roversfan99

Ive not got a specific number in mind. Its more of a case of, dont force him out, in January, out of desperation, and instead give him at least half a season more to accelerate in value. Hes obviously going to generate more, you wont get true value under those conditions.

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.

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?