Mark_w Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Fvcking "goals per minute" Where? Don't think anyone's posted any goals per minutes stats in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 First of all: minutes per goals, a large number of those appearances were as a sub, his minutes per goal ratio was better at this level than Beckford last time this argument was had and only a little of Nugent at this level. (on phone so can't post them again) His goal scoring record is pretty poor since we actually signed him, minutes per goal or otherwise, so it all depends if you view his worth solely on goals scored or what else hecontributes to the team, first line of defence, pressuring the opposition defenders, best delivery from set pieces at the club, 100% effort and commitment. This is a fundamental difference between Waghorn and say Beckford who if he isn't scoring is contributing little else. Where? Don't think anyone's posted any goals per minutes stats in this thread. ....wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Fvcking "goals per minute" If that's the proof of a strikers ability then Jermaine Beckford is a better top level goal scorer than Gabriel Batistuta (i,e it's not) Do you agree or disagree that it is a better measure than goals per start, or goals per appearances? Both are massively flawed for purposes of comparison, minutes on the pitch per goal is the fairest measure of a striker's potency in front of goal without involving complicated coefficients based on the difficulty of the opposition. Obviously there needs to be a reasonable number of games played at that level to judge, otherwise Nugent would be the most potent striker for England. For those interested in minutes per goal stats this is the site I use: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/martyn-waghorn/leistungsdaten/spieler_61674_gesamt.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Beckford might not try as much, but I still think he has more quality than the likes of Waghorn. You can't have it both ways. Beckford and Waghorn were both large investments, and both haven't justified their price tag. Can't really argue for one, and be against the other, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Do you agree or disagree that it is a better measure than goals per start, or goals per appearances? Both are massively flawed for purposes of comparison, minutes on the pitch per goal is the fairest measure of a striker's potency in front of goal without involving complicated coefficients based on the difficulty of the opposition. Obviously there needs to be a reasonable number of games played at that level to judge, otherwise Nugent would be the most potent striker for England. So are goals per minutes, it favours players who get dragged after 45-60 minutes because they're playing shit, and players with pace making frequent sub appearances due to the tiring defenses being less able to keep up with them (hence Beckfords Prem record) The best measure is simple. Watch both players on current form. Struggling to hit a barn door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Beckford might not try as much, but I still think he has more quality than the likes of Waghorn. You can't have it both ways. Beckford and Waghorn were both large investments, and both haven't justified their price tag. Can't really argue for one, and be against the other, imo. Yes you can. One is 6 years younger, contributes a lot more to the team and is almost certainly earning a lot less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Yes you can. One is 6 years younger, contributes a lot more to the team and is almost certainly earning a lot less. Aren't you going to apologies to me and admit you were wrong Mark? No? Shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Yes you can. One is 6 years younger, contributes a lot more to the team and is almost certainly earning a lot less. Both were brought for a lot of money. Both can't score for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Aren't you going to apologies to me and admit you were wrong Mark? No? Shock. I just asked a question, thanks for answering. Don't really see why I should feel any remorse though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Both were brought for a lot of money. Both can't score for anything. And one is still six years younger, earning less and contributing more to the team. Plus he actually wants to be here. So you clearly can want us to persevere with one and not the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 So are goals per minutes, it favours players who get dragged after 45-60 minutes because they're playing shit, and players with pace making frequent sub appearances due to the tiring defenses being less able to keep up with them (hence Beckfords Prem record) The best measure is simple. Watch both players on current form. Struggling to hit a barn door. Ok well you go and watch every player in the league and come to an unquantifiable subjective rating, I don't have time to do that, so I will stick with minutes per goal as my preferred choice of comparing strikers, please note this was in direct response to Fox92 quoting Waghorn's goal scoring record, which is not a fair reflection on his ability in front of goal as most of them were sub appearances, in the 10/11 season 8 of his 18 sub appearances for us were under 10 minutes, of his 30 games for us that season he completed 90 minutes 6 times all under Sousa when we were playing awful, to say that he scored 4 in 30 that season is an incredibly misleading statistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 I just asked a question, thanks for answering. Don't really see why I should feel any remorse though. Of Course you did Attempted and failed smugness perhaps? I don't really see why you would need to ask me whats been written in this thread, I assume you have two working eyeballs and are more than capable checking yourself (as I did) so asking a question like that is pointless unless it is an attempt to discredit an argument. However I know you never admit fault, so I fully expect you to deny this. I'm going to do something more worthwhile pointless subject this. They're both backup, with good reason, we've got two better strikers, one should go out on loan if we can get the right person in (perhaps an older clinical finisher willing to play a bit part role) if people want to say they aren't good enough if it's fair comment this season. Out right abuse is a bit uncalled for though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Ok well you go and watch every player in the league and come to an unquantifiable subjective rating, I don't have time to do that, so I will stick with minutes per goal as my preferred choice of comparing strikers, please note this was in direct response to Fox92 quoting Waghorn's goal scoring record, which is not a fair reflection on his ability in front of goal as most of them were sub appearances, in the 10/11 season 8 of his 18 sub appearances for us were under 10 minutes, of his 30 games