Davis

[calscot 0]

While I agree that Davis is not performing at an acceptable level, I do find it strange that the mood of the place is to dump inconsistent 24 year olds while crying out to replace them with untried 17 year olds.

 

There has been a case for years of people thinking players not in the team must be far better than those in the team who are not playing so well, and all they need is "a run of games" to prove it.

 

Then players who do get a run of games but don't play like a superstar are vilified...

 

Surely the logic is wonky somewhere...

[craig 5,199]

While I agree that Davis is not performing at an acceptable level, I do find it strange that the mood of the place is to dump inconsistent 24 year olds while crying out to replace them with untried 17 year olds.

 

There has been a case for years of people thinking players not in the team must be far better than those in the team who are not playing so well, and all they need is "a run of games" to prove it.

 

Then players who do get a run of games but don't play like a superstar are vilified...

 

Surely the logic is wonky somewhere...

 

How is the logic wonky that people would want a player in poor form to be dropped ? If a player is not playing well he should spend time on the sidelines. Simple, no ? And if it means that his replacement is an untried 17 year old then so be it. That untried 17 year old could turn out to be a revelation and improve the team. That untried 17 year old is, admittedly, just as likely to play poorly and make the team worse. However, if the 24 yr old who is badly our of form and badly lacking continues to play poorly then there should really only be one option.

 

You seem to be advocating a "better the devil you know than the one you don't" approach - but in this instance Steven Davis (being the inconsistent 24 yr old) is playing so poorly that going with the devil we dont know is actually preferable.

 

It also should be the kick in the rear that Davis quite blatantly needs. if he loses his spot to a kid then he should be looking at himself and seeing that he isn't contributing nearly as much as he should be.

 

I also don't see many people saying that there are players not in the team who are far better than Steven Davis. It seems to me that many actually think Davis is our best midfielder (based on talent and potential) but he simply isnt performing to a high enough standard. Those calling for Davis to be dropped are not doing so on some unknown penchant for having an untried and unknown player in the team but more on the fact that Davis is out of form and offering very little to the team.

 

Steven Davis, like Pedro Mendes, has for a significant period of time blown hot and cold and more often than not cold. By keeping either in the team when not performing well will not motivate others that they stand a chance. It also doesn't actually motivate Davis and Mendes to perform better as they know their place in the team is assured. Which are the wrong signals to be sending IMO.

[calscot 0]

The point is that it seems if you give a young player a run of games, it's unlikely he'll be consistent and so you immediately get people on his back for him to be dropped, so what do you do then - play a 15 year old? And when you end up chopping and changing the team every time someone has a bad game then where is your moral going to be?

 

I don't see how dropping any player for a bad game and replacing them with a youngster is going to motivate them - more likely the opposite. Would you be happy with that approach at your work?

 

Sorry but I see the logic I described as treating a complex situation as a simple one and using a Russian roulette style of management.

[craig 5,199]

The point is that it seems if you give a young player a run of games, it's unlikely he'll be consistent and so you immediately get people on his back for him to be dropped, so what do you do then - play a 15 year old? And when you end up chopping and changing the team every time someone has a bad game then where is your moral going to be?

 

No, if the replacement gets a run and doesn't perform particularly well then you recall the previous guy. Lack of form is not permanent (for most players) so you would go back to the other guy in hopes that he would rediscover his form. I don't think you should, or can, take a linear approach as you seem to suggest. Is it really likely that we would go from a 24 yr old to a 17 yr old to a 15 yr old ? Not IMO. More likely is you would go from the 24 yr old to the 17 yr old (IF the 17 yr old is the next best option from your squad) and then either back to the 24 yr old or to the next available option who is unlikely to be a 15 yr old.

 

I don't see how dropping any player for a bad game and replacing them with a youngster is going to motivate them - more likely the opposite. Would you be happy with that approach at your work?

