Manwell Pablo Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 If Wood's 3 goals against a "piss poor" team isn't impressive, what does that say for Waghorn? He's scored against two "piss poor" teams and one average team. When we were 5-0 up and it didn't matter anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 And all those sub apperances when he's had no effect. Lets not forget them. That striker we didn't need managed to match that in 45 minutes. Away from home. We didn't need him to finish top six (which is what I for one and given the polls at the start of the season most on here expected), that's all I ever said. I think the fact that we were in the top six when we signed him would support that view, wouldn't you? For your information, Waghorn has played 963 minutes of football (Yeah, I'm that sad) if you want to take into account every single substitute appearance (which clearly isn't the same as starting games, but whatever), that equates to 10.7 full matches. So he has 3 in 10.7 so far. You put that over a full season and he gets 12 goals, which I admit isn't incredible, but taking into account what he offers the team I don't think that's too bad. It's the exact same number he got during his loan spell when the majority did think that he was good enough. It's also more goals than all but one Reading striker got last year when they won the league. In conclusion, I am ****ing ecstatic that we've signed Chris Wood and delighted with his start in the league, but I think it's unfair to dismiss Waghorn just because of Wood's success when so far his tally and recent performances would suggest he's getting back to the player we had on loan a few years ago and for a side looking for a play-off spot he could quite comfortablly be starting games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetintedspecs Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 Once again a thread descends into a ridiculous slagging match! IMO NP changed things a little yesterday (as quite a few were hoping for) and it showed that these changes were nowhere near the quality of our 1st choice 11, that applies to most teams though surely? Having seen all 3 matches against Town anyone saying their performance yesterday wasn't significantly improved has bluer tinted specs than me. Once the changes were made in the second half we controlled the game and could have won ,however on balance the draw was fair! I hope Vardy, Waggy and Futacs can improve and learn from Nuge and Wood else I fear for for their futures, I certainly wouldn't totally give up on them and destroy them like some Regarding the potential fixture pile up, thats football if you progress or potential opponents do... it happens! I am delighted we're still in the 5th round draw C'mon Leicester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCFC_FAN_1995 Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 Should of started the usual first team and then if we got a few goals up then bring on wellens, vardy etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 We didn't need him to finish top six (which is what I for one and given the polls at the start of the season most on here expected), that's all I ever said. I think the fact that we were in the top six when we signed him would support that view, wouldn't you? For your information, Waghorn has played 963 minutes of football (Yeah, I'm that sad) if you want to take into account every single substitute appearance (which clearly isn't the same as starting games, but whatever), that equates to 10.7 full matches. So he has 3 in 10.7 so far. You put that over a full season and he gets 12 goals, which I admit isn't incredible, but taking into account what he offers the team I don't think that's too bad. It's the exact same number he got during his loan spell when the majority did think that he was good enough. It's also more goals than all but one Reading striker got last year when they won the league. In conclusion, I am ****ing ecstatic that we've signed Chris Wood and delighted with his start in the league, but I think it's unfair to dismiss Waghorn just because of Wood's success when so far his tally and recent performances would suggest he's getting back to the player we had on loan a few years ago and for a side looking for a play-off spot he could quite comfortablly be starting games. But Wood and Nugent have shown they have the quality to come off the bench and score and have much fewer opportunities to do so than Waghorn? I am actually starting to wonder if you ever go to games, espeically away ones, and actually watch football, or just sit in front of an Excel spreadsheet looking at numbers. He was wank yesterday, as he has been on too many occasions this season when given a chance. Especially away from home. You can't multiply his goal tally across the whole season, we don't play shit teams at home who are 5-0 down every week. I thought goals against poor Championship sides didn't impress you anyway? He really needs to be playing a back up role. Doubt even your going to disagree with that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 But Wood and Nugent have shown they have the quality to come off the bench and score and have much fewer opportunities to do so than Waghorn? I am actually starting to wonder if you ever go to games, espeically away ones, and actually watch football, or just sit in front of an Excel spreadsheet looking at numbers. He was wank yesterday, as he has been on too many occasions this season when given a chance. Especially away from home. You can't multiply his goal tally across the whole season, we don't play shit teams at home who are 5-0 down every week. I thought goals against poor Championship sides didn't impress you anyway? He really needs to be playing a back up role. Doubt even your going to disagree with that though. I don't disagree, he should be back-up to Wood and Nugent, but that isn't what we were debating. I do go to games, I'm a season ticket holder and go to as many away games as I can get to (I didn't go yesterday, since I can't afford to go to all away games I choose to prioritise league games - It's difficult to get to away games when you can't drive, don't have a job and don't have any family members interested in taking you to away games, but as I say I go to as many as I possibly can) and I honestly believe that he is good enough. It was you who brought up stats talking about his '3 goals' I simply replied by similarly talking about league goals. You can't change the criteria just because the genuine facts don't support your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 I don't disagree, he should be back-up to Wood and Nugent, but that isn't what we were debating. I do go to games, I'm a season ticket holder and go to as many away games as I can get to (I didn't go yesterday, since I can't afford to go to all away games I choose to prioritise league games - It's difficult to get to away games when you can't drive, don't have a job and don't have any family members interested in taking you to away games, but as I say I go to as many as I possibly can) and I honestly believe that he is good enough. It was you who brought up stats talking about his '3 goals' I simply replied by similarly talking about league goals. You can't change the criteria just because the genuine facts don't support your argument. I'm not having a go about you not going I know full well what it's like it was tongue in cheek. What are you on about? 