Sonko - has he been missed?

Katie Marsden · by **Katie Marsden** » 24 Apr 2007 15:10

I made a topic when he was injured and said we wouldn't miss him, I was given plenty of abuse at the time so I've taken a look at our defensive record since he's been injured.

I couldn't be bothered to trawl 100's of pages to find the original thread..

With Sonko in the side up utill his injury we conceded 31 goals in 22 games. An average of 1.4 goals conceded per game.

Without Sonko we have conceded 18 goals in 16 games, an average of 1.1 goals conceded per game.

It seems he hasn't been missed at all and our defence has been better without him.

Stranded · by **Stranded** » 24 Apr 2007 15:13

Or it could be argued that our defence have become more adept as a whole to defending at this level as the season has gone by.

Anyway, we haven't missed him persee as we've got excellent cover in that position but it can't be said that we would definitely have conceded more/less with him in the side.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 24 Apr 2007 15:13

He has been missed.

But we have done well without him.

No saying what the stats would be if he had been playing, although I suspect they would have been pretty similar as we were playing teams we had played before and largely adjusted to the pace of premiership football.

Y21_Royal · by **Y21_Royal** » 24 Apr 2007 15:23

Behindu He has been missed.

But we have done well without him.

No saying what the stats would be if he had been playing, although I suspect they would have been pretty similar as we were playing teams we had played before and largely adjusted to the pace of premiership football.

Agreed. Sonks has a certain presence that none of the others have. Having said that I have been very impressed at how quickly and seamlessly Bikey and Doobs have slotted in.

RoyalChicagoFC · by **RoyalChicagoFC** » 24 Apr 2007 15:44

Medic!

papereyes · by **papereyes** » 24 Apr 2007 15:46

With Sonko in the side up utill his injury we conceded 31 goals in 22 games. An average of 1.4 goals conceded per game.

Without Sonko we have conceded 18 goals in 16 games, an average of 1.1 goals conceded per game.

1) No attempt to consider differences in the quality of teams faced

2) No attempt to consider differences in the team around the defensive unit

3) The difference between the two tallies is something like 4, maybe 5 goals in the periods covered.

Katie Marsden · by **Katie Marsden** » 24 Apr 2007 15:50

Played Man Utd away, Man Utd at home, Liverpool at home, Arsenal away, Spurs away and Bolton away.

Some very tough games I'm sure you'll agree.

If anything the defensive unit has been weaker as Murty has missed quite lot of games.

Once again people can't accept they were wrong

papereyes · by **papereyes** » 24 Apr 2007 15:54

Nope, just three relevent caveats as I'm sure you'll agree. Also something the bare statistics doesn't even attempt to show.

I'm just trying to work out where I posted in this thread.

papereyes · by **papereyes** » 24 Apr 2007 15:57

Played Man Utd away, Man Utd at home, Liverpool at home, Arsenal away, Spurs away and Bolton away.

Wait a second.

As opposed to Manchester United home and away, Arsenal home Liverpool away ...

What it seems to boil down to is that Sonko played in a game where Reading got absolutely battered, and we only been absolutely battered once ...

Katie Marsden · by **Katie Marsden** » 24 Apr 2007 16:05

papereyes
Played Man Utd away, Man Utd at home, Liverpool at home, Arsenal away, Spurs away and Bolton away.

Wait a second.

As opposed to Manchester United home and away, Arsenal home Liverpool away ...

What it seems to boil down to is that Sonko played in a game where Reading got absolutely battered, and we only been absolutely battered once ...

papereyes
1) No attempt to consider differences in the quality of teams faced

Make up your mind.

One minute you say I've made no attempt to consider the differences in the quality of teams faced, then you point out we've faced exactly the same number of quality sides we did before Sonko was injured.

papereyes · by **papereyes** » 24 Apr 2007 16:10

Make up your mind.

One minute you say I've made no attempt to consider the differences in the quality of teams faced, then you point out we've faced exactly the same number of quality sides we did before Sonko was injured.

I think "make up your mind" would apply to yourself, not me.

Given that you went and cited a bunch of teams played post-injury, it seems right to point out that now attempt to mention which teams were played pre-injury (or indeed, when not on the pitch - although you've counted at least one goal when Sonko was off the pitch as when he was on it). Almost as if you had a point of view and wanted the information presented to fit that point of view.

readingbedding · by **readingbedding** » 24 Apr 2007 16:10

When I said that we haven't missed Convey, I got the same reaction from a few people...

