Adam Wharton

[Mattyblue]

Anybody saying that seriously (I’m presuming they are joking) obviously is too young to have actually watched Scholes in action.

Without doubt one of the greatest players I’ve ever seen in person. 

[Dreams of 1995]

13 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

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.

When I am watching a midfielder, I'm looking for certain parts of his game such as the interceptions, forward passes, tackles, assists, goals, tackles, first touch - exactly the sort of measurables that produce statistics.

A good player will score highly in a particular metric which fits the role he's taking on. The coach or manager will pick or sign a player which excels in the areas they are looking for.

If you aren't looking for the measurable items of play within a football player - what are you looking for? The colour of his socks, his boots, his hair?

Ok, those measurables will change depending on the role / style of play, but they still exist. In an attacking full back you are looking for how many recoveries he makes, his crossing, stamina, first touch. For a goalkeeper you want to see his catching, handling. The metrics change but they are still driven by a measurable piece of data - statistics

I don't see those measurables as a small part. They are a very large part. That they are now demonstrated in a series of tables and graphs is different but it is what we have all been looking for in a footballer. You may just term it differently

For example, you seem to despise "xG" but ultimately you will look at a players (attempted) finish and remark: "he should have scored". This is what xG measures for you.

Nobody relies upon it solely or else no scouts or coaches would attend football matches. Denying its benefits, and making out like it is only a very small part of what measures a player, is foolish. Statistics are all around you - just you aren't measuring them 

Edited 3 hours ago by Dreams of 1995

[TheKitGuy]

10 hours ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

Adam is much better than Scholes

Not yet - give it 5 years when he is much more developed then we can come back to this. 

 

Not a single midfielder we have currently in the setup is better than Gerrard,Lampard,Scholes

[islander200]

Wharton is a better player at 21 than Scholes was at 21 

Time will tell if he will develop into a player as good or better than Scholes later in his career 

[rigger]

1 minute ago, islander200 said:

Wharton is a better player at 21 than Scholes was at 21 

Time will tell if he will develop into a player as good or better than Scholes later in his career 

Scholes was also a goalscorer, Wharton isn't.

[RevidgeBlue]

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

We just have agree to disagree cos we aren't going to agree one bit

What are going on about now? 

Fairly ordinary player??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

If Wharton was still a Rovers player you would 100% be going mad the other way round trying to convince everyone that Wharton was better than Anderson!

[Polky]

 

[chaddyrovers]

8 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

If Wharton was still a Rovers player you would 100% be going mad the other way round trying to convince everyone that Wharton was better than Anderson!

Eh? Anderson had been highly rated for years. 

Its what best for the England team not about Rovers

[Mattyblue]

Scholes was already a regular for a double winning side the season he turned 21. Highly debatable to say Adam is ‘better’/further on in his development.

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Eh? Anderson had been highly rated for years. 

Each to his own, Id never even heard of him until Tuchel drafted him in recently.

Imo he's a solid enough player but not a Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes, Bellingham, Foden, Palmer or even a Wharton.

At this stage I do have the utmost confidence in Tuchel though. If he decides he wants to play Anderson instead of Wharton or Wharton ahead of Anderson then either is fine by me.

[KidderStreetNoise]

12 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

He isn’t, he really isn’t 

20 years at Man United & not one POTY award, the only player to get better after retiring

[KidderStreetNoise]

9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I cant believe the clearly sarcastic suggestion that Wharton is much better than Scholes was has been taken so seriously.

Was being deadly serious

[KidderStreetNoise]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Anybody saying that seriously (I’m presuming they are joking) obviously is too young to have actually watched Scholes in action.

Without doubt one of the greatest players I’ve ever seen in person. 

Nostalgia playing a huge part there

[Mattyblue]

No, he was an elite footballer and did it at the very highest level for fifteen years.. Adam isn’t close at this stage.

[KidderStreetNoise]

4 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

No, he was an elite footballer and did it at the very highest level for fifteen years.. Adam isn’t close at this stage.

Surely if he was an elite footballer at that level for so long he'd have won one POTY or been nominated for Ballon D'or?

[chaddyrovers]

17 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Each to his own, Id never even heard of him until Tuchel drafted him in recently.

Imo he's a solid enough player but not a Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes, Bellingham, Foden, Palmer or even a Wharton.

