The List

[theox]

Eddie is a decent player. Who we've missed. Wherever he plays.

Disagree. He's been mediocre so far.

Look at our results with and without Anaclet this season.

Just goes to show you can prove anything with statistics!!

[Kernow Yellow]

It's all been said before, but the way we take and 'defend' throw-ins, and take free kicks and corners, is a disgrace that would not be tolerated at Raging Fever level. quote]


Sorry Jon I disagree - we tolerate this and a lot more week in week out at Raging Fever. Right Boris??

Well it wouldn't have been tolerated in my day

[boris]

It's all been said before, but the way we take and 'defend' throw-ins, and take free kicks and corners, is a disgrace that would not be tolerated at Raging Fever level.

Sorry Jon I disagree - we tolerate this and a lot more week in week out at Raging Fever. Right Boris??

Well, I don't think James Clarke would get a look in at right back for Fever, that's for sure.

[Kernow Yellow]

Yemi should be played as a right winger where the only decisins he has to make are inside or outside, long or short. Even though he is top scorer, Yemi is no striker either.

Agree with this bit. This is my point - Patto tried it, it worked, and then we dropped it (and started losing) again.

Disagree about Duffy, but then you knew that already. Though I can't believe you're now blaming him for all the midfielders looking poor as well!

As I said, unless we revert back to a proper 4-4-2 formation with wide men to create chances for the forwards, I'll be very surprised if we look a better attacking force without Duffy. Who knows, maybe time will tell - or maybe Patto will see sense and stop packing the midfield with defensive-minded cloggers.

[GodalmingYellow]

Look at our results with and without Anaclet this season.

Haven't got the time to mess around doing a statto, but suffice to say that it would be a meaningless stat on its own.

[GodalmingYellow]

Yemi should be played as a right winger where the only decisins he has to make are inside or outside, long or short. Even though he is top scorer, Yemi is no striker either.

Agree with this bit. This is my point - Patto tried it, it worked, and then we dropped it (and started losing) again.

Disagree about Duffy, but then you knew that already. Though I can't believe you're now blaming him for all the midfielders looking poor as well!

As I said, unless we revert back to a proper 4-4-2 formation with wide men to create chances for the forwards, I'll be very surprised if we look a better attacking force without Duffy. Who knows, maybe time will tell - or maybe Patto will see sense and stop packing the midfield with defensive-minded cloggers.

I don't blame Duffy for poor midfielders, I blame him for not linking up play with them. I assure you I could easily type half a page of rant about the midfielders as well! They are far from blameless.

[Ascension Ox]

Look at our results with and without Anaclet this season.

Haven't got the time to mess around doing a statto, but suffice to say that it would be a meaningless stat on its own.

Why's that 'meaningless' then? Anaclet links up well with others - such as Yemi, works hard and as a consequence is an asset to the side.. Eddie will improve the current side. Undoubtedly. He has barely played in his best position - right midfield in a 4.

[GodalmingYellow]

Look at our results with and without Anaclet this season.

Haven't got the time to mess around doing a statto, but suffice to say that it would be a meaningless stat on its own.

Why's that 'meaningless' then? Anaclet links up well with others - such as Yemi, works hard and as a consequence is an asset to the side.. Eddie will improve the current side. Undoubtedly. He has barely played in his best position - right midfield in a 4.

a) His best position is not right midfield in a 4. By his own statements, his best position is right back in a 4 and I would agree with him. He is definitely not a right winger. Wingers need sufficient pace to go by a defender. Anaclet doesn't have that. In a number of games where we have played well and won with Anacelt in the side, Anaclet has been right back with Yemi right wing or right of a front 3.

b)Its meaningless because there are a shed load more factors which determine whether a side wins or not. I suspect we could probably find 5 or 6 or more other players who were also a common denominator in the same games that you refer to. Anaclet being in the side for those games, may have been co-incidental rather than influential. We could equally find a lot games where Anaclet was in the side when we lost. Using your methodology of argument we could conclude that Anaclet was the cause of those defeats.

In reality, wins and defeats are the result of different players, different tactics, the use of particular sbustitutes, and a whole host of other reasons.

It is rather shallow and meaningless to extrapolate a single factor in a sequence as being the influential factor.

c) Anaclet works hard some games and not in others. Same as a lot of the players. Hard work isn't enough. Yes we want triers, but triers who provide skill and influence, not triers who fail consistently.

[Ascension Ox]

Haven't got the time to mess around doing a statto, but suffice to say that it would be a meaningless stat on its own.

