Amadou Onana

[Cods]

It's easy to see why perception is what it is.

Garner barely raised an eyebrow when he emerged on the scene, wasn't expensive, came from the championship, was proposed as a squad filler at best, and has done reasonably well based on those expectations.

Onana was paraded with his own soundtrack, was compared to a young Patrick Vieira, and was labelled as a future star and was our major signing, at nearly 4 times the transfer fee, and wages, of Garner. He's been OK too, better than Garner in the main. We know he's physical, and capable of pulling up trees, but not sure we've seen that expected dominance and star quality since his debut. He's definitely a victim of how he'd been portrayed, as big time, and the club is partly to blame for that as at the time they were all for satisfying the fans with a big signing. He also needs to show more to justify his price tag, and his obvious potential.

[Bluedylan1]

Onana's a way better player than James Garner, bless the little tyke.

There's a good reason Barcelona, Arsenal, Man U and others have been scouting him and want to sign him. I'll be stunned if Garner ever plays at a higher level than Everton from this point on in his career.

[bigmanbob]

He may may well be, but Garner has (only just!!!) been the better, more consistent player this season

[Goaljira]

He may may well be, but Garner has (only just!!!) been the better, more consistent player this season

He's not been better, and consistancy when it means you're consistantly averagely boring isn't something really to aspire to.

[Cods]

Lies, damn lies and statistics I know, but they are actually not significantly different this season.

While Onana might look more easy on the eye, Garner per 90 actually has moderately-to-considerably better statistics in Shot and Goal creating actions, key passes, successful takeons, progressive carries, progressive passes received, combined goal+assists, tackles, blocks, interceptions and clearances, as well as team points per match and better Goals +/-differential.

Fewer fouls, goals conceded whilst on the pitch.

I'm also yet to find an objective match rating source that doesn't have Garner over Onana. Opta even has Garner as our best performing player per 90.

Identifying, not proselytising.

[brap2]

Lies, damn lies and statistics I know, but they are actually not significantly different this season.

While Onana might look more easy on the eye, Garner per 90 actually has moderately-to-considerably better statistics in Shot and Goal creating actions, key passes, successful takeons, progressive carries, progressive passes received, combined goal+assists, tackles, blocks, interceptions and clearances, as well as team points per match and better Goals +/-differential.

Fewer fouls, goals conceded whilst on the pitch.

I'm also yet to find an objective match rating source that doesn't have Garner over Onana. Opta even has Garner as our best performing player per 90.

Identifying, not proselytising.

This isn't my experience using fbref.

Defensive actions garner looks really good.

If you remove garners deadballs then everything creative / passing drops off sharply. Neither are particularly creative although I would expect garner who has played RM and RB and frankly, can whip a ball, to show higher for chances created. Sadly from open play he does not.

He attempts and completes less per 90 overall despite taking set pieces. From open play James Garner attempts and completes less passes per 90 than vitaly Mykolenko and James Tarkowski. Nobody scores higher than Onana here.

Fewer passes into the final 3rd.

Fewer passes into the penalty box when adjusting for open play.

Much fewer progressive passes attempted. With a much shorter progressive distance per90.

Fewer carries per 90, with a shorter prog distance per 90. James Garner carries the ball forward over less ground per 90 minutes than Michael Keane.

Fewer carries into the pen box, more miscontrols, more times passes are blocked.

More goals allowed and fewer goals scored per 90 on/off than Onana.

Etc etc neither of us are right just different sources and applications of the data innit

[Cods]

This isn't my experience using fbref.

Defensive actions garner looks really good.

If you remove garners deadballs then everything creative / passing drops off sharply. Neither are particularly creative although I would expect garner who has played RM and RB and frankly, can whip a ball, to show higher for chances created. Sadly from open play he does not.

He attempts and completes less per 90 overall despite taking set pieces. From open play James Garner attempts and completes less passes per 90 than vitaly Mykolenko and James Tarkowski. Nobody scores higher than Onana here.

Fewer passes into the final 3rd.

Fewer passes into the penalty box when adjusting for open play.

Much fewer progressive passes attempted. With a much shorter progressive distance per90.

Fewer carries per 90, with a shorter prog distance per 90. James Garner carries the ball forward over less ground per 90 minutes than Michael Keane.

Fewer carries into the pen box, more miscontrols, more times passes are blocked.

More goals allowed and fewer goals scored per 90 on/off than Onana.

Etc etc neither of us are right just different sources and applications of the data innit

Yes I agree, it's not definitive, which was my point. They have their differences but they're not so different that one is that much better than the other. The further we drill down there are finer and finer margins, and contributing factors, and incomplete or questionable data and extrapolations and interpretations that will be inherently faulty.

Garner actually has more progressive carries per 90, but as you say for less distance. And to correct re Team Success, head to head we've actually conceded 10% more goals, yet only scored 5% more, with Onana on vs Garner, which contributes to Garner's slightly better points per match stat. But again, not significant and can be explained away. Garner has worse passing and completion, but this is largely down do long passes category which given set pieces form some of that number,also needs consideration.

Player comparison is fraught; especially between those in different positions where there's not a direct enough comparison, or where some have only a fraction of playing time (Keane) with inadequate sample size to be able to draw conclusion.

As you say anything can be cherry picked to try to prove a point. On balance they have their differences but Garner doesn't have significantly worse stats than Onana and actually has a few important stats that are better. Then there is availability, versatility, and functionality (we don't have James or Digne for set pieces) in a small squad.

My main point is, between the two of them, is Onana a considerably better contributor than Garner, does he justify at this point being 3.5x times the cost in wages and transfer fee? I'm not sure he does at this point. Potentially yes, but not yet. Potentially a good investment too, yet at a higher financial risk, particularly given our circumstances.

I hope it's clear I'm not particularly a fan of either, but I think the criticism of Garner is imbalanced (no I'm not on twitter to see what others think there) I'd have back Barry/Speed/Arteta or maybe even Barkley in current form, but I'm not sure I want to go there.

[brap2]

Yes I agree, it's not definitive, which was my point. They have their differences but they're not so different that one is that much better than the other. The further we drill down there are finer and finer margins, and contributing factors, and incomplete or questionable data and extrapolations and interpretations that will be inherently faulty.

Garner actually has more progressive carries per 90, but as you say for less distance. And to correct re Team Success, head to head we've actually conceded 10% more goals, yet only scored 5% more, with Onana on vs Garner, which contributes to Garner's slightly better points per match stat. But again, not significant and can be explained away. Garner has worse passing and completion, but this is largely down do long passes category which given set pieces form some of that number,also needs consideration.

Player comparison is fraught; especially between those in different positions where there's not a direct enough comparison, or where some have only a fraction of playing time (Keane) with inadequate sample size to be able to draw conclusion.

As you say anything can be cherry picked to try to prove a point. On balance they have their differences but Garner doesn't have significantly worse stats than Onana and actually has a few important stats that are better. Then there is availability, versatility, and functionality (we don't have James or Digne for set pieces) in a small squad.

My main point is, between the two of them, is Onana a considerably better contributor than Garner, does he justify at this point being 3.5x times the cost in wages and transfer fee? I'm not sure he does at this point. Potentially yes, but not yet. Potentially a good investment too, yet at a higher financial risk, particularly given our circumstances.

I hope it's clear I'm not particularly a fan of either, but I think the criticism of Garner is imbalanced (no I'm not on twitter to see what others think there) I'd have back Barry/Speed/Arteta or maybe even Barkley in current form, but I'm not sure I want to go there.

To be honest, he doesn't get on the ball anywhere near as much, he doesn't do as much on the ball, he's a hard worker defensively.

That's my feelings on him as a player and maybe it's confirmation bias but that's what I see in the numbers. The things Garner is lauded for Onana is better at.

Onana will end up playing Champions League football.

Garner when we eventually shift him will end up back in the championship.

[Kerryblueboy]

Story in one of the online outlets football insider I think that Barca want this guy for €80 million and are giving us the pick of 4 players as part of the deal fati lenglet dest and ferran Lopez never heard of the last guy the rest are out on loan I think

[brap2]

Story in one of the online outlets football insider I think that Barca want this guy for €80 million and are giving us the pick of 4 players as part of the deal fati lenglet dest and ferran Lopez never heard of the last guy the rest are out on loan I think

Fati has always looked like a potential mega star.

Dest would possibly solve a fullback question for us but dunno if he'd work in the prem/dyche because he's basically a rapid winger who plays at full back.

All boss and young, no idea if any of them would work for us.

[TheRam]

Bring on another barca reject season

[Shogun]

Dyche and Fati would definitely work out.

[Kerryblueboy]

Bring on another barca reject season

You wouldn’t have digne or Mina again

[Gash]

Bring on another barca reject season

It's an upgrade from all the Burnley rejects we're bringing in the summer.

[Big Nevs Vaz]

Came on as a sub in Dublin this evening and played centre back. Interesting that Tedesco sees him as a footballing centre back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk