+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
But your attempt doesn't tell the whole story. Here's an entirely alternative way of looking at O'Dowda's contribution this season:
5 starts - 1 win, 1 draw, 3 defeats.
5 sub appearances - 4 wins, 1 defeat.
Let's break down these sub appearances:
45 minutes vs Swansea - went from 1-0 down to lose 2-0
15 minutes vs Ipswich - scores the winner
12 minutes vs Bristol City - game already won
6 minutes vs Huddersfield - game already won
5 minutes vs Coventry - game already won.
Ipswich apart, you could quite easily argue that O'Dowda's sub appearances have not contributed much to the result, other than just having some fresh legs on the pitch. When he's played 45 minutes or more we've won 1 out of 6. I wonder why he was dropped after the Sunderland defeat?
Do you know anything about football?
It's a sport played by players that contribute in many ways.
You would be arguing for argument's sake as usual because you were proved wrong.
And that's with him not match fit, imagine if he'd stayed fit all season!
When he's played our results have been better, this is one of your daft OK we may be winning but with the wrong type of goals or OK we may be winning but only by one goal nonsense.
Mr Negative - Eric the half -Glass Empty
Oh come on, you won't be drawn into how poorly our results have been when he's started as it undermines your entire feeble argument. Once again you simply won't address what someone says, but continue your own rhetoric.
If your approach is correct, take Joel Colwill this season. 4 sub appearances, where we've drawn once and lost 3. Does that mean he's shit and he shoulders some of the blame?
I'm suggesting O'Dowda doesn't deserve to be credited with the wins we've achieved when he's played only a few minutes, Ipswich apart. I think that's reasonable.
You said "He makes a difference and the results prove that". In 4 of his sub appearances he made absolutely no difference to the scoreline yet you're claiming that he was, in some part, responsible for results of games where he was on the field a few minutes. That's absolute nonsense.
Perhaps I'm nitpicking again, or just finding more nonsense in your arguments.
That's good then, he contributed to stopping the other team from scoring, now to suit your narrative you're saying if a player doesn't score he doesn't affect the game, what a clown. You know when a player comes back from six months out they don't start with 90 minutes plus 10 odd injury time from day one and continue like that for the rest of the season unless you don't watch the games and sit there with your BBC app open studying the stats
As someone said above, by watching the game, I feel we play better with him than without, if you don't that's up to you, you are entitled to your opinion, which is always negative, we can agree to disagree