Perhaps Andy Thorn was onto something... (1 Viewer)

[Astute]

To repeat: we have scored in 25 out of 28 games. To put it another way: there is a 90% chance of Coventry scoring.

Second best scoring record in the league.

It doesn't matter whether we have a defender, midfielder, 16 year old, or leprechaun playing upfront - you take those statistics every single day of the week.



Irrelevant. Any objective individual would look at the second best scoring record v. the nineteenth best defence record and say, 'I think the defence is the problem.' 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. CCFC have more chance of scoring in a league game than Manchester City.

To reiterate: it is the defence costing City points, definitely not the strikeforce. Don't get lost in the narrative about striker injuries - look at the facts.

So it is irrelevant that we keep losing when we don't have a striker on the pitch?

So we have scored in nearly 90% of our games. What is the % without a striker on the pitch? What would the % be in all games other than if you took out the games without a striker?

 

---

[stupot07]

So it is irrelevant that we keep losing when we don't have a striker on the pitch?

So we have scored in nearly 90% of our games. What is the % without a striker on the pitch? What would the % be in all games other than if you took out the games without a striker?

Keep losing without a striker on the pitch? Orient is the only league game we've lost in the last 7, and the only league game we've not scored in since Rotherham away in November 11 leagues ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Grendel]

Keep losing without a striker on the pitch? Orient is the only league game we've lost in the last 7, and the only league game we've not scored in since Rotherham away in November 11 leagues ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Another one from the astute book of facts.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

To repeat: we have scored in 25 out of 28 games. To put it another way: there is a 90% chance of Coventry scoring.

Second best scoring record in the league.

It doesn't matter whether we have a defender, midfielder, 16 year old, or leprechaun playing upfront - you take those statistics every single day of the week.



Irrelevant. Any objective individual would look at the second best scoring record v. the nineteenth best defence record and say, 'I think the defence is the problem.' 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. CCFC have more chance of scoring in a league game than Manchester City.

To reiterate: it is the defence costing City points, definitely not the strikeforce. Don't get lost in the narrative about striker injuries - look at the facts.

Have I been called up then?

 

[italiahorse]

2 less than Wilson in 5 more games, know who I'd rather have.

Both ?

 

[Grendel]

Both ?

So you'd rather have not had Clarke - pure genius.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

To repeat: we have scored in 25 out of 28 games. To put it another way: there is a 90% chance of Coventry scoring.

Second best scoring record in the league.

It doesn't matter whether we have a defender, midfielder, 16 year old, or leprechaun playing upfront - you take those statistics every single day of the week.



Irrelevant. Any objective individual would look at the second best scoring record v. the nineteenth best defence record and say, 'I think the defence is the problem.' 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. CCFC have more chance of scoring in a league game than Manchester City.

To reiterate: it is the defence costing City points, definitely not the strikeforce. Don't get lost in the narrative about striker injuries - look at the facts.

Agreed.

The breakdown of this is we have thrown 16 points away in 7 games when City have been in a winning position which would have put us firmly in the play-offs, if we fail to achieve promotion this season - I for one believe we will - it will not be down to the fact we don't score enough, but it's because we don't defend well enough.

 

[italiahorse]

So you'd rather have not had Clarke - pure genius.

Yet again a 2+2 =5 comment

 

[BurbageSkyBlues]

Yet again a 2+2 =5 comment

I'm surprised he got that close to what 2+2 equals..........

 

[Astute]

Keep losing without a striker on the pitch? Orient is the only league game we've lost in the last 7, and the only league game we've not scored in since Rotherham away in November 11 leagues ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

As I asked what are the percentages if you want to use them in your favour? And didn't we scrape a draw in the cup with an own goal?

And there is a massive difference between the defence not being good enough and not having enough strikers.

 

[Astute]

Another one from the astute book of facts.

Back to being a dick again I see.

Are you going to explain how the council forced our club out of the City then?

How do you ever manage to get any work done in your over 100k a year unskilled job?

 

[stupot07]

As I asked what are the percentages if you want to use them in your favour? And didn't we scrape a draw in the cup with an own goal?

And there is a massive difference between the defence not being good enough and not having enough strikers.

Ok so we've played what, 2 games out of 35 without a recognised striker, drew 1-1 with an own goal, and lost to a team that's better than us, with more point, more goals and better defence than ours. Although I agree with the logic, there's no statistical relevant to that.

