Best wishes to him but does not look good-
Fully expect(ed) him and Osborne to be released at the end of this season as neither has made the step up to the level required, nor been able to stay available for any extended period of time. They have shown brief glimpses, but nothing consistently enough. This just confirms that for me now.
That said, hope he makes a full recovery and finds regular football somewhere of course.
I agree with you on Carter, but less so Osborne. I don't think Osborne is the creative outlet we were expecting him to be, but he's shown flexibility playing on the right and the left (despite being signed as an attacking midfielder) and I don't think his output is poor enough that he doesn't make up for it with work rate. I personally think we are better with him playing wide right/left than we are without.
I just looked it up, to see if it was just my perception or not, but we haven't lost a game that he has started in this season:
vs Barrow - started (played 67 mins) - won 1-0
vs Luton - started (played 90 mins) - drew 2-2 (won on pens)
vs Bristol Rovers - started (played 54 mins) - won 2-0 (although both goals came after he went off)
vs Bradford - did not start (played 40 mins) - lost 4-1 (we were 3-1 down when he came on)
vs Port Vale - started (played 90 mins) - drew 1-1
vs Wycombe - did not start (not in squad) - drew 2-2 (lost on pens)
vs Walsall - did not start (not in squad) - lost 1-0
vs Spurs u21 - did not start (not in squad) - lost 4-3
vs Swindon - started (played 85 mins) - drew 1-1 (conceded after he went off)
vs Sutton - did not start (unused sub) - lost 2-1
vs Forest Green - did not start (unused sub) - lost 4-0
vs Harrogate - started (played 90 mins) - drew 0-0
Now you could argue correlation vs causation, and you could argue that it's just a coincidence, but... that's a pretty reasonable sample size, and it would have to be a pretty big coincidence that the only positive result we have gotten that he wasn't involved in, was the 2-2 draw against Wycombe (which we ultimately lost on penalties) and we haven't lost a game that he has started.
Now I agree that his fitness might be an issue - he missed a large part of last season, and has also missed games already this season, but in terms of his impact on the team, I think the above stats make a good argument that we are better with him in the team than without.
Food for thought, at least.
Edited by AgentEves at 18:19:57 on 28th September 2021
So I looked into this a little more, because I was curious... I went all the way back to the Colchester game on Jan 26, 2021 (36 games), which seems to be the game that Osborne returned after his injury. I felt like collecting data prior to that game was somewhat pointless, considering Osborne was injured for so long, despite the fact that our results prior to Christmas were worse, so the data would have skewed further in favour of Osborne.
In those 36 games (which includes the games from this season I listed above) the records are:
Games when in the starting lineup (19):
8 wins (42%), 9 draws (47%), 2 losses (11%)
22 goals scored (1.16/game), 15 goals conceded (0.79/game)
Games when used as a sub (7):
2 wins (28.6%), 2 draws (28.6%), 3 losses (42.8%)
4 goals scored (0.57/game), 7 goals conceded (1.0/game)
Games when not used (unused sub or not in squad) (10):
3 wins (30%), 1 draw (10%), 6 losses (60%)
12 goals scored (1.20/game), 17 goals conceded (1.70/game)
> We only lost twice in the 19 games that Osborne has started (0-1 against Mansfield & 1-2 against Salford).
> We won 8 in the 19 games that Osborne started vs 5 in the 17 games he didn't.
> We picked up 33 pts (1.74/game) in the 19 games Osborne started vs 18 pts (1.06/game) in the 17 games he did not.
> We scored 22 goals (1.16/game) in the 19 games Osborne started vs 16 goals (0.94/game) in the 17 games he did not.
> We conceded 15 goals (0.79/game) in the 19 games Osborne started vs 24 goals (1.41/game) in the 17 games he did not.
> Our goals scored/game was 23% better when Osborne started vs when he did not.
> Our goals conceded/game was 78% better when Osborne started vs when he did not.
According to the stats, we are 43% more likely to win when Osborne starts, than when he doesn't, and 90% more likely to get at least a point (win or draw) when Osborne starts, than when he doesn't.
Now obviously we can still say that this is coincidence or correlation vs causation, but I feel like 36 games is a pretty decent sample size, and to have only lost 2 games when Osborne started, out of 19 games, is a pretty strong stat. I'd actually argue that what he brings to the team is work rate and defensive stability, moreso than the goals and assists that we were expecting from him.
In my opinion, Osborne is one of our most important players.
Quick send this to Revs and Wilkins
They’ll think Xmas has come early given their analysis, scouting and tactics are done on the back of a fag packet
Fitness or lack of it is temporary.
We let Alex Samuel go because he was 'always injured' - he did OK. Lots of other examples.
(Unless it's the same joint/muscle/tendon that goes repeatedly and cannot be strengthened)
I'd be disappointed if we let Osborne go. I'd rather have him in the squad than Andrade, for example.