roversfan99

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.

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.

He was the type of player who wanted a ball to himself, he would often take too long on the ball or make a wrong decision.

But that implies that the total of any package is always the same. Ie, he is being sold right at that moment, and its just a question of structuring. His value regardless of structuring was limited. We had to sell, we were desperate, we sold him in January when theres less money around, clubs less willing to spend money, and we sold him early as opposed to letting bis value continue to appreciate. Theres no reason to suggest that if all of the above factors werent in play, and if we had waited, that we couldnt still have the add ons AND a higher fee. Big sales will contain sell on fees. If that player goes to the very top, it doesnt justify the sale because of potential add ons down the line, its not something our board have done really well to include, its standard. Its not either or.

Why shouldnt significant conclusions be taken from one game, a qualifier which was essentially a friendly because there was nothing to play for, comparing a player who started the game and played 75 mins v someone who came on with England dominant and winning? But they DONT show/prove that Anderson is objectively the best midfielder in the league which is what you said.

The problem is, people dont take these stats for what they are. They are misinterpreted, too much onus is put on them, they are cherry picked and illogical conclusions are reached . Wharton's pass percentage will probably not be anything special because he passes forward.

No chaddy, they dont "show" that he is the best midfielder in the league. The best midfielder in the league is a purely subjective choice. Those stats used will have been pre selected, the stats are not without their flaws, you are comparing different players playing different roles in different teams with different levels of dominance and control in games, different tactics etc. If you think that Anderson is the best midfielder in the league, or has been this season, then thats fine. But those stats do not prove the conclusion you have taken from them, nor are they intended for that purpose.

It was one game that ultimately didnt matter for either side. Anderson didnt transform the game, a poor Albania side had conceded, had tired and England had taken control by the time he came on. Its not worth taking significant conclusions from.

For us? He was predominantly frustrating.

Rochina had a decent career but I certainly wouldnt have him down as an "absolutely brilliant player." Had loads of natural ability and skill but his decision making was poor and when he got chances to start he tended to be ineffective.

To be fair, Anderson came on for 15 minutes at a time when we were totally dominant, in the lead and against a tired Albania.

It didnt show that he is the best midfielder in the league, thats my point. He obviously isnt, there are clearly midfielders better than him. Those stats merely proved that he has done the most of each of those stats in the first 10 games, that isnt proof that he is the best midfielder in the league. As I said, Wharton did rank higher yesterday than Anderson in certain stats, including apparently (I am very skeptical of these stats full stop) creating the most chances in the game. Unsure why you follow a random Forest page but they pre selected the stats in Anderson's favour, missed the ones in Wharton's favour, and didnt factor in the state of the game when the sub was made and the different circumstances. The higher rating for Wharton isnt based on opinion, its based on an accumulation of the (as I said flawed) stats. You have repeatedly shown an incapability to question things, even taking things out of context. Youve done it with the crap that comes out of the liars at Rovers before, taking any spin as the gospel truth.

I find it a little strange how you are seeking out Forest twitter pages to back up Anderson. I also think your inability to question things is summed up by how you are interpreting these stats. Because Anderson is top of a list of random stats, you stated that hes the best midfielder in the Premier League the other day. Now you are passing on these stats today as if they prove your point or that he was more effective. They are different types of players and they featured in different ways and at totally different stages of the game. Anderson was on for much less time but the game was totally different, Albania had conceded, they were knackered and England were totally dominant. He won all of his "ground duels" (very vague phrase) which was 1 of 1, for example. The stats quoted are seemingly from fotmob but they have also been cherry picked. Wharton has a higher rating, and created the most chances out of everyone in the game apparently. Point being, dont just take randomly selected and inherently flawed stats as proof of certain conclusions. Are you basing this purely on a few England games against poor opposition?

Its a bizarre argument. People presumably think we should have got a bigger initial fee ASWELL as add ons. Those add ons arent part of a masterplan as opposed to a higher fee. And had we waited longer and not been as desperate, chucking him out the door in the less busy winter window, then he would have been worth more, however it was structured.

Not sure you are getting very far with Dan Burn playing behind it though. Sure it will be ok against poor opposition today. Unfortunate that more money lines Venkys pockets never to be seen.

Carter will probably pick an injury up in the next week. Ismael wasnt sure if Cantwell will be fit enough.

We will have something to play for. Staying in the league.

Fair enough. Either way, those stats do not make Anderson objectively the best midfielder in the league. Hes a good player but I think Wharton is better (not loads in it) and also more naturally suited to playing that role which is available sitting next to Rice.

Why are you assuming that any Wharton income would benefit the squad in any way? I couldnt tell you the exact point but I believe that similar questions have been asked in the past (perhaps the Raya %) and its been said that such money is used to pay bills. The money wont be spent on new signings.

Are those stats you showed for Anderson which made you conclude that he has been the best midfielder in the league, comparisons against other Forest players or against midfielders across the league? Or do you not know?

But its working in dispatching crap teams comfortably. It doesnt mean that the exact same team should play in the world cup, although for some reason you keep parroting Tuchel and then putting Hall in randomly. I dont know for sure what the team would be. Pickford in goal obviously. James and O'Reilly full back. Guehi and probably Stones CB. Rice and probably Wharton in midfield. Saka wide right. Im not convinced by either of the left wingers but appreciate we need a natural wide man, so probably Rashford as Gordon has been awful all season and has poor end product. Kane up top. The number 10 position is the hard one. You keep saying team first as if I am proposing to shoe horn loads of players in unfamiliar positions when not one of the players I propose is out of position. Its between Bellingham, Foden and Palmer and would likely be one of the first 2. As it stands, I would say Foden but flip of a coin. Pickford / James Stones Guehi OReilly / Rice Wharton / Saka Foden Rashford / Kane Now I dont see what about that team is imbalanced.

He sits in front of the defence and dictates the game. He is a holding midfielder.

The stats do not prove that Anderson is the number 1 midfielder in the Premier League. Hes a good player but he isnt the best midfielder in the league. Are them stats comparing him to everyone in the league or just the other midfielders at Forest? Even if its the league, its not such a linear conclusion.

I understand why Anderson is in the team at the moment but the World Cup is nearly a year away. I think Wharton should start in the next game. Anderson is not a natural holding midfielder, against poor teams any issues coming from him not being a natural there arent exposed.

How am I shoehorning players in? Shoehorning players in would be saying I would play Bellingham, Foden and Palmer all in the same team. I am literally advocating picking one of those above Rogers, all 4 of them play in the same position. You keep trotting cliches out like the team comes first as if it dismisses my argument. Obviously the team comes first. And I think playing a better player still in his natural position is putting the team first.