Brumstopdogs Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 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. I'm sure you could. Every transfer is a gamble to some degree. Again it's just excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm not sure it's excuses. More like he's saying things are more complicated than saying we could have easily found another Charlie Austin. I think, BSD, you're using any excuse, wether it's something you've negatively twisted yourself, to make your case for a scapegoat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 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. Again it's just excuses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm not sure it's excuses. More like he's saying things are more complicated than saying we could have easily found another Charlie Austin. I think, BSD, you're using any excuse, wether it's something you've negatively twisted yourself, to make your case for a scapegoat. I think you're making excuses for a very poor manager that has seen our ability to score goals worsen season after season and has failed to do what is required to resolve it. With £8m in your pocket you would think a creative player/striker would be a logical choice. No, of course Tom Cleverley is the answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmarsha_926 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 See we are creating chances, just cannot score, which is a player issue. we all know our striker can score 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Taking a shot is not the same as creating a chance. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Taking a shot is not the same as creating a chance. Stats are clearly never a perfect science, but the way people are totally dismissing the shots and our conversion rate is also a bit embarrassing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Taking a shot is not the same as creating a chance. Totally agree. Put it this way, even Tonev had shots. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Bacuna showed more in his few appearances run in the team than Cleverly has all season. Unbelievable from PL not to play him more when we have been struggling. Bacuna seems to have turned into Zidane sitting on that bench. I'll give you that he's capable of offering more attacking threat than Tomcles, but he's also comparatively a loose cannon and just as capable of going missing. Salifou Syndrome. Bacuna is ok. He's worth having on the pitch at times for his set piece ability. But people forget that he's not very good in possession. He wouldn't suit our current style (whether that style is right or not!). Plus he's looked best at RB. And I wouldn't drop Hutton for him.I believe Bacuna is definitely better than 'ok'. I'd say he's also contributed more in our first team, in equal game time, as Gabby/ Weimann/ Richardson. I never agree with this whole 'Bacuna's lack of technical ability' point, or the point that he's not good in possession. When he was given an appearance earlier this season, he was one of our best players. Yes, he lost the ball a few times (as all our players do), but he also put in some great passes and, IIRC, either came close to scoring or created a few chances. 'Salifou Syndrome' can be attributed to many of the players we talk about, but for Bacuna, he is genuinely better than some of the options we've been persisting with, so anyone mentioning 'Salifou Syndrome' with regards to Bacuna, can only be doing so to back-up Lambert's decision not to pick him, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Bacuna showed more in his few appearances run in the team than Cleverly has all season. Unbelievable from PL not to play him more when we have been struggling. Bacuna seems to have turned into Zidane sitting on that bench. I'll give you that he's capable of offering more attacking threat than Tomcles, but he's also comparatively a loose cannon and just as capable of going missing. Salifou Syndrome. Bacuna is ok. He's worth having on the pitch at times for his set piece ability. But people forget that he's not very good in possession. He wouldn't suit our current style (whether that style is right or not!). Plus he's looked best at RB. And I wouldn't drop Hutton for him.I believe Bacuna is definitely better than 'ok'. I'd say he's also contributed more in our first team, in equal game time, as Gabby/ Weimann/ Richardson. I never agree with this whole 'Bacuna's lack of technical ability' point, or the point that he's not good in possession. When he was given an appearance earlier this season, he was one of our best players. Yes, he lost the ball a few times (as all our players do), but he also put in some great passes and, IIRC, either came close to scoring or created a few chances. 'Salifou Syndrome' can be attributed to many of the players we talk about, but for Bacuna, he is genuinely better than some of the options we've been persisting with, so anyone mentioning 'Salifou Syndrome' with regards to Bacuna, can only be doing so to back-up Lambert's decision not to pick him, in my opinion. Agree with that, he ought to be given more changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villanun Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 What's classed as the dangerzone? You'll have to ask Kenny Loggins. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villanun Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Just seen an interesting stat.On average it takes us 14.3 shots in the opponents box to score a goal. The next worst to that is Burnley with 7.4 shots average in the opponents box to score a goal. We have been let down by our forwards over the past couple of months. Also over the last 6 games we stand 11th for shots, ahead of Man Utd and Southampton. Normally if we lose its by 1 goal so I think it's fair to say that our forward players are letting us down more than the manager. Genuine question: what counts towards these stats? Because a shot in the box one-on-one with the keeper is different to a shot pinged hopefully against the legs of the three defenders surrounding you, but that difference might not reflected in those stats. Not trying to disprove your point, I'm genuinely interested. Didn't someone say the other day that Aguero only scores 24% of his shots? I suspect he gets many more chances than Benteke, so isn't it expecting a lot of him (Benteke) to convert everything? Edited January 22, 2015 by Villanun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Taking a shot is not the same as creating a chance. Totally agree. Put it this way, even Tonev had shots. Even the most liberal person with their definitions could not define Tonev's Atomic Twatbananas as a shot 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Just seen an interesting stat.On average it takes us 14.3 shots in the opponents box to score a goal. The next worst to that is Burnley with 7.4 shots average in the opponents box to score a goal. We have been let down by our forwards over the past couple of months. Also over the last 6 games we stand 11th for shots, ahead of Man Utd and Southampton. Normally if we lose its by 1 goal so I think it's fair to say that our forward players are letting us down more than the manager.Genuine question: what counts towards these stats? Because a shot in the box one-on-one with the keeper is different to a shot pinged hopefully against the legs of the three defenders surrounding you, but that difference might not reflected in those stats. Not trying to disprove your point, I'm genuinely interested. Didn't someone say the other day that Aguero only scores 24% of his shots? I suspect he gets many more chances than Benteke, so isn't it expecting a lot of him (Benteke) to convert everything?Well one way to look at that stat is in comparison to other teams and we are by far the worst. As for the 25% chance conversion stat of augero. Bony has a 51% conversion rate for Swansea this season, if Benteke had that we would be challenging for Europe and on the flipside if Bony had the same conversion rate as Benteke then Swansea would be alot nearer the relegation places. Edited January 22, 2015 by Bunnski 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Taking a shot is not the same as creating a chance. Totally agree. Put it this way, even Tonev had shots. Even the most liberal person with their definitions could not define Tonev's Atomic Twatbananas as a shot Statisticians would and that is kind of the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Since we are going with completely misleading stats, at least refer to the slightly more relevent one of 'chances created'*: Although anyone who has actually watched our games and isn't engaging in sheer revisionism to try and exonerate the manager doesn't need statistics to know that we are simply not creating anywhere near enough. *This one isn't much better (as I've expanded on a few times in the Westwood thread), just more appropriate to this debate. Edited January 22, 2015 by Isa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Yebbut, those stats don't vindicate the manager, so you've made a mistake, because you've posted them between Monday lunchtime and Friday evening, which is when this thread expands weekly with forty pages of justifications from the handful of supporters left believing in him. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Obviously, that is shocking. The good news is that we've bought in Gil and Lambert recognises that we suck at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted January 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted January 22, 2015 So we've had 55 shots in our last 6 premier league games.... ... and had 60 shots on target in the entire season. Is Tonev back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc_in_essex Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The chances created stat is more relevant than shots on target. If we were in the top 10 for created chances and in the same position for shots on target/goals then I would lay the blame at the feet of the strikers. But from the those stats above it's clear that the reason why we don't hit the target is that we don't create enough chances. Shooting from 30 yards, in my opinion, is not a chance and only a small percentage of these even trouble the goalkeeper, yet alone go in. The problem is lack of creativity. Lambert sets his teams up to attack through the middle with the only width coming the from the full backs. For this to be successful, you need to have players with good technical ability, be able to pick a pass, take on players and have a good movement off the ball. Qualities that the likes of Gabby, Weimann, N'Zogbia and Cleverly lack in abundance. And here lies the problem. Lambert persists with the same formation, with the same players with the same "if we keep doing what we're doing the goals will come" attitude every week. And every week, the goal scoring stat is the same. Sounds very similar to Einsteins definition of insanity.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts