Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TIL 1010

F.A.O. Lakey, A Hat-Trick And 10/10.

Recommended Posts

"You have to give the Hull midfielder top marks considering he has come back from a career-threatening injury, scored three goals and, although he missed one other glorious chance, showed fabulous work-rate, good use of the ball and got into good positions, all while being was asked to play in two positions - wide in the first half and central in the second."
BUT HIS ATTITUDE TILLY, HIS ATTITUDE!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay. But did he at any point wave his arms crossly or have any interactions with the crowd that may have suggested his displeasure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IMG]http://www.edp24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.1736028.1355077587!/image/2886652079.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/2886652079.jpg[/IMG]
He''s only smiling because on the inside of his hand he''s written "All fans are c*nts"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H]Three goals.  A fluke, a penalty and a tap in.  Against Malta. Against 9 men. And he missed an absolute sitter which even RVW would have scored. Great to see him back from his injury and doing well, but this was not a great test in the scheme of things. I''ll re-assess my opinion of him at the end of the season and if he has helped Hull to a good finish.  The premier league and his affect on team play was what I criticised him on before and it will be how I rate him this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lake district canary"]No bother Tilly.  I''ll be as pleased as anyone if he does really well this season......it won''t really change how I think he did for us in that dreadful season for us, where he was our best player and top scorer, unfortunately let down by complete failures such as RvW.

[/quote]
Fixed it for you Lakey. [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="lake district canary"]No bother Tilly.  I''ll be as pleased as anyone if he does really well this season......it won''t really change how I think he did for us in that dreadful season for us, where he was our best player and top scorer, unfortunately let down by complete failures such as RvW.[/quote]
Fixed it for you Lakey. [:)]
[/quote]Best player and top scorer in a team that did dreadfully most of the season is not a great accolade.  If we had stayed up, if he had been more productive in bringing others into the game more, rather than running into dead ends and complaining when things didn''t go his way, then I would be more sympathetic to that view.  He had a bit of personal success that season - big deal, good for him, but he could have done better in helping his team mates, rather than try and do it all himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He got 12 goals for us in total.
He also got 8 ASSISTS.
Suggesting, he did help his team-mates. And his personal successes ALSO helped the team. They''re not mutually exclusive which is why you are factually incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="hogesar"]He got 12 goals for us in total.
He also got 8 ASSISTS.
Suggesting, he did help his team-mates. And his personal successes ALSO helped the team. They''re not mutually exclusive which is why you are factually incorrect.
[/quote]

My interest is only in his league form and how the team performed to get relegated.  So lets take the facts. Six goals. All well and good. Eight  assists. One assist approximately every four games he played.   He frequently dominated the play and if he set off on twenty runs a game and delivered one cross every four games that ended in a goal, that is one productive cross every eighty runs he set off on. Not good.So how many times did he set off on a run and fail to deliver a cross or a shot?  How many times did he run out of options and deliver a little dolly drop cross that had no effect?  Stats like that probably don''t exist, but the effect of his trying to dominate play was a small amount of success for a great deal of effort.For someone who demanded and dominated the play for so much of the games he was in, he delivered too little too late, occasionally managed to bag himself a goal and made himself a one man team - a one man team that wasn''t good enough. Heavens knows the rest of the team weren''t that good either, but for a huge amount of effort, sweat, angst, frustration, the very occasional success, Snodgrass epitimises that season for me.  A disjointed team, a player who thought he should run the whole thing himself running frequently running in to dead ends.  I''m happy to see him do well now, but watching match after match after match that he was in failing to deliver anything productive in the vain hope that occasionally (possibly one in every eighty runs as I have shown) he might get a decent cross in was one of the biggest frustrations of that season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LDC, whilst football is all about opinions, I think your opinion of Snoddy is somewhat out proportion to the player most of us recall.

