Topic: Dani Pacheco

[Yorkykopite]

Look at the facts

Total first team career stats - 36 games    2 goals

This includes 2 loan spells. 1 at Norwich when they were in the Championship and 1 at Rayo Vallenco. His only 2 goals came at Championship level.

That's not a great return for a midfielder, let alone a striker.

It doesn't look great but perhaps you can help us further by telling us (i) how many of those 36 games did he start in (ii) how many did he play as a forward in and how many as midfield or wide man?

[Madron]

I've also just looked up the comments from Paul Lambert on Pacheco's debut for Norwich on his loan spell. There was indeed high praise from him, but the article I read about it started as follows:

"The Liverpool and former Barcelona youngster was too hot to handle as Norwich City ran relegation-haunted Scunthorpe United ragged at Carrow Road on Saturday afternoon, hammering the 10-man visitors 6-0."

Weren't exactly playing '70's Brazil where they?!

[Madron]

It doesn't look great but perhaps you can help us further by telling us (i) how many of those 36 games did he start in (ii) how many did he play as a forward in and how many as midfield or wide man?

This I do not know, nor do I have the ability or inclination to research I'm afraid, and they will be very vaild points no doubt.

EDIT: It's a slow work day, I have found the following across all clubs (us and 2 loan spells) - Don't quote me on the validity of these stats, taken from http://uk.soccerway.com/players/daniel-pacheco/47945/

League - 22 apps - 3 starts - 19 sub - 45 times unused sub
Dom Cup - 3 apps - 3 starts
Europe - 10 apps - 3 starts - 10 times unused sub

I have no idea on where he played in those games.

9 starts is not a lot at all, and therfore his stats based purely on apps is an unfortunate judgement measure for him, but why does he only have 9 starts?

The biggest indicator of a problem for me is his time at Rayo V. Why did he not get a single league start all season in a newly promoted side? 11 apps in lge for them, all from the bench, and 24 times as an unused sub. This demonstrates  no partuclar injury problem or he wouldn't be on the bench for almost every game. Maybe we have someone with much closer knowledge of the Spanish game who can advise on what was going on at the time, as I do not profess to be a close followe of Dani's career or of Rayo Vallencano's.

I understand him not starting for LFC's first team, but when he goes to lower teams and still doesn't start then why not? Not a compelling case for him staying with us.

I do wonder if he had come to us from Crewe's academy rather than Barcalona's whether people would have the same views on him.

EDIT: Yes I do know that there's 1 game missing from these new stats compared to the ones I quoted earlier before any onle flags it... such is life!

[MOZ]

The biggest indicator of a problem for me is his time at Rayo V. Why did he not get a single league start all season in a newly promoted side? 11 apps in lge for them, all from the bench, and 24 times as an unused sub. This demonstrates  no partuclar injury problem or he wouldn't be on the bench for almost every game. Maybe we have someone with much closer knowledge of the Spanish game who can advise on what was going on at the time, as I do not profess to be a close followe of Dani's career or of Rayo Vallencano's.

This is what the Rayo Coach had to say at the time:

"The Spanish rate players on the present rather than the past. He’s come from Liverpool, but didn’t really play for Liverpool. We're looking to get the best out of Dani Pacheco: up until now he’s had injuries so hasn’t been able to get going.

But it’s important that a player knows where he is. He’s at Rayo now, he has to work like a Rayo player. If not, then you won’t play. So we're working a lot with him on a psychological level and getting over to him what the spirit of Rayo Vallecano is, as he needs to identify himself with the badge. Even if you have a lot of quality, if you don’t play the way I want then you aren’t going to be included."

[Nessy76]

We might have to agree to disagree (although not on the X-Factor - shite of the highest and most retarded order) It is true to say that it is a fact that he impressed many people, but not sure you could ever say it was a fact that he was impressive. If he was impressive as a fact, then no one could fail to be impressed by him. Just one person not being impressed by him would disprove the fact that he was impressive.

Only to the person in question. It's a subjective measure. If you impress anyone, you are, by definition, impressive.

[Yorkykopite]

Thanks for that Madron. Appreciate it.

