More Striker = More Goal

[Chabuddy G]

That's how it works right?
Straight out of the Neil Warnock school of scoranomics



Let's become a little more expansive and sign a bit more creativity and see if the current batch are good enough shall we? I suspect if they weren't feeding off scraps in 25 or so games last season our goals scored column would be a fair bit higher.

Harry Kane and Robert Lewandowski would have struggled to reach double figures for us last season.

Buendia or Jed Wallace for me please Chris...

 

[Revolution]

Harry Kane and Robert Lewandowski would have struggled to reach double figures for us last season.

that is a nonsense statement. The forwards collectively were 11 under on Xg. Better forwards would have converted those chances.

and it’s not more strikers For the sake of it. It’s better ones.

 

[Cheesebored]

Agree with your logic but you've picked on what was Warnock's strongest suit there. Countless times he'd throw extra strikers on for the last 5 minutes and save or win games.

 

[Barney]

Mousset had to come on for 15 mins at the end of matches, be expected to make mountains out of molehills, then get called shit and lazy when he couldn't. Strikers are only so good as those behind them and while ever there's a lack of creativity and chance creation, adding more strikers won't matter a jot. Creativity + Striker with pace. That's the ticket, Seth.

 

[1987]

that is a nonsense statement. The forwards collectively were 11 under on Xg. Better forwards would have converted those chances.

and it’s not more strikers For the sake of it. It’s better ones.

i think thats the team collectively right?

 

[Chabuddy G]

that is a nonsense statement. The forwards collectively were 11 under on Xg. Better forwards would have converted those chances.

and it’s not more strikers For the sake of it. It’s better ones.

Why using Expected Goals kills the concept of a 'clinical' striker

If the likes of Ronaldo can't overperform xG, it proves it works as a key player metric

www.footballcritic.com

 

[SteveBlade]

You're right in the fact that some strikers like Billy rely on quality service to score goals.

However, top strikers will make bad balls look good with their movement and pace, will be able to create a yard of space to get a shot off, have a quality first touch which creates opportunities in itself, can dribble past players, will constantly force mistakes and will make their teammates lives easier with their movement.

I'd argue that having McBurnie and Billy up top is as much of a reason as to why we've not scored many as a lack of service is.

Better striker = more goal. Absolutely.

 

[Revolution]

Why using Expected Goals kills the concept of a 'clinical' striker

If the likes of Ronaldo can't overperform xG, it proves it works as a key player metric

www.footballcritic.com

Ok then. Let’s use the evidence of our own eyes.

Sharp: 2 one on ones missed v Soton, one v Newcastle

Didzy - didn’t hit target twice v Bournemouth, missed one on ones v Wolves, Soton and Brighton, headed straight at keeper v Man Utd

Robinson - missed from 6 yards re Chelsea

McBurnie - several headers straight at the keeper or too close to him (Arsenal, Newcastle for example).

if you really think that a top class striker wouldn’t have scored 10 plus from the chances we created, you really don’t understand what you are watching.

 

[Chabuddy G]

Ok then. Let’s use the evidence of our own eyes.

Sharp: 2 one on ones missed v Soton, one v Newcastle

Didzy - didn’t hit target twice v Bournemouth, missed one on ones v Wolves, Soton and Brighton, headed straight at keeper v Man Utd

Robinson - missed from 6 yards re Chelsea

McBurnie - several headers straight at the keeper or too close to him (Arsenal, Newcastle for example).

if you really think that a top class striker wouldn’t have scored 10 plus from the chances we created, you really don’t understand what you are watching.

Do you think strikers don't miss chances?
Apart from McGoldrick I'm not having any of our strikers dragged for missing numerous chances

 

[Revolution]

i think thats the team collectively right?

the strikers were collectively 10.4 under Xg.

 

[Revolution]

Do you think strikers don't miss chances?
Apart from McGoldrick I'm not having any of our strikers dragged for missing numerous chances

Of course they do. I am confident however that a better forward will miss less chances. That’s generally how it works.

but you keep sticking to your ridiculous statement.

 

[Beans]

that is a nonsense statement. The forwards collectively were 11 under on Xg. Better forwards would have converted those chances.

and it’s not more strikers For the sake of it. It’s better ones.

Splitting hairs on the overall point of the thread, but where did you see that? FBref and Understat have our team as a whole as underperforming by about 6-7 goals, almost all of which was McGoldrick (2 goals from 7.1xg of chances). Mousset and Sharp both outperformed their chances according to that, McBurnie was slightly below.

Edit - I see Understat are less charitable Whew, that is a big difference between those two sources though - I'd be hesitant to go overboard with how many more goals our strikers should have scored from that, just to say that they should definitely have scored more. And yes, as others have said, take out McGoldrick's freakishly poor finishing last season and it's not really a big collective problem.

 

[Barney]

Do you think strikers don't miss chances?
Apart from McGoldrick I'm not having any of our strikers dragged for missing numerous chances

Well, the number of chances you can miss without it being a big deal goes down considerably upon reaching the Prem.

