Fox92 Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Quality takes over. Waghorn is now 23 years old, he won't become much better than he is now. All in my opinion, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 No, we're not talking about three games. There has been, this season, more chance of Waghorn scoring when he's on the pitch than there has been of Vardy scoring when he's on the pitch. There's no denying that Bert, you're just going to have to face it. It's a fact, not an opinion. Have you been to every game to see that for yourself then? Either way Vardy has scored more times than Waggy this season. There's no denying that Mark, you're just going to have to face it, it's a fact not an opinion. If you try and pull out that Vardy has played more, (2 more times at that) then I'm going to stop replying because you've just said there's more chance of Waghorn scoring when he is on the pitch, if so why hasn't he? There's no doubt in my mind from the games I've seen this season (I've missed 3) that Waghorn has missed more than Vardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 We would be top and still in the cup if all of our strikers put away all of their gilt edge chances, including Nugent, this season. Strikers miss chances, it's a fact of football, and we can take every striker and list all of their misses, but it doesn't prove anything. Comparing their recent performances is also not proving anything as vardy has had more time on the pitch recently than waghorn. In my opinion there isn't much to choose between our second string strike force, but futacs has had a start, vardy has had a start, so waghorn deserves a start if Wood isn't fit, give him a chance to prove his worth. What like skying a glorious chance from yards? At least Vardy hit the target, as well as being further out and at angle. Unlike Waggy (just off centre of the goal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Fox Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Waghorn has regressed since joining us on a permanent, we will get rid in the summer I imagine if we make the prem and even if we don't he will be gone with Wellens, Gallagher to some league one club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Have you been to every game to see that for yourself then? No. Can't drive, still in the education system so I don't earn, as a result I don't get to every away game. I've been to every home game, not that it's any of your business and it doesn't in any way alter the facts. If you try and pull out that Vardy has played more, then I'm going to stop replying because you've just said there's more chance of Waghorn scoring when he is on the pitch, if so why hasn't he? Vardy has scored more goals this season, correct. But he's played a lot more football. Now before you storm off let me explain. Waghorn has scored (based on the stats provided by Captain Shrapnel) a goal every 326 minutes of football he has played. Vardy has scored a goal every 360 minutes of football he's played. So up to this point Martyn Waghorn has proved more likely to score when on the pitch than Vardy has. Why are you finding it so difficult to understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfox Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 Have you been on here all night Mark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 17 February 2013 Share Posted 17 February 2013 No. Can't drive, still in the education system so I don't earn, as a result I don't get to every away game. I've been to every home game, not that it's any of your business and it doesn't in any way alter the facts. Vardy has scored more goals this season, correct. But he's played a lot more football. Now before you storm off let me explain. Waghorn has scored (based on the stats provided by Captain Shrapnel) a goal every 326 minutes of football he has played. Vardy has scored a goal every 360 minutes of football he's played. So up to this point Martyn Waghorn has proved more likely to score when on the pitch than Vardy has. Why are you finding it so difficult to understand that? Understand it perfectly, it's just a very flawed argument of making your favourite look better. Anyway storming off to bed now, you'd better do so too. School in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 Sturridge only scored 1 in 7 for Chelsea this season, before leaving, but I don't think that means he has less chance of scoring compared to Waghorn. Stats are great when being used for an argument, but they don't always paint the right picture... Vardy does more for the team than Waghorn does for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 Has anyone ever considered the fact that maybe a player makes less appearances and spend less time on the pitch because successive managers have thought "you're a bit shit"? Has it crossed people's minds that if you're a striker and you're played "out of position" it could be because successive managers think you might be more use well away from the goal, even though allegedly you're a striker? No babies will die from us admitting that one of our players is a bit shit, or from admitting that Steve Bruce (for the FOURTH ****ING TIME) pulled our pants down and sold us a cart horse. Waggy doesn't get much game time because, frankly, other players are better and he gets played out of position because others are better. Sousa thought he was wank, Sven thought he was wank and now Pearson thinks he's wank. I think we can confidently say, 'he's wank' and that one person in this thread would like a wank over him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 That's one way to look at it ... Can't disagree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 What like skying a glorious chance from yards? At least Vardy hit the target, as well as being further out and at angle. Unlike Waggy (just off centre of the