Jump to content

Eustace

IoW Derby

By IoW Derby
in Derby County Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Ovis aries

Ovis aries

Posted
Posted

Talking about his points per game... you have to look at who he's played with too.

We've had problems taking chances and scoring goals. It's not all been about how poor we are without the ball at times. We've been poor on the ball too. I don't think he would have helped massively in that area.

He's been a miss. But I don't think it was the difference between where we are now and automatics.

Maybe Martin and Eustace combined? But then I think Cyrus Christie's thought process has cost us goals and chances at both ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alph

Alph

Posted
Posted

​In one way I agree. I don't think you can rely on statistics to give an overall picture. In the case of a player like Eustace though, where opinions are polarised we have to use statistics to add weight to our opinions rather than just regurgitating the same arguments back and forth. For instance, I strongly disagree with the theory that Eustace isn't good in possession. He is quite capable with the ball and often picks out the kind of cross field passes that folk would be wanking over if someone with a foreign surname did it. Short of sitting people down and forcing them to watch each game in full I can't prove this, so stats are used to support my argument.

The other reason the stats argument gets waved around in Eustace's favor is that, this season at least, they are so telling. There is a huge difference in the defensive stability and points per game return when Eustace is in the side. We also score just as often when he plays as when he doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mostyn6

Mostyn6

Posted
Posted

​In one way I agree. I don't think you can rely on statistics to give an overall picture. In the case of a player like Eustace though, where opinions are polarised we have to use statistics to add weight to our opinions rather than just regurgitating the same arguments back and forth. For instance, I strongly disagree with the theory that Eustace isn't good in possession. He is quite capable with the ball and often picks out the kind of cross field passes that folk would be wanking over if someone with a foreign surname did it. Short of sitting people down and forcing them to watch each game in full I can't prove this, so stats are used to support my argument.

The other reason the stats argument gets waved around in Eustace's favor is that, this season at least, they are so telling. There is a huge difference in the defensive stability and points per game return when Eustace is in the side. We also score just as often when he plays as when he doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ambitious

Ambitious

Posted
Posted

Eustace was okay, but he seems to have been blown up a little since he's been out injured. 

It's ironic that people point to his discipline as a great asset that we dearly miss in his absence when arguably - well, not arguably as it was a stone wall red card - he should have been sent off after 40 minutes in his last match for us, against Ipswich. 

Eustace was prone to losing the ball, getting overrun in midfield and fouling the opposition rather than tackling them. He knew his limitations, though, so he would just sit deep and offer another layer to the side rather than anything else. We looked more balanced with him in the team. 

I think he would have certainly helped us be six or more points better off. So, yes, he would have been the difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Vegas

Bris Vegas

Posted
Posted

Has his strengths and weaknesses, his biggest weakness being his inability to pass the ball quickly and forwards whereas his strengths being his defensive capabilities and tackling.

One are which is often overlooked though is his leadership skills. He could boss our midfield, tell players when to push on and position it better. We looked balanced in midfield above all.

We badly missed him againt Forest for instance. Hendrick and Bryson were running around like headless chickens and Mascarell couldn't - perhaps through inexperience or language difficulties - spot the problem and organise them.

Going back to the original point - Would we be better off now had he not been injured? I'd say yes, of course.

But it's been a real team effort of feck ups this season. We've had it in our hands for so long, and it's not often we have lost a game this season and I've simply admitted the opposiiton were better.

The dropped points against Brum, Watford, Wolves, Brighton, Brentford and Forest for instance was done collectively, through mistakes all over the pitch.

Only games this season where we've lost and I've just accepted it was the Wigan, M'Boro and Fulham matches. Every other I thouhgt we could have easily gotten something and the reason we didn't was through basic errors rather than being tactically outfought or outplayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daz_The_Ram

Daz_The_Ram

Posted
Posted

My views on this are pretty cast iron, and well known. So I'm not even going to bother.

Except to say that, if you think we WOULDN'T have been better off with Eustace in the side in the absence of Thorne ... you are absolutely bloody crackers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RodleyRam

RodleyRam

Posted
Posted

Basically what Bris said. I think we've missed Martin and Thorne more in terms of their impact on the actual games. However, we've lacked leadership at critical points. Regardless of of his ability what Eustace can do is read the context of of the game. He commands the respect if the other players and keeps people focused. Our other senior players haven't always got us us going us going when us going when the chips have been down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...