Why's that 'meaningless' then? Anaclet links up well with others - such as Yemi, works hard and as a consequence is an asset to the side.. Eddie will improve the current side. Undoubtedly. He has barely played in his best position - right midfield in a 4.

a) His best position is not right midfield in a 4. By his own statements, his best position is right back in a 4 and I would agree with him. He is definitely not a right winger. Wingers need sufficient pace to go by a defender. Anaclet doesn't have that. In a number of games where we have played well and won with Anacelt in the side, Anaclet has been right back with Yemi right wing or right of a front 3.

b)Its meaningless because there are a shed load more factors which determine whether a side wins or not. I suspect we could probably find 5 or 6 or more other players who were also a common denominator in the same games that you refer to. Anaclet being in the side for those games, may have been co-incidental rather than influential. We could equally find a lot games where Anaclet was in the side when we lost. Using your methodology of argument we could conclude that Anaclet was the cause of those defeats.

In reality, wins and defeats are the result of different players, different tactics, the use of particular sbustitutes, and a whole host of other reasons.

It is rather shallow and meaningless to extrapolate a single factor in a sequence as being the influential factor.

c) Anaclet works hard some games and not in others. Same as a lot of the players. Hard work isn't enough. Yes we want triers, but triers who provide skill and influence, not triers who fail consistently.

We're never going to agree on this one. Its nothing to do with being 'shallow'. Its to do with what I see with my own eyes.

I rate Eddie as a very decent Conference performer. When he is in the side we perform with more fluency. I rate him quite highly compared to some of the other nightmares on the staff

[GodalmingYellow]

Why's that 'meaningless' then? Anaclet links up well with others - such as Yemi, works hard and as a consequence is an asset to the side.. Eddie will improve the current side. Undoubtedly. He has barely played in his best position - right midfield in a 4.

a) His best position is not right midfield in a 4. By his own statements, his best position is right back in a 4 and I would agree with him. He is definitely not a right winger. Wingers need sufficient pace to go by a defender. Anaclet doesn't have that. In a number of games where we have played well and won with Anacelt in the side, Anaclet has been right back with Yemi right wing or right of a front 3.

b)Its meaningless because there are a shed load more factors which determine whether a side wins or not. I suspect we could probably find 5 or 6 or more other players who were also a common denominator in the same games that you refer to. Anaclet being in the side for those games, may have been co-incidental rather than influential. We could equally find a lot games where Anaclet was in the side when we lost. Using your methodology of argument we could conclude that Anaclet was the cause of those defeats.

In reality, wins and defeats are the result of different players, different tactics, the use of particular sbustitutes, and a whole host of other reasons.

It is rather shallow and meaningless to extrapolate a single factor in a sequence as being the influential factor.

c) Anaclet works hard some games and not in others. Same as a lot of the players. Hard work isn't enough. Yes we want triers, but triers who provide skill and influence, not triers who fail consistently.

We're never going to agree on this one. Its nothing to do with being 'shallow'. Its to do with what I see with my own eyes.

I rate Eddie as a very decent Conference performer. When he is in the side we perform with more fluency. I rate him quite highly compared to some of the other nightmares on the staff

Comparing Anacelt to some of the other no hopers isn't really a comparison. McAllister is the callibre of player we should be aiming for. Compare Anaclet to him and there is no contest.

As you say, we clearly see different things and we're not going to agree.

The players I rate as being good enough are:

Turley, Foster, Quinn, Corcoran, Clarke, Pettefer, Rose, Ledgister, Murray, Yemi, McAllister, Fisher.

The players I'm uncertain of are: Warrell, Anaclet, Weedon, Taylor, Benjamin.

The rest aren't good enough.

[Ancient Colin]

We've seem McAllister for a grand total of about 80 minutes - nothing like enough to judge his ability - or his ability to resist the miasmic influence of Oxford training methods (what did Ashton look like after 80 minutes?).

Of the rest of GY's &quotgood enough&quot list, well it certainly isn't a list of good enoughs for promotion under the current regime - and I suspect, not under any other regime either. Of those: Pettefer is too small to play central midfield, not skillful enough to compensate and too slow to play wide midfield. Rose is too small, too frail and too injury prone ... he has some vision but his passing is overrated. Yemi has failed to fulfil his potential and has gone backwards this season. He doesn't have the anticipation or positional sense to play as second striker and he is too much of a liability to play in midfield (particularly so if he had slow Eddie behind him). I can't see that Ledgister can be anything other than &quotuncertain&quot - a handful of good crosses hardly compensates for the number of games in which he has been anonymous. Corky is too small and too accident prone to play CB in a conference promotion side. All we know so far about Fisher is that he runs around a lot and has uncertain ball control. Quinn can't pass and is very slow. Turley is capable of fine saves but is making a lot of mistakes and can't do much for a backfour or team spirit with his endless shrieking. Murray - too early to say, he does at least try to make himself available, but doesn't look hugely creative. Clarke, too early to say, his little stint at right midfield didn't auger well.