It's good for the team that the players that have replaced established first-teamers are doing well.

To be fair, apart from Murty mothering Bikey in a few matches, the defence looks as though they can defend without Sonko.

We'll see how the Mancs deal with a patched up defence against an Elite European side, it's not easy to organise.

Silver Fox · by **Silver Fox** » 24 Apr 2007 16:13

Katie Marsden Without Sonko we have conceded 18 goals in 16 games, an average of 1.1 goals conceded per game.

It seems he hasn't been missed at all and our defence has been better without him.

I'm confused, Sonko didn't play for Man United all season

Katie Marsden · by **Katie Marsden** » 24 Apr 2007 16:15

papereyes
Make up your mind.

One minute you say I've made no attempt to consider the differences in the quality of teams faced, then you point out we've faced exactly the same number of quality sides we did before Sonko was injured.

I think "make up your mind" would apply to yourself, not me.

Given that you went and cited a bunch of teams played post-injury, it seems right to point out that now attempt to mention which teams were played pre-injury (or indeed, when not on the pitch - although you've counted at least one goal when Sonko was off the pitch as when he was on it). Almost as if you had a point of view and wanted the information presented to fit that point of view.

Sonko hasn't been missed. Nothing anyone can say that will change that. The defence has shown it is more than capable of performing without him.

Stranded · by **Stranded** » 24 Apr 2007 16:16

It's a totally pointless discussion as you're simply inferring that the reason we conceded more is that Sonko was in the team and therefore he is not missed as we've conceded less.

It doesn't take into account such transient attributes as the form of the opposition we faced rather than who they are or the personnel they faced. For example, the Arsenal we faced in October was a far different team to the one we played in March. It doesn't account for the glaring misses they made in that game or that other teams have had.

Man Utd - the teams they put out in the two league games were very different from the FA Cup sides as well.

It also doesn't take into account that the team would have become more adept at playing at this level and you would expect a successful team's defence to improve over this time.

papereyes · by **papereyes** » 24 Apr 2007 16:21

Seriously, what games are you counting??

You imply you're counting the two FA Cup games against United which would make some sense as there have been only 11 Premiership games after the game against Sheffield United where he got injured (and note, that goal came almost 40 minutes after his injury).

So you're clearly counting the cup games in that.

FA Cup
conceded 2 vs Burnley
conceded 2 vs Birmingham
conceded 4 vs Manchester United over two games

League Cup
conceded 3 vs Darlington
conceded 4 vs Liverpool

That does make it nearer to 16 games, but adds 15 goals to the goals conceded total, which would make it a significantly larger number of goals conceded.

I don't really think he's been all that missed - if you'd concentrated on the Premiership games, you'd have noted that we've actually conceded less than a goal a game without him - but there was something that just screamed WRONG about your method.

Katie Marsden · by **Katie Marsden** » 24 Apr 2007 16:23

You can make all the excuses you like, the bottom line is we've not missed Sonko.

The fact United played weakened sides is evened up by the fact we did aswell.

papereyes · by **papereyes** » 24 Apr 2007 16:24

Katie Marsden You can make all the excuses you like, the bottom line is we've not missed Sonko.

The fact United played weakened sides is evened up by the fact we did aswell.

By excuses, you mean "taking apart your stats and showing you that they are wrong?"

Hoop Blah · by **Hoop Blah** » 24 Apr 2007 16:24

I guess the answer is we haven't fallen to pieces since Sonko got injured.

We've managed to maintain our form from before his injury so from that point of view he hasn't been missed in much the same way as Kitson, Doyle, Little and Murty haven't been missed during their repective times out.

Did we look more solid and comfortable with Sonko in the side? Yes.

Did Sonko look a better defender in our side than Doobs or Bikey? Yes.

Have Coppell and his team done brilliantly to manage the squad to 7th position? Yes

Silver Fox · by **Silver Fox** » 24 Apr 2007 16:25

I must be bored but

Sonks has been on the pitch for 1930 minutes this season, in which time we have conceded 29 goals

Sonks has been off the pitch for 1790 minutes this season, in which time we have conceded 29 goals

End of chat

Sonko - has he been missed?

Sonko - has he been missed?

Re: Sonko - has he been missed?

Who is online