by Cripple Creek » 31 Dec 2011 07:23
by Hoop Blah » 31 Dec 2011 11:27
Cripple Creek Creative mildfielders are like hens' teeth which is why they are so expensive. Look at Modric at Spurs and Chelsea's almost obsession with him. Even several clubs in the top half of the EPL don't possess them. Other than Simon Osborne and Gylfi I can't really recall anyone that special for Reading in the recent past in this department. It's a nice idea but, Howard, who could be described as a 'creative mildfielder' didn't really work. Basically they need to be good enough to have the team at least partly built around them which happened, in my opinion, with Osborne and Gylfi. If they aren't good enough they are a luxury that rarely works out.
by Snowball » 03 Apr 2012 09:40
SnowballHoop BlahSnowball Or get Karacan and ledge to score a few
Neither of them are, or ever have been, players who score that often. It's just not really in their game.
Generally speaking we should be asking players to do what they're good at, not trying to get them to do things that aren't part of their games as that usually doesn't work. Some things can be worked on and addressed through training and a bit of focus/encouragment/tactics but sometimes you have to accept that players have limitations, strengths and weaknesses.
I predict that Karacan will start scoring more goals, hopefully for us.
And will routinely get 6+ per season
by Dare to Dr£am » 03 Apr 2012 09:45
by mr_number » 03 Apr 2012 09:53
by Hoop Blah » 03 Apr 2012 10:02
SnowballSnowball I predict that Karacan will start scoring more goals, hopefully for us.
And will routinely get 6+ per season
Since then...
2 Goals for Karacan
3 Goals for Elwood
by JimmytheJim » 03 Apr 2012 10:04
Hoop BlahSnowballSnowball I predict that Karacan will start scoring more goals, hopefully for us.
And will routinely get 6+ per season
Since then...
2 Goals for Karacan
3 Goals for Elwood
Which translates to 5.4 goals over a 46 game season for Karacan doesn't it?
Also, remember that means he's scored in 1 game since Boxing Day, or, to take a longer term view, 2 games since the season started. That's still not the form of a goal scoring midfielder.
At the time I said that 6 goals a season wasn't what I considered the midfield goals we needed (especially with the lack of regular goals we get from our wingers, Kebe and McAnuff have 8 between them I think) and it's not enough to make say that they're regular goalscorers.
If this is one of your attempts at proving you're right, I'd at least come back when the figures support your argument.
by Maguire » 03 Apr 2012 10:05
Hoop Blah I'd at least come back when the figures support your argument.
by Hoop Blah » 03 Apr 2012 10:11
MaguireHoop Blah I'd at least come back when the figures support your argument.
How on earth do you expect him to figure out when that is?
by JIM » 03 Apr 2012 11:17
by Snowball » 03 Apr 2012 11:53
by Ian Royal » 03 Apr 2012 11:57
by Snowball » 03 Apr 2012 12:00
Ian Royal It's certainly not what anyone has said, whether it's right or wrong.
Poor strawmanning.
by Ian Royal » 03 Apr 2012 12:03
snowball no increase in the number of shots
or goals from central midfielders, the central midfielders have
not been getting into the box more,
by Snowball » 03 Apr 2012 12:09
Ian Royal Without wanting to get into a petty argument, so this is my last word on the subject.
You said originallysnowball no increase in the number of shots
or goals from central midfielders, the central midfielders have
not been getting into the box more,
Which is the opposite of what you said following my post. That's either a massive shift of goal posts (to the other end of the pitch in fact) or a very poor use of language to communicate your point.
by paultheroyal » 03 Apr 2012 12:27
Snowball In 2012 there has been no increase in the number of shots
or goals from central midfielders, the central midfielders have
not been getting into the box more, and nobody on HobNob
has commented on the fact.
Is that right?
by Snowball » 03 Apr 2012 12:29
Hoop Blah [
If this is one of your attempts at proving you're right, I'd at least come back when the figures support your argument.
by Snowball » 03 Apr 2012 12:40
paultheroyal
I just don't really care anymore with all this. Does my fruit in.
by Mr Angry » 03 Apr 2012 12:43
Mr Angry A hugely enjoyable game; not just the result, but some of our play in the first half was superb.
Its clear that the back 5 and the 2 central midfielders are solid, which gives the foundation for this performance and other recent ones, with the result that we have come into the top 6 almost under the radar.
2nd half of the season looks a lot more interesting than it appeared it would in September!
by Hoop Blah » 03 Apr 2012 13:05
SnowballHoop Blah [
If this is one of your attempts at proving you're right, I'd at least come back when the figures support your argument.
1,617 Minutes 1 Goals 1,617 Minutes per Goal (Karacan before to Dec 29th)
1,421 Minutes 2 Goals 0,711 Minutes per Goal (Karacan since Dec 29th)
Karacan scoring at a rate 227% better than before Dec 29th.
2,068 Minutes 1 Goals 2,068 Minutes per Goal (Elwood before Dec 29th)
1,256 Minutes 3 Goals 0,419 Minutes per Goal (Elwood since Dec 29th)
Elwood scoring at a rate 494% better than before Dec 29th.
3,685 Minutes 2 Goals 1,843 Minutes per Goal (Elwood & Karacan before December 29th)
2,677 Minutes 5 Goals 0,535 Minutes per Goal (Elwood & Karacan before December 29th)
The combination, Elwood & Jem is scoring at a mere 344% better rate than prior to Dec 29th
Add to this that both players have been getting more shots away, (eg Elwood first half v Barnsley)
and in the game where Jem got two he was about to pull the trigger when McAnuff nicked it!
Maguire and I were discussing the fact very recently, where I argued that McDermott must
have given the two extra licence to go forward. Others felt it was more to do with confidence.