Didzy, JJ and Crowley

[BigFatPie]

At the start of the season we would probably have all agreed that for creativity and goals we were heavily reliant on 4 players, McGoldrick, Crowley, Jones and Jatta. Luckily Jatta has started the vast majority of games and results have fluctuated accordingly. Unfortunately the other 3 have spent long periods out either injured or sold. Ive crunched the numbers to see how their presence or otherwise has affected results. Started with how combinations of the 3 starting has affected how many points weve gained ;


Jones and Crowley 3 games @ 1.66 points per game

McGoldrick and Crowley 8 @ 1.75 ppg

Crowley, Jones and McGoldrick 3@2 ppg

Just McGoldrick 8 @ 2.125 ppg

Just Crowley. 4 @ 1.75 ppg

Just Jones 1 @ 3 ppg

None 8 @ 0.75 ppg

and then worked out how many games each has started and the points weve gained from those games.

McGoldrick. 19. @ 1.94 ppg
Crowley 18 @ 1.77 ppg
Jones. 10@ 2.1 ppg
None 8 @ 0.75 ppg

Won?t come as much of a surprise to see weve been much less successful when theyve been absent. And I mean relegation, bottom of the table less successful.

We could take these figures a few ways. How unfortunate weve been to have our best players out for so long. How dependent we are on them. How weve not managed at all without them. And how unsuccessful we?ve been at replacing them . Who?s to blame for that is a good question.

[the_anticlough]

It was a promotion winning quartet with the solid pros we had behind them

Alas, not to be - the formula failed with injury and Crowley's departure.

[matt_magpie]

I thought it would look something like this, you?re only as good as your players. I do think we have been a bit unlucky and also dropped a clanger not replacing Crowley with someone half decent.

[slack_pie]

I thought it would look something like this, you?re only as good as your players. I do think we have been a bit unlucky and also dropped a clanger not replacing Crowley with someone half decent.

Selling Crowley made financial sense, but it also made promotion much harder, especially with our other star players injured. The team we've fielded that last two games is nowhere good enough, but it's ultimately what happens when your best players are sold on out for long periods.

[SmiffyPie]

Selling Crowley made financial sense, but it also made promotion much harder, especially with our other star players injured. The team we've fielded that last two games is nowhere good enough, but it's ultimately what happens when your best players are sold on out for long periods.

Promotion has never been a target, if it occurred it would have been a fortunate by-product.

[PedroTheFisherman66]

Just seen this .thanks.i made a point on another thread about how have we performed with our best players in the team re Crowley, jj and Mcgoldrick. You've more than answered this .cheers ..!

[slack_pie]

Promotion has never been a target, if it occurred it would have been a fortunate by-product.

I think that's a bit facetious, but it certainly isn't the only priority like it is at some clubs. They want to get promoted but doing things their way, which means running the club sustainably and with a clear footballing philosophy that is relatively immune to personnel changes. But yeah, if they just wanted to go up ASAP and at all costs, we'd have kept Crowley.

We can't all be Wrexham's and blast our way through the leagues. Last time we tried to buy promotion at all costs, we got relegated and nearly went out of business. We're way better off now. But I agree - at some point, we may need to take promotion more seriously if we don't want to continue to fall short. As it stands, we have a coach with no experience of real success and a team of average L2 players and untested youngsters, plus a couple of injured stars. Not good enough, even in a poor league.

[BigFatPie]

Should add as well that the one game we won without any of them was that crappy near fiasco against Tranny the other week.

I dont want to say we travel with very little hope without them on Tuesday, but we travel with very little hope without them. Did alright against Fleetwood I suppose.

[maddogslater]

Excellent post fat pie, just as I expected.

[Pie-eyed&legless]

At the start of the season we would probably have all agreed that for creativity and goals we were heavily reliant on 4 players, McGoldrick, Crowley, Jones and Jatta. Luckily Jatta has started the vast majority of games and results have fluctuated accordingly. Unfortunately the other 3 have spent long periods out either injured or sold. Ive crunched the numbers to see how their presence or otherwise has affected results. Started with how combinations of the 3 starting has affected how many points weve gained ;


Jones and Crowley 3 games @ 1.66 points per game

McGoldrick and Crowley 8 @ 1.75 ppg

Crowley, Jones and McGoldrick 3@2 ppg

Just McGoldrick 8 @ 2.125 ppg

Just Crowley. 4 @ 1.75 ppg

Just Jones 1 @ 3 ppg

None 8 @ 0.75 ppg

and then worked out how many games each has started and the points weve gained from those games.

McGoldrick. 19. @ 1.94 ppg
Crowley 18 @ 1.77 ppg
Jones. 10@ 2.1 ppg
None 8 @ 0.75 ppg

Won?t come as much of a surprise to see weve been much less successful when theyve been absent. And I mean relegation, bottom of the table less successful.

We could take these figures a few ways. How unfortunate weve been to have our best players out for so long. How dependent we are on them. How weve not managed at all without them. And how unsuccessful we?ve been at replacing them . Who?s to blame for that is a good question.

I think that correlates with my theory that it's not only his goals we miss when MG is not on the pitch but his leadership and player motivation - he gets everyone else playing! - that leadership & motivation is sadly not provided by any other player on the pitch. We do need a Captain or someone else who can provide this.