Fox

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]We bought Fer and Redmond to create for RVW. I don''t know how to work out how many minutes they''ve played together but I''d find it more interesting than being told how many minutes Wes has played in order to make yet another futile attack on the manager.[/quote]Nothing like having a veiled dig at other posters is there NN...Both myself and CJF posted stats regarding Wes in response to claims that he was an ''important'' squad member, yet the massive lack of playing time seemed to indicate that for this season at least - he isn''t an ''important'' player under Hughton, whether or not you agree with this or find it interesting is neither here nor there.In answer to the question posed above though regarding league minutes here''s our entire midfield:Fer - 1682 minutesHowson - 1298 minutesRedmond - 1292 minutesJohnson - 1112Snoddy - 1084Pilks - 527Tettey - 447Wes - 418 minutesMurphy - 111 minutesBenno - 90 minutesFox - 0 minutesSurman - 0 minutesAs for minutes that Fer and Redmond have played together with RVW (I think these are correct):Fer and RVW - 575 minutesRedmond and RVW - 462 minutesFer, Redmond and RVW all together - 366 minutesI presume this isn''t any more interesting either, but at least you now know..

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Thank you. It is interesting because I didn''t think it was that many. It''s not good as the Wolf hasn''t managed a single goal while the three of them were on the pitch together. I will cling to the hope that it''s mainly because these games were early season before Fer had settled in. Hopefully in a few weeks we will begin to see some goals in return for the outlay last summer.

 

 

[morty 0]

http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/opinion_why_norwich_city_fans_must_not_fall_into_the_david_fox_trap_do_you_agree_1_3181438

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]I will cling to the hope that it''s mainly because these games were early season before Fer had settled in. Hopefully in a few weeks we will begin to see some goals in return for the outlay last summer.[/quote]Cling to it all you want, but many of us can see that it''s simply down to the way Hughton is setting out the team and way he''s asking them to play that''s causing the key issue in this area.As has been pointed out before - give a target man aerial balls and they''ll give you goals and assists, play it to feet and they''re far less effective (As Sutton found out at Chelsea where they refused to cross to him and played it to feet constantly instead), similarly if you insist on giving a goal poacher constant aerial balls, deep crosses or situations where he has to outmuscle the defender (not to mention a shortage of supply overall), he''s going to be far less effective than if you play balls through for him to run onto, or quick balls across the area for him to ''tap in''...

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="morty"]http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/opinion_why_norwich_city_fans_must_not_fall_into_the_david_fox_trap_do_you_agree_1_3181438[/quote]That article is sickening tbh.Quite how Lakey can miss the fact that Fox HAS already proven his ability for us at this level whereas the others had not is beyond me, not to mention completely writing the guy off despite one of our main issues being poor distribution to our strikers/wingers...Pathetic journalism (if you can call it that)...

[morty 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="morty"]http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/opinion_why_norwich_city_fans_must_not_fall_into_the_david_fox_trap_do_you_agree_1_3181438[/quote]That article is sickening tbh.Quite how Lakey can miss the fact that Fox HAS already proven his ability for us at this level whereas the others had not is beyond me, not to mention completely writing the guy off despite one of our main issues being poor distribution to our strikers/wingers...Pathetic journalism (if you can call it that)...[/quote]Sickening?Really? Just because you don''t agree?Get over yourself.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="nutty nigel"]I will cling to the hope that it''s mainly because these games were early season before Fer had settled in. Hopefully in a few weeks we will begin to see some goals in return for the outlay last summer.[/quote]Cling to it all you want, but many of us can see that it''s simply down to the way Hughton is setting out the team and way he''s asking them to play that''s causing the key issue in this area.As has been pointed out before - give a target man aerial balls and they''ll give you goals and assists, play it to feet and they''re far less effective (As Sutton found out at Chelsea where they refused to cross to him and played it to feet constantly instead), similarly if you insist on giving a goal poacher constant aerial balls, deep crosses or situations where he has to outmuscle the defender (not to mention a shortage of supply overall), he''s going to be far less effective than if you play balls through for him to run onto, or quick balls across the area for him to ''tap in''...[/quote]

 

So what percentage of RVW''s efforts on goal have been with his head and what with his feet?