3 goals isn't good enough, thats the criteria, that hasn't changed, and your trying to apply a shit and inaccurate mathmatical equation to try and disprove this. If you want to know the truth try working out it properly, taking into account home ratios away, opposition, shots to goals ratio, etc et etc. Not uplifting a skewed figure. As I've said time and time again you can prove anything with statistics it depends on what you look at and take into account. Where as it is plain to the eye, the lad is horribly readable one footed low on confidence and misses too many good chances in a creative team, and Wood and Nugent have showm, you have a bit about you, there a goals galore to be had in this side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 If you want to know the truth try working out it properly, taking into account home ratios away, opposition, shots to goals ratio, etc et etc. Not uplifting a skewed figure. I really don't see how goals per minutes on the pitch playing football, in the division we are playing in, is skewing the stats. In fact I think 'taking into account home ratios away, opposition, shots to goals ratio' is a lot less informative than looking at goals per minutes on the pitch, since it's on average the same level of opposition we'll be facing on a weekly basis all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 I really don't see how goals per minutes on the pitch playing football, in the division we are playing in, is skewing the stats. In fact I think 'taking into account home ratios away, opposition, shots to goals ratio' is a lot less informative than looking at goals per minutes on the pitch, since it's on average the same level of opposition we'll be facing on a weekly basis all season. It would be if it was a reasonable figure and there were more goals and apperances spread out against better teams, Looking at stats they way you do always favours the low scoring low apperances sort of players, it's a bit like saying David Nugent is one of the best strikers in Englands history as he has scored one goal every half an hour or so for his country. When you've only scored against teams in the bottom half at Home, it's skewed, we play better teams most weeks, and half of them away from home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeman's Wharfer Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 He seemed reluctant to bomb on, never on his wing and was playing as a central midfielder at times. Didn't give an ounce of help to Konchesky for 70 minutes. He didn't show for the ball at all either. Perked up after he gave the penalty away but it shouldn't take that to make someone start playing. In his defence, he was the only one that went to close down their full back that lead to him conceding the pen. I noticed this too and at first I thought it was laziness on Dyer's part but given the amount was happening it was clearly tactical and something he'd been instructed to do. Everytime Konchesky got the ball Dyer moved inside and was vacating the wing. What the logic behind this was (creating more space for Konchesky, providing defensive cover for somebody) I don't know but it didn't really work. It was only in the second half when he was cut free that he was allowed to really be a winger and he got the assist. Having said that, I still don't think his overall game was as good as it could and should have been. For the goal I was watching our shape quite closely at the time. We'd just had a corner and Morgan took up a position on the left wing for quite some time, not moving back into the middle of defence. Dyer was the one that dropped in to cover him. As our attack broke down and they hit us on the break (with Dyer in the middle of the back four and Morgan still on the left wing) Morgan then started to make his way back in. Dyer waited until he got there and as soon as he did he sprinted across to the left wing. By this time the man that Morgan had left to move from left wing to centre back was free and had been given the ball with plenty of space to run into as neither Dyer or Morgan were there. Having got there rather desperately, Dyer's shape and positioning (face on not side on) was all wrong and over his leg the Huddersfield man went. Stonewall. Morgan has been outstanding for us this season but he does have a tendency to go walk about at times and leave our shape a little skewed. It happened yesterday and it also happened against Cardiff when King dropped in for him (leaving all that space for Bellamy). He needs to get back into position a bit quicker when we lose possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acetripper Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 If thats you playing well I can see why your dropping like a stone in the league. Yer see...we've been utterly crap, while you've been blazing ahead in the Championship. You were far the better team in both League meetings and you look physically stronger and skill!ful... BUT it didn't show yesterday my friend, in fact you were very very average until the second half subs came on. It's easy to see why you're hot promotion candidates and I reckon you' sweep us aside in the replay however, I don't see why most of you can't acknowledge that we played reasonably well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 Yer see...we've been utterly crap, while you've been blazing ahead in the Championship. You were far the better team in both League meetings and you look physically stronger and skill!ful... BUT it didn't show yesterday my friend, in fact you were very very average until the second half subs came on. It's easy to see why you're hot promotion candidates and I reckon you' sweep us aside in the replay however, I don't see why most of you can't acknowledge that we played reasonably well. I've said you were better than I thought and that Sean Scannell was impressive, I refuse to go any further than that . We were fuking poor, that's a side effect of not playing Knockaert Wood Nugent and Drinkwater, probably the fours most productive members of our squad, as you've said, we improved when 3/4 of them came on. Apperciate you had Beckford Danns missing (amongst others) but as their both our players I feel quite comfortable in saying missing those four is a much bigger miss for us than missing those two is for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted 27 January 2013 Share Posted 27 January 2013 Ship Vardy and Waghorn out and get one quality back up striker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 28 January 2013 Share Posted 28 January 2013 Just remembered whilst watching the game, the missus said "can you believe Waghorn cost more than Wood and Nugent combined!?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonfox22 Posted 28 January 2013 Share Posted 28 January 2013 Uddersfield Hero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted 28 January 2013 Share Posted 28 January 2013 Uddersfield Hero Is it Dynamo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964FOX Posted 29 January 2013 Share Posted 29 January 2013 Uddersfield Hero I'd hate to listen to uddersfields worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyFromLE Posted 29 January 2013 Share Posted 29 January 2013 Dont get all this criticism. He has to play the fringe players at some point in a competitive game. Stop overreacting, it's mostly embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.