The Foster effect

[GodalmingYellow]

Up to getting rid of Foster, our home record in the Conference was:

W10 D1 0 F28 A5

Since getting rid of Foster our home record in the Conference has been:

W3 D1 L2 F6 A3

Are the defenders of the faith still going to argue this was not a huge cock up by Wilder, and may even result in us not achieving automatic promotion?

So I'm not accused of twisting figures, theaway records are:

Before selling Foster
W7 D4 L2 F19 A16

After selling Foster
W1 D1 L1 F6 A3

So we didn't lose at home before Foster went, and we only lost 1 in 12 games home and away whilst he was with us.

After Foster went, we have lost 1 in 3 games.

For me the tinkering with theside and wrecking the defensive partnership are the key to our current demise, coupled with Wilder's insistence on bringing in several dross new players and then insisting on playing them ahead of existing players who are clearly better.

[A-Ro]

Rumours of Foster and Creighton fighting in the dressing room after the Salisbury game may have prompted the changes.

[deanwindass]

Wow, two anti-Wilder threads in the space of an hour or so. That really is TiU.

I agree our defence was awful yesterday but I don't think that you can honestly claim that having Foz instead of Day or Beast (or Wright post-30 mins in) would have made much difference last night. We were woeful all over the park, but, you're right that the defence was particularly worrying.

OK so the back-line was disrupted by Tonkin's suspension and Sandwith's injury but Wright looked out of place at LB (and has to stop trying to dribble past strikers out of defence), the Beast (apart from a couple of crunching challenges) often looked out of position and off the pace and Batt has been poor for some time. We really should be sufficiently fit, organised, and technically superior for part-timers like H&ampY especially since we've had a week to prepare and they only 2 days. Our defensive line for the first goal was all over the place and the marking from the corner was absolutely woeful.


Our finishing was terrible. We'd still be disappointed with the performance but would be feeling much better about things had Grant or Green taken one or two of the four golden opportunities that befell them.

Bulman and Hargreaves (in particular) were unable to keep hold of the ball and represents a distinctly uninspiring centre midfield partnership. Cain looked lost but bloody quick and put in a couple of pretty good crosses. Where was the composure of Chapman? God how we miss Murray.

Chalmers, Deering and Clist (who often were the only ones offering for the ball at feet) were the only players to come out with any credit in my opinion.

BUT we'd (well I certainly would) have taken this position, if not this form, at this stage if it had been offered at the beginning of the season. When Murray, Beano and Tonkin are back all will be right again...

[YF Dan]

BUT we'd (well I certainly would) have taken this position, if not this form, at this stage if it had been offered at the beginning of the season. When Murray, Beano and Tonkin are back all will be right again...

Yes, but would we have taken the position we're in now if I'd asked you at this point:
http://www.oufc.co.uk/page/LeagueTable/ ... 31,00.html ?

My god - look at the goal difference changes since then. Stevenage have gone from ||16 to ||40, we've gone from ||25 to ||30.

[deanwindass]

Fair point.

[GodalmingYellow]

Wow, two anti-Wilder threads in the space of an hour or so. That really is TiU.

I agree our defence was awful yesterday but I don't think that you can honestly claim that having Foz instead of Day or Beast (or Wright post-30 mins in) would have made much difference last night. We were woeful all over the park, but, you're right that the defence was particularly worrying.

OK so the back-line was disrupted by Tonkin's suspension and Sandwith's injury but Wright looked out of place at LB (and has to stop trying to dribble past strikers out of defence), the Beast (apart from a couple of crunching challenges) often looked out of position and off the pace and Batt has been poor for some time. We really should be sufficiently fit, organised, and technically superior for part-timers like H&ampY especially since we've had a week to prepare and they only 2 days. Our defensive line for the first goal was all over the place and the marking from the corner was absolutely woeful.


Our finishing was terrible. We'd still be disappointed with the performance but would be feeling much better about things had Grant or Green taken one or two of the four golden opportunities that befell them.

Bulman and Hargreaves (in particular) were unable to keep hold of the ball and represents a distinctly uninspiring centre midfield partnership. Cain looked lost but bloody quick and put in a couple of pretty good crosses. Where was the composure of Chapman? God how we miss Murray.

Chalmers, Deering and Clist (who often were the only ones offering for the ball at feet) were the only players to come out with any credit in my opinion.

BUT we'd (well I certainly would) have taken this position, if not this form, at this stage if it had been offered at the beginning of the season. When Murray, Beano and Tonkin are back all will be right again...

It's TiU to claim they are anti-Wilder.

What they are is genuine concern for the direction our club has been taken in since the turn of the year.

I'm not making any claims aout our perfomance last night as I wasn't there. I'm just stating the facts and posing the questions.

[theox]

We've gone from 8 points clear to a potential 1 point clear.

We can't much complain as performances, certainly since Xmas, have been patchy at best.

The revolving door for players has to be a factor in that. Its always said that a team need time to gel so where is the point in changing it quite drastically midway through a season?!?

[DLT]

Hargreaves... debate over as far as I am concerned.

Foster.. Last night we found ourselves with Creighton being the ball carrier so much in the second half it was obvious what we miss about Foster.

I have watched a few games recently and we have benefited from abysmal finishing from the opposition. Last night they had a old stager who made his chances count.

I hope Mr Wilder wasn't simply 'Mr 2009' but he certainly seems to have lost his way with his recently activity in the transfer market.

[boris]

I hope Mr Wilder wasn't simply 'Mr 2009' but he certainly seems to have lost his way with his recently activity in the transfer market.

It's no longer the Year of the Ox. That's the problem, right there.

[deanwindass]

Foster.. Last night we found ourselves with Creighton being the ball carrier so much in the second half it was obvious what we miss about Foster.

Foster's distribution was woeful. Significantly more hoof-long than Creighton's.

[GodalmingYellow]

Foster.. Last night we found ourselves with Creighton being the ball carrier so much in the second half it was obvious what we miss about Foster.

Foster's distribution was woeful. Significantly more hoof-long than Creighton's.

No Creighton is the big fella, Foster the younger one....

[OXUFC4Life]

Rumours of Foster and Creighton fighting in the dressing room after the Salisbury game may have prompted the changes.

You should learn not to take notice of Rumours - in this case rumours are untruths - FACT!

[chuckbert]

Logical fallacy no.1: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Dr Bob]

Another problem to go along with post hoc ergo propter hoc - confusing correlation and causality. Here are some other statistics derived directly from those given by GY (I hope I got these numbers correct).

Goals conceded:
home with Foster 0.45 per game home after Foster left 0.5
away with Foster 1.23 per game away after Foster left 1

Goals scored:
home with Foster 2.51 per game home after Foster left 1
away with Foster 1.46 per game away after Foster left 2

Has the exit of Foster caused the huge reduction in goals scored per game? It seems to me this is by far the bigger problem. If Foster's absence is considered as part of squad tinkering that has resulted in fewer goals scored per game, then to that extent Foster's departure - as part of a wider issue - is relevant. Otherwise on the evidence thus far (the sample of post-Foster games is far fewer), it seems to me Foster is largely an irrelevance to this debate.

[Dr Bob]

And yes I do mean Foster is irrelevant to the &quotFoster Effect&quot because I do not think the latter exists.