for us that season he completed 90 minutes 6 times all under Sousa when we were playing awful, to say that he scored 4 in 30 that season is an incredibly misleading statistic. I never said anything about his goalscoring record. I know it's difficult coming on for just 10/20 minutes, just like it is for Vardy, but people don't seem to see this as they do for Waghorn. I still have no confidence when Waghorn comes off of the bench, he should have scored against Posh, for example, and doesn't do himself any favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Ok well you go and watch every player in the league and come to an unquantifiable subjective rating, I don't have time to do that, so I will stick with minutes per goal as my preferred choice of comparing strikers, please note this was in direct response to Fox92 quoting Waghorn's goal scoring record, which is not a fair reflection on his ability in front of goal as most of them were sub appearances, in the 10/11 season 8 of his 18 sub appearances for us were under 10 minutes, of his 30 games for us that season he completed 90 minutes 6 times all under Sousa when we were playing awful, to say that he scored 4 in 30 that season is an incredibly misleading statistic. Or.......you could stop arguing about something you have just admitted you don't have an informed opinion on...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 I never said anything about his goalscoring record. I know it's difficult coming on for just 10/20 minutes, just like it is for Vardy, but people don't seem to see this as they do for Waghorn. I still have no confidence when Waghorn comes off of the bench, he should have scored against Posh, for example, and doesn't do himself any favours. Sorry wasn't you it was Happy Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Very fair OP, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles for them pair I'm afraid. Weigh this up, we've got Nugent, Wood, Waghorn, Vardy & Futacs. He uses 2 up front more often than not and it's pretty clear that our best two forwards are Nugent & Wood. I feel for Waghorn, as he's the third best I'd say, but you've got to look at it from Leicester's perspective and if we can get better then we're idiots for not. And if Waghorn only turns up when he's starting, then what's the use? I feel for him because he's given a good effort this year and glimpses of the old Waghorn looked back, but with this squad, he's effectively useless. In the summer I'd get rid of him, Vardy and Futacs if I'm honest and bring in another forward or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Or.......you could stop arguing about something you have just admitted you don't have an informed opinion on...... I have an informed opinion on Waghorn, and other Leicester strikers, just not the rest of the League, so if I am to compare someone's prowess in front of goal, I have to rely on stats. I am not saying he has had a great season, I'm not saying he is a great player and should be starting every week, I'm just saying that the vitriol on here is massively over the top, and largely undeserved and using misleading stats to justify it is just trying to find a stick to beat our players with. I think Waghorn and Vardy are capable back-ups to Nugent and Wood, you don't, I'm not going to change your mind on that, I just want players to have a fair trial on here rather than be victimised and scape goated as so many have been in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Of Course you did Attempted and failed smugness perhaps? I don't really see why you would need to ask me whats been written in this thread, I assume you have two working eyeballs and are more than capable checking yourself (as I did) so asking a question like that is pointless unless it is an attempt to discredit an argument. However I know you never admit fault, so I fully expect you to deny this. I am going to deny it because it's not true. I don't read every single post and looking through the page I was the only one who posted any actual stats (Shrapnell hadn't), you're reading an awful lot into my post that simply isn't there, I just genuinley hadn't seen it. I don't see how what I posted even could have discredited an argument about the importance of goals per minutes stats anyway. Asking a question like that clearly wasn't pointless because it led to you pointing out the post that I had missed, so you can calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Not another one if these threads surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetintedspecs Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Pistols at Dawn time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Pistols at Dawn time I've not read the thread thru cos I can't be arsed but I'd be surprised if its not Mark W suggesting that Waggy hasn't scored many goals because he was out injured for so long, or he was unlucky (hitting the woodwork) or summat.... And plenty stating Vardy is shite at this level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 I've not read the thread thru cos I can't be arsed but I'd be surprised if its not Mark W suggesting that Waggy hasn't scored many goals because he was out injured for so long, or he was unlucky (hitting the woodwork) or summat.... And plenty stating Vardy is shite at this level? Are you Mark W in disguise Are we you Mark W in disguise Ps I think your comment about players contracts and promotion bonus was the only worthwhile thing raised this week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetintedspecs Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 I've not read the thread thru cos I can't be arsed but I'd be surprised if its not Mark W suggesting that Waggy hasn't scored many goals because he was out injured for so long, or he was unlucky (hitting the woodwork) or summat.... And plenty stating Vardy is shite at this level? In truth mate it's all getting a bit like white noise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 I've not read the thread thru cos I can't be arsed but I'd be surprised if its not Mark W suggesting that Waggy hasn't scored many goals because he was out injured for so long, or he was unlucky (hitting the woodwork) or summat.... And plenty stating Vardy is shite at this level? Sorry, should I change my opinion every time the topic is brought up, just to keep you entertained? Although I've never used the woodwork stats to defend him, I just think you're wrong to use it to criticise him. Plus you know 15 in 48 (1 goals in every 3.2 starts) really isn't that bad for our third choice striker, which is really what I'm using to defend him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arriba Los Zorros Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Vardy is not good enough for Leicester and needs to leave ASAP - end of. Waggy CAN be good enough, but only after a run of a few games in the team when he has his tail up. Verdict - too fragile mentally, and of no use as a back-up striker. Get rid of both, I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.