Appearances totals of key players in 23-24, why we missed out.

B

binghamered

Member
I see a lot of posters say we were not good enough this season. I am bored today so looked at the injuries and with more luck I am sure we would have made the play offs. To date we have played 51 games, Engel is our most used player with 41, very single player has not played in 10 games. Not sure what other teams injuries were, but I bet the top 6 didnt have 5-6 players missing almost every game.

I am sure that most of us agree that the following 8 players would be in most of our first choice 11 and this is the number of games they have not played in (league 43, league cup 7, fa cup 1) I guess a few were rested in league cup but only 2-3 games max to discount.

Howson - missed 12
Jones - missed 14
Van der Berg - missed 16
Latte - missed 18 (missed 1st 3 games as not signed by then)
Dieng - missed 19
Hackney - missed 24
McGree - missed 27
Forss - missed 28
Leinhan - missed 42

Clarke, Fry, McNair, Smith, Bangura and Coburn are also big squad players, all of them have missed more than 15 games through injury this season.

On average I would lose 2-3 players per game, not 6-7 players.

Hopefully we get some luck next year and with 2-3 additions we will be a top 6 side.
 
Capybara said:
And how many have Rogers and Crooks missed? That's not meant to be funny. It's two transfers that came right out of the blue that Carrick could hardly have planned for. I honestly think if we still had them we'd still be in with a chance of the playoffs.
Click to expand...
If they hadn't been in the same side at the start of the season we may have been in a play off position now
 
You could put another slant on those statistics :-

Greenwood played 37 ( missed 6 )
Silvera played 40 ( missed 3 )

and to some extent

Engel played 41 ( missed 2 )
 
I think the impact of the injuries are overstated, quite significantly. Yes, we were missing players but we generally have like for like replacements. We weren't missing superstars and replacing them with donkeys, we were missing Forss and replacing him with Jones or missing McGree and replacing him with Rogers or missing Hackney and replacing him with O'Brien or missing Lenihan and replacing him with Rav etc. The only time there has been a real issue is the lack of striker. The rest of them are misses but marginal misses. We had all those missing players at the start of the season when we didn't win a game. We were missing a lot of them when we went unbeaten etc. They probably would have increased our points per game marginally but we are currently 8 points off the playoffs and I don't think you can just expect that we'd have won because of them. We might have lost games we did win because Greenwood wouldn't have scored against Leicester if McGree had been fit or Silvera or Azaz in the other game agsint Leicester. Would we have beaten WBA if Lath had played upfront instead of Silvera? We didn't lose to Rotherham/QPR/Blackburn/Stoke/Plymouth/Bristol because we didn't have better players than them.
 
Nano said:
I think the impact of the injuries are overstated, quite significantly. Yes, we were missing players but we generally have like for like replacements. We weren't missing superstars and replacing them with donkeys, we were missing Forss and replacing him with Jones or missing McGree and replacing him with Rogers or missing Hackney and replacing him with O'Brien or missing Lenihan and replacing him with Rav etc. The only time there has been a real issue is the lack of striker. The rest of them are misses but marginal misses. We had all those missing players at the start of the season when we didn't win a game. We were missing a lot of them when we went unbeaten etc. They probably would have increased our points per game marginally but we are currently 8 points off the playoffs and I don't think you can just expect that we'd have won because of them. We might have lost games we did win because Greenwood wouldn't have scored against Leicester if McGree had been fit or Silvera or Azaz in the other game agsint Leicester. Would we have beaten WBA if Lath had played upfront instead of Silvera? We didn't lose to Rotherham/QPR/Blackburn/Stoke/Plymouth/Bristol because we didn't have better players than them.
Click to expand...
No, we haven't got like for like replacements. Same position sometimes, often not. Quality certainly not.
 
