Reading between the lines

[Buzz Killington 0]

Following the recent interview with McNally, I''ve just read that as soon as Chris Hughton said that grant Holt was a big part of his plans, they agreed a 3 year deal within days. You have to remember that this was just after he handed in a transfer request. Reading between the lines, I can only assume that Paul Lambert had said that he wasn''t a big part of his plans. Or a deal would have been agreed before any such transfer request was made. I thought this was interesting, but maybe I''m reading too much into it. And for the record, I still think keeping him was a good move - even if he''s yet to rediscover his previous form.

[ROBFLECK 134]

That''s the whole point, he''s got to start earning that contract!!!

[Lord Horn 0]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]That''s the whole point, he''s got to start earning that contract!!![/quote]

And when in the last three seasons has he ever started to hit form before October????

[ZLF 334]

Holt is pivotal to our success

and if he never performs before october should we pick him before then, or does his new contract / pay get weighted accordingly?????

[nutty nigel 7,902]

But who says he never performs before October? Could that just be a myth that has been added to Pink Un folklore?

 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

But who says he never performs before October? Could that just be a myth that has been added to Pink Un folklore?

 

 

[/quote]

 

He performed against QPR, and that was on August 25th. Myth or what?

[ZLF 334]

it could be NN, the rough and ready data is below - not looking at mins played etc

lg1 end sep p10 G 4 end oct p15 g 9

champs p9 g 2 p14 g 3

prem p6 g 1 p 10 g 3

given the number of goals he has score each season, and his overall ratio of one goal every other game what do you think?

[ZLF 334]

and my original post on this section was in response to lord horn; if you are performing well you play; for me apart from QPR (where tbh Clint HIll is not a pre league quality defender) Holt has not been as good as he has been for us.

I think the "myth" comes from the likes of LDC when defending so lower quality efforts from Grant? Anyone wanting to research the source of this myth??

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Goalscorer	Goals	Games	Goals per Game	Games per Goal
Roy Hollis	59	107	0.55	1.81
Ralph Hunt	72	132	0.55	1.83
Grant Holt	70	130	0.54	1.86
Ron Davies	66	126	0.52	1.91
James Jackson	57	119	0.48	2.09
Ted MacDougall	66	138	0.48	2.09
Jack Vinall	80	181	0.44	2.26
Johnny Gavin	132	338	0.39	2.56
Kevin Drinkell	57	150	0.38	2.63
John Deehan	70	194	0.36	2.77
Ken Burditt	61	173	0.35	2.84
Leslie Eyre	69	201	0.34	2.91
Jimmy Hill	66	195	0.34	2.95
Terry Allcock	127	384	0.33	3.02
Iwan Roberts	96	306	0.31	3.19
Ken Foggo	57	197	0.29	3.46
Robert Fleck	84	299	0.28	3.56
Noel Kinsey	65	243	0.27	3.74
Tommy Bryceland	55	281	0.20	5.11
Ron Ashman	56	662	0.08	11.82

 

 

Goals per game of our all time top scorers as I worked out in the close season. The fact that Holts''s stats include the Championship and Premier League seasons show how remarkable they really are. Trying to find months where he''s "below par" is a bit like trying to find a way to get Frankel beat. After all despite these incredible goalscoring stats he contributes much more than just goals. I think he''s played well enough this season to warrant his place. He''s hardly been wasteful in front of goal either.

 

 

[Niaga Dessip 0]

Interesting list. Terry Allcock''s games per goal figure is impressive considering that in his later career he played in defence. That might apply to a few others.

ND

[nutty nigel 7,902]

I agree Niaga. But I think Grant Holt''s games per goal ratio is even better because of the level a lot of those games have been played at. Of course the longer he stays with us the further he will slip down the list. Not neccessarily because he will lose form but because it''s unlikely he will be so prolific at this level.

 

I think back to what I read about this under Hollis''s entry in Glorious Canaries : -

 

"The rise in Norwich''s status since those days plus tighter defences, better fitness, changing formations and even streamlined kit make it impossible to draw comparisons between the merits of one goalscorer to another. However of the top twenty City League and Cup scorers Roy''s strike rate of a goal every 1.81 games beats everybody"

 

 

 

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"].

I think the "myth" comes from the likes of LDC when defending so lower quality efforts from Grant? Anyone wanting to research the source of this myth??[/quote]

B*ll*cks.    I say it as I see it. 

I see a player who

gives everything on the pitch, is unselfish in bringing other players

into play, puts himself around  making himself a nuisance to the

opposition centre halves, was directly involved in Jackon''s and

Snodgrass''s goals and who has not had many clear cut chances himself to

score, mainly due to a lack of quality crosses.  

As Nutty has shown in this thread - look at the chart of goalscorers.   Look at his strike rate.

If you want to see a lazy unfit ex-tyre fitter, that''s fine but don''t complain if people disagree with you.  Just take the chips off the shoulders, the blinkers off the eyes and get behind the player.    He hasn''t let us down in three years, quite the opposite.   Give him a chance.  He deserves that. All the players do.