 

[1987]

the strikers were collectively 10.4 under Xg.

But mcgoldrick is 6 of that.

Edit - closer to 7

 

[bromtom]

I do think McBurnie and Moose are quality finishers if the chances come so I agree to a point, obviously Billy is.

When the strikers are having to come back around the centre circle to get a touch, goals aren't likely. Need someone to travel with it with a bit of pace and play them in while there's some space.

Would turn 6 goal strikers into 10+ I reckon.

 

[Chabuddy G]

Of course they do. I am confident however that a better forward will miss less chances. That’s generally how it works.

but you keep sticking to your ridiculous statement.

So you think a better forward doesn't miss the 1 or 2 chances each of the strikers bar McGoldrick has missed?
Joelinton cost 50mil and I'd hate to see his xG

He better get his head on the chopping block ready because 1 or 2 missed chances and we'll threads in here bemoaning him as a waste of money from game 1

 

[Chabuddy G]

Well, the number of chances you can miss without it being a big deal goes down considerably upon reaching the Prem.

Strikers miss chances, even in the Prem. I hate to be the one to break it to you

 

[Revolution]

But mcgoldrick is 6 of that.

Edit - closer to 7

yep. Just imagine a forward with 9xg created by other players and who, shock horror, will also shoot from distance and run at goal on his own.

10 goals would be easy for such a player.

 

[1987]

We don't create enough chances. Blaming the strikers for that is a huge stretch.

Maybe missing them seems more important because we create so little - but then that should highlight to you where we actually need improvements, either tactically or personnel wise.

Its almost like people assume that no more creativity could be eked from our midfield and out wide, but improve there and you'll get more goals.

 

[Barney]

Strikers miss chances, even in the Prem. I hate to be the one to break it to you

Sure I agree, but there's less margin for error is my point.

 

[Chabuddy G]

yep. Just imagine a forward with 9xg created by other players and who, shock horror, will also shoot from distance and run at goal on his own.

10 goals would be easy for such a player.

How much do you think he'd cost?
Doesn't every team want that player?

 

[Houston_Blade]

Shoutbox, a thread and a post on the thread about our strikers all to make the same point

We need better strikers. Sentimentality out of the way I would gladly take Sharp and Robinson off the payroll to bring in one really good striker, however we aren't going to spend the money needed so the moneyball approach of getting in more strikers scoring a few goals is more likely to be the way we go. If we can get a few of the midfield and defence to chip in then we are laughing. If we create more chances we are laughing even more.

 

[Revolution]

So you think a better forward doesn't miss the 1 or 2 chances each of the strikers bar McGoldrick has missed?
Joelinton cost 50mil and I'd hate to see his xG

He better get his head on the chopping block ready because 1 or 2 missed chances and we'll threads in here bemoaning him as a waste of money from game 1

Of course they will not score every time. They will also get in better positions or shoot from distance.

let’s put it another way - would you take Kane in our team, or us he not worth signing because he’s not going to be able to outscore McBurnie due to the paucity of chances.

 

[1987]

yep. Just imagine a forward with 9xg created by other players and who, shock horror, will also shoot from distance and run at goal on his own.

10 goals would be easy for such a player.

What? Get your head out of the clouds man.

9xg created by other players is our first problem to solve.

 

[Chabuddy G]

Sure I agree, but there's less margin for error is my point.

Less or more margin for error, they'll still miss chances. They're human beings.

Mbappe sliced one straight at Neuer from 8 yards out yesterday in the Champions League final.

My point is our strikers do not get chances created for them. It's so easy to bring up the chances they've missed because we create so few.

 

[Chabuddy G]

Of course they will not score every time. They will also get in better positions or shoot from distance.

let’s put it another way - would you take Kane in our team, or us he not worth signing because he’s not going to be able to outscore McBurnie due to the paucity of chances.

I'd hope he would outscore McBurnie considering he'd cost £130mil more

However do you think Kane is going to start dropping into the centre circle, running 50 yards and pinging it into the top corner?

 

[Revolution]

How much do you think he'd cost?
Doesn't every team want that player?

God knows. But you’re moving the goalposts. You said such a player will not score 10 times. Are you now admitting that was nonsense?

 

[Revolution]

What? Get your head out of the clouds man.

9xg created by other players is our first problem to solve.

We had those 9xg last season. Thats what Didzy had to work with.

 

[Chabuddy G]

God knows. But you’re moving the goalposts. You said such a player will not score 10 times. Are you now admitting that was nonsense?

No I haven't. I said Harry Kane or Lewandowski. Traditional number 9s.

An Mbappe or Neymar type, sure. But as I'm sure you're aware, they aren't cheap.

 

[Chabuddy G]

We had those 9xg last season. Thats what Didzy had to work with.

It depends on which xG model you want to use... See Beans post for more info