BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted November 20, 2011 ....and John ''Paul'' Ruddy is the 5th best shot stopper in the Prem. See Prozone/Opta stats here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2062757/Wayne-Rooney-Swansea-City-s-Mark-Gower-Who-best-Premier-League-footballer.html OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
I am a Banana 0 Posted November 20, 2011 I know who''s would rather have! The fact I''m a holland fan doesn''t make a difference either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted November 20, 2011 Lies, damn lies and statistics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
exiled blue 0 Posted November 20, 2011 which just goes to show why all the top clubs tried to sign him in the summer...oh no, wait...;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 0 Posted November 20, 2011 Holt''s strike rate is good - always has been so no surprise there.All it shows in the case of van persie is that he misses alot! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 335 Posted November 20, 2011 All those tables show is certain elements. Eg who is the best finisher, creates most chance per minute or best shot stopper, not who is the best player.How you weight the various elements is tough. How woudl Kevin Drinkell fare? Astounding strike rate but rarely moved, defended or interacted; yet I would still have him in our current squad for his finishing quality! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted November 20, 2011 [quote user="Mister Chops"]Lies, damn lies and statistics.[/quote] [|-)] Stats have their place, but they''re far from the bible, so to speak. Lambert may claim to the effect that he ignores the stats - but you can bet yer boots that all of his staff don''t. OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lambert is King 0 Posted November 20, 2011 [quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Mister Chops"]Lies, damn lies and statistics.[/quote] [|-)] Stats have their place, but they''re far from the bible, so to speak. Lambert may claim to the effect that he ignores the stats - but you can bet yer boots that all of his staff don''t. OTBC [/quote]Lol you probably could not have highlighted something worse on behalf of Holt. This also tells you he has been on the pitch 588 minutes and in that time has only had 10 shots one every 58+ minutes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 0 Posted November 20, 2011 Yes, but could it not also show he is not getting the service he needs from midfield.Still a good strike rate. Statistics only prove what you want them to prove. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,902 Posted November 20, 2011 [quote user="Lambert is King"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] [quote user="Mister Chops"]Lies, damn lies and statistics.[/quote] [|-)] Stats have their place, but they''re far from the bible, so to speak. Lambert may claim to the effect that he ignores the stats - but you can bet yer boots that all of his staff don''t. OTBC [/quote]Lol you probably could not have highlighted something worse on behalf of Holt. This also tells you he has been on the pitch 588 minutes and in that time has only had 10 shots one every 58+ minutes. [/quote]I wonder how many minutes Hernandez has played[:^)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted November 21, 2011 [quote user="Lambert is King"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] [quote user="Mister Chops"]Lies, damn lies and statistics.[/quote] [|-)] Stats have their place, but they''re far from the bible, so to speak. Lambert may claim to the effect that he ignores the stats - but you can bet yer boots that all of his staff don''t. OTBC [/quote]Lol you probably could not have highlighted something worse on behalf of Holt. This also tells you he has been on the pitch 588 minutes and in that time has only had 10 shots one every 58+ minutes. [/quote] Work out Morrison''s strike rate........ OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shack Attack 0 Posted November 21, 2011 I don''t get this need that some have to rely on statistics. What is wrong with using your eyes? Of the attacking players on show in Saturdays game Holt was probably the least effective. Gervinho and Walcott (who played as more attacking wide men than our two did) both caused our defence massive problems, Morison worked hard without getting huge reward but at least got a goal, Van Persie got two and was the classiest player on the pitch and Jackson at least had a shot on goal. What exactly did Holt do which elevates him above these players and Mario Ballotelli? He won a free kick in a dangerous area once I suppose [:^)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted November 21, 2011 [quote user="Shack Attack"]I don''t get this need that some have to rely on statistics. What is wrong with using your eyes? Of the attacking players on show in Saturdays game Holt was probably the least effective. Gervinho and Walcott (who played as more attacking wide men than our two did) both caused our defence massive problems, Morison worked hard without getting huge reward but at least got a goal, Van Persie got two and was the classiest player on the pitch and Jackson at least had a shot on goal. What exactly did Holt do which elevates him above these players and Mario Ballotelli? He won a free kick in a dangerous area once I suppose [:^)][/quote] Shack. The stats in the OP are for the season; not Saturday''s match. All that Holt has done is score more goals per ''shot'' so far this season than VPersie, Ballotelli, Morison etc. It''s not a question of ''relying on'' statistics - it''s using statistics to supplement the eye, the memory and instinct. They also have a useful part to play in cancelling the sub-consciuos prejudices which affect all human judgements. And I don''t see anyone arguing about the other stat which shows John ''Paul'' Ruddy as the country''s 5th best shot stopper. OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 21, 2011 "I don''t get this need that some have to rely on statistics"Unfortunately football has recently attracted quite a number of halfwits who have little understanding of what is not a very complicated game. This sort of witless drivel gives these numpties a belief that they know what is happening. One such halfwit told me that Jackson should be credited with an ''assist'' for having his shot hit the cross bar for the fifth goal at poorman road and even after he had seen Huckerby''s superb solo goal against Birmingham argued that the defender who played the ball out to him should be accorded likewise.On the same idiotic basis we now have the habitually stupid squeaking about how many yards a player has ran during the game as if it is some acceptable measurement of their ability/contribution. Which would place Andy Hughes midfield skills way above those of Martin O''Neill. The stupid are always with us, we are told, unfortunately we can''t even shake them off at the football ground any more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted November 21, 2011 [quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Mister Chops"]Lies, damn lies and statistics.[/quote] [|-)] Stats have their place, but they''re far from the bible, so to speak. Lambert may claim to the effect that he ignores the stats - but you can bet yer boots that all of his staff don''t. OTBC[/quote]The statistic you quote in isolation is so meaningless as to be laughable. Put another way, you could have a striker play 10 games, do nothing except run in circles, give the ball away and get caught offside, and score one goal with the one chance he gets (a lucky break from a corner which he mis-hits and scores via a deflection). He would then be 100% goals scored/shots, but everyone who watches the games would see he was a donkey who got lucky one time only.Holt''s no donkey, but to suggest he''s better than any of the players you''ve listed on the basis of isolated stats is stupid, frankly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted November 22, 2011 [quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Mister Chops"]Lies, damn lies and statistics.[/quote] [|-)] Stats have their place, but they''re far from the bible, so to speak. Lambert may claim to the effect that he ignores the stats - but you can bet yer boots that all of his staff don''t. OTBC[/quote]The statistic you quote in isolation is so meaningless as to be laughable. Put another way, you could have a striker play 10 games, do nothing except run in circles, give the ball away and get caught offside, and score one goal with the one chance he gets (a lucky break from a corner which he mis-hits and scores via a deflection). He would then be 100% goals scored/shots, but everyone who watches the games would see he was a donkey who got lucky one time only.Holt''s no donkey, but to suggest he''s better than any of the players you''ve listed on the basis of isolated stats is stupid, frankly.[/quote]You need to lighten up Chopsy; the pantomime season is approaching.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan1992 0 Posted November 23, 2011 Obviously RVP, Balotelli etc have a lot more quality than Holt, but why are people (not just on this thread) criticising Holt this year? He has never played at this level, has scored over 50 goals in less than 2 years at the club, puts his all in the games and hasn''t appeared to have been too unhappy at being dropped to the bench. He''s scored a couple of important goals this year, and without him, we wouldn''t be here! Did people expect him to get 20+ goals against some of the greatest defences in Europe this season? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
