Interesting stat highlighting need for striker ...

[nutty nigel 7,668]

I may be using the wrong words here Webbo. It may not be missed chances. It could be a poor goal attempt conversion percentage or whatever the stat is. But I think you''re right that those stats only tell half a story. Grant Holt apparently has 1.6 shots per game and has scored 4 goals. Robert Snodgrass apparently has 2.3 shots per game and has scored 3 goals. This would look about right to me because Holty drags defenders out of position to make space for others. It suggests that if this poor conversion rate is a problem then replacing Holt isn''t the remedy!

 

 

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I may be using the wrong words here Webbo. It may not be missed chances. It could be a poor goal attempt conversion percentage or whatever the stat is. But I think you''re right that those stats only tell half a story. Grant Holt apparently has 1.6 shots per game and has scored 4 goals. Robert Snodgrass apparently has 2.3 shots per game and has scored 3 goals. This would look about right to me because Holty drags defenders out of position to make space for others. It suggests that if this poor conversion rate is a problem then replacing Holt isn''t the remedy!

 

 

[/quote]

 

Stats mean absolutely nothing unless you know exactly what they refer to. I am still waiting for the definition of "missed chances". Equally, you could say the same about "poor goal attempt conversion". Just what does that mean?

[nutty nigel 7,668]

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I may be using the wrong words here Webbo. It may not be missed chances. It could be a poor goal attempt conversion percentage or whatever the stat is. But I think you''re right that those stats only tell half a story. Grant Holt apparently has 1.6 shots per game and has scored 4 goals. Robert Snodgrass apparently has 2.3 shots per game and has scored 3 goals. This would look about right to me because Holty drags defenders out of position to make space for others. It suggests that if this poor conversion rate is a problem then replacing Holt isn''t the remedy!

 

 

[/quote]

 

Stats mean absolutely nothing unless you know exactly what they refer to. I am still waiting for the definition of "missed chances". Equally, you could say the same about "poor goal attempt conversion". Just what does that mean?

[/quote]

 

It''s not an exact science Webbo. The way I see it it''s attempts on goal divided by goals scored. The percentages wouldn''t be a defining opinion they are just used to help build a picture.

 

I was very lucky a few years ago to have a day at Colney. They took me into the classroom and showed me how performances were measured. Which players passed where and more importantly if there was a pattern to where they were more effective. They could put all the info on graphs. They new exactly how many yards each player ran in the game. They knew at what point they started to tire and be less effective. A player who many fans viewd to be lazy was in fact the most industrious player in the game I saw the stats for! They also have these stats on the opposition. It is a science and very much part of the modern game.

 

 

[Highland Canary 76]

I don''t need a striker to replace Holt but we do need one as effective or better than him if he is either injured or suspended, and to provide the manager with the option of resting him. Personally, I would not be surprised if both Jackson and Morison leaving at the end of the season and, dependent on who we get in, one of them leaving in January.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I may be using the wrong words here Webbo. It may not be missed chances. It could be a poor goal attempt conversion percentage or whatever the stat is. But I think you''re right that those stats only tell half a story. Grant Holt apparently has 1.6 shots per game and has scored 4 goals. Robert Snodgrass apparently has 2.3 shots per game and has scored 3 goals. This would look about right to me because Holty drags defenders out of position to make space for others. It suggests that if this poor conversion rate is a problem then replacing Holt isn''t the remedy!

 

 

[/quote]

 

Stats mean absolutely nothing unless you know exactly what they refer to. I am still waiting for the definition of "missed chances". Equally, you could say the same about "poor goal attempt conversion". Just what does that mean?

[/quote]

 

It''s not an exact science Webbo. The way I see it it''s attempts on goal divided by goals scored. The percentages wouldn''t be a defining opinion they are just used to help build a picture.

 

I was very lucky a few years ago to have a day at Colney. They took me into the classroom and showed me how performances were measured. Which players passed where and more importantly if there was a pattern to where they were more effective. They could put all the info on graphs. They new exactly how many yards each player ran in the game. They knew at what point they started to tire and be less effective. A player who many fans viewd to be lazy was in fact the most industrious player in the game I saw the stats for! They also have these stats on the opposition. It is a science and very much part of the modern game.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Exactly. And that''s why it shouldn''t be viewed as the "be all and end all". Some teams have a policy of shooting on sight from almost anywhere while others tend to play their way through the penalty area before pulling the trigger. This will, of course, have a massive impact on the percentages.

