More on Dickson

Okay, here’s some more. One thing to clarify is that we’re approaching this from a position of Etuhu positivism: we think he’s a good player and adds a lot to the team.  But a lot of people are criticising him at the moment so, just as we did with Zamora back in the day, it seems worthwhile to have a closer look to see if we can find anything interesting.

Yesterday we noted that – for whatever reason – the team has done better in home games against good teams when Dickson’s not playing.  Today here’s a look at all the teams Dickson’s beaten, and all the teams we’ve beaten without him:

Wins when Dickson started:

Aston Villa
Birmingham
Blackburn
Blackpool
Burnley
Everton
Man City
Man United
Newcastle
Portsmouth
Portsmouth
Stoke
Stoke
Stoke
West Brom
West Brom
Wigan
Wolves

Wins when Dickson didn’t start

Arsenal
Birmingham
Blackburn
Bolton
Bolton
Hull
Liverpool
Man United
Middlesbrough
Newcastle
Newcastle
Portsmouth
QPR
Sunderland
Sunderland
Tottenham
West Ham
Wigan
Wigan
Wigan

The things that stand out:

Three wins against Stoke with Etuhu starting; no wins against Stoke without Etuhu starting.

We know how to beat Wigan, eh?

Otherwise, not so much. We’ve only beaten Wolves once and he started then; ditto our two wins over WBA, but I don’t think they tell us all that much. What do you think? Any real differences between the two lists, beyond the Stoke effect?

5 thoughts on “More on Dickson

  1. I like Dickson, but I get the impression that it is getting to the point where there is no value in arguing why he is so useful for the team as people are fully convinced he is useless, no matter what argument you use.

    He came on at the weekend, we lost no momentum and he didnt put a foot wrong yet so many people on various messageboards singled him out for a poor performance. Again, he was only on the field for 10 minutes and the team did not stop playing well, yet people HAD to criticise him.

    Some people cannot be reasoned with.

    1. Well he did put a foot wrong. Didn’t he take a fresh air swipe soon after he came on? It’s this sort of thing that feeds his detractors (and I am not one of them). And in the Krakow game it was his loss of the ball that led to their goal. Mind you, I think he was sold short by Kelly. I’m firmly in the pro-Dickon camp. Just pointing out that there is some evidence for the prosecution, just as there was for the Bobby haters a few years ago (shots into row Z etc.) It’s a question of looking at the bigger picture of what he’s contributing, as Rich is doing nicely.

      I agree with you though that arguing with his critics is like trying to convince a climate change sceptic of the threat of global warming.

      1. I am not saying he is perfect, he does have bad games, but they are blown so far out of proportion it is not funny.

        Yes he took an airshot but other than that he was fine. Sidwell made several wayward passes in the first half and yet escapes any criticism, and was considered man of the match by some. This is what bugs me, Dickson was singled out because he was Dickson, not because he had a bad game

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s