Welcome back Snodgrass.......................

[Felixfan 53]

Snoddy is too good for the Championship.

[Feedthewolf 4,865]

OH MY GOD THEY ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT SNODWINKEL

[STFU 0]

[quote user="King Keano"]I think your forgetting that your paupers. You couldn''t afford the fee let alone his wages!

Massively deluded bunch you lot are...[/quote]

Ooh look, a thick as shyte binner has managed to save up enough of his dole money to bung a fiver in the leccy meter and fire up his PC to spout off some meaningless bollox about our financial situation. I mean, if only we were backed by a rich investor like Mucus Evans then maybe we too would be breaking our tecord transfer fee every season and making an assault on the promotion places every season.

Oh wait........

[hogesar 9,716]

Where''s PurpleCanary? I need him to write my response for me.

If you need some guidelines to work on purple:

1) RvW had no redeeming assets in his armoury that made him remotely worth the purchase and offered nothing to the team either defensively or offensively. He also had no pace, an average first touch, no ability to hold the ball up and post January no movement.

2) Snodgrass contributed goals and assists throughout the season and immediately found a Prem club after us. RvW struggled out on loan in two different teams and only now at a lower standard did he return anything near an acceptable goal tally.

[Yellow Wal 314]

I don''t want RvW back .............. but I sure as hell don''t want Snodgrass back either.

[Highland Canary 76]

We''ve disposed of our remaining PL level players over the last couple of windows, yet some wish to reject a player of Snodgrass''s quality coming the other way. You couldn''t make it up.

[wcorkcanary 4,336]

Yep, you could, and someone has. Unless the new  regime at CR has lost its marbles of course.

[Feedthewolf 4,865]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]We''ve disposed of our remaining PL level players over the last couple of windows, yet some wish to reject a player of Snodgrass''s quality coming the other way. You couldn''t make it up.[/quote]Do you not ever catch a glimpse of yourself in the mirror, and think "Why am I wasting so much of my all-too-brief existence by being a repetitive mong on an internet forum"?

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GznhT__PXs

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Not interested.Selfish player who is too slow, would cost too much in wages and who frankly hasn''t pulled up any trees at either Hull or West Ham for that matter.Much happier with Watkins than I ever would be with Snoddy returning.[/quote]

Pretty much this. He does not suit a team who like to play fast, attacking football. He''s too slow and ponderous, and was a large part of why we were so toothless under Hughton. He is a decent player, and technically very good, however he just isn''t quick, sharp or direct enough to play the way Farke/Webber want to.

[lharman7 39]

hogesar wrote the following post at 21/07/2017 4:12 AM:

Where''s PurpleCanary? I need him to write my response for me.

If you need some guidelines to work on purple:

1) RvW had no redeeming assets in his armoury that made him remotely worth the purchase and offered nothing to the team either defensively or offensively. He also had no pace, an average first touch, no ability to hold the ball up and post January no movement.

2) Snodgrass contributed goals and assists throughout the season and immediately found a Prem club after us. RvW struggled out on loan in two different teams and only now at a lower standard did he return anything near an acceptable goal tally.

Please re-read Indy Bones comments regarding RvW, Snodgrass and Hughton.

Indy Bones is bang on the money!

[AJ 1,224]

I can''t believe anyone in their right mind wouldn''t want him back. He''s a match-winner and a very good winger. Yes he has a few negatives, so do most players, but there''s no doubting his ability.

I highly doubt this will have any legs though, he''s got 3 years left on his deal at Wet Spam who paid 10m for him. I highly doubt he''ll be going anywhere.

[Van wink 2,994]

👍

[Yellow Wal 314]

There is absolutely no chance of him coming back here because if he is as good as so many posters on here believe there will be a queue of Premiership clubs waiting to sign him if he is leaving West Ham.

