Sam Baldock - sick note

[James Bond's body double]

No, it's no mistake. He's a poor player who is benefitting massively from playing in a strong team. He was awful last season in a poor team, and he's been by and large awful in a very strong one. I'm just as stubbornly putting my view forward as are the people who are defending his work rate and what he offers which isn't tangible - which is fine, but it's a load of rubbish.

Again, for context, what's ironic is that I was on the other side of this argument with CMS - despite his goals I always liked him, and always supported him on here. Baldock, however, has done nothing - full stop. It's a mute point anyway, he won't be here next season.

Well, if he isn't with us next season can you please go with him.

 

[Exile]

No, it's no mistake. He's a poor player who is benefitting massively from playing in a strong team. He was awful last season in a poor team, and he's been by and large awful in a very strong one. I'm just as stubbornly putting my view forward as are the people who are defending his work rate and what he offers which isn't tangible - which is fine, but it's a load of rubbish.

This will undoubtedly sound condescending, but what Baldock offers is only 'not tangible' if you don't really understand football very well.

Stretching defences, pulling defenders out of position, creating space for your strike partner, pushing a defence deeper through fear of your pace - creating space between them and their midfield for the likes of Kayal, Knockaert and Skalak. All these things are entirely quantifiable / tangible.

 

[Don Quixote]

No, it's no mistake. He's a poor player who is benefitting massively from playing in a strong team. He was awful last season in a poor team, and he's been by and large awful in a very strong one. I'm just as stubbornly putting my view forward as are the people who are defending his work rate and what he offers which isn't tangible - which is fine, but it's a load of rubbish.

Again, for context, what's ironic is that I was on the other side of this argument with CMS - despite his goals I always liked him, and always supported him on here. Baldock, however, has done nothing - full stop. It's a mute point anyway, he won't be here next season.

Well we've come in the top three with him in the team so surely he must be pretty decent. You don't get this many points without every player being top league players.

He will be here next year.

 

[durrington gull]

Well we've come in the top three with him in the team so surely he must be pretty decent. You don't get this many points without every player being top league players.

He will be here next year.

Depends what Division we're in - certainly not up to Prem level.

 

[Buzzer]

No, it's no mistake. He's a poor player who is benefitting massively from playing in a strong team.

You are talking absolute nonsense. Here are the stats for this year expressed as W. D, L going across:

We are very clearly a better side with Baldock in than without. If he was a weak link then we would be a better team without him in the side, the facts state otherwise.

http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=381&teamTabs=results

 

[Buzzer]

This will undoubtedly sound condescending, but what Baldock offers is only 'not tangible' if you don't really understand football very well.

Stretching defences, pulling defenders out of position, creating space for your strike partner, pushing a defence deeper through fear of your pace - creating space between them and their midfield for the likes of Kayal, Knockaert and Skalak. All these things are entirely quantifiable / tangible.

He's also the first forward since we lost Barnes that is the type to mix it with defenders and isn't afraid to get stuck in to defend team-mates.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

This will undoubtedly sound condescending, but what Baldock offers is only 'not tangible' if you don't really understand football very well.

Stretching defences, pulling defenders out of position, creating space for your strike partner, pushing a defence deeper through fear of your pace - creating space between them and their midfield for the likes of Kayal, Knockaert and Skalak. All these things are entirely quantifiable / tangible.

Of course it condescending, because it's condescending rubbish. It's in your opinion that he does all this work, but what I'm saying is that he doesn't do anything which other players wouldn't also offer. For example, are you suggesting that he does more work than Nakhi Wells? Who also scores the occasional goal. Even Nicky Maynard, equally unlikely to score a goal at this level, also has all the lack of tangible qualities that Baldock has. I'm not expecting us to agree on this, people are entitled to think how they wish but I take offence to "you don't really understand football well". It's trotted out by people without enough intelligence to make an argument, and judging on your match reports and general postings, I think that comment is beneath you.

But not the majority of posters in this thread.

 

[BBassic]

Baldock is, for me, CMS 2.0

What I mean is that he also does a lot of running around and isn't as prolific as we'd maybe expect a £2m striker to be. But when he does his running about it seems to have some purpose. I never got that with CMS.

 

[Hotchilidog]

You are talking absolute nonsense. Here are the stats for this year expressed as W. D, L going across:

We are very clearly a better side with Baldock in than without. If he was a weak link then we would be a better team without him in the side, the facts state otherwise.

http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=381&teamTabs=results

Amazing we did so well in those games playing with practically 10 men. Must have been because we weren't playing anyone decent.

 

[Exile]

It's in your opinion that he does all this work, but what I'm saying is that he doesn't do anything which other players wouldn't also offer. For example, are you suggesting that he does more work than Nakhi Wells? Who also scores the occasional goal. ..

Its not just how far you run though, is it? Its where you run, and when you run. He's a very clever footballer - albeit with an unfortunate lack of composure in front of goal. As someone else has commented in this thread - if he had that too, he wouldn't be playing for us.

