Ricky scoring goals again

[morty 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="morty"]And admitting when you get it wrong.[/quote]Do you have to admit when your wrong just the once Morty, or do you have to keep admitting it over and over like us when we admit we''re right? [:)] [/quote][:D]

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

LDC if you don''t think RvW was awful for us, I can only assume you were watching the wrong team on your streams.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Lappinitup;

morty wrote:

And admitting when you get it wrong.

Lappinitup

Do you have to admit when your wrong just the once Morty, or do you have to keep admitting it over and over like us when we admit we''re right? Smile [:)]

Lapps not often your wrong, but your right again!

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Lappinitup;

morty wrote:

And admitting when you get it wrong.

Lappinitup

Do you have to admit when your wrong just the once Morty, or do you have to keep admitting it over and over like us when we admit we''re right? Smile [:)]

Lapps not often your wrong, but your right again![/quote]I admit that. [;)]

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]LDC if you don''t think RvW was awful for us, I can only assume you were watching the wrong team on your streams.[/quote]On the contary, I formulated my opinions largely on two of the matches I saw him at in that season. The first against Everton where he scored with a superb header and the Tottenham match where he worked his socks off, harrassed a defender into losing the ball which directly to Snodgrass''s goal and where he was given a standing ovation on being subbed.  Those I saw him in online, I watched and saw his runs and the lack of service he was given, as well as the very few chances he had that he missed, but then once your confidence in front of goal deserts you, that''s what happens.  Too little service, loss of confidence in front of goal as a result. Poor, yes, but then the rest of the team bear that responsibility too. Awful? No - unless you say the rest of the team were awful too.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Indy_Bones wrote:

''''I really wish it was Morty, but that''s not what I''m being told on here.

Whenever I fetch relevant stats to back up my opinions I get comments stating that they''re "too linear" or "you can manipulate stats however you like" etc.

Redmond''s accuracy from corners was a clear 20% better than Snoddy''s, there are almost no external factors on corner taking (unlike say a cross whereby defensive pressure, ball movement and a number of other factors come into play), yet even this is apparently meaningless, so what more do people actually want here, because at the minute it feels like it doesn''t matter what evidence or factual data can be provided, because if someone doesn''t personally agree with it, then it''s going to be dismissed or written off in some form or another.

I can just imagine some of the team talks that must take place if that''s the case:

AN: "Robbie, I''ve just been going over the pro-zone stats from the weekends game, and nearly 90% of your crosses went nowhere near any of the lads, what''s happening?"

RB: "Nah Boss, you''ve got it all wrong, my crossing was great, anyone watching the game could tell you that"

AN: "The stats don''t lie Robbie, your crossing was poor last game"

RB: "That''s a load of squit gaffer, you ask any Hull fan what my crossing is like and they''ll tell you it''s spot on, besides those stats are too linear anyway"

AN: "So you''re telling me that despite everything being video''ed and recorded clearly, and despite the evidence showing that 90% of your crosses went nowhere near any of the lads, that I''m still wrong, that I''m taking the data out of context and in fact you were really Man of the Match"

RB: "Pretty much"

AN: "Have fun in the U23 side..."''''

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FFS

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

You''re right LDC, the entire team wasn''t awful. For example, Robert Snodgrass scored six times as many goals as RvW that season.

[hogesar 9,619]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="hogesar"]

I''m sorry but me saying RvW was awful, and you setting Snodgrass attitude was awful and he was a negative to the team - how is one worse than the other?

I''ll tell you how. It''s not.

[/quote]

Missed this one, but in terms in which even you might undertsand - You say RVW was an awful footballer.  I say Snodgrass could have done better. There is a huge difference.

[/quote]

If you intend to play the intellect card, can I suggest you at least correctly spell the word ''understand'', LDC.

Regardless, here is a quote from Morty''s link, from yourself :

"but watching match after match after match that he was in failing to deliver anything productive"

Now, regardless of anything else, Snoddy did produce. RVW DID NOT. Others have quantified their reasoning for calling RvW awful for us. Was he not awful for us?

Your quote above is no different to anything i''ve said - the only difference is mine is backed up by key stats such as HOW MANY GOALS HE SCORED.

I really don''t understand why you find basic english so difficult to comprehend. 

P.S - When I play the intellect card, I make sure to spell words like ''comprehend'' correctly. [:)]

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="Mickdundee"]Depends on where you''re sitting

High up on the halfway line, yes you get a better view

Behind the goals you don''t, you get a far better perspective on the telly if your sat there[/quote]

There was bloke once who was at an AGM, he told the then manager that he should sit high up in the stand so that he would get a better view of the game, anyone remember what the then managers reply was?