No ones has disagreed that we haven't got enough strikers, what we're saying is that Pressley was right to offload Cody, he wasn't in Pressleys plans, and we shouldn't be wasting high wages on a back up player - Gillingham are paying a third of what we were. Perhaps you'd be happy with us paying x3 what his worth as a regular starter to sit on the bench.

Pressley made the mistake of replacing him with Manset, that was a bad call, but I do applaud the fact he doesn't sign people for the sake of getting an extra bodies in but rather whether they fit into his system.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[covcity4life]

defence hopefully will have a better second half of season now with webster and seabourne building a partnership.

 

[Astute]

Ok so we've played what, 2 games out of 35 without a recognised striker, drew 1-1 with an own goal, and lost to a team that's better than us, with more point, more goals and better defence than ours. Although I agree with the logic, there's no statistical relevant to that.

No ones has disagreed that we haven't got enough strikers, what we're saying is that Pressley was right to offload Cody, he wasn't in Pressleys plans, and we shouldn't be wasting high wages on a back up player - Gillingham are paying a third of what we were. Perhaps you'd be happy with us paying x3 what his worth as a regular starter to sit on the bench.

Pressley made the mistake of replacing him with Manset, that was a bad call, but I do applaud the fact he doesn't sign people for the sake of getting an extra bodies in but rather whether they fit into his system.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I haven't said we should have kept him. I am saying we should have had at least one more striker. We have spare midfield and defence. We have played a defender up front. I would guess that our best runs have been when we have played with two strikers. I also wouldn't say our defence is poor. The way we play can leave them exposed.

 

[Grendel]

How do you ever manage to get any work done in your over 100k a year unskilled job?

I don't need to. I have staff paid a lot less than me who do it all for me.

 

[stupot07]

I haven't said we should have kept him. I am saying we should have had at least one more striker. We have spare midfield and defence. We have played a defender up front. I would guess that our best runs have been when we have played with two strikers. I also wouldn't say our defence is poor. The way we play can leave them exposed.

Then why the hell are we arguing????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Astute]

I don't need to. I have staff paid a lot less than me who do it all for me.

Do they only get 95k for an unskilled job?

 

[Astute]

Then why the hell are we arguing????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Only disagreement is with anyone saying we didn't need him. It wasn't good getting rid of him and not having an able replacement. Yet some say it was a good move to get rid of him.

Other than that we are in full agreement

 

[CCFC_Charlie]

What game did we draw 1-1 in the cup without a striker starting?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

What game did we draw 1-1 in the cup without a striker starting?

Hartlepool first match, Moussa played as a lone striker.

 

[CCFC_Charlie]

Hartlepool first match, Moussa played as a lone striker.

The game in which Baker scored for us?...

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

The game in which Baker scored for us?...

Yea that's the one, Clarke was injured and think Wilson may have been suspended for 5 yellows.

 

[Calista]

Andy Thorn had to make do with Cody McDonald because our owners wouldn’t stump up the extra (relatively small) amount of money which was needed for his prime target – Adam le Fondre. He was twice the player, and that WOULD have been a good signing - I really believe we would not have been relegated from the Championship. Was Thorn a good manager for us? No (he was far too stubborn with his tactics). But was he backed properly by the owners? No again, in fact he was undermined at every turn.

Some of the lessons seem to have been learned, although why it should take so many years to understand the most basic principles of running a football club I don’t know. Pressley is now getting a little bit of support in terms of keeping and acquiring players – but as others have pointed out, he’s still been in the position of having to play without any strikers. We are operating on the level of a small-town club these days, playing second fiddle in the market to the likes of Yeovil and Leyton Orient.

 

[stupot07]

Andy Thorn had to make do with Cody McDonald because our owners wouldn’t stump up the extra (relatively small) amount of money which was needed for his prime target – Adam le Fondre. He was twice the player, and that WOULD have been a good signing - I really believe we would not have been relegated from the Championship. Was Thorn a good manager for us? No (he was far too stubborn with his tactics). But was he backed properly by the owners? No again, in fact he was undermined at every turn.

Some of the lessons seem to have been learned, although why it should take so many years to understand the most basic principles of running a football club I don’t know. Pressley is now getting a little bit of support in terms of keeping and acquiring players – but as others have pointed out, he’s still been in the position of having to play without any strikers. We are operating on the level of a small-town club these days, playing second fiddle in the market to the likes of Yeovil and Leyton Orient.