While yes he was guilty of some of what you claim, no way was he anywhere near as bad as you are painting (in my opinion) I saw virtually every game that season, and voted for him as POTS, he showed frustration with the way the team was set up, at times he looked to be too good for the rest of our team (not always admittedly)and yes he got into an argument with a handful of fans in the snakepit, and was man enough to apologise afterwards, but to me that showed he cared.(reinforced by turning up at Leeds to support our team against his old club when we played their midweek). Show me a footballer who doesn''t have a selfish streak, and I will show you a footballer who is not at his highest in self confidence therefor not confident enough in his own self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No mate, what you''ve ''shown'' with your made-up stats is that you are totally unable to change your opinion of someone once it is formed. Still clinging to the belief that RVW might have come good eventually while failing to acknowledge Snoddy''s contribution shows a total lack of logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="STFU"]No mate, what you''ve ''shown'' with your made-up stats is that you are totally unable to change your opinion of someone once it is formed. Still clinging to the belief that RVW might have come good eventually while failing to acknowledge Snoddy''s contribution shows a total lack of logic.[/quote]
That''s kind of my issue. I''ll happily accept when I''ve got it wrong. I said Naismith would come good this season, it looks like i''m going to be wrong on that front. 
Snodgrass showed both whilst he was with us, before he was with us, and after he was with us, that he was a good player and our best player by all accounts before he left.
To claim you won''t change your mind until you see him after playing for Norwich is fine, but baring in mind he''s had a serious injury and yet still performed both at club and international level - anyone sensible would back down a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, and yet conveniently, the hypothetical, completely made-up stat of 1 in 80 productive crosses cannot be proven. I don''t understand how you can back up a point by using a statistic that has simply been plucked from thin-air. Not only that, you''ve then pointed out it can''t be proven in an attempt shield your own argument!

You''ve twisted Hogesar''s FACTUAL statistics into a made-up example to try and make the very same facts prove your own point, before dropping the point and backing off with your hands up in the air ''but no, no, sorry, you can''t prove that''...

I did agree with parts of what you said about Snodgrass originally, but you''ve gone way too far now and seem to be incredibly reluctant to give the guy anywhere near the amount of credit he deserves. Especially when consideration is given to your incredibly forgiving and apologetic attitude towards RvW and Naismith! Come on LDC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m with Lakey on this one. I am strongly of the opinion we would have stayed up without him in the side. That incident with RVW was so in character. "It''s all about me".

If we don''t stop playing Naismith quickly, history will repeat itself - except this time League 1 beckons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RvW is the worst signing in the club''s history. Lakey loved him.

Snodgrass was far from the worse signing in the club''s history. Lakey hated him.

Odd logic for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="shefcanary"]I''m with Lakey on this one. I am strongly of the opinion we would have stayed up without him in the side. That incident with RVW was so in character. "It''s all about me".

If we don''t stop playing Naismith quickly, history will repeat itself - except this time League 1 beckons.[/quote]

Sorry, but sticking with Naismith will not see us relegated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hank shoots Skyler"]Unfortunately, and yet conveniently, the hypothetical, completely made-up stat of 1 in 80 productive crosses cannot be proven. I don''t understand how you can back up a point by using a statistic that has simply been plucked from thin-air. [/quote]It wasn''t a made up stat, it wasn''t a stat at all.  It was a an approximation based on what Snodgrass did in matches - run at defenders and more often than not run into trouble. Hogesar''s stat of "8 assists" can then be taken in context of Snodgrass''s overall contribution.  30 matches, 8 assists means one assist in every just under four matches.  If he makes several runs a match, then you can make up an approximation of how many assists he made from the amount of runs he made. It may not be scientific, but gives a fair idea.  I would be surprised if he made many less than twenty runs at defenders a match, but am happy to be proved wrong if anyone can actually show that he didn''t.   Even if it was ten runs a match, that still means  forty runs to make one converted chance.  It doesn''t matter really.  My opinion of Snodgrass when he was at Norwich isn''t going to change.  If he does well in the prem,  I am likely to think that it is because he has improved and learned to be more inclusive in what he does, having learned that you can''t do it all on your own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only had one real quarrel with Snodgrass, & that was he was s-o d-a-m-n s-l-l-o-o-o-w-w-w. It completely dominated the team''s style of play. Counter attack was off the menu.

He was definitely one of our best players in terms of free kicks, strength & skill (though prone to a wild tackle or three), but he was not a good player to build a team around; he didn''t have Holt''s ability to bring out the best in others.

He seems to be doing well at Hull, perhaps because he knows he isn''t (or considers himself t be) the main man.

Good luck to him anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say you''re exaggerating the number of runs in a match, but as you say we can''t prove how many he made.

Nor can you prove the amount of good crosses that he put in that could or should have lead to a goal but were either messed up by a teammate, saved by the goalie or blocked by a defender. He gets no credit for these in your book.

Your desperation to prove yourself right is mystifying. It''s like you''re trying to outdo Jaemae with his comments about Hooper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How he performed for us in that season can never now be changed. It was what it was. He could score 10 for Scotland and 30+ for Hull. If so great, he is a genius. But in that season there were issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was glad to see him sold, as I didn''t see him helping the team enough.

Old Colin said on the radio - that when he was at Leeds - he wanted to build the team around him but we bought him and that why one of the biggest mistakes Leeds made. he knows more about football than I do.