 

So you are advocating the continual use of a player just because he is a) older and b) would not be motivated to play well if called upon again because he was dumped for playing poorly for a younger player ?

 

I dont think anyone would be happy with it in their own circumstance but anyone with any semblance of intelligence would look at what happened, why it happened and undertake some self-critical analysis as to why they were dropped. I speak from experience and can tell you that the employers made the right decision and it also motivated me to better myself.

 

Being happy or unhappy about it should be irrelevant. The employer has an obligation and that is to win games. If said player is not contributing to that then he should be dropped. He should then be analysing why he was dropped and, in Davis' case, it is fairly obvious that it would be down to inconsistency and a lack of willingness to be involved. That should motivate him to do better when brought back in. If it doesnt motivate him then perhaps the best thing would be to sell him.

 

Sorry but I see the logic I described as treating a complex situation as a simple one and using a Russian roulette style of management.

 

Dropping an out of form, out of confidence player is no more Russian roulette than keeping him in the team. That is like saying we should never have dropped or got rid of Capucho because he was an experienced international who won the UEFA Cup.

 

What is complex about dropping a player who is clearly out of form ?

[bmck 117]

i agree with craig. i'm not sure anyone's even saying we've got a 17 year old midfielder who can replace him. football isn't analogous to other jobs. if you play crap, you get stuck on the bench till you get your chance again and prove yourself.

[ascender 352]

Very difficult to judge at the moment given the state of our team and how we're playing.

 

I do think that one of WS' failings is that he does seem to have his favourites who are never dropped regardless of how they perform. I don't think it does players any harm to be put on the bench occasionally if they've not been performing. Gives them something to prove when they get their chance next and also might be a chance for a reserve (regardless of age) to show why they deserve a run in the team.

[calscot 0]

Funnily enough, I pretty much agree with both of you with what your saying, except what I'm trying to emphasise, probably badly, is that just chucking on a 17 year old because he's young and also because we have no idea how good he is (ie better the devil you don't know), is probably not the answer - especially to the question of consistency.

 

The management team see the players almost every day and so shouldn't they be using what they see of these players to make a decision about who is best to play and who isn't? I would prefer them choose who they think is the best person for the job based on what they know, rather than based on the fans craving what they don't know.

 

What I'm saying is that you can't always drop an out of form player and just put in anyone for the sake of it. You have to appraise your squad.

 

In addition, all players have form dips and sometimes bounce very quickly to great form, just at a time when you could have dropped them. Long term inconsistency needs to be addressed but I think a flexible approach is required.

 

I'm a believer of the assertion that younger players are generally less consistent and so my initial reaction was to the irony that people want to get rid of an inconsistent, young player and replace him with seven years younger.

[Gazza_8 233]

While I agree that Davis is not performing at an acceptable level, I do find it strange that the mood of the place is to dump inconsistent 24 year olds while crying out to replace them with untried 17 year olds.

 

I know you side with WS and hesitate to give a chance to youngsters but what's to say a 17 year old won't come in and play out of his skin and play well?

 

You think that young players will automatically fail. I don't understand it.

[craig 5,199]

Funnily enough, I pretty much agree with both of you with what your saying, except what I'm trying to emphasise, probably badly, is that just chucking on a 17 year old because he's young and also because we have no idea how good he is (ie better the devil you don't know), is probably not the answer - especially to the question of consistency.

 

The management team see the players almost every day and so shouldn't they be using what they see of these players to make a decision about who is best to play and who isn't? I would prefer them choose who they think is the best person for the job based on what they know, rather than based on the fans craving what they don't know.

 

What I'm saying is that you can't always drop an out of form player and just put in anyone for the sake of it. You have to appraise your squad.

 

In addition, all players have form dips and sometimes bounce very quickly to great form, just at a time when you could have dropped them. Long term inconsistency needs to be addressed but I think a flexible approach is required.

 

I'm a believer of the assertion that younger players are generally less consistent and so my initial reaction was to the irony that people want to get rid of an inconsistent, young player and replace him with seven years younger.

