|
Post by chr15 on Sept 26, 2013 10:48:25 GMT
Crouch has proved throughout his career that he is better than Jones. It's who is better suited to our style of play that dictates who MH selects. As it stands I'm not convinced either shows a marked improvement over the other and will therefore make another comparison after each of them have been given more starts. It is more accurate to say "In his prime, Crouch was better than Jones", IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 26, 2013 10:55:29 GMT
Crouch has proved throughout his career that he is better than Jones. It's who is better suited to our style of play that dictates who MH selects. As it stands I'm not convinced either shows a marked improvement over the other and will therefore make another comparison after each of them have been given more starts. I think that there is another angle on this... We compare directly the two strikers - goals scored in the last X games, chances missed, how they chased back, how lazy they are, etc. What many miss is the impact they have on the wider match. Jones maybe crap (in some people's eyes), but merely because he is mobile and reasonably rapid, that causes defences to alter their position (cf. the position they would take up with Crouch). Defences sit 15-20 yards deeper when KJ plays. It would be the same with Jerome instead of KJ too. This single point means that when Crouch plays our midfield is denied space. So, it's not necessarily about how the strikers perform individually - as they're all "much of muchness", it's how they affect the shape of the teams.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 26, 2013 11:05:31 GMT
Crouch has proved throughout his career that he is better than Jones. It's who is better suited to our style of play that dictates who MH selects. As it stands I'm not convinced either shows a marked improvement over the other and will therefore make another comparison after each of them have been given more starts. I think that there is another angle on this... We compare directly the two strikers - goals scored in the last X games, chances missed, how they chased back, how lazy they are, etc. What many miss is the impact they have on the wider match. Jones maybe crap (in some people's eyes), but merely because he is mobile and reasonably rapid, that causes defences to alter their position (cf. the position they would take up with Crouch). Defences sit 15-20 yards deeper when KJ plays. It would be the same with Jerome instead of KJ too. This single point means that when Crouch plays our midfield is denied space. So, it's not necessarily about how the strikers perform individually - as they're all "much of muchness", it's how they affect the shape of the teams. So how they suit our style of play basically?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 26, 2013 11:12:19 GMT
Crouch has proved throughout his career that he is better than Jones. It's who is better suited to our style of play that dictates who MH selects. As it stands I'm not convinced either shows a marked improvement over the other and will therefore make another comparison after each of them have been given more starts. I think that there is another angle on this... We compare directly the two strikers - goals scored in the last X games, chances missed, how they chased back, how lazy they are, etc. What many miss is the impact they have on the wider match. Jones maybe crap (in some people's eyes), but merely because he is mobile and reasonably rapid, that causes defences to alter their position (cf. the position they would take up with Crouch). Defences sit 15-20 yards deeper when KJ plays. It would be the same with Jerome instead of KJ too. This single point means that when Crouch plays our midfield is denied space. So, it's not necessarily about how the strikers perform individually - as they're all "much of muchness", it's how they affect the shape of the teams. Exactly. A player without pace cannot lead the line on his own - I don't know how many times it needs to be spelt out. We've been talking about this since the day Crouch signed. Crouch cracking player in his own right but (for very obvious reasons) he will need to be in a front TWO with a pacey strike partner, or else the rest of the team is immediately compromised because the opposition can hold such a high line against us.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2013 11:14:44 GMT
The most important point is that they're both getting games under Hughes, the squad is being utilised properly and genuine competition is in place. That can only be a good thing and something we have been sorely missing.
|
|
|
Post by chr15 on Sept 26, 2013 11:20:31 GMT
The most important point is that they're both getting games under Hughes, the squad is being utilised properly and genuine competition is in place. That can only be a good thing and something we have been sorely missing. Tru dat (or something)!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 26, 2013 11:29:14 GMT
In the two games where Crouch has been the main striker we have averaged 12 shots per game with 4.5 on target. In the three games that Jones has started we have had 11.3 shots per game with 3.6 shots on target. In the two games that Crouch has started as the main striker we have averaged 1 goal per game, in the three games that Jones has started as the main striker we have averaged 0.66 goals per game. Any perceived advantages when playing Jones are largely imagined, certainly in terms of output. Opta MoMo
|
|
|
Post by chr15 on Sept 26, 2013 11:33:40 GMT
In the two games where Crouch has been the main striker we have averaged 12 shots per game with 4.5 on target. In the three games that Jones has started we have had 11.3 shots per game with 3.6 shots on target. In the two games that Crouch has started as the main striker we have averaged 1 goal per game, in the three games that Jones has started as the main striker we have averaged 0.66 goals per game. Any perceived advantages when playing Jones are largely imagined, certainly in terms of output. Opta MoMo Stats are strange things. In the time Crouch has been our main striker and Jones has been on the bench we have been the poorest scoring team in the league (or as close as damnit).