Not sure that is true, it is believed that Reading paid £350k for Le Fondre, Cody cost £500k, stepping up league two Le Fondre wage demands would have been lower than Cody's who we signed from a PL team (gillingham are paying him 1/3rd what he was getting here). So it wouldn't be unrealistic to say Cody was the more expensive option.

My take on it is, that we didn't have the cash to buy a striker without selling someone first, Reading signed Le Fondre before we sold Turner, which generated funding to by a striker, and therefore Cody.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Grendel]

Andy Thorn had to make do with Cody McDonald because our owners wouldn’t stump up the extra (relatively small) amount of money which was needed for his prime target – Adam le Fondre. He was twice the player, and that WOULD have been a good signing - I really believe we would not have been relegated from the Championship. Was Thorn a good manager for us? No (he was far too stubborn with his tactics). But was he backed properly by the owners? No again, in fact he was undermined at every turn.

Some of the lessons seem to have been learned, although why it should take so many years to understand the most basic principles of running a football club I don’t know. Pressley is now getting a little bit of support in terms of keeping and acquiring players – but as others have pointed out, he’s still been in the position of having to play without any strikers. We are operating on the level of a small-town club these days, playing second fiddle in the market to the likes of Yeovil and Leyton Orient.

McDonald's fee was between £300,000 and £500,000 depending on who you believe. That particular era of sisu ownership was also renowned for offering contracts on competitive salaries so his earnings would have been high. He also had a striker who cost over a million and was being payed a significant amount of money. He chose to freeze him out which, given the lack of squad depth turned out not to be a wise move.

 

[Calista]

Grendel and Stupot, thanks for the info - I’ve got no axe to grind and I’ve no reason to doubt what you say. If McDonald actually cost more money it’s even more annoying! My feeling at the time, based partly on comments made by le Fondre himself, was that we didn’t show sufficient ambition to get him on board. I am certain le Fondre (quite rightly) was the one that Thorn really wanted, and it’s a real shame that we lost out to Reading, who in the past we would have regarded as a much smaller club.

There’s so much work to do to get ourselves back to being the “big city club” we ought to be, and little sign that we are even aiming at that.

 

[Weinventedwingbacks]

And Cody nets his 13th of the season ffs!

 

[Astute]

To repeat: we have scored in 25 out of 28 games. To put it another way: there is a 90% chance of Coventry scoring.

Second best scoring record in the league.

It doesn't matter whether we have a defender, midfielder, 16 year old, or leprechaun playing upfront - you take those statistics every single day of the week.



Irrelevant. Any objective individual would look at the second best scoring record v. the nineteenth best defence record and say, 'I think the defence is the problem.' 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. CCFC have more chance of scoring in a league game than Manchester City.

To reiterate: it is the defence costing City points, definitely not the strikeforce. Don't get lost in the narrative about striker injuries - look at the facts.

I have been very busy at work so had to let your comments go by. You said that it didn't matter who we have up front. The usual few kept agreeing with you.

Here is the stats I said about but you rubbished.

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?

 

[stupot07]

I have been very busy at work so had to let your comments go by. You said that it didn't matter who we have up front. The usual few kept agreeing with you.

Here is the stats I said about but you rubbished.

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?

Is our defence worse when we have 0 or 1 striker? Which were the 4 games without a striker I only remember orient and Hartlepool?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Astute]

Is our defence worse when we have 0 or 1 striker? Which were the 4 games without a striker I only remember orient and Hartlepool?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

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.

 

[stupot07]

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.

Oh, I see. Personally I would class delfoenso as a striker, that's exactly why Pressley brought him in, not to play on the wing but as a striker. He started as a striker at villa, just that Blackpool play 433, and he obviously isn't a target man/focal point, so played more wide.

I agree with moussa, he's an attacking midfielder.

I also agree with what you said on the other thread, Donnelly has shot us in the foot, and I believe we'd have had a back up plan had he just turned us down in the first place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[hill83]

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.

Somebody better tell Pressley and the player himself then.

 

[Grendel]

I take it all back. If we had kept Cody McDonald we would have kept a clean sheet yesterday. Actually what's Clive platt doing - being him back as well - all problems solved.

 

[Astute]

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

 

[stupot07]

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