Next Up - Freeman's Replacement

[Worthy4England]

This is incorrect. When Sturridge arrived, we'd won 1 in 7. We were near the bottom. Of his first 5 games, we won 3.

No, it's not. Our overall performance went down after Sturridge signed. 31 Jan we had 30 points from 24 games (day he signed) - 1.25 PPG, we were in 10th place. We ended the season on 46 points from 38 games - 1.21 PPG in 14th place.

We had won one in 7 before he arrived - we lost 5 - those being Chelsea (home and away), Liverpool, Stoke, Sunderland (all away) - all above us in the League (at 31/1/11) so some tricky games there.

We'd been spanked 4-0 by Chelsea
Lost 2-0 to Stoke away
Drawn V Wigan
Lost 2-1 to Liverpool away
Lost 1-0 to Chelsea away
Beaten West Brom
Lost 1-0 to Sunderland away

His first 5 games included home wins against Wolves, Villa and Everton all of whom were below us in the league (on the day he signed) - Result!

Nice dress up and spin But I have to say that I disagree with your conclusions. We were in dire form when he arrived, and I remember clearly being concerned about a relegation fight. We had a purple patch of form in November but that was a distant memory. Sturridge gave us impetus, new life. And I think, rather than folk blaming Sturridge for Elmander's loss of form and being moved into midfield, why not look at the unmovable Kevin Davies? At least Sturridge banged in the goals. He gave us something we needed at a certain time.

Is that Mr Pot I hear calling? I believe you happened to choose to go back 7 games which I think was our worst run that season other than the last 7 games (which Sturridge played in, where we got 6 points)...

You might have been worried about a relegation fight - the reality is were 9 points from safety when he arrived with 14 games left - we didn't know that at the time of course, but most lower table teams if you offered them 14 games with 9 points to get, would probably take that. I'd take that right now. Had we performed in the last 14 games the same as the 24, we'd have finished 10th.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed seeing Sturridge play. But he did upset the balance of the team and certainly didn't sit well with Elmander that he was moved into a wide MF role.

We were never going to sign him permanently, so what was the point of upsetting players that were ours, to perform in the second half of the season, worse than we had done in the first half?

[thebish]

Is that Mr Pot I hear calling?

no - I think it's clear it's mr Jug!

[TANGODANCER]

In fairness Davies and Sturridge clicked.. Studge can owe a lot to SKD being a magnet to defenders and creating the space for him

Quite so, and a striker of Anelka's class freely admitted he enjoyed playing alongside K.D. Far too often Kev was left up front and still expected to get on the end of the inevitable hoof balls eight feet off the ground with no support in sight.

[Jugs]

This is incorrect. When Sturridge arrived, we'd won 1 in 7. We were near the bottom. Of his first 5 games, we won 3.

No, it's not. Our overall performance went down after Sturridge signed. 31 Jan we had 30 points from 24 games (day he signed) - 1.25 PPG, we were in 10th place. We ended the season on 46 points from 38 games - 1.21 PPG in 14th place.

We had won one in 7 before he arrived - we lost 5 - those being Chelsea (home and away), Liverpool, Stoke, Sunderland (all away) - all above us in the League (at 31/1/11) so some tricky games there.

We'd been spanked 4-0 by Chelsea
Lost 2-0 to Stoke away
Drawn V Wigan
Lost 2-1 to Liverpool away
Lost 1-0 to Chelsea away
Beaten West Brom
Lost 1-0 to Sunderland away

His first 5 games included home wins against Wolves, Villa and Everton all of whom were below us in the league (on the day he signed) - Result!

Nice dress up and spin But I have to say that I disagree with your conclusions. We were in dire form when he arrived, and I remember clearly being concerned about a relegation fight. We had a purple patch of form in November but that was a distant memory. Sturridge gave us impetus, new life. And I think, rather than folk blaming Sturridge for Elmander's loss of form and being moved into midfield, why not look at the unmovable Kevin Davies? At least Sturridge banged in the goals. He gave us something we needed at a certain time.