[lake district canary 4,541]

[quote user="AJ"]I can''t believe anyone in their right mind wouldn''t want him back. He''s a match-winner and a very good winger. Yes he has a few negatives, so do most players, but there''s no doubting his ability.[/quote]

It''s one thing to have ability, it''s another to know how to use that ability. That is why he has struggled at West Ham, that is why Hull did ok for a while then their goals dried up (familiar story) and that is why there he splits opinion.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

So Snodgrass is to blame for Hull''s woes too? Nothing to do with poor management by Phelan then, or a very poor squad of players around him then (Hull only had a few players at the start of 16/17 and filled the squad with loans and poor quality players)?

Nope, all Snodgrass'' fault.

[Mr Apples 1,325]

I never liked that beard of his either.Apples

[Indy_Bones 441]

Just going to put this here for reference:Pilks 11/12 - 1.2 accurate crosses per game, 2.4 inaccurate crosses = 33% success rateSnoddy 12/13 - 2.2 accurate crosses per game, 5.7 inaccurate crosses = 28% success rateSnoddy 13/14 - 2.1 accurate crosses per game, 7.1 inaccurate crosses = 23% success rateFirstly note how much more of the ball Snoddy received compared to Pilks.But the key point there is that Snoddy was a full 10% worse per game in terms of crossing than Pilks in that fateful relegation season, which in itself was a clear 5% drop from the season before, yet people keep saying that RvW was at fault despite the stats fully showing that far more of Snoddy''s deliveries went nowhere than somewhere, and he was in fact far worse than the often disregarded Pilkington who was twice the player Snoddy was IMHO (just those damn niggling injuries).How about at Hull you say?Snoddy 16/17 - 1.8 accurate crosses per game, 5 inaccurate crosses = 26% success rateWest Ham?Snoddy 16/17 - 1 accurate cross per game, 3.9 inaccurate crosses = 20% success rate (no wonder West Ham want shot!)What about possession loss?Well, in 11/12 Pilks had 1.2 unsuccessful touches and 0.9 dispossessions per gameSnoddy 13/14 - 1.7 unsuccessful touchers and 2.6 dispossessions per gameWhich again shows that not only did Snoddy have the ball more frequently, he misused it and lost it far more as well (and not in a linear correlation either).The fact is that Snoddy is a slow, selfish player, who whilst possessing good technique and relatively strong control, isn''t a great crosser, loses the ball too often, moans constantly, and now West Ham are desperate to move him on as their fans think he''s utterly cack.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Stats are irrelevant without context. Wingers are famously I consistent and to provide a fair assessment you would need to compare Snodgrass to similar players, both at Norwich past and present and similar clubs.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

12 Norwich goals in 67 league appearances for Snodgrass. One every 6 games. RvW one league goal in every 28 appearances. 3 or 4 million profit on sale of RS. A loss of at least 5 million on RvW.

[lharman7 39]

Thanks for those damning stats IB. What an interesting read and really paints a picture of Snodgrass.

Those types of players always used to frustrate me while I was playing. Shyte most of the time then all of a sudden they would pull off a worldy and the gormless would think "gee that lads a great player".

I suppose in Snodgrass'' case both his good attributes and his bad were being accentuated due to the amount of ball he was seeing.

I have no doubt in my mind that Hughton''s inadequacies at our club played a huge role in Snodgrass'' frustrations and behaviour on the pitch as it most certainly did with RvW.

[Clint 221]

Didn''t Hull''s season go downhill when Snoddy got injured in the autumn for a bit?

Also, just to put some context on it, we''re in the championship now not the premier league, some of you seem to have forgotten this.

[lharman7 39]

Hoola Han Solo wrote the following post at 21/07/2017 5:56 PM:

Stats are irrelevant without context. Wingers are famously I consistent and to provide a fair assessment you would need to compare Snodgrass to similar players, both at Norwich past and present and similar clubs.

Stats don''t lie and are definitely relevant. Sports science and analysis use stats for research and training purposes.

I would put money on the likes of Ruel Fox or Darren Eadie to better Snodgrass stats any day of the week.

[king canary 7,652]

If you''re trying to use stats to prove an argument like this you''ll struggle.

