I'd like to see him stay, but only if we can bring in a creative midfielder to work alongside him. I really feel Hayes has suffered this season from having to play too many parts in a team that's missing a key element. People say his legs are going. Looks more like he's knackered from having to cover so many areas.
Realistically would any other Football league club, after looking at his age, performances and goal tally in recent years offer Mr Hayes a playing contract ?
I'd like him to stay, but as ever it depends on wages and who else is available.
He seems to be a big character, and I think losing him could have more of an impact than just what he provides on the pitch. That in itself isn't a reason to keep him, but it does suggest he might fit with a player coach role - if such a vacancy isn't to be filled by Steven Craig.
A lot of people claim that Hayes has a big influence on the pitch without scoring but they never actually provide any evidence to back that up. I'm not saying they're wrong but are there any empirical stats anyone can point to? Let's face it, Paul Hayes has been a regular in a team this calendar year - a team which has failed to score more than one goal in any league match. No matter how influential he is as captain, surely it's more important he has an influence as goal scorer or creator?
I remember wondering at the time Stevie Craig's return as player-coach fell through that it might have been Paul Hayes having a quiet word with Ainsworth, asking for that role himself, which led to the change of heart. I reckon there's a very strong chance of Hayes stepping up to this role this summer and being groomed by Ainsworth either as his eventual successor or alternatively someone who'll go with him to the next club as a package with Dobson.
It's the kind of thing that is impossible to evidence. But you can see he's always communicating, both with teammates and the referee, and all the players in interviews refer to him as a leader.
I think the more likely explanation with Craig is that we spent the money on PCH instead.
Instead of cherry picking this calendar year, why not look at last season and the whole of this season? What are the results with Hayes in the team and without Hayes in the team?
I don't think it's irrelevant to look at the last four months given the cumulative effects of increasing age and additional injuries have on his performance. Also, if we're just going on leadership skills, surely this is when they're most in need - to push a struggling and tired side over the line and into the playoffs? I think if we signed him up as a coach with an additional pay-per-play element we'd get the best of both worlds - the motivational and leadership skills from the sidelines and a potent player when Thompson is unavailable. But given the reality that we're going to have Thompson on the books next season I really struggle to see how we can justify another ageing, expensive striker with an increasingly poor goal return unless he also steps up into a coaching role.
@aloysius Statistics can be selectively used to support any argument. In support of your request for empirical evidence of Paul Hayes influence, however, statistics show that the presence of Paul Hayes in the Wycombe team has a greater positive influence on whether Wycombe will win or not than the presence of any other player.
Source: soccerbase.com
Win rate with Hayes: 48%
Win rate without Hayes: 20%
There is less difference or a negative difference between the with/without win rates for all other regular* Wycombe players, which suggests that their positive impact on the chances of Wycombe winning a match is less.
If we include non-regular players, the presence of Barry Richardson on the pitch shows a 100% win rate. I believe, however, that his single appearance for less than a complete match should be considered statistically insignificant.
Very interesting, thanks @Uncle_T - over what period is that? The two years he's been a permanent player? Including his loan period when he was up front with Beavon? Or just this season?
Update: I note that, having sat out our last couple of non-wins, Luke O'Nien's statistics have now caught up with those of Paul Hayes and show the same positive difference of 28%:
Win rate with O'Nien: 46%
Win rate without O'Nien: 18%
When Hayes and Thompson play together we always seem to struggle. The ideal scenario would be to jettison Thompson and give Hayes a player coach role. However I can't see any league club wanting Thompson, so therein lies the problem. We can't really afford to pay wages for a quality younger striker whilst financing the two senior citizens.
I agree with this part we can't really afford to pay wages for a quality younger striker - but other than Beavon which strikers have we had on permanent contracts since McGleish who are significantly better than Thompson?
Morgan and Amadi-Holloway are the only two I can come up with, both of whom have their own flaws.
Whilst I appreciate you can never be wrong Chris, the statistics here don't back you up. Thompson is 35 and has scored 8 goals in 45 games. Angol is 21 and has scored 9 in 34 in a higher division. I know who I would prefer.
