Vrancic

[westcoastcanary 173]

@canarydan23

The criticism is unfair and your attempt at justification is flawed. For a start your "evidence" is selective. You focus on just 10 of Vrancic''s 19 appearances (16 League (2 as sub), 3 League Cup), which means you completely ignore, for example, the Cup games against Brentford and Arsenal, in both of which Vrancic played in an advanced role and produced excellent performances. Secondly, you simply assume, without any attempt at justification, that Vrancic''s presence or absence is the determining factor of the contrasting results. You might just as well conclude, on the basis of your argument, that the discrepancy between our home and away results can be laid entirely at Vrancic''s door! 

Re. your dismissive view of the stats, the five players who currently have better overall performance stats than Vrancic are, in descending order, Maddison, Klose, Stiepermann, Trybull and Hoolahan. I would say those five deserve those ratings, and equally that the ratings correctly represent the overall level of performance of those players. What sort of special pleading is involved then in dismissing Vrancic''s rating generated by the very same system?

[king canary 7,580]

And yet in squawkas overall performance ratings, he''s our 11th best player.

It''s almost as if these things aren''t gospel.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]@canarydan23

The criticism is unfair and your attempt at justification is flawed. For a start your "evidence" is selective. You focus on just 10 of Vrancic''s 19 appearances (16 League (2 as sub), 3 League Cup), which means you completely ignore, for example, the Cup games against Brentford and Arsenal, in both of which Vrancic played in an advanced role and produced excellent performances. Secondly, you simply assume, without any attempt at justification, that Vrancic''s presence or absence is the determining factor of the contrasting results. You might just as well conclude, on the basis of your argument, that the discrepancy between our home and away results can be laid entirely at Vrancic''s door! 

Re. your dismissive view of the stats, the five players who currently have better overall performance stats than Vrancic are, in descending order, Maddison, Klose, Stiepermann, Trybull and Hoolahan. I would say those five deserve those ratings, and equally that the ratings correctly represent the overall level of performance of those players. What sort of special pleading is involved then in dismissing Vrancic''s rating generated by the very same system?

[/quote]You point out that "Vrancic played in an advanced role" suggesting that in that role he had a better game.Then offer up some meaning mumbo jumbo about ''stats'' which we have to assume do not (actually never) factor in this most basic of variables, the players role during a particular game.

[canarydan23 4,060]

" you completely ignore, for example, the Cup games against Brentford and Arsenal"

I''ve absolutely no issue with Farke playing Vrancic in whatever position he pleases in the League Cup.

It''s not how we''re playing in the League Cup that has depressed so many fans and caused so many to stay at home on Saturday.

And don''t assume an assumption. I don''t believe Vrancic''s presence in the team was the determining factor of the contrasting results but I do attest that it was at least one of the factors. As I''ve demonstrated, it happened too often to dismiss as a coincidence. Our goals and points per game when Vrancic starts compared to when he doesn''t is the most salient statistic. That he manages to complete 6,000 backwards or sideways passes without an interception is less relevant.

And I think a snapshot of data of consecutive league games dating back two months is plenty to make a measured judgement. You are welcome to dismiss it because it doesn''t give too much weight your argument that Vrancic is this effective attacking player and among our best performers, but don''t expect me to.

When in an advanced role, my opinion is that Vrancic has been shocking and among our worse performers. You''re more than welcome to call that criticism unfair or unjustified, I''ll just remain bewildered how anyone who has watched a chunk of his games arrives at such an opinion.

I don''t deny there have been mitigating factors; moving to a different country, adjusting to a new team and playing out of position as you have pointed out are all valid excuses. But they are excuses for him playing so poorly. If he wasn''t, why would have bought up these factors? No one will mention the difficulties Trybull or Stiepermann has had dealing with living and playing in a new country. Why? Because bar a few performances, they''ve been playing well.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

He wasn’t too bad on Saturday. However, he’s easily been our worst central midfielder (and was hopeless as a 10). A couple of half decent performances don’t suddenly make him a great player.

[GJP 79]

He''s quite clearly a good footballer. You can see that from the way he uses the ball.

But he has needed time to adapt to the league (which many haven''t allowed him) and he has been deployed in positions that don''t suit him best.

He was our best midfielder at Cardiff and he had another good game against SW so the signs are there that he can play at this level and has something to offer.

[king canary 7,580]

Yep, the signs are there. He''s been frustrating because you can see the talent- the pass for Jerome''s miss against Hull for instance was sublime. However he isn''t right in a more advanced position and I imagine he might have to drop out for some away games if we want more steel in the deeper positions.

[Guest]

Let''s not forget, Vrancic seems to look better when he has better players around him; often he tries to move the ball quickly but there''s nobody making a run. This changed drastically on Saturday with Pritchard, Maddison and Watkins on the pitch. In the second half we moved the ball with much more pace.

Definitely more suited to a deep lying playmaker role, given his lack of pace and passing ability. But seeing as we have had so few players available, at least he''s managed to keep himself fit and do a job as required.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="king canary"]Yep, the signs are there. He''s been frustrating because you can see the talent- the pass for Jerome''s miss against Hull for instance was sublime. However he isn''t right in a more advanced position and I imagine he might have to drop out for some away games if we want more steel in the deeper positions.[/quote] "He isn''t right in a more advanced position"? So what exactly was "not right" about his performances against Brentford and Arsenal, when he did play in an advanced position? If we are talking about the player''s ability to perform well in an advanced midfield role, these two matches demonstrated that he is perfectly capable of doing just that. 

[king canary 7,580]

The Brentford match was basically against their reserve team so I''m not reading too much into it. I''ve seen far more games where he hasn''t done well in that advanced role than the two you''ve highlighted.

[canarydan23 4,060]

I''ll agree he was good further up the field against Brentford and Arsenal.

The problem we have is that teams tend to be a bit more up for league fixtures than in a knockout competition that has it''s draw taking place at 3am in the morning and in the league we don''t come up against Brentford Reserves or Arsenal U23s

If we did, then he could even play at Number 10.

[Guest]

Can''t we just accept he is playing better than he did so should receive praise but remember a lot of the criticism was justified when he wasn''t playing well at all.

I don''t understand the idea that he was being singled out. The evidence was in the performance. Surely it is allowed to criticise, moan, belly ache whatever you call it for consistent poor performances?

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Can''t we just accept he is playing better than he did so should receive praise but remember a lot of the criticism was justified when he wasn''t playing well at all.

I don''t understand the idea that he was being singled out. The evidence was in the performance. Surely it is allowed to criticise, moan, belly ache whatever you call it for consistent poor performances?[/quote]As I pointed out earlier in the thread, there''s a difference between criticising a player''s performances in particular matches on the one hand, and writing him off altogether on the other. Even now he is still being written off by canarydan23 and king canary as an attacking midfielder. Getting them to admit he played well in that role against Brentford and Arsenal has been like trying to draw blood from a stone, and even then the admission is grudging "we were playing reserves and U23s and anyway it was only the Cup".  And he certainly has been singled out -- what is selectively listing games lost/won with Vrancic in/out of the side if not singling him out? Why can''t we just accept he''s a talented, versatile player still adjusting to playing for us in the Championship in probably the most demanding areas of the field?

[king canary 7,580]

So make your case for why he is a good attacking midfielder. And not just ''whoscored have him ranked...'' but actually what you see from him on the pitch and what he''s done in games.

I believe you can never truly write a player off as players change and develop but all we can do is say what we''ve seen- he just hasn''t been effective in an attacking midfield role outside of a couple of Cup games.

[Guest]

Why can''t we just accept he''s a talented, versatile player still adjusting to playing for us in the Championship in probably the most demanding areas of the field?

That would have to be a matter of opinion of course.

And just having talent doesn''t mean it is always utilised. It is performing well enough for at least 80% of the time.

That doesn''t mean to say if he is playing against better players that he won''t be outplayed but that shouldn''t go against him.