I just don''t think Snodgrass was right for us at the time - although he does have talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep hearing about stats, so lets see what the stats actually tell us about Snoddy that season (2013/2014).Possession loss - Highest in the team with 78 dispossessions, next highest were Fer, Howson, Redmond and Wes with 63, 45, 44 and 42 respectively - so nearly double Wes'' dispossesion rate! He also has the most unsuccesful amount of touches with 51 - a clear 10 more than the next player (Hooper with 41).Crossing - Worst success rate by a fair margin, with 214 inaccurate crosses compared to just 64 accurate ones, so only 23% of his crosses were going anywhere! Compare this to Redmond (who was VERY raw at the time), who had 113 inaccurate crosses compared to 39 accurate ones, which is 25% - a clear 2% higher.Corners - 98 inaccurate corners compared to 42 accurate ones, so a 30% corner accuracy, compared to Redmond with 19 inaccurate and 20 accurate! Bearing in mind that these 2 players took almost ALL of our corners, I wonder why we threw away the extra 20% accuracy when using Redmond compared to Snoddy...Dribbling - 31 successful dribbles compared to 43 unsuccessful (so 58% of dribbles went nowhere), compare this to Redmond with 54 successful and 57 unsuccessful (52% went nowhere - a clear 6% better than Snoddy), and Fer with 34 successful and 18 unsuccessful (65% success rate!).Short Passing - 806 accurate passes compared to 240 inaccurate (77% success rate) is pretty good to be fair, however it''s still nowhere near as good as either Fer or Howson with 86% and 84% respectively (881/141, 881/165), nor as good as Redmond on 81%.Shooting - This is where Snoddy racking up WAY more shots than almost anyone else with 71 in total, Redmond had 66, followed by Hooper on 42, BJ on 41, Fer on 40 and RvW on 32. Notice how Snoddy took twice as many shots as RvW!Assists - 2 for Snoddy, which is only 1 more than RvW managed...Key Passes - If there was EVER a better demonstration of what I''ve been talking about regards to supply (or lack of) to RvW, here is the big evidence. Snoddy put 37 crossed balls into the area that qualify as ''key passes'' (so approx half his crosses were genuinely seen as being in the right sort of area rather than just being vaguely accurate), compared to ZERO throughballs... So we have a goal poacher striker who isn''t going to outmuscle virtually any strong premier league CB aerially, but instead of giving him the through balls and low flashing crosses across the area for him to finish, Snoddy instead kept on slinging in pointless crosses and ignoring RvW''s runs for NO GOOD REASON!Free Kicks - Supposedly one of Snoddy''s strong points, yet he only managed 11 accurate free kicks compared to 19 inaccurate ones - which is worse than Olsson, Johnson, R.Martin, Howson, Bassong, Whittaker, Garrido, Hoolahan, Fer, Turner and R.Bennett! However, there has to be a fair caveat here, in that Snoddy was often attempting direct shots on goal rather than just slinging the ball in, but truthfully we might have had more success letting BJ, Wes and Garrido take them instead as at least less of them would have been wasted...Fouls - Snoddy committed more fouls than anyone bar Fer (51 for Fer and 50 for Snoddy), which is higher than BJ, Howson and Tettey - our main midfield tacklers FFS! What is funny however, is that he was easily our most fouled player with 79 fouls against, compared to 37 for Redmond who is the next closest!!! If you needed any more evidence that almost all of our play was filtered through Snoddy, this is it.So, you guys wanted stats and I''ve given you stats, and I''m in total agreement with LDC and similar in stating that I think Snoddy is a talented player who clearly has the ability, but certainly in that season, he was a selfish egoist, who didn''t play to the teams strengths and was a key ingredient (along with Hughton''s awful tactics) as to why our strikers didn''t get the supply they needed, how his lack of pace destroyed any hope of a counter-attacking game, and how it was all about trying to make himself look like Mr Big - regardless of what impact this had on the team AND thus our failure to retain Premier League status. Was it all Snoddy''s fault - Of course not, but was he a huge catalyst and key part of the overall problem - absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hang on! I thought this thread was a (completely undisguised) attempt to wind LDC up.

You weren''t supposed to agree with our northern cousin''s opinion much less seek to lend it support with evidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or alternatively....

He was a very good player hamstrung by a negative manager playing unsuitable tactics (counter attacking doesn''t really suit a not that fast winger who wants to cut inside) and dud strikers who offered no threat, little physical presence and a general inability to offer any help to him AND YET still managed to score and create a decent return of goals and chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...