Adam Chicksen vs Conor Wood: Statistics

Fair enough. But in my opinion, defensively he’s our weakest link. It’s one of the reasons he regularly comes in for flak. Another reason is the considerable quality gap we have in relation to who he replaced - Meredith. That change epitomises why we’ve regressed so much due to Rahic.

 

Fair comment. Although I think maybe Hopkin signed Woods knowing that McGowan was on his way, so in effect cover across all the back 4. It will be interesting to see who he picks at LB on Saturday if Woods is over his injury. I didn't go to Wycombe but suspect Chicksen may have done enough to keep his place.

 

FFS, this getting really tedious now.
Everyone knows that Chicksen is a downgrade on Meredith (except for his crossing, which is far better than Mezza's).

Everyone knows that Rahic has royally shafted us and that the squad we have is a massive downgrade on the one he inherited.

Everyone knows we're in the bottom four for a reason. But that reason is NOT because we are a poor team; it's because we WERE an unbelievably terrible team for the first three months of the season. We were a shambles in defence (and midfield and up front) back then.
Chicksen was a part of that shambolic defence, but he was no worse than NKP, O'Connor, McGowan or Mellor, who were all awful under Collins, all made numerous goal-conceding errors and all took time to improve under Hopkin.

Our form since November is upper mid table/lower playoff level. We are unrecognisable from that early season shambles. We have thrashed some teams off the park and got battling away draws that would have been heavy defeats in September or October. We'd be nowhere near the bottom four if we'd had a conventional start and pre-season.

Chicksen has played a part in that revival. He's had some dodgy games but also some pretty good ones. He was part of the defence that kept several clean sheets in December and again on Saturday.
I don't know if you were at Wycombe on Saturday, but I was, and Chicksen was steady throughout - making a number of important interceptions, tackles and, yes, blocked crosses.

We have the squad we have until May. Yes, let's hope that Woods is fit for most of the remaining games because he's clearly an upgrade on Chicksen and Wood defensively. But Chicksen has shown that he can play a part in an efficient defence when called on, and if we go down it certainly won't be his fault.

 

Spot on.

 

Well said. I didn't go to Wycombe but I imagine Chicksen is less exposed with Wood (or anyone else for that matter) playing that dedicated left midfield role

 

I wasn't, but I watched on ifollow. For the most part, he was OK. But Wycombe's best chance came from a Chicksen mistake (the one that ended in O'Connors goal line block). Its about opinions - mine is that he's a poor player. Simple as that.

Caddis sets the sort of standard needed. He's 7/10 every week. Chicksen rarely if ever gets above a 6 and often switches off.

As for the rest - our form since the beginning of December looks good. If we can maintain it we'll be OK - but equally, we have a really tough run of fixtures in March.

If we go down, it'll be as a result of many things - most of which lay at Rahic's door. But in terms of player contributions, Chicksen has been among a clutch of players who've contributed little in terms of quality.

 

Definitely.

 

The flip side to that is that Caddis had a better game, despite not having the protection of another full back playing in front of him.

 

But for some reason the rest of that clutch of players (whoever you think they are) don't get the dog's abuse that Chicksen does.

 

I agree Caddis is generally very good but he also makes mistakes and gets beaten occasionally. Imagine the vitriol on here if it was Chicksen who gave away that penalty against Shrewsbury!

 

Caddis has Ball. I think they have a great understanding defensively. When we rae under attack down that side Ball is never more than a few yards away. That isn't taking anything away from Caddis by the way

 

Josh Wright gets more abuse than anyone. Reeves gets plenty. I've seen Miller called a 'headless chicken' and he's just won EFL young player of the month. So does Patrick. Brunker was a cult here for some - for me, and many others - purely on a quality basis he should never have been near this football club and its an embarrassment that he was. NKP has been called out a fair few times. Akpan took plenty of stick until the last couple of games where he's turned performances around.

Maybe its me missing it. I just don't see much 'abuse' aimed Chicksen's way. I just see lots of people calling him out for not being a very good player. Its nothing personal, I just don't rate him and would like to see him replaced with better. The same applies to several other players in the squad too.

 

All players make mistakes, true. And its a fair point - chicksen would have taken more stick. But..... I think that's mainly because we see quality and consistency from Caddis regularly. A tired and clumsy challenge seems more forgivable on that basis. People are less forgiving of players making mistakes when they happen more often and aren't compensated for by quality in other ways.

 

Chicksen is in the Josh Wright group of in terms of effort put in, bottling challenges left, right and centre. That's why I have a go at him.

As poor as players like Akpan, NKP, O'Connor, Mellor, Miller etc have been, the effort from them all have increased tenfold since Hopkin's arrival.

 

Ball works hard. He's a good player who does put a shift in. But he's not a defensive player. I'd expect any full back to be better protected when they have another full back playing in front of them.

 

That's because Caddis is a much better player than Chicksen. Everyone knows that. Caddis has been head and shoulders our best defender. Possibly even our best player. He's been a revelation. Our defence looked a completely different proposition from the moment he stepped on the pitch away at Posh. The comparison in this thread is between Chicksen and Wood. No one is suggesting that Chicksen is anywhere near the quality of Caddis.

 

Yes I get that, much the same way I can forgive Payne for letting his man go for the Burton goal. I think you and I will never see eye to eye on Chicksen, but at least we don't resort to personal abuse

 

He isn't a defensive player, but he does seem to have a defensive understanding with Caddis. We sit in the main stand almost level with the edge of the area so get a good view. They work really well together

 

If he was in the Josh Wright group in terms of effort do you really think Hopkin would be playing him?

 

Nah, I don't buy that. I don't see that. If Chicksen was producing Josh Wright effort levels he'd be training with the outcasts and not even getting on the bench, just like Wright. Hopkin doesn't tolerate lazy players.

There's a huge amount of confirmation bias going on here. Many people have made up their minds that Chicksen is useless and pounce on every bit of evidence to confirm that view. But when he has a good game like on Saturday, or contributes to several clean sheets, that goes unrecognised.
I'm not saying that he's the standard we need, but he's nowhere near as bad as some make him out.