So you're saying that Angol has scored one more goal than Thompson, which sounds to me an awful lot like he hasn't scored many more for Peterborough than Thompson has for us.
In any case, I don't think we can say that Angol was a better striker for Wycombe than Thompson considering he only played a handful of games.
I don't think you can look at a strikers record at other clubs and translate it in to playing for Wycombe. Our strikers get far fewer chances than most other clubs would give them.
We are a strikers graveyard
I'd be dissapointed if Hayes was released and he and Thommo would work a bit better with an effective point of attack to play off. I think the stats about Holloway back that up.
I just can't see how Holloway can return. I may be wrong but didn't I read a comment/reference from Holloway somewhere on the internet that had inference to a serious fall out with GA? Wasn't it regarding the arrival of Thompson and the apparently unbreakable partnership of "the two senior front boys". Once a comment like that goes public, it very often means a bridge burnt.
True, but then you'd have thought Stewart had well and truly burnt his bridges too and look what happened there.
Someone else (maybe RITM) called us a striker's graveyard due to the defensive way we play. Probably true. The point being, there aren't going to be strikers beating down our door to come play for low wages and poor service. GA has repeatedly said that we can only afford castoffs, rejects and kids. So if Holloway wants to come back, I'd imagine we'll let him.
Comments
I'd like to see him stay, but only if we can bring in a creative midfielder to work alongside him. I really feel Hayes has suffered this season from having to play too many parts in a team that's missing a key element. People say his legs are going. Looks more like he's knackered from having to cover so many areas.
Realistically would any other Football league club, after looking at his age, performances and goal tally in recent years offer Mr Hayes a playing contract ?
I'd like him to stay, but as ever it depends on wages and who else is available.
He seems to be a big character, and I think losing him could have more of an impact than just what he provides on the pitch. That in itself isn't a reason to keep him, but it does suggest he might fit with a player coach role - if such a vacancy isn't to be filled by Steven Craig.
A lot of people claim that Hayes has a big influence on the pitch without scoring but they never actually provide any evidence to back that up. I'm not saying they're wrong but are there any empirical stats anyone can point to? Let's face it, Paul Hayes has been a regular in a team this calendar year - a team which has failed to score more than one goal in any league match. No matter how influential he is as captain, surely it's more important he has an influence as goal scorer or creator?
I remember wondering at the time Stevie Craig's return as player-coach fell through that it might have been Paul Hayes having a quiet word with Ainsworth, asking for that role himself, which led to the change of heart. I reckon there's a very strong chance of Hayes stepping up to this role this summer and being groomed by Ainsworth either as his eventual successor or alternatively someone who'll go with him to the next club as a package with Dobson.
It's the kind of thing that is impossible to evidence. But you can see he's always communicating, both with teammates and the referee, and all the players in interviews refer to him as a leader.
I think the more likely explanation with Craig is that we spent the money on PCH instead.
Instead of cherry picking this calendar year, why not look at last season and the whole of this season? What are the results with Hayes in the team and without Hayes in the team?
I don't think it's irrelevant to look at the last four months given the cumulative effects of increasing age and additional injuries have on his performance. Also, if we're just going on leadership skills, surely this is when they're most in need - to push a struggling and tired side over the line and into the playoffs? I think if we signed him up as a coach with an additional pay-per-play element we'd get the best of both worlds - the motivational and leadership skills from the sidelines and a potent player when Thompson is unavailable. But given the reality that we're going to have Thompson on the books next season I really struggle to see how we can justify another ageing, expensive striker with an increasingly poor goal return unless he also steps up into a coaching role.
@aloysius Statistics can be selectively used to support any argument. In support of your request for empirical evidence of Paul Hayes influence, however, statistics show that the presence of Paul Hayes in the Wycombe team has a greater positive influence on whether Wycombe will win or not than the presence of any other player.
