Guest ttfn Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 THIS But I think we all know that Pearson would prefer to see Dean Hammond play a safe 2 yard pass to try and scrape a draw than have Knocky actually trying to create something to win us a game. I don't think that's fair either. I don't take issue with Knockaert not being in the side - I think if Mahrez plays there are only certain games when you can accommodate both - the point is that he has been routinely disparaged by a number of posters on here for months despite being a key figure in one of our greatest seasons of the last 40 years and a driving force behind a switch from hit and hope football to one of the most stylish Leicester teams we've ever seen. I'm sure Pearson will give him a chance in due course. If he was as bad as one or two are making out there's no way he'd have been retained beyond the summer.
65RosesFox Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 THIS But I think we all know that Pearson would prefer to see Dean Hammond play a safe 2 yard pass to try and scrape a draw than have Knocky actually trying to create something to win us a game. Yes because Hammond did that loads against WBA....
Bettsj2 Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 Yes because Hammond did that loads against WBA.... Apologies. Drinkwater got the nod for that role against WBA. Fantastic wasnt it?
Grewks Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 Knockaert isn't quick enough to beat a man....nor is he technical enough to be just a 'crossing winger'. So why does he fit in the premier league? He doesn't.
Jimmy Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 Knockaert isn't quick enough to beat a man....nor is he technical enough to be just a 'crossing winger'. So why does he fit in the premier league? He doesn't. Ever think that maybe, just maybe, he's not actually a winger... He was fitted in on the wing as we stuck to 442
MooseBreath Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 Pearson left Knocky out quite a bit at the start of last season too. He also messed around with formations for a while, failing almost every time, before eventually settling on 442 with Knocky in the side. Maybe it's all a genius devious ploy to lure future opposition into a false sense of security and then BAM, knocky and Mahrez start ripping it up on the wings.
65RosesFox Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 Apologies. Drinkwater got the nod for that role against WBA. Fantastic wasnt it? I agree that Knockaert or Albrighton should get given another chance, and for me DD should be dropped. I was just correcting you as Hammond seems to be the scapegoat a lot of the time when for me DD has been less effective this season. I don't understand the logic of four centre mids, we play to our strengths and that is with width and Mahrez is a must with one of Albrighton or Knockaert. Neither have had a run of games to get some confidence and show what they can do. It baffles me how Schlupp has had more game time on the wing than either of them two when he didn't feature there hardly at all last season.
dorsetboy Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 well when i read the article i didnt really see it so deeply as some of you i just interpreted it as knockeart does not seem to work as hard in training as he does in a game and thats not what nigel wants he picks players who work hard all week not ones that are lazy in training and only step it up for the big game ? when he did play though i thought he left de laet exposed a lot at right back failing to help out and de laet is not the greatest defender but then again kentucky fried mahrez is not one to dive into a challenge
Silverdaz Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 well when i read the article i didnt really see it so deeply as some of you i just interpreted it as knockeart does not seem to work as hard in training as he does in a game and thats not what nigel wants he picks players who work hard all week not ones that are lazy in training and only step it up for the big game ? when he did play though i thought he left de laet exposed a lot at right back failing to help out and de laet is not the greatest defender but then again kentucky fried mahrez is not one to dive into a challenge Kentucky Fried Mahrez
Fox Ulike Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 Rumbled. I'm not arguing for him, I'm arguing against you, because what you're saying does not make sense logically. The burden of proof was on you that he had "the lowest shooting accuracy in the championship" (he didn't). As for the first point you've deliberately misinterpreted my point. You said he was poor at shooting compared to others and that other players' apparently comparably "poor" shooting was excusable because they had inferior team mates. All I've said is you can't have it both ways. Either Knockaert, as a key chance creator for a team with players with high shot accuracy, takes some credit for that shot accuracy or Wellens' stats are not somehow better because he plays with better players. It's your choice; I'm not saying either is true, but unless you're suggesting that the chances created by all the other players are so disproportionately better than Knockaert's that the most prolific chance creator in the championship has to be entirely discounted, logically you have to either concede that his team mates do not have any bearing on his shooting or he has to take some credit for the high shot accuracy of his team mates. So, does the quality of chance created have a bearing on shot accuracy or not? Well, I can, and will have my cake and eat it. Knockaert's shooting accuracy is poor. Cake. Now then. Wellens’ shooting accuracy is also poor. However, it’s reasonable to suggest that Doncaster players last season would have had to take more shots from difficult positions - because their opportunities to make clear-cut chances would have been limited. There’s no inherent contradiction between those two statements. It’s not rocket science. As you say I think you’re basically just intent on arguing with me rather than the points I’m making. As for Knocky’s contribution to the others’ shooting accuracy. That is pure speculation as the stats give no indication of the quality of chance he’s creating. HOWEVER, the fact that so few of Knocky’s set-ups convert into goals indicate (but don’t prove) that the quality of chance he’s creating isn’t very high. EAT IT.
jmono84 Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 Knocky is a young talented footballer... He has quality and should only get better, we need our best players playing so if it was up to me I would defo have him in my starting 11 (4-2-3-1) At the moment it feels like the end of the 2012/13 season where we couldn't buy a win, I do trust nige to turn it around however
MattyFromLE Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 Foxestalk in inaccurate title fury shocker. What a surprise.