goal) So you are basing your opinion on the goals they haven't scored this season? Specifically reducing their whole season down to 2 misses in the last league game? Has it come down to who can miss with the most style? Are we going to compare the quality of their goals now too? Vardy's last goal was Barnsley, I think, a scrappy goal, that he pounced on in the area, Waghorn's last goal was a sublime volley, but one won us a point, the other was in a match we had already won. It is swings and round-a-bouts, and there really isn't much between them this season, they have both underperformed at times, and looked good at times, but I don't understand the insistance by you and others about Waghorn, and others about Vardy claiming them to be shit when it clearly is not the case. Vardy started against Peterborough, and we lost, Waghorn came on as a sub, Vardy didn't score in 70 minutes and Waghorn didn't score in 30, Waghorn hasn't started a game since the 8/12/12 also the date of Vardy's last goal, since then Vardy has started 3 times, we have lost all 3 of those games, not saying it is Vardy's fault, but Vardy hasn't scored in those games, in that time, Waghorn has made 7 substitute appearances and scored once, if Wood isn't fit he deserves to start against Charlton ahead of Vardy and Futacs as they have both had their chances starting, and neither of them took it. (This is ignoring Waghorn's superior minutes per goal ratio this season, and the fact he is in better scoring form, I just think he deserves a chance to start after his appendix operation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 Have you not been reading this thread? They are not good enough. Christ even ****ing Pearson wants rid. It's not disloyal to watch someone play and come to the conclusion that they aren't up to it. Vardy has the incredible ability to look like he's always playing on a bobbly pitch whilst Waggy has a near sixth sense of where the crossbar and row z are. I can only assume they replaced his appendix with a lead ****ing weight as its the only explanation for him leaning back and repeatedly hitting chances high and none too handsome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 They are not good enough. Christ even ****ing Pearson wants rid. How do you know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzFox Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 Waghorn has made 108 appearances for us and scored 20 goals is that good enough? I am asking a honest question here For a £3m investment which we made I don't think he justifies that fee imo. I realise many of Waghorn's appearances have been as a sub, but that's about the same scoring ratio as Akinbiyi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 Age is totally irrelevant quality is however relevant Waghorn hasn't produced it or even looked clinical enough for us, look at Crystal Palace and Kevin Philips I know who I would rather have of the bench He would've been ideal, absolutely ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 Vardy Starts: 17 Substitute Appearances: 6 Goals: 4 Minutes per goal: 360 GOOD ENOUGH: No Waghorn Starts: 9 Substitute Appearances: 12 Goals: 3 Minutes per goal: 326 GOOD ENOUGH: No For what it's worth, these stat arguments are utterly ridiculous. It's like two bald blokes arguing over a comb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 No. Can't drive, still in the education system so I don't earn, as a result I don't get to every away game. I've been to every home game, not that it's any of your business and it doesn't in any way alter the facts. Vardy has scored more goals this season, correct. But he's played a lot more football. Now before you storm off let me explain. Waghorn has scored (based on the stats provided by Captain Shrapnel) a goal every 326 minutes of football he has played. Vardy has scored a goal every 360 minutes of football he's played. So up to this point Martyn Waghorn has proved more likely to score when on the pitch than Vardy has. Why are you finding it so difficult to understand that? So Jermaine Beckford has proved he is a more likely top level goal scorer than Michael Owen then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 So Jermaine Beckford has proved he is a more likely top level goal scorer than Michael Owen then? As previously said, and with all stats, you need a decent number of games as a sample size otherwise Nugent is England's best striker, there will always be anomalies, but it is more accurate than goals, per start (skewed positively by goals scored in sub appearances), and goals per appearance (skewed negatively by appearances lasting only a couple of minutes), as it takes actual time onto the pitch into account, and saying you can't see that is just admitting to being stubborn. As for Owen vs Beckford in the top flight,well the reason for that is largely because Owen has been gash for a while now, and if given the choice of Owen or Beckford right now, I would really struggle and take Waghorn or Vardy over either of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 As previously said, and with all stats, you need a decent number of games as a sample size otherwise Nugent is England's best striker, there will always be anomalies, but it is more accurate than goals, per start (skewed positively by goals scored in sub appearances), and goals per appearance (skewed negatively by appearances lasting only a couple of minutes), as it takes actual time onto the pitch into account, and saying you can't see that is just admitting to being stubborn. As for Owen vs Beckford in the top flight,well the reason for that is largely because Owen has been gash for a while now, and if given the choice of Owen or Beckford right now, I would really struggle and take Waghorn or Vardy over either of them. Clearly meant Owen in his prime So just out of interest where is your magical