DCJonah Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The stat is that we score 1 goal per 14.3 shots inside the box, we are bottom of that table. Burnley are second from bottom with 1 goal per 7.4 shots inside the box. Chelsea are top with 1 goal per 3.4 shots inside the box. The stat is relevant in the sense that it shows we are way behind everyone else in the league for taking our chances. Can you provide a link that shows us these stats? What's classed as the dangerzone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Right so now the shift of blame is moving onto Benteke, if he does start scoring and we improve I assume the people saying the forwards have let us down will be congratulating benteke and will give little credit to the manager? I can't imagine that happening somehow. The main point to take from this is that it's not just the managers fault but also the players fault. Benteke has scored a couple of worldies this season but has missed some point blank chances which is costing us as he is our main source of goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Right so now the shift of blame is moving onto Benteke, if he does start scoring and we improve I assume the people saying the forwards have let us down will be congratulating benteke and will give little credit to the manager? I can't imagine that happening somehow. But Benteke was supposed to be our saviour and when he became fit and returned to the side everything would be rosy. How did that work out I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The stat is that we score 1 goal per 14.3 shots inside the box, we are bottom of that table. Burnley are second from bottom with 1 goal per 7.4 shots inside the box. Chelsea are top with 1 goal per 3.4 shots inside the box. The stat is relevant in the sense that it shows we are way behind everyone else in the league for taking our chances. Can you provide a link that shows us these stats? What's classed as the dangerzone? Eh...I'd imagine it means the penalty box, what else could it mean? It's seems like you're having a hard time accepting facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Given that we have second lowest shots per game, and take the most number of shots to score a goal it isn't that much of a surprise that when we do finally get in the area the strikers (or heaven forbid the midfielders) are more anxious! Lambert decides which forwards play so the buck stops with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Given that we have second lowest shots per game, and take the most number of shots to score a goal it isn't that much of a surprise that when we do finally get in the area the strikers (or heaven forbid the midfielders) are more anxious! Lambert decides which forwards play so the buck stops with him. Over the last 6 games we are 11th for amount of shots. We have had 55, more than Utd, Southampton, Swansea, West Ham. Stoke have had 43. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Right so now the shift of blame is moving onto Benteke, if he does start scoring and we improve I assume the people saying the forwards have let us down will be congratulating benteke and will give little credit to the manager? I can't imagine that happening somehow. But Benteke was supposed to be our saviour and when he became fit and returned to the side everything would be rosy. How did that work out I wonder. It's only you guys who seem obsessed with finding scapegoats. Some people just like to acknowledge that there's more to the situation than blaming one man, whether that's Lambert or Benteke or anyone else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Given that we have second lowest shots per game, and take the most number of shots to score a goal it isn't that much of a surprise that when we do finally get in the area the strikers (or heaven forbid the midfielders) are more anxious! Lambert decides which forwards play so the buck stops with him. This is where the money thing comes back in. It's so simple: we have one good striker fit, one decent one injured and the rest are very average, especially at the moment. He might decide what attackers to play, but when we've been changing the squad on a budget (reducing costs in the process) it doesn't bless you with high quality attacking options. It's not as if he's kept Aguero and Messi on the bench for the likes of Gabby and Andi. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Given that we have second lowest shots per game, and take the most number of shots to score a goal it isn't that much of a surprise that when we do finally get in the area the strikers (or heaven forbid the midfielders) are more anxious! Lambert decides which forwards play so the buck stops with him. Over the last 6 games we are 11th for amount of shots. We have had 55, more than Utd, Southampton, Swansea, West Ham. Stoke have had 43. If you have players who aren't very good at shooting you could argue it doesn't really matter how many you shots you have. We need players who put the ball in the net - Lambert's job is to make sure we have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Given that we have second lowest shots per game, and take the most number of shots to score a goal it isn't that much of a surprise that when we do finally get in the area the strikers (or heaven forbid the midfielders) are more anxious! Lambert decides which forwards play so the buck stops with him. Over the last 6 games we are 11th for amount of shots. We have had 55, more than Utd, Southampton, Swansea, West Ham. Stoke have had 43. If you have players who aren't very good at shooting you could argue it doesn't really matter how many you shots you have. We need players who put the ball in the net - Lambert's job is to make sure we have them. Yeah he just needs to save up another few years worth of his wages to afford a decent striker and sort it out himself eh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Given that we have second lowest shots per game, and take the most number of shots to score a goal it isn't that much of a surprise that when we do finally get in the area the strikers (or heaven forbid the midfielders) are more anxious! Lambert decides which forwards play so the buck stops with him. Over the last 6 games we are 11th for amount of shots. We have had 55, more than Utd, Southampton, Swansea, West Ham. Stoke have had 43. If you have players who aren't very good at shooting you could argue it doesn't