Does Cahill hold us back

Should Cahill be in the first XI

  • Total voters
    113
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neiler said:
Not for me lets be honest here, hes up there with the likes of any midfeilder and most strikers in PL in terms of goals, its how you view him really he doesnt have a set position hes a midfeilder/striker and the end product he brings to the game is unbleiveable, you can never dismiss his leadership qualites, desire, nuisance factor for other teams, he has the ability to set the tempo of the game as well with his hurly burley style.

I know the point poeple are trying make, but its not about Cahill for me its more about the system and lack of pace on the break for me, tbf to him he scored more then any of our strikers in half a season then they did in a full one that said its not definitive either there are some games where maybe taking him of another striker could benifit us, its about varience and options throughout any game and that goes for any player, there are few better then STC in what he does. Its a hell of an impact in terms of end product to take him out of the team.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We need him on the pitch but not necessarily in the current system, which gives the lone striker far too much to do.
 

Want to change my vote. IM FUMING. I read the title which read Does Cahill hold us back. I say no and vote only to realise the vote option was should cahill be in the starting 11. YES. It;s FIXED.
CAHILL IS A EVERTON LEGEND. FACT
 
Cahill is a vital part of our squad, a valuable source of goals and a potent weapon to use against specific opposition, especially away from home.

Do we sometimes play better, more flowing football when he isn't playing? Of course we do, but that isn't Cahill's fault. You have to assume that when Tim is on the pitch, Moyes sets the team out to play off him, utilizing his strengths as a second striker.

It's a squad game at the end of the day, you need Cahill for the season and we'd be much worse off for not having him but under a different manager, he wouldn't play every single game, no.
 
woww deceptive poll, i thought i was answering the question in the thread title, otherwise i would have voted yes.

Cahill should start, he does not hold us back, we get more points when he plays than when he doesn't end of
 

toffeestillidie said:
woww deceptive poll, i thought i was answering the question in the thread title, otherwise i would have voted yes.

Cahill should start, he does not hold us back, we get more points when he plays than when he doesn't end of
Click to expand...

Going by last season that's a lie. I can't believe I was sad enough to work all this out, but here you go:


With Cahill ------ Without Cahill
Played: 28 -------------- 10
Won: ---9 ----------------4
Drawn: 11 ----------------4
Lost: ---8 ----------------2

Points: -----------38 --- 16
Points per game: 1.35 -- 1.6

Scored: --34 ----------- 17
Conceded: 33 ----------- 12

Goals per game: ---1.2 ---- 1.7
Conceded per game: 1.18 --- 1.2


Some other things to note:

  • Of the 9 games in which Cahill scored we only managed to win 3, but drew 4 and lost 2.
  • The Sunderland 2-0 win has been attributed to the with Cahill table, although he only played the last 18 minutes of the game. By that point we were already 2-0 up and coasting.



I'm just going to highlight the key stats as that is a lot of info.

With Cahill we averaged 1.35 points and 1.2 goals per game.
Without Cahill we averaged 1.7 points and 1.6 points per game.


So proportionately speaking last season, we got more points without him and also scored more goals. To all those who love to say we can't live without his goals, the stats say differently. They say we can actually do even better.

Not to say we should get rid of him or anything. I just thing these stats back up the opinion that we should look to move away from the traditional 4-5-1/4-4-1-1 with Cahill, as it isn't as effective as it was. We need something new; a formation which works for players like Osman and Beckford. If that new formation can also work for Cahill, then that would be perfect, but it's a tough one for sure.
 
Use Tim as a "big game" player but bench him against lower teams more inclined to put men behind the ball and hold out for a point?

And if we still can't break them down bring him on and hope he can nick a goal?
 
deathbyropeandglass said:
Use Tim as a "big game" player but bench him against lower teams more inclined to put men behind the ball and hold out for a point?

And if we still can't break them down bring him on and hope he can nick a goal?
Click to expand...

He is undeniably useful in those big games. The problem is the teams who indeed sit back. With Cahill on the pitch we're more rigid and without pace we really do struggle to break these teams down. I think we solved that problem by having 2 strikers on the pitch as Becks harried defenders whilst Saha profited, and in the 4-2-3-1 teams struggled to defend against our alternating midfield 3. Ossie was impossible to pick up as he roamed everywhere and was magnificent.
 
RadioFriendlyUnitShifter said:
Going by last season that's a lie. I can't believe I was sad enough to work all this out, but here you go:


With Cahill ------ Without Cahill
Played: 28 -------------- 10
Won: ---9 ----------------4
Drawn: 11 ----------------4
Lost: ---8 ----------------2

Points: -----------38 --- 16
Points per game: 1.35 -- 1.6

Scored: --34 ----------- 17
Conceded: 33 ----------- 12

Goals per game: ---1.2 ---- 1.7
Conceded per game: 1.18 --- 1.2


Some other things to note:

  • Of the 9 games in which Cahill scored we only managed to win 3, but drew 4 and lost 2.
  • The Sunderland 2-0 win has been attributed to the with Cahill table, although he only played the last 18 minutes of the game. By that point we were already 2-0 up and coasting.



I'm just going to highlight the key stats as that is a lot of info.

With Cahill we averaged 1.35 points and 1.2 goals per game.
Without Cahill we averaged 1.7 points and 1.6 points per game.


So proportionately speaking last season, we got more points without him and also scored more goals. To all those who love to say we can't live without his goals, the stats say differently. They say we can actually do even better.

Not to say we should get rid of him or anything. I just thing these stats back up the opinion that we should look to move away from the traditional 4-5-1/4-4-1-1 with Cahill, as it isn't as effective as it was. We need something new; a formation which works for players like Osman and Beckford. If that new formation can also work for Cahill, then that would be perfect, but it's a tough one for sure.
Click to expand...

I'm so pleased you've done this. Now I'm not the only stats geek! Interesting findings. Of course there are always outside factors. Neville moving to midfield certainly tightened us up. Cahill played quite a few games when he came back from Qatar and he wasn't even half fit, so that'll pull his stats down. I think Ossie is the key factor. He had a purple patch where he was the main man, but then he went quiet again when everyone came back. I wouldn't play Osman ahead of Cahill, but I'd look to try and find a place for him in the team where he could do what he did so well when he was our hub.
 

I think it's somewhere inbetween really, we can and have played good football with Cahill in the side, to suggest otherwise is extremely harsh, but the more we become a possession orientated side, the more teams drop off us and put men behind the ball. That's when you need better movement, guile and intelligence. Six foot plus centre backs will mop up those angled crosses into the box all day long, and that's predominantly how we create chances. We rely on percentages, knock downs and mistakes from opposition players. It all becomes a little predictable.

I'd atleast like to see some variation in that position, that would be a start. If he is going to be regular then Moyes should use Coleman at fullback so we've got width on both sides. We can't just 'go with what we've got' and keep everything the same, we'll be find out. One of the old guard (Neville, Cahill) need to be phased out really.
 
But this is all pointless cause Moyes will :

A : never drop him when fit

B : play him half fit

C : there is no C.

I think 9 years of watching Moyes as a manager suggests that.
 
chicoazul said:
He played as a deep sitting midfielder for a couple of games in 2009 and didn't look too out of place.
Click to expand...

I like him in a deep destroyer role if i'm honest..

Good work rate and knows how to win the ball.. Fellaini is better there, mind you.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top