Luxury Players......

RobTrent said:
Any goal will help us to win games. Its daft to just write them off.
Click to expand...
Some goals are more important than others Rob......Solanke"s goal on Friday helped us win the game ......Danjuma's goal against Watford and Stans goal against Stoke Won us games....those are the goals you want your strikers scoring.
 
Waz afcb said:
Hmmmm from what I can see Danjuma spends most of his time dropping deep into the left midfield position and drives at his opponent from deep, exactly the same role that Pugh played for us.... it just seems like an excuse you make for his lack of work off the ball tbh. And you think that he may have been asked to not put in a shift defensively? What manager would possibly tell a player that they don’t have to put in a defensive shift, especially at this level? I would say that is very unlikely and if it is true then Woodgate/Tindal are even more incompetent than first feared. I don’t see what the issue is tbh, we both agree that he is a very good footballer for the level we are at, there’s no denying that. Just making the very valid point that at this level it isn’t enough on its own. Hence why despite having one of the best squads in the league there is a very realistic possibility that we won’t even make the play offs.
Click to expand...
Lol that's incredible....no matter what system play the players play in exactly the same position iyo!......I don't know why you made such a fuss about changing the formation in that case.
 
Waz afcb said:
Hmmmm from what I can see Danjuma spends most of his time dropping deep into the left midfield position and drives at his opponent from deep, exactly the same role that Pugh played for us.... it just seems like an excuse you make for his lack of work off the ball tbh. And you think that he may have been asked to not put in a shift defensively? What manager would possibly tell a player that they don’t have to put in a defensive shift, especially at this level? I would say that is very unlikely and if it is true then Woodgate/Tindal are even more incompetent than first feared. I don’t see what the issue is tbh, we both agree that he is a very good footballer for the level we are at, there’s no denying that. Just making the very valid point that at this level it isn’t enough on its own. Hence why despite having one of the best squads in the league there is a very realistic possibility that we won’t even make the play offs.
Click to expand...

I agree. It comes back to tge sum of all parts soometimes being better than just having highly paid stars, relative to the level, producing more consistent team performances and therefore results over tge course of tge season.

The season we were promoted we had a mid table table at best team on paper compared to many other big spending/budget clubs.if you did an individual player for player comparison at the time, many of our team wouldn't have got into these other sides who had serious ambitions of promotion. I now expect a good % of our squad would be rated better on paper and in theory, on ability, displace most other sides players.

If the chemistry/desire isn't there for one reason or another, you will come unstuck over a 46 game season.

Problem is, we've undermined ourselves with cheap/poor management choices. So it's not clear how much of an issue it is with the players, or having under qualified leadership.
If you put me in the best f1 car, I'm unlikely to win the title despite having better tools than the competition.
 
Last edited:
Old Cherry said:
If...we don't go up in the play-offs..or don't make them even....what then will be the summary of this situation ? about this " best squad ever assembled" ..."best squad ever seen outside the PL" ...or any other naively constructed 'crap' from posters that see football 'on paper'...not grass !..and swung over by pundits, press and Money issues !
I really despair at the trains of thought gathered up by some fans since we went up in 2015.....
.Results and Tables tell the Stories.

Think seriously before ripping up JT and JWs short reigns if it goes further pear -shaped .
Click to expand...

So you don't think a good manager makes a difference? So we should have just stuck with groves/Brooks after all and saved ourselves tge compensation, higher wages with bringing howe back.

After all, apart from Ritchie/pitman we had the same squad of players that went from near relegation to promotion challengers within months.

If only they had tge foresight to delay the sacking for another game or two after the embarrassing demolition at swindon, they were on the verge of turning our fortunes around and leading us to promotion.
 
Last edited:
USCherry said:
Agree with this. I would add that you usually have to set up the team a certain way to accommodate them too.

Matt Le Tissier another example from a similar era
Click to expand...

Le tissier is a perfect example of luxury player. Hence why he didn't get much of a lookin at England. Too much compromise needed in how the rest of the team sets up to accommodate him.
 
MB1980 said:
Le tissier is a perfect example of luxury player. Hence why he didn't get much of a lookin at England. Too much compromise needed in how the rest of the team sets up to accommodate him.
Click to expand...

Late to the party on this one so this point might have already been raised...but when a team is built around one player and are heavily dependent on them for success that doesn’t sound like the definition of “luxury” to me that’s a necessity.

So for example, Defoe for Sunderland isn’t a luxury...Defoe for AFCB was.

Harry Wilson is a luxury player at the moment as he doesn’t offer enough to the whole team and doesn’t consistently come up with the goods to justify his place in a hard working side.

It’s all about balance though. You can afford a “luxury” player drifting around the pitch with no set position, or defensive duties, if others are more defensive minded and covering the ground to accommodate.
 
Kudos said:
Aren't you just describing playing someone out of position?

Playing Solanke in goal makes him a luxury player because you're accepting his shot stopping is a bit weak but play him up front and he's no longer a luxury because the role isn't about shot stopping.
Click to expand...
Not quite, he has played enough times as a centre mid and no-one suggests he is out of position. Arguably he's playing in that 10 position because he can't play where he would normally.

Imo, I'm trying to describe a luxury player is when you play them in their position but accept the trade off of being deficient in aspects of that position that the team need to cover, and you have other players who could play that position who don't have the same deficiency but lack the quality that means the luxury player is preferred.