line drawn in your new wonderful statiscal way of showing who is the bestest strikers by how many minutes they haz played? is Beckfords 30 odd games not enough? I've already told you why it is not accurate and given you examples, there is a reason the whole of the footballing media uses goals per apperances and if I wanted some decent stats I would go to them not someone with a agenda. Minutes is massively skewed by a number of factors it greatly favours players like Waghorn who are frequently subbed on and are frequently dragged off when performing poorly. As I've already told you if you want to know who is better than who the best way to determine this is to actually watch football not swan on about statistics. They're both horribly out of form and between them have missed countless great chances. Now before you say "every striker misses blaa blaa" yes they do however the amount they have missed is totally unacceptable. I don't even nescc think they should be replaced although it would be nice. If people want to say they aint good enough, you lot should stop being so goody two shoes about it, there's plenty of evidence to suggest they are right! The person with the bold blokes comment was spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 We've spent 4m plus salaries on the 2 of them, I'd love to see them both do well so we get our moneys worth but it isn't going to happen. Argueing over which one has the best return on goals per minute or goals per appearances is a waste of time, they're clearly not good enough to help us get 2nd place and if we were dependant on either of them for a fair few games I think we could kiss goodbye to the playoffs as well. Loan them out along with Futacs and get some replacements in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 Clearly meant Owen in his prime So just out of interest where is your magical line drawn in your new wonderful statiscal way of showing who is the bestest strikers by how many minutes they haz played? is Beckfords 30 odd games not enough? I've already told you why it is not accurate and given you examples, there is a reason the whole of the footballing media uses goals per apperances and if I wanted some decent stats I would go to them not someone with a agenda. Minutes is massively skewed by a number of factors it greatly favours players like Waghorn who are frequently subbed on and are frequently dragged off when performing poorly. As I've already told you if you want to know who is better than who the best way to determine this is to actually watch football not swan on about statistics. They're both horribly out of form and between them have missed countless great chances. Now before you say "every striker misses blaa blaa" yes they do however the amount they have missed is totally unacceptable. I don't even nescc think they should be replaced although it would be nice. If people want to say they aint good enough, you lot should stop being so goody two shoes about it, there's plenty of evidence to suggest they are right! The person with the bold blokes comment was spot on. What are you blathering on about now, I've actually looked at the stats as I replied on my phone earlier and Owen's stats over a number of seasons in the premiership piss all over Beckford's 1 season. Beckford played 1396 minutes in the prem, scored 8, 1 goal every 175 minutes Owen played 22986 minutes in the prem scored 150 goals, 1 goal every 153 minutes In his prime he was scoring one goal every 115 minutes. You are, as I have suspected for a while now, just bored an being argumentative, too stubborn to admit you are wrong, well you are, you are WRONG!!! Stats don't prove anything, but they give an indication, if you want to look at scoring rates, you can only score when you are on the pitch, so I look at minutes on the pitch, otherwise the stats are skewed. If you want to look at performances and unquantifiable qualities that players bring to them team, fine, you have your opinion, I have mine, but I get pissed off with people using mis-leading stats, either on purpose to prove their agenda or because they don't have access to better stats, but the fact is at this level Waghorn has an ok record in front of goal, and his proven himself, in my eyes, to be a capable back-up. You can disagree with my opinion, if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 Well thanks for the permission. Waghorn's record in front of goal this season has been woeful, apart from you and Mark I doubt that any other poster expects him to score if put clean through only 6 yards out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 What are you blathering on about now, I've actually looked at the stats as I replied on my phone earlier and Owen's stats over a number of seasons in the premiership piss all over Beckford's 1 season. Beckford played 1396 minutes in the prem, scored 8, 1 goal every 175 minutes Owen played 22986 minutes in the prem scored 150 goals, 1 goal every 153 minutes In his prime he was scoring one goal every 115 minutes. You are, as I have suspected for a while now, just bored an being argumentative, too stubborn to admit you are wrong, well you are, you are WRONG!!! Stats don't prove anything, but they give an indication, if you want to look at scoring rates, you can only score when you are on the pitch, so I look at minutes on the pitch, otherwise the stats are skewed. If you want to look at performances and unquantifiable qualities that players bring to them team, fine, you have your opinion, I have mine, but I get pissed off with people using mis-leading stats, either on purpose to prove their agenda or because they don't have access to better stats, but the fact is at this level Waghorn has an ok record in front of goal, and his proven himself, in my eyes, to be a capable back-up. You can disagree with my opinion, if you want. Ironic, your the one peddling out