Astute
Well-Known Member
What cup games? We have played 29 league games now. You are getting as bad as Grendull when trying to prove a point
You've included cup games in there? Is it fair to include arsenal to prove 1pt per game with one striker?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
What cup games? We have played 29 league games now. You are getting as bad as Grendull when trying to prove a point
First 15 games before injuries to our two strikers started....including losing the first game of the season W 9 D 3 L 3. Average of 2 points a game.
All league games so far this season
2 strikers W 12 D 6 L 5 =1.82 points a game
1 striker W 0 D 1 L 1 = 0.5 points a game
0 strikers W 1 D 1 L 2 = 1 point a game
So on the average we would have an extra 6 points.
You say it is all down to the defence. If we haven't got an outlet from midfield where can the ball go? Just wait for our opponents to get it back and attack us once again? So Craigus12, Lord, Robo, Weeman, Stu.........and Grendull who did his usual quote of 'Another one from the astute book of facts.' which was 'liked' by Mustard and Lord :thinking about: why is our defence worse when we have 1 or even 0 strikers if it isn't the fault of lack of strikers?
OK put him in as a striker then.
2 strikers W12 D6 L5 1.82 points a game
1 striker W1 D1 L2 1 point a game
0 strikers W0 D1 L1 0.5 points a game.
It still don't prove the point of doing crap because of our defence like Mustard said and some of you fully agreed with him does it? Like I said I stand behind it being because of a lack of strikers at our club. And yes Grendull it is an Astute fact as you said
To be fair it should have been 7 out of 6, after being 2-0 up against Oldham.
And when you look at we've conceded 12 goals in those 6 games, so shows that both attack and defence have been poor.
It doesn't help that neither centre midfielder has scored this season, and bakers struggled by last seasons standards, just from open play in his last 13 games.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
So you quoted this one from 8 hours ago and not the one from over half an hour ago with Delfo up front :thinking about:
I have said all season that we need to strengthen our defence. But what chance have we got when we can't even strengthen our strikeforce?
So we have scored 57 goals from 29 games. 13 of them goals were in the first 3 games......nearly a quarter of our league goals all season.
And as for your question of 1 or 0 strikers.....
Rotherham H Wilson L 0-3
Crawley H 0 strikers D 2-2
Preston A Clarke D 1-1 Moussa great goal
Orient A 0 strikers L 2-0
Bristol A Delf W 1-2
Notts County A Delf L 3-0
Go on check them........I know you will.
So five points from 6 games without 2 strikers playing. Less than a point a game. 42 points from 23 games with 2 strikers playing. That is 1.826 points a game. that would be 84 points in a season. Rotherham who are in 5th are averaging 1.75 points a game.
Do you still say it is all down to the defence?
To be fair it should have been 7 out of 6, after being 2-0 up against Oldham.
And when you look at we've conceded 12 goals in those 6 games, so shows that both attack and defence have been poor.
It doesn't help that neither centre midfielder has scored this season, and bakers struggled by last seasons standards, just from open play in his last 13 games.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
A slimy bit of insinuation. A reasonable person would notice it was a long post and that maybe I was composing my response to you as you put up a new post. It is amusing, however, that you think either set of stats provide a gotcha.
Another to file under the Astute Book of Facts. Manset, Slager, Loza, Dagnall, Delfouneso, Donnelly - all strikers brought in by Pressley. They may not have worked out, but they represented attempts to strengthen. Wilson and Clarke are exceptional strikers at this level - we were lucky to have two of them and should not expect replacements to match their talent.
This was an issue I addressed in one of my earlier posts. I said: 'You could make the argument that most of the goals were scored in a handful of games; but as I've already pointed out, City score in near 90% of their games.' We have already established that City score both in volume and laterally. Move the discussion on.
