Donatello

Yeah, my point is that *I* wasn't making a direct comparison by posting it (to further either of the ongoing arguments\persuasions).

It's a list of players and how they were utilised. You can draw comparisons\conclusions from it, or you can do nothing (I was just posting the information for the curious)

And I quote, "it's not a comparison".

Ta.

Since I had the data for last season (for when I compared to rest of league), I thought I'd knock up a table for Poch's season. It's not a comparison (on my part), merely the information presented neatly (if I do say so myself ). Pochettino 13/14 Season [table=width: 500", class: grid] [tr] [td]Player Name[/td] [td]Age[/td] [td]Mins[/td] [td]Appearances[/td] [td]Starts[/td] [td]Sub[/td] [td]Other[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Callum Chambers[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]1641[/td] [td]22[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]4[/td] [td]Debut season.[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Sam Gallagher[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]375[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]15[/td] [td]Debut season, 17 at season start.[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]James Ward Prowse[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]1617[/td] [td]34[/td] [td]16[/td] [td]18[/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Harrison Reed[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]12[/td] [td]4[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]4[/td] [td]Debut season.[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Luke Shaw[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]2990[/td] [td]35[/td] [td]30[/td] [td]5[/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [/table] [table=width: 500, class: grid] [tr] [td]Total Mins[/td] [td]Total Appearances[/td] [td]Total Starts[/td] [td]Total Sub[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]6635[/td] [td]113[/td] [td]67[/td] [td]46[/td] [/tr] [/table] Koeman 14/15 Season [table=width: 700, class: grid] [tr] [td]Player Name[/td] [td]Age[/td] [td]Mins[/td] [td]Featured[/td] [td]Starts[/td] [td]Sub[/td] [td]Other[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Sam Gallagher[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]0[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Dominic Gape[/td] [td]20[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]Debut season, 19 at season start.[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Jake Hesketh[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]52[/td] [td]2[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]Debut season.[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Lloyd Isgrove[/td] [td]21[/td] [td]9[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]Debut season.[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Jason McCarthy[/td] [td]19[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]Debut season, 18 at season start.[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]James Ward Prowse[/td] [td]19[/td] [td]1476[/td] [td]25[/td] [td]16[/td] [td]9[/td] [td]Suffered injury, missing 7-10 games.[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Harrison Reed[/td] [td]19[/td] [td]460[/td] [td]9[/td] [td]5[/td] [td]4[/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Ryan Seager[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]0[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]Debut season.[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Matt Targett[/td] [td]19[/td] [td]226[/td] [td]6[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]Debut season, 18 at season start.[/td] [/tr] [/table] [table=width: 500, class: grid] [tr] [td]Total Mins[/td] [td]Total Appearances[/td] [td]Total Starts[/td] [td]Total Sub[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]2228[/td] [td]46[/td] [td]25[/td] [td]21[/td] [/tr] [/table] P.S Please correct where/if wrong

Refer to my response to you (1st line), and not Batman. Other than that, fair enough

Because my initial point was about the principle of Wanyama's decision not to make himself available for selection, and *not* whether or not we needed him (although I've subsequently made my views on that known). I obviously understood the words, but not why you were countering an argument I wasn't making (at the time), i.e. the validity of Wanyama's decision is not dependent on whether we need him or not. Perhaps I should've said, "I don't see how that's applicable" (rather than 'I don't see your point'). All that being said, if you/anyone truly believes that we didn't need Wanyama, then I guess his withdrawal wouldn't catch such a scrutinous gaze (as it does mine), because you're of the position that it didn't affect the outcome whatsoever. Oh, and ffs

Merely that Wanyama negatively influenced team selection at a time when we needed him. I'm not suggesting that that mitigates Koeman's selection/tactics (nor am I under the delusion that we would've necessarily won if Wanyama was playing), i.e. I'm just critical of both. P.S Reference "needed", you and Batman think otherwise (which is fine of course), but I disagree. Romeu had just arrived, Clasie was injured, Davis is no CM, and many on here would argue that Prowse isn't either. Ergo, we needed Wanyama (imo).