[/quote]It was Roeder and the infamous '' i must have missed your tenure as England manager '' moment.I claim my £5 TCC.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Sorry to be heavy with you before, it gets tedious trying to get one''s point across when people seeem so intent on ignoring mitigating circumstances.   Yes, he only scored one goal, yes, Snodgrass scored six.  But that isn''t the whole story is it?   If you have a player who is intent on scoring himself and when all else fails crosses the ball in, you have a player who is restricting other team players.  It''s not so controversial an opinion. You see it every game you watch where a player tries to shoot when there is a player in a better position available.  On balance - imo - Snodgrass did that far too often, so many times exhausting all the possibilities for himself before crossing - or more likely falling over - instead of crossing early to give others a chance.  Our chances made was so poor that season you have to question his input from the wing.  You can question Redmonds'' too of course, but by far the most dominant player that season was Snodgrass.  RVW struggled, but he wasn''t exactly helped by Snodgrass''s attitude, was he? 

[lake district canary 4,531]

That was to Hogesar btw.

[hogesar 9,619]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Sorry to be heavy with you before, it gets tedious trying to get one''s point across when people seeem so intent on ignoring mitigating circumstances.   Yes, he only scored one goal, yes, Snodgrass scored six.  But that isn''t the whole story is it?   If you have a player who is intent on scoring himself and when all else fails crosses the ball in, you have a player who is restricting other team players.  It''s not so controversial an opinion. You see it every game you watch where a player tries to shoot when there is a player in a better position available.  On balance - imo - Snodgrass did that far too often, so many times exhausting all the possibilities for himself before crossing - or more likely falling over - instead of crossing early to give others a chance.  Our chances made was so poor that season you have to question his input from the wing.  You can question Redmonds'' too of course, but by far the most dominant player that season was Snodgrass.  RVW struggled, but he wasn''t exactly helped by Snodgrass''s attitude, was he?  [/quote]

Yeah, no, I get you LDC. In this thread, my issue isn''t actually that you didn''t rate Snodgrass - it''s more that you seemed critical on here of me having the exact same opinion of RvW - and whilst I don''t do it in every post - you have previously had conversations with me where i''ve given plenty of reasons to back up my point of view (as you have with Snodgrass).

Neither of us will ever agree on our reasons relating to both players, but it seemed hypocritical to criticise me in the circumstances.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Maybe, but my criticism of you was based on you saying about RVW that he was "an awful footballer".  That is something I''ve never accused Snodgrass of, despite what some keep saying. I''ve criticised him a heck of a lot, but that isnt the same thing.

[hogesar 9,619]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Maybe, but my criticism of you was based on you saying about RVW that he was "an awful footballer".  That is something I''ve never accused Snodgrass of, despite what some keep saying. I''ve criticised him a heck of a lot, but that isnt the same thing. [/quote]

Maybe LDC but to save discussing this for several pages - the ''awful footballer'' is the conclusion I drew from my list of criticisms. Just because your criticisms of Snodgrass hasn''t led you to that same conclusion, probably down to the two players we''re referring to more than anything else, isn''t a reason to criticise me.

[king canary 7,580]

@LDC

But do you deny that RvW was awful for us?

[westcoastcanary 0]

[quote user="Feedthewolf"][quote user="Feedthewolf"]Has anyone mentioned Grefstad''s telly yet?In seriousness, though, I find that to be at the game and high up in the stands offers more than watching on TV. You catch things in your peripheral vision such as movement off the ball, body language etc., that you can''t see on TV where essentially the director is focused on the immediate action. You gain more from freedom of vision than you lose in distance from the action. Obviously post-match analysis by experts will offer insight that mere mortals such as myself don''t see, but I feel I have a better view of the game from my lofty perch in the River End. Maybe when I am no longer lucky enough to have 20/20 vision my views will change, but for now I am in no doubt.[/quote]Rational discussion about football, anyone? [;)][/quote]I doubt if any of us exiles wouldn''t prefer to be able to get regularly to matches (as I imagine the majority of us did at one time, including myself). I also doubt whether any of us, even Grefstad, really thinks that watching on TV or laptop is every bit as good in every respect as being at the game (which is not to say it doesn''t offer some advantages that those at the game don''t have). But that''s not the issue. The issue is whether going to matches confers superior judgement to the extent that, if someone who''s only seen the game on TV holds a different opinion, it can be summarily dismissed because "you only watched on TV". As I said in reply to Buh, this board provides abundant evidence that regularly attending matches is perfectly compatible with talking nonsense and lacking any sense of perspective.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="Feedthewolf"][quote user="Feedthewolf"]Has anyone mentioned Grefstad''s telly yet?In seriousness, though, I find that to be at the game and high up in the stands offers more than watching on TV. You catch things in your peripheral vision such as movement off the ball, body language etc., that you can''t see on TV where essentially the director is focused on the immediate action. You gain more from freedom of vision than you lose in distance from the action. Obviously post-match analysis by experts will offer insight that mere mortals such as myself don''t see, but I feel I have a better view of the game from my lofty perch in the River End. Maybe when I am no longer lucky enough to have 20/20 vision my views will change, but for now I am in no doubt.[/quote]Rational discussion about football, anyone? [;)][/quote]I doubt if any of us exiles wouldn''t prefer to be able to get regularly to matches (as I imagine the majority of us did at one time, including myself). I also doubt whether any of us, even Grefstad, really thinks that watching on TV or laptop is every bit as good in every respect as being at the game (which is not to say it doesn''t offer some advantages that those at the game don''t have). But that''s not the issue. The issue is whether going to matches confers superior judgement to the extent that, if someone who''s only seen the game on TV holds a different opinion, it can be summarily dismissed because "you only watched on TV". As I said in reply to Buh, this board provides abundant evidence that regularly attending matches is perfectly compatible with talking nonsense and lacking any sense of perspective.[/quote]For the avoidance of doubt, I''m stating a personal opinion/preference. I wouldn''t dismiss someone''s opinion if they''d watched the game on TV - I watched almost all our away matches last season on TV!