Those statistics are a mess. I can't begin to pull them apart. For one thing it represents only 20% of the season. Then you fail to account for other teams having similar injuries and setbacks to make appropriate comparisons. You have nothing to say about the defence leaking two goals a game in that period. Moussa is scoring at the rate of a good striker in this league. Two of the three losses were against playoff teams. Even if the team had Clarke and Wilson and met that arbitrary average of 1.86 points over those six games, it would put City on 43 points - still five points off the playoffs; comparisons with Rotherham are a non-starter. It's just plucking a few games at random and saying, 'we weren't as good when the team was less than perfect.'
How can you be this obtuse? Three of the league's top fifteen scorers are Coventry players. The team is scoring in volume (second highest in the entire Football League) and laterally (scoring in nearly nine out of ten games). But the team is leaking goals at a relegation level (fourth worst.) It is obvious to most that yes, it is all down to the defence. Look at the dodgy stats you posted: if a team is conceding two goals a game, you don't call for more strikers - you call for a better defence. It is only because the strikeforce has been so ridiculously outstanding that we've been able to absorb the handicap of the defence all season.
I was looking at this the other day, we have a serious lack of goals from other positions.
At the moment Baker, Moussa, Daniels and Webster are the only current first team players to have scored for us this season. Phillips and Wilson are the other scorers but not in the first team right now.
If you look at pretty much any other team they have at least 10+ different players who have scored goals for them.
And our last two games against Notts County and the win against Bristol. I don't count Delf as a striker. By the sound of it he has played as a winger and has only got 7 goals in over 70 games. Just the same as I don't count Moussa as one and he has scored 13 goals from midfield this season so far.
With one striker or less we have averaged less than a point a game. FACT.
With two strikers we have averaged 1.826 points a game. FACT.
Our two striker games have not been Clarke and Wilson all the time. FACT.
I have said all season that our defence needs strengthening. FACT.
All Astute facts. FACT.
Whatever setbacks there have been these are still facts. Yet you want to pick and choose your facts to try and distort the real facts.
You said I was wrong about the games we played with less than two strikers. I see you have dropped that now.
Let's get onto the fact you have of us scoring in nearly 90% of our league games.
1 striker or less. Scored in 3 out of 6 games. 50% scoring rate.
2 strikers. Scored in 22 out of 23 games. 95.65% scoring rate.
Clean sheets with 1 or 0 strikers 0.
Clean sheets with 2 strikers 4.
As you can see it is the games with a lack of strikers that has brought the percentages down. Yet you use it as a fact
Do you also therefore assume McDonald as a winger? If you take his career at Gillingham out the equation he has managed an explosive 11 goals from 67 games.
No question that they are all Astute facts...
I cannot repeat myself. I will say that you are extrapolating the story of the season from six games. And your take on those games is highly subjective. You ought to know that is ridiculous.
This is desperate. First, I'm not sure what distinction there is between 'my facts' and 'real facts'. Second, I am the one assessing the entire season's data. So to be accused of 'picking and choosing' by somebody whose entire case rests on six selective games is baffling.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Why do you keep assessing six games? Nothing - absolutely nothing - can be read into them.
Can we just agree our defence has been crap all season and at the moment are striking options are also crap?
Which is exactly what I am saying. And they know it.
Ridiculous? You trying to distort the facts is ridiculous. You say it doesn't matter about our lack of strikers. It is the defence. The facts are there.
Shall we wait until the end of the season and see how we do without two strikers? You state facts using games with less than 2 strikers as to say we don't score enough. Yet only failed to score once when using two. Them 6 games are over 20% of the season so far. Yet it becomes negligible to suit your needs.
No we know your grasp on hard cold data is tenous. We can dredge old history if needs be.
Interestingly only last week you posted one of sisu's failings in its early years was to offer high wages to non achievers and used this as some peculiar yardstick to justify high rent.
Now you seem to be saying the club should have retained McDonald (a high earner) to sit on the bench as he did with every manager we had. The club signed mansett and Schlager as back up strikers. They may be poor signings but the point is they signed strikers.
As with the management fees debacle the astute book of facts has been found to be fiction.
Time to surrender.
Yes, the facts are there. For the millionth time: second top scorers in the Football League; fourth worst defence in L1. That is not a distortion of anything.
No, it doesn't become negligible to my needs. I am just not interested in small sample sizes. Let me give you some examples why:
1. The Bristol City and Notts County games. They are the two most recent games Coventry played, and two of the six games listed in your data. Coventry won the Bristol game, but then lost the Notts County game. The team was unchanged. Fans who attended the Notts game said it was the worst they had seen the team play under Pressley. So what can you read into that? The same team, one week apart, with very different results. The 'striker theory' falls apart when you compare those games - one of the problems with small sample sizes.
2. Two losses in the six games were against playoff teams. Better teams than us. It is no anomaly that we should lose to them.
3. The other 23 teams in the league will have suffered injuries to key players. Maybe we caught them on such days and gave them a panning. You can't ignore that and merrily chalk it up to two strikers, and then separate the few games where Coventry had an absence of top personnel.
When you look at the data of the full season without so much discrimination, you get a much fairer picture. And that picture is: Coventry score regularly and let in a lot of goals.
I don't doubt that the team will struggle for the rest of the season. I already predicted a couple of days ago that the team wouldn't make the playoffs. It won't just be down to the loss of an outstanding player (Clarke), but likely also the apathy that sets in when there is nothing left to chase.
But this discussion has never been about what is to come; it has been about what has been. And the idea that the team has suffered because of the strikeforce remains patently ludicrous.
Getting your excuses ready for a poor run of results?
We were lucky to beat Bristol. We were lucky to get that Moussa equaliser in the 97th minute.
So how have we done against the top teams with two strikers?
All you are saying is if this and if that. So you prefer to make excuses than admit that you could be wrong and stats mean nothing.
We both say that the defence isn't good enough. But with two strikers we have a chance. Without two we could end up in a relegation battle. No ifs or butts. Say what you like. It won't change the situation.
I was looking at this the other day, we have a serious lack of goals from other positions.
At the moment Baker, Moussa, Daniels and Webster are the only current first team players to have scored for us this season. Phillips and Wilson are the other scorers but not in the first team right now.
If you look at pretty much any other team they have at least 10+ different players who have scored goals for them.
Are you really this dense? To repeat (I have to do that a lot with you): I already posted on the prediction thread that CCFC wouldn't make the playoffs, i.e. no strong run of form would be forthcoming. My 'excuses' were published before I even took to this thread.
Scientific analysis right there. An Astute Fact. And to think I said small sample sizes were horseshit.
I have no idea. Do you know how strong those teams were? Are you prepared to discount their form based on available personnel as you are doing for Coventry?
Don't be so lame.
Heh, a complete reframing of the discussion. It is fun to watch you in retreat.
7 in 8 for Cody now.
Maybe SP should have put a cheeky bid in with Leon's money.
Shame Donnelly created that farce at the last minute.
Only thing is Cody has to consistently play week in week out as a striker and he will score.
Either you are dense, in denial, hates having to admit when wrong or Grendull has two identities on here.
You are the one in retreat. Trying to use words to murk the truth. Ignoring the stats. Making out I have said what I haven't. Using points that you admit you are not sure of...like strength of teams we have played. You questioned what I put so came out with the stats.
It doesn't cut the mustard with me
Do you fancy McDonald?
He may not be brilliant but he would be in our team now and behind Wilson when he is back.
You sound more and more like a punch drunk boxer who lost every round in a fight and barely able to stand tells the post match interviewer if there was only one more round you'd have won.
So you'd have kept a highly paid player on the bench? I'm sure if he'd been named John or Paul no one would even mention him again.
In the circumstances he was one if the poorest signings we have ever made.
He may not be brilliant but he would be in our team now and behind Wilson when he is back.
Enough of your Grendull facts. Where have I said that I wanted us to keep him?
2 posts ago?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?