Is that Mr Pot I hear calling? I believe you happened to choose to go back 7 games which I think was our worst run that season other than the last 7 games (which Sturridge played in, where we got 6 points)...

You might have been worried about a relegation fight - the reality is were 9 points from safety when he arrived with 14 games left - we didn't know that at the time of course, but most lower table teams if you offered them 14 games with 9 points to get, would probably take that. I'd take that right now. Had we performed in the last 14 games the same as the 24, we'd have finished 10th.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed seeing Sturridge play. But he did upset the balance of the team and certainly didn't sit well with Elmander that he was moved into a wide MF role.

We were never going to sign him permanently, so what was the point of upsetting players that were ours, to perform in the second half of the season, worse than we had done in the first half?

Seems perfectly reasonable to go back to the 7 games preceding Sturridge's arrival. The bad form was the reason we got him in, after all. He proved to be a fillip, who can deny that? Regardless of the opposition, we went on to win 3 out of our next 5 games. Moreover, he scored a 92nd minute winner on his debut against Wolves. Had he not done that, we'd have only been 7 points above the relegation zone and still dry up front. We retained the 9 point cushion you mention because of Sturridge. And if you remember his goal, where he latched onto a back pass, nobody else in our team would have had the pace to have done that. That goal was something of a turning point. He scored 8 goals in 12 games. I'm genuinely surprised that Bolton fans continue to have some criticisms of him. Both the goals he scored against West Ham were the kind of goals nobody else in our team at that time would have scored. They were classy individual goals that got us points. Elmander fired a few in earlier in the season, but they'd dried up long before Sturridge came.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Seems perfectly reasonable to go back to the 7 games preceding Sturridge's arrival. The bad form was the reason we got him in, after all. He proved to be a fillip, who can deny that? Regardless of the opposition, we went on to win 3 out of our next 5 games.

I think Worthy's point about selective criteria may be somewhat proven by the fact you've chosen 7 games before Studger's arrival and 5 games after, Jugs, whereas W4E has compared all the season's results.

Although I do suspect that Worthy may regret the word "remarkably" when our ppg only dropped from 1.25 to 1.21

[Jugs]

But the point, surely, is that we were in a bit of a situation when Sturridge arrived, as shown by the barren run. I could go back further and highlight the fact we'd scored 6 goals in 10 league games, or that we'd won 2 in 12. These stats are the reason we got him on loan. My point, simply, is that surely anyone can see that there was an upturn in our fortunes after he arrived, and so rather than aiming a few pointed criticisms at him, we should be grateful for what he gave us.

And if we are to look at the season as a whole, then it's clear that we started well, drifted terribly, got it back together (at the same time Sturridge arrived) and then fell apart after the Stoke 5-0, a game from which many believe we've never recovered. And that was nothing to do with Sturridge.

[Worthy4England]

Seems perfectly reasonable to go back to the 7 games preceding Sturridge's arrival. The bad form was the reason we got him in, after all. He proved to be a fillip, who can deny that? Regardless of the opposition, we went on to win 3 out of our next 5 games. Moreover, he scored a 92nd minute winner on his debut against Wolves. Had he not done that, we'd have only been 7 points above the relegation zone and still dry up front. We retained the 9 point cushion you mention because of Sturridge. And if you remember his goal, where he latched onto a back pass, nobody else in our team would have had the pace to have done that. That goal was something of a turning point. He scored 8 goals in 12 games. I'm genuinely surprised that Bolton fans continue to have some criticisms of him. Both the goals he scored against West Ham were the kind of goals nobody else in our team at that time would have scored. They were classy individual goals that got us points. Elmander fired a few in earlier in the season, but they'd dried up long before Sturridge came.

Now you're spinning like a top on acid.

I have no criticisms of Sturridge, he's a great player - lets call him "player X". Player X when he came meant that we changed our shape and the way we played, I don't think this helped us long or short term. It certainly didn't help Elmander. Sturridge is a far better striker than Elmander.

But why just pick 7 games, other than they happen to support a point you're trying to make?

