could almost nailed on for a playoff spot as our near neighbours appear to be - but still in 5th
Gunn also , I felt the team looked much weaker defensively with Long in goal but Sargent has an even more positive contribution to performances & results
True. Robbie's says that the recent improvement was more to do with defensive improvement, including the return of Gunn and Gibson after injuries and McLean playing at CB, allowing an improved Núñez to have more influence in midfield. Those aspects have contributed, but the return of Sargent and Sainz had far more impact, IMO. Steve Bruce used to say "you're as good as your forwards" and there's truth in that. An effective attack makes defending and progression up the pitch easier. The impact of Sargent and Sainz is even more evident in the absence of Rowe, our primary offensive threat after Sargent was injured. We totally dominated Cardiff without Rowe. The game was over by the time Sargent went off in the 70th minute.
The current form is very encouraging & hopefully we'll get to the play offs .. I'm just not sure we have enough to beat either Leeds or Southampton as one of those is likely to join Leicester. Momentum breeds confidence & it's often the late runner that gets promoted though
The trouble with the whole defensive thing is I am not sure we really have improved all that much defensively - we still let in two weak goals against Watford and another weak one against Cardiff. To the extent our defensive system has improved, it’s really been down to defending more aggressively, minimising opposition comfort on the ball. Defending from the front and minimising the exposure of our back line. Remind me who leads pressure from the front again?
Is halving the rate at which we concede goals, from two goals per game to one goal a game, an improvement in defensive performance? First 16 games, 2 goals per game; thereafter, 1 goal per game. That improved rate has been constant whether Sargent plays or not. The defensive reset is real, and unquestionably a big factor in the improvement in points gained per match from game 17 onwards. Yes, injuries make a difference, but so do setup and tactics. The extent to which each has contributed to our ascent up the table is a genuine, and IMO interesting, question.
Goals conceded per game with Josh Sargent playing: 1.23 Goals conceded per game without Sargent: 1.65 XGA per game with Sargent before he got injured: 1.4 XGA per game with Sargent after he came back from injury: 1.41 So you see we can all play silly games with arbitrary choices of divisible. You’re never going to admit you’re wrong about Sargent, McClean, Hanley etc, Robbie, so I don’t know why you’re even engaging.
Given that the topic is the relative impact of two variables -- Sargent v the defensive reset -- simply splitting the games into two groups, those in which Sargent played (games 1 to 4 and 25 onwards) and those in which he didn't play (games 5 to 24), means that the impact of the second variable is totally ignored, invalidating any attempt to assess Sargent’s impact since his return. First assess the impact of the defensive reset implemented while Sargent was injured, then assess the added value of Sargent's return e.g. in terms of points, goals scored and goals conceded per game. This is basic methodology, not a matter of “arbitrary choices of divisible”.
I'd be interested to know what opinion of mine about Sargent you are referring to Rob. I don't recall saying anything negative about him at all, ever. Does suggesting that the impact of injuries is being exaggerated and that tactical and structural changes have been demonstrably more impactful, somehow amount to criticising the injured? As for Hanley and McLean, if you are referring to my opinion that both are top level Championship players but neither is EPL quality, then no, I am not going to alter that opinion. Virtually all the constant sniping I get on this is based on people attributing opinions to me which I do not hold -- not just in relation to Hanley and McLean either.
Maybe that's because either your comments are deliberately ambiguous or perhaps you don't convey you opinions very clearly. You almost always say this when your perceived views don't stand up to scrutiny.
You may be right in this view, but I don't think anyone is saying either is without doubt PL quality. I'm sure in an altered reality where money was not an issue, most if not all posters would replace our whole starting 11. Unfortunately back on planet earth we need to live within means. I think what most people would say is that both would have a role to play in our squad should we get promoted. For me your opinion is not so much the issue, but the conclusion you appear to draw from that opinion with a focus on these two rather than other players that are clearly NOT PL quality at present at least. What they both would bring to our PL squad is experience. You also seem to want to prioritise replacing these 2 over more obvious candidates, which I think most posters find illogical. I accept that most of what you post is designed to get a reaction and generate debate, but your comments might be more interesting if you spent a little more time being clearer in what you are saying, rather than stating what you haven't said.
Robbie was happy Farke was replaced with Dean Smith because he was the guy to bring about stability & more than 1 Premier league season . He hates Wagner & wrote the season off months ago but if you remind him of that then that's bullying or something. So boring & predictable
I have no quarrel with that, but the "our squad" bit is significant. That's because both occupy critical positions in the team, comparable to the keeper. Shortcomings in those positions are generally more damaging than shortcomings elsewhere. Two reasons. Firstly, who wants a forum reminiscent of the Tory benches in the Commons on a hot afternoon just before the summer recess? Secondly, and more importantly, disagreement is essential to improving knowledge and understanding (just consider the damage wrought by the censorship and silencing of dissenting voices during the pandemic).
Disagreement, debate and differing opinions are great. This is a discussion board, it’s what we are here for. But it is only interesting and quality as a discussion if everyone’s opinions evolve with debate - amongst other things - which show that each person is actually engaged with and interested in the debate. We all learn from each other. The problem with your style, Robbie, is you just want to lecture and state your opinion as fact. You’re not interested in a debate, because your view does not evolve. You just want to tell. You clearly don’t want to learn from other people’s views. That’s just not what a discussion forum is for. It makes you the ERG headbanger wing of the Tory party. It’s not that nobody wants to hear differing opinions or even they don’t want to hear yours. It’s that they want to have a discussion and they want to know you value hearing their opinions as much as they do yours, and when they are persuasive that you adapt your view accordingly. Instead, you only seem to want it one way - your way. So you’d be better off writing a blog or releasing videos of your opinions on YouTube or Instagram. And I honestly don’t mean that rudely, if you kept it fresh I would read/watch that. I don’t agree with everything, but I’m interested in what others have to say when reading the news etc. But I come here for a discussion. I’d suggest you write your views in a new post on here and then let the debate happen - an analysis of the season or a match or a style from your perspective, which you then let others simply debate. You will have to accept people disagreeing with you and find it in yourself not respond, but I think the original post would be better suited to your style and interest. And you’ll see people aren’t uninterested in your views, they just aren’t always persuaded.
This is a sort of recognition of another position (Yes, injuries make a difference, but so do setup and tactics) and that is welcome, but often you can't help dismissing the other position ("wailing about injuries"). Your point about defensive improvement is a good one and is part of a larger picture as you conclude about the extent of each. More of this would be welcome.