At this stage I do have the utmost confidence in Tuchel though. If he decides he wants to play Anderson instead of Wharton or Wharton ahead of Anderson then either is fine by me.

Knew about Anderson years ago. Very highly rated by Howe and Newcastle was forced to sell him to met FFP ruled

9 minutes ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

20 years at Man United & not one POTY award, the only player to get better after retiring

Scholes was a world class player..

Wharton isn't anyway near his level. Maybe one day

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

Surely if he was an elite footballer at that level for so long he'd have won one POTY or been nominated for Ballon D'or?

He was nominated 5 times for Ballon D'or

[Mattyblue]

Good god. Are these the metrics now, I know you’re taking the piss, but still.

OK, I’ll take you on. He was in teams of the decade, halls of fame and all the rest of it, so we can all cherry pick individual baubles for our argument. But as he didn’t win POTY in an era full of top footballers, he’s no Adam Wharton. Aye, good one.

Edited 1 hour ago by Mattyblue

[KidderStreetNoise]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

He was nominated 5 times for Ballon D'or

How many votes did he get?

[KidderStreetNoise]

2 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Good god. Are these the metrics now, I know you’re taking the piss, but still.

OK, I’ll take you on. He was in teams of the decade, halls of fame and all the rest of it, so we can all cherry pick individual baubles for our argument. But as he didn’t win POTY in an era full of top footballers, he’s no Adam Wharton. Aye, good one.

Didn't win POTY at his only club, that's bad isn't it? For 'one of the best midfielders ever'

[Mattyblue]

Yeah, well bad.

[KidderStreetNoise]

3 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Yeah, well bad.

Nostalgia is cruel

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

When I am watching a midfielder, I'm looking for certain parts of his game such as the interceptions, forward passes, tackles, assists, goals, tackles, first touch - exactly the sort of measurables that produce statistics.

A good player will score highly in a particular metric which fits the role he's taking on. The coach or manager will pick or sign a player which excels in the areas they are looking for.

If you aren't looking for the measurable items of play within a football player - what are you looking for? The colour of his socks, his boots, his hair?

Ok, those measurables will change depending on the role / style of play, but they still exist. In an attacking full back you are looking for how many recoveries he makes, his crossing, stamina, first touch. For a goalkeeper you want to see his catching, handling. The metrics change but they are still driven by a measurable piece of data - statistics

I don't see those measurables as a small part. They are a very large part. That they are now demonstrated in a series of tables and graphs is different but it is what we have all been looking for in a footballer. You may just term it differently

For example, you seem to despise "xG" but ultimately you will look at a players (attempted) finish and remark: "he should have scored". This is what xG measures for you.

Nobody relies upon it solely or else no scouts or coaches would attend football matches. Denying its benefits, and making out like it is only a very small part of what measures a player, is foolish. Statistics are all around you - just you aren't measuring them 

I never denied its benefits. I said there is a massive overreliance on it, too much importance is placed on it and it is flawed.

Conclusions are reached based solely on them, often illogically. Chaddy said that Anderson is the best midfielder in the league because he was top rated in a hand full of pre selected metrics. He also said that it proves that he should start next to Rice without considering the context of him playing a different role in a different team of different quality. He might be great at "progressive carries" for example but I dont think its a key requirement in the type of player we need next to Rice.

You mention xg. A player runs through on goal, takes too long and doesnt get his shot away. Hes had a great chance, its 0 xg.

A players pass completion will be better if he keeps things safe and makes no attempt to pass it forward. Forward passes could be 1 yard forward to someone essentially next to them or a defence splitting 30 yard pass. Metrics surrounding chances created will be affected by whether the striker gets a shot away. There are so many grey areas.

[islander200]

52 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Scholes was already a regular for a double winning side the season he turned 21. Highly debatable to say Adam is ‘better’/further on in his development.

He made 26 appearances in the prem at 21.

24 the following year.

A stretch to call him a regular then and he was often playing further forward than cm.

My opinion Wharton better at 21 than scholes was 

[Mattyblue]

…31 in all competitions and scored 16 goals, not bad ay.

I’m not saying AW hasn’t the potential, course he does, but ‘much better’, as of now, which is where this debate started, of course he isn’t (just some mischief making going on from quite a strange new poster by the looks of it).