 

[Icy Gull]

Of course it condescending, because it's condescending rubbish. It's in your opinion that he does all this work, but what I'm saying is that he doesn't do anything which other players wouldn't also offer. For example, are you suggesting that he does more work than Nakhi Wells? Who also scores the occasional goal. Even Nicky Maynard, equally unlikely to score a goal at this level, also has all the lack of tangible qualities that Baldock has. I'm not expecting us to agree on this, people are entitled to think how they wish but I take offence to "you don't really understand football well". It's trotted out by people without enough intelligence to make an argument, and judging on your match reports and general postings, I think that comment is beneath you.

But not the majority of posters in this thread.

You have dug a hole so deep on this issue that you wouldn't admit you might be wrong, even if you actually believed that you might be....

I really like Baldock, being injury prone and not completing many games between injuries means we haven't yet seen the best of him..imo

 

[1066familyman]

He's also the first forward since we lost Barnes that is the type to mix it with defenders and isn't afraid to get stuck in to defend team-mates.

Really?

I'm not sure I can recall Baldock ever really getting stuck in, at least not while the ball is in play. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he bottles an awful lot of tackles he could probably win.

He doesn't have a nasty edge to him either like Barnes does. Plus, Barnes won us so many free kicks in dangerous areas time and time again.

If we're doing the stats thing then I'd like to see a disciplinary comparison between Barnes and Baldock. My guess is that they'd be as different as night and day.

I don't see any comparison with Barnes at all to be honest. Other than Baldock debatably does a job for the team that not all fans fully appreciate.

 

[dazzer6666]

He's also the first forward since we lost Barnes that is the type to mix it with defenders and isn't afraid to get stuck in to defend team-mates.

Good point this - also noticed on Saturday the habit he has of really antagonising and delaying any opposing player about to take a free kick - he was really getting on their tits with his antics. Top stuff (from a little bloke too)

 

[GingerBeerMan]

You are talking absolute nonsense. Here are the stats for this year expressed as W. D, L going across:

We are very clearly a better side with Baldock in than without. If he was a weak link then we would be a better team without him in the side, the facts state otherwise.

http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=381&teamTabs=results

What about the W/L/D for games Baldock missed and played last season? Might be more appropriate as we were fairly consistently shit all season and he didn't have a distinct time of injury when we lost the majority of our games.

Fair point that there is a large element of coincidence and I would agree that he is far from THE difference but surely the stat means at the very least the brickbats hurled at him on this thread are out of order.

I rate him, just think the use of them statistics to prove a point is very dubious.

 

[Buzzer]

What about the W/L/D for games Baldock missed and played last season? Might be more appropriate as we were fairly consistently shit all season and he didn't have a distinct time of injury when we lost the majority of our games.


I rate him, just think the use of them statistics to prove a point is very dubious.

Last season he missed quite a few games too and we were significantly worse when he didn't play.

I think these statistics are useful to prove that we are a better team with him in than without, whether in a good or a bad side. Either that or he's lucky....and to paraphrase Napoleon I'd take a lucky forward any day of the week.

 

[TSB]

Last season he missed quite a few games too and we were significantly worse when he didn't play.

I think these statistics are useful to prove that we are a better team with him in than without, whether in a good or a bad side. Either that or he's lucky....and to paraphrase Napoleon I'd take a lucky forwards any day of the week.

Yup. I remember us being absolute dogshit whilst he was out. 'Coincided' with the run of one win in seventeen.
We ended up resorting to Leon Best.
Six wins in 30 games: ****ing hell

Sidenote: Feels like we're discussing something that occurred in another dimension.

 

[Exile]

Last season he missed quite a few games too and we were significantly worse when he didn't play.

I think these statistics are useful to prove that we are a better team with him in than without, whether in a good or a bad side. Either that or he's lucky....and to paraphrase Napoleon I'd take a lucky forward any day of the week.

So 2014/15:
Points per game with Baldock = 1.27 (58pts over a season = mid table comfort)
PPG without Baldock = 0.97 (45pts = likely relegation)

2015/16:
PPG with Baldock = 2.22 (102pts = records broken, champions by early April)
PPG without Baldock = 1.63 (75pts = play offs at best)

 

[1066familyman]

So 2014/15:
Points per game with Baldock = 1.27 (58pts over a season = mid table comfort)
PPG without Baldock = 0.97 (45pts = likely relegation)

2015/16:
PPG with Baldock = 2.22 (102pts = records broken, champions by early April)
PPG without Baldock = 1.63 (75pts = play offs at best)

Do you work for Government by any chance?

 

[brightn'ove]

Baldock is, for me, CMS 2.0

What I mean is that he also does a lot of running around and isn't as prolific as we'd maybe expect a £2m striker to be. But when he does his running about it seems to have some purpose. I never got that with CMS.

The difference with Baldock is that defenders know that he has pace and a good first touch, something that CMS, for all his running, lacked.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

The difference with Baldock is that defenders know that he has pace and a good first touch, something that CMS, for all his running, lacked.

The myth about Baldock having pace aside, CMS scored 21 goals in 109 games, at a rate of about than 1 in 5. Sam Baldock has scored 7 in 78 games, which is 1 in 11. I think that I'd prefer CMS in the team and that's without mentioning the cross for Leo Ulloa at Nottingham Forest.