 

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="morty"]Really? Just because you don''t agree?[/quote]No, because it''s one step away from trashing our own player (or writing him off as not good enough when he''s already proven he IS).It''s yet another article in the ''Trust Hughton" vein, which basically suggests that anyone who disagrees with the manager must be wrong, and therefore decisions like he''s made with players such as Fox, Becchio and even Hoolahan are perfectly merited and fully justified...Maybe sickening was a bit strong, but I really don''t like the way the article is put forward.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="morty"]http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/opinion_why_norwich_city_fans_must_not_fall_into_the_david_fox_trap_do_you_agree_1_3181438[/quote]That article is sickening tbh.Quite how Lakey can miss the fact that Fox HAS already proven his ability for us at this level whereas the others had not is beyond me, not to mention completely writing the guy off despite one of our main issues being poor distribution to our strikers/wingers...Pathetic journalism (if you can call it that)...[/quote]Sickening?Really? Just because you don''t agree?Get over yourself.[/quote]

Sickening is perhaps extreme but its overly simplistic although perhaps deliberately so in order to provoke a reaction.

Firstly it is correct to point out that Fox has played well for us at this level under Lambert. Secondly all City fans are not claiming he "is the answer" nor are those that i know clamouring for him to start on Saturday.

What most fans are saying, however, is that they have always believed that Fox is capable of making a valuable contribution at this level if given the chance, that he has inexplicably not been given a chance under Hughton despite Johnson''s early season loss of form and a recent run of injuries to other midfielders and that his performance on Saturday (albeit against a weakened Fulham side) illustrates why. Consequently most fans feel he has a role to play in our squad and in some games having his composure and ability to pass and retain possession could be very useful.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="morty"]Really? Just because you don''t agree?[/quote]No, because it''s one step away from trashing our own player (or writing him off as not good enough when he''s already proven he IS).It''s yet another article in the ''Trust Hughton" vein, which basically suggests that anyone who disagrees with the manager must be wrong, and therefore decisions like he''s made with players such as Fox, Becchio and even Hoolahan are perfectly merited and fully justified...Maybe sickening was a bit strong, but I really don''t like the way the article is put forward.[/quote]The manager makes the decisions, if he makes more right ones than wrong ones, he keeps his job.So, I''m guessing from your tone, you don''t trust Hughton? And thats the rub of this, you have immediately read that article with that in mind.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]So what percentage of RVW''s efforts on goal have been with his head and what with his feet?[/quote]Not the easiest stat data to get on short notice, but until his recent return from injury it appears to be around 50/50, but what was even more telling when I looked for the data was that he''d only been given SIX genuine chances to shoot, of which three were clear cut that he fluffed (can''t argue with the stats)...Quite how we expect any striker to perform particularly well with that dearth of service (equivalent to ONE chance per game!) I don''t know - headers or otherwise...

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="morty"]http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/opinion_why_norwich_city_fans_must_not_fall_into_the_david_fox_trap_do_you_agree_1_3181438[/quote]That article is sickening tbh.Quite how Lakey can miss the fact that Fox HAS already proven his ability for us at this level whereas the others had not is beyond me, not to mention completely writing the guy off despite one of our main issues being poor distribution to our strikers/wingers...Pathetic journalism (if you can call it that)...[/quote]

 

Was the article moreorless just lifted from the forum as I seem to have seen the ''trap'' argument on here quite a lot. Seems quite a lot of debate will occur on here and then soon enough an article appears with what seems to be our own points regurgitated...

[lharman7 39]

[quote user="morty"]http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/opinion_why_norwich_city_fans_must_not_fall_into_the_david_fox_trap_do_you_agree_1_3181438[/quote]

Absolute tosh journism! I noticed the writer failed to put his name to the piece. Whoever it was should be sacked.

If you read all the positive David Fox posts/comments on here the majority are not saying he''s our savior. They are merely stating Fox deserves a chance and maybe Hughton unfairly underrates him.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="morty"]So, I''m guessing from your tone, you don''t trust Hughton? And thats the rub of this, you have immediately read that article with that in mind.[/quote]That''s a very fair comment tbh.I DON''T agree with many of Hughton''s decisions (I thought his signings were excellent, but it''s how he''s trying to use them that I have a serious issue with), but even taking this into account, surely we could expect a more balanced article than that can''t we???

