Sheff Utd - Bias Buster - Numbers and Stuff

I would imagine that the new deal on the table that Fraser 'has not' signed, will have included a pay rise...

Indeed and he would have turned one down before the one on the table as well because we would have tried to avoid this scenario two years ago.

Reality is he’s cost himself a fortune whilst his agent chases a percentage of his signing on fee for a move elsewhere.
 
Looking at it from Ryan Fraser’s point of view, we hear certain players are on certain wages, if true or not.

Maybe Ryan thinks the gap between what he is getting and another player is too much.

Last season Ryan with his goals and assists was ‘valuable’ to our team and the partnership and understanding he had with Callum Wilson.
 
Quite frankly we’re just never the same team without Brooks. If we had him I’m almost certain we would have just played 4-4-2. Hopefully one of the new guys can fill that role by next week now they’ve had more time to fill in. God knows what we do about left back, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Smith over there and Stacy in at right back.

Edit: good post btw and thanks for the effort, it really highlights what most of us posted here.
 
I am not sure that Fraser is interested any more, given he was refused a pay rise by the Board and will now no doubt be leaving at the end of the season. I would presume he would be the one that gives way to Harry Wilson who has been promised the game time , or Danjuma once his mysterious foot injury clears up.
As for Rico, I couldn't believe he was even in the starting line-up given last season clearly showed he was not up to Premier standard.
Refused a pay rise, wtf, he has had a new contract sat on his coffee table for a year that gives him a big fat pay rise. All he has to do is sign it.
 
Refused a pay rise, wtf, he has had a new contract sat on his coffee table for a year that gives him a big fat pay rise. All he has to do is sign it.

I believe it’s actually been 2 years with what can only be various revisions. I expect he’s been offered the same terms as Wilson now as well.
 
I believe it’s actually been 2 years with what can only be various revisions. I expect he’s been offered the same terms as Wilson now as well.

The truth is nobody actually knows, is is all guessing and conjecture, unless you are the people dealing with it.
 
But if he isn't bothered any longer and has a poor season, then there's no way he'll be getting his dream move to a Top 6 team. I'm sure Eddie will get him motivated again.
 
Quite frankly we’re just never the same team without Brooks. If we had him I’m almost certain we would have just played 4-4-2. Hopefully one of the new guys can fill that role by next week now they’ve had more time to fill in. God knows what we do about left back, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Smith over there and Stacy in at right back.

Edit: good post btw and thanks for the effort, it really highlights what most of us posted here.

"Never the same team without Brooks" Except for all those seasons without Brooks, including our highest ever finish in 2016/17 and the recent 3-0 win over Lyon.

We already know how to play without him so why are we suddenly so reliant on him?

Injuries pick the team to an extent, but after that you need to select players based on merit (recent form) and chemistry as well as fitting into a system where they can competently play their role. IMO this is where we get things wrong.
 
Yes - Eddie’s selection for the SheffU game looks more and more odd. On merit Stacey, Kilkenny and even Ofobohr had a case for inclusion. Only Ramsdale and Billing got the pick and the rest looked stale and ineffectual. Will we see a different 11 at Villa?
 
The surprise to me is why our full backs struggle so much with the wing back role. On paper, our formation should have worked really well against how they set up. Sure we know the midfield lacks creativity and King, Fraser and Wilson had poor games - but that would still have been the case regardless of formation.

You’d think with us having attacking FB’s they would take to playing at WB with ease. It’s been proven anything but that. I can remember ages ago Warren Cummings saying he preferred FB as he could get further forward! At WB you are responsible for the entire flank and play too passive both going forward and defensively.

Interestingly the best success we’ve had with the 3-4-3 has been in victories over Arsenal and Chelsea. On both occasions we played Wee Man at wing back. Perhaps then, if you want the WB role to work, you are better off playing natural wingers rather than confused full backs.
 
Eddie saw us playing shite and for what ever reason decided not to change it. For a long time it looked like a 0-0 draw. Then we got a lucky break and so did they. I still don't think it was a foul by Billings leading up to their goal.
 
The surprise to me is why our full backs struggle so much with the wing back role. On paper, our formation should have worked really well against how they set up. Sure we know the midfield lacks creativity and King, Fraser and Wilson had poor games - but that would still have been the case regardless of formation.

You’d think with us having attacking FB’s they would take to playing at WB with ease. It’s been proven anything but that. I can remember ages ago Warren Cummings saying he preferred FB as he could get further forward! At WB you are responsible for the entire flank and play too passive both going forward and defensively.

Interestingly the best success we’ve had with the 3-4-3 has been in victories over Arsenal and Chelsea. On both occasions we played Wee Man at wing back. Perhaps then, if you want the WB role to work, you are better off playing natural wingers rather than confused full backs.

With Fraser and King stranding themselves upfront, our only wide options were Rico and Smith, who then have to remember to defend as well. Again, hate to dogpile on the front 3, but they really stunted the whole performance IMO. Like you say, it doesn't matter what the formation is if you're attackers aren't involved.
 
Other teams know the way we play and set up accordingly. We get drawn in to playing it down the wing so the whole game switches to that side.
We need to push it in the middle and open up play.
 
Rico played an absolute belter of a crossfield ball to Weeman second half, though...
He also managed to hoof the ball out of the stadium yet again....at least it was a shot this time rather than from a pass....oh and comceding a throw in from his own throw was something to see as well...:oops:
 
"Never the same team without Brooks" Except for all those seasons without Brooks, including our highest ever finish in 2016/17 and the recent 3-0 win over Lyon.

We already know how to play without him so why are we suddenly so reliant on him?

Injuries pick the team to an extent, but after that you need to select players based on merit (recent form) and chemistry as well as fitting into a system where they can competently play their role. IMO this is where we get things wrong.

Lyon were dreadful, that can't be understated. Last seasons dips in form mostly coincided with Brooks not being available. Think of any stand out game from last year and he's in the team. I completely agree we shouldn't be so reliant on him but I think we have been, especially with quick counters where we were so ruthless last year, as with his first touch which baits the opposition in to go for the ball then breezes past them in to space and we're off. I still don't know if that's on purpose or accidental, I can't tell.

I assume you're pointing towards Kilkenny with the merit suggestion, but the truth is he would have been out muscled all game considering our other front 3 were.
 
He also managed to hoof the ball out of the stadium yet again....at least it was a shot this time rather than from a pass....oh and comceding a throw in from his own throw was something to see as well...:oops:
I did spot that throw in but surely it's only possible to throw the ball in and it go back out again if the wind takes it? Has to be a foul throw otherwise, surely?

I still believe he's got the ability but he looks absolutely shot of confidence (don't know if that's just his resting bitch face?!)
 
Its the normal "if he had of played" we would of won, after a bad result.
We played shite and a draw was the right result.

No, it's if he had been available we would have been in a different formation. The biggest annoyance is it was plain as day it was not working but for some reason EH decided not to change it throughout the match. If he'd changed the formation and it still didn't work then I don't think people would have as many complaints.
 
No, it's if he had been available we would have been in a different formation. The biggest annoyance is it was plain as day it was not working but for some reason EH decided not to change it throughout the match. If he'd changed the formation and it still didn't work then I don't think people would have as many complaints.

Of course there would be complaints if he'd have changed it when we were winning and we ended up not winning.
 

;