Perhaps Andy Thorn was onto something... (3 Viewers)

[Astute]

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

 

---

[stupot07]

What cup games? We have played 29 league games now. You are getting as bad as Grendull when trying to prove a point

I stand corrected. Although I agree with your point, the sample is not big enough to statistically prove anything.

I agree with CM, our defence is one of the biggest problems, we concede at nearly 2 goals per game meaning you that on average you have to score twice to get a chance of a result.


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

 

[Colonel Mustard]

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.

A dodgy set of statistics - I would like to see a list of the games which you consider only had 1/0 strikers. You cannot write off facts just because they do not fit your narrative, e.g. Delfouneso is listed as a striker on Aston Villa's own website.

And yes, it should come as no surprise that a point average drops if you lose a star player or two. It certainly happened with Dion and other talismen. Yet despite this, the team has continued to score (more on this below.)

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?

I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you.

Coventry now have an 86% chance of scoring in any game and a 17% chance of keeping a clean sheet.

Coventry have the 2nd best scoring record and the 4th worst defensive record.

I don't know how you can look at those facts and keep coming back to the strikeforce being the issue. And when I say 'strikeforce,' I may as well mean the goalscoring ability of the club.

You talk up the utopia of the first 15 games when we had a pair of healthy strikers. Well, in the time since then the team has still scored in 11 games out of 14, meaning they have a 78% chance of scoring ... but we have conceded goals in all 14 of those games, meaning they have had a 0% chance of keeping a clean sheet. 78% v. 0%. Think about that for a moment and then reconsider where the problem might be.

A few days ago I posted a message saying I didn't believe Coventry would reach the playoffs. Taking into account the games remaining, historical norms, required points, and seasonal form, it just didn't seem feasible. But this was not because we didn't have enough goal-scoring power - we don't just have the second best scoring record in the division, we have the joint second best scoring record in the entire Football League (that's 72 teams.) To go on about Cody McDonald's loss as being a dealbreaker ... christ. The reasons we won't make the playoffs are: 1) the 10 point deduction and 2) we have an open goal at the home end.

 

[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

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?

 

[stupot07]

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

 

[Astute]

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

The best form of defence is attack. How are we supposed to attack without strikers? Our midfield doesn't have anywhere to go without strikers. And we have lost games with 2 strikers when we have been in the lead.

I just find it amazing how anyone could argue with the fact that we are doing OK with 2 strikers but poor with less. It shows our defensive frailties up even more. But am waiting for some more percentages from Mustard that shows differently to the results

Oh and forgot to say Mustard that we have not scored in 50% of games without 2 strikers

 

[Colonel Mustard]

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

Do you still say it is all down to the defence?

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.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

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

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.

 

[Astute]

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.

Is that the best you can come out with?

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

 

[Astute]

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.

Be careful. You will be told it is the fault of our defence soon

 

[Grendel]

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.

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.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

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.

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.

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.

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.

You said I was wrong about the games we played with less than two strikers. I see you have dropped that now.

What the fuck are you talking about?

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

Why do you keep assessing six games? Nothing - absolutely nothing - can be read into them.

 

[Astute]

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.

I am taking Delf as a striker and he is said to have scored 7 in over 70 games it has been said.

Is this the same McDonald that scored against us? And we are supposed to ignore the goals he has scored?

The stats are there. As you called them the 'Astute' stats. So yet again you are reduced to using words to distort the truth. Well done.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Can we just agree our defence has been crap all season and at the moment are striking options are also crap?

 

[Astute]

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.

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.

 

[Astute]

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.

 

[Grendel]

Which is exactly what I am saying. And they know it.

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.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

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.

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.

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, 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.

 

[Astute]

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.

So you have forgotten how to read as well or has dementia set in?

I never said we should have kept him. Look back in this thread. Yet another Grendull fact. What I have pointed out is that we have done at least OK with two strikers whoever they are. And badly with less than two.

I have said in the past that the high wages for poor players has done a lot more damage than the high rent. How does this say that I have ever used it to justify a rent that was too high? Yet another Grendull fact.

And what stats from this season that I have posted on this thread are wrong? I look forward to reading yet more Grendull facts

Hope you are having fun. I quite enjoy having you as a stalker.

 

[Astute]

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.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Getting your excuses ready for a poor run of results?

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.

We were lucky to beat Bristol. We were lucky to get that Moussa equaliser in the 97th minute.

Scientific analysis right there. An Astute Fact. And to think I said small sample sizes were horseshit.

So how have we done against the top teams with two strikers?

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?

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.

Don't be so lame.

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.

Heh, a complete reframing of the discussion. It is fun to watch you in retreat.

 

[stupot07]

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.

I don't disagree with you there.


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

 

[dongonzalos]

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.

 

[Astute]

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.

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

 

[Grendel]

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.

Do you fancy McDonald?

 

[Grendel]

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

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.

 

[Astute]

Do you fancy McDonald?

He may not be brilliant but he would be in our team now and behind Wilson when he is back.

 

[Grendel]

He may not be brilliant but he would be in our team now and behind Wilson when he is back.

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.

 

[Astute]

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.

Is that right?

So our defence isn't poor or we don't play better with two strikers then?

You always make out that you like proof. Which part don't you understand?

 

[Astute]

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.

Enough of your Grendull facts. Where have I said that I wanted us to keep him?

 

[Grendel]

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?

 

[Astute]

2 posts ago?

Where did I say I wanted him back?

Clive Platt might even get in our side ATM. A lot of Division 3 strikers would get in our side ATM.

Have I just said that I want Clive Platt back or most division 3 strikers?

 

[Sterling Archer]

In fairness to Cody, we only ever saw him in a division higher than the one we are in now. A division in which Leon Clarke, our one time prize asset Centre Forward and top scorer has continued to fail in throughout his career.

Cody (with the amount of chances we create and the league we are now playing in) would've scored more goals for this season, in my humble opinion.

However, as mentioned if the rumours about his wages being one of the highest at the club it made perfect sense for him to go.