So: good enough: Foster.

But then again, the glass is always, at best, half empty (and probably infected with norovirus). As some of you are now realising!!

[GodalmingYellow]

We've seem McAllister for a grand total of about 80 minutes - nothing like enough to judge his ability - or his ability to resist the miasmic influence of Oxford training methods (what did Ashton look like after 80 minutes?).

Of the rest of GY's &quotgood enough&quot list, well it certainly isn't a list of good enoughs for promotion under the current regime - and I suspect, not under any other regime either. Of those: Pettefer is too small to play central midfield, not skillful enough to compensate and too slow to play wide midfield. Rose is too small, too frail and too injury prone ... he has some vision but his passing is overrated. Yemi has failed to fulfil his potential and has gone backwards this season. He doesn't have the anticipation or positional sense to play as second striker and he is too much of a liability to play in midfield (particularly so if he had slow Eddie behind him). I can't see that Ledgister can be anything other than &quotuncertain&quot - a handful of good crosses hardly compensates for the number of games in which he has been anonymous. Corky is too small and too accident prone to play CB in a conference promotion side. All we know so far about Fisher is that he runs around a lot and has uncertain ball control. Quinn can't pass and is very slow. Turley is capable of fine saves but is making a lot of mistakes and can't do much for a backfour or team spirit with his endless shrieking. Murray - too early to say, he does at least try to make himself available, but doesn't look hugely creative. Clarke, too early to say, his little stint at right midfield didn't auger well.

So: good enough: Foster.

But then again, the glass is always, at best, half empty (and probably infected with norovirus). As some of you are now realising!!

It sounds as though you're in need of a full glass of something...

[Mooro]

But then again, the glass is always, at best, half empty (and probably infected with norovirus). As some of you are now realising!!

What do you mean - not only is it half empty, it should've been bigger in the first place so it is infact three-quarters empty at least, b#stards!

[Mally]

We've seem McAllister for a grand total of about 80 minutes - nothing like enough to judge his ability - or his ability to resist the miasmic influence of Oxford training methods (what did Ashton look like after 80 minutes?).

Of the rest of GY's &quotgood enough&quot list, well it certainly isn't a list of good enoughs for promotion under the current regime - and I suspect, not under any other regime either. Of those: Pettefer is too small to play central midfield, not skillful enough to compensate and too slow to play wide midfield. Rose is too small, too frail and too injury prone ... he has some vision but his passing is overrated. Yemi has failed to fulfil his potential and has gone backwards this season. He doesn't have the anticipation or positional sense to play as second striker and he is too much of a liability to play in midfield (particularly so if he had slow Eddie behind him). I can't see that Ledgister can be anything other than &quotuncertain&quot - a handful of good crosses hardly compensates for the number of games in which he has been anonymous. Corky is too small and too accident prone to play CB in a conference promotion side. All we know so far about Fisher is that he runs around a lot and has uncertain ball control. Quinn can't pass and is very slow. Turley is capable of fine saves but is making a lot of mistakes and can't do much for a backfour or team spirit with his endless shrieking. Murray - too early to say, he does at least try to make himself available, but doesn't look hugely creative. Clarke, too early to say, his little stint at right midfield didn't auger well.

So: good enough: Foster.

But then again, the glass is always, at best, half empty (and probably infected with norovirus). As some of you are now realising!!

Yes, but apart from that we've got a great squad.

Of course it all depends on what the terms of reference are. Compared to the skill level of our collective subconscious they are all crap but that's because we're subconsciously comparing them to the players we see on TV or the players we remember from the Oxford teams of the past playing at least 3 levels higher.

A quality Conference player is an oxymoron. (Of course some of our players are also Oxy morons but that's something else entirely)

[Mally]

Just read this on another thread which re-inforces the point above:

received this from a watford supporting friend today ...

I`ve heard that James Clarke the 18 year old defender at Oxford Utd. has been watched by several Championship sides . Watford have watched him 3 times now

not surprised if he were to be picked up, but would be right up there with Elliot going to leicester for me as another nail in the coffin ....