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 26, 2013 11:38:51 GMT
In the two games where Crouch has been the main striker we have averaged 12 shots per game with 4.5 on target. In the three games that Jones has started we have had 11.3 shots per game with 3.6 shots on target. In the two games that Crouch has started as the main striker we have averaged 1 goal per game, in the three games that Jones has started as the main striker we have averaged 0.66 goals per game. Any perceived advantages when playing Jones are largely imagined, certainly in terms of output. Opta MoMo Stats are strange things. In the time Crouch has been our main striker and Jones has been on the bench we have been the poorest scoring team in the league (or as close as damnit). That's nothing new. We had that before Crouch was even here.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 26, 2013 11:39:13 GMT
In the two games where Crouch has been the main striker we have averaged 12 shots per game with 4.5 on target. In the three games that Jones has started we have had 11.3 shots per game with 3.6 shots on target. In the two games that Crouch has started as the main striker we have averaged 1 goal per game, in the three games that Jones has started as the main striker we have averaged 0.66 goals per game. Any perceived advantages when playing Jones are largely imagined, certainly in terms of output. Opta MoMo So - the two games that Crouch started - included Palace at home. A game we should win. That's bound to skew the stats isn't it? Would you really have expected us to win any of the three games Kenwyn has started? Tougher opposition is bound to affect those stats. If not, why not throw in the cup games too?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 26, 2013 11:41:53 GMT
I think that there is another angle on this... We compare directly the two strikers - goals scored in the last X games, chances missed, how they chased back, how lazy they are, etc. What many miss is the impact they have on the wider match. Jones maybe crap (in some people's eyes), but merely because he is mobile and reasonably rapid, that causes defences to alter their position (cf. the position they would take up with Crouch). Defences sit 15-20 yards deeper when KJ plays. It would be the same with Jerome instead of KJ too. This single point means that when Crouch plays our midfield is denied space. So, it's not necessarily about how the strikers perform individually - as they're all "much of muchness", it's how they affect the shape of the teams. So how they suit our style of play basically? Yes - to appoint. But rather than the subjective 'style', I've tried to define how it is affected!
|
|
|
Post by chr15 on Sept 26, 2013 11:43:07 GMT
Stats are strange things. In the time Crouch has been our main striker and Jones has been on the bench we have been the poorest scoring team in the league (or as close as damnit). That's nothing new. We had that before Crouch was even here. I wasn't aware - could you please elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 26, 2013 11:43:53 GMT
In the two games where Crouch has been the main striker we have averaged 12 shots per game with 4.5 on target. In the three games that Jones has started we have had 11.3 shots per game with 3.6 shots on target. In the two games that Crouch has started as the main striker we have averaged 1 goal per game, in the three games that Jones has started as the main striker we have averaged 0.66 goals per game. Any perceived advantages when playing Jones are largely imagined, certainly in terms of output. Opta MoMo
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 26, 2013 11:49:14 GMT
In the two games where Crouch has been the main striker we have averaged 12 shots per game with 4.5 on target. In the three games that Jones has started we have had 11.3 shots per game with 3.6 shots on target. In the two games that Crouch has started as the main striker we have averaged 1 goal per game, in the three games that Jones has started as the main striker we have averaged 0.66 goals per game. Any perceived advantages when playing Jones are largely imagined, certainly in terms of output. Opta MoMo So - the two games that Crouch started - included Palace at home. A game we should win. That's bound to skew the stats isn't it? Would you really have expected us to win any of the three games Kenwyn has started? Tougher opposition is bound to affect those stats. If not, why not throw in the cup games too? Yeah 2 of Kenwyne's 3 games have been against top opposition but I wasn't making the point that Crouch was better, just dismissing the myth that we look significantly better or create more chances when Jones plays. The two games for me where we looked real good going forward were Liverpool and Man City. The fact we scored nowt in either is the real moral of the story.
|
|
|
Post by digger on Sept 26, 2013 12:01:56 GMT
In the two games where Crouch has been the main striker we have averaged 12 shots per game with 4.5 on target. In the three games that Jones has started we have had 11.3 shots per game with 3.6 shots on target. In the two games that Crouch has started as the main striker we have averaged 1 goal per game, in the three games that Jones has started as the main striker we have averaged 0.66 goals per game. Any perceived advantages when playing Jones are largely imagined, certainly in terms of output. Opta MoMo So - the two games that Crouch started - included Palace at home. A game we should win. That's bound to skew the stats isn't it? Would you really have expected us to win any of the three games Kenwyn has started? Tougher opposition is bound to affect those stats. If not, why not throw in the cup games too? palace on the day were better than west ham and man city.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 26, 2013 12:05:21 GMT
So - the two games that Crouch started - included Palace at home. A game we should win. That's bound to skew the stats isn't it? Would you really have expected us to win any of the three games Kenwyn has started? Tougher opposition is bound to affect those stats. If not, why not throw in the cup games too? palace on the day were better than west ham and man city. Palace were better because we allowed them to be. We played better against Man City and West Ham partly because of the change of shape that Kenwyn allows.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Sept 26, 2013 12:16:53 GMT
'Peter deserved his goal because he kept the ball so well for us high up the pitch'Mark Hughes in the Sentinel.Because of his touch,vision and link up play that's what he offers instead of Kenwyne who is strong, quick(but not that quick). You pays yer money... "not that quick" you are joking right?