We can't be "regardless" of the opposition - it's easier to score against a team nearer the bottom than one near the top - generally that's why they're nearer the bottom.

There's no saying whether Elmander would or would not have found his shooting boots again, given his past record with us, his goals could've dried up - we'll never know, it's not untypical for a Bolton player to go 7 games without scoring.

Everyone in a Bolton Shirt must've scored against West Ham. I don't care what kind of goals they are, they all count as one goal. If we'd been allowed to pass to someone else instead of Sturridge, maybe someone else would have scored.

"Elmander fired a few in, earlier in the season" - there's about 2(?) players that have got more than 10 in a Premiership season for Bolton - Davo with 12, Anelka with 11, I might have missed someone but not sure who - so 10 for a Bolton Player is better than "a few".

[Jugs]

Seems perfectly reasonable to go back to the 7 games preceding Sturridge's arrival. The bad form was the reason we got him in, after all. He proved to be a fillip, who can deny that? Regardless of the opposition, we went on to win 3 out of our next 5 games. Moreover, he scored a 92nd minute winner on his debut against Wolves. Had he not done that, we'd have only been 7 points above the relegation zone and still dry up front. We retained the 9 point cushion you mention because of Sturridge. And if you remember his goal, where he latched onto a back pass, nobody else in our team would have had the pace to have done that. That goal was something of a turning point. He scored 8 goals in 12 games. I'm genuinely surprised that Bolton fans continue to have some criticisms of him. Both the goals he scored against West Ham were the kind of goals nobody else in our team at that time would have scored. They were classy individual goals that got us points. Elmander fired a few in earlier in the season, but they'd dried up long before Sturridge came.

Now you're spinning like a top on acid.

I have no criticisms of Sturridge, he's a great player - lets call him "player X". Player X when he came meant that we changed our shape and the way we played, I don't think this helped us long or short term. It certainly didn't help Elmander. Sturridge is a far better striker than Elmander.

But why just pick 7 games, other than they happen to support a point you're trying to make?

We can't be "regardless" of the opposition - it's easier to score against a team nearer the bottom than one near the top - generally that's why they're nearer the bottom.

There's no saying whether Elmander would or would not have found his shooting boots again, given his past record with us, his goals could've dried up - we'll never know, it's not untypical for a Bolton player to go 7 games without scoring.

Everyone in a Bolton Shirt must've scored against West Ham. I don't care what kind of goals they are, they all count as one goal. If we'd been allowed to pass to someone else instead of Sturridge, maybe someone else would have scored.

"Elmander fired a few in, earlier in the season" - there's about 2(?) players that have got more than 10 in a Premiership season for Bolton - Davo with 12, Anelka with 11, I might have missed someone but not sure who - so 10 for a Bolton Player is better than "a few".

Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think he helped us short-term. Long term is something else altogether, but I think Coyle was the biggest problem there. We lost Sturridge and Elmander and brought in Ngog.

It's easier to score against a team near the bottom. Okay, fair, Wolves were near the bottom. But it was 0-0 until the 92nd minute, we were toiling and getting no where, until Sturridge, a sub, came on and scored a winner. That, IMO, was a turning point in our season.

[Worthy4England]

Seems perfectly reasonable to go back to the 7 games preceding Sturridge's arrival. The bad form was the reason we got him in, after all. He proved to be a fillip, who can deny that? Regardless of the opposition, we went on to win 3 out of our next 5 games.

I think Worthy's point about selective criteria may be somewhat proven by the fact you've chosen 7 games before Studger's arrival and 5 games after, Jugs, whereas W4E has compared all the season's results.

Although I do suspect that Worthy may regret the word "remarkably" when our ppg only dropped from 1.25 to 1.21

Fair point, well made.

We got 16 points from our final 14 games - which is actually 1.14 PPG. Baaaad maths..

[Jugs]

Seems perfectly reasonable to go back to the 7 games preceding Sturridge's arrival. The bad form was the reason we got him in, after all. He proved to be a fillip, who can deny that? Regardless of the opposition, we went on to win 3 out of our next 5 games.

