Disagree. Compare the results when Sargent is in the team to those without him. Josh has scored 6 goals in 8 starts and two sub appearances. Extend that ratio over our other 30 games and that would have had a major impact over what Idah and Hwang contributed. Sainz has improved steadily since recovering from injury and in the last 7 games he has played, he's scored twice and we've taken 16 points. Our performances before and after the injuries to Sargent, Sainz, Barnes, Hanley and Gunn are way above those we had to play without them. Injuries happen to every club, but to lose 5 starters for so long would impact severely on any team.
Long is pretty crap too , if we had to play the rest of the season without Gunn the results would fall off a cliff again
Am I in a time loop? I thought we discussed Sargent’s impact only a few games ago. Our run rate with him on the pitch is 2 points per game and on a minutes-on-the-pitch basis 2.17 points per game. The former would see us joint third with Leeds on 60 points and the latter would see us a comfortable second on 65 points. On all possible estimates, synthetic or statistical, if we had had Sargent on the pitch for the whole season to date our position in the league would in all likelihood be much higher. It’s obviously guesswork and we will never know, but denying that is simply irrational and not based on any factual or evidential reasoning. Good players help achieve more points…
It's not just about results - the side we put out influences how the other team plays. Even without Rowe, Sargent and Sainz were terrorising the Coventry defence. Add to that Barnes coming on suddenly provided the telling link-up play that produced the goals and the sending off. A powerful attack changes how the other side plays.
Games with Sargent starting: 8 Won: 6 (75%) Drew: 1 (vs Saints) (12.5%) Lost: 1 (vs Leeds) (12.5%) Games without Sargent (including two recent sub appearances): 22 Won: 7 (32%) - all opponents are currently in the bottom half of the table Drew: 4 (18%) Lost: 11 (50%)
The relationship between Sargent and Barnes is also another element in this, as Samuel Seaman points out in the Pinkun: "Three minutes after his introduction he'd played a key role in Josh Sargent's equalising goal, spinning a fine pass out to Gabriel Sara before seeing his subsequent volley drop into the American's path. If that wasn't enough of a doubt-dispeller, he followed it up by teeing up the game's winning goal, holding onto the ball until the perfect moment to unleash Borja Sainz and his trademark stunning curler. That assist made a tangible point of a trend that's developed since Sargent recovered from injury; Barnes' return to technical and tactical key-man status. The year so far has been a productive one for the south west native, scoring against Bristol Rovers and helping his side re-establish their place in the second-division play-off race." Barnes and Sargent work off each other and when one of them is missing that output disappears. https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwic...city-ashley-barnes-josh-sargent-duo-analysed/
That comparison ignores other factors in play apart from Sargent being in the team, i.e. at play in Sargent's appearances in the first 4 games (plus 14 minutes against Huddersfield) on the one hand, and the games since his return (i.e. the last five games). Firstly, in that first group of games, opponents had had little opportunity to work out how to combat our idiosyncratic setup with Sargent and Barnes playing as false 9s. Ben Lee documented how that situation changed, as opposition coaches wised up and our structural weaknesses were exposed. So it is far too simplistic to attribute the different outcomes of those games, compared with subsequent games, as largely due to Sargent's presence or absence. It took a further 13 games for our defensive shortcomings to be addressed, games marked by a staggeringly awful GA total. Meanwhile, despite the absence of Sargent, Sainz and, for a period, Barnes, our GF figures stood up pretty well. We were still scoring at a rate comparable to clubs like Coventry or Hull. Action was taken during the international break, which Jack Stacey referenced in his post-match interview following the QPR match, the first game after the break. The break was spent working on ways to improve the defence. Stacey said they did so because everyone realised that conceding 2 goals a game couldn't continue. So, secondly, by the time that second group of games came along, (i.e. the ones after Sargent's return and when Sainz had become a regular starter), our GA figures had been halved, from 2 goals per game, to just one, which is how it remains. Nobody is saying that performances haven't been affected by the unavailability of players, but to attribute everything to their presence or absence is simply wrong. Halving the rate at which we concede has been, IMO, the major factor in our improvement over the last 14 games, in only 4 of which has Sargent started. Additionally, it would be wrong to ignore the role of that defensive improvement in the re-emergence latterly of a more free-flowing brand of football. If players are required to be "brave", as Wagner puts it, i.e. take more risks, the importance of confidence that the downside risks can be controlled, shouldn't be under-estimated, which is exactly what is involved in seeing everything through the filter of injuries and absences. And so does good defending.