really matter how many you shots you have. We need players who put the ball in the net - Lambert's job is to make sure we have them. His job was also to stop the club losing £50million a year therefore replacing expensive players with cheaper ones, and to make the defence solid. Making everything perfect costs £££££££££££££££££££££££, which we clearly don't have. The only other option is a lot of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 This is where the money thing comes back in. It's so simple: we have one good striker fit, one decent one injured and the rest are very average, especially at the moment. He might decide what attackers to play, but when we've been changing the squad on a budget (reducing costs in the process) it doesn't bless you with high quality attacking options. It's not as if he's kept Aguero and Messi on the bench for the likes of Gabby and Andi. Every team has a budget! Most teams try and reduce costs! Gabby was given a new 4 year contract. If he's not up to the required standard then he shouldn't have been offered it. Why did we try and waste £8m on Cleverley if we're desperately in need of a striker? Surely if we're so reliant on Benteke then that should have been a higher priority! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 This is where the money thing comes back in. It's so simple: we have one good striker fit, one decent one injured and the rest are very average, especially at the moment. He might decide what attackers to play, but when we've been changing the squad on a budget (reducing costs in the process) it doesn't bless you with high quality attacking options. It's not as if he's kept Aguero and Messi on the bench for the likes of Gabby and Andi. Every team has a budget! Most teams try and reduce costs! Gabby was given a new 4 year contract. If he's not up to the required standard then he shouldn't have been offered it. Why did we try and waste £8m on Cleverley if we're desperately in need of a striker? Surely if we're so reliant on Benteke then that should have been a higher priority! Wasn't Kozak supposed to be back by now? Maybe Lambert was relying on that being the case back then and felt he could spend money elsewhere on the team, unfortunately Kozak had a major set back which couldn't of been predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Yeah he just needs to save up another few years worth of his wages to afford a decent striker and sort it out himself eh? Not really. Take Charlie Austin for example. Signed by QPR for £4m - currently has more goals than our entire team put together. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Yeah he just needs to save up another few years worth of his wages to afford a decent striker and sort it out himself eh? Not really. Take Charlie Austin for example. Signed by QPR for £4m - currently has more goals than our entire team put together. I could give you plenty of examples of strikers that cost similar and were a total flop, it doesn't really prove anything and any signing in that price range is a gamble more often than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Wasn't Kozak supposed to be back by now? Maybe Lambert was relying on that being the case back then and felt he could spend money elsewhere on the team, unfortunately Kozak had a major set back which couldn't of been predicted. Could it really not of been predicted? A guy coming back from a serious injury - things don't always go smoothly as we have seen before. Regardless, even assuming he followed the logic you stated, wouldn't a creative player of made more sense rather than a poor double of Westwood? Edited January 21, 2015 by Brumstopdogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 This is where the money thing comes back in. It's so simple: we have one good striker fit, one decent one injured and the rest are very average, especially at the moment. He might decide what attackers to play, but when we've been changing the squad on a budget (reducing costs in the process) it doesn't bless you with high quality attacking options. It's not as if he's kept Aguero and Messi on the bench for the likes of Gabby and Andi. Every team has a budget! Most teams try and reduce costs! Gabby was given a new 4 year contract. If he's not up to the required standard then he shouldn't have been offered it. Why did we try and waste £8m on Cleverley if we're desperately in need of a striker? Surely if we're so reliant on Benteke then that should have been a higher priority! Holler gave Gabby a new contract too, and I believe the rumour was that he did it to protect an asset. I'm not sure, but we could have let Gabby leave for free—but how much would it have then cost to sign another striker? Gabby has his place in the squad anyway. I've only lost faith in Cleverly in the last few games and to be fair to him he has been played out of position. Anyway, who knows who we were after in the summer? None of us. We also need creative players in other positions — with Kozak and Benteke meant to be back not too far into the season maybe a striker wasn't the priority. You can see the logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Wasn't Kozak supposed to be back by now? Maybe Lambert was relying on that being the case back then and felt he could spend money elsewhere on the team, unfortunately Kozak had a major set back which couldn't of been predicted. Could it really not of been predicted? A guy coming back from a serious injury - things don't always go smoothly as we have seen before. Regardless, even assuming he followed logic, wouldn't a creative player of made more sense rather than a poor double of Westwood? I don't think you like logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Wasn't Kozak supposed to be back by now? Maybe Lambert was relying on that being the case back then and felt he could spend money elsewhere on the team, unfortunately Kozak had a major set back which couldn't of been predicted. Could it really not of been predicted? A guy coming back from a serious injury - thinks don't always go smoothly as we have seen before. Regardless, even assuming he followed the logic you stated, wouldn't a creative player of made more sense rather than a poor double of Westwood? I'm not gonna argue a case for us signing Cleverley as I think he's shit but hindsight is a wonderful thing and plenty of people were happy enough for us to sign him back then. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts