Eric Imhof has heard certain things oft-repeated of late. Things he doesn't necessarily agree with...
It’s difficult to be cheery after mustering only a draw at home to a team below you in the table, especially after the level of concentration that had been achieved over the past three outings, but I stand by what I wrote last week: the Swans have passed their first true test and have come out of November with a solid foundation to build on. I’m going to drink to that. (Okay, I was going to drink either way, because it’s the weekend after Thanksgiving and what else goes with leftover turkey sandwiches?).
Yes, Monk’s side should’ve won today against a plucky Palace, but much of the post-match reaction struck me as hyperbole - both the good kind (heightened expectations) and the bad (alarmism). Among the figurative torches and pitchforks, here are three statements I read today that warrant re-examination:
The points that Swansea are dropping from winning positions are a cause for serious concern.
We can look at the headline, “13 points dropped from winning positions,” and from that statement alone conclude that something is dreadfully wrong. Or, we can look just an inch deeper, and realize that six of those points were “dropped” away to Chelsea and City - games that Swansea were realistically not going to win, and games in which the Swans jumped out to surprise early leads - and still three more were the result of questionable refereeing (to put it mildly) at Stoke.
Yes, letting Newcastle and now Palace claw back draws at home is frustrating, but since when is a poor showing automatically a crisis? Nine of the 13 dropped points were away from home, and three of them deserve an asterisk (not to mention that Swansea almost rescued a point at the Etihad). To me, this just sounds like a pedestrian (if not pleasantly surprising) run of 13 games for the Swans in the Premier League.
Swansea need to win on Tuesday against QPR to remain on track for a top-10 finish.
Huh? The last time I checked, the Swans are in 7th, so say whatever you want about the trends and extrapolations and form, but apparently the Swans are playing well enough, Palace-draw included, to be in the top half. I fail to see how even a loss to QPR (gasp!) throws them wildly off track. Granted, it won’t be exceptionally helpful to lose at home to a relegation candidate, but just like the points-dropped crisis mentioned above, it wouldn’t actually be a crisis, it would just be another game in the Premier League, where, as we’ve seen, anything can happen.
For a comparison: last season, Newcastle came in 10th with 49 points. By my admittedly bad math (I went to art school - forgive me), the Swans would still have a good shot at 10th or above if they finish with 25 points in 19 matches. Assuming they lose on Tuesday, that still leaves them five matches to pick up six points, and they have Hull, Aston Villa, and a struggling Liverpool on the docket. It won’t be easy (it never is), but it’s entirely plausible to remain on track. What am I missing here?
Jonjo cost the Swans the game / should be benched.
Okay, there’s some merit to this kind of sentiment, with a few caveats: the penalty was another in a long line of soft, questionable calls against the Swans this season (this point has been belaboured, but ask yourself if any Swansea player would ever get that call in a million years); Jonjo was not the only player off his game yesterday; and the Swans had more than enough chances to make the penalty irrelevant to the result. Last week Monk reminded everyone that “we win as a team, we lose as a team, simple as that.” In this case they drew as a team, but a point’s a point. Onward, then.
Still, a lot of people on twitter commented that Jonjo just doesn’t look like he belongs in Monk’s system anymore, and that much may be becoming more apparent. At the same time, Shelvey is capable of great things, is still young (he's not 23 until February, remember), and appears to care about Swansea, as opposed to many Premier-League soldiers of fortune. Also, Monk has two games in four days to plan for, so was Jonjo seriously not to be considered?
Still, I think it’s time to give some other players a run (Carroll, Barrow, Leon, etc.), not so much as a punishment for Shelvey, but as reward for the others putting in excellent shifts, and as a way for Monk to hone his tactical options. So Jonjo didn’t cost the Swans the game, but should still be benched. Simple, right?
Lastly, and on a personal note, at least people were debating Shelvey instead of Neil Taylor, who I think is playing well enough to escape the “weakest link” category. A victory for Tayls, who can hopefully push on now and show the form which saw him explode onto the Premier League when the Swans first gained promotion.
Thanks as usual to Eric for his ongoing contribution to the site. Give him a follow on Twitter @AustinJackArmy