[morty 0]

[quote user="lharman7"][quote user="morty"]http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/opinion_why_norwich_city_fans_must_not_fall_into_the_david_fox_trap_do_you_agree_1_3181438[/quote]

Absolute tosh journism! I noticed the writer failed to put his name to the piece. Whoever it was should be sacked.

If you read all the positive David Fox posts/comments on here the majority are not saying he''s our savior. They are merely stating Fox deserves a chance and maybe Hughton unfairly underrates him.[/quote]He did put his name to it.

[lharman7 39]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="lharman7"][quote user="morty"]http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/opinion_why_norwich_city_fans_must_not_fall_into_the_david_fox_trap_do_you_agree_1_3181438[/quote]

Absolute tosh journism! I noticed the writer failed to put his name to the piece. Whoever it was should be sacked.

If you read all the positive David Fox posts/comments on here the majority are not saying he''s our savior. They are merely stating Fox deserves a chance and maybe Hughton unfairly underrates him.[/quote]He did put his name to it.[/quote]

It''s been updated since I last read it. When I did it didn''t have the fan write up either!

Lakey for the sack!!!

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Just to add to the Fox debate here are some stats regarding Fox for us at premiership level. All taken from the 2011-2012 season obviously.

Appearances: 28

Starts: 23

Sub appearances: 5

Season record: W12, D11, L15 (PPG 1.23)

Record when Fox appeared: W9, D9, L10 (PPG 1.29)

Record when Fox started: W7, D9, L7 (PPG 1.3)

Record when Fox did not appear: W3, D2, L5 (PPG 1.1)

Comments: I''m not suggesting this proves anything one way or another. There are of course all manner of variables that influence results, particularly in a team game. Nor indeed do past statistics indicate that a player will fit into a team as it evolves or suit the football under a different manager. However:

1. Contrary to what Lakey said he featured quite a lot that season and clearly did not let us down.

2. Our record when he started was noticeably better than when he did not. indeed when taken over a whole season the difference in the PPG ratios equates to 7.6 points. I can''t be bothered to do the same exercise for Wes but i suspect you will see a similar PPG improvement when he has started for us as well.

3. At the very least this does not suggest a player who is demonstrably out of his depth at prem level.

4. Of his 5 substitute appearances, 3 ended in defeat, 2 in wins. In the 3 defeats he came on after the 70th minute with us already losing (Man C, Villa and Stoke (a)). In the victories (QPR & WBA (a)) we were drawing and winning respectively when he came on. I can recall him having quite a favourable impact on the Villa, Stoke and QPR games after coming on but to provide the fairest analysis its probably best to ignore the sub appearances as all were for different periods of time and in some cases very short periods of time.

5. The 7 defeats when he started were against Man United x2, Arsenal (h), Spurs (h), Liverpool (h), Newcastle (a) and Fulham (a). The 7 wins were against Bolton x2, Swansea x2, Newcastle (h), Sunderland (h) and Wolves (h). I guess from this it could be equally concluded that Fox or indeed our team under Lambert was something of a "flat track bully" or conversely you could say that most of the defeats we suffered were defeats that you would expect in any event whereas we were good at beating teams of a similar stature to ourselves.

6. Maybe Lambert should be trying to buy David Fox rather than Wes!

[morty 0]

So, why isn''t Lambert trying to buy Fox........?

[can u sit down please 0]

He bought a very similar player in Ashley Westwood.

He was being tipped for and England call up last season.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="morty"]So, why isn''t Lambert trying to buy Fox........?[/quote]

You will have to ask him that Morty. Obviously stats don''t tell the whole story but its just interesting how sometimes players who you perhaps don;t notice so much individually have the effect of making the team perform better as a whole. i feel Fox is that type of player for us so i hope Hughton gives him a chance.

Mind you I also reckon that if you did the same analysis for Tettey you might see he has a similar effect.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"]So, why isn''t Lambert trying to buy Fox........?[/quote]

You will have to ask him that Morty. Obviously stats don''t tell the whole story but its just interesting how sometimes players who you perhaps don;t notice so much individually have the effect of making the team perform better as a whole. i feel Fox is that type of player for us so i hope Hughton gives him a chance.