I think Worthy's point about selective criteria may be somewhat proven by the fact you've chosen 7 games before Studger's arrival and 5 games after, Jugs, whereas W4E has compared all the season's results.

Although I do suspect that Worthy may regret the word "remarkably" when our ppg only dropped from 1.25 to 1.21

Fair point, well made.

We got 16 points from our final 14 games - which is actually 1.14 PPG. Baaaad maths..

Meh, it includes the 5 straight defeats after the Stoke game. Nothing to do with Sturridge

[Worthy4England]

He played in all of them - now you're clutching at straws.

[Jugs]

He may well have, but he was playing with a bunch of lads scarred from that 5-0 hammering, some of whom still haven't recovered. That cup team was a mess. Plus Holden had just got injured, and that was a big loss.

[Worthy4England]

He may well have, but he was playing with a bunch of lads scarred from that 5-0 hammering, some of whom still haven't recovered. That cup team was a mess. Plus Holden had just got injured, and that was a big loss.

Why not just narrow it down to games we won, that he scored in. That looks like a representative sample. Yay - 3 PPG.

[Jugs]

Well, look. You said that our 'overall form and win rate dipped remarkably once he came into the team' and I showed that, conversely, our dire form improved 'once' he came into the team, at least for a few games. But that's what form is, isn't it? A number of games. Towards the end of the season, our form dropped again. But for a few games, Sturridge was the difference, and a major reason why we accumulated a certain number of points. We needed a lift, and we got it. if you want to believe that 3 wins out of his first 5 games is a 'remarkable dip in form' once he came into the team, in contrast to the previous 2 wins in 12, that's your choice and the choice of others, I guess.

I admit we petered off towards the end. It was a season where we started well, with Elmander in terrific form, had a bad patch with both strikers in bad form, picked up with Sturridge in form, and then fell apart with no one in form. To say we could have done just as well without Sturridge than with him is, I guess, your opinion. But 8 goals from 12 games and that match winner against Wolves which, IMO, sparked a bit of a turning point, suggests otherwise to me.

[TANGODANCER]

He may well have, but he was playing with a bunch of lads scarred from that 5-0 hammering, some of whom still haven't recovered. That cup team was a mess. Plus Holden had just got injured, and that was a big loss.

Are any of them still here?

[thebish]

He may well have, but he was playing with a bunch of lads scarred from that 5-0 hammering, some of whom still haven't recovered. That cup team was a mess. Plus Holden had just got injured, and that was a big loss.

Are any of them still here?

from the squad that day... Boggers, Lee, Wheater, Mavies

[Worthy4England]

Well, look. You said that our 'overall form and win rate dipped remarkably once he came into the team' and I showed that, conversely, our dire form improved 'once' he came into the team, at least for a few games. But that's what form is, isn't it? A number of games. Towards the end of the season, our form dropped again. But for a few games, Sturridge was the difference, and a major reason why we accumulated a certain number of points. We needed a lift, and we got it. if you want to believe that 3 wins out of his first 5 games is a 'remarkable dip in form' once he came into the team, in contrast to the previous 2 wins in 12, that's your choice and the choice of others, I guess.

I admit we petered off towards the end. It was a season where we started well, with Elmander in terrific form, had a bad patch with both strikers in bad form, picked up with Sturridge in form, and then fell apart with no one in form. To say we could have done just as well without Sturridge than with him is, I guess, your opinion. But 8 goals from 12 games and that match winner against Wolves which, IMO, sparked a bit of a turning point, suggests otherwise to me.

Overall we got less points each game, with Sturridge than without him that season. That's what I believe and it happens to be supported by the facts.

You can perm any number of games within that, to prove your notion, but it still stands scrutiny over the course of the season.

[EverSoYouri]

Well, look. You said that our 'overall form and win rate dipped remarkably once he came into the team' and I showed that, conversely, our dire form improved 'once' he came into the team, at least for a few games. But that's what form is, isn't it? A number of games. Towards the end of the season, our form dropped again. But for a few games, Sturridge was the difference, and a major reason why we accumulated a certain number of points. We needed a lift, and we got it. if you want to believe that 3 wins out of his first 5 games is a 'remarkable dip in form' once he came into the team, in contrast to the previous 2 wins in 12, that's your choice and the choice of others, I guess.