9 starts is not a lot at all....but why does he only have 9 starts?

But that's called shifting the goalposts! Indeed it's the very question we're all perennially mulling over. So you can hardly pose the question as if it's a kind of answer.

[Madron]

Thanks for that Madron. Appreciate it.

But that's called shifting the goalposts! Indeed it's the very question we're all perennially mulling over. So you can hardly pose the question as if it's a kind of answer.

I see your point but I didn't quite mean it like that, I was progressing the debate I suppose after uncovering more data and indeed I did state that measuring on apps/goals was unfair as I originally did.

[Madron]

Only to the person in question. It's a subjective measure. If you impress anyone, you are, by definition, impressive.

I agree but a fact can not be subjective, therefore it is opinion.

[Mr Mingebag Squid]

On the "Why didn't he play at Vallecano" question...wasn't he competing with Michu for the number 10 role?

The very same Michu who had a stellar season and has had a very good 1st half season in the Prem?

[GrkStav]

I agree but a fact can not be subjective, therefore it is opinion.

What is the "it" above that is "opinion"?

[Nessy76]

I agree but a fact can not be subjective, therefore it is opinion.

Whether someone is impressed is a subjective judgement. If they declare themselves impressed, and we have no reason to disbelieve them, then them being impressed is an objective fact and it follows that what impressed them was, by definition, and in fact, impressive. It is something of a stretch of how the word is typically used, but semantically that is what it means. Which is to say, of course, that it is not particularly useful.

[Almo]

Yes, but what about this: 23 + 17 appearances and 6 goals in all competitions (Cole). 51 + 14 and 4 goals (Downing). Yes, that's 74 starts and 31 sub appearances, with 10 goals in return from Cole and Downing. That's players bought for 20M and players that cost us 150k/w or so in wages. It's a goal every ten appearance from them. And it's their normal career rate. If you can get half of that for 1/10 of the price, it's a decent trade. In particular if you also get money to invest in a new player.

What we're doing, and this is why Cole and Downing are relevant, is we protect them as if they're treasures and we fault Pacheco. It's backwards. Our expectations on him are that we expect him to be the next Messi, or he's got no future here. Our experienced players, well, they're experienced and hard to sell, so let's shift Pacheco, have a coffee and wait for the next offer for Downing or Cole.

I don't think that anyone is treasuring Cole or Downing and they certainly weren't brought in by Rogers (although i was briefly treasuring Cole when he scored against West Ham!!) We have a manager at the moment who, due to limited resources, and an obvious desire to develop our quality young players, has really trusted in youth this season, and so he of all people would surely have been keen to elevate Pacheco if he really believed in him. They way that Suso for example has burst into the team is surely on merit, and had Pacheco shown the same desire, skill flexibility, mental attitude or whatever factors our managerial team look for, don't you think they would have considered him too?

[Sangria]

The most mid-table attitude I think I've ever seen. I wouldn't keep any of them. I'd replace them all with better quality, hungry players.

If my attitude is mid-table, your approach was the one that brought us to this end in the first place, courtesy of Purslow. "Not good enough, get rid", and only after getting rid do you look at what's left. I described a personnel policy at the time that I'd like to have seen. If we'd pursued that rather than what we've been doing since, we'd have saved upwards of 20m/year on wages and 100m on transfer fees and other payments, whilst leaving us not noticeably worse off in quality. Imagine if we'd done what I'd have liked to have done, and had that 100m transfer budget and 20m+ per years wages to spend. But maybe you're right, my cautious attitude is typically mid-table, while your Purslovian approach will bring us success.

[Hazell]

"Purslovian".

***Shudders.

[Sangria]

I've also just looked up the comments from Paul Lambert on Pacheco's debut for Norwich on his loan spell. There was indeed high praise from him, but the article I read about it started as follows:

"The Liverpool and former Barcelona youngster was too hot to handle as Norwich City ran relegation-haunted Scunthorpe United ragged at Carrow Road on Saturday afternoon, hammering the 10-man visitors 6-0."

Weren't exactly playing '70's Brazil where they?!