Mind you I also reckon that if you did the same analysis for Tettey you might see he has a similar effect.[/quote]I think that, more often than not, stats can mean what you want them to mean.I prefer to stick to simple facts, and am happy to go along with the fact that Chris Hughton knows far more about David Fox than I do, and if he doesn''t play him, theres a good reason.Frankly a lot of peoples views on Fox are actually really based on what they think of Hughton. If we were in a happier position in the league, Fox''s name wouldn''t even be mentioned.

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"]So, why isn''t Lambert trying to buy Fox........?
[/quote] You will have to ask him that Morty. Obviously stats don''t tell the whole story but its just interesting how sometimes players who you perhaps don;t notice so much individually have the effect of making the team perform better as a whole. i feel Fox is that type of player for us so i hope Hughton gives him a chance. Mind you I also reckon that if you did the same analysis for Tettey you might see he has a similar effect.[/quote]

I think that, more often than not, stats can mean what you want them to mean.

I prefer to stick to simple facts, and am happy to go along with the fact that Chris Hughton knows far more about David Fox than I do, and if he doesn''t play him, theres a good reason.

Frankly a lot of peoples views on Fox are actually really based on what they think of Hughton. If we were in a happier position in the league, Fox''s name wouldn''t even be mentioned.
[/quote]

 

Not true Mr Morty imo.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Jimbo_Canary"]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="morty"]So, why isn''t Lambert trying to buy Fox........?[/quote] You will have to ask him that Morty. Obviously stats don''t tell the whole story but its just interesting how sometimes players who you perhaps don;t notice so much individually have the effect of making the team perform better as a whole. i feel Fox is that type of player for us so i hope Hughton gives him a chance. Mind you I also reckon that if you did the same analysis for Tettey you might see he has a similar effect.[/quote]I think that, more often than not, stats can mean what you want them to mean.I prefer to stick to simple facts, and am happy to go along with the fact that Chris Hughton knows far more about David Fox than I do, and if he doesn''t play him, theres a good reason.Frankly a lot of peoples views on Fox are actually really based on what they think of Hughton. If we were in a happier position in the league, Fox''s name wouldn''t even be mentioned.[/quote]

 

Not true Mr Morty imo.

[/quote]Yes true imo.

[can u sit down please 0]

Not mine. I''ve been far more objective about the fox issue than I am the CH one.

I''ve been saying the same things about fox since the lambert days.

As have many others.

So by saying that a manager is right because he knows the players better than we do, Roeder can''t be questioned as he knew hucks better than we did.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

I think Worthy knew Hucks better[;)]

 

 

[star_manic 0]

Those stats would be rubbish Jim, if the matches he played in were against the bottom teams, but brilliant if played against the top teams. So basically they are prety meaningless.

[morty 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]Not mine. I''ve been far more objective about the fox issue than I am the CH one.

I''ve been saying the same things about fox since the lambert days.

As have many others.

So by saying that a manager is right because he knows the players better than we do, Roeder can''t be questioned as he knew hucks better than we did.[/quote]Ooh, tricky stuff, well played[;)]Take away Huckerby''s fans favourite status and look at it objectively based on his age, and his hip injury, if it was your money, would you have offered him a contract?

[can u sit down please 0]

With the squad we had yes. He still played well in the states.

His last game v sheff wed, he was quality scoring a pearler.

[morty 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]With the squad we had yes. He still played well in the states.

His last game v sheff wed, he was quality scoring a pearler.[/quote]It would have been a gamble though, he could just as easily have broken down early in the season and not played again.(Please don''t think I''m sticking up for Roeder here lol)

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="ghosty"]http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/opinion_why_norwich_city_fans_must_not_fall_into_the_david_fox_trap_do_you_agree_1_3181438[/quote]What a rubbish article.  Lakey first sets up a straw man, and pulls it down.Straw man: "David Fox is the latest in a line of Norwich City players who are touted as the answer to all the team’s ills"Clearly noone is saying this, they are just saying they think the best passer at the club should perhaps have been given more of a chance than the 2 sub appearances in the league in 2 seasons.  Nobody thinks he is the ''answer to all the team''s ills''.  He is however a player who has been scandalously overlooked by the current manager and who could have added something different to the side if given the opportunity.  Especially given how disjointed we look going forward.