I get it - there are always Marmite players. I remember Leaburn. I appreciated his weaknesses but we were always a better team with him in it, but I recall fans sprouting vitriol about his uselessness. There was a clear split amongst fans. It happens at all levels, I had players that I managed that I used to get parents in my ear telling me not to start them whereas they were the first players on my team sheet.
It is all about opinions I suppose. In terms of my players, I actually found it incredible others couldn't see what I could see. But they couldn't. Just a quick glance at the stats tells you that Sarr is 5th in our scoring charts and joint top in terms of assists. Incredibly you will have detractors saying, but he is there to defend! No he is there to contribute to the overall maximum effectiveness of the team!
Kishishev was another great example. Incredibly hard worker who broke up play and must have been horrible to play against, yet many only saw the mistakes (he made a couple of high profile ones that led to goals). qFor some the first name on the team sheet every week, for others a liability.
I wonder whether the Sarr-bashers are the same people, generations notwithstanding, that used to dislike Kish and Carlo?
Kish was a great player and a different level to the other 2 you mention. Never got the credit he deserved. A significant proportion of what a player does is off the ball and this is often where Kish excelled, probably better than any other midfielder I've ever seen for us. Carlo was a great attribute to the side but it could be frustrating at times when he missed his second chance of the game. Hard not to show frustration at times. Sarr is a different kettle of fish completely. Partly because he is a defender and consistency is an important aspect of a defender's game. When he's on song like Tuesday he is great but have been too many games where he switched off. He has been more consistent this season but I suspect he will continue to show the rough with the smooth.
I don't remember Leaburn missing loads of chances. In the Gritt n Curbs years we didn't create lots of clearcut chances for forwards until the first promotion season. I remember him always being the bustle that created space for Pardew to mainly hit it over the bar and score a few. I remember Pardew being very wasteful. Leaburn did often look awful on the rare 1 on 1s he got, but then so did every striker we had apart from Whyte before 97.
There is nothing to say you will rate all three as they are different players with different strengths and weaknesses but there may be individual aspects of their play that people identify as being important to the team and others may not see them.
That's your assumption though, they may well see them but don't find them as that important to the team in their opinion.
I don't remember Leaburn missing loads of chances. In the Gritt n Curbs years we didn't create lots of clearcut chances for forwards until the first promotion season. I remember him always being the bustle that created space for Pardew to mainly hit it over the bar and score a few. I remember Pardew being very wasteful. Leaburn did often look awful on the rare 1 on 1s he got, but then so did every striker we had apart from Whyte before 97.
Anyways I'm solidly pro Nabby, and pro Leaburn.
If Leaburn didn't miss loads of chances, it's because he didn't have the predatory instincts and movement to get into dangerous positions often enough, especially on the deck.
There is nothing to say you will rate all three as they are different players with different strengths and weaknesses but there may be individual aspects of their play that people identify as being important to the team and others may not see them.
That's your assumption though, they may well see them but don't find them as that important to the team in their opinion.
I do get what you say. Like being our joint top player for assists and 5th top goalscorer like these things aren't important. Another thing that is clearly not important to some is the way Sarr can play incisive balls from defence. Green's goal against Preston was a case in point. Not an assist but integral to the goal. Maybe it is not important that the team plays noticeably better when he is in the side. Some people prioritise other things maybe.
As I've indicated Sarr is in credit with me but he is first and foremost a defender and on his day not a bad one but he is prone to lapses in concentration e.g. Wembley and not dominating enough in the air at times e.g. against Millwall. As is their want, this is what his critics major in on and feel that he is an accident waiting to happen.
They’ll always be a natural premium attached to goals and wins. Most of us are not football experts and mentally mark on key moments rather than the 90 min performance.
Sarr scored 8.92.
If from that unexpected cross Taylor hadn’t been so alert, got his legs tangled etc and didn’t score, it ended 0-0, how much would Sarr’s average have been lowered?
If 1 min later Philips had not pulled off a top drawer save and Sarr had scored an own goal, how much would that have impacted his score?
On an unlucky day those two incidents could have been different and we lost 1-0. Sarr would probably be looking at a 5? average instead of 8.92 even though he had not done a single thing different himself in either scenario.
They’ll always be a natural premium attached to goals and wins. Most of us are not football experts and mentally mark on key moments rather than the 90 min performance.
Sarr scored 8.92.
If from that unexpected cross Taylor hadn’t been so alert, got his legs tangled etc and didn’t score, it ended 0-0, how much would Sarr’s average have been lowered?
If 1 min later Philips had not pulled off a top drawer save and Sarr had scored an own goal, how much would that have impacted his score?
On an unlucky day those two incidents could have been different and we lost 1-0. Sarr would probably be looking at a 5? average instead of 8.92 even though he had not done a single thing different himself in either scenario.
Great cross from Sarr, but as you say, what would the outcome have been if it had been Hemed or Davison on the end of it?
They’ll always be a natural premium attached to goals and wins. Most of us are not football experts and mentally mark on key moments rather than the 90 min performance.
Sarr scored 8.92.
If from that unexpected cross Taylor hadn’t been so alert, got his legs tangled etc and didn’t score, it ended 0-0, how much would Sarr’s average have been lowered?
If 1 min later Philips had not pulled off a top drawer save and Sarr had scored an own goal, how much would that have impacted his score?
On an unlucky day those two incidents could have been different and we lost 1-0. Sarr would probably be looking at a 5? average instead of 8.92 even though he had not done a single thing different himself in either scenario.
Great cross from Sarr, but as you say, what would the outcome have been if it had been Hemed or Davison on the end of it?
Sarr's mark wasn't just a reflection of his assist though. He defended monstrously well - tackles, interceptions, clearances, blocks - and apart from one errant pass to Oztumer early on his passing was absolutely on point - even his long balls were going straight to Taylor and Hemed. It was a pretty complete performance. And sure, if we'd lost to a Sarr own goal he'd have gotten a much lower mark obviously, but given that we were protecting a lead for most of the game, his performance in those circumstances has brought about the mark. It's impossible to say what would have happened in any game if one thing had been different early on. Basic causality yeah
Comments
Anyways I'm solidly pro Nabby, and pro Leaburn.
Sarr scored 8.92.
If from that unexpected cross Taylor hadn’t been so alert, got his legs tangled etc and didn’t score, it ended 0-0, how much would Sarr’s average have been lowered?
If 1 min later Philips had not pulled off a top drawer save and Sarr had scored an own goal, how much would that have impacted his score?
On an unlucky day those two incidents could have been different and we lost 1-0. Sarr would probably be looking at a 5? average instead of 8.92 even though he had not done a single thing different himself in either scenario.
But as for Andy Peake, don't start me!