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="king canary"]@LDC

But do you deny that RvW was awful for us?[/quote]As a team they were awful - including him. As an individual within a team he struggled, but I won''t say he was awful.  How many crosses did he get? How many through passes did he get?  He made plenty of runs, most people seem to accept that - so if he was making the runs but not getting the ball, how was he supposed to score?  When he did eventually get a chance, living on fresh air most of the time, it was not surprising he couldn''t take it.  

[morty 0]

RvW was awful.End of.

[Ginja 26]

[img]http://giant.gfycat.com/UnhappyDaringIndianrhinoceros.gif[/img]

[king canary 7,580]

@LDC

Well then I don''t think we can ever remotely agree. I keep hearing ''he made runs'' ''he worked hard.'' These are absolute bare minimum requirements. Hooper managed a few goals as did Snodgrass and Redmond. Maybe the runs he made were the wrong runs? Maybe they weren''t very good runs? Maybe it takes more than making a run to be successful?

I can''t see any reason other than wilful blindness to look at a player we paid a record fee for, who scored 1 goal (on his debut no less) in his entire league career with us, who we were totally unable to shift permanently for three seasons as anything other than awful for us.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

there can''t be excuse after excuse for ricky, there really can''t. yes things didn''t click and some of that wasn''t his fault but if he was any good, he would have at least done better than he did.

A decent striker can make his own luck and get his teammates performing at least the odd game. look at defoe in that useless Sunderland team or even ayew at villa. Ricky was brought in to be at their level and he was nowhere near. there is no time for patience in football these days and plenty of good players can hit the ground running just fine.

[Coq au vin 0]

I had the runs... too much bran

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Tetteys Jig"]Look at defoe in that useless Sunderland team[/quote]I have, and guess what? Regardless of how poor many of them were, they still didn''t ask him to be a target man FFS.Jesus wept, how many god damn times do I need to repeat this before it sinks in with some people???Defoe did ok for Sunderland because like most good clubs do, they played to his bloody strengths rather than asking him to perform a role he isn''t suited for and has never played before.Just watch the goals back FFS:[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vab9WRCtTWA]Defoe Goals 15/16[/url]There''s probably only 1 goal in there that would even be vaguely like what a target man would expect (mainly the Liverpool goal where Sakho gets too close to him), with the rest being a combination of tap-ins, through balls or low crosses/passes across the area (including the one against us).Number of headers - 0, number of situations whereby they''re asking him to hold up play whilst the midfield pushes up to support - 0The sort of supply and passing given to Defoe is almost exactly what RvW should have been getting but didn''t, so don''t try using Defoe as an illustration because it''s completely wrong, and if anything proves my point even more!

[king canary 7,580]

@Indy

Yes they did but that is because he has more strengths than Ricky ever did. Defoe isn''t a target man but is pacy, can stretch defenders and is able to get in behind teams. So his strengths are easier to play to.

As you keep saying RvW is a poacher and nothing else. Which quite frankly isn''t enough at this level in this day and age. It isn''t just about asking Ricky to be a target man- it is that he offers precisely zero outside of scoring tap-ins.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="king canary"] It isn''t just about asking Ricky to be a target man- it is that he offers precisely zero outside of scoring tap-ins.[/quote]Nice tap in here.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUrvXEM16ho

[king canary 7,580]

Great- did he score it for Norwich?

[Syteanric 1]

he''s playing in a division which is basically league 1 in quality...he''s lucky to be even doing that!

[JF 694]

Even our own players thought he was shat!

[firedawg 0]

I missed have missed that! Shat? oh yeah rhymes with what you are - and it ain''t cat....