It also depends what qualities you value so it is subjective. Possible for any position, take England goalie situationy, is Pickford a luxury selected based on ball at feet compared to Pope who's the solid better defensive keeper, or has the game moved on and selecting Pope would be a luxury because you generally can't afford goalies who are great with their feet that the team has to cover?
 
DJ said:
Late to the party on this one so this point might have already been raised...but when a team is built around one player and are heavily dependent on them for success that doesn’t sound like the definition of “luxury” to me that’s a necessity.

So for example, Defoe for Sunderland isn’t a luxury...Defoe for AFCB was.

Harry Wilson is a luxury player at the moment as he doesn’t offer enough to the whole team and doesn’t consistently come up with the goods to justify his place in a hard working side.

It’s all about balance though. You can afford a “luxury” player drifting around the pitch with no set position, or defensive duties, if others are more defensive minded and covering the ground to accommodate.
Click to expand...
Can a player not be both luxury and necessity.

For any player to be selected the manager most see them as a necessity to get best results, but luxury players exist, based an opinion that a luxury player gets away with not having to do something anyone else playing in that position would have to do.

Its a good point though that when a team adapts around a single luxury player, so that player performs consistently well, then perhaps they can stop being a luxury.

But can there ever be room for 2 luxury players in a team?
 
The only real definition of a " luxury " player is someone you bring on 10 minutes from the end of the match to give them some game time when you're 3 nil up. In any other cases all players are an important part of a team. Luxury players is an over used phrase.
 
I would class a luxury player as someone who requires more from their team mates than they give to the team.
These players often have moments of brilliance which justify selection but perhaps cause a strain to the teams efficiency overall.
 
The greatest player I have watched live is Ryan Giggs. Watching him live you see his movement - tracks back, closes down space then a minute later is overlapping the forwards. Unbelievable work rate. And yet still capable of the highest skills. Mason Mount may be moving towards that.
So to look at Danjuma and Stanislas, I don't see them being capable of the work to help out others that the top players have in their game. Maybe not Championship players? Solanke will make a run or track back, and that makes him a more important player.
As others have said Ritchie and Pugh worked tirelessly and that's what we need now.
 
Topfarrier said:
You see for me any player that constantly affects the outcome of games cannot be considered a Luxury....they are Essential players....we're going nowhere without the likes of Danjuma.....where would we be this season without him?....as I've said he's scored 5 winners ........and tbf we moan about our left backs whether it's Danjuma or Stan playing in front of them!
Click to expand...
Yeah... I totally get your point and I would play him every week btw for the reasons you suggest. Just a different definition in your head to mine as his lack of application to tracking back or getting behind his full back in defensive situations like Pugh did for Charlie makes him a luxury and us more likely to concede. He scores more than Pugh which is the flip side.
 
Neil Dawson said:
Yeah... I totally get your point and I would play him every week btw for the reasons you suggest. Just a different definition in your head to mine as his lack of application to tracking back or getting behind his full back in defensive situations like Pugh did for Charlie makes him a luxury and us more likely to concede. He scores more than Pugh which is the flip side.
Click to expand...
Again he's playing in a different position to Pugh though isn't he?.......what's the difference in playing 433 as opposed to us playing 451 ?....the front 3 are supposed to stay more advanced with 433 otherwise there is no difference between the systems.
 
Topfarrier said:
Lol that's incredible....no matter what system play the players play in exactly the same position iyo!......I don't know why you made such a fuss about changing the formation in that case.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Im saying that from what I have witnessed this season Danjuma has played in a similar position to what Pugh played for us. You can bleat on about systems all you like but Danjuma has operated as an out and out winger for the majority of this season. Brooks/Stan on the other side have taken up more of an inside forward role.
 
redskins said:
I would class a luxury player as someone who requires more from their team mates than they give to the team.
These players often have moments of brilliance which justify selection but perhaps cause a strain to the teams efficiency overall.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more.
 
Waz afcb said:
What are you talking about? Im saying that from what I have witnessed this season Danjuma has played in a similar position to what Pugh played for us. You can bleat on about systems all you like but Danjuma has operated as an out and out winger for the majority of this season. Brooks/Stan on the other side have taken up more of an inside forward role.
Click to expand...
Alright I'll ask you the same question I've just asked Neil.....what's the difference between playing 451 and 433?
 
Topfarrier said:
Again he's playing in a different position to Pugh though isn't he?.......what's the difference in playing 433 as opposed to us playing 451 ?....the front 3 are supposed to stay more advanced with 433 otherwise there is no difference between the systems.
Click to expand...
I’d say you don’t have to defend as much I agree but look at his heat map he was further forward than Solanke. Rico has zero cover but Stan helped Smithy occasionally
 
Neil Dawson said:
I’d say you don’t have to defend as much I agree but look at his heat map he was further forward than Solanke. Rico has zero cover but Stan helped Smithy occasionally
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see the amount of distance Danjuma covers during a game .....I don't think it would be much different to Stans.....it's about people's perception of what constitutes working hard ....continually making forward runs is just as tiring as tracking back.
I think we had a conversation about 433 or perhaps it was 343 can't remember...where you said that we should leave the 3 forwards up high as it limits the amount of damage their full backs can do....I agree with that ....it's why we never did well against ManCity as the likes of Sane pinned our full backs or wing backs to our own 18 yard box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;