You could apply that logic to *any* player. I'm not really sure what your point is (as per usual) - if one can be critical of Koeman's team selection/formation, one can be equally critical of Wanyama for ruling himself out of contention.

I trust you and WhiteyGrandad both feel the same way about Wanyama (if so, fair enough).

To add credence to this theory (as was discussed on the Van Dijk thread months back), Reed implied, and it's generally accepted, that the plan was always to buy a young RB in the summer, regardless of whether Clyne left or not. As it transpired, Clyne left, and the potential back-up RB became first choice. And to quote a post of my own, 'Martina was then absolutely signed as a stop-gap, because we weren't prepared (/other targets weren't feasible at the time) to rush through the process of adding another 'expensive' RB (Soares having been on the radar for a while)...hence the stop-gap Martina'. It's well documented that our recruitment process is considered/protracted, and as opposed to scattergun. You could argue that is was obvious that Clyne was off, and therefore two RBs were necessary from day 1, but there were clearly signs that Clyne may stay at one stage (if only to see out his contract).

I would second this. Wanyama is having a sub-par season, and he's had a couple of rank bad appearances within the last month. Given that the majority of his passes are short distance passes, his completion percentage needs to be near perfect, and it isn't. Someone in his position needs to be much more responsible with the ball than he has been (by some measure), it's just *so* crucial for that role. At any rate, I'd certainly welcome Romeu starting at home against Villa on Saturday - it might just wake Wanyama up.

Some posters would undoubtedly be guilty of this - you can probably guess who fairly easily. Devil's advocate, can such a tactic be justified if you lose the match you were resting players for? It certainly exposes you (Koeman) to criticism.

I was going to say we can't count City away because Cedric wasn't available for selection, but as it has transpired he was dropped :S At any rate, I don't think his being substituted is evident that Koeman doesn't trust him. That's just tactics/injury/etc. And I'm not going to take cup games into consideration, because most managers rotate where possible. League game wise, it's 11 starts vs 3 starts. If you extrapolate that over the season, Yoshida makes 7/8 starts. I think it's pretty clear Koeman prefers Cedric, he just values Yoshida's physicality(?) presumably. Oh, and he doesn't trust Mane to defend at when on flank (horse's mouth). P.S I personally think Cedric was benched for Sunderland away because Wanyama wasn't available (only height from Pelle, Fonte, and VVD without Yoshida).

Whether he's right or not is somewhat irrelevant. Abusive messages are nonsense regardless. But then you're plenty guilty of it yourself, so I wouldn't expect you to agree. P.S It's similarly laughable (in a light hearted sort of way) watching Turkish bang on about playing the post and not the poster when he spends a sizeable chunk of his posts following MLG around like a seagul after chips, but whatever Having said that, I guess if someone's being a hypocrite, it's fair enough to call them out on it.

How many times has Yoshida been selected ahead of Cedric exactly? (league, obv)

Regardless of how valid the point, let's not pretend it isn't knee-jerk, eh? (in the context of the game)

(I hope you're aware that was tongue in cheek)

They're not mutually exclusive.

His passing would suggest he wants to be at City.

Yoshida, while crap, has been hung out to dry by Mane (defensively).

It's quite clearly 4-1-4-1.

Works just fine

Just to make up numbers, Wollscheid volleyed Pelle. Penalty.

I completely understand your reasoning. And if I'm to be honest, I don't know what's best for them. Playing in the unders with potential first team teammates, in a system with a likeness to the first team's tactics, with better(?) coaching and medical treatment at your disposal, and being available to the first team (cup games, etc), versus regular competitive football (assuming you can organise suitable loans, I.e. not in the current Gallagher mould). It's not so straight forward to me, and (as above) I'm not sure what the best policy would be - a mixture both, presumably?