 

I wont disagree with you that you dont just throw in a 17 yr old for the sake of it. But I thought this was more about Davis and the merits of him staying in the team or otherwise. And I haven't really seen anyone say that we should bring in a 17 yr old for Davis.

 

Consistency doesnt have to be about age although I will readily admit that someone with experience will generally be thought of as being more consistent as they have been at the top for a while. But that need not be the case. It is far too early to talk about, for example, Danny Wilson as being consistent but the signs are most certainly there that he could be.

 

The point I am making though is that if we were to use the consistency explanation for a reason to not play youngsters then a youngster would never get a game. Wilson looks like a revelation (this far, early days) yet if we were worried about consistency or performance then we would have played Papac at CB and we would still be waiting to see if Wilson could cut it.

 

I definitely agree that the management are the best judges of who should play and who shouldnt but even WS must see the form of Davis and be disappointed by it. Perhaps it is that WS agrees that Davis' form is poor but feels he can't play anyone else. But all that achieves is having Davis in the team even when ineffectual - there is no motivation for him to play better as he gets a game regardless of form. If there is a 17 yr old in the squad that has played to a decent standard in the reserves then give him a game and see how he does. We have used the term "wasted jersey" on often enough occasions with the likes of Boyd and Miller - well Davis is fast becoming a similar person and, to me at least, I would rather have a 17 yr old giving his all to the cause than Davis when he is a wasted jersey.

 

I will also admit that the 17 yr old could make a mistake which costs us the game - but does that mean we should allow more experienced players playing poorly to retain their place in the team just because we are fearful of their replacement making a mistake ? Course not.

 

I speak about a 17 yr old as you mentioned it cal, personally I would rather we had a 25 yr old to replace Davis who also had a reasonable amount of experience. I would give others a go at RM if Davis isnt cutting it, and he hasnt been. It says a lot that Davis actually looked far more effective on Saturday when he played at RB than when he played at RM - I would almost go as far as to suggest he plays RB and lets Whittaker play RM (very Walter-esque....).

 

You also are right in that no-one has a crystal ball regarding when a player's form will turn. But Davis has given good performances for us very sporadically and he has been here for a quite some time now. I think the lack of depth in our league means we can usually carry a passenger or two - but Davis has been one of those passengers for too long now and, IMO, it is time to give someone else a go regardless of their age.

 

I may be in the minority but I believe in playing your best XI at all times from the players you have and that your "best XI" constitutes your best players who are also in form. If that means Davis is benched for a period to accomodate a 34 yr old then so be it. If it means he is benched to accomodate a 17 yr old then, guess what, so be it too.

 

These players get paid a great deal of money and whilst we can't expect them to be at the top of their game all the time (none of us are in our jobs are we ???) we should at least expect a great deal of commitment and they should leave nothing on the pitch at the end of the game - I get the feeling that Steven Davis sometimes doesnt leave everything on the pitch. But worse than that..... he is not the only one.

[Stefanovitch 0]

I guess it is time Davis was the target. Yes he is inconsistent and yes he does seem more effective in a wider position that centrally but I certainly don't think he's been any worse than Thomson or Mendes and to my mind has probably contributed more than those two. In all honesty Thomson has been awful since his return from injury and before Mendes was injured he tended to hide in game as well.

 

It's unfair to blame Davis when his midfield cohorts have hardly set the heather alight. It could quite easily be argued that if we were to sell any of the aformentioned players we wouldn't miss them.

 

Personally I think a lot of the blame lies with the constant tinkering of formation and personnel in the first 11. One week it's 4-5-1 then it's 4-4-2 then 4-3-3. With Edu and Broadfoot set to return soon (we are told) then this gives further scope for tinkering. I cannot see any need to change formation from 4-4-2 unless injury or suspension dictates and Davis would be wide right of a midfield 4.