All Activity

That a smaller fee usually means a higher sell on, and vice versa.

It wasn't less than £10 million. There's not a chance anyone AT THE TIME expected us to get anywhere near that amount.

What point are you trying to make? I’ve no idea at this point, but I’ve not read all the thread?

I know this is a bit late and most people will have already voted but no-one seems to have mentioned that it was under Johnny Carey's management that our youth team won the youth cup for the one and only time. They were known as "Carey's Chicks" and that team contained England, Pickering and Newton.

He is not head and shoulders ahead of Declan Rice as an all rounder. He is definitely not as good as him. Those stats are so limited and as you say come down to interpretation, but they merely show that he ranks top at those specific things under the system of wherever those stats come from. If you are judging the best midfielder based solely on who ranks highest on a select few metrics, and nothing else, then you are being foolish. The problem nowadays is people are too reliant on these stats, which are only a small part of what someone should be looking at. Who a player plays for, the type of player, the style of the team, the dominance or otherwise of a team, it all comes into play. You touch on it but Wharton and Anderson are different types of players. I personally think the style of Wharton would compliment Rice more. Anderson is also box to box but that hasnt been a problem against weak teams who havent really looked to exploit any gaps between and behind him and Rice.

And they've only got 4 High Court judges in the entire country according to the Economist magazine recently.

I’ll add in one more thing - the courts only sit for five hours a day.

Thats the one.

And there will no doubt be 80 cases listed next time we're up. What a crazy legal system they have.

The stats may belie reality on the Wharton vs Anderson debate but statistics just spit out facts. Your interpretation of those is what makes it subjective Objectively, he’s the best rated midfielder in the league, if you are judging a midfielder on whichever statistics he tops. Which to be fair, is pretty much all of them - forward passes, dribbles, touches in the box etc. A lot of those stats are pointing towards a possession based team. Wharton plays in a team that counters. And he tops three important categories - through balls, chances created and interceptions. As the stats go, Anderson is head and shoulders above every English midfielder in terms of an all rounder type player. That said, despite him having more passes and touches than Wharton he creates less chances. That part has been missed in this debate. So has the positioning of the players - Anderson plays wider, whereas Adam Wharton is a very archetypal defensive midfielder who plays as though either side of the 18 yard box is a no go zone. You are taught this at an early age as a DM - you only need to cross into those wide areas when you’re covering your full back. It shows in Adam’s play imo

Probably these will be them then?

Like sheep then.😀

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The last time they were 'interested' ( and I use that word very liberally here ) was in 2017 when after 2-3 years of cuts and chaos under Suhail (Bowyer sacked, failed Lambert experiment, Coyle appointment, selling all assets, sound familiar?) we got relegated. Somehow that event, rather than being the death knell for their regime and ownership, spurred them into some sort of review or action. Probably because of the media attention it brought and another £10 million hole in income from less Sky tv money so the head honchos decided to sit up and take some notice and work out what had gone wrong. Fortunately for them Mowbray dropped into their lap, and as so many do with Mowbray they fell under his spell once he had got himself out to India and talked to them at length at their palace. Outcome? Mowbray was backed more heavily than any manager they've had here in 15 years (except maybe Kean) and was given free reign in that he was allowed to sign his own players, appoint his mate and even insist they bring in a Chief Executive for the first and only time of their ownership, at considerable expense. Anyway, I think Mowbray convinced them to turn the money taps back on for a few years, leave him alone to get on with it and that by the end of that period we'd be in great shape for promotion or at least have a squad of assets to liquidate to recover funds from. 3-4 years go by and we weren't getting any nearer, so they get bored with the cost of this and start to listen to others. Pasha is talking a good game in the background. He can deliver the same result - Championship football - at half the price and even better he's 'one of them' who they already trust and he will take care of all the boring bits like dealing with managers and executives and running the club. All they have to do is review the balance sheet every 12 months, tip in the difference required and leave him to it. He'll make sure things tick over and we bring in plenty of cash from player sales to minimise their losses. What's not to like? These people are probably bone-idle and have never wanted the hassle of running a football club. The idea that 'one of their own' will take care of it all for them and not rip them off whilst doing so probably sounds great to them. They get the best of both worlds - the 'benefits' of owning a significant football club, at much lower cost than previously, and most people think they are doing us a favour for it (I'm being serious by the way, most fans I speak to genuinely think they are needed here). So from their warped positions they are probably quite content with things as they are. Whilst we are all exhausted with the draining misery of their occupation of our club and the continuing lasting damage it is doing they are probably getting quite comfortable with their trusted man sorting everything out and it costing them a fraction of what it once did. Just remember what happened the last time the curtain twitcher was in control and allowed to run the show without challenge - relegation to League One - because fundamentally he, and nobody willing to work under him, let alone the budgets he want's to impose - are compatible with competing in a high standard league. We've seen it all before only some are too blind or stupid to see it happening again.

So, because of some arbitrary stats, Elliott Anderson is now better than Adam Wharton? What in the XG is this all about? Please can someone make it make sense?

Biggest game of their season was against their second team, Liverpool, in the pre-season. Fake fans.

It's heart breaking.

I remember a tidy game away at Peterborough, might’ve been that? Won 4-1 under Berg, thanks to Rhodes hat trick and Formica.

Anderson obviously isn't the best midfielder in the league but statistically is

Going for gold 😅.

And Jobe Bellingham went for nearly *ten million* more. Palace nabbed a bargain due to the seller being distressed, not sure how anybody could argue anything else.

Jackson now saying we're due "a payment" from Palace as a result of the start last night which is probably backtracking somewhat from what he said originally about the add on being triggered by his first start. Might be something in what Nixon said. One or two suggestions there are graduated payments due dependent on number of appearances etc. Ludicrous.

Ive never denied that according to wherever Sky Sports get these specific metrics from, that he is top of them. I am saying that they doesnt prove objectively that hes the best midfielder in the league. You dont seem to be able to distinguish the difference between the 2.

Sold out!

You keep fixating on that, different situations, there will be other players with different clauses. Its like defending Venkys because they at least pay the players unlike Chansiri did. Its simple logic. We sold desperately, in January, before he had time to further play and appreciate in value. Logically, regardless of structure, his value with us being distressed sellers was lower than it should have been.