the the mis-leading stats. I apologise for getting the Michael Owen thing wrong. Unlike you and Mark I rely im on my own knowledge instead search engines and databases for to form my opinions and as a result I sometimes get things wrong. If you kindly give me the link to your stupid website I will gladly go and find some other outstanding players with an average of more than175 minutes to disprove your stupid stats. I'm betting Eric Cantona is one for a start off. RVP possibly another. EDIT: More interesting stats, apparently Javier Hernandez is better than Theirry Henry RVN and Alan Shearer according to you and your theory. And your sat there telling me I'm wrong . Do you not find it strange how badly it favours players such as the above that always come off the bench, very similar to the one your defending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 Ironic, your the one peddling out the the mis-leading stats. I apologise for getting the Michael Owen thing wrong. Unlike you and Mark I rely im on my own knowledge instead search engines and databases for to form my opinions and as a result I sometimes get things wrong. If you kindly give me the link to your stupid website I will gladly go and find some other outstanding players with an average of more than175 minutes to disprove your stupid stats. I'm betting Eric Cantona is one for a start off. RVP possibly another. I already have done: 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.transferm...674_gesamt.html Knock yourself out, if you are so determined to prove these stats fallable, because they are, they are measuring one thing and one thing only, the number of minutes on the pitch and the number of goals scored in that time, as I said, repeatedly, that doesn't prove anything, but if you are using goals vs appearances to prove Waghorn is crap that is a shit statistic to use because appearances can be anywhere between 1 and 90 minutes, or 120 minutes if it is a cup game, it is not quantifiable. And so what if you prove you Beckford has a better scoring record in the prem than Cantona, he played just over 1000 minutes, Cantona played 10 times as many minutes, but Cantona was clearly a much better player than Beckford, and brought more than goals to the team. Minutes per goal doesn't prove anyone is an amazing footballer, likewise goals per appearance doesn't prove anyone is shit, but one gives an accurate portrayal of how many goals were scored against actual time playing, the other gives the number of goals scored over a set of inconsistent time periods. Beckford had a very successful season for Everton in front of goal, although playing time was limited, it happens, some players have good seasons, some players have bad, Waghorn had a great season for us, but that doesn't make him a great player (and I am not arguing he is). As for taking into account players being taken off for playing crap, that is not the only reason players come off, for example Nugent doesn't get subbed because he is crap, he gets subbed to have a rest, to change the formation, to give someone else a run out and improve match fitness, to inject some fresh legs into a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 18 February 2013 Share Posted 18 February 2013 I already have done: Knock yourself out, if you are so determined to prove these stats fallable, because they are, they are measuring one thing and one thing only, the number of minutes on the pitch and the number of goals scored in that time, as I said, repeatedly, that doesn't prove anything, but if you are using goals vs appearances to prove Waghorn is crap that is a shit statistic to use because appearances can be anywhere between 1 and 90 minutes, or 120 minutes if it is a cup game, it is not quantifiable. And so what if you prove you Beckford has a better scoring record in the prem than Cantona, he played just over 1000 minutes, Cantona played 10 times as many minutes, but Cantona was clearly a much better player than Beckford, and brought more than goals to the team. Minutes per goal doesn't prove anyone is an amazing footballer, likewise goals per appearance doesn't prove anyone is shit, but one gives an accurate portrayal of how many goals were scored against actual time playing, the other gives the number of goals scored over a set of inconsistent time periods. Beckford had a very successful season for Everton in front of goal, although playing time was limited, it happens, some players have good seasons, some players have bad, Waghorn had a great season for us, but that doesn't make him a great player (and I am not arguing he is). As for taking into account players being taken off for playing crap, that is not the only reason players come off, for example Nugent doesn't get subbed because he is crap, he gets subbed to have a rest, to change the formation, to give someone else a run out and improve match fitness, to inject some fresh legs into a match. it's better than yours! As a striker full who is apparently full of energy. He should be the kind of player coming off the bench and making a impact when everyone else is tired, but he's incapable of doing it. As a sub you have a massive advantage over the other players on the pitch as your fresh, this is why if you look at GPM ratio's and who is near the top you will see names like Hernandez and Ballotelli and probably OGS. This is why every footballing media company look at goals per apperance. Instead of arguing with me why don't you tell them that they're doing it "wrong, wrong, WRONG" see what response they give you (a very similar one to me I'm guessing) I'd understand if Waghorn was regularly bought on for the last few minutes but he normally gets at least 15 minutes. And I understand there are number of reasons to take a player off, in Waghorns case though, it's usually the reason I mentioned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.