Nano said:
I think the impact of the injuries are overstated, quite significantly. Yes, we were missing players but we generally have like for like replacements. We weren't missing superstars and replacing them with donkeys, we were missing Forss and replacing him with Jones or missing McGree and replacing him with Rogers or missing Hackney and replacing him with O'Brien or missing Lenihan and replacing him with Rav etc. The only time there has been a real issue is the lack of striker. The rest of them are misses but marginal misses. We had all those missing players at the start of the season when we didn't win a game. We were missing a lot of them when we went unbeaten etc. They probably would have increased our points per game marginally but we are currently 8 points off the playoffs and I don't think you can just expect that we'd have won because of them. We might have lost games we did win because Greenwood wouldn't have scored against Leicester if McGree had been fit or Silvera or Azaz in the other game agsint Leicester. Would we have beaten WBA if Lath had played upfront instead of Silvera? We didn't lose to Rotherham/QPR/Blackburn/Stoke/Plymouth/Bristol because we didn't have better players than them.
Click to expand...
not sure. When you look at the season - at various points:-

We played Howson in Centre defence.

O'Brian at left back

Barlaser has played loads when he was really only expected to be a backup.

Greenwood up front - which really did not work.

Crooks up front - again a sign of how desperate we were.

VDB at right back. I like VDB, but he is not a right back.

Glover - who scares the life out of me any time the ball went near him.

Clarke was thrown into playing nearly every game, when he had not kicked a ball in 14 months.

The cobbled together sides often did quite well. But they were makeshift, and lacked depth. Look at who we had on the bench, often there was only Silvera on the bench who had more than a few minutes experience in the 1st team. Compare that with the bench that the teams above us had on occasion.
 
Sidmartin said:
You could put another slant on those statistics :-

Greenwood played 37 ( missed 6 )
Silvera played 40 ( missed 3 )

and to some extent

Engel played 41 ( missed 2 )
Click to expand...
Silvera was missing for the Asia cup too I think. Mad thing is he’s got 40 appearances but only 1611 minutes, so about 40 minutes per game.

Great OP, I’m sure there’s even more to go in to in terms of the stats.
 
Nano said:
I think the impact of the injuries are overstated, quite significantly. Yes, we were missing players but we generally have like for like replacements. We weren't missing superstars and replacing them with donkeys, we were missing Forss and replacing him with Jones or missing McGree and replacing him with Rogers or missing Hackney and replacing him with O'Brien or missing Lenihan and replacing him with Rav etc. The only time there has been a real issue is the lack of striker. The rest of them are misses but marginal misses. We had all those missing players at the start of the season when we didn't win a game. We were missing a lot of them when we went unbeaten etc. They probably would have increased our points per game marginally but we are currently 8 points off the playoffs and I don't think you can just expect that we'd have won because of them. We might have lost games we did win because Greenwood wouldn't have scored against Leicester if McGree had been fit or Silvera or Azaz in the other game agsint Leicester. Would we have beaten WBA if Lath had played upfront instead of Silvera? We didn't lose to Rotherham/QPR/Blackburn/Stoke/Plymouth/Bristol because we didn't have better players than them.
Click to expand...
I’d argue there is a quality difference in the players you’ve mentioned. Plus, it’s horses for courses - you get a totally different game playing jones to Forss or Mcgree to Rogers.

This sort of ignores the added value you get from being able to field the same and very similar elevens through the season. The two good runs we’ve had this season have been when we’ve been able to keep the same players on the pitch
 
binghamered said:
I see a lot of posters say we were not good enough this season. I am bored today so looked at the injuries and with more luck I am sure we would have made the play offs. To date we have played 51 games, Engel is our most used player with 41, very single player has not played in 10 games. Not sure what other teams injuries were, but I bet the top 6 didnt have 5-6 players missing almost every game.

I am sure that most of us agree that the following 8 players would be in most of our first choice 11 and this is the number of games they have not played in (league 43, league cup 7, fa cup 1) I guess a few were rested in league cup but only 2-3 games max to discount.

Howson - missed 12
Jones - missed 14
Van der Berg - missed 16
Latte - missed 18 (missed 1st 3 games as not signed by then)
Dieng - missed 19
Hackney - missed 24
McGree - missed 27
Forss - missed 28
Leinhan - missed 42

Clarke, Fry, McNair, Smith, Bangura and Coburn are also big squad players, all of them have missed more than 15 games through injury this season.

On average I would lose 2-3 players per game, not 6-7 players.

Hopefully we get some luck next year and with 2-3 additions we will be a top 6 side.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you should but you could also track when the players were out and how this overlapped with other players being unavailable. Add in players who come off injured during a match leading to a change of system/plan - Latte Lath vs Chelsea is one that comes to mind.

The upshot has been lots of cobbled together teams, often changing in one small way or another game to game.

I actually think we might see the benefit next season as a group of players ready to adapt to any circumstances at short notice. I think some of our key players being missing for so much of this season might cool any interest from others in them too.
 
Nano said:
I think the impact of the injuries are overstated, quite significantly. Yes, we were missing players but we generally have like for like replacements. We weren't missing superstars and replacing them with donkeys, we were missing Forss and replacing him with Jones or missing McGree and replacing him with Rogers or missing Hackney and replacing him with O'Brien or missing Lenihan and replacing him with Rav etc. The only time there has been a real issue is the lack of striker. The rest of them are misses but marginal misses. We had all those missing players at the start of the season when we didn't win a game. We were missing a lot of them when we went unbeaten etc. They probably would have increased our points per game marginally but we are currently 8 points off the playoffs and I don't think you can just expect that we'd have won because of them. We might have lost games we did win because Greenwood wouldn't have scored against Leicester if McGree had been fit or Silvera or Azaz in the other game agsint Leicester. Would we have beaten WBA if Lath had played upfront instead of Silvera? We didn't lose to Rotherham/QPR/Blackburn/Stoke/Plymouth/Bristol because we didn't have better players than them.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that the strength of the bench in severely depleted when you have as many injuries as we have had.

If your replacements have already replaced 1st team players in the starting line up then it doesn't leave options to change a game.
 
binghamered said:
I see a lot of posters say we were not good enough this season. I am bored today so looked at the injuries and with more luck I am sure we would have made the play offs. To date we have played 51 games, Engel is our most used player with 41, very single player has not played in 10 games. Not sure what other teams injuries were, but I bet the top 6 didnt have 5-6 players missing almost every game.

I am sure that most of us agree that the following 8 players would be in most of our first choice 11 and this is the number of games they have not played in (league 43, league cup 7, fa cup 1) I guess a few were rested in league cup but only 2-3 games max to discount.

Howson - missed 12
Jones - missed 14
Van der Berg - missed 16
Latte - missed 18 (missed 1st 3 games as not signed by then)
Dieng - missed 19
Hackney - missed 24
McGree - missed 27
Forss - missed 28
Leinhan - missed 42

Clarke, Fry, McNair, Smith, Bangura and Coburn are also big squad players, all of them have missed more than 15 games through injury this season.

On average I would lose 2-3 players per game, not 6-7 players.

Hopefully we get some luck next year and with 2-3 additions

we will be a top 6 side.
Click to expand...

Great post
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
You have to remember that the strength of the bench in severely depleted when you have as many injuries as we have had.

If your replacements have already replaced 1st team players in the starting line up then it doesn't leave options to change a game.
Click to expand...
Mark Robins even admitted it was a factor when we last played them. He was able to bring on quality fresh legs and we weren't.

Of course this thread doesn't quite fit the narrative of the glass half empty brigade. Recruitment was *****, Carrick is too stubborn, none of our players are good enough etc.
 
festa5 said:
Mark Robins even admitted it was a factor when we last played them. He was able to bring on quality fresh legs and we weren't.

Of course this thread doesn't quite fit the narrative of the glass half empty brigade. Recruitment was *****, Carrick is too stubborn, none of our players are good enough etc.
Click to expand...
There have been so many games where we've run out of puff/ideas and not been able to turn to the bench.

There have also been examples- like Millwall away - where we had a strong bench that got us the win.

Also, it's clear Carrick is a 'runs' type manager. We've been at our best under him when we've been able to build momentum. Injuries disrupt this massively.

We clearly need another forward and a proper ten, but the injuries have been ridiculous.
 
Interesting read, a few of our home defeats have stemmed from a lack of options to freshen things up, am thinking particularly of Coventry at New Year. Hull could also fall into that bracket. Sometimes we have been filling the bench with youngsters who are unlikely to feature let alone be game changers, that’s surely cost us. Only three or four points here and there and we could still be in the mix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top