On the whole Senderos – Hughes thing, I decided to look at all the games Philippe has played in and compare them to the games Aaron has played in. Except I couldn’t do that because Hughes has barely played CB in league games this year.

Instead I looked at the games Senderos has played in this year versus the equivalent games from last year:

I don’t know really. If I say “well, this is Jol’s impact and the new system. Transition, you know?” then it’ll look like I’m avoiding a conclusion that would contradict what I thought I think about Senderos.  Certainly if the numbers had been different I’d have used them against Hughes, which is really why I’ve posted this: don’t want to just post things that fit conveniently with preconceptions.  So… I don’t know.  I don’t suppose this tells us much really.


7 thoughts on “Hmmm

  1. I’m not sure what kind of conclusions you can draw from a correlation this loose. There are *so* many other variables in play here.

  2. I think this is still useful information. You make reference to us being in transition which is pretty fundamental to anything Senderos has achieved.

    Assuming all things are equal we “ought” to be a much better team next year. Jol will have a few more of “his type” of player in and those that remain will have had longer to get to grips with what Jol requires. Perhaps, once we’ve solved the midfield/attack conundrum we’ll have a team in which Senderos can thrive.

    Probably the key thing to take on board is we have three very decent center backs (four if you include Chris Baird).

  3. I have never been clear on Jol’s love of Senderos over Hughes. I have always felt confident in the Hangeland Hughes pairing, and I see too much uncertainty with Sendaros. Our strength in the past few years has been consistency in defending, but this season has been inconsistent at best. Hughes and Hangeland should anchor our back line!

  4. People who say that Hangeland plays less well with Senderos rather than Hughes might like to consider the possibility that Hangeland doesn’t seem like quite the collosus he was without the bank of four midfielders shielding the defence.

    He hasn’t seemed as good this season but the truth is that whoever has played anywhere in the back four has sometimes been exposed.

    Maybe the mystery of why Hangeland didn’t move to a Champions League club is less because of his loyalty to FFC but more a feeling by top 4 club scouts that his strength was in a defensive set up and that he would be less effective without cover.

    Perhaps Arsenal’ s defensive problems are less about the individual frailties of their back 4 and more the lack of protection they get.

    My point is that maybe Hangeland AND Hughes were made to seem better than they were because of the defensive set up favoured by Hodgson. If we go for something more attacking something has to suffer.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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