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 26, 2013 12:24:09 GMT
That's nothing new. We had that before Crouch was even here. I wasn't aware - could you please elaborate? In the time before we signed Mr. Crouch, we also had a poor scoring record as a team. Since his arrival this has remained poor, however these stats can largely be explained by former manager Tony Pulis' style of play.
|
|
|
Post by chr15 on Sept 26, 2013 12:43:30 GMT
I wasn't aware - could you please elaborate? In the time before we signed Mr. Crouch, we also had a poor scoring record as a team. Since his arrival this has remained poor, however these stats can largely be explained by former manager Tony Pulis' style of play. I hadn't concentrated on this particular issue until everyone (media included) started referring to us as the lowest scoring team in the leagues. I naturally assumed things got much worse post Crouch.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 26, 2013 13:00:24 GMT
In the time before we signed Mr. Crouch, we also had a poor scoring record as a team. Since his arrival this has remained poor, however these stats can largely be explained by former manager Tony Pulis' style of play. I hadn't concentrated on this particular issue until everyone (media included) started referring to us as the lowest scoring team in the leagues. I naturally assumed things got much worse post Crouch. Things did get worse mate, we had the least amount of shots and scored the least amount of goals of any team in all four divisions during his first season here and there was one (QPR I think) team worse offensively in his following season here.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 26, 2013 13:05:02 GMT
This may also have had something to do with ageing wingers, out of form wingers, frozen out wingers and defenders on the wing. Maybe
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Sept 26, 2013 13:14:08 GMT
For long periods last night as we were stroking the ball around I was wondering what Peter Crouch was adding to the piece.
We were crying out for some movement up front to create an opening for the through ball.
Arnie was looking to make that pass every time he got the ball.
When Ireland made the required run we scored.
Crouch just doesn't make those runs because he physically can't do it.
Not having a go at Crouch, he showed his quality at the end with his sublime finish.
Just questioning how he can fit the system.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 26, 2013 13:24:39 GMT
The pursuit of Diouf presumably shows Hughes wants a differnt type of central striker altogether than either Crouch or Jones.
imho rotation between KJ & Crouch till jan (or probably next summer) will ahve to do.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 26, 2013 13:26:38 GMT
For long periods last night as we were stroking the ball around I was wondering what Peter Crouch was adding to the piece. We were crying out for some movement up front to create an opening for the through ball. Arnie was looking to make that pass every time he got the ball. When Ireland made the required run we scored. Crouch just doesn't make those runs because he physically can't do it. Not having a go at Crouch, he showed his quality at the end with his sublime finish. Just questioning how he can fit the system. How did this differ to Sunday?
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Sept 26, 2013 13:34:15 GMT
A smart manager, which Hughes seems to be, will use both Jones and Crouch. Hopefully they will both respond to the added competition. Writing off a player as capable and experienced as Crouch would IMO be crazy. Exactly, but the battle lines have already been drawn.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Sept 26, 2013 13:35:02 GMT
For long periods last night as we were stroking the ball around I was wondering what Peter Crouch was adding to the piece. We were crying out for some movement up front to create an opening for the through ball. Arnie was looking to make that pass every time he got the ball. When Ireland made the required run we scored. Crouch just doesn't make those runs because he physically can't do it. Not having a go at Crouch, he showed his quality at the end with his sublime finish. Just questioning how he can fit the system. How did this differ to Sunday? Yes, good question. Remarkably there were certain similarities between our performance yesterday and the 2nd half at the Emirates, though of course we created even fewer chances against Arsenal than we did at Tranmere. And I was just commenting on Peter Crouch. I never said I thought Kenwyn Jones is the long term answer.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 26, 2013 13:37:57 GMT
In the time before we signed Mr. Crouch, we also had a poor scoring record as a team. Since his arrival this has remained poor, however these stats can largely be explained by former manager Tony Pulis' style of play. I hadn't concentrated on this particular issue until everyone (media included) started referring to us as the lowest scoring team in the leagues. I naturally assumed things got much worse post Crouch. In the season before Crouch arrived - we scored 46 league goals (the only season when Kenwyn was really a starter for us). In the two seasons with Crouch, we've scored 34 and 36 goals.
|
|
|
Post by lostinafrenchbar on Sept 26, 2013 13:42:30 GMT
What matters most is that Stoke score more goals. Whether either Crouch or Jones are the guys to score them doesn't matter so much. I don't mind if Cameron scores the lot (especially if they're like last weekends). Crouch seems to be better at diverting the opposition than getting the ball in the net these days. KJ always was. I'd pick which ever one of them currently pisses off opposition defenses the most.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Sept 26, 2013 15:53:45 GMT
It was quite worrying that last night we so completely and utterly dominated the proceeedings but didn't put the game to bed until the last kick.
I wonder if it would have been any different if Kenwyne had been playing?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 26, 2013 16:09:36 GMT
It was quite worrying that last night we so completely and utterly dominated the proceeedings but didn't put the game to bed until the last kick. I wonder if it would have been any different if Kenwyne had been playing? Chest, we only just put to bed the West Ham game, failed to put to bed the Man City game, failed to convert dominate possession at Arsenal. So on all evidence, it's extremely doubtful that things would have been significantly different if Kenwyne had played.
|
|