Russell and stats

[Mistaram]

2 hours ago, deano180 said:

These stats don't measure his inability to understand what's going on around him in a game, his decision making, his positioning, the way he just runs into players, poor standard of passing, his general touch, generally wandering around, these things frustrate me more than the things that are measurable

Excellent couldn't have put it better he does my head in 

[Igorwasking]

I'm satisfied with the original stats - as it confirms Sammon was statistically better the Lingaard.

I knew we let him go too cheaply ?

[EnigmaRam]

Who played behind him also has a major impact and what he was required to do. For instance ince had a great season last year with mainly steady Baird behind him so although he tracked back he wasn't having to cover for his RB for most of the game, unlike Russell who was forever bailing Olson out after Olson had overlapped and then lost the ball. Put a defensive LB behind him and his stats would be better. A couple of assists already this season playing in front of wisdom so he's already got half of last seasons assists with a defensive RB behind him. 

As others have said it's also who's up front with him and managers tactics, and well, which manager we have this week looking back at last season!

is he the best player? No. Is he annoying as f*** at times? Yes.

theres a decent player in there that can help us achieve our goal of promotion. Problem is how long do you give him to regain his full form? The good news is it looks like him and weimann will be battling for that spot with Lawrence on the other side so those three need to be on there game or be dropped. Also if he has another shocker this season he's out of contract at the end of it so that will free up wages for someone perceived better.

[Phoenix]

There are three kinds of lies; Lies, damned lies and statistics.

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, nottingram said:

You can only use current form as a measurement when he's playing badly.

Thanks for the heads up @nottingram Knew I was going wrong somewhere! 

[PistoldPete2]

Bamford and bent are goal hangers so you would expect them to rate highly on goals per game . Neither bamford nor nugget has played a full season. Comparing thorne , hughes or  mascarell with bent is pretty meaningless. 

Really russells stats are pretty average for a striker/ winger and more recently they have been terrible. Let's hope Rowett can get the best out of him or get rid. 

[Inglorius]

3 hours ago, vonwright said:

The basic point is that when you are looking back over four seasons - with so many changes of personnel - it's clearly fairer to compare goals and assists per minute than it is to simply look at total numbers of goals and assists. 

Is it "fair" in the sense you mean? I guess it depends what you think the stats are showing. Are they showing the ultimate worth of a player, in any team in any circumstances? Clearly not. Like you say, Blackman had some decent stats at Reading.

If on the other hand you only expect the stats to show you how much players have contributed to Derby's goal scoring over the past few years, I'd say they are indeed fair. For example they fairly reflect that Blackman has been pretty woeful for us.

Similarly they fairly reflect that Russell has contributed a decent but not-exactly-staggering amount.

Of course you need to be aware of other factors - players who only played when Derby were scoring more freely will tend to have inflated figures. But that doesn't make it pointless, or even "unfair" - it's just something to bear in mind when looking at the list.

You're not comparing apples with apples was my point. As an anecdotal list then it does have some casual merit. 

[DontTrustTheDevilInside]

3 hours ago, vonwright said:

The "by season" figures are quite interesting, too. 

MINUTES PER GOAL OR ASSIST, 2013/14 (minimum 500 minutes)

Bamford - 115

Bryson - 134

Martin - 135

Sammon - 188

Ward - 212

Russell - 230

MINUTES PER GOAL OR ASSIST, 2014/15 (minimum 500 minutes)

Bent - 83

Ince - 134

Martin - 135

Thorne - 162

Russell - 178

MINUTES PER GOAL OR ASSIST, 2015/16 (minimum 500 minutes)

Martin - 158

Ince - 168

Bent - 172

Russell - 180

MINUTES PER GOAL OR ASSIST, 2016/17 (minimum 500 minutes)

Nugent - 141

Ince - 180

Bent - 200

Vydra - 306

Anya - 352

Russell - 407

(Russell really did have a shocker last year.)

This alongside the fact that everyone sees if he comes up against a defender he's completely out of ideas when running into them doesn't work is pretty damning.

Cant fault his attitude, work rate and effort levels but the facts are the facts when it comes to quality (and the result of quality, an end product) he is severely lacking

[vonwright]

33 minutes ago, Inglorius said:

You're not comparing apples with apples was my point. As an anecdotal list then it does have some casual merit. 

Wouldn't say that. I'd say this is comparing apples with apples, but you need to be aware when comparing them that some were grown in a well-tended orchard while others had Nigel Pearson for a gardener...

Most 'real-life' stats have limitations and flaws like that. It's extremely hard to compare like-with-exactly-like. People seems to think stats must either tell you everything or tell you nothing. But that's not how they work. 

This particular stat tells us that over several seasons, Russell has produced fewer goals and assists per minute on the pitch than other winger(s). This is the case overall, and it is the case in each individual season. There may be reasons for that beyond the fact he's just not as good; maybe his performances are better than his figures, or maybe he's been unlucky to feature a lot when the whole team wasn't scoring (although presumably he'd be partly to blame for that).

Stats like this are evidence rather than proof. This particular one is evidence that Russell has been, over several seasons, a much less productive winger for Derby than Ince. It's not conclusive; there may be mitigating factors; but it is more than an anecdote, too.

[cosmic]

5 hours ago, vonwright said:

He's sort-of-all-right.

Never seen a 'lurking' member of the forum be so annoyed by something they'd read on a thread that it made him break his silence, even unnecessarily taking that argument into a new thread just to drill home his point, only to conclude that Johnny Russell is "sort-of-alright". 

[Anag Ram]

I think Russell's tats are about the best bit about him.

[Steve How Hard?]

4 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

I think Russell's tats are about the best bit about him.

Are you saying we should keep him or moob him on? 

[cosmic]

25 minutes ago, Steve How Hard? said:

Are you saying we should keep him or moob him on? 

He's on about the ink on his skin. You really should keep abreast of these things.

[Sparkle]

We have basically brought in stacks of wide players in to replace Russell possibly and at high cost but they have all failed basically haven't they? - he is a very good player in the championship which is why plenty of managers have consistently selected him and hopefully everyone could support and encourage the likes of Russell and wieman despite the frustrations that wide players always bring.

[Steve How Hard?]

13 hours ago, cosmic said:

He's on about the ink on his skin. You really should keep abreast of these things.

I feel a bit of a tit now!!! 

[Leicester Ram]

He's fine, he's always been fine and he'll continue to be fine. Nowhere near as bad as some make out but nowhere near as good as others make out.

He's the current scapegoat of Mel's children who wanted a new toy instead of the old one. Lots of players in the current squad have been that scapegoat, some recover, some don't. Keogh was scapegoat in a big way and has continued to be our most consistent player ever since.

Russell will probably return to 7/8 goals and 7/8 assists this season. About average for a play-off team.

Dont get all the hot takes on him, any winger in his situation last season would have struggled.

[Mistaram]

1 hour ago, Leicester Ram said:

He's fine, he's always been fine and he'll continue to be fine. Nowhere near as bad as some make out but nowhere near as good as others make out.

He's the current scapegoat of Mel's children who wanted a new toy instead of the old one. Lots of players in the current squad have been that scapegoat, some recover, some don't. Keogh was scapegoat in a big way and has continued to be our most consistent player ever since.

Russell will probably return to 7/8 goals and 7/8 assists this season. About average for a play-off team.

Dont get all the hot takes on him, any winger in his situation last season would have struggled.

Hard to argue with your analysis but JR has come out himself at the end of the last two seasons and said he's not been good enough How long do we have to wait for him to have good season or is what most people think he's just not very good You say any winger in his situation last season would have struggled Well Ince never struggled did he 

[Leicester Ram]

1 hour ago, Mistaram said:

Hard to argue with your analysis but JR has come out himself at the end of the last two seasons and said he's not been good enough How long do we have to wait for him to have good season or is what most people think he's just not very good You say any winger in his situation last season would have struggled Well Ince never struggled did he 

The last few seasons have been a mess. What worked about Mac 1 was that we gave the group of players we had, many of whom were about Championship average, who were maximised to make a great team. Russell looked like a top championship winger because we put him in the position to flourish.

Can we really say we've put any of our players in a position to flourish in the past two years? We've had about five managers come in and change the team/way we play in the space of 24 months. How much can we actually criticise the players individually when they've been stuck in a 24 month long car crash? 

Have we seen a drop off because Russell's crap our because the club is crap?

Ince is a separate situation. As far as natural talent goes, he was probably one of the top 5 players in the division last year. It's rare that you'll have more than one player on your team (let alone position group) no matter what level you're at. The only teams I can think of are probably Real, Barca and Bayern?

If you want us to have players that are so talented that it doesn't matter what system they're in, they'll flourish, you'll be having to pay out about 50 million and hit on every transfer.

I don't get that criticism. Just because someone's a good RW doesn't mean they're a good RW in every situation/system. It's not all down to the player to make it work. Bradley Johnson was a revelation for Norwich at LM, looked garbage for us there less than 12 months later. It's the most overused example on earth but Leicester did the impossible because they built a system that suited their largely average players so well that they looked like world beaters.

They only needed two genuinely outstanding players in their team to make it work in Kante and Mahrez. The rest of the team was a bunch of Johnny Russell's.

[Mistaram]

46 minutes ago, Leicester Ram said:

The last few seasons have been a mess. What worked about Mac 1 was that we gave the group of players we had, many of whom were about Championship average, who were maximised to make a great team. Russell looked like a top championship winger because we put him in the position to flourish.

Can we really say we've put any of our players in a position to flourish in the past two years? We've had about five managers come in and change the team/way we play in the space of 24 months. How much can we actually criticise the players individually when they've been stuck in a 24 month long car crash? 

Have we seen a drop off because Russell's crap our because the club is crap?

Ince is a separate situation. As far as natural talent goes, he was probably one of the top 5 players in the division last year. It's rare that you'll have more than one player on your team (let alone position group) no matter what level you're at. The only teams I can think of are probably Real, Barca and Bayern?

If you want us to have players that are so talented that it doesn't matter what system they're in, they'll flourish, you'll be having to pay out about 50 million and hit on every transfer.

I don't get that criticism. Just because someone's a good RW doesn't mean they're a good RW in every situation/system. It's not all down to the player to make it work. Bradley Johnson was a revelation for Norwich at LM, looked garbage for us there less than 12 months later. It's the most overused example on earth but Leicester did the impossible because they built a system that suited their largely average players so well that they looked like world beaters.

They only needed two genuinely outstanding players in their team to make it work in Kante and Mahrez. The rest of the team was a bunch of Johnny Russell's.

Leicester  I agree with your point about the number of managers of course it doesn't help the players But good players just get on with it Take Watford they got promoted despite changing their manager six times in their promotion year Back to Russell to many managers can't be blamed for his poor ball control terrible decision making and lack of goals Yes you can't fault his effort but that should a given with all pro footballers 

[BathRam72]

OMG do we really need another Russell bashing thread. Can't you just leave the guy alone and let him build some confidence and see if he fits.