[Monty13 2,280]

I can see webbos point and i suspect Nutty is probably right, the figure is probably just based on shots taken (on and off) v goals scored.

If the same method is used for every team and we are very low in our conversion rate this does show a trend v other sides but it''s not as clear a picture as some are making out and even over the amount of games we have played, some great goalkeeping performances can skew those statistics.

Is always risky to say we are missing many ''clear cut'' chances, because I doubt the basic available statistics count players getting into great positions but being tackled before they can get away a shot or great crosses that just get missed for instance. I''ve watched every game and I certainly don''t remember us missing many clear cut chances.

Holt in particular has worked incredibly hard and while guilty of the occasional miss this season has certainly not IMO been guilty of squandering 3/4 of his clear cut chances, I''m sure i''m not the only one whose seen holt put in huge team performances this year but personally not have a clear cut chance in a game.

People are bleating on about the need for a new striker, but personally unless his all round game is better than Holts are we going to pay top dollar for this striker to sit on the bench? The current system works, people may whinge Holt ends up out wide too much but we have no idea how many more or less goals the team may score if he stays more disciplined in the centre. His cross for Bassong against Swasea was superb, how many other big CF would have been in that position or could deliver that quality a ball if they were?

[PurpleCanary 5,604]

[quote user="Monty13"]I can see webbos point and i suspect Nutty is probably right, the figure is probably just based on shots taken (on and off) v goals scored. If the same method is used for every team and we are very low in our conversion rate this does show a trend v other sides but it''s not as clear a picture as some are making out and even over the amount of games we have played, some great goalkeeping performances can skew those statistics. Is always risky to say we are missing many ''clear cut'' chances, because I doubt the basic available statistics count players getting into great positions but being tackled before they can get away a shot or great crosses that just get missed for instance. I''ve watched every game and I certainly don''t remember us missing many clear cut chances. Holt in particular has worked incredibly hard and while guilty of the occasional miss this season has certainly not IMO been guilty of squandering 3/4 of his clear cut chances, I''m sure i''m not the only one whose seen holt put in huge team performances this year but personally not have a clear cut chance in a game.

 

People are bleating on about the need for a new striker, but personally unless his all round game is better than Holts are we going to pay top dollar for this striker to sit on the bench? The current system works, people may whinge Holt ends up out wide too much but we have no idea how many more or less goals the team may score if he stays more disciplined in the centre. His cross for Bassong against Swasea was superb, how many other big CF would have been in that position or could deliver that quality a ball if they were?

 

 

[/quote]

 

That is questionable on several levels. For starters who knows what we might have to pay. A loan deal is a possibility, as is a comparitively cheap continental find. Secondly, a new striker might well not be sitting on the bench, for two reasons. Holt might get (perhaps already is) injured, or lose form. In addition at the moment we can effectively only play one system all the way though a game because we don''t have a second (in the sense of extra) striker of proven Premiership quality. Now opposing managers are not idiots; they know this and will counteract accordingly. I am sure Hughton would like the option in the second half of the season either of starting with a 4-4-2 or - particularly - switching to it during  a game. At the moment we can''t do that. All we can do is swap Morison for Holt, or vice versa.

[Monty13 2,280]

Purple I was being slightly obtuse based on the thread title. Personally I would love to see a new striker in at the right price, if Hughton finds us a Michu I will be overjoyed, I''m also personally a fan of the idea of getting Robbie Keane in for the games available, although he seems to have ruled that out now. A striker in that can improve the squad is something I''m all for. I just don''t think the evidence for the need of this is based on the Stat alluded to in the thread title, nor do I think this Stat is somehow a reflection that Holt is under performing. We of course have an issue if Holt gets injured but we already have a 10 goal backup striker, and I haven''t personally, like many, written off Morisson yet.

IMO, even though we are chock full of midfielders, I think our major limitation in playing 442 is the Centre midfield berths, yes we could probably do with a better striker to partner Holt but unless Hughton can find an effective 4 man midfield that he is happy will protect the back four but is creative going forward then how do you accommodate that second striker without nullifying our creativity?

It''s my opinion, but the two go hand in hand, he doesn''t seem to rate Fox so we need a passing midfielder who can defend to accommodate any new strike partner.

[whoareyou? 0]

Well it seems if we can convince Benteke that Norwich is in London, we light be able to sign him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20808052