I admit we petered off towards the end. It was a season where we started well, with Elmander in terrific form, had a bad patch with both strikers in bad form, picked up with Sturridge in form, and then fell apart with no one in form. To say we could have done just as well without Sturridge than with him is, I guess, your opinion. But 8 goals from 12 games and that match winner against Wolves which, IMO, sparked a bit of a turning point, suggests otherwise to me.

Overall we got less points each game, with Sturridge than without him that season. That's what I believe and it happens to be supported by the facts.

You can perm any number of games within that, to prove your notion, but it still stands scrutiny over the course of the season.

This, in my view, is dangerous talk. If people start believing things that are supported by the facts, where will it all end?!

[Worthy4England]

Well, look. You said that our 'overall form and win rate dipped remarkably once he came into the team' and I showed that, conversely, our dire form improved 'once' he came into the team, at least for a few games. But that's what form is, isn't it? A number of games. Towards the end of the season, our form dropped again. But for a few games, Sturridge was the difference, and a major reason why we accumulated a certain number of points. We needed a lift, and we got it. if you want to believe that 3 wins out of his first 5 games is a 'remarkable dip in form' once he came into the team, in contrast to the previous 2 wins in 12, that's your choice and the choice of others, I guess.

I admit we petered off towards the end. It was a season where we started well, with Elmander in terrific form, had a bad patch with both strikers in bad form, picked up with Sturridge in form, and then fell apart with no one in form. To say we could have done just as well without Sturridge than with him is, I guess, your opinion. But 8 goals from 12 games and that match winner against Wolves which, IMO, sparked a bit of a turning point, suggests otherwise to me.

Overall we got less points each game, with Sturridge than without him that season. That's what I believe and it happens to be supported by the facts.

You can perm any number of games within that, to prove your notion, but it still stands scrutiny over the course of the season.

This, in my view, is dangerous talk. If people start believing things that are supported by the facts, where will it all end?!

They'll go of what they think and see - which is often wrong, but a makes a better story.

I think facts are often misinterpreted (like I believe you pointed out on win rate) - I do think we were less of a team with Sturridge (great player though he is) and more of a one man show - and I think this is borne out by some facts

[StaffsTrotter]

Well, look. You said that our 'overall form and win rate dipped remarkably once he came into the team' and I showed that, conversely, our dire form improved 'once' he came into the team, at least for a few games. But that's what form is, isn't it? A number of games. Towards the end of the season, our form dropped again. But for a few games, Sturridge was the difference, and a major reason why we accumulated a certain number of points. We needed a lift, and we got it. if you want to believe that 3 wins out of his first 5 games is a 'remarkable dip in form' once he came into the team, in contrast to the previous 2 wins in 12, that's your choice and the choice of others, I guess.

I admit we petered off towards the end. It was a season where we started well, with Elmander in terrific form, had a bad patch with both strikers in bad form, picked up with Sturridge in form, and then fell apart with no one in form. To say we could have done just as well without Sturridge than with him is, I guess, your opinion. But 8 goals from 12 games and that match winner against Wolves which, IMO, sparked a bit of a turning point, suggests otherwise to me.

Overall we got less points each game, with Sturridge than without him that season. That's what I believe and it happens to be supported by the facts.

You can perm any number of games within that, to prove your notion, but it still stands scrutiny over the course of the season.

This, in my view, is dangerous talk. If people start believing things that are supported by the facts, where will it all end?!

They'll go of what they think and see - which is often wrong, but a makes a better story.

I think facts are often misinterpreted (like I believe you pointed out on win rate) - I do think we were less of a team with Sturridge (great player though he is) and more of a one man show - and I think this is borne out by some facts

fwiw he did the business and scored some goals but he was a greedy fecker & couldn't help feeling, as you say worthy, he was playing for himself (yes I know all strikers have got to have some greediness)