In praise of Cyrus Christie

[brady1993]

Just now, Howard Canitbé said:

Additionally I'm not sure having a roaming CB like Keogh would suit a system where to be solid your CB's have to sit in. If he played the way he plays in a back four it'd leave us utterly exposed without the security of two proper full backs. 

I have to disagree here, Keogh is perfectly suited to playing as the RCB because he has the physical capabilities to cover the channel behind the wingback. I mean he often does that anyway when Christie is playing.

[Howard Canitbé]

14 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

I have to disagree here, Keogh is perfectly suited to playing as the RCB because he has the physical capabilities to cover the channel behind the wingback. I mean he often does that anyway when Christie is playing.

He's perfectly mobile enough to cover that channel, but I think positionally he can lack discipline at times. Also, if when bringing the ball forward he loses possession as he did a couple of times against Wolves, we're way more exposed in a 3-5-2 formation with our RWB further up the pitch and only one CB covering that side than we are with a traditional RB and a LCB covering that side of the pitch. If both of the other CB's in a 3-5-2 move over to cover a roaming RCB i.e. Keogh and he loses possession then it leaves a gaping hole on the left hand flank in defence. 

[brady1993]

11 minutes ago, Howard Canitbé said:

He's perfectly mobile enough to cover that channel, but I think positionally he can lack discipline at times. Also, if when bringing the ball forward he loses possession as he did a couple of times against Wolves, we're way more exposed in a 3-5-2 formation with our RWB further up the pitch and only one CB covering that side than we are with a traditional RB and a LCB covering that side of the pitch. If both of the other CB's in a 3-5-2 move over to cover a roaming RCB i.e. Keogh and he loses possession then it leaves a gaping hole on the left hand flank in defence. 

I see your point but I can't say I entirely agree. If you're playing as one a three centrebacks I think there is more leeway with positional discipline, if keogh is out of position your wingbacks drop back and make a back four or one of your midfield drops into the gap. As we play right now we are essentially playing with wingbacks rather than traditional fullbacks anyway, so I don't think we'd have less cover. In fact I think there would be more because of the other dedicated centre back.

[Howard Canitbé]

7 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

I see your point but I can't say I entirely agree. If you're playing as one a three centrebacks I think there is more leeway with positional discipline, if keogh is out of position your wingbacks drop back and make a back four or one of your midfield drops into the gap. As we play right now we are essentially playing with wingbacks rather than traditional fullbacks anyway, so I don't think we'd have less cover. In fact I think there would be more because of the other dedicated centre back.

I see your point, fair enough. 

[needles]

3 centre backs isn't happening. Can't see why people think it might. 

[Albert]

On 10/31/2016 at 22:57, YorkshireRam said:

Then again Chris Baird has also got the highest pass accuracy which proves why stats don't tell the full story... 

It's generally not the stats, but the interpretation that is the issue. It's the assumptions and conclusions you draw, not the numbers themselves that are the issue. If you're looking at pass accuracy and just thinking "that means good right", that interpretation is the issue. You should consider what assumptions you're making, and hence the limitation that it puts on your conclusions. 

[Chester40]

3 hours ago, Albert said:

It's generally not the stats, but the interpretation that is the issue. It's the assumptions and conclusions you draw, not the numbers themselves that are the issue. If you're looking at pass accuracy and just thinking "that means good right", that interpretation is the issue. You should consider what assumptions you're making, and hence the limitation that it puts on your conclusions. 

Exactly. Unlike what you hear, statistics don't lie!! People's opinions do though. 

You may hear a fan say, 'Christie keeps losing the ball'. That is a value judgement I wouldn't trust. The stat's will tell you how often he does lose it...plus how often he had the ball compared to others, how many times he tries to dribble, where he is on the pitch, what formation the opposition are playing etc etc. Taken in context I'd prefer to trust the stats than opinions which can differ wildly from person to person as we can see on this thread!

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

All I know is that against Wolves the lad they had playing on their left side got absolutely nothing done until Christie went off and we sat a lot deeper as a result. Christie might lose the ball quite a bit but there is a lot to be said for having someone that is physically strong and very quick to provide an outlet for the defense. Whilst Christie is running down the wing the rest of the team are organising themselves and pushing up to a higher line.

I think he can definitely make better decisions when he gets in to a crossing position but the fact he gets in those positions so regularly is a big factor in keeping the opposition pinned back in their half, or stopping their wingers putting massive amounts of pressure on us.

[YorkshireRam]

8 hours ago, Albert said:

It's generally not the stats, but the interpretation that is the issue. It's the assumptions and conclusions you draw, not the numbers themselves that are the issue. If you're looking at pass accuracy and just thinking "that means good right", that interpretation is the issue. You should consider what assumptions you're making, and hence the limitation that it puts on your conclusions. 

I never implied that the statistics were the issue, just that doesn't always, fully represent a player's ability, either positively or negatively...

My point resided in the fact that Cyrus Christie had, at the time, created most chances for Derby County (17). I was saying, based on that statistic, he was offering more offensively than any of our attackers, which is positive (for him at least). 

The Chris Baird reference was a joke angled at pointing out that it presents a limited view that doesn't factor in anything but numbers on paper

[europia]

12 hours ago, needles said:

3 centre backs isn't happening. Can't see why people think it might. 

Yes I agree this probably wont happen. Pity that we don't have any like for like cover in the right back position, I guess Mac will have to decide between playing Baird and losing the attacking option, or playing Keogh at RB and bringing Mr Shackell back into the team. Hanson isn't a right back or if he is it's in the defensive mode.

[needles]

5 hours ago, europia said:

Yes I agree this probably wont happen. Pity that we don't have any like for like cover in the right back position, I guess Mac will have to decide between playing Baird and losing the attacking option, or playing Keogh at RB and bringing Mr Shackell back into the team. Hanson isn't a right back or if he is it's in the defensive mode.

I'd be tempted to try Anya. Definitely wouldn't shift the centre halves who've been a bonus, and Baird as you say isn't going to provide the attacking threat. Anya or Hanson for me. Chrissy Powell working overtime on fullback play for the next 12 days.