Yeah Scholes has come out and said that the theory that he retired from England because of where he was played is totally untrue. He thought that Sven should have dropped him for his poor performances and suggested that he quite liked playing from the left because he had more space.

You can't judge a player in pre-season either, purely fitness exercises, cobbled together teams with constant changes played at a really slow pace. Travis shouldn't be at right back/right wing back either, his performance there v Bristol City was as bad a performance as anyone has put in all season, just above Vale at Reading, he isn't suited to playing there and as a wing back, he would not be suitable defensively or offensively in that role. We left ourselves short in both full back positions in the summer, but surely Carter is the natural alternative having played there before? He can't attack so the question then is do you go to a back 4 or just stick with a very defensive back 5?

I have loads of reservations about it for many reasons, but one thing I am sure of is it is that its general usage seems totally not fit for purpose. In the media especially on podcasts, in the absence of anyone having the time to watch every team in the Championship, xG figures are used as a direct barometer of performance, which is a load of rubbish. This idea that teams will revert roughly to their current xG levels is a load of nonsense by people trying to sound well educated about every team. Over the last 18 months, we have scored well in advance of our xG mainly because of Brereton, he will score more goals with the same chances compared to basically any other forward in the league. It also doesn't factor in teams taking a lead and how a game totally changes from there on in, we have taken 10 leads, so naturally 10/17 times, our opponent has then had an onus to get back into the game, One good use that surely could come from it is judging the performance of individual strikers, its not even about luck IMO.

Out of interest chaddy, you are very keen to dismiss anyone who holds any cynicism towards anything that a player/manager etc says, why would they lie is your usual go to line. It was said the other day by Dack via Mowbray that his fitness numbers are better than they were pre-injury. Do you not think that maybe he does have the fitness based on that to play for us?

Elliott isn't top level, at crucial moments he tends to be let down by getting the ball stuck under his feet or playing the easy pass.

Well yes, you are defending Hirst's inability to score in over 40 games at this level in which most have been sub appearances, but when it comes to Dack, you say "does that matter." I never said that we have missed Dack as we clearly haven't over the last 3 games. In all 3 games however, we scored first, and we won't in every game this season. If we go a goal down and need a spark off the bench, and bare in mind that we have lost in all 7 games that we have conceded first. Then Dack is more likely to score or assist than Hirst or Vale.

Travis is awful as a right back.

Carrick a bit of a strange appointment, but god knows why Woodgate is back, maybe a sympathy vote. "He knows the club!" Deary me, he does indeed having failed as a manager there very recently, bizarre logic. Surely they want a new perspective.

Bowyer was here too long then as you said they appointed Lambert who was not only shit but also left soon after due to broken promises.

He still has a place for me, 100%. He has natural ability, a goal threat and a bit of magic that no one else in our squad has. Even if at the moment he isn't starting games, you can't tell me that you'd rather bring on the likes of Vale, Hirst and Dolan if we need a bit of quality.

.

Do you realise the hypocrisy of this? Dack has mainly been a sub.

Adam Wharton surely deserves a start, him Travis and Morton would be the midfield 3 for me. We have 2 dependable full/wing backs on either side but very little in the way of alternatives, Hedges is a good player but he isn't a wing back, but the fact that he is the alternative says a lot, with the other alternatives being centre backs. If both Brittain and Hedges miss out then we have a big problem. Do we go with a back 4 and Carter at right back, or do we put Buckley at wing back?

My point is in general, as and when we need a goal, if you are Tomasson and you look at the bench on which Dack, Hirst and Vale sit. Who is your first sub?

You don't have to be a total echo chamber for every word that JDT utters.

For a start, they haven't bothered to come over in years and years despite saying so. Mowbray was allowed to see out his contract because he did as he was told. Bowyer outstayed his welcome too for the same reason, not based on merit.

I hope he does prove me wrong, nobody would be more happy than me. It is pretty telling that the highlight so far was a shot saved by the keeper, mentioned more than once. Carter and Wharton did well out on loan and it was a sign that they could do well for our first team, Vale didn't so in the interest of balance it is still worth noting that he struggled, maybe it is a sign.

What? My point was responding to rigger who implied that people moan about contracts either way, I said that it depends on the player, we should ideally only hand contracts to ones of value to us. The departees last year all have value, as do the likes of Wharton and Phillips for whom their deals were met with widespread praise. Vale seemingly has more doubters hence why the reaction is not as warm.

But if we need a goal, allowing for formation changes, who would you bring on out of Dack, Hirst and Vale?! Even throw everyone bar Brereton in there.

Equally, I am unsurprised by you massively endorsing a decision made by the club. This isn't a case of constant pessimism and misery. In fact, its amidst a post where I praised the academy and a number of our prospects. Specific to Vale though, i have seen nothing to suggest that he is Championship level or ever will be. In the games he has started this season, he has looked well out of his depth even v Hartlepool. He has yet to score or look like scoring, he isnt quick and he has struggled physically. His loan spells have all been unsuccessful too. And just because Tomasson was a good/great striker doesnt mean he can make Vale into one.

Last season the conclusion many took was that we had regressed to the mean as you put it regarding our xG. We had a striker who was as clinical as any in the league and our bad run coincided with his injury, leaving only attackers who were scoring less than what they would be expected to as per xG. Regression to the mean would surely depend on everyone having the same competence in finishing chances?

Is there no middle ground or scope for judging each individual case based on the player? Or is it either everyone gets a new deal or nobody does?

I suppose you get people on both sides of the argument who are so extreme in their argument that they stubbornly force themselves into a corner and away from any reasoned debate. I haven't thankfully seen much of that as I must not follow many of those people on social media, but equally we have seen stuff on here making out as if Mowbray was absolutely horrendous as a manager here which is equally not true.

xG implies that had Brereton skied that shot against Sunderland, had Travis mishit his shot v QPR etc, that the games would have followed the exact same pattern that they did. As it is, we would likely have tried to attack more and the whole game would be totally different. You can't objectify the quality of a chance, but even if you could, expecting xG to naturally fall in line with results over a season would assume that every team has the same level of strikers getting those chances, one of ours is as ruthless as any striker. It seemingly is in vogue with pundits and in particular podcast makers who rely on xG figures because they can't possibly be otherwise expected to watch every game of every team. Back on topic and I do think that the level of performance has not been high at all and not befitting of the results. The supposed style of high press and constantly fluidity has not transpired. That being said, under Tomasson we have been very good at seeing out victories. One weakness is that when we go a goal down, we often roll over and he has struggled to change things to get us back into games, not aided IMO by favouring athletic players off the bench over the likes of Markanday and in particular Dack.

A little underwhelmed by the news to be honest. Vale has never scored nor looked like scoring for us and hasn't shown much otherwise either in terms of general play. He even struggled in loan spells at much lower levels and I expected him to perhaps try and forge a career in the lower leagues once his contract expired. Our academy is excellent and there are clearly some very good talents, with Adam Wharton the breakthrough star this season. Ash Phillips isn't ready for Championship football yet but is clearly a promising player too, Carter is establishing himself, Scott Wharton remains a constant and there are others. But Vale has never looked close to being up to it. Let's hope he can kick on and show far more.