Inaccurate crosses could have been accurate if only RvW was in a better position, or made more effort to get on the end of it, or made a better run etc etc.

Also worth noting that Snodgrass apparently created more chances than anyone that season by quite a distance.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="king canary"]If you''re trying to use stats to prove an argument like this you''ll struggle.

Inaccurate crosses could have been accurate if only RvW was in a better position, or made more effort to get on the end of it, or made a better run etc etc. [/quote]So now it''s the striker''s fault if the cross goes nowhere near them!It''s the job of the striker to move into suitable positions and make good runs, it the job of the one putting the cross in to understand this movement and cross accordingly.As already stated earlier in the thread, as a winger you wouldn''t cross in high, floated balls if you''re aiming for a Zola or Owen type player as they have little to no chance of either out-jumping the defender or out-muscling them, so you have to cross accordingly, and whilst there may indeed be a few occasions where the striker doesn''t make a good run etc, it''s then up to the winger to adapt rather than just sling the ball in anyway and lose possession for absolutely no point.[quote]Also worth noting that Snodgrass apparently created more chances than anyone that season by quite a distance.[/quote]Yet despite this he only finished the season with 2 assists...Are you saying that ALL of our strikers were making bad runs or in bad positions then???In comparison, Redmond only made 1 key pass per game compared to Snoddy''s apparent 2.2, yet got 3 assists, and with less time on the pitch as well!Also worth nothing that Snoddy took nearly twice as many shots as anyone else, which isn''t indicative of a player looking to bring his teammates into the game, but a player hogging the ball and taking wild shots.

[king canary 7,652]

On your first point - this is why stats need context. You''ve posted a stat of inaccurate crosses- what does this actually mean? Does it mean crosses that don''t go near a teammate, or crosses that don''t find a teammate ? Big difference.

Your second point is actually an argument against RvW. If Snodgrass was creating chances but not getting assists, that surely points to the people on the end of the chances not doing their job?

[lake district canary 4,541]

[quote user="king canary"]On your first point - this is why stats need context. You''ve posted a stat of inaccurate crosses- what does this actually mean? Does it mean crosses that don''t go near a teammate, or crosses that don''t find a teammate ? Big difference.

Your second point is actually an argument against RvW. If Snodgrass was creating chances but not getting assists, that surely points to the people on the end of the chances not doing their job?[/quote]Depends on the quality of chances.  A lob of a cross into a packed defence (because of the delay in sending it in allowing everyone to get back) and a player managing to get a head to it does not constitute a good chance. It constitutes a park football type chance - amateurish and weak.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Stats are irrelevant without context. Wingers are famously I consistent and to provide a fair assessment you would need to compare Snodgrass to similar players, both at Norwich past and present and similar clubs.[/quote]Let''s see what I can do.13/14 season (PL games ONLY) cross accuracy:Naismith - 50% (even I find this hilarious)Nasri - 37%Mata - 36%Willian - 34%Mirallas - 32%C.Adam - 30%Larsson - 29%Downing - 28%Brunt - 28%Whittingham - 27%Lennon - 26%A.Johnson - 26%Redmond - 25%Kakaniclic - 25%Snoddy - 24%Lallana - 23%Jarvis - 21%As for the other Norwich players that season:Johnson - 38%Olsson - 21%Whittaker - 21%Howson - 20%Elmander - 20%Martin - 19%So Snoddy was the 3rd best crosser in the team behind Redmond and Johnson (shame his overall passing often wasn''t as good as his crossing!), yet was given far more of the ball than either of them, but compared to his contemporaries in the league he wasn''t even as good as Kacaniklic or Whittingham FFS!Is that a bit more context for you?

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Worth noting that the majority of posters on this thread lambasting Snodgrass but defending RvW are the ones that don''t go to matches and just watch an illegal stream instead. You get a lot more viewpoints when you''re actually at the match.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Yet he did have a bettter cross accuracy than Llalana, an England international who is one of the best midfielders in the league when he''s on it. #context