Did you watch the game? When Pacheco went off, the score was 3-0, with Pacheco getting 2 assists and hitting the bar from long range (a 30-35 yard flattish lob IIRC). Virtually all Norwich's play was going through him, and he got a standing ovation when he was substituted.

[Madron]

What is the "it" above that is "opinion"?

I really don't think you want to get in to this... I thought I did, turns out I was wrong. However, the specific sentence (that was included in a list of "facts") that has provoked a longwinded and ultimately slow progressing debate on the nature of a fact and what part subjectivity can or can not play in making up a fact was:

Fact Dani played v's West Brom and was largely very impressive.

Nessy, you are quite correct, but in this case, I think we can agree that Draex's comment can't be considered fact, it is very much a statment of opinion. The fact is that he played in the match, his performance in that match is Draex's opinion, in this context.



Have we really got nothing better to do? I need to get out more... or do some work...

[Madron]

Did you watch the game? When Pacheco went off, the score was 3-0, with Pacheco getting 2 assists and hitting the bar from long range (a 30-35 yard flattish lob IIRC). Virtually all Norwich's play was going through him, and he got a standing ovation when he was substituted.

I did not, sounds great. The only reason I am even discussing that game is that his performance in it was held up as a reason why we should be playing him/keeping him at LFC, and in particular Lambert's comment about that game, which is the only reason I searched for it, and found what I thought was quite a humorous opening to an article, given the context of the debate.

My point is that one game is not a yardstick for anything.

[Nessy76]

I really don't think you want to get in to this... I thought I did, turns out I was wrong. However, the specific sentence (that was included in a list of "facts") that has provoked a longwinded and ultimately slow progressing debate on the nature of a fact and what part subjectivity can or can not play in making up a fact was:

Nessy, you are quite correct, but in this case, I think we can agree that Draex's comment can't be considered fact, it is very much a statment of opinion. The fact is that he played in the match, his performance in that match is Draex's opinion, in this context.



Have we really got nothing better to do? I need to get out more... or do some work...

Fair enough. 

[Sangria]

I did not, sounds great. The only reason I am even discussing that game is that his performance in it was held up as a reason why we should be playing him/keeping him at LFC, and in particular Lambert's comment about that game, which is the only reason I searched for it, and found what I thought was quite a humorous opening to an article, given the context of the debate.

My point is that one game is not a yardstick for anything.

You're the one trying to play down the significance of that game, whereas I've not mentioned the game at all. My argument for him is financial, based on an argument I posted 2 years ago, and whose validity has only grown since. We have a limited amount of money to spread around. We need to adequately fill out the squad as well as give us enough of a sharp cutting edge. How do we allocate our resources? My mid-table attitude assumes the position that our owners have now openly stated. Your Purslowlike approach assumes infinite resources.

[Madron]

If my attitude is mid-table, your approach was the one that brought us to this end in the first place, courtesy of Purslow. "Not good enough, get rid", and only after getting rid do you look at what's left. I described a personnel policy at the time that I'd like to have seen. If we'd pursued that rather than what we've been doing since, we'd have saved upwards of 20m/year on wages and 100m on transfer fees and other payments, whilst leaving us not noticeably worse off in quality. Imagine if we'd done what I'd have liked to have done, and had that 100m transfer budget and 20m+ per years wages to spend. But maybe you're right, my cautious attitude is typically mid-table, while your Purslovian approach will bring us success.

I fail to see why me wanting to go and get talented hungry players is "Purslovian". Was it not Purslow involved in bringing Joe Cole here in the first place? You can say many things about Joe Cole, but I don't think that describing him as "hungry" is one of them (well, maybe in a "I'm going to get down to Greggs and have 3 steak bakes" capacity).

I am not asking for us to start spunking copious amounts of cash on poor value for money players, I am advocating proper scouting and signing quality players that add depth and strength and move us forward as a team. I am also not asking that we get rid of people before having replacements, which appears to be the baseless accusation you're levelling at me.

You liken the situation to that of Insua, and getting shot before a replacement is available, thus leaving you without cover. I'm not supporting this as a course of action. We can't afford to thin the squad anymore, without guaranteed replacements coming in first, but once you have the better quality replacements then why hang on to players not making the grade?