Source: soccerbase.com
Win rate with Hayes: 48%
Win rate without Hayes: 20%
There is less difference or a negative difference between the with/without win rates for all other regular* Wycombe players, which suggests that their positive impact on the chances of Wycombe winning a match is less.
Very interesting, thanks @Uncle_T - over what period is that? The two years he's been a permanent player? Including his loan period when he was up front with Beavon? Or just this season?
Update: I note that, having sat out our last couple of non-wins, Luke O'Nien's statistics have now caught up with those of Paul Hayes and show the same positive difference of 28%:
Win rate with O'Nien: 46%
Win rate without O'Nien: 18%
@aloysius That's this season's statistics only; all competitions.
In this calendar month we've scored in every game Paul Hayes has been involved in, and he has a goal in for every three games which isn't too shabby.
If you don't draw an arbitrary line at the start of 2016, the stats (as Uncle T has shown) indicate that Hayes has a positive influence on the team.
@aloysius - we scored twice against Dagenham in February.
@Uncle_T Like you say stats can be selectively used to support a whole range of opinions
Here's another interesting one...
When Holloway & Hayes played together this season Wycombe won 75% Drew 25% and lost 0% of the games.
Last season we won 78% Drew 11% and lost 11% when they played together.
How big is the sample?
But in any case I think we can all agree that Amadi-Holloway is a talented player.
When Hayes and Thompson play together we always seem to struggle. The ideal scenario would be to jettison Thompson and give Hayes a player coach role. However I can't see any league club wanting Thompson, so therein lies the problem. We can't really afford to pay wages for a quality younger striker whilst financing the two senior citizens.
Amazing stats @Uncle_T and @Vital, thanks.
I agree with this part we can't really afford to pay wages for a quality younger striker - but other than Beavon which strikers have we had on permanent contracts since McGleish who are significantly better than Thompson?
Morgan and Amadi-Holloway are the only two I can come up with, both of whom have their own flaws.
Lee Angol doing reasonably ok at Peterborough Chris. I can't imagine Barnet are paying huge wages for Akinde.
Angol hasn't scored many more for Peterborough than Thompson has for us, has he?
I'd like Akinde back, no idea what wages he's on though. I think Barnet have a rich backer so it could be more than you'd expect.
Whilst I appreciate you can never be wrong Chris, the statistics here don't back you up. Thompson is 35 and has scored 8 goals in 45 games. Angol is 21 and has scored 9 in 34 in a higher division. I know who I would prefer.
@Chris Hayes is better than Thompson
So you're saying that Angol has scored one more goal than Thompson, which sounds to me an awful lot like he hasn't scored many more for Peterborough than Thompson has for us.
In any case, I don't think we can say that Angol was a better striker for Wycombe than Thompson considering he only played a handful of games.
Oh and I agree about Hayes!
I don't think you can look at a strikers record at other clubs and translate it in to playing for Wycombe. Our strikers get far fewer chances than most other clubs would give them.
We are a strikers graveyard
I'd be dissapointed if Hayes was released and he and Thommo would work a bit better with an effective point of attack to play off. I think the stats about Holloway back that up.
I don't see Hayes staying.
@rmjlondon On what basis?
Richie, without being cheeky, you seem to be wrong on most things, so I'd say it's a certainly Hayes stays.
I can see both of them staying....I'd love Holloway back in think him and hayes work well though I can't see him returning unfortunately
I just can't see how Holloway can return. I may be wrong but didn't I read a comment/reference from Holloway somewhere on the internet that had inference to a serious fall out with GA? Wasn't it regarding the arrival of Thompson and the apparently unbreakable partnership of "the two senior front boys". Once a comment like that goes public, it very often means a bridge burnt.
True, but then you'd have thought Stewart had well and truly burnt his bridges too and look what happened there.
Someone else (maybe RITM) called us a striker's graveyard due to the defensive way we play. Probably true. The point being, there aren't going to be strikers beating down our door to come play for low wages and poor service. GA has repeatedly said that we can only afford castoffs, rejects and kids. So if Holloway wants to come back, I'd imagine we'll let him.