Guest ttfn Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 Well, I can, and will have my cake and eat it. Knockaert's shooting accuracy is poor. Cake. Now then. Wellens’ shooting accuracy is also poor. However, it’s reasonable to suggest that Doncaster players last season would have had to take more shots from difficult positions - because their opportunities to make clear-cut chances would have been limited. There’s no inherent contradiction between those two statements. It’s not rocket science. As you say I think you’re basically just intent on arguing with me rather than the points I’m making. As for Knocky’s contribution to the others’ shooting accuracy. That is pure speculation as the stats give no indication of the quality of chance he’s creating. HOWEVER, the fact that so few of Knocky’s set-ups convert into goals indicate (but don’t prove) that the quality of chance he’s creating isn’t very high. EAT IT. So, again, I have to ask: If your barometer of good/bad finisher is shooting accuracy, and an absolutely vital part of that is chances created, how can you not attribute the percentage of shots on target from other Leicester players to Knockaert's assists? Given that he created a disproportionately high number of chances in a team with good shooting accuracy, why isn't he getting credit for that in your book? You've directly linked shooting accuracy to quality of chances created in every post on this. You'd have to be assuming that the chances created by everyone else in the team are exponentially better than those created by Knockaert, which is a huge leap in imagination given the disproportionately high number of chances he creates. Clearly you don't understand the point I'm making, Lord knows I don't understand how what you're saying joins up. On that basis we should agree to disagree. Enjoy your cake
Fox Ulike Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 So, again, I have to ask: If your barometer of good/bad finisher is shooting accuracy, and an absolutely vital part of that is chances created, how can you not attribute the percentage of shots on target from other Leicester players to Knockaert's assists? < Because his assists (5) is bang average. That indicates that the chances he’s creating aren’t particularly good ones. I did say this in my last post. Given that he created a disproportionately high number of chances in a team with good shooting accuracy, why isn't he getting credit for that in your book? < Because those chances aren’t converted to goals. Who cares how many chances he creates if they aren’t being taken? You've directly linked shooting accuracy to quality of chances created in every post on this. You'd have to be assuming that the chances created by everyone else in the team are exponentially better than those created by Knockaert, which is a huge leap in imagination given the disproportionately high number of chances he creates. < It’s not a huge leap of imagination it’s a simple piece of logic. 88 chances created but only 5 assists. What does that say to you? Either the other players are messing them up in a way that they weirdly don't mess up when it's Dyer or Nugent or James who sets them up. OR, the chances he's creating aren't good ones. Which is it? Clearly you don't understand the point I'm making, Lord knows I don't understand how what you're saying joins up. On that basis we should agree to disagree. What i'm saying is fairly basic. A whopping 95% of Knocky's 'chances created' don't convert to goals. An equally whopping 64% of his shots don't even test the keeper. So. You want him in the team WHY??!! Enjoy your cake Come on, have a slice of Bakewell Tart. It's Friday.
filbertway Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 GTF Age - 33 Height -1.83m Weight - 70kg BMI - 20.9 Vardy Age - 27 Height - 1.78m Weight - 76kg BMI - 24 Does anyone else find this extremely hard to believe?
filbertway Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 Can only assume Gary was off sick on the day they took measurements so he just emailed them in to the sports science team.
Guest ttfn Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 So, again, I have to ask: If your barometer of good/bad finisher is shooting accuracy, and an absolutely vital part of that is chances created, how can you not attribute the percentage of shots on target from other Leicester players to Knockaert's assists? < Because his assists (5) is bang average. That indicates that the chances he’s creating aren’t particularly good ones. I did say this in my last post. Given that he created a disproportionately high number of chances in a team with good shooting accuracy, why isn't he getting credit for that in your book? < Because those chances aren’t converted to goals. Who cares how many chances he creates if they aren’t being taken? You've directly linked shooting accuracy to quality of chances created in every post on this. You'd have to be assuming that the chances created by everyone else in the team are exponentially better than those created by Knockaert, which is a huge leap in imagination given the disproportionately high number of chances he creates. < It’s not a huge leap of imagination it’s a simple piece of logic. 88 chances created but only 5 assists. What does that say to you? Either the other players are messing them up in a way that they weirdly don't mess up when it's Dyer or Nugent or James who sets them up. OR, the chances he's creating aren't good ones. Which is it? Clearly you don't understand the point I'm making, Lord knows I don't understand how what you're saying joins up. On that basis we should agree to disagree. What i'm saying is fairly basic. A whopping 95% of Knocky's 'chances created' don't convert to goals. An equally whopping 64% of his shots don't even test the keeper. So. You want him in the team WHY??!! Enjoy your cake Come on, have a slice of Bakewell Tart. It's Friday. You are still somehow missing the point that your points make sense in isolation but not together but I can't be arsed with this any more.Flog him I say (literally, obvs don't sell Knockaert IMO)
yag101 Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 GTF Age - 33 Height -1.83m Weight - 70kg BMI - 20.9 Vardy Age - 27 Height - 1.78m Weight - 76kg BMI - 24 Does anyone else find this extremely hard to believe? Muscle weighs more than fat, so this does not surprise me in the slightest.
ImBlue Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 Well fairly obviously, if you play for a quality side, you're going to get a better quality of teammate, and those teammates are going to provide you with a better quality of service, resulting in a better quality of shooting opportunity. Durrr! Dean Hammond 33%. King 59% Mahrez 56% Drinkwater 49 GTF 56 Dyer 44 Do you still think Knockaert's shooting accuracy is reasonable? At least he is marginally better than hot-shot Dean Hammond! How so these stats really matter? Almost every mahrez shot has trickled but counts as on target?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.