You seem to demanding that we play substandard, cheap players in place of substandard, expensive players. I fail to see what benefit that gives us... short of trimming the wage bill before you get relegated.

You're the one trying to play down the significance of that game, whereas I've not mentioned the game at all. My argument for him is financial, based on an argument I posted 2 years ago, and whose validity has only grown since. We have a limited amount of money to spread around. We need to adequately fill out the squad as well as give us enough of a sharp cutting edge. How do we allocate our resources? My mid-table attitude assumes the position that our owners have now openly stated. Your Purslowlike approach assumes infinite resources.

I fear you've jumped in on a conversation here without maybe reading all of the previous posts. I mentioned this game initally not in response to you at all, but in response to someone else who brought it up. My post about this game had nothing to do with anything you'd posted.

Oh, and the Purslow things a bit boring. As my views are in no way similar to that of the "Torres of Finance" and indeed I fail to see how I have given you this impression, then I can only assume it's your stock position to try and discredit anyone disagreeing with you? 

[Sangria]

I fail to see why me wanting to go and get talented hungry players is "Purslovian". Was it not Purslow involved in bringing Joe Cole here in the first place? You can say many things about Joe Cole, but I don't think that describing him as "hungry" is one of them (well, maybe in a "I'm going to get down to Greggs and have 3 steak bakes" capacity).

I am not asking for us to start spunking copious amounts of cash on poor value for money players, I am advocating proper scouting and signing quality players that add depth and strength and move us forward as a team. I am also not asking that we get rid of people before having replacements, which appears to be the baseless accusation you're levelling at me.

You liken the situation to that of Insua, and getting shot before a replacement is available, thus leaving you without cover. I'm not supporting this as a course of action. We can't afford to thin the squad anymore, without guaranteed replacements coming in first, but once you have the better quality replacements then why hang on to players not making the grade?

You seem to demanding that we play substandard, cheap players in place of substandard, expensive players. I fail to see what benefit that gives us... short of trimming the wage bill before you get relegated.

The Purslow approach is to approach the question of getting rid of personnel because they're not good enough, without considering where that leaves us once you've got rid of said personnel. The biggest example of that was of course Benitez, with people salivating over the likes of Mourinho and other giants replacing the incompetent. We ended up with Hodgson. But that was marginally arguable, as there's only one managerial position and you can't bed another in with the original one still there. But a playing squad has multiple positions so you can bed in, and Purslow began his trimming of those bits that weren't good enough by flogging Insua to Fiorentina. No big loss, as he wasn't good enough, so we might as well get rid. Except that left us with no LBs at the club, and when Purslow belatedly realised this, he went at once to his contacts book and recontracted Aurelio. Not good enough, get rid, only think about the consequences once you've got rid.

"The most mid-table attitude I think I've ever seen. I wouldn't keep any of them. I'd replace them all with better quality, hungry players."

How much will that cost? We have a limited amount of money to spend. Once we've replaced one of them, how much will be left to spend? How do you stagger the replacements? Do you get rid of the not good enoughs, and trust that you'll get replacements in in due course? Because that worked so well for us in the summer of course.

[john_mac]

What is 'Purslovian' is the amount of plassy, would be, footy managers knockin around a thread with more pages than the player will ever have appearances

[exino]

The Purslow approach is to approach the question of getting rid of personnel because they're not good enough, without considering where that leaves us once you've got rid of said personnel. The biggest example of that was of course Benitez, with people salivating over the likes of Mourinho and other giants replacing the incompetent. We ended up with Hodgson. But that was marginally arguable, as there's only one managerial position and you can't bed another in with the original one still there. But a playing squad has multiple positions so you can bed in, and Purslow began his trimming of those bits that weren't good enough by flogging Insua to Fiorentina. No big loss, as he wasn't good enough, so we might as well get rid. Except that left us with no LBs at the club, and when Purslow belatedly realised this, he went at once to his contacts book and recontracted Aurelio. Not good enough, get rid, only think about the consequences once you've got rid.

"The most mid-table attitude I think I've ever seen. I wouldn't keep any of them. I'd replace them all with better quality, hungry players."

How much will that cost? We have a limited amount of money to spend. Once we've replaced one of them, how much will be left to spend? How do you stagger the replacements? Do you get rid of the not good enoughs, and trust that you'll get replacements in in due course? Because that worked so well for us in the summer of course.

Spot on as always Sangria mate.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

He's playing Downing for no reason whatsoever at LEFT BACK of all positions.

He's bringing Cole on instead of Assaidi when we need a goal.

 

How many goals has Assaidi scored?

[Rouge]

How many goals has Assaidi scored?

How many starts?

[keyo]

How many starts?

 
Assaidi Oussama                  App10 (4)      Goals 0  Assists 0 Mins on pitch 596
Cole Joe                               App 8 (4)      Goals 2  Assists 1 Mins on pitch 329

[john_mac]

 
Assaidi Oussama                  App10 (4)      Goals 0  Assists 0 Mins on pitch 596
Cole Joe                               App 8 (4)      Goals 2  Assists 1 Mins on pitch 329

Surely the winner at West Brom was an assist for Assaidi? Don't know much about these shitty stats things but was at the match and would have thought taking the ball through and putting it on a plate for the fella to put it in the net would count as an assist.

Maybe only if its suits the agenda

[Danny_]

Reading through some of the posts here it's almost like there is some sort of conspiracy theory where successive managers have intentionally decided to sideline this great player for some secret special reason.

This.

[Nosss]

Surely the winner at West Brom was an assist for Assaidi? Don't know much about these shitty stats things but was at the match and would have thought taking the ball through and putting it on a plate for the fella to put it in the net would count as an assist.

Maybe only if its suits the agenda

I've always thought that an assist was only an assist if the reciever needed to only control and shoot... As soon as the receiver/scorer has to beat a man or have a dribble its no longer an assist.

I don't remember the ball from Assaidi you're alluding to, but that could explain why he wasn't given the assist?

[bigbear]

I've always thought that an assist was only an assist if the reciever needed to only control and shoot... As soon as the receiver/scorer has to beat a man or have a dribble its no longer an assist.

I don't remember the ball from Assaidi you're alluding to, but that could explain why he wasn't given the assist?

He rolled the ball across the goal for Sahin to tap in. I think that's an assist in whatever variety of fantasy football you want to indulge in.

[Nosss]

He rolled the ball across the goal for Sahin to tap in. I think that's an assist in whatever variety of fantasy football you want to indulge in.

Fair enough, as I said I can't remember the exact ball. Sounds like an assist to me 

[bigbear]

Fair enough, as I said I can't remember the exact ball. Sounds like an assist to me 

Suso slipped the ball to him on the left hand side of the area, he beat his man on the outside and rolled it across the box for Sahin to tap in at the far post.

[Nosss]

Suso slipped the ball to him on the left hand side of the area, he beat his man on the outside and rolled it across the box for Sahin to tap in at the far post.

Just seen it then. Nailed on assist. Strange that it wasn't chalked up. Perhaps the stats that we posted earlier ignored the league cup for some reason

[keyo]

Surely the winner at West Brom was an assist for Assaidi? Don't know much about these shitty stats things but was at the match and would have thought taking the ball through and putting it on a plate for the fella to put it in the net would count as an assist.

Maybe only if its suits the agenda

agree with you.....but basically the post was merely meant to answer a fairly fatuous point somone made, supporting another fatuous point made about using cole over assaidi..something that does not belong in this thread, as it is about pacheco, and does not indicate any reason why paheco does not get a game

[gorgepir]

Nice to see him in the training pictures with Lucas. Bib theory says that he will not get a game, but nice to see him training regardless.

[RideTheWalrus]

Nice to see him in the training pictures with Lucas. Bib theory says that he will not get a game, but nice to see him training regardless.

I could tell you that :p

[Tookathered]

I feel for this guy. deserve better treatment than his current situation.

[Tookathered]

I feel for this guy. deserve better treatment than his current situation.

[gazzathered]

Nice to see him in the training pictures with Lucas. Bib theory says that he will not get a game, but nice to see him training regardless.

He won't get a game,he's not in favour

[careca